article 91 ucmj essay

Back to Event-oriented Counseling

Articles of the UCMJ

    Thanks for your contributions!

We need more examples. Examples can be contributed by using the form below.

Insubordination Counseling

An Honorable Discharge is a separation with honor based on the quality of service, which meets the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. A General Discharge is a separation under honorable conditions, based on a military record being satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an Honorable Discharge. A discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions is based upon a pattern of behavior of one or more acts or omissions that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of a soldier. A General Discharge may be awarded for separation under Chapter 5, Chapter 9, Chapter 13 and Chapter 14. An Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge may be awarded for separation under Chapter 14 for misconduct. If you receive an Honorable Discharge, you will be qualified for most benefits resulting from military service. An involuntary honorable Discharge, however, will disqualify you from reenlistment for some period of time and may disqualify you from receiving transitional benefits (e.g., commissary, housing, health benefits) and the Montgomery GI Bill if you have not met other program requirements. If you receive a General Discharge, you will be disqualified from reenlisting in the service for some period of time and you will be ineligible for some military and VA administered benefits, including the Montgomery GI Bill. If you receive a discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, you will be ineligible for reenlistment and for most benefits, including payments of accrued leave, transitional benefits, the Montgomery GI Bill, and possibly transportation of dependents and household goods to home. You may also face difficulty in obtaining civilian employment as employers have a low regard for General and Under Other Than Honorable conditions discharges. Although there are agencies to which you may apply to have your characterization of service changed, it is unlikely that such application will be successful. _______ (Soldier's initial)

PLAN OF ACTION:

To contribute examples, enter them below and click Submit . Thanks!

Contact [email protected]     Disclaimer

Immediate Assistance

Quick links

• ➔ All crimes
• ➔ All case studies
• ➔ Military bases
• ➔ Resources

Not sure where to begin? Let’s chat ➔

UCMJ ARTICLE 91: ASSAULT, DISOBEDIENCE, OR CONTEMPT TOWARDS A WARRANT, NON COMMISSIONED, OR PRETTY OFFICER

At Bilecki Law Group, we defend service members from charges of assault or other insubordination towards a Warrant, Noncommissioned, or Petty Officer. We know there is more to your side of the story and we’ll make sure the full story is told. 

Home Court Martial Defense Punitive Articles of the UCMJ UCMJ Article 91: Insubordinate Conduct Towards Any Non-Commissioned Officer

What Is Article 91 Of The UCMJ?

Article 91 of the UCMJ exists to provide good order and discipline with regards to behavior shown towards warrant, noncommissioned, and petty officers of the United States Armed Services. These insubordinate behaviors include assault, disobedience, content, and disrespect that would then bring about charges under Article 91.

While good order and discipline are indeed essential elements for our armed services, the broad application of Article 91 means good men and women in uniform can find themselves afoul of the UCMJ through little to no fault of their own.

If you have ever served in the United States military, you know what a good noncommissioned officer looks like for no other reason than the fact that they stick out amongst all the poor leadership that simultaneously exists in the ranks. It is often a result of this poor and insecure leadership that charges are brought up under Article 91 in the first place. 

You do not deserve to be treated like a common criminal for a single offense under Article 91. Bilecki Law Group can help you win back your freedom and your reputation.

What Can You Be Charged With Under Article 91?

Because Article 91 of the UCMJ mentioned vague behaviors such as contempt or disrespect along with more objective behaviors like assault or disobedience, it is best to simply list out the elements of each charge as taken directly from the UCMJ.

Assault on Warrant, Noncommissioned, Or Petty Officer

This charge is exactly what it sounds like. If you make any offensive touching of the person, however slight, you can be charged under Article 91. To be convicted, the prosecution must satisfy the following elements:

(1) That (state the time alleged), the accused was (an enlisted service member) (a warrant officer)

(2) That (state the time and place alleged) the accused (struck) (assaulted) (state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged) by (state the alleged manner of the striking or assault)

(3) That, at the time, (state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged) was in the execution of his/her office

(4) That the accused then knew that (state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged) was a (noncommissioned) (warrant) (petty) officer

There then exist the aggravating elements as follows that will bring about more severe punishments.

