Military Lawyers

A service member who leaves or stays away because of a crisis at home, a gravely ill child, a death in the family, a domestic situation that demands immediate attention, often assumes that the reason for the absence will excuse it. Under Article 86 of the UCMJ, absence without leave, the relationship between a family emergency and culpability is more nuanced. A genuine emergency rarely erases the offense entirely, but it can reduce culpability in meaningful ways: by negating an element of an aggravated absence offense, by supporting a recognized defense in narrow circumstances, and by serving as powerful mitigation at sentencing. Understanding which of these applies requires separating the elements of the offense from the matters that reduce punishment.

What Article 86 requires

Article 86, codified at 10 U.S.C. section 886, covers several distinct forms of unauthorized absence: failing to go to an appointed place of duty, leaving that place without authority, and absenting oneself from one’s unit, organization, or place of duty without authority. To convict, the government must prove that the absence occurred, that it was without authority, and, depending on the form charged, that the accused knew of the appointed time and place of duty.

The crucial point is that AWOL under Article 86 is a general-intent offense. The prosecution does not have to prove that the accused intended to stay away permanently or intended any harm. It is enough that the absence was voluntary and unauthorized. Because the offense does not require a culpable purpose, the mere fact that the absence was prompted by a sympathetic reason does not, by itself, negate any element. A service member who leaves to handle a family crisis has still committed the basic act the statute punishes if the absence was unauthorized.

When a family emergency can negate an element

There are limited circumstances in which the emergency does more than mitigate. The defense of inability is recognized where the accused was physically unable to be present through no fault of his own, for example because of illness or a genuine impossibility of return. A pure inability defense is narrow and is more often available to explain why an absence continued than to justify its start.

A family emergency more commonly bears on aggravated absence offenses. If the government has charged absence with intent to avoid a particular duty, such as avoiding maneuvers, field exercises, or a unit movement, …

Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice punishes disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer. These cases frequently come down to who said what, in what tone, and in what context, and they often pit the word of the accused against the word of the officer who felt disrespected. When the accused and that officer have a history of friction, a natural question arises: can a prior strained relationship between them affect the credibility of the charge? The answer is yes. A documented history of personal animosity is a legitimate and often powerful avenue for testing whether the disrespect occurred as alleged and whether the accuser’s account can be trusted.

What Article 89 Requires

To convict under Article 89, the government must prove that the person disrespected was a commissioned officer superior to the accused, that the accused knew the person was a superior commissioned officer, that the accused’s behavior or language was in fact disrespectful, and that the disrespect was directed toward that officer in the officer’s capacity as such. Disrespect is conduct or language that detracts from the respect due the authority and person of a superior officer, ranging from insulting words to contemptuous gestures or a marked disdain.

Several of these elements are inherently subjective and depend heavily on testimony. Whether a remark was disrespectful, what tone accompanied it, whether it was aimed at the officer in his official capacity, and even precisely what was said are often matters on which the only witnesses are the accused, the officer, and perhaps a few bystanders. That subjectivity is exactly why credibility is so central, and why a strained prior relationship can matter.

Bias and Motive to Fabricate

The most direct way a prior strained relationship bears on the case is through bias. A witness’s bias, hostility, or motive to fabricate is always relevant to credibility, and the defense is entitled to explore it. If the complaining officer harbored resentment toward the accused, had clashed with the accused before, or stood to gain from seeing the accused disciplined, the defense can argue that the officer’s account is colored by that animosity.

This can take several forms. The officer may have exaggerated an ambiguous comment into a disrespectful one. The officer may have perceived ordinary frustration as contempt because of preexisting dislike. In the worst case, the officer may have fabricated or embellished the incident to retaliate. A history …

Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and following the 2019 changes to the Code it also reaches assault of a superior commissioned officer. The disrespect offense, in particular, often comes down to words and conduct that no recording captured and no document preserved. When the case is contested, the panel or judge must decide what was actually said or done, in what tone, and toward whom. Because so much of an Article 89 disrespect case rests on competing accounts, witness credibility is frequently the decisive issue. This article explains why, and how credibility is tested at trial.

