Military Law Directory

Online conduct can be a court-martial offense, and one statute in particular, aimed at sharing intimate images, has reshaped how the military handles a common form of online harassment. Defending against such an allegation begins with identifying the exact charge and its specific elements, because those elements are where a defense is built.

The central statute: Article 117a

The most significant law here is Article 117a, “Wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images,” added to the UCMJ in the 2018 NDAA, largely in response to the 2017 “Marines United” scandal involving widespread sharing of private images. The offense targets a specific act: knowingly and wrongfully broadcasting or distributing an intimate visual image of a person who is at least 18, is identifiable, and did not consent to the distribution.

Each piece of that definition is an element the government must prove, and therefore a place a defense can focus.

The elements that shape a defense

A defense to an Article 117a charge typically tests the government’s proof on points like these:

• Consent. The offense requires that the person did not explicitly consent to the broadcast or distribution; consent is squarely at issue.
• Identifiability. The person must be identifiable from the image or related information.
• Knowledge and wrongfulness. The distribution must be knowing and wrongful, not accidental or authorized.
• The military-connection requirement. Notably, Congress criminalized the conduct only where it has a reasonably direct and palpable connection to a military mission or environment. That connection is its own element and its own potential defense.

That last element is distinctive: not every instance of online image-sharing falls under military jurisdiction through this article, the military nexus must be present.

Beyond Article 117a

Online harassment that does not fit Article 117a may be charged under other provisions, including the general article, Article 134, depending on the facts. A defense attorney first pins down which article is charged, then tests its specific elements, because a charge under the general article raises different requirements than one under Article 117a.

Imagine an allegation that a member shared an intimate image without consent: the attorney works through the specific elements of the offense, including the consent question, rather than treating the post as automatically criminal.

The central point is that defending an online-harassment allegation is element-driven. For an Article 117a charge, consent, identifiability, knowledge, and the military-connection requirement are the contested ground, and a defense is built by holding the government to proof on each. Getting counsel involved early, before any statement, is critical, because what an accused says about consent or intent can become central evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

What law covers sharing intimate images without consent in the military?
Article 117a, added in 2018, criminalizes the knowing and wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images of an identifiable, non-consenting person.

Does the conduct have to connect to the military?
Yes. The offense requires a reasonably direct and palpable connection to a military mission or environment, which is its own element.

Can other online behavior be charged?
Yes. Conduct not covered by a specific article can sometimes be charged under the general article, Article 134, depending on the facts.

This article is general information about online-conduct offenses in the military. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Charges and defenses depend on the specific facts and the law can change. Anyone facing such an allegation should consult defense counsel before making a statement.

Sources

• 10 U.S.C. § 917a (Article 117a), Wrongful broadcast or distribution of intimate visual images
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Article 117a (digest)
• <a href="https://www.army.mil/article/200539/updatestoucmjcriminalizeunauthorizeddistributionofsexualimagery”>U.S. Army, Updates to UCMJ criminalize unauthorized distribution of sexual imagery

Yes, and a denied VA disability claim is not the end of the road. The Department of Veterans Affairs offers a modernized review system with three distinct options, and choosing the right one is the single most important decision after a denial. Each path fits a different situation, so the strategy starts with matching the option to the case.

The modern framework

The current system comes from the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), which took effect on February 19, 2019, and replaced the old single-track appeal with three review lanes. The point of the reform was choice and speed: a veteran disagreeing with a decision picks the lane that fits, rather than funneling every dispute through one slow process.

The three review options

The three lanes differ mainly in one thing: what new evidence, if any, can be added.

• Higher-Level Review. A more senior reviewer takes a fresh look at the same evidence already in the file. No new evidence may be submitted, but the veteran or representative can request a one-time informal conference to discuss the case with the reviewer. This fits a case where the existing record should have produced a different result, for example a clear error in how the evidence was weighed.
• Supplemental Claim. The veteran submits new and relevant evidence for a new decision. Filing within a year of the decision generally preserves the original effective date, which protects back pay. This fits a case where there is additional evidence, a new medical opinion or records, to add.
• Board Appeal. The case goes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and a Veterans Law Judge, through one of three options: direct review (no new evidence, no hearing), evidence submission (new evidence, no hearing), or a hearing with the judge.

So the choice turns on the evidence: none to add and want a fresh look, choose Higher-Level Review; new evidence, choose a Supplemental Claim; want a judge, choose a Board Appeal.

Where the attorney fits

A military or veterans attorney helps a veteran read the decision to find why the claim was denied, then pick the lane that addresses that reason, gathering new and relevant evidence for a supplemental claim, framing an error argument for higher-level review, or preparing a board appeal. Preserving the effective date and meeting deadlines are part of that work.

If a veteran’s claim is denied and they hold a new medical opinion, the attorney files a supplemental claim, the lane built for new evidence, rather than a higher-level review that takes no new material.

