Sexual harassment in the armed forces has long had an uncomfortable fit within the punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. For many years there was no offense titled “sexual harassment,” so commands and prosecutors charged the conduct under articles that already existed. The most common vehicle was Article 93, cruelty and maltreatment, codified at 10 U.S.C. 893. Understanding how a sexual harassment accusation is treated under Article 93 requires looking at how the elements of maltreatment map onto harassing conduct, why that fit was imperfect, and how the law changed once sexual harassment became a standalone offense.
Why Article 93 was the traditional charging vehicle
Article 93 punishes anyone subject to the Code who is cruel toward, or who oppresses or maltreats, any person subject to that person’s orders. The offense has two elements: the victim must have been subject to the accused’s orders, and the accused must have been cruel, oppressive, or maltreating. Because much workplace sexual harassment in the military occurs between a superior and a subordinate, the authority relationship needed for Article 93 is frequently present, and unwelcome sexual conduct directed by a superior at a subordinate fit naturally within the maltreatment concept.
Sexual harassment was therefore usually charged under Article 93 as maltreatment of a subordinate, with the harassing conduct serving as the maltreatment. This allowed prosecutions to proceed even before any dedicated offense existed.
How the elements apply to harassment allegations
When a sexual harassment accusation is charged under Article 93, the government must still prove the standard maltreatment elements. First, it must establish the authority relationship, meaning the complainant was subject to the accused’s orders. This requirement limits the article: it reaches harassment by someone in a position of authority over the victim, not necessarily harassment between true peers who hold no authority over one another.
Second, the government must prove that the conduct constituted maltreatment under the objective standard. The Manual for Courts-Martial describes the relevant treatment as conduct that, viewed objectively under all the circumstances, is abusive or otherwise unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful purpose, and that causes or reasonably could have caused physical or mental harm or suffering. The maltreatment need not be physical, which is why verbal and other non-physical sexual harassment can qualify. The government need not prove that the victim actually suffered harm, only that the conduct reasonably could have caused it.
This objective framework shapes how harassment evidence is presented. The prosecution focuses on the nature of the conduct, its repetition or severity, the power imbalance, and the absence of any legitimate purpose. The defense focuses on context, on whether the conduct was actually abusive under an objective standard, and on whether the required authority relationship truly existed.
The imperfect fit and the move to a standalone offense
Charging sexual harassment as maltreatment always carried limitations. The authority-relationship element meant Article 93 did not cleanly reach peer-on-peer harassment. The maltreatment standard was framed around abuse of authority rather than around the specific dynamics of sexual harassment, which sometimes forced an awkward translation of harassment facts into maltreatment language.
To close these gaps, sexual harassment was made a separate, named offense. By executive action in 2022, implementing a mandate from the National Defense Authorization Act, sexual harassment was established as a standalone offense under Article 134. As a result, conduct that was once routed exclusively through Article 93 can now be charged under a dedicated offense that is tailored to harassment and that does not depend on the same authority-over-the-victim element. This matters both for charging decisions and for how an accusation is framed from the outset.
How an accusation is treated today
Because the standalone offense now exists, the treatment of a sexual harassment accusation depends heavily on charging strategy. Prosecutors may charge the dedicated Article 134 offense, may charge Article 93 maltreatment where the authority relationship and abuse elements are clearly satisfied, or may pursue other applicable articles depending on the facts, such as those addressing assault or indecent conduct when the behavior goes beyond words. When the accusation is charged specifically under Article 93, the case rises or falls on the maltreatment elements, and the authority relationship becomes a central, sometimes decisive, issue.
For an accused, this means the precise charge must be identified immediately, because the defenses differ. Under Article 93, contesting the authority relationship or the objective abusiveness of the conduct may be viable in ways that would not apply to the standalone offense. For complainants and commands, the existence of the dedicated offense provides a charging path that does not require shoehorning harassment into the maltreatment framework.
Procedure and command response
Regardless of the article charged, sexual harassment accusations move through the military’s reporting and investigative processes, which include command and equal-opportunity channels and, where appropriate, formal investigation. A substantiated allegation can lead to administrative action, nonjudicial punishment, or referral to court-martial, depending on severity and command judgment. When the matter reaches court-martial, the accused retains the full range of trial rights, and the government must prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bottom line
When sexual harassment is charged under Article 93, it is treated as maltreatment, requiring proof that the victim was subject to the accused’s orders and that the conduct, judged objectively, was abusive, unjustified, and reasonably capable of causing harm, with no requirement of physical contact or proof of actual injury. That route was the traditional one and remains available where its elements fit, but it was an imperfect match for harassment, which is why sexual harassment became a standalone Article 134 offense by executive action in 2022 under a National Defense Authorization Act mandate. The governing authorities are the text of Article 93 and its implementing provisions in the Manual for Courts-Martial, together with the more recent Article 134 sexual harassment offense.
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.