Article 138 of the UCMJ gives service members a formal way to push back when they believe a commanding officer has wronged them. The communication itself, a complaint of wrongs, is protected: a member cannot lawfully be punished or retaliated against for submitting one. When that protection is violated, whether by a command refusing to forward a complaint, suppressing it, or retaliating against the member who filed it, the remedy is administrative rather than criminal. Understanding how those violations are addressed requires understanding how the Article 138 process is built.
What Article 138 provides
Article 138, titled Complaints of Wrongs, allows any member who believes wronged by a commanding officer, and who has been refused redress after asking the commander to fix the wrong, to complain to a superior officer. That superior, who is the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the offending commander, must examine the complaint, take proper measures to redress the wrong, and forward a true statement of the complaint and the proceedings to the Secretary of the military department concerned.
The protected communication, then, is the complaint itself and the underlying initial request for redress. Service regulations implementing Article 138 prohibit restricting a member from submitting a complaint and prohibit retaliating against a member who does so. A violation occurs when a command interferes with that protected channel.
The two-step structure that frames the protection
The process generally moves in two stages. First, the member submits a written initial request for redress to the commanding officer believed to have committed the wrong, identifying the wrong and the relief sought. Service rules set response deadlines; in the Army, for example, a regular Army commander must respond within a set number of days. Second, if redress is denied or the request is ignored, the member submits a formal Article 138 complaint, ordinarily within ninety days of the wrong, routed to the general court-martial convening authority with jurisdiction over the respondent commander.
Because the statute and regulations require the complaint to be forwarded and examined, a command that blocks, loses, or quietly buries the complaint has interfered with a protected communication. The administrative system is designed to catch and correct exactly that interference.
How a violation gets corrected
Violations of the protected channel are addressed through the same administrative chain that handles the complaint, not through a separate lawsuit. Several mechanisms apply.
The forwarding obligation itself is the first safeguard. When a complaint is properly submitted, the receiving authority must investigate it and forward the record upward, including ultimately to the Secretary concerned. A command cannot simply decline to act. If a lower command tries to suppress the complaint, the member can submit it directly up the chain to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, who has an independent duty to examine it.
The review on the merits is the second safeguard. The general court-martial convening authority examines whether the underlying wrong occurred and whether the member was denied proper redress. If the review finds that the member was wronged, including being wronged by retaliation or by the obstruction of the complaint, the authority directs appropriate corrective action and documents it in the record sent to the Secretary.
The anti-retaliation and anti-restriction rules are the third safeguard. Implementing regulations forbid a commander from restricting submission of an Article 138 complaint or punishing a member for filing one. Retaliation, such as an adverse evaluation, an unfavorable reassignment, or disciplinary action tied to the complaint, is itself a wrong that can become the subject of a further Article 138 complaint or other administrative grievance, and it can expose the offending official to adverse administrative consequences.
Related avenues when the wrong involves reprisal
Article 138 is one tool, but interference with a protected communication often overlaps with separate protections. Where the complaint touches on reporting that the law independently shields, the member may also have recourse to the Inspector General system and to the statutory protections against reprisal for protected disclosures. These avenues run in parallel with Article 138 and can reinforce one another. A member who experiences reprisal for using the Article 138 channel may pursue both the Article 138 process and an Inspector General complaint, and the two records can corroborate each other.
What relief looks like
Because the system is administrative, the relief is corrective rather than punitive toward the member. It can include setting aside or correcting an improper action by the commander, directing that the wrong be remedied, documenting the finding in the official record, and, where warranted, referring the offending official for separate accountability. The member is not awarded money damages through Article 138, but the wrong can be formally recognized and undone, and the official record reflects the outcome.
Practical steps for a service member
A member who believes a protected Article 138 communication has been obstructed or punished should keep meticulous records: copies of the initial request for redress with dates, any response or the absence of one, the complaint itself, and any adverse action that followed. Strict timelines apply, so prompt action matters. Because the rules differ by service and the stakes are high, a member should consult a qualified military attorney to ensure the complaint is correctly routed, the deadlines are met, and any retaliation is properly raised through every available administrative channel.
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.