Discipline in the armed forces does not run only between enlisted members and commissioned officers. A large share of day-to-day authority rests with warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and petty officers, the experienced leaders who supervise junior members and keep units functioning. Article 91 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. section 891, protects that layer of authority. It mirrors the protections that other articles give to commissioned officers, but it is tailored to the relationship between subordinates and the warrant, noncommissioned, and petty officers placed over them.
The three offenses within Article 91
Article 91 actually defines three distinct offenses, each directed at a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer. The first is striking or assaulting such an officer who is in the execution of office. The second is willfully disobeying the lawful order of such an officer. The third is treating with contempt, or being disrespectful in language or deportment toward, such an officer who is in the execution of office. Although they share a statute, these are separate offenses with different elements and different maximum punishments, and a charge sheet will specify which form of misconduct is alleged.
A defining feature of Article 91 is who can commit it. The article applies to warrant officers and enlisted members. A commissioned officer who mistreats a noncommissioned officer is dealt with under other provisions, because Article 91 is built around the relationship in which a subordinate owes obedience and respect to a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer.
Elements of each offense
For striking or assaulting, the government must prove that the accused struck or assaulted a certain warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer; that the victim was then in the execution of office; and that the accused knew the victim was a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer. If the charge alleges that the victim was the accused’s superior, the government must also prove that superior relationship and the accused’s knowledge of it.
For willful disobedience, the government must prove that the accused was a warrant officer or enlisted member; that a certain warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer gave the accused a lawful order; that the accused knew the person giving the order held that status; that the accused had a duty to obey the order; and that the accused willfully disobeyed it.
For contempt or disrespect, the government must prove that the accused used certain language toward, or behaved in a certain way toward, the officer within that officer’s sight or hearing; that the accused knew the person’s status; that the officer was then in the execution of office; and that the conduct was contemptuous or disrespectful under the circumstances.
The phrase “in the execution of office”
Two of the three offenses, striking or assaulting and contempt or disrespect, require that the warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer be in the execution of office at the time. That phrase means the officer was engaged in any act or service required or authorized by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, or military usage, in the officer’s capacity as a leader. It is a broad concept that covers the ordinary performance of duties, not merely formal ceremonies.
This requirement matters because it tracks the purpose of the article, which is to protect the exercise of authority. Disrespect shown to a noncommissioned officer who is plainly off duty and acting purely as a private individual may fall outside these two offenses, although it could still implicate other misconduct depending on the facts. The willful-disobedience offense does not contain the same execution-of-office phrase, but it does require a lawful order that the accused had a duty to obey.
Lawfulness of the order and other defenses
For the disobedience offense, the order must be lawful. An order is presumed lawful, but that presumption can be overcome. An order is not lawful if it conflicts with the Constitution, a statute, or a lawful superior order, if it is beyond the authority of the person giving it, or if it directs the commission of a crime. An order must relate to military duty, although that category is interpreted broadly. A subordinate who disobeys an unlawful order has a defense to the disobedience charge, but the safer course is rarely to disobey on the spot, and the lawfulness question is ultimately decided by the factfinder.
Other defenses track the elements. The defense may show that the accused did not know the person’s status as a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, that the officer was not in the execution of office where that is required, or that the conduct was not in fact disrespectful when viewed in context. As with the parallel articles, truth is not a defense to disrespect, and the question is whether the conduct breached the respect due to the officer’s position. Disagreement voiced through proper channels is not the same as contempt.
Maximum punishment
The maximum punishment depends on which offense is charged and, for striking or assault, on the relationship between the parties. Historically the Manual for Courts-Martial has authorized the most severe punishments for striking or assaulting a superior noncommissioned or petty officer, with lesser ceilings for disobedience and for simple disrespect. The President prescribes the maximum punishments and sentencing parameters, and they are revised periodically, so the controlling figure for any specific charge should be confirmed against the current Manual for Courts-Martial and the executive order in effect at the time of the offense. Many Article 91 allegations, particularly minor disrespect, are resolved through nonjudicial punishment rather than court-martial.
In practice
Article 91 cases commonly grow out of confrontations during duty, where a junior member refuses an instruction or directs contemptuous language at a supervising noncommissioned officer in front of others. Witnesses to the exchange are often decisive, since the contested questions are usually what exactly was said or done, whether the noncommissioned or petty officer was acting in an official capacity, and whether the conduct crossed from frustration into contempt or refusal. Properly understood, Article 91 does not punish ordinary friction between subordinates and their immediate leaders. It protects the authority of the warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and petty officers on whom military discipline practically depends.
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.