Military law uses the words disrespect and contempt frequently, sometimes almost interchangeably in ordinary speech, but they carry distinct legal meanings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Both describe ways a service member can cross the line in addressing or treating others, yet they appear in different articles, target different relationships, and carry different consequences. Understanding the distinction matters because the article a charge falls under shapes the elements the government must prove and the defenses available. The clearest way to see the difference is to look at where each term lives in the punitive articles and what each is meant to capture.
Disrespect: A Manner Directed at a Superior
Disrespect, as a legal concept, most prominently appears in Article 89, which punishes disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and in the disrespect branch of Article 91, which addresses disrespectful language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer. Disrespect describes the manner in which a subordinate behaves toward a recognized superior. It is not about the content of a disagreement but about communicating a lack of the deference the relationship requires.
The recognized forms of disrespect include abusive epithets and other contemptuous or denunciatory language, and conduct that demonstrates marked disdain, such as rude, insolent, or impertinent behavior, indifference, or the neglect of customary courtesies like a salute. Whether particular words or conduct are disrespectful is judged under all the circumstances, taking account of tone, context, and the relationship between the parties. Critically, disrespect offenses depend on a hierarchical relationship. They protect superiors from being treated without the respect their rank or position commands. A service member may disagree with a superior, decline to agree, or state an unwelcome fact without committing disrespect, so long as the manner remains respectful. The offense lies in the disrespectful manner, not in the substance of the position taken.
Contempt: Scorn Aimed at Officials or Within the Insubordination Articles
Contempt as a defined offense is most distinctly found in Article 88, which prohibits a commissioned officer from using contemptuous words against certain high officials, such as the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, and other named officials and bodies. The word contempt is also embedded in Article 91, which punishes treating a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer with contempt.
Contemptuous words are words that are insulting, rude, disdainful, or otherwise express scorn, attributing to another a quality of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness. The defining feature of contempt is the expression of scorn or disdain for the person. This is what separates contempt from mere criticism. Adverse comment on an official’s policies or decisions, even if emphatic and pointed, is not contempt if it is expressed respectfully and addresses the policy rather than personally degrading the official. Criticism crosses into contempt when it resorts to ridicule, insulting epithets, or language that personally impugns the official in a disdainful way. In a political discussion, reasoned and respectful disagreement is protected; personal scorn is not.
The Practical Distinctions
Several practical differences flow from these definitions.
First, the relationship and the target differ. Disrespect under Articles 89 and 91 is directed at one’s own superiors in the chain. Contempt under Article 88 is directed at high government officials and is a uniquely officer offense; only commissioned officers can be charged under Article 88, while enlisted members, warrant officers, and uncommissioned cadets or midshipmen are not subject to it. Contempt under Article 91 is directed at warrant officers, NCOs, and petty officers.
Second, the gravamen differs in emphasis. Disrespect focuses on the failure to show due deference in manner toward a superior. Contempt focuses on the affirmative expression of scorn or disdain. There is overlap, since contemptuous language is one of the listed forms of disrespect, but contempt sits at the more aggravated end of the spectrum, involving personal degradation rather than mere rudeness or impertinence.
Third, the context requirements can differ. The disrespect and contempt branch of Article 91 requires that the warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer be in the execution of office, while the disrespect branch of Article 89 protects a superior commissioned officer based on the superior relationship without that execution of office requirement. Article 88 contempt, by contrast, concerns the use of contemptuous words against named officials and does not depend on a superior subordinate relationship at all.
Shared Defenses and Limits
Both disrespect and contempt offenses leave room for lawful, even forceful, expression. Honest disagreement, respectful criticism, and truthful statements are not punishable simply because a superior or official dislikes them. The line in every case is the manner: scornful, insolent, or personally degrading delivery versus respectful, policy focused communication. For the insubordination articles, the divestiture doctrine also matters. A superior whose own conduct toward the accused departs substantially from the standards appropriate to that rank or position can lose the protection of the disrespect and contempt provisions, which can be a complete defense.
Conclusion
In military law, disrespect and contempt are related but separate concepts. Disrespect, under Articles 89 and 91, is the failure to show the deference a superior is owed, judged by the manner of one’s words or conduct under all the circumstances. Contempt, most distinctly under Article 88 and also within Article 91, is the affirmative expression of scorn or disdain, whether toward high officials or toward warrant officers, NCOs, and petty officers. Contempt is the more aggravated cousin of disrespect, marked by personal degradation rather than mere rudeness, and Article 88 contempt applies only to commissioned officers. Because the precise charge dictates the elements and the available defenses, a service member accused under any of these articles should consult experienced military defense counsel to ensure the conduct is correctly characterized and every defense, including respectful disagreement and divestiture, is fully developed.
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.