What the government must prove

To convict for disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, the prosecution must establish several elements. The person toward whom the conduct was directed was the accused’s superior commissioned officer. The accused knew that person held that status. The accused behaved with disrespect toward that officer. And, depending on the theory, the conduct occurred in circumstances that subjected it to the Code.

Disrespect is behavior that detracts from the respect due the authority and person of a superior commissioned officer. It can take the form of abusive or contemptuous language, insolent or contemptuous acts, or a manner and bearing that conveys disdain. Critically, disrespect is highly contextual. The same words can be innocuous in one setting and contemptuous in another, and tone, gesture, and circumstance often carry as much meaning as the literal words.

Why credibility dominates a contested disrespect case

Because disrespect turns on the precise words, the tone, and the surrounding circumstances, the evidence is usually testimonial. There is rarely a video or a document that settles what happened. Instead, the officer who felt disrespected testifies to one version, the accused or defense witnesses may testify to another, and bystanders may offer accounts that diverge in important details. The fact-finder cannot decide whether disrespect occurred without first deciding whom to believe.

Several elements of the offense depend directly on credibility. Whether the accused actually used the alleged words or made the alleged gestures is a pure question of which witness to credit. Whether the conduct was disrespectful rather than merely blunt, frustrated, or misheard depends on the tone and manner that only witnesses can describe. And whether the accused knew the person was a superior commissioned officer can hinge on testimony about what the accused saw and …

After a court-martial returns a finding of guilty, the proceeding shifts to sentencing. At this stage the government may present evidence in aggravation, and the defense may present evidence in extenuation and mitigation. A recurring source of confusion is the burden of proof that applies to aggravating evidence. Service members often assume that the same demanding standard used to convict, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, also governs the facts the sentencer relies on to punish. That assumption is incorrect, and the difference has real consequences for how sentencing hearings unfold.

Two different standards in one trial

A court-martial uses two distinct standards of proof. At the findings phase, the government must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard that decides guilt or innocence. At the sentencing phase, the picture changes. The contested factual matters that bear on punishment are generally resolved under the lower preponderance of the evidence standard, meaning a fact is established when it is more likely than not to be true. The beyond a reasonable doubt standard does not carry over to the resolution of disputed sentencing facts.

This split mirrors the structure of sentencing in many criminal systems. Guilt must be proven to the highest degree of certainty, but once guilt is established, the facts that shape the appropriate punishment are decided under a more permissive standard.

What evidence in aggravation is

The governing rule for sentencing in courts-martial is Rule for Courts-Martial 1001. Under RCM 1001, trial counsel may present evidence in aggravation. This includes evidence of circumstances directly relating to or resulting from the offenses of which the accused has been found guilty. Aggravation evidence can address the financial, social, psychological, and medical impact on victims, as well as significant adverse effects on the mission, discipline, or efficiency of the command. The unifying requirement is a direct connection between the offense and the aggravating circumstance.

Aggravation evidence is not a free-for-all. It is subject to the Military Rules of Evidence. A witness presenting aggravation evidence testifies under oath and is subject to cross-examination, and the military judge must screen the evidence for unfair prejudice under Military Rule of Evidence 403, excluding it when its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. This distinguishes formal aggravation evidence from, for example, a crime victim’s unsworn statement, which operates under different rules.

How the preponderance standard

…

A Board of Inquiry (BOI) is the formal administrative proceeding that determines whether a commissioned officer should be retained or separated when the officer’s continued service is in question. Officers preparing for a BOI often ask whether the board members themselves can question witnesses, and whether they do so during the closed portion of the proceeding. The answer requires separating two different phases of a BOI, because the board’s questioning of witnesses and its closed deliberations are not the same thing.

What a Board of Inquiry is

A BOI is a formal administrative board, not a court-martial. It is convened under the governing service regulations, which in the Army draw on the procedures in Army Regulation 15-6 for boards of officers, to establish and record the facts concerning an officer’s alleged misconduct, substandard performance, or conduct incompatible with service. A typical board consists of several senior officers, all senior in rank to the respondent, with the most senior serving as board president. The board hears evidence and then recommends retention or separation, and if separation, a characterization of service.

