Yes. A violation of Article 93 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice can occur during field exercises, combat training, or any other operational setting. The article punishes cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to the orders of the accused, and nothing in it limits its reach to garrison, the schoolhouse, or peacetime routine. The superior-subordinate relationship that Article 93 protects persists in the field and on the training range. What changes in those environments is the context against which the conduct is measured, not the existence of the prohibition.
The article applies wherever the command relationship exists
Article 93 has two elements: that a person was subject to the orders of the accused, and that the accused was cruel toward, oppressed, or maltreated that person. The first element looks to authority, not location. A squad leader, platoon sergeant, instructor, or commander retains authority over subordinates during a field problem, a live-fire exercise, or a combat training rotation just as in any other setting. As long as the victim is subject to the accused’s orders, the jurisdictional foundation of Article 93 is satisfied regardless of where the conduct occurs.
The definition of the prohibited conduct also carries over. Cruelty, oppression, and maltreatment refer to treatment that, viewed objectively under all the circumstances, is abusive or otherwise unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful purpose and that results in, or reasonably could have caused, physical or mental harm or suffering. That objective, context-sensitive standard is exactly what allows Article 93 to function fairly in demanding environments, because it asks whether the treatment served a lawful purpose under the circumstances actually present.
Hard training is not maltreatment
The most important principle for field and combat training settings is that rigorous, stressful, and physically demanding training is not maltreatment. Military training is supposed to be hard. It exists to prepare service members for the genuine stress, fatigue, fear, and hardship of combat. Long marches, sleep deprivation within doctrine, physical exertion, simulated stress, loud and aggressive correction, and exposure to harsh field conditions can all be entirely lawful when they serve legitimate training objectives. Because Article 93 only reaches treatment that is unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful purpose, conduct that advances a real training goal generally falls outside the article even when it is unpleasant or strenuous.
This is why the objective standard matters so much in these environments. The question is not whether a trainee found the experience grueling or even traumatic, but whether a reasonable observer, considering the legitimate demands of the training, would regard the treatment as abusive and serving no lawful purpose. Tough realistic training that prepares troops for war is warranted. Gratuitous abuse dressed up as training is not.
Where lawful intensity becomes a violation
The line is crossed when the conduct loses its connection to a legitimate training, disciplinary, or operational purpose and becomes abuse. Several recurring patterns illustrate the point.
Conduct can violate Article 93 when it departs from approved methods or safety standards in a way that serves no training value, such as imposing dangerous physical punishment that doctrine forbids. It can also violate the article when it targets a subordinate for degradation rather than instruction, for example singling out a trainee for humiliation, demeaning insults, or hazing that has no developmental purpose. Exploiting the isolation and intensity of a field environment to mistreat a subordinate, knowing oversight is reduced, is the kind of unjustified conduct the article reaches.
The presence of stress, danger, or discomfort inherent in realistic training does not excuse conduct that crosses into abuse, but it does inform the analysis. A fact finder evaluates the conduct against the actual purposes and constraints of the exercise. Treatment that is necessary and proportionate to a genuine training objective is lawful. Treatment that exceeds any legitimate objective, ignores safety, or aims at degradation is not, and the operational setting provides no shield.
Combat and operational stress do not suspend the article
Article 93 is not suspended by the rigor of combat training or by deployment conditions. The code applies to service members across the range of military operations, and the protection against maltreatment of subordinates remains in force. At the same time, the lawful-purpose inquiry naturally accounts for the realities of the environment. Orders, hardships, and demands that would be unusual in garrison may be entirely warranted under operational or combat-preparation conditions. The article does not punish leaders for imposing the legitimate burdens that training and operations require; it punishes the abuse of authority that serves no such purpose.
How these cases are evaluated
Because everything turns on whether the conduct was warranted under the circumstances, cases arising from field or combat training are intensely fact driven. The government focuses on conduct that departed from legitimate training methods, exceeded safety or doctrinal limits, or aimed at humiliation, and on the physical or mental harm that resulted or could have resulted. The defense focuses on the legitimate training purpose, the operational context, adherence to approved methods, and the difference between hard training and abuse. Witness accounts of what happened, what the training was designed to accomplish, and whether the conduct served that design are typically decisive.
Bottom line
A violation of Article 93 can absolutely occur during field exercises or combat training environments, because the superior-subordinate relationship and the prohibition on maltreatment travel with the unit wherever it goes. The demanding nature of realistic training does not create an exception. It is incorporated into the objective, lawful-purpose standard that defines the offense. Rigorous, even harsh, training that serves a genuine purpose is lawful, while conduct that abandons any legitimate objective and becomes degradation or unjustified harm can be maltreatment no matter how austere the setting. Leaders and subordinates alike who confront these questions should seek qualified military counsel, because distinguishing tough training from a crime depends entirely on the specific facts and the legitimate purposes of the conduct.
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.