U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER X— PUNITIVE ARTICLES

10 U.S.C. § 905

Art. 105. Forgery

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to defraud—(1) falsely makes or alters any signature to, or any part of, any writing which would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change his legal right or liability to his prejudice; or(2) utters, offers, issues, or transfers such a writing, known by him to be so made or altered;is guilty of forgery and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 74, § 923; renumbered § 905, Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LX, § 5401(12), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2939.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

923

50:717.

May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 123), 64 Stat. 141.

Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 905 was renumbered section 898 of this title.

Amendments

2016—Pub. L. 114–328 renumbered section 923 of this title as this section.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: United States v. Richard M. Mitchell
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Richard M. Mitchell (1994) ca4 · cites it 2× “§ 4131 (a)(1)(A) (West 1990); see also 10 U.S.C.A. § 905 (1) (West 1983) ("contrary to law, custom, or regulation”); 22 U.”
United States v. Gallagher (1957) cma “eatment of fellow-prisoners of war, in violation of Article of War 96, 10 USC § 1568 (1946 ed) ; one offense of collaboration with the enemy, in violation of the 96th Article of War, 10 USC § 1568 (1946 ed) and Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934 ;…”
Commonwealth v. Coleman (2004) pasuperct “C § 899 and misconduct as prisoner, 10 U.S.C § 905. . An example might be kidnapping, United States v.”
United States v. Garwood (1983) cma “§ 882 ; communication and holding intercourse with the enemy, in violation of Article 104, UCMJ; and misconduct as a prisoner of war, in violation of Article 105, 10 U.S.C. § 905 , UCMJ. We hasten to emphasize that, following presentation of the case in chief, the military judge…”
State Of Washington v. Anthony J. Smith (2020) washctapp “As authority, the State points to several military court cases holding that checking account applications had legal efficacy under 10 U.S.C. § 905 . See U.S. v. White, 35 M.”
Silver v. O'Donnell (2024) ohnd · cites it 2× “Plaintiff’s Remaining Claims Plaintiff also alleges violations of 10 U.S.C. § 905 , Article 105, 19 U.S.C. § 1592 , and Ohio Administrative Code Section 5120:1-8-02.”
Christen Erika Johnson v. Capital One Bank (Usa) N.A. (2022) dcd “¶ 14 (citing 10 U.S.C § 905); see also 10 U.S.C. § 802 (a) (providing that the Code applies only to certain persons with a connection to the armed forces).”
United States v. Staff Sergeant JORGE ESPINAL (2024) acca “ESPINAL — ARMY 20220152 BACKGROUND A military judge, sitting as a general court-martial, convicted appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of forgery, one specification of false official statement, and one specification of larceny, in violation of Articles 105,…”
United States v. Staff Sergeant ZACKERY J. ASKINS (2025) acca “forgery, two specifications of false official statement, two specifications of sale of military property, four specifications of larceny of military property, one of which being explosives, and one specification of a federally assimilated crime for the improper transportation of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.