Article 134: Wrongful Interference with an Adverse Administrative Proceeding
When a service member of the United States armed forces actively seeks to obstruct, delay, or impede another Soldier’s ongoing adverse administrative hearing, it could quickly backfire, leaving him at risk of accusations and a conviction under Article 134 of the UCMJ.
Interfering with another service member’s adverse administrative proceeding is often done out of good intentions for a friend and fellow service member. But it can quickly turn into a nightmare should anyone discover what is going on. A conviction of such a crime under Article 134 could easily destroy a service member’s military career. And that may only be the beginning of what’s to come.
- 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 & Tipon and start fighting back TODAY.
What Is Article 134 (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 four elements are proven:
(1) That the accused wrongfully did a certain act;
(2) 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;
(3) 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; and
(4) 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 (Wrongful Interference with an Adverse Administrative Proceeding): A service member may be accused and convicted under Article 134 if he or she wrongfully attempts to sway the outcome of an ongoing adverse administrative proceeding by impeding, influencing, and/or obstructing the legal process.
Military Defense Attorney for Article 134 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 & Tipon LLLC 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 & Tipon LLLC?
- We have the experience: Together, attorneys Timothy Bilecki and Noel Tipon have represented hundreds of U.S. service members across all branches of the armed forces, and have previous experience working inside the military’s justice system as JAG Corp officers.
- We have the resources: Securing positive court martial outcomes consistently could not happen without a talented and experienced in-house 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 & Tipon LLLC is strategically located in Hawaii, in close proximity to hundreds of military installations across the Pacific, Asia, the Americas and beyond.
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.
Experienced Military Defense Lawyers for Article 134 Charges
With decades of experience and hundreds of service members successfully represented in court, Bilecki & Tipon LLLC 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 & Tipon to represent their interests in court.
Bilecki & Tipon will help you fight back against charges under Article 134: Wrongful Interference with an Adverse Administrative Proceeding
Frequently Asked Questions
What Is the Maximum Possible Punishment for Article 134 (Wrongful Interference with an Adverse Administrative Proceeding)?
Interfering with an adverse administrative proceeding under Article 134 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.