See Article 136 for authority to administer oaths. The following form may be used to administer the oath: “You (swear) (affirm) that you are a person subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that you have personal knowledge of or have investigated the matters set forth in the foregoing charge(s) and specification(s), and that the same are true to the best of your knowledge and belief. (So help you God.)” The accuser’s belief may be based upon reports of others in whole or in part.

See DD Form 458 for a template charge sheet.

The particular subdivision of an article of the UCMJ (for example, Article 118(1)) should not be included in the charge. When there are numerous infractions of the same article, there will be only one charge, but several specifications thereunder. There may also be several charges, but each must allege a violation of a different article of the UCMJ. For violations of the law of war, see (D) of this Discussion. (A) Numbering charges . If there is only one charge, it is not numbered. When there is more than one charge, each charge is numbered by a Roman numeral. (B) Additional charges . Charges preferred after others have been preferred are labeled “additional charges” and are also numbered with Roman numerals, beginning with “I” if there is more than one additional charge. These ordinarily relate to offenses not known at the time or committed after the original charges were preferred. Additional charges do not require a separate trial if incorporated in the trial of the original charges before arraignment. See R.C.M. 601(e)(2). (C) Preemption . An offense specifically defined by Articles 81 through 132 may not be alleged as a violation of Article 134 . See paragraph 91.c.(5)(a) of Part IV. But see R.C.M. 307(d). (D) Charges under the law of war . In the case of a person subject to trial by general court-martial for violations of the law of war ( see Article 18), the charge should be: “Violation of the Law of War”; or “Violation of __________, ______” referring to the local penal law of the occupied territory. See R.C.M. 201(f)(1)(B). But see R.C.M. 307(d). Ordinarily persons subject to the UCMJ should be charged with a specific violation of the UCMJ rather than a violation of the law of war.

