Service members are encouraged, and sometimes required, to raise grievances through the chain of command. A reasonable worry is whether using that authorized channel can backfire by exposing the complainant to charges under Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which punishes disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer. The answer is that filing a legitimate complaint through proper channels is not itself disrespect, and it should not lead to Article 89 charges. But the manner in which a complaint is expressed can cross into conduct the article reaches. The dividing line is between the content of a grievance, which is protected, and contemptuous or insulting behavior, which is not.
What Article 89 punishes
Article 89, codified at 10 U.S.C. 889, addresses disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer. To establish the disrespect offense, the prosecution must prove that the accused did or omitted certain acts, or used certain language, toward or concerning a certain commissioned officer; that the behavior or language was directed at that officer; that the officer was the superior commissioned officer of the accused; that the accused knew the officer was their superior commissioned officer; and that, under the circumstances, the behavior or language was disrespectful. Disrespect can be verbal or nonverbal and can include contemptuous, insulting, or degrading words, gestures, tone, or written communication.
The crucial point is that the offense targets contemptuous or insulting expression, not the act of disagreeing or complaining. Voicing a concern, even a pointed one, about an officer’s decision is not the same as treating that officer with contempt. The article is concerned with conduct that undermines the respect due to rank and office, not with the substance of legitimate grievances.
Why a proper complaint is not disrespect
The military maintains formal mechanisms for grievances precisely so that members can raise problems without breaching good order. Article 138 of the UCMJ, for example, gives members a right to complain about wrongs committed by a commanding officer, and various inspector general and equal opportunity channels exist for other concerns. Using these channels in good faith is authorized conduct. A complaint that states facts, identifies a perceived wrong, and requests redress is the kind of communication the system is designed to receive. Filing it does not, by virtue of being filed, satisfy any element of Article 89. There is no disrespectful behavior in submitting a grievance through the means the service provides.
In practical terms, a member who writes a measured complaint stating that an officer’s order was unfair, or that the officer treated subordinates inequitably, has expressed disagreement, not contempt. The content may be uncomfortable for the officer, but discomfort is not disrespect. A charge premised solely on the existence or substance of a properly channeled complaint would lack the contemptuous quality the offense requires.
When the manner of a complaint can create exposure
The protection attaches to legitimate grievance, not to abusive expression that happens to be wrapped in a complaint. If the complaint is laced with insulting, degrading, or contemptuous language directed at the superior officer, the manner of expression can supply the disrespect element even though the underlying concern might have been valid. Calling an officer demeaning names, using obscene or contemptuous language about them, or pairing a grievance with threatening or scornful conduct can move the communication from protected complaint to punishable disrespect.
The setting and audience can matter as well. A complaint submitted in writing through channels reads very differently from a contemptuous outburst delivered to the officer in front of subordinates. The fact finder evaluates the words, the tone, and the circumstances together to decide whether, under all the circumstances, the behavior was disrespectful. So it is entirely possible for the same grievance to be lawful if stated respectfully and to risk Article 89 exposure if delivered with contempt.
Good faith, motive, and the limits of the article
A complaint made in good faith through proper channels, even if ultimately unfounded, is not disrespect simply because the officer disagrees with it or feels aggrieved. The law does not punish members for being wrong about a grievance. At the same time, a member cannot insulate plainly contemptuous conduct by labeling it a complaint. The substance-versus-manner distinction is the analytical key. Investigators and trial counsel evaluating a potential Article 89 charge arising from a complaint should focus on whether the expression was contemptuous in manner, not merely critical in content.
Distinguishing Article 89 from related offenses
Conduct arising from a complaint could implicate other provisions depending on the facts, and it is important not to conflate them. Disrespect toward a noncommissioned or petty officer is addressed by a different article, not Article 89, which is specific to superior commissioned officers. Contemptuous words against certain senior civilian officials are addressed by Article 88. Willful disobedience of a personal order is Article 90, and failure to obey orders or regulations is Article 92. A grievance, by contrast, is an expression of disagreement or a request for redress, which ordinarily fits none of these unless the manner of expression independently violates a provision such as Article 89.
Practical guidance
A service member who wishes to raise a concern should use the authorized channels and keep the communication factual, professional, and free of insulting or contemptuous language. Stating a position firmly is acceptable; attacking the officer’s character with degrading language is not. If a member is told that a complaint they filed has led to an Article 89 allegation, the defense will typically focus on whether any contemptuous behavior actually occurred and whether the charge is really an effort to punish protected grievance. Because that line can be contested, anyone in this situation should consult qualified military defense counsel, who can assess whether the communication was protected complaint or punishable disrespect.
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.