Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice punishes disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer. Following the Military Justice Act of 2018, which took effect on January 1, 2019, the statute was restructured so that subsection (a) addresses disrespect and a separate subsection addresses striking or offering violence against a superior commissioned officer. A service member accused of disrespect does not face an automatic court-martial. Instead, the matter moves through a deliberate process that begins inside the unit, and understanding how that process starts helps explain why early legal advice can change the outcome.
A report of the alleged offense reaches the command
Most Article 89 matters begin with a report rather than a formal charge. A noncommissioned officer, a witness, the officer who felt disrespected, or another member of the unit notifies the chain of command that a service member behaved disrespectfully toward a superior commissioned officer. The “report” does not need a particular form. A verbal account to a first sergeant, a written memorandum, or a sworn statement can each set the process in motion. At this stage nothing has been decided. The command simply has information that an offense may have occurred.
The commander orders a preliminary inquiry under Rule for Courts-Martial 303
Once a commander receives information that a member may have committed an offense, Rule for Courts-Martial 303 requires that the matter be inquired into. This preliminary inquiry is the formal mechanism by which the chain of command initiates an Article 89 investigation. The commander may conduct the inquiry personally or appoint someone else to gather the facts. The purpose is narrow: collect enough initial information to understand what happened and decide whether further action is warranted. There is no requirement that the inquiry produce a lengthy written product, and in practice it often results in a short memorandum summarizing findings and a recommendation.
Article 31 protections apply during this stage. Before the inquiry officer asks the suspected member any question that could elicit an incriminating response, that member must be advised of the nature of the suspected offense, the right to remain silent, and the right that anything said may be used against them. A member who is questioned about an alleged disrespect incident is entitled to those warnings, and statements taken without them may later be challenged.
The command weighs disposition options
After the preliminary inquiry, the commander decides how to dispose of the matter. Article 89 is unusual among punitive articles because disrespect, while a real offense, frequently lends itself to lower levels of resolution. The commander’s options generally range from taking no action, to administrative measures such as counseling or a reprimand, to nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, to preferral of charges that could lead to a court-martial. The seriousness of the alleged conduct, the member’s record, the impact on good order and discipline, and the available evidence all influence the choice.
Because so many disrespect allegations are resolved short of trial, the disposition decision is often the most consequential point in the entire process. A persuasive response during the preliminary inquiry, or a well-prepared rebuttal before the commander selects a disposition, can steer a case toward administrative handling rather than nonjudicial punishment or court-martial.
When charges are preferred and referred
If the command concludes that a court-martial is appropriate, the next steps follow the ordinary court-martial path. Charges are preferred, meaning they are formally drafted and sworn. For a general court-martial, a preliminary hearing under Article 32 must ordinarily occur before referral, giving the accused a structured opportunity to examine the evidence and the charges. The convening authority then decides whether to refer the charges to trial and at what level. Disrespect alone is often handled at a summary or special court-martial level rather than a general court-martial, but the level depends on the facts and the command’s assessment.
Why the initiation stage matters for the accused
The way an Article 89 matter is initiated shapes everything that follows. Because the process begins with an informal report and a preliminary inquiry rather than an immediate charge, there is meaningful room to influence the outcome before the command commits to a path. A member who understands that the inquiry is fact gathering, who exercises Article 31 rights thoughtfully, and who presents context, such as the circumstances of the exchange or evidence that the conduct did not rise to the level of disrespect contemplated by the statute, can affect the commander’s disposition decision.
It is also worth noting what an Article 89 investigation is not. It is not a criminal indictment, and the preliminary inquiry is not a trial. The standard for moving forward at each stage differs from the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that would apply at a court-martial. A member should treat early contacts with the inquiry seriously precisely because decisions made informally can foreclose better outcomes later.
Practical takeaways
The chain of command initiates an Article 89 investigation when it receives a report of disrespect and a commander, acting under Rule for Courts-Martial 303, directs a preliminary inquiry into the matter. That inquiry gathers facts, respects Article 31 rights, and feeds a disposition decision that may end the matter quietly or move it toward nonjudicial punishment or court-martial. Service members who learn of an allegation should seek advice from a defense counsel early, because the most flexible point in the process is at the beginning, before the command decides how the case will proceed.
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.