The central point is that a denied disability claim has a clear, choice-driven path forward. The Appeals Modernization Act offers higher-level review, a supplemental claim, and a board appeal, and the right move depends on whether there is new evidence to add and what kind of review the case needs, which is exactly the decision an attorney helps a veteran make.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the options to appeal a denied VA disability claim?
Under the Appeals Modernization Act there are three: a Higher-Level Review, a Supplemental Claim, and a Board Appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

Which option lets me add new evidence?
A Supplemental Claim allows new and relevant evidence, and a Board Appeal has an evidence-submission option, while Higher-Level Review is based on the existing record only.

Why does filing quickly matter?
Filing a supplemental claim within a year of the decision generally preserves the original effective date, which protects the amount of back pay if the claim ultimately succeeds.

This article is general information about appealing VA disability decisions. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Procedures and deadlines can change. A veteran considering an appeal should consult an accredited representative or attorney.

Sources

• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Decision Reviews and Appeals
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Supplemental Claims
• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Board Appeals

Yes, and the defense is real, but it runs on an unusual track: a clearance case is won or lost on process and facts, not on a judge second-guessing whether you should be trusted. The government must follow specific procedural steps and give you a genuine chance to respond, and that is where the defense lives. Knowing both the steps and the limit is essential.

The process: the Statement of Reasons

A revocation does not arrive as a final decree. The government must issue a Statement of Reasons (SOR), a written notice that identifies which of the adjudicative guidelines raised concern. Those guidelines come from Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4), the standardized national-security adjudicative criteria covering areas like finances, personal conduct, foreign influence, and the like. The SOR must explain the security concerns, which tells the defense exactly what it has to answer.

The response and the hearing

Once the SOR is issued, the individual has meaningful rights to contest it:

• Respond in writing to each cited concern, with supporting evidence and mitigation.
• Request a hearing, where one can present evidence, call witnesses, and argue the case before an administrative judge (for contractors, through the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA); agencies may use a Personnel Security Appeals Board).

These protections are backed by Executive Order 12968, which guarantees a written statement of reasons as detailed as national security allows, access to the records relied upon (generally within 30 days of request, subject to legal limits), and the opportunity to respond and appeal.

The crucial limit: process, not merits

Here is what an honest attorney makes clear from the start. Courts generally do not review the merits of a clearance decision, whether the person should be trusted with access is treated as a matter committed to executive discretion (the principle from Department of the Navy v. Egan). What can be insisted upon is that the required process was followed. So the defense is built on responding powerfully within the adjudicative framework and holding the government to its procedures, not on asking a court to overrule the security judgment.

A military attorney therefore defends by dissecting the SOR guideline by guideline, marshaling mitigation against each concern, and using the response and hearing to their fullest, while keeping the strategy grounded in the framework that actually decides these cases.

Suppose a member receives a statement of reasons proposing to revoke their clearance: the attorney answers each cited guideline with evidence and requests a hearing, focusing on the process rather than asking a court to second-guess the trust judgment.

The key point is that a clearance defense is an exercise in process and persuasion. The SOR and SEAD 4 define the concerns, the written response and hearing are the arena, Executive Order 12968 guarantees the procedure, and because the merits are largely unreviewable in court, the entire effort goes into winning within the administrative system.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a Statement of Reasons?
A written notice that a clearance may be denied or revoked, identifying which adjudicative guidelines (from SEAD 4) raised concern and explaining the reasoning, so the individual can respond.

Can I challenge a clearance decision in court?
Generally not on the merits. Courts treat the trust judgment as committed to executive discretion, so the defense focuses on responding within the adjudicative process and ensuring required procedures are followed.

What rights do I have after receiving an SOR?
You can respond in writing with mitigating evidence and request a hearing to present evidence and witnesses, with procedural protections guaranteed by Executive Order 12968.

This article is general information about security clearance proceedings. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Procedures vary by agency and can change. Anyone facing clearance revocation should consult an attorney experienced in these cases promptly.

Sources

• Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (National Security Adjudicative Guidelines)
• National Archives, Executive Order 12968: Access to Classified Information
• Legal Information Institute, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Yes, and the analysis of a drone strike’s legality is not one question but two, asked in order. First, was there a lawful basis to use force at all? Second, was the strike itself conducted within the rules that govern attacks? A challenge can target either layer, and understanding that two-part structure is what makes the analysis rigorous rather than rhetorical.

Layer one: was there a lawful basis to use force?

The first question is jus ad bellum, the law on resorting to force. Lethal force, including a targeted drone strike, may lawfully be used against an enemy belligerent during an armed conflict, or under a recognized basis such as self-defense against an imminent threat. The United States has pointed to Article 51 of the UN Charter, the inherent right of self-defense, as a primary basis for certain strikes.

