Given the opportunity, which article(s) of the UCMJ would you eliminate and why?

MSgt Jason McClish — Mon, 03 Jul 2017 17:31:11 -0400

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2017 6:37 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Jul 2017 18:37:07 -0400

Everything that is covered by civilian courts. Military courts can not help but be politicized which is why the Army has had a 600% increase in the number of inmates for article 120 after the 2012 release of the Invisible War

Response by SSG Michael Hartsfield made Jul 3 at 2017 6:40 PM

SSG Michael Hartsfield — Mon, 03 Jul 2017 18:40:08 -0400

I'll go with Article 125 Sodomy much like Casey Francia but for the opposite reason. As I man I have given and received oral sex among other things UCMJ would have frowned upon. Nevertheless the acts were consensual, we didn't mind it in the least and, pay close attention to this portion, WE WERE ADULTS! For me, that is an outdated way of thinking and seeing as how Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed, quite frankly, it's stupid. BLUF, if you are an adult and the person you are having sex with is an adult and it's consensual, it's no one's business.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2017 10:08 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Jul 2017 22:08:58 -0400

Wow. Talk about a dry topic. Let me know how it goes. Bjt maybe 134

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 3 at 2017 10:31 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Jul 2017 22:31:04 -0400

art 114 dueling, this is a bit outdated there is not really anyone that I know that has been charged with dueling.

Response by PFC Samuel Snopps made Jul 3 at 2017 10:53 PM

PFC Samuel Snopps — Mon, 03 Jul 2017 22:53:21 -0400

I would not eliminate any of the articles of the UMCJ, because it does not exist.
Now I would eliminate article 134-55 of the UCMJ, because it is my right to keep and bear alarms at all times. Even if I choose to conceal it.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Jul 3 at 2017 11:24 PM

Cpl Justin Goolsby — Mon, 03 Jul 2017 23:24:46 -0400

Well first off I'd like to thank you for forcing me to look up UCMJ articles in order to participate. I'm certainly glad I've never been of the trouble-making sort to actually need to memorize all of them.

In regards to which one I would eliminate Article 134-30: Jumping from vessel into water. C'mon now, that sounds like a grand old time. I'm also not sure why people frown on Article 134. For the most part, I thought it was broken down and fairly easy to understand.

Article 134 - General article
Article 134-1 - Abusing public animal
Article 134-2 - Adultery
Article 134-3 - Assault--indecent
Article 134-4 - Assault--with intent to commit murder, voluntary manslaughter, rape, robbery, sodomy, arson, burglary, or housebreaking
Article 134-5 - Bigamy
Article 134-6 - Bribery and graft
Article 134-7 - Burning with intent to defraud
Article 134-8 - Check, worthless, making and uttering--by dishonorably failing to maintain funds
Article 134-9 - Cohabitation, wrongful
Article 134-10 - Correctional custody--offenses against
Article 134-11 - Debt, dishonorably failing to pay
Article 134-12 - Disloyal statements
Article 134-13 - Disorderly conduct, drunkenness
Article 134-14 - Drinking liquor with prisoner
Article 134-15 - Drunk prisoner
Article 134-16 - Drunkenness--incapacitation for performance of duties through prior wrongful indulgence in intoxicating liquor or any drug
Article 134-17 - False or unauthorized pass offenses
Article 134-18 - False pretenses, obtaining services under
Article 134-19 - False swearing
Article 134-20 - Firearm, discharging--through negligence
Article 134-21 - Firearm, discharging--willfully, under such circumstances as to endanger human life
Article 134-22 - Fleeing scene of accident
Article 134-23 - Fraternization
Article 134-24 - Gambling with subordinate
Article 134-25 - Homicide, negligent
Article 134-1 - Impersonating a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, or an agent or official
Article 134-26 - Indecent acts or liberties with a child
Article 134-27 - Indecent exposure
Article 134-28 - Indecent language
Article 134-29 - Indecent acts with another
Article 134-30 - Jumping from vessel into the water
Article 134-31 - Kidnapping
Article 134-32 - Mail: taking, opening, secreting, destroying, or stealing
Article 134-33 - Mails: depositing or causing to be deposited obscene matters in
Article 134-34 - Misprision of serious offense
Article 134-35 - Obstructing justice
Article 134-36 - Wrongful interference with an adverse administrative proceeding
Article 134-37 - Pandering and prostitution
Article 134-38 - Parole, Violation of
Article 134-39 - Perjury: subornation of
Article 134-40 - Public record: altering, concealing, removing, mutilating, obliterating, or destroying
Article 134-41 - Quarantine: medical, breaking
Article 134-42 - Reckless Endangerment
Article 134-43 - Requesting commission of an offense
Article 134-44 - Restriction, breaking
Article 134-45 - Seizure: destruction, removal, or disposal of property to prevent
Article 134-46 - Self-injury without intent to avoid service
Article 134-47 - Sentinel or lookout: offenses against or by
Article 134-48 - Soliciting another to commit an offense
Article 134-49 - Stolen property: knowingly receiving, buying, concealing
Article 134-50 - Straggling
Article 134-51 - Testify: wrongful refusal
Article 134-52 - Threat or hoax: bomb
Article 134-53 - Threat, communicating
Article 134-54 - Unlawful entry
Article 134-55 - Weapon: concealed, carrying
Article 134-56 - Wearing unauthorized insignia, decoration, badge, ribbon, device, or lapel button

Response by SGT David T. made Jul 5 at 2017 10:51 AM

SGT David T. — Wed, 05 Jul 2017 10:51:16 -0400

Article 134 hands down. Depending on how you write it up, breathing can be considered a violation. If the law cannot specifically state what is not acceptable then it needs to go.

