When an enlisted member or warrant officer is tried for disrespect toward a noncommissioned officer, warrant officer, or petty officer under Article 91 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the members who serve as the factfinders do not bring their own private definition of disrespect to the case. The military judge tells them what the law requires, walks them through each element the government must prove, and defines the key terms. Those instructions frame the entire deliberation, because the members may convict only if the government has proven every element beyond a reasonable doubt as the judge has defined it.
The disrespect branch of Article 91
Article 91 reaches several kinds of insubordinate conduct, including striking or assaulting, willfully disobeying, and treating with contempt or being disrespectful toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer. The disrespect branch is the one at issue here. Only enlisted members and warrant officers can commit this offense, and the person disrespected must be a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.
The elements the judge lays out
The military judge instructs the members on the specific elements the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt for the disrespect branch. Those elements are that the accused did or said certain things toward and within the sight or hearing of a person who was a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; that the accused then knew the person was a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; that the victim was at the time in the execution of office; and that under the circumstances the accused’s behavior or language treated that person with contempt or was disrespectful.
By breaking the offense into these discrete elements, the instruction makes clear that disrespect alone is not enough. The members must also find the status of the victim, the accused’s knowledge of that status, and that the victim was acting in the execution of office, before the disrespect element even comes into play.
How the judge defines disrespect and contempt
The heart of the instruction is the definition of the operative terms. The judge explains that disrespectful behavior is that which detracts from the respect due to the authority and person of a superior. The judge further explains that such behavior may be shown through acts or through language, however expressed, and that it is immaterial whether the conduct refers to the person in an official capacity or as a private individual. For the contempt theory, the judge explains that to treat with contempt means to act in an insulting, rude, or disdainful manner, or otherwise to attribute to the person qualities of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness.
These definitions do two things. They tell the members that disrespect is about diminishing the respect owed to the superior, and they make clear that words, gestures, tone, and conduct can all qualify. The members are not left to guess at the meaning; the judge supplies the legal content of the term.
Disrespect is judged in context
A central feature of the instruction is that disrespect is evaluated under the circumstances rather than by mechanically labeling particular words. The judge directs the members to consider the full context, including what was said or done, the tone and manner, the setting, and the relationship between the parties. The same words can be disrespectful in one setting and innocuous in another, and the instruction tells the members to make that contextual judgment.
This contextual framing means the question for the members is whether, considering everything, the accused’s behavior or language treated the superior with contempt or detracted from the respect due to that superior. The members apply the judge’s definition to the facts they find. The judge gives them the legal standard, and they decide whether the proven conduct meets it.
Knowledge and execution of office
The instruction also isolates two elements that often decide close cases. The members must find that the accused knew the person was a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer at the time. And they must find that the superior was then in the execution of office, meaning engaged in the performance of duties of that office. The judge defines execution of office for the members and explains that the protected status attaches to the superior acting within the scope of that office. If the government fails to prove either knowledge or execution of office, the members are instructed that the offense is not made out, regardless of how disrespectful the conduct may have been.
Reasonable doubt and the members’ role
Throughout, the judge ties the definitions back to the burden of proof. The members are instructed that the government must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt and that if they have a reasonable doubt as to any element, including whether the conduct actually amounted to disrespect or contempt under the circumstances, they must find the accused not guilty of that offense. The judge also instructs on any related matters the evidence raises, such as defenses or lesser included offenses, and reminds the members that the instructions, not their personal opinions about etiquette, supply the governing law.
Bottom line
In an Article 91 disrespect trial, the military judge instructs the members by laying out each element the government must prove, by defining disrespect as conduct that detracts from the respect due the superior’s authority and person, and by defining contempt as insulting, rude, or disdainful treatment. The judge tells the members that disrespect may be shown through acts or words, that it is judged under all the circumstances, and that the related elements of the victim’s status, the accused’s knowledge, and execution of office must also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The members then apply that legal standard to the facts they find.
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.