UCMJ Article 131g: Wrongful Interference With An Adverse Administrative Proceeding
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.
UCMJ Article 131g: Wrongful Interference With An Adverse Administrative Proceeding
- Prosecutors will almost certainly seek a punitive discharge, putting at risk your rank and military pay and benefits.
- You may be forced to pay back thousands and even tens of thousands of dollars in reenlistment bonuses, putting significant strain on your finances.
- Interfering with an adverse administrative proceeding is a serious offense which could leave you behind bars for up five years.
Your military career and freedoms are on the line. And time is not on your side. Contact Bilecki Law Group and start fighting back TODAY.
What Is Article 131g (Wrongful Interference with an Adverse Administrative Hearing) 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 service member who is accused of interfering with an adverse administrative hearing cannot be convicted unless the following three elements are proven:
- That the accused wrongfully did a certain act;
- That the accused did so in the case of a certain person against whom the accused had reason to believe there was or would be an adverse administrative proceeding pending;
- That the act was done with the intent to influence, impede, or otherwise obstruct the conduct of such administrative proceeding, or otherwise obstruct the due administration of justice.
Summary of the Elements of Article 131g (Wrongful Interference with an Adverse Administrative Proceeding): The government must prove a wrongful act, reason to believe an adverse administrative proceeding was or would be pending against a certain person, and intent to influence, impede or obstruct that proceeding or the due administration of justice.
Military Defense Attorney for Article 131g of the UCMJ: Fighting Back Against Charges of Interfering with an Adverse Administrative Proceeding
The military has accused you or someone you love of obstructing justice by actively interfering in an adverse administrative hearing of another soldier. But accusations are very different from a conviction. And there are things you can do right now to ensure a successful outcome should you be formally charged. Do not aid law enforcement in their investigation by allowing them to search your belongings or question you without previously seeking advice from an attorney. Avoid speaking to anyone about the case, even loved ones, and do not speak to anyone about your relationship with the service member who is currently undergoing an adverse administrative proceeding. Lastly, consider hiring a reputable law firm with a great deal of experience, because that can mean the difference between exoneration, and a conviction with a maximum sentence. Bilecki Law Group has been fighting for active duty and reserve service members for decades. Here’s why past clients have chosen us to represent their interests in court. Why should you retain Bilecki Law Group?
- We have the experience: Court-martial defense attorneys Tim Bilecki and Ben Gold are experienced litigators who defend service members across all branches of the armed forces. They prepare your case together, test the government’s strongest arguments and challenge each other’s assumptions.
- We have the resources: Securing positive court-martial outcomes consistently could not happen without a talented and experienced defense team working behind the scenes to aid our clients. From forensic experts to private investigators, we have the firepower needed to go up against the military’s prosecutors.
- We have the reach: Time is never on the side of the defendant, which means your law firm must act fast if it wishes to secure a positive outcome in court. Bilecki Law Group is based in Tampa, Florida, and represents service members worldwide. Tim and Ben start the work remotely and both travel for trials and boards.
Have you been accused of interfering with an adverse administrative proceeding? Hiring an inexperienced attorney could destroy your military career, or worse. Contact our law firm TODAY for a confidential consultation. Contact Bilecki Law Group
Experienced Military Defense Lawyers for Article 131g Charges
With decades of experience and hundreds of service members successfully represented in court, Bilecki Law Group has proven itself as one of the most established and reputable military law firms operating worldwide today. Read more about our case history, and find out why active duty and reserve service members of all branches of the armed forces choose Bilecki Law Group to represent their interests in court.
Bilecki Law Group will help you fight back against charges under Article 131g: Wrongful Interference with an Adverse Administrative Proceeding
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful interference with an adverse administrative proceeding | 5 years | Category 2 | 1–36 |
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 131g
What Is the Maximum Possible Punishment for Article 131g (Wrongful Interference with an Adverse Administrative Proceeding)?
Interfering with an adverse administrative proceeding under Article 131g of the UMCJ could lead to the following maximum sentence for the accused service member:
- Reduction to E-1
- Forfeiture of all pay and allowances
- Confinement for 5 years
- Dishonorable discharge
What Are Some Examples of Interfering with an Adverse Administrative Hearing?
A Soldier could be accused of interfering with an adverse administrative hearing if he or she attempts to influence a witness (through bribery, intimidation, etc.), divert a law officer’s attention away from critical evidence, or prevent the spread of information by stealing documents related to the case.
[elementor-template id="55425"]