UCMJ Article 131f: Noncompliance with Procedural Rules
On this page
Article 131f is the UCMJ’s offense for the people who run the military justice process: it punishes an official responsible for unnecessary delay in disposing of a case, and an official who knowingly and intentionally fails to enforce or comply with the code’s procedural provisions. Good-faith errors are outside it. The maximums are a bad-conduct discharge and 6 months for delay, and a dishonorable discharge and 5 years for intentional noncompliance.
Two clauses in § 931f
Under 10 U.S.C. § 931f, a person subject to the UCMJ commits an offense who “is responsible for unnecessary delay in the disposition of any case of a person accused of an offense under this chapter,” or who “knowingly and intentionally fails to enforce or comply with any provision of this chapter regulating the proceedings before, during, or after trial of an accused.” Either is punished as a court-martial may direct.
The second clause is limited to provisions “of this chapter,” meaning the UCMJ itself. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (Pub. L. 114-328, § 5401(3)) moved the offense from its old number, Article 98, effective January 1, 2019. Article 98 is now misconduct as a prisoner, so a pre-2019 document that cites “Article 98” for procedural noncompliance is using the old numbering.
Elements of the two offenses
The Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.), Part IV, ¶ 87.b:
| Unnecessary delay | Knowing and intentional noncompliance |
|---|---|
| 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 UCMJ | The accused failed to enforce or comply with a certain provision of the UCMJ regulating a proceeding before, during, or after trial |
| The accused knew of that duty | The accused had the duty of enforcing or complying with that provision |
| Delay occurred in the disposition of the case | The accused knew of that duty |
| The accused was responsible for the delay | The failure was intentional |
| Under the circumstances, the delay was unnecessary |
Who can commit it
The delay offense has a built-in limit: “A person may be responsible for delay in the disposition of a case only when that person’s duties require action with respect to the disposition of that case” (¶ 87.c(1)). A service member whose duties do not touch the case cannot be liable under this clause for its delay.
The noncompliance offense “does not apply to errors made in good faith before, during, or after trial” (¶ 87.c(2)). A mistaken reading of a rule, an oversight, or a missed step taken in good faith is not this crime; the Manual describes the offense as designed to punish intentional failure.
Unlawful command influence
The same paragraph adds: “Unlawful command influence under Article 37 may be prosecuted under this Article.” An official who interferes with a court-martial in violation of Article 37 can therefore be charged under this article. The Manual also cross-references Article 31 (the rights warning) and R.C.M. 104 (unlawful command influence).
Six months for delay, five years for intentional noncompliance
From ¶ 87.d:
| Offense | Maximum |
|---|---|
| Unnecessary delay in disposing of a case | Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 6 months |
| Knowingly and intentionally failing to enforce or comply with the UCMJ | Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 5 years |
Obstruction and interference with administrative proceedings
Conduct in a pending or expected case done “with intent to influence, impede, or otherwise obstruct the due administration of justice” is obstructing justice under Article 131b. Wrongful acts intended to influence or obstruct an adverse administrative proceeding fall under Article 131g. Unlike Article 131f, both require a specific intent to obstruct and can be committed by anyone subject to the UCMJ, not only by officials with duties in the case.
Sources
- 10 U.S.C. § 931f, Article 131f, Noncompliance with procedural rules (Cornell LII)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), Part IV, ¶ 87
General information about military law, not legal advice for any individual case.