(5) That ( state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged ) was the superior (noncommissioned) (petty) officer of the accused

(6) That the accused then knew that (state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged) was his/her superior (noncommissioned) (petty) officer.

Willfully Disobeying a Warrant, Noncommissioned, or Petty Officer

In this charge, willful disobedience is defined as an intentional defiance of authority. To be convicted, the prosecution must satisfy the following elements:

(2) That the accused received a certain lawful order to (state the terms of the order allegedly given) from (state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged)

(3) That the accused then knew that (state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged) was a (warrant) (noncommissioned) (petty) officer

(4) That the accused had a duty to obey the order

(5) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused willfully disobeyed the order.

Contempt or Disrespect Toward Warrant, Noncommissioned, or Petty Officer

The UCMJ defines contempt as insulting, rude, and disdainful conduct, or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness.

It then defines disrespectful as behavior that detracts from the respect due the authority and person. This may consist of acts or language, however expressed, and it is immaterial whether they refer to the person as an officer or as a private individual. To be convicted of contempt or disrespect, the prosecution must satisfy the following elements:

(2) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused [(did) (omitted) (a) certain act(s)] [used certain language], to wit

(3) That the accused’s (behavior) (language) was used toward and within sight or hearing of (state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged);

(5) That (state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged) was then in the execution of his/her office

(6) That, under the circumstances, by such (behavior) (language), the accused (treated with contempt) (was disrespectful toward) (state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged);

There then exists the aggravating elements as follows which will bring about more severe punishments.

(7) That (state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged) was the superior (noncommissioned) (petty) officer of the accused

(8) That the accused then knew that (state the name and rank or grade of the person alleged) was (his) (her) superior (noncommissioned) (petty) officer.

What’s The Worst That Can Happen If Convicted Under Article 91?

It is entirely possible that Article 91 is one of the most abused and misused articles of the UCMJ because so much is entirely relative to the delicate sensitivities of others. All of a sudden because a particular leader is insecure, a shoulder bump in the crowded gally of a ship becomes “assault.” Not complying with the right speed and spirit becomes disobedience and a couple of Lance Corporals drinking and joking outside of the barracks becomes contempt and disrespect.

It infuriates us to no end when we see these charges because we know firsthand that not every leader wearing the stripes can rise up to the responsibility. When those leaders fail, they take it out on some poor enlisted kid and try to ruin their lives for the sake of maintaining military order and discipline. It’s not justice and it’s not right, but it will destroy your life if you don’t put up a fight. The maximum punishments that you can receive for each charge under Article 91 is as follows.

Striking or assaulting:

Warrant Officer – Dishonorable honorabledischarge, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 5 years confinement and a reduction in rank to E-1.

  Superior Noncommissioned or Petty Officer -Dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 3 years confinement and reduction in rank to E-1.

Other Noncommissioned or Petty Officer – Dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 1 year  confinement and reduction in rank to E-1. 

Willful Disobedience: 

Warrant Officer – Dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 2 years confinement, reduction in rank to E-1.

Noncommissioned or Petty Officer – Bad conduct discharge, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 1 year confinement and reduction in rank to E-1. 

Contempt or Disrespect:

Warrant Officer – Bad conduct discharge, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 9 months confinement and reduction in rank to E-1.

  Superior Noncommissioned or Petty Officer – Bad conduct discharge, total forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 6 months confinement, and reduction in rank to E-1.

  Other Noncommissioned or Petty Officer – 2/3 pay for 3 months, 3 months confinement, and reduction in rank to E-1.

  Now, regardless of which charge you face, these are some serious consequences to face just because a junior enlisted leader feels disrespected. Even that big chicken dinner discharge can follow you around for the rest of your life. This means if you are facing any of these charges, the only choice you have is to fight for the best possible outcome. If you lay down and just try to take one for the team, the military justice system will destroy your life. They need to make an example out of someone for the UCMJ to work and if you let them, they will happily make that example out of you. 

