Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, codified at 10 U.S.C. 889, makes it an offense to behave with disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer. A frequent question is whether a superior warrant officer is among the persons protected by this article. The answer depends on a precise distinction in military rank structure: whether the warrant officer in question holds a commission. Some warrant officers are commissioned and some are not, and that single fact determines whether Article 89 or a different article governs disrespect directed at them.
What Article 89 protects
Article 89 provides that any person subject to the Code who behaves with disrespect toward that person’s superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. The statute is built around two requirements. The victim must be a commissioned officer, and that officer must be superior in rank or command to the accused. The article also reaches assault and certain related conduct toward a superior commissioned officer in its broader statutory scheme.
Because the protected class is defined as “superior commissioned officer,” the threshold question for any warrant officer is whether that warrant officer is a commissioned officer. A superior commissioned officer is understood to mean any commissioned officer who is superior in rank or command to the accused, and that definition includes commissioned warrant officers. The phrase therefore turns on commissioned status, not merely on the title “warrant officer.”
The commissioned and non-commissioned warrant officer distinction
The United States military draws a clear line within the warrant officer ranks. The lowest warrant officer grade is appointed by warrant rather than by commission. In the Army, for example, a warrant officer one is appointed by warrant with authority derived from assignment level and position. By contrast, chief warrant officers in the grades above the lowest, beginning at the second warrant officer grade, are commissioned officers, holding their commissions from the President of the United States.
This distinction is the heart of the answer. A chief warrant officer who holds a commission is a commissioned officer. If that chief warrant officer is superior in rank or command to the accused, he or she is a superior commissioned officer and falls within the protection of Article 89. Disrespect toward such an officer can be charged under Article 89.
A warrant officer in the lowest, non-commissioned grade is in a different position. Because that warrant officer is appointed rather than commissioned, he or she is not a commissioned officer and therefore does not fit the “superior commissioned officer” requirement of Article 89. Disrespect toward a non-commissioned warrant officer is not charged under Article 89.
Where non-commissioned warrant officers fit: Article 91
The fact that a non-commissioned warrant officer is not covered by Article 89 does not leave that warrant officer unprotected. Article 91 of the Code, at 10 U.S.C. 891, addresses insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer. Article 91 protects warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and petty officers, and it covers conduct such as striking, disobeying, or treating with contempt or disrespect a warrant officer while that officer is in the execution of office.
There is an important structural difference between the two articles. Article 89 applies to any person subject to the Code who disrespects a superior commissioned officer, including officers disrespecting officers. Article 91, by contrast, applies to a narrower set of accused. It addresses misconduct by warrant officers and enlisted members toward the protected persons it names. The persons protected by Article 91 are warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and petty officers.
So the system covers warrant officers through two complementary paths. A warrant officer who holds a commission is protected against disrespect under Article 89 as a superior commissioned officer. A warrant officer who does not hold a commission is protected against insubordinate or disrespectful conduct under Article 91. In neither case is a superior warrant officer left without a charging avenue. The difference lies in which article applies.
Why the distinction matters in practice
Charging the correct article is not a formality. The elements differ, and charging the wrong article can be fatal to a specification. If disrespect toward a commissioned chief warrant officer is mistakenly charged under Article 91, or disrespect toward a non-commissioned warrant officer is mistakenly charged under Article 89, the specification may fail because it does not match the protected status of the victim. An accused and defense counsel should examine the precise grade and commissioned status of the warrant officer named in any disrespect charge.
The superiority requirement also matters under Article 89. The article protects a superior commissioned officer, meaning one superior in rank or command to the accused. Whether the warrant officer was superior in rank, or superior by virtue of command relationship, can be a contested issue depending on the relative grades and the command structure. Even where a chief warrant officer is commissioned, the government must still establish the superior relationship for an Article 89 charge.
Other elements of Article 89 remain in play as well. The government must prove that the accused behaved with disrespect, that the behavior was directed toward the officer, and that the accused knew of the officer’s status. Disrespect can be shown through words or conduct, and the context, including whether the officer was in the execution of office, can affect the analysis.
The bottom line
Superior warrant officers can be covered under Article 89, but only when they are commissioned officers. Chief warrant officers in the commissioned grades, beginning above the lowest warrant officer grade, are commissioned officers and, when superior in rank or command to the accused, are superior commissioned officers protected by Article 89. The lowest warrant officer grade is appointed rather than commissioned and therefore falls outside Article 89; disrespect toward such a warrant officer is instead addressed under Article 91, which protects warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and petty officers. The decisive question in every case is whether the warrant officer holds a commission, followed by whether the superiority requirement is met. Because charging the correct article and proving the right elements are essential, anyone facing or evaluating a disrespect charge involving a warrant officer should consult a qualified military defense attorney to confirm the officer’s commissioned status and the applicable article.
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.