UCMJ Article 115:Communicating Threats

At Bilecki Law Group, we defend service members against charges of communicating threats under Article 115 of the UCMJ. There is always more to the story and we’ll fight to get your truth brought out into the light.

Facing an Article 115 charge? See how our violent crime defense lawyers handle these cases. Related results: Bilecki Represents Fort Riley Lieutenant After MP Detention; Threat Investigation Ends Without Action and Bilecki Wins Fourteen Acquittals at Iwakuni Trial; No Punitive Discharge or Reduction. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Accused of communicating a threat? Contact Bilecki Law Group for a free consultation before giving a statement about the allegation.

What Is Article 115 of the UCMJ?

Article 115 of the UCMJ governs charges related to threats made by service members of the United States Armed Forces. It covers communicating a threat, threatening to use explosives or other specified destructive means, and maliciously communicating a false threat involving those means. Words alone can support a charge, but angry or offensive language is not automatically a criminal threat.

Military Language Needs Its Context

Picture a Staff Sergeant telling you that if you lose your NVGs, he is going to put his boot so far up your ass you could taste it. Or a Corporal telling a young boot that if he is late to formation, the entire platoon is going to give him a beatdown for messing up weekend liberty.

Those words need to be examined in the setting where they were spoken. Was this exaggerated barracks talk, or did the circumstances make it a real threat? Military culture is relevant context, not permission to threaten or assault someone. A threat does not become lawful because an NCO made it, and a genuine threat does not become a joke because the speaker later says it was one.

Exaggerated barracks talk

Examined in the setting where it was spoken

A real threat

The circumstances made it one, whoever said it

Military culture is context, not permission

If ordinary military talk has been stripped of its context and turned into a criminal accusation, we are going to fight that accusation. The government must prove the words, their meaning and the required state of mind. A complaint does not answer those questions for the prosecution.

What to Do If You Are Accused of Making a Threat

Speak with defense counsel before trying to explain the conversation to investigators or your command. Preserve the complete messages, recordings and devices, including the parts that embarrass you. Do not delete posts, edit the exchange or ask someone else to change an account. If you already gave a statement, tell your lawyer exactly what you said and bring any recording or written copy.

Do not contact the person who reported the threat to straighten things out on your own. Follow any applicable protective or no-contact order and have counsel review its terms. An angry follow-up message can create a new problem and change how the original conversation is understood.

How to Fight Back Against Article 115 UCMJ Charges

A prosecution built on words ripped out of context can be complete and utter BS. Proving that takes more than saying, “Everybody talks like that.” We work through the actual conversation, the people involved and the facts the government says make this a threat.

Get the Whole Conversation

A screenshot can leave out the message that changes the meaning of everything that follows. We examine the complete thread, available recordings, timing, replies and what happened before and after the alleged threat. Was someone quoting a movie, repeating another person’s words, warning of a danger or directing a threat at someone? What did the people who actually heard the exchange understand?

Context can help the defense, but it can also make an otherwise ambiguous statement threatening. The relationship between the people involved, prior conduct, access to weapons and later communications may matter. We need the whole account, including facts that are difficult to explain.

Separate a Threat From an Intent to Carry It Out

There are two different questions. First, would a reasonable person understand the communication, in context, as expressing a present determination or intent to wrongfully injure someone’s person, property or reputation, now or in the future? Second, did the accused communicate it for the purpose of issuing a threat or with knowledge that it would be viewed as a threat?

QUESTION 1 · THE WORDS

Would a reasonable person, in context, understand it as a present determination to injure?

QUESTION 2 · YOUR STATE OF MIND

Did you communicate it to threaten, or knowing it would be viewed as a threat?

The government does not have to prove that you actually intended to carry out the threatened harm. “I was never going to do it” does not, by itself, defeat the charge. But the government still must prove the required meaning and state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt. A statement genuinely made in jest, or for an innocent or legitimate purpose that contradicts the expressed intent, is not wrongful.

The recipient’s reaction can help explain the conversation, but the prosecution does not have to prove that the recipient was actually frightened. Nor does someone’s fear, standing alone, prove every element of the offense. We examine that reaction alongside the words and surrounding conduct.

NOT REQUIRED

That you intended to carry out the threat
That the recipient was actually frightened

STILL REQUIRED

The required meaning
The required state of mind
Beyond a reasonable doubt

Test the Message and the Witness Account

If authorship is disputed, we examine who used the account or device and what supports the attribution. If the case rests on a witness, we compare the first report with later statements, available recordings and other witnesses’ accounts. Did the witness hear the words or repeat what someone else said? Did the account change, and is there a reason for the difference? We challenge the accusation where the facts support it.

Identify the Alleged Threat and Any Legitimate Purpose

A warning about an actual danger is different from maliciously inventing a bomb threat. Words used while defending against an attack require examination of the danger, the response and whether the conduct was lawful. A later threat of revenge does not become self-defense merely because the other person started an earlier argument. We examine the facts and the particular Article 115 offense charged instead of treating every alarming statement as the same crime.

