At Bilecki Law Group, We believe every service member has earned their right to an aggressive defense on their day in court. We specialize in taking the fight to the prosecution and winning cases that others said were unwinnable.
You have been accused by law enforcement of discharging a firearm through negligence, forcing you to confront the possibility of a court-martial and a conviction under Article 134 of the UCMJ. You may be unsure of what to do next, who to turn to, or how to proceed. You can retain civilian defense counsel and continue working with your detailed military counsel. We coordinate the defense so each lawyer’s work supports one strategy. When a member of the United States armed forces is confronted with charges like this, it is critical that he or she seek out the most experienced military attorney possible to defend their interests in court. Not doing so could lead to reduced pay, confinement, or even the loss of their military career.
- A conviction could lead to up to three months of reduced pay, leaving your family behind on bills or even unable to put food on the table.
- In addition to a reduction in pay, you could be incarcerated for up to three months, all because of simple mistake for a victimless crime.
- Lastly, a conviction could leave you unable to gain further rank in the military. You will be passed up for promotion time and again by service members with cleaner records.
Related articles: Article 114: Reckless Endangerment and Article 114(d): Weapon: Concealed, Carrying.
A conviction under Article 134 could destroy your military career forever. Do not take the risk. Contact Bilecki Law Group to start fighting back TODAY.
What Is Article 134 (Firearm, Discharging Through Negligence) of the UCMJ?
Every article of the UCMJ requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a handful of critical assumptions, known as elements, to convict you of a crime. A soldier of the U.S. armed forces may be convicted of discharging a firearm through negligence if the following elements are established by prosecutors in court:
- That the accused discharged a firearm;
- That such discharge was caused by the negligence of the accused; and
- That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Summary of the Elements of Article 134 (Firearm, Discharging Through Negligence): A straightforward offense, the court will focus on whether or not the accused was a) the individual who shot the gun, b) that the shot was made negligently, and c) that the offense was service discrediting or prejudicial to good order and discipline.
Military Defense Attorney for Article 134 of the UCMJ: Fighting Back Against Charges of Discharging a Firearm Through Negligence
How the gun was fired, and even who fired the gun in the first place, is not always as clear-cut as the prosecution makes it out to be. Perhaps a mistake was made, yes, but was it made due to the negligence of the accused, or were other factors at play? Was the weapon even functioning properly?
The point is, you are not helpless against the military’s prosecutors and you do not have to accept their narrative against you as the truth. A hard-hitting military defense attorney is more than capable of evening the odds and securing a positive outcome for you in court. And few law firms have been as capable at delivering those outcomes than Bilecki Law Group.
So why do so many service members choose Bilecki Law Group to represent them in court?
- We have represented hundreds of service members: Few law firms can claim to have tried hundreds of cases both inside the military’s justice system as JAG officers, and outside the military in a private capacity. We haven’t just tried hundreds of cases, we have a track record of winning.
- We have the resources to take on the government: No individual attorney can stand against the government’s overwhelming manpower and financial capabilities. Tim and Ben work together on the defense and can bring in independent investigators and experts when the case calls for outside assistance.
- We are a law firm with global reach: Bilecki Law Group is based in Tampa, Florida, and represents service members across the Pacific, Asia, the United States, Europe and beyond. Tim and Ben both travel for trials and boards. Your defense starts before we get on the plane.
Do you face a looming court-martial for discharging a firearm through negligence? Do not risk the worst case scenario. Contact our law firm TODAY to secure the best results in court.
Experienced Military Defense Lawyers for Article 134Charges
Assuming the military’s prosecutors cannot convict you of your alleged crimes could be wishful thinking that destroys your military career and jeopardizes everything you’ve worked so hard to build. When you are ready to make a final decision with regards to a military defense attorney, trust experience, and go with the most reputable law firm you can find. Bilecki Law Group has been helping service members fight back against Article 134 charges since inception. Learn more about our cases and find out why hundreds of service members choose us to represent their interests in court.
Bilecki Law Group will help you fight back against charges under Article 134: Firearm, Discharging Through Negligence
Maximum Punishments and Sentencing Parameters
For noncapital general and special courts-martial, the sentencing parameter system applies when every offense of conviction occurred on or after 28 December 2023. The military judge must sentence within the applicable confinement range unless specific facts justify a departure. If the judge departs, the record must contain a written statement explaining the factual basis. These ranges do not replace the lawful maximum punishment for the offense or the court-martial’s jurisdictional limits. For offenses assigned sentencing criteria instead of a category, the judge must consider those criteria.
The ranges below are stated in months and are limited where the offense has a lower confinement maximum. A special court-martial can impose no more than its own authorized limit, even when an offense or category allows more. The maximum is not a prediction of the sentence in your case.
| Offense | Maximum confinement | Category or criteria | Confinement range in months |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent discharge of a firearm under Article 134 | 3 months | Category 1 | 0–3 |
Reduction to E-1 applies to enlisted personnel. Dismissal, rather than a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, is the authorized punitive separation for commissioned officers, including commissioned warrant officers, and cadets and midshipmen. The authorized punishment also depends on the offense date and court-martial forum.
Facing an Allegation?
Contact Bilecki Law Group
[elementor-template id="50215"][elementor-template id="50188"][elementor-template id="50077"]
Frequently Asked Questions About Article 134: Firearm, Discharging Through Negligence
What Is the Maximum Possible Punishment for Article 134 (Firearm, Discharging Through Negligence)?
A soldier who is convicted of the negligently discharging a firearm under Article 134 of the UCMJ will face a maximum sentence of:
- Reduction to E-1
- Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months
- Confinement for 3 months
Will Bilecki Law Group Travel to Me if I Am Stationed Abroad?
Yes. Bilecki Law Group is a court-martial defense law firms with a truly global reach. We can have you represented regardless of your location or where you are stationed.
[elementor-template id="55425"]