So one line of challenge asks whether a genuine legal basis existed: was this an armed conflict to which the law of war applied, or a valid exercise of self-defense, or neither? Strikes outside recognized conflict zones are exactly where this question becomes contested.

Layer two: was the strike conducted lawfully?

Even with a lawful basis, the strike must comply with the law of armed conflict, which supplies the principles for evaluating any attack:

• Distinction. Only lawful targets may be attacked; civilians are protected and may not be the object of attack.
• Proportionality. Expected civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
• Military necessity and humanity, the principles that frame what may lawfully be done at all.

A challenge here probes the targeting decision itself: was the target a lawful one, was the intelligence sound, and was the anticipated civilian harm proportionate? So-called signature strikes, based on patterns of behavior rather than confirmed identity, carry heightened legal risk on exactly these points.

How the attorney engages it

A military attorney challenging a strike works both layers: testing the asserted legal basis for using force, then scrutinizing the strike against distinction, proportionality, and the surrounding precautions. The same discipline supports advising on a contemplated strike before it happens, the legal review that should precede action.

Consider a strike outside a recognized conflict zone: the attorney tests both whether there was a lawful basis to use force and whether the strike itself honored distinction and proportionality.

The core point is that drone-strike legality turns on a sequence: a lawful basis to use force, then lawful conduct of the attack. A sound challenge addresses both, the authority to strike and the manner of striking, rather than collapsing them into a single verdict.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the two main legal questions about a drone strike?
Whether there was a lawful basis to use force at all (an armed conflict or valid self-defense), and whether the strike itself complied with the law of armed conflict, especially distinction and proportionality.

What does proportionality require?
That the expected harm to civilians not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack.

Why are signature strikes more legally risky?
Because they rely on patterns of behavior rather than confirmed identity, which increases the risk of misidentifying a target and raises distinction concerns.

This article is general information about the law governing drone strikes. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This is a contested and evolving area and the law can change. It describes the field in general terms only.

Sources

• ICRC, Customary IHL Rule 1: The Principle of Distinction Between Civilians and Combatants
• ICRC, Customary IHL Rule 14: Proportionality in Attack
• United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII (Article 51)

A reduction in rank is one of the most consequential punishments a service member can receive short of a court-martial, hitting pay, authority, and career trajectory at once. When it comes through nonjudicial punishment, it can be appealed, but the window is unusually short, and a military attorney’s first job is often to move fast before it closes.

Where the reduction comes from

Rank reductions frequently arrive through nonjudicial punishment under Article 15. There are limits built into that authority: an enlisted member can be reduced only within the promotion authority of the officer imposing it, and a member above E-4 generally cannot be reduced more than two pay grades. Because reduction is among the most severe nonjudicial penalties, it is meant to be used with discretion, which is also a point an appeal can press.

The short appeal window

The defining feature of an Article 15 appeal is speed. A member who considers the punishment unjust or disproportionate may appeal to the next superior authority, generally within five days of the hearing. That five-day clock is the single most important fact, an appeal not filed in time is usually lost.

There are exactly three grounds for the appeal:

• there was insufficient evidence to support the finding;
• the punishment was too severe; or
• the commander did not follow proper procedures.

A reduction appeal is typically built on the second or third ground, that the demotion was disproportionate, or that procedural rules were not followed.

The limits to understand

Two constraints shape strategy. First, only one appeal is permitted under the Article 15 process, so it has to be done right the first time. Second, the member may have to undergo the punishment in the meantime, the appeal does not automatically pause the reduction. Separately, the authority to set aside an executed punishment or mitigate a reduction is generally exercised only within about four months after the punishment is executed, another deadline that rewards prompt action.

A member reduced in grade by nonjudicial punishment can have the attorney file the appeal to the next superior within the short window, arguing on grounds such as insufficient evidence or disproportionate severity.

A military attorney, often a defense counsel, helps the member identify the strongest of the three grounds, build the appeal on the record, and file within the five-day window. The core point is that a rank-reduction appeal is winnable but unforgiving on timing: one appeal, a five-day clock, and three defined grounds, which is exactly why getting counsel involved immediately after the punishment matters.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long do I have to appeal an Article 15 punishment?
Generally within five days of the hearing, with the appeal going to the next superior authority.

What are the grounds for appealing nonjudicial punishment?
That there was insufficient evidence, that the punishment was too severe, or that proper procedures were not followed.

Can an enlisted member be reduced more than one grade?
A member above E-4 generally cannot be reduced more than two pay grades under nonjudicial punishment.

This article is general information about nonjudicial punishment and rank-reduction appeals. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Procedures and timelines can vary by service and change. A member facing punishment should consult defense counsel immediately.

Sources

• 10 U.S.C. § 815 (Article 15), Commanding officer’s non-judicial punishment
• Manual for Courts-Martial, Part V, Nonjudicial Punishment
• Army, Article 15 Fact Sheet (Trial Defense Service)