How to draft specifications. (A) Sample specifications . Before drafting a specification, the drafter should read the pertinent provisions of Part IV, where the elements of proof of various offenses and forms for specifications appear. (B) Numbering specifications . If there is only one specification under a charge it is not numbered. When there is more than one specification under any charge, the specifications are numbered in Arabic numerals. The term “additional” is not used in connection with the specifications under an additional charge. (C) Name and description of the accused . (i) Name. The specification should state the accused’s full name: first name, middle name or initial, last name. If the accused is known by more than one name, the name acknowledged by the accused should be used. If there is no such acknowledgment, the name believed to be the true name should be listed first, followed by all known aliases. For example: Seaman John P. Smith, U.S. Navy, alias Lt. Robert R. Brown, U.S. Navy. (ii) Military association . The specification should state the accused’s rank or grade. If the rank or grade of the accused has changed since the date of an alleged offense, and the change is pertinent to the offense charged, the accused should be identified by the present rank or grade followed by rank or grade on the date of the alleged offense. For example: In that Seaman ________ then Seaman Apprentice ________, etc. (iii) Social security number or service number . The social security number or service number of an accused should not be stated in the specification. (iv) Basis of personal jurisdiction . (a) Military members on active duty . Ordinarily, no allegation of the accused’s armed force or unit or organization is necessary for military members on active duty. (b) Persons subject to the UCMJ under Article 2(a), subsections (3) through (12), or subject to trial by court-martial under Articles 3 or 4 . The specification should describe the accused’s armed force, unit or organization, position, or status which will indicate the basis of jurisdiction. For example: John Jones, (a person employed by and serving with the U.S. Army in the field in time of war) (a person convicted of having obtained a fraudulent discharge), etc. (D) Date and time of offense . (i) In general . The date of the commission of the offense charged should be stated in the specification with sufficient precision to identify the offense and enable the accused to understand what particular act or omission to defend against. (ii) Use of “on or about.” In alleging the date of the offense it is proper to allege it as “on or about” a specified day. (iii) Hour. The exact hour of the offense is ordinarily not alleged except in certain absence offenses. When the exact time is alleged, the 24-hour clock should be used. The use of “at or about” is proper. (iv) Extended periods . When the acts specified extend(s) over a considerable period of time it is proper to allege it (or them) as having occurred, for example, “from about 15 June 1983 to about 4 November 1983,” or “did on divers occasions between 15 June 1983 and 4 November 1983.” (E) Place of offense . The place of the commission of the offense charged should be stated in the specification with sufficient precision to identify the offense and enable the accused to understand the particular act or omission to defend against. In alleging the place of the offense, it is proper to allege it as “at or near” a certain place if the exact place is uncertain. (F) Subject-matter jurisdiction allegations . Pleading the accused’s rank or grade along with the proper elements of the offense normally will be sufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. (G) Description of offense . (i) Elements . The elements of the offense must be expressly alleged. If a specific intent, knowledge, or state of mind is an element of the offense, it must be alleged. To state an offense under Article 134, practitioners must expressly allege the terminal element. All offenses under Article 134 require proof of a single terminal element, but the terminal element is charged and proven differently for offenses charged under Clause (1) and (2) of Article 134, in contrast to those charged under Clause (3). For elements of offenses charged under Article 134, Clause (1), (2), or (3), see paragraph 91.b. in Part IV of this Manual . (ii) Words indicating criminality . If the alleged act is not itself an offense but is made an offense either by applicable statute (including Articles 133 and 134), or regulation or custom having the effect of law, then words indicating criminality such as “wrongfully,” “unlawfully,” or “without authority” (depending upon the nature of the offense) should be used to describe the accused’s acts. (iii) Specificity . The specification should be sufficiently specific to inform the accused of the conduct charged, to enable the accused to prepare a defense, and to protect the accused against double jeopardy. Only those facts that make the accused’s conduct criminal ordinarily should be alleged. Specific evidence supporting the allegations ordinarily should not be included in the specifications. (iv) Duplicitousness . One specification should not allege more than one offense, either conjunctively (the accused “lost and destroyed”) or alternatively (the accused “lost or destroyed”). However, if two acts or a series of acts constitute one offense, they may be alleged conjunctively. See R.C.M. 906(b)(5). (v) Lesser included offenses. Article 79 contains two provisions concerning notice of lesser included offenses: (1) offenses that are “necessarily included” in the charged offense in accordance with Article 79(b)(1); and (2) offenses designated as lesser included offenses by the President under Article 79(b)(2). See Appendix 12A. Each provision sets forth an independent basis for providing notice of a lesser included offense. Where there is doubt as to whether an offense is a lesser included offense or whether a particular offense should be charged in the alternative, preferral of a separate charge or specification may be warranted. If the accused is convicted of two or more offenses, the trial counsel should consider asking the military judge to determine whether any convictions that were charged in the alternative or as potential lesser included offenses should be dismissed or conditionally dismissed subject to appellate review. (H) Other considerations in drafting specifications . (i) Principals . All principals are charged as if each was the perpetrator. See paragraph 1 of Part IV for a discussion of principals. (ii) Victim. In the case of an offense against the person or property of a person, the first name, middle initial and last name of such person should be alleged, if known. If the name of the victim is unknown, a general physical description may be used. If this cannot be done, the victim may be described as “a person whose name is unknown.” Military rank or grade should be alleged, and must be alleged if an element of the offense, as in an allegation of disobedience of the command of a superior officer. If the person has no military position, it may otherwise be necessary to allege the status as in an allegation of using provoking words toward a person subject to the UCMJ. See paragraph 55 of Part IV. (iii) Property . In describing property generic terms should be used, such as “a watch” or “a knife,” and descriptive details such as make, model, color, and serial number should ordinarily be omitted. In some instances, however, details may be essential to the offense, so they must be alleged. For example: the length of a knife blade may be important when alleging a violation of general regulation prohibiting carrying a knife with a blade that exceeds a certain length. (iv) Value . When the value of property or other amount determines the maximum punishment which may be adjudged for an offense, the value or amount should be alleged, for in such a case increased punishments that are contingent upon value may not be adjudged unless there is an allegation, as well as proof, of a value which will support the punishment. If several articles of different kinds are the subject of the offense, the value of each article should be stated followed by a statement of the aggregate value. Exact value should be stated, if known. For ease of proof an allegation may be “of a value not less than_________.” If only an approximate value is known, it may be alleged as “of a value of about ______.” If the value of an item is unknown but obviously minimal, the term “of some value” may be used. These principles apply to allegations of amounts. (v) Documents . When documents other than regulations or orders must be alleged (for example, bad checks in violation of Article 123a), the document may be set forth verbatim (including photocopies and similar reproductions) or may be described, in which case the description must be sufficient to inform the accused of the offense charged. (vi) Orders . (a) General orders . A specification alleging a violation of a general order or regulation (Article 92(1)) must clearly identify the specific order or regulation allegedly violated. The general order or regulation should be cited by its identifying title or number, section or paragraph, and date. It is not necessary to recite the text of the general order or regulation verbatim. (b) Other orders . If the order allegedly violated is an “other lawful order” (Article 92(2)), it should be set forth verbatim or described in the specification. When the order is oral, see clause (H)(vii) of this discussion. (c) Negating exceptions . If the order contains exceptions, it is not necessary that the specification contain a specific allegation negating the exceptions. However, words of criminality may be required if the alleged act is not necessarily criminal. See clause (G)(ii) of this discussion. (vii) Oral statements . When alleging oral statements the phrase “or words to that effect” should be added. (viii) Joint offense . In the case of a joint offense each accused may be charged separately as if each accused acted alone or all may be charged together in a single specification. For example: (a) If Doe and Roe are joint perpetrators of an offense and it is intended to charge and try both at the same trial, they should be charged in a single specification as follows: “In that Doe and Roe, acting jointly and pursuant to a common intent, did. . . .” (b) If it is intended that Roe will be tried alone or that Roe will be tried with Doe at a common trial, Roe may be charged in the same manner as if Roe alone had committed the offense. However, to show in the specification that Doe was a joint actor with Roe, even though Doe is not to be tried with Roe, Roe may be charged as follows: “In that Roe did, in conjunction with Doe, . . . .” (ix) Matters in aggravation . Matters in aggravation that do not increase the maximum authorized punishment ordinarily should not be alleged in the specification. Prior convictions need not be alleged in the specification to permit increased punishment. (x) Abbreviations . Commonly used and understood abbreviations may be used, particularly abbreviations for ranks, grades, units and organizations, components, and geographic or political entities, such as the names of states or countries.

