The Expanding Digital Battlefield
Articles 117a and 120c of the UCMJ deal with a new class of sexual misconduct cases that involve digital privacy, recording, and consent rather than physical contact. Both carry career-ending consequences and often trigger sex offender registration. Many of these cases arise from moments of immaturity, anger, or alcohol-driven judgment lapses that would once have been considered private embarrassments. In the modern military, they are treated as felonies.
Our firm has defended Article 117a and 120c cases for more than twenty years, ranging from revenge-porn allegations and covert recordings to indecent exposure and digital voyeurism. These cases require deep familiarity with forensic evidence, electronic communications, and human psychology under stress.
Article 120c in Plain English
Article 120c covers non-consensual viewing, recording, or sharing of a person’s private areas, as well as indecent exposure. The law treats each as a separate offense.
• Indecent Viewing means looking at a person’s private area without consent in a circumstance where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy (for example, in a shower or bedroom).
• Indecent Recording means using a camera or device to record a person’s private area without their consent.
• Broadcasting or Distributing means showing or sending such a recording to someone else.
• Indecent Exposure covers deliberate display of genital areas in a way that is lewd, offensive, or intended to abuse, humiliate, or degrade another person. This is the legal home for the unsolicited explicit photo or “dick pic” offense.
Each element turns on intent and consent. A single tap on a phone can satisfy the entire offense if the panel believes it was done knowingly and without permission.
Article 117a in Plain English
Article 117a was added to address acts that fall outside the original scope of Article 120c. It targets the wrongful distribution of intimate images when the image was originally created with consent. The law covers the so-called “bro stuff” and revenge-porn scenarios where a service member shares or posts sexual content without the depicted person’s permission.
It makes no difference whether the image was self-taken or sent voluntarily, or whether it was forwarded to a single friend or uploaded to a group chat. Once distributed without consent and with intent to harm, humiliate, or gratify oneself at another’s expense, the offense is complete.
Key Differences Between 117a and 120c
• Article 120c covers recordings or images made without consent (peeping or covert recording).
• Article 117a covers images created with consent but distributed without consent.
• Both can lead to confinement, a dismissal or dishonorable discharge, and sex offender registration.
Forensic and Strategic Defense Demands
These cases rise and fall on digital forensics and context. A strong defense requires:
• Timeline Reconstruction through metadata, text chains, and app logs to show lack of intent or proof of consent.
• Authentication Challenges that expose edited, re-sent, or spoofed files.
• Cloud and Device Mapping to show when files were deleted, synced, or auto-uploaded without user action.
Digital evidence is often interpreted incorrectly by investigators with limited technical training. A good defense counsel knows how to translate metadata into reasonable doubt.
Indecent Exposure and the “Unsolicited Photo” Case
The modern UCMJ treats sending an unsolicited sexual photo as a form of indecent exposure. Even if no victim was physically present, the law recognizes the digital transmission as a public act intended to humiliate or offend. This is why so-called “dick-pic” cases are prosecuted under Article 120c rather than 117a. Intent is again the line between stupidity and criminality, but the consequences are the same either way.
Collateral Consequences and Sex Offender Registration
Conviction under either Article can trigger state-level sex offender registration that lasts decades. Even a short sentence or a BCD can permanently limit employment options, travel, and housing. The military does not control civilian registration rules, so service members must assume the worst-case outcome when facing these charges.
Humanizing and Mitigating
If conviction occurs, the defense focus shifts to mitigation. Panels are more likely to show leniency when the accused shows genuine remorse, demonstrates rehabilitative potential, and has a strong record of service. A mature lawyer can frame the incident as a correctable mistake without minimizing the harm to others.
Practical Distinction: “Humiliation” in 120 vs. 117a / 120c
In Article 120 (sexual assault and abusive sexual contact), prosecutors often rely on intent to abuse, humiliate, or degrade to capture nonsexual physical acts, things like hazing, nut-taps, or pranks, that meet the statute only if done with that intent. The “humiliation” language is what lets the government charge a seemingly nonsexual act as a sexual offense.
By contrast, Articles 117a and 120c deal with conduct that is inherently sexual in context: viewing, recording, sharing, or exposing private sexual images. There’s no need to prove a sexual motive or humiliation intent. The wrongful act is built into the privacy violation itself.
Defense Begins with Counsel Who Understands Both Laws
Article 117a and 120c form the digital front line of modern military justice. They require lawyers who understand how technology, intent, and emotion intersect inside a courtroom. If you are under investigation for any offense involving digital images, recordings, or privacy violations, call 800-319-3134 for a confidential consultation. We have defended service members worldwide for more than two decades and know how to fight these cases from the first interview to final argument.