What is unlawful command influence, how do you prove it in court, and what remedy does the military judge apply when it is found?
- 5 paragraphs
- 1 table
- 3 references
Unlawful command influence is an attempt to improperly control the outcome of a court-martial or the decisions of the officials who handle it, and Article 37 forbids it in several forms, not only by commanders. To raise it, the defense must present “some evidence,” more than “mere allegation or speculation”; the government then has to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The remedy is chosen to fit the harm. One change matters for recent cases: for violations on or after December 20, 2019, Article 37(c) allows a finding or sentence to be held incorrect only if the violation “materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused.”
What Article 37 prohibits
Article 37(a) contains three prohibitions:
- No convening authority or commanding officer “may censure, reprimand, or admonish the court or any member, military judge, or counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercise of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceeding” (37(a)(1)).
- No convening authority or commanding officer “may deter or attempt to deter a potential witness from participating in the investigatory process or testifying at a court-martial” (37(a)(2)).
- “No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, attempt to influence the action of a court-martial or any other military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching the findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority or preliminary hearing officer” (37(a)(3)).
The third prohibition reaches anyone subject to the UCMJ, including staff officers and others outside the chain of command. Article 37(a)(5)(B) adds that “No superior convening authority or officer may direct a subordinate convening authority or officer to make a particular disposition in a specific case.”
Article 37(a)(4) lists conduct that does not violate those rules, including general military justice instruction and “statements regarding criminal activity or a particular criminal offense that do not advocate a particular disposition, or a particular court-martial finding or sentence, or do not relate to a particular accused.” Article 37(b) separately bars rating a court-martial member on that service or rating defense counsel less favorably “because of the zeal with which such member, as counsel, represented any person.”
How it is proved
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces set out the framework in United States v. Boyce (C.A.A.F. 2017):
| Step | Burden | Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Raise the issue | Defense | "some evidence" that unlawful command influence occurred; "This burden on the defense is low, but the evidence presented must consist of more than 'mere allegation or speculation'" |
| Rebut | Government | Prove "beyond a reasonable doubt that either the predicate facts proffered by the appellant do not exist, or the facts as presented do not constitute unlawful command influence" |
| If not rebutted, appearance (Boyce framework; see the 2019 change below) | Government | Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the influence did not place "an intolerable strain" on public perception, judged by whether "an objective, disinterested observer, fully informed of all the facts and circumstances, would [not] harbor a significant doubt about the fairness of the proceeding" |
In Boyce, the court concluded that such an observer “would harbor a significant doubt about the fairness of the court-martial proceedings,” and it reversed “the findings and the sentence in this case without prejudice,” with a rehearing authorized.
The 2019 change: material prejudice
Article 37(c) now provides: “No finding or sentence of a court-martial may be held incorrect on the ground of a violation of this section unless the violation materially prejudices the substantial rights of the accused.” The statutory note states that the amendment applies “with respect to violations of section 837 … committed on or after” December 20, 2019. Boyce applied the earlier framework to earlier events. For later violations, the statute’s text requires that the violation materially prejudice the accused’s substantial rights before a finding or sentence can be held incorrect on that ground, so the defense has to connect the influence to the accused’s own case.
Remedies
Boyce describes the court’s role when the government fails its burden: “this Court will fashion an appropriate remedy.” It also recognizes that an appearance of influence can be cured at trial, citing a case in which “any appearance of unlawful command influence was cured by the military judge’s actions at court-martial.” So the remedy depends on what the influence touched: panel members, witnesses, or a decision-maker. At trial, the military judge addresses it with measures directed at the affected part of the proceeding; on appeal, as Boyce shows, the findings and sentence can be set aside. Dismissal is among the possible outcomes when nothing less can restore a fair proceeding, and the defense’s motion has to identify what was affected and why lesser measures would not cure it. The same graduated approach applies to misconduct by investigators or government counsel, covered in whether a military judge can dismiss charges for investigation-phase misconduct.
Covered offenses
For covered offenses committed after December 27, 2023, a special trial counsel, not the convening authority, makes the referral decision (Article 24a). In those cases, an allegation of command influence focuses on panel members, witnesses, and other participants, and on any officials whose decisions remain, rather than on a commander’s referral. How a senior officer’s public statement fits this framework is covered in whether a senior officer calling a soldier guilty can get charges dismissed, and retaliatory investigations in what a pretextual investigation is.
Statutes and rules cited here were checked in October 2026.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.