Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer. Most people assume disrespect means saying something insulting, but the offense is broader than spoken words. A recurring question is whether conduct without any speech, a gesture, a facial expression, or a refusal to render a customary courtesy, can support a charge under Article 89. The answer is yes. The offense expressly reaches acts and demeanor, so a nonverbal gesture, standing alone, can constitute disrespect when the surrounding circumstances make its disrespectful meaning clear.
What Article 89 Covers
Article 89 makes it an offense to behave with disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer. The prosecution must prove that the accused did or omitted certain acts, or used certain language, toward or about a certain commissioned officer; that the officer was the superior commissioned officer of the accused; that the accused then knew that the officer was the accused’s superior commissioned officer; and that, under the circumstances, the behavior or language was disrespectful to that officer.
The structure of these elements is the key to the question. The offense is framed in terms of acts or omissions as well as language. Disrespect is not confined to what a service member says. It includes how a service member behaves. That is why nonverbal conduct falls within the statute’s reach.
Disrespect by Acts and Demeanor
Disrespectful behavior is conduct that detracts from the respect due to the authority and the person of a superior commissioned officer. The Manual for Courts-Martial explains that disrespect may be shown by acts or by language, however expressed. Recognized examples of disrespect by acts include neglecting the customary salute and showing a marked disdain, indifference, insolence, impertinence, undue familiarity, or other rudeness toward the superior officer.
Demeanor matters too. A service member’s tone, gestures, or general bearing in the presence of a superior can be disrespectful even if no words are spoken. A contemptuous facial expression, a dismissive or insolent gesture, turning one’s back in a deliberately disdainful manner, or pointedly refusing to acknowledge a superior can all communicate disrespect. Because the offense focuses on conduct that detracts from the respect due the officer, the absence of words is not a defense when the conduct itself conveys the disrespect.
The Importance of Context
A nonverbal gesture alone can constitute the offense, but the surrounding circumstances are decisive. The elements require that, under the circumstances, the behavior was disrespectful. A gesture is rarely self-defining; the same physical motion can be innocent in one setting and contemptuous in another. The fact-finder must look at the entire situation, including what prompted the gesture, the relationship between the parties, the setting, and how the gesture would reasonably be understood.
This is where many Article 89 disputes are resolved. The prosecution must show that the gesture, in context, actually conveyed disrespect toward the officer. The defense may argue that the gesture was ambiguous, accidental, directed at something else, or not reasonably understood as disrespectful. A momentary expression of frustration, a reflexive movement, or a gesture with an innocent explanation may not rise to the level of disrespect the statute requires. The question is not whether the officer felt slighted but whether the conduct, objectively viewed in context, detracted from the respect due the officer.
Knowledge and the Superior Relationship
Two additional elements shape the analysis. First, the officer must in fact be the accused’s superior commissioned officer. Second, the accused must have known that the officer held that status at the time of the conduct. If the accused did not know the person was a superior commissioned officer, a central element is missing. The disrespect, whether by word or gesture, must be directed toward someone the accused knew to be a superior officer.
The Manual also notes that it is immaterial whether the disrespect refers to the superior in an official capacity or as a private individual. Disrespect shown to a superior commissioned officer can violate Article 89 even if the conduct concerns the officer personally rather than in the performance of duty, provided the other elements are met.
Related and Overlapping Offenses
It is worth distinguishing Article 89 from neighboring offenses. Article 89 specifically protects superior commissioned officers and reaches both disrespect and certain assaults against them. Disrespect toward warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and petty officers is addressed by a different article. The same nonverbal conduct could implicate other provisions depending on the target and the nature of the act, so the charge must match both the status of the person disrespected and the type of conduct involved. A gesture that is merely disrespectful is treated differently from one that becomes a threat or an assault.
Practical Takeaways
A nonverbal gesture alone can constitute disrespect under Article 89, because the offense expressly covers acts, omissions, and demeanor, not just spoken words. Neglecting a customary salute, showing marked disdain, or making an insolent gesture can all qualify. The decisive factors are context and meaning: the conduct must, under the circumstances, actually convey disrespect toward a person the accused knew to be a superior commissioned officer. Because gestures are often ambiguous, both the prosecution and the defense focus heavily on how the conduct would reasonably be understood in the moment. A service member accused under Article 89 for nonverbal conduct should work with counsel to develop the context, intent, and reasonable interpretation of the gesture, since those factors frequently determine the outcome.
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.