UCMJ Article 105a: False or Unauthorized Pass Offenses

A military pass, permit, discharge certificate, or identification card is the document that tells a gate guard, a finance clerk, or a records office that the person holding it is who the document says they are and is entitled to what it grants. Article 105a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 905a) criminalizes corrupting that system: wrongfully making a false credential, passing a false one to someone else, or using or possessing one while knowing it is false or unauthorized. The article protects the reliability of the credentials that control access to installations, benefits, and identity within the armed forces.

Article 105a is a relatively new standalone provision. The conduct it covers was historically prosecuted under the general article, Article 134. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-328) pulled these offenses out into their own numbered article, and Article 105a took effect on January 1, 2019. Because the offense now stands on its own statute rather than the general article, a prosecutor charging it after that date does not have to prove the Article 134 “terminal element” that the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting. The wrongful act itself, committed with the required knowledge, is the offense.

What the statute actually prohibits

The text of 10 U.S.C. 905a is organized into three subsections, each describing a distinct way of attacking the integrity of military credentials.

Subsection (a) reaches the person who, “wrongfully and falsely,” makes, alters, counterfeits, or tampers with a military or official pass, permit, discharge certificate, or identification card. This is the manufacturing and forging side of the offense: fabricating a credential from nothing, doctoring a genuine one, or producing a counterfeit copy.

Subsection (b) reaches the person who wrongfully sells, gives, lends, or disposes of a false or unauthorized credential, knowing that it is false or unauthorized. This captures trafficking and distribution, whether for money or as a favor, by someone who is aware the document is not legitimate.

Subsection (c) reaches the person who wrongfully uses or possesses a false or unauthorized credential, knowing that it is false or unauthorized. This is the most commonly seen variant, covering the service member who carries or presents a fake or improperly obtained pass or identification card.

Across all three subsections, the covered documents are a “military or official pass, permit, discharge certificate, or identification card.” The reference to an “official” document, not merely a military one, means the article can extend to official credentials beyond those issued solely by the armed forces, depending on how the charge is drawn.

The distinction between false and unauthorized

The article separates two ideas that are easy to blur. A document is false when it has been fabricated, forged, counterfeited, or materially altered, so that it misrepresents itself. A document is unauthorized when it is genuine in form but is held or used by someone without the right to it, or has been issued or obtained outside proper authority. A service member who manufactures a fake identification card commits a false-document offense; a service member who uses another member’s genuine card to enter an installation commits an unauthorized-use offense. The making-and-altering language of subsection (a) speaks to false documents, while subsections (b) and (c) speak to documents that are “false or unauthorized,” capturing both situations.

What the government must prove

The elements track the subsection charged. For a making or altering charge under subsection (a), the government must prove that the accused made, altered, counterfeited, or tampered with a credential of the kind the statute names, and that the accused did so wrongfully and falsely. For a sale or disposal charge under subsection (b), the government must prove that the accused sold, gave, lent, or disposed of such a credential, that the credential was false or unauthorized, and that the accused knew it was false or unauthorized. For a use or possession charge under subsection (c), the government must prove that the accused used or possessed such a credential, that it was false or unauthorized, and that the accused knew it was false or unauthorized.

Knowledge is the element that most often decides these cases for the distribution, use, and possession variants. The statute does not punish the member who unknowingly carries a credential that turns out to be defective; it punishes the member who acts while aware that the document is false or unauthorized. The word “wrongfully” carries this further by excluding conduct that is authorized or excused, such as an investigator who handles a counterfeit credential as part of an official inquiry.

Maximum punishment

Article 105a itself does not fix a sentence. Like most punitive articles, it provides that an offender “shall be punished as a court-martial may direct,” and the President sets the maximum punishments in the Manual for Courts-Martial, Part IV.

Under the current Manual, the offense is treated more seriously when it involves manufacturing or trafficking, or when a credential is used or possessed with intent to defraud or deceive. For wrongfully and falsely making, altering, counterfeiting, tampering with, selling, giving, lending, or disposing of such a credential, and for using or possessing one with intent to defraud or deceive, the maximum punishment is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for three years. For all other cases of wrongful use or possession, the maximum is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for six months. Because the Manual’s punishment tables have been revised in recent editions, the exact authorized maximum for a given specification should be confirmed against the current Manual for Courts-Martial in force at the time of the offense.

These figures are ceilings, not expected sentences. For offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023, the military judge imposes the sentence under segmented sentencing rules even in a members trial, and the actual sentence turns on the facts, the accused’s record, and any plea agreement.

Defenses and contested issues

The most direct defenses contest the elements. Where the charge is use, possession, sale, or disposal, the prosecution must prove the accused knew the credential was false or unauthorized, so a genuine and reasonable belief that the document was legitimate defeats the knowledge element. A service member who received what appeared to be a valid pass through ordinary channels, with no reason to suspect a defect, has not committed a knowing offense. The defense may also challenge whether the document was in fact false or unauthorized at all, or whether the accused’s act fits the conduct the subsection describes.

The “wrongfully” requirement supplies a further line of defense where the handling of a credential was authorized or excused. Identity defenses and challenges to the chain of custody or the forensic comparison of the questioned document to a genuine exemplar are also litigated, since proof that a document is counterfeit or altered often rests on expert examination.

How Article 105a relates to neighboring offenses

Article 105a sits beside Article 105 (Forgery, 10 U.S.C. 905), and the two can overlap when the false document is a military credential. Forgery under Article 105 reaches the false making or altering of any writing that would, if genuine, impose a legal liability or change a legal right, and it is built around an intent to defraud. Article 105a is narrower in its subject, reaching specifically the enumerated military and official credentials, but it does not require intent to defraud for the basic making, sale, use, or possession variants; that intent instead operates to raise the maximum punishment. Charging decisions between the two articles turn on the nature of the document and which elements the evidence supports.

The offense can also intersect with false official statements under Article 107 (10 U.S.C. 907), with fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation under Article 104a where a discharge certificate is involved, and with impersonation under Article 106. Where conduct fits more than one article, the government selects the charge or charges that match the proof, subject to the rules against unreasonable multiplication of charges.

Sources

• 10 U.S.C. § 905a (Article 105a, Uniform Code of Military Justice), False or unauthorized pass offenses. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/905a
• 10 U.S.C. § 905a, U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section905a&num=0&edition=prelim
• Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition), Part IV (Punitive Articles), Joint Service Committee on Military Justice: https://jsc.defense.gov/

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It describes military law and procedure of public record, does not address any individual case, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.