Article 93 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it an offense for a person subject to the code to be cruel toward, oppress, or maltreat any person subject to the accused’s orders. The idea of “abuse of authority” is woven into this offense, because Article 93 is fundamentally about a superior misusing a position of authority against a subordinate. When such a case reaches a court-martial panel, the military judge gives instructions that translate the statutory language into the specific findings the panel must make. Those instructions, drawn from the standardized pattern instructions in the military judges’ benchbook, define the elements, supply the meaning of cruelty, oppression, and maltreatment, and set the objective standard the panel must apply.
What Article 93 prohibits
The offense centers on the abuse of a superior-subordinate relationship. The statute reaches conduct that is cruel, oppressive, or maltreating directed at a person who is subject to the accused’s orders. The phrase “subject to the orders of” is read broadly. It includes not only those in the accused’s direct chain of command but also others who are required to obey the accused’s lawful orders because of the accused’s rank, position, or assignment. This breadth is what makes the offense about the misuse of authority rather than mere interpersonal conflict between equals.
Because the offense punishes the abuse of a position over a subordinate, the instructions focus the panel on both the existence of that authority relationship and the abusive character of the conduct directed downward within it.
The elements the judge instructs on
A military judge instructs the panel that, to convict, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a certain person was subject to the orders of the accused and that the accused was cruel toward, oppressed, or maltreated that person. The instruction makes clear that the victim’s status as someone subject to the accused’s orders is itself an element the government must establish, not an assumption.
The pattern instruction also addresses the accused’s awareness. A well-constructed instruction tells the panel that the government must prove the accused knew that the alleged victim was subject to the accused’s orders and that the accused knew he or she made the statements or engaged in the conduct at issue. This ties the offense to the accused’s knowing exercise of the authority relationship, while keeping the ultimate test of whether the conduct was abusive on an objective footing.
The definition of cruelty, oppression, and maltreatment
The heart of the instruction is the definition the judge supplies for the prohibited treatment. The panel is told that cruelty, oppression, and maltreatment refer to treatment that, when viewed objectively under all the circumstances, is abusive or otherwise unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful purpose, and that results in physical or mental harm or suffering, or that reasonably could have caused physical or mental harm or suffering.
Several features of this definition shape how the panel evaluates an abuse-of-authority claim. First, the standard is objective: the panel judges the conduct by how it appears under all the circumstances, not solely by the accused’s subjective view of it. Second, the conduct must lack any lawful purpose; treatment that is harsh but serves a legitimate military function, such as lawful corrective training or appropriate discipline, is not maltreatment. The instruction’s requirement that the conduct be unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful purpose is what separates abusive misuse of authority from the legitimate, and sometimes demanding, exercise of authority. Third, the harm component is satisfied either by actual physical or mental harm or suffering or by conduct that reasonably could have caused such harm.
The role of intent in the instruction
A common point of confusion is whether the government must prove the accused intended to maltreat. The instructions reflect that maltreatment under Article 93 does not require proof of a specific intent to maltreat. A superior can be held responsible for voluntary conduct that is later determined, judged objectively, to be abusive or otherwise unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful purpose, even without proof that the superior specifically intended to maltreat the subordinate. What the accused must have done knowingly is engage in the conduct; the question of whether that conduct crossed into maltreatment is then measured against the objective standard. This is why the judge frames the abusive character of the conduct objectively rather than as a matter of the accused’s hidden purpose.
Distinguishing legitimate authority from abuse
Because Article 93 operates in the context of a command relationship, the instructions implicitly require the panel to separate the lawful exercise of authority from its abuse. Military superiors routinely give difficult orders, correct deficiencies, and impose lawful discipline, and none of that is maltreatment. The “unnecessary for any lawful purpose” language is the dividing line the panel applies. Conduct connected to a genuine military purpose, carried out within lawful bounds, falls outside the offense, while conduct that serves no legitimate purpose and is abusive under all the circumstances falls within it. The objective, all-the-circumstances framing lets the panel weigh the context, the nature of the relationship, and the effect of the conduct in drawing that line.
Why the instructions matter
For both sides, the instructions define the battleground. The government must fit its evidence to each element, including the victim’s subordinate status, the accused’s knowledge, and the objectively abusive and purposeless character of the conduct. The defense, in turn, can attack any of these, most often by showing a lawful purpose for the conduct, by disputing that the conduct was objectively abusive under the circumstances, or by contesting whether the alleged victim was subject to the accused’s orders. Because the standard is objective and turns on the absence of a lawful purpose, the framing of the instruction frequently determines how the panel evaluates close cases.
Conclusion
Military judges instruct panels on the standard for abuse of authority under Article 93 by giving the statutory elements and a controlling definition of the prohibited treatment. The panel must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim was subject to the accused’s orders and that the accused was cruel toward, oppressed, or maltreated that person, with the accused knowing of the authority relationship and of the conduct. The judge defines cruelty, oppression, and maltreatment as treatment that, viewed objectively under all the circumstances, is abusive or otherwise unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful purpose, and that causes or reasonably could cause physical or mental harm, while instructing that specific intent to maltreat need not be shown. Because these instructions decide how the line between legitimate authority and its abuse is drawn, anyone facing or evaluating an Article 93 charge should consult experienced military defense counsel.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.