How To Fight and Beat Charges Under Article 91 of the UCMJ?

Part of the answer rests right there in the subheading. Namely that you fight. Look, even if you did draw back and gift violence to the chin of a 5 foot 2 inch E-4 who has been talking trash like he was Mohhamed Ali since he got that extra stripe, it doesn’t mean you have to accept the max punishment. You can fight. You can secure a better outcome and you can win.

We can show that perhaps the noncommissioned officer was the aggressor or was requesting actions that had no bearing in the execution of their office. Maybe because the young Corporal still dressed like a “boot” in his civies, you had no idea they were superior. It might be that through their own behavior, the noncommissioned officer divested themselves of their rank and position which will allow you to fight the entirety of the charge.

Your career, your life, your future does not have to end at the hands of an insecure leader. These are serious charges and spending a single day in the brig for a shoulder bump in the galley is a travesty to justice. If you are facing these charges or are under investigation, give us a call. It might be that you are a family member frantically searching for an option on behalf of your loved one right now and you don’t know military culture. We do as we have served ourselves and we take the fight to the military justice system without reservation.

Reach out to us and we’ll give you a free consultation as to exactly what you are facing. The truth is that there are some leaders who bring contempt and disrespect upon themselves and you or your loved one shouldn’t pay the price for their poor character. Reach out to us and as long as you are willing to fight, so are we. Please don’t assume you’ll evade the max punishment because at the point you find out you are wrong, it’s too late.

Other Punitive Articles

• Article 90: Assaulting or Willfully Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer
• Article 102: Forcing A Safeguard
• UCMJ Article on Rape And Sexual Assault Generally
• UCMJ Adultery

Don’t just plead guilty… Fight Back !

Uniform Code of Military Justice Essay

Introduction.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the corner stone of military law in the armed forces of the United States. This code applies to all uniformed services of the United States which include the Marines, Air Force, Navy and the Army. Other branches that are governed by these codes include the Coast Guard and PHS corps. Soldiers in the National Guard will only be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice if they are activated through an executive order given by the President.

The UCMJ early roots can be traced to the “69 Articles of War that were established by the Second Continental Congress on 30 th June 1775 to govern the conduct of the Continental Army’ (Department of the Army, 2007, p 101). These were later increased to 101 Articles through an act of Congress in 1806. With this enacting, Congress now had the power to control the Army and Navy. The UCMJ was finally “signed into law by President Harry S Truman and it became effective on 31 st May 1959” (Department of the Army, 2007, p 101).

The guiding principle for the Code is to bring consistency in the execution of military justice in all the branches of the armed forces. It gives strict guidelines on the kind of conduct and behaviour that would not be tolerated in the uniformed services. These vary from failure to obey orders given by a superior officer to acts of murder committed by soldiers. It also outlines the procedures to be followed when carrying out a court martial on suspects who have broken this code. As explained before, the UCMJ is the foundation of military justice and without it the chain of command might break down leading to an army with no discipline.

Article 91 addresses “insubordinate conduct towards a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or a petty officer” (Stjepan, 2008, p 88) The conduct of the accused who is an enlisted member or a warrant officer is called into question if he violates three major elements of this article. The first one is if the accused “strikes or assaults a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office.”(Mickey et al, 2001, p 445)

It should be noted that both parties must be enlisted members of the respective uniform service and the accused was fully aware that he was striking an enlisted member or warrant officer who was carrying out his duties. Such an offense has serious repercussions in not only military justice but also in civilian courts. The key to prosecuting such cases successfully lies in proving that the accused had actual knowledge that he was striking an enlisted personnel and all of this can be proved with circumstantial evidence.

The maximum penalties for “are dishonourable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 445) A similar act towards a superior non-commissioned or petty officer carries similar penalties but confinement is reduced to 3 years. The same also applies to other non-commissioned or petty officer but confinement is only limited to one year with the other penalties still binding.