Unreasonable multiplication of charges should not be confused with multiplicity, a double jeopardy concept. See R.C.M. 1003(c)(1)(C). Accordingly, the phrase “multiplicity in sentencing” is confusing and should be avoided. Unreasonable multiplication of charges is addressed in R.C.M. 906(b)(12); multiplicity is addressed in R.C.M. 907(b)(3)(B); and punishment limitations are addressed in R.C.M. 1003(c)(1)(C). For example, a person should not be charged with both failure to report for a routine scheduled duty ( e.g. , reveille) and absence without leave if the failure to report occurred during the period for which the accused is charged with absence without leave. There are times, however, when sufficient doubt as to the facts or the law exists to warrant making one transaction the basis for charging two or more offenses. In no case should both an offense and a lesser included offense thereof be separately charged. See also R.C.M. 601(e)(2) concerning referral of several offenses.

See also R.C.M. 601(e)(3) concerning joinder of accused. A joint offense is one committed by two or more persons acting together with a common intent. Principals may be charged jointly with the commission of the same offense, but an accessory after the fact cannot be charged jointly with the principal whom the accused is alleged to have received, comforted, or assisted. Offenders are properly joined only if there is a common unlawful design or purpose; the mere fact that several persons happen to have committed the same kinds of offenses at the time, although material as tending to show concert of purpose, does not necessarily establish this. The fact that several persons happen to have absented themselves without leave at about the same time will not, in the absence of evidence indicating a joint design, purpose, or plan, justify joining them in one specification, for they may merely have been availing themselves of the same opportunity. In joint offenses the participants may be separately or jointly charged. However, if the participants are members of different armed forces, they must be charged separately because their trials must be separately reviewed. The preparation of joint charges is discussed in R.C.M. 307 (c)(3), Discussion (H)(viii)(a). The advantage of a joint charge is that all accused will be tried at one trial, thereby saving time, labor, and expense. This must be weighed against the possible unfairness to the accused which may result if their defenses are inconsistent or antagonistic. An accused cannot be called as a witness except upon that accused’s own request. If the testimony of an accomplice is necessary, the accomplice should not be tried jointly with those against whom the accomplice is expected to testify. See also Mil. R. Evid. 306. See R.C.M. 603 concerning amending specifications. See R.C.M. 906(b)(4) and (6) concerning motions to amend specifications and bills of particulars. See R.C.M. 906(b)(5) pertaining to severance of duplicitous specifications.