## Facts

- In December 1986, Sergeant Oglivie married Amparo while stationed in Panama.
- In January 1987, Oglivie was reassigned to Germany; Amparo remained in Panama.
- While in Germany and later after transfer to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, Oglivie lacked Amparo’s address and telephone number and communicated with her through a friend in Panama.
- In August 1988, Oglivie filed for divorce in Oklahoma and sent a copy of the petition to his friend’s post office box in Panama for delivery to Amparo.
- In September or October 1988, Amparo contacted Oglivie and stated she had filed for divorce in Panama; Oglivie later testified he believed he was divorced after that communication.
- In November 1988, the American Red Cross notified Oglivie that Amparo had been hospitalized and referred to her as his “ex-wife.”
- On November 9, 1988, Oglivie went to the Fort Sill finance office and requested termination of his basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) at the “with dependents” rate because he said he was divorced; a finance clerk told him a divorce decree was required.
- Because he did not have a decree, Oglivie obtained another soldier’s divorce decree, copied it, inserted his and Amparo’s names into the text (without changing the caption), and submitted the altered copy to the finance office in support of his BAQ request.
- In December 1988, Oglivie married Jackeline and asked finance to reinstate BAQ at the “with dependents” rate.
- At a special court-martial, Oglivie was charged with offenses including two false official statement specifications (Article 107), bigamy (Article 134), wrongful appropriation of a copy of a divorce decree (Article 121), and altering a public record (Article 134).
- Oglivie pleaded guilty to altering a public record and was convicted, contrary to his pleas, of the false official statement specifications and bigamy (and related offenses); the approved sentence included a bad-conduct discharge, three months’ confinement, and reduction to E-1.
- On appeal to the Army Court of Military Review (ACMR), Oglivie argued primarily that he was mistaken about his marital status, and the ACMR also examined whether altering a copy (rather than an original) could satisfy “altering a public record” and whether the guilty plea was provident.

## Issues

1. Whether Oglivie’s asserted belief that he was divorced from Amparo was a mistake of fact that negated the required knowledge for the Article 107 false official statement convictions.
2. Whether that asserted mistake of fact negated criminal liability for bigamy under Article 134 for marrying Jackeline while Amparo was still his lawful spouse.
3. Whether creating and submitting an altered copy of a divorce decree—without changing the courthouse original—can constitute “altering a public record” under Article 134, and whether Oglivie’s guilty plea to that charge was provident.

## Decision

- The ACMR affirmed the findings and the approved sentence.
- The ACMR held the evidence permitted the factfinder to reject Oglivie’s claimed mistake of fact and to find that he acted with the required knowledge for the Article 107 false official statement specifications.
- The ACMR upheld the bigamy conviction, concluding the factfinder could find Oglivie knowingly entered a second marriage while still married to Amparo.
- Addressing the specified questions, the ACMR sustained the “altering a public record” conviction based on Oglivie’s creation and use of an altered copy in an official finance setting and found the guilty plea provident.

## Legal Principles

- Under R.C.M. 916(d), mistake of fact is a defense if it negates the mental state required for the offense; for knowledge-based offenses, an honest mistake can defeat proof of knowledge, but the factfinder may disbelieve the claimed mistake based on surrounding circumstances.
- Article 107 requires proof that the accused made an official statement that was false and that the accused knew it was false when made.
- Bigamy under Article 134 requires proof, among other elements, that the accused knowingly married another person while having a living lawful spouse.
- A fabricated document submitted to a military office to obtain an official benefit may be used as circumstantial evidence that the accused recognized the lack of legitimate proof and acted with awareness of falsity.
- “Altering a public record” under Article 134 may be satisfied where an accused alters a copy of an official record and uses it in an official process in a manner that threatens the reliability of government recordkeeping and administration.

## Conclusion

United States v. Oglivie affirmed convictions for false official statements, bigamy, and altering a public record where the accused claimed he believed he was divorced but then submitted a falsified divorce decree copy to the finance office; the court held the factfinder could reject the claimed mistake of fact and treat the altered copy’s creation and use in official channels as sufficient for the Article 134 public-record offense and a provident guilty plea.


United States v. Oglivie, 29 M.J. 1069 (1990)