Response by COL William Oseles made Jul 6 at 2017 9:43 PM

COL William Oseles — Thu, 06 Jul 2017 21:43:23 -0400

Well, since you know nobody that has been involved in a duel, the regulation obviously works.

Response by PO3 Andrew Kelly made Jul 6 at 2017 11:58 PM

PO3 Andrew Kelly — Thu, 06 Jul 2017 23:58:07 -0400

While I would not outright eliminate any article I would find if there is a better way to have written Article 134.
While I was serving I saw it used as a general bludgeon to punish anything the CO disapproved of regardless of whether it actually had any effect on good order or discipline.
The most outrageous use of this article was by the CO of the first base I served on. Several of the more conservative churches in the area, and there were a fair number by any standard, had gotten it into their heads that Role Playing Games were satanic and those who ran them were witches sent to corrupt the community. The CO in question invoked Art. 134 to ban the playing of these games by military personnel. This was eventually reversed, supposedly after JAG advised him that his decision was not likely to be upheld by a board of court martial.

Response by SPC(P) Carlos Santini made Jul 7 at 2017 1:36 AM

SPC(P) Carlos Santini — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 01:36:00 -0400

Article 134-55 - Weapon: concealed, carrying.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2017 5:17 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 05:17:03 -0400

The UCMJ is maintained by Congress, is it not? I can think of better things for them to do with their time besides editing the UCMJ... are we running out of numbers for the punitive articles, or something? There are some that could use an update, sure, but if you can't live with the UCMJ, don't wear a U.

Response by SGT Paul Mackay made Jul 7 at 2017 8:31 PM

SGT Paul Mackay — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 20:31:31 -0400

the UCMJ doesn't work for enlisted men only for officers to screw over enlisted men.

Response by 1SG Michael Bonnett made Sep 1 at 2017 11:17 PM

1SG Michael Bonnett — Fri, 01 Sep 2017 23:17:26 -0400

All of it. The military has proven over and over it's officers can not be trusted to render fair decisions when other officers are involved. When it comes to officers of flag rank it's not a joke, it's a Greek tragedy.

Officers who raped their subordinates wife not only go free they are allowed to retire. Officers found guilty of conducting their own star chambers and federal crimes are allowed to retire and then brought back on active duty for a few days for a promotion is direct violation of the United States Congress...

Bluntly put senior leadership has proven time and time again they are manifestly incapable of Justice to all equally so move it to civilian courts.

We no longer war on wood ships far from shore.

Response by SCPO William Akin made Jun 7 at 2019 5:14 PM

SCPO William Akin — Fri, 07 Jun 2019 17:14:46 -0400

Is there a statute of limitations on Art. 125?? Cause I gotta tell ya back in the early 60s ---> ???? the wife and I MAY have engaged in that unnatural oral thing in a head to toe configuration on more than a few occasions, especially after returning from extended deployments.. Fear not we always locked the curtain climbers out until we were done sinnin'/breakin' Uncle Sugar's dumbshit rule/rules..
How friggin' stupid, archaic, and narrow minded can it get/be...

Response by PFC Jeff Langer II made Jun 7 at 2019 8:06 PM

PFC Jeff Langer II — Fri, 07 Jun 2019 20:06:12 -0400

That's a no go.

Response by SSG Darrell Peters made Nov 27 at 2019 6:57 PM

SSG Darrell Peters — Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:57:12 -0500

I actually met someone who was convicted of Dueling under the UCMJ. They later went to Law School and attempted to become an Attorney here in Kentucky. He then became aware that Under the Kentucky State Constitution You cannot hold any public office or be an Officer of the Court If you have ever been convicted of Dueling or served as a Second in a Duel.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ____________________ and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."
This has been enforced since 1891 when Kentucky adopted its current Constitution.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2019 12:46 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Nov 2019 00:46:33 -0500

Article 134 needs to be updated. As long as the members are in the same CoC or situation where an Officer and Enlisted relationship could degrade operations, aka a ship, then the relationship should be good to go.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Nov 16 at 2020 6:09 PM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Mon, 16 Nov 2020 18:09:19 -0500

I would rather see the equal protection clause applied to the UCMJ.. end different spanks for different ranks. Why do awards go up with increased rank for the reason of increased responsibility... yet actual accountability under the UCMJ goes down as one moves up?