The straightforward answer is no. An Article 138 complaint of wrongs is an administrative grievance procedure, not a criminal or trial proceeding, and it carries no power to subpoena anyone, civilian or military. A service member pursuing redress under Article 138 cannot compel an off-base civilian to appear or to produce records. Understanding why requires looking at what Article 138 is, how it gathers evidence, and where subpoena authority actually comes from in the military justice system.
What an Article 138 complaint is
Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, codified at 10 U.S.C. 938, gives any member of the armed forces who believes a commanding officer has wronged them a way to seek relief. It is best understood as an internal accountability tool. The process generally has two stages. First, the aggrieved member applies in writing to the commanding officer alleged to have committed the wrong, requesting redress. If the commander does not grant full relief, the member then submits a formal complaint to the officer who exercises general court-martial convening authority over that commander. That superior authority examines the complaint and forwards it, with the record of the inquiry, up the chain as the governing regulation directs.
Each service implements Article 138 through its own regulation, such as the Army’s procedures in Army Regulation 27-10, the Navy and Marine Corps procedures in the Manual of the Judge Advocate General, and the Air Force procedures in its instructions. None of these turn the complaint into adversarial litigation. There is no judge, no opposing counsel in the trial sense, and no court with contempt power. The deciding authority reviews a written record and any inquiry conducted into the allegations.
How evidence is actually gathered in an Article 138 process
Because the procedure is built on a documentary record rather than live testimony compelled by process, the way a complainant supports the complaint is by assembling and attaching evidence voluntarily. The member is expected to describe the wrong in detail and to include supporting material such as relevant regulations, documents, and written statements from witnesses who are willing to provide them. The complaint should contain enough relevant evidence for the reviewing officer to understand and act on it.
If the matter needs development, the command or the reviewing authority may direct an inquiry or investigation into the allegations. That inquiry is conducted under the command’s own administrative authority. Within the military community, an investigating officer can interview service members and gather military records as part of an ordered inquiry. But that is command authority over its own members and records, not judicial subpoena power, and it does not extend to compelling a private civilian who has no connection to the service to participate.
Where military subpoena power actually comes from
Subpoenas for civilian witnesses exist in the military system, but they live in the court-martial process, not in administrative grievance procedures. Under the Rules for Courts-Martial, particularly Rule for Courts-Martial 703, the prosecution, the defense, and the court-martial have an equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and evidence, including the benefit of compulsory process. In a court-martial, trial counsel is responsible for securing the attendance of witnesses for both sides, which includes issuing military orders for active duty witnesses and issuing subpoenas to civilians. A subpoena can command a civilian to appear and testify or to produce documents and other evidence. Enforcement is also tightly limited; a military judge may issue a warrant of attachment to compel a civilian witness only in narrowly defined circumstances, and military judges generally cannot treat noncompliance with a subpoena as contempt the way an Article III court can.
The key point is that this compulsory process is tied to a referred court-martial, a related criminal investigation with subpoena authority, or other specifically authorized proceedings. An Article 138 redress complaint is none of those. It is an administrative request for relief from a command wrong, and Congress did not attach subpoena power to it.
What this means in practice for a complainant
A service member building an Article 138 complaint should plan around voluntary cooperation rather than compulsion. Several practical strategies follow from that reality.
First, gather written statements early. A civilian who witnessed the relevant events, such as an off-base landlord, a medical provider, or a bystander, can provide a signed statement that the member attaches to the complaint. The statement is admissible in the administrative sense because the process is not bound by trial rules of evidence, but the witness has to give it willingly.
Second, secure documents through normal channels. Records held by the government can often be obtained through a request to the relevant office, and in some cases through a Freedom of Information Act or Privacy Act request, rather than through any subpoena.
Third, ask the reviewing authority to direct an inquiry. If certain facts can only be developed by questioning service members or examining military records, the complainant can request that the convening authority order an investigation, which uses command authority to develop those internal facts.
Fourth, recognize when the dispute has outgrown Article 138. If the truly essential evidence sits with an uncooperative civilian and can only be obtained by compulsion, the redress complaint is not the right vehicle. That kind of compelled testimony belongs to a forum that has subpoena power, such as a court-martial, a civilian court, or another proceeding with statutory authority to issue process.
Bottom line
Article 138 offers a meaningful avenue for a service member who has been wronged by a commander, and it can produce real relief. What it does not offer is the ability to drag an off-base civilian into the process by force of a subpoena. That tool belongs to the court-martial system under the Rules for Courts-Martial. A complainant should therefore build the strongest possible record from voluntary statements, available documents, and any command-directed inquiry, and should consult military legal counsel about whether a different forum is needed when a key witness will not cooperate.
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.