Can They End My Military Career Over a Threat If Violence Never Took Place?

Yes, a threat conviction can end a military career even when no violence occurs and the accused never intended to carry out the threatened harm. That outcome is possible, not automatic. Whether the government can prove the offense and what consequences follow are separate questions.

Say you are a young PFC who fell in love with a woman you met off base last weekend, then found out she was sleeping with another Marine. In anger, you posted that you would kill that Marine and blow up the barracks. Now you feel like an idiot, and you have a $49 engagement ring to return. Cooling off does not make the post disappear. But the prosecution still has to prove the charged offense from the words and circumstances, including the required state of mind.

A charge like that deserves an immediate, serious defense. The stakes can include confinement, a punitive discharge and the loss of a career you have worked to build. We fight to put the allegation in its full context and protect what can be protected, whether that means contesting guilt or addressing the consequences of conduct that can be proved.

What Must the Government Prove Under Article 115?

Article 115 contains three offenses. The prosecution must prove each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Communicating a Threat

The accused communicated language expressing a present determination or intent to injure the person, property or reputation of another, presently or in the future.

The communication was made known to that person or to a third person.

The communication was wrongful.

Threatening to Use Explosives or Other Specified Destructive Means

The accused communicated certain language.

The information communicated amounted to a threat.

The threatened harm was to be inflicted by an explosive; a weapon of mass destruction; a biological or chemical agent, substance or weapon; or a hazardous material.

The communication was wrongful.

Communicating a False Threat Involving Those Means

The accused communicated or conveyed certain information.

The information concerned an attempt being made or to be made, using one of the specified destructive means, to unlawfully kill, injure or intimidate a person, or to unlawfully damage or destroy property.

The information was false, and the accused knew it was false at the time.

The communication was malicious.

For this offense, “malicious” means the accused believed the information would probably interfere with the peaceful use of the building, vehicle, aircraft or other property concerned, or cause fear or concern to one or more people. The absence of an actual bomb does not dispose of a false-threat charge. The government must still prove falsity, knowledge and malice.

What Is the Maximum Punishment for Article 115?

The maximum confinement is three years for threats generally and ten years for threats or false threats involving explosives or the other specified destructive means. The listed maximum punishments also include a dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. A maximum is not a prediction of the sentence in your case.

For noncapital general and special courts-martial in which every offense of conviction occurred on or after 28 December 2023, the current sentencing system uses confinement parameters. The Article 115 categories are:

Offense	Maximum confinement	Sentencing category and range
Communicating a threat generally	3 years	Category 2: 1 to 36 months
Threatening to use explosives or other specified destructive means	10 years	Category 3: 30 to 120 months
Knowingly communicating a false threat involving those means	10 years	Category 3: 30 to 120 months

Threatening to use explosives or other means

10 years

False threat involving those means

10 years

Communicating a threat generally

3 years

These ranges have important qualifications. The military judge may depart from a parameter based on specific facts and must explain the departure in writing. A lower authorized maximum controls, and the court’s jurisdiction and an accepted plea agreement can limit the sentence. At a special court-martial, the Category 3 parameter is twelve months, subject to any lower limit of the particular forum; it is not a thirty-month minimum. A sentence below the applicable parameter requires the findings the rules prescribe.

Reduction to E-1 concerns enlisted members. The available punitive separation also depends on status and the type of court-martial; for example, commissioned officers face dismissal rather than a dishonorable discharge. The offense date, exact charge, forum and your military status matter. We determine the exposure that applies to your case before advising you about trial, negotiations or sentencing.

What If You Did Make a Serious Mistake?

Look, this is true even if you did screw up. If you called in a bomb threat because you thought it would get you out of the field op, you’re in trouble. In those cases, it is still about securing the best possible outcome available. We examine whether the government can prove the charge, whether any statement was obtained unlawfully and what the complete service history and circumstances mean for negotiations or sentencing. Fighting for you includes making an honest assessment of a difficult case.

Get Bilecki Law Group Into the Fight

Concede nothing merely because the accusation sounds bad, and do not assume the government has proved its case. When we take on a case, we put together a defense so aggressive it is almost a sin not to call it an offense. If the prosecution is trying to paint you as the Unabomber, we will confront that portrayal with the facts of the case and the service member behind it.

Tim Bilecki and Ben Gold work together on the defense. We work from Tampa and represent service members worldwide, preparing remotely where appropriate and traveling for trials and boards. When a case calls for an outside investigator or expert, we identify the work needed and address the cost or any available government funding with you.

If you are facing these charges, reach out to us and we’ll shoot you straight on what you are facing. As long as you are willing to fight like hell, so are we. Don’t let an accusation replace the full story. Fight back and get us into the fight on your behalf.

Contact Bilecki Law Group for a free consultation about your Article 115 allegation.