The second element is violated when the accused “wilfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or petty officer’. (Mickey et al, 2001, p 446) The same guidelines are followed as in the first element whereby both parties are enlisted members and the accused had actual knowledge that he was receiving an order from a warrant, non-commissioned or petty officer; he was obligated to follow that order but he chose to disobey it.

The penalties being handed out depend a lot on the level of contempt of the accused with maximum penalty of “dishonourable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for 2 years” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 445) if you knowingly disobeyed an order from a warrant officer. For the case of a non-commissioned or petty officer, the punishment is a “bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year”. (Mickey et al, 2001, p 445)

The third element is violated when the accused treats with disdain or is impolite in his speech or behaviour towards a “warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office”. (Stjepan, 2008, p 89) Such an action towards superior non-commissioned or petty officer results in “bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months” (Stjepan, 2008, p 89) the penalty reduces “forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months, and confinement for 3 months if it is other non-commissioned or petty officer.” (Stjepan, 2008, p 89)

This is violated when the accused fails to obey a lawful order that was issued by a member of the armed forces or is derelict in the performance of his duties. This legislation is divided into three elements. The first element is violated when the accused had a duty to obey an issued order but instead disobeyed it. The punishment is “dishonourable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for two years.” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 447) The second element is violated when the accused had actual knowledge that the order was issued by a member of the armed forces and he had a duty to obey this order but instead disobeyed it. The maximum punishment is “bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 447)

The third element is violated when the accused is fully aware of the duties that have been assigned to him but his performance is found wanting either “willingly or through neglect or culpable inefficiency while executing these duties.” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 447) If the shoddy performance can be blamed on neglect or just plain inefficiency, then the accused will be handed a “3 month confinement with forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 447) However, if the accused was willingly derelict in the performance of his duties, then a “bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months will result.” (Mickey et al, 2001, p 447)

Article 98 looks at non-compliance of procedural rules on the part of the accused. It has two elements. The first one is if the accused is deemed responsible for any delays that might arise during the execution of a case of a person who committed an offense under the military code of justice.

The penalty is “bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months”. (Sliedregt, 2003, p 231) The second element is broken when the accused knowingly and deliberately fails to “enforce or comply with provisions of the code before, during or after a trial”. (Sliedregt, 2003, p 231) His failure to enforce the provisions was intentional even though it was his duty to do so. The punishment in this case is much stiffer with dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years being handed out.

The above mentioned articles are a part of other codes that are known as Punitive Articles. It is mandatory that these articles are enforced to the letter because they have a direct relation with the level of discipline in the service. While military hardware and tactics can swing the tide of victory in a battle, it’s commitment, morale and discipline of each of the members that will win you the War. (Stjepan, 2008, p 93)

Department of the Army, 2007, The Soldier’s Guide, Skyhorse Publishing Inc, pp 101-112.

Mickey R. Dansby, James B. Stewart, Schuyler C, 2001, Managing Diversity in the Military, Technology and Engineering, pp 445-449.

Sliedregt E. Van, 2003, The criminal responsibility of individuals for violations of international humanitarian law, Cambridge University Press, pp 223-231.

Stjepan Gabriel Me’strovic, 2008, Rules of Engagement? Algora Publishing, pp 88-93.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 9). Uniform Code of Military Justice. https://ivypanda.com/essays/uniform-code-of-military-justice/

"Uniform Code of Military Justice." IvyPanda , 9 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/uniform-code-of-military-justice/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Uniform Code of Military Justice'. 9 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Uniform Code of Military Justice." November 9, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/uniform-code-of-military-justice/.

1. IvyPanda . "Uniform Code of Military Justice." November 9, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/uniform-code-of-military-justice/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Uniform Code of Military Justice." November 9, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/uniform-code-of-military-justice/.

• Role of the Army Staff Major
• Texas Justice System and the Cameron Todd Willingham Case
• Federal vs. State Law: Medical Marijuana in the US
• Classic Philosophers: Pre and Early 19th Centuries
• Military Professionals Study Military History
• U.S. Navy Investment in Educating the Enlisted Workforce
• Military Leadership in the 21st Century
• What It Takes to Be a Military Commander

CALL: ‪(757) 504-2815

Ucmj article 91 insubordinate conduct.

