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.
What is Article 131f Of The UCMJ?
Noncompliance with procedural rules moved from Article 98 to Article 131f for conduct governed by the changes effective 1 January 2019. Current Article 98 concerns misconduct as a prisoner. Article 131f distinguishes unnecessary delay in disposing of a case from knowingly and intentionally failing to enforce or comply with a provision of the UCMJ regulating proceedings. The government must prove the applicable elements; a mere accident does not automatically establish either offense.
- The government will threaten your very livelihood. Your healthcare, income, and retirement could be taken from you just like that.
- You will be forced to hide your past military service. A dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge will hound you for the rest of your life, threatening opportunities and limiting advancement.
- You could be facing up to 5 years in prison. Your friends and family will move on with their lives while you linger in a prison cell, all because of a few delays in a court-martial case.
The government already assumes your guilt and your allies are growing scarcer by the day. A call to Bilecki Law Group may be your last best chance to fight back against Article 131f charges.
Defining Article 131f of the UCMJ
Every article that is under the UCMJ requires prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a handful of critical assumptions, known as elements, to convict you of a crime. Article 131f contains two criminal acts, each with its own set of elements which must be proven by the government in your hearing or court-martial case.
- Unnecessary delay in disposing of case
- That the accused was charged with a certain duty in connection with the disposition of a case of a person accused of an offense under the code;
- That the accused knew that the accused was charged with this duty;
- That delay occurred in the disposition of the case;
- That the accused was responsible for the delay; and
- That, under the circumstances, the delay was unnecessary.
- Knowingly and intentionally failing to enforce or comply with provisions of the code
- That the accused failed to enforce or comply with a certain provision of the code regulating a proceeding before, during, or after a trial;
- That the accused had the duty of enforcing or complying with that provision of the code;
- That the accused knew that the accused was charged with this duty;
- That the accused’s failure to enforce or comply with that provision was intentional.
Unnecessary delay and intentional noncompliance are different Article 131f offenses. The government must prove the accused’s assigned duty, knowledge, and the other elements for the offense charged; the prosecution’s dissatisfaction with a delay does not itself establish guilt.
Military Defense Attorney for Article 131f of the UCMJ: Strategies and Tactics
Every court martial case has underlying circumstances which will influence the final strategy. With that said, Article 131f cases often revolve around three core considerations:
- What caused the delay;
- What was the accused’s connection with the delay, and;
- If prosecutors are claiming you purposefully failed in your duties, what motive would you have for doing so.
We’ll begin by considering these essential questions in your case:
- Why would you purposefully delay the case in question? If the government is claiming you intentionally delayed the case, what evidence do they have to support that claim? Are you familiar with the individual that is accused of the alleged crime? We’ll press the prosecution to fully explain the alleged motive behind the delays.
- What caused the delay in the first place? Were other parties involved in the delay besides the accused? Did the delay truly inconvenience anyone? We’ll poke holes into the prosecution’s version of events or show that the inconvenience caused by the delay was slight or non-existent.
- What was your connection with the delay? Were other factors at play that made it impossible for you to complete these tasks in time? If there was a complete failure to comply with your duties, were there extenuating circumstances that made it impossible for you to do so?
Never make assumptions about the government’s case against you. Before you make any decisions that could affect your trial, contact the team at Bilecki Law Group today.
Facing an Allegation?
Contact Bilecki Law Group
Experienced Military Defense Lawyers for Article 131f Charges
We’ve been fighting and winning court-martial cases for years. Our experienced team of military defense attorneys is prepared to aggressively defend your freedom and your military career in court.
Bilecki Law Group will help you fight back against charges under Article 131f: Noncompliance with Procedural Rules
Frequently Asked Questions About Article 131f:
What Is the Maximum Possible Punishment for Article 131f: Noncompliance with Procedural Rules?
There are two possible criminal charges under Article 131f, each with its own maximum sentencing: Unnecessary delay in disposing of case:
- Reduction to E-1
- Forfeiture of all pay and allowances
- Confinement for 6 months
- Bad-conduct discharge
Knowingly and intentionally failing to enforce or comply with provisions of the code:
- Reduction to E-1
- Forfeiture of all pay and allowances
- Confinement for 5 years
- Dishonorable discharge
Unnecessary delay is Category 1 (0–12 months), limited by its six-month confinement maximum. Knowing and intentional noncompliance is Category 2 (1–36 months), with a five-year confinement maximum.
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 punishment summaries describe the current offense limits for enlisted members; earlier conduct must be assessed under the law applicable on its date. Reduction to E-1 applies to enlisted members. Dismissal applies to commissioned officers, including commissioned warrant officers, cadets, and midshipmen. A dishonorable discharge applies to enlisted members and uncommissioned warrant officers; a bad-conduct discharge applies only to enlisted members. Court-martial jurisdiction and any plea agreement can further limit the sentence.
What Are the Lesser Included Offenses under Article 131f?
Bilecki Law Group will always work to win your case outright. However, our goal is to secure the best outcome possible in your case. And that may mean building a case around securing one of the lesser included offenses included within each article.
For Article 131f charges, that may mean convincing the prosecutors to lower your charges from intentional failure to comply with the law, to creating an unnecessary delay. Additional lesser included offenses are: