An example of Article 107 being violating in the following statements. 1. For example, a soldier made an emergency call regarding his son. According to the soldier’s written statement, he took his son out of the crib, went to the living room, and started checking him for signs of life. He then changed his son’s diaper and got dressed before calling 911 for help. He took approximately 45 minutes between the time he first
noticed his son lying motionless and the time he called 911. According to the soldier, he tried to revive his son via CPR before calling 911, but was unable to do so. He told the emergency dispatcher he found his son lying with his face down with a quilt covering his nose and mouth. It took approximately forty five minutes between the time he found his son and the time he called emergency services. The soldier argues that the statements made were not “official” statements within the meaning of Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. First, the statements were made to a civilian. Second, they were made when he was in an off-duty military status. And third, they did not relate to his military duties. Regarding the soldier’s first arguments, the fact that the statements were made to a civilian or a military member is not of their official nature. Rather, the critical distinction is not whether the recipient of a statement is civilian or military, but whether the statements relate to the official duties of either the speaker or the hearer, and whether those official duties fall within the scope of the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s reach.
Another example of Article 107 being violating can be found in the case of U.S vs. Teffeau dating 15 October 2002. The soldier was a recruiter for the United States Marine Corps. The soldier and a battle buddy went to a person’s private home to celebrate the impending departure of a recruit to the Marine Corps boot camp. The soldiers began to drive to the private home, after making a stop to a...