Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, codified at 10 U.S.C. 889, addresses disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer. Many service members picture this offense as something spoken aloud in a confrontation. A common question is whether the same offense can occur in writing, including in official correspondence such as memoranda, formal letters, or other documents that pass through official channels. The answer is that disrespect under Article 89 is not limited to spoken words and can indeed occur through written communication.
What Article 89 Prohibits
Article 89 makes it an offense for a person subject to the code to behave with disrespect toward that person’s superior commissioned officer. The offense has two essential components. First, the conduct must be disrespectful behavior directed toward the officer. Second, the accused must have known that the officer was the accused’s superior commissioned officer. Disrespect in this context means conduct or language that detracts from the respect due to the authority and person of a superior officer.
Importantly, the article describes disrespectful behavior broadly. It is not confined to a particular medium. The behavior can be expressed through words, conduct, or a combination, and nothing in the offense restricts it to oral statements made face to face.
Written Words Can Be Disrespectful Behavior
The recognized understanding of Article 89 confirms that disrespect can take written form. Letters, electronic messages, and similar communications that contain offensive language or content that detracts from the respect owed to the chain of command can support a charge under Article 89, depending on the rank of the person disrespected. A document is simply another vehicle for the same behavior the article prohibits. A memorandum laced with contemptuous language toward a superior officer can be just as disrespectful as a spoken insult.
This means official written correspondence is not a safe harbor. If anything, the formal nature of official channels can sharpen the concern, because the communication is documented, may be read by others, and is connected to the performance of military duties. A service member who believes the formality of a written submission insulates disrespectful content from scrutiny is mistaken.
The Presence Requirement and Why It Matters
A frequent misconception is that disrespect must occur in the physical presence of the officer. Under the recognized explanation of Article 89, it is not essential that the disrespectful behavior be in the presence of the superior. Disrespect directed at the officer can violate the article even when the officer is not physically there at the moment the conduct occurs. Written correspondence, by its nature, is often composed outside the officer’s presence, yet that fact does not place it beyond the reach of the article.
The presence question does carry consequences for punishment. The recognized framework distinguishes between disrespect committed in the presence of the officer and disrespect committed outside the officer’s presence, with the in-presence variant carrying a higher maximum punishment. Because written correspondence is typically not in the officer’s presence, a charge based on a written communication would ordinarily fall within the lower punishment range, though it remains a chargeable offense.
The Limit on Purely Private Communications
There is a meaningful limit. Ordinarily a service member should not be held accountable under Article 89 for what was said or done in a purely private conversation. Private comments that are not shared with others are less likely to support a charge. Official written correspondence, however, sits at the opposite end of this spectrum. A document submitted through official channels, addressed to or about a superior officer, and intended to be read in an official capacity is the antithesis of a purely private communication. This is precisely the kind of writing that can fall within the article rather than outside it.
The Knowledge Element Still Applies
As with any Article 89 charge, the government must prove that the accused knew the person toward whom the disrespectful content was directed was the accused’s superior commissioned officer. In the context of official correspondence, this element is often readily established, because the writer typically knows the rank and position of the officer being addressed. Still, it remains an element the government must prove, and knowledge may be shown through circumstantial evidence such as the form and addressing of the document itself.
Practical Takeaways
Article 89 can be violated through official written correspondence. The medium does not shield the content. A memorandum, letter, or formal message that detracts from the respect owed to a superior commissioned officer can support a charge, and the fact that it was written rather than spoken, or composed outside the officer’s presence, does not remove it from the article’s reach. The primary effect of those circumstances is on the maximum punishment, not on whether the offense can be charged.
Service members who feel compelled to express disagreement or grievance with a superior in writing should remember that the manner of expression matters. There are legitimate, respectful avenues for raising concerns, including formal complaint procedures. Choosing language that crosses into contempt or insult, even in an official document, can convert a permissible communication into a punitive offense under Article 89.
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.