UCMJ Article 91 is the charge that covers the insubordinate conduct of an enlisted member or a warrant officer toward another warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer. Service members may find themselves charged with the elements of UCMJ Article 91 if they are suspected of hitting or assaulting an NCO or petty officer while that NCO or petty officer is at work. A service member may also face allegations of UCMJ Article 91 if they are suspected of disobeying the lawful orders of other superiors willfully and disrespecting their superior NCO or officers.

Article 91 is one of the punitive articles of the UCMJ, which means that someone accused of violating the article can be tried by court-martial. However, the military tends to reserve court-martial cases to more serious offenses like sexual assault. Those suspected of violating UCMJ Article 91 with a failure to obey orders or regulation, would more likely face adverse administrative action like an Article 15 or Captains Mast, a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, or GOMOR , potentially followed by a  admin separation board, or AdSep.

Any person subject to this  chapter on Article 91 who—

The elements of UCMJ Article 91 insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer are as follows:

Any warrant officer or enlisted member who—

(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;

(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or

(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

For more information on an UCMJ Article 91 offense including the maximum punishment, potential defenses, and a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution’s case, consult with an experienced  military lawyer.

Defending Your Freedom

If you are a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine facing a military court-martial or if you are under investigation put Peter Kageleiry to work in your military defense. Your military career, your service record and your future depend on it.

Contact Us or Call for a free consultation: +‪(757) 504-2815

• Firm Overview
• Courts-Martial
• Administrative Discharge
• Administrative Actions
• Investigations
• Case Results

© by The Law Office of Peter Kageleiry, Jr. All rights reserved. | Site Map

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each case is different and no attorney can guarantee a specific result. The information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search

Automated page speed optimizations for fast site performance

• Get Your Affidavit Now

Article 91 UCMJ: Insubordinate Conduct

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) covers many offenses integral to maintaining lawful order in the military. Among the many articles included in this federal law is Article 91: Insubordinate Conduct Toward Warrant Officer, Noncommissioned Officer, or Petty Officer. What exactly is Article 91 UCMJ, and what is its relevance to service members? This article is a helpful guide to understanding Article 91 of the UCMJ.

• 1 What is Article 91 in the UCMJ?
• 2 What is Insubordinate Conduct in the Military Context?
• 3 Maximum Punishment for Insubordinate Conduct
• 4 Defending Against Insubordinate Conduct Cases
• 5 Conclusion
• 6.1 What is the maximum punishment for Article 91?
• 6.2 What is the difference between Article 90 and Article 91?
• 6.3 What counts as insubordinate conduct in the armed forces?

What is Article 91 in the UCMJ?

Article 91 of the UCMJ applies to people accused of disrespecting a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer. In general, three instances would prompt an enlisted member to be reviewed under the purview of Article 91 and face court martial:

• Assaulting or striking a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
• Willfully disobeying the lawful order issued by a noncommissioned officer, warrant officer, petty officer, or
• treating a noncommissioned, petty, or warrant officer with disrespectful language or contempt.

Four elements should be met for an incident to be considered assault :

• The accused party was an enlisted member or warrant officer
• The accused party made an attempt to inflict bodily harm or struck the office involved in the incident
• The action or attempt on the victim was done when both parties were conducting official duties
• At the time of the incident, the accused party knew the victim was a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer.

To put things into perspective, assault or offering violence is similar to the civilian crimes of battery and assault. This also includes any threatening gestures or words, like drawing a weapon or holding one’s hand in a threatening manner.

The nature of the assault also matters in Article 91. Assault can be of three types: assault by attempt is an attempt to inflict bodily harm that’s beyond mere preparation; assault by offer is an intentional act that allows the victim to believe they will be subject to physical harm; and assault consummated by a battery means unlawfully and intentionally inflicting force or violence.

For a person to be considered guilty of willful disobedience , it should be established that the accused party disobeyed a particular lawful order from the petty, warrant, or noncommissioned officer on purpose. The accused party must have had the duty to obey that specific order.

In addition, the order involved in the incident should have been directed personally to the accused party. The accused party should have been made aware that the order was made by the petty, warrant, or noncommissioned officer who was willfully disobeyed. While the delivery method isn’t relevant, the order must have been understandable.

Of all the detailed requirements for willful disobedience, lawfulness is the most complicated and the most important one to determine. An order is considered ‘lawful’ when it’s not in conflict with the US Constitution or its laws, other military or admiralty laws, or international treaties binding on the country . Moreover, a lawful order doesn’t interfere with an enlisted member’s constitutional rights.

According to Article 91, contempt includes all rude and insulting conduct toward warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, or petty officers. Contempt also consists of attributing qualities like disputableness and worthlessness to the officer. Meanwhile, disrespect can be conveyed through acts or words that demonstrate rudeness, indifference, disdain, silent insolence, and impertinence towards the victim in the incident.

Three elements should be satisfied for an incident to be considered ‘contempt or disrespect:’

• Doing or failing to perform particular acts or directing specific behavior at the officer, as accused
• Using specific language that is considered disrespectful
• Being disrespectful to the rank and state of the officer by engaging in the alleged behavior or performing the alleged actions

What is Insubordinate Conduct in the Military Context?

Insubordinate conduct or insubordination, for short, occurs when an enlisted service member purposely disobeys an authority figure in the Armed Forces . Following orders and the chain of command is integral to military operations, which is why the military punishes enlisted members who disobey their superiors.

An incident is considered insubordination regardless of whether the officer is from the same military branch or within that service member’s direct chain of command.

Maximum Punishment for Insubordinate Conduct

The maximum punishment for violation of Article 91 depends on the nature of the insubordinate conduct. For incidents involving assaulting a warrant officer, petty officer, or noncommissioned officer, the most severe punishments include dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The maximum confinement period for assault cases is five years.

For cases involving willfully disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer, petty officer, or warrant officer, the maximum punishment an enlisted member can receive includes dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture, and a two-year jail term. The maximum sentence for contempt and disrespect is a bad-conduct discharge, total forfeiture, and 9-month confinement.

It should be highlighted the gravity of the penalties depends on the rank of the officer involved in the incident. The higher the rank of the person concerned, the worse punishments the accused party would receive.

Defending Against Insubordinate Conduct Cases

Insubordination is considered a serious crime in the Armed Forces. The consequences can be severe and even life-changing for the accused party. Here are common defenses used when facing charges of insubordination:

• The accused party was not aware that the other party was a warrant officer, petty officer, or noncommissioned officer;
• The accused party was acting to discharge another lawful duty;
• The superior officer involved in the case conducted in a way that made the superior officer lose the right to be respected.

Insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, petty officer, or noncommissioned officer can have long-term consequences that can alter the life of the accused party. That’s why service members should have a good understanding of Article 91 of the UCMJ. To learn more about life in the military, explore the SCRACVS website further.

What is the maximum punishment for Article 91?

The worst punishment that an enlisted member can receive for Article 91 includes a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowance, and five years of confinement. The severity of the punishment depends on the rank of the officer involved.

What is the difference between Article 90 and Article 91?

Article 90 covers insubordinate conduct towards an enlisted member’s superior officer. Article 91 extends the UCMJ’s coverage to include warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers.

What counts as insubordinate conduct in the armed forces?

Insubordination occurs when an enlisted service member purposely disobeys an authority figure in the Armed Forces. Article 91 stipulates that the incident involves a warrant officer, petty officer, or noncommissioned officer.

Roy L. Kaufmann

Attorney Roy Kaufmann serves as the Director of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act Centralized Verification Service, located in Washington, D.C. As a recognized authority on the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Mr. Kaufmann has published hundreds of articles and hosted many webinars. His teachings help law firms and businesses to remain compliant with the SCRA rules and regulations so as to avoid costly fines.

Essay on UCMJ Article 92

• Pages with override author

Navigation menu