Open hearing versus closed deliberations

The premise that questioning happens “during closed hearings” reflects a common misunderstanding, so it is worth being precise about the structure. A BOI has an evidentiary phase and a deliberative phase, and they have opposite access rules.

The evidentiary phase, where witnesses appear and testify, is generally an open session. The respondent, the respondent’s counsel, and the recorder (the officer who presents the case against the respondent) are all present, and the proceedings are typically open. This is where testimony is taken and witnesses are questioned.

The deliberative phase is the closed portion. After the evidence is in and arguments are made, the board president announces that the board will close to deliberate, and everyone except the voting members is excused, the respondent, counsel, the recorder, and any other observers. During this closed session the members discuss the evidence, vote, and reach their findings and recommendation. No witnesses are present during deliberations, so there is nothing for the members to ask a witness during the closed session. Witness questioning, by anyone, happens in the open evidentiary phase, not in closed deliberations.

Board members may question witnesses directly

Within that open evidentiary phase, board members are indeed allowed to question witnesses directly. After the recorder and the respondent’s counsel have examined a witness, the board members ordinarily …

Article 96 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), codified at 10 U.S.C. section 896, is the article addressing release of a prisoner without proper authority, and the related conduct of allowing a prisoner to escape through design or neglect and unlawfully drinking with a prisoner. These offenses arise in the custodial setting, where a service member responsible for a prisoner is pulled between competing instructions, shifting confinement procedures, and ambiguous directives from different authorities. When a member charged under Article 96 acted in a good faith attempt to comply with conflicting orders, that effort can matter in two ways: it may bear on guilt by negating a required mental state, and even where it does not defeat the charge, it can serve as meaningful mitigation. The answer is yes, good faith efforts to follow conflicting orders can serve as mitigation, and in the right facts they can do more.

What Article 96 actually punishes

To see how good faith fits, start with what the offense requires. Article 96 reaches a person subject to the Code who, without proper authority, releases a prisoner committed to that person’s charge, or who through neglect or design suffers a prisoner to escape. The statute applies whether or not the prisoner was committed in strict compliance with law, so the lawfulness of the original confinement is not a defense to the release. The two principal theories carry different mental states. Releasing a prisoner without proper authority focuses on whether the release lacked authorization. Suffering an escape can be committed either by design, meaning intentionally, or by neglect, meaning a culpable failure to take reasonable measures to prevent it.

The mental state is where conflicting orders first become relevant. If a custodian released or transferred a prisoner because the custodian genuinely and reasonably believed an order authorized the action, that belief speaks directly to whether the release was truly without proper authority or whether any escape resulted from culpable neglect rather than a reasonable response to the instructions received.

Good faith and the element of authority

A central question in a release case is whether the member acted without proper authority. When a custodian receives conflicting directions, for example one authority directing that a prisoner be moved or released and another indicating the prisoner should be held, a member who reasonably follows one of those directions may be able to argue that the release …

When a service member is suspected of an offense and questioned, Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) protects against compelled self-incrimination. But those protections are not self-executing once questioning is underway. To stop an interrogation and secure counsel, a suspect generally has to say so clearly. Courts have been explicit that a hesitant or hedged statement may not count. This article explains what Article 31 protects and what kind of language reliably invokes it.

What Article 31 protects

Article 31 gives a service member the right to remain silent and requires that, before questioning, a suspect be informed of the nature of the accusation, advised of the right not to make any statement regarding the offense, and warned that any statement may be used against them at trial. Article 31(b) warnings are required when a person subject to the UCMJ, acting in an official law enforcement or disciplinary capacity, questions a suspect. This reaches investigators from organizations such as CID, NCIS, or OSI, and can reach supervisors and command representatives questioning a suspect in that capacity. Unlike civilian Miranda warnings, Article 31(b) can apply even when the suspect is not in custody.

Article 31(b) itself secures the right to remain silent. The right to have a lawyer present during a custodial interrogation comes from the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and is enforced through Military Rule of Evidence 305. In practice, a suspect being questioned will want to invoke both the right to silence and, where applicable, the right to counsel.

Why the phrasing has to be clear

The reason careful wording matters is that the Supreme Court has held an invocation of the right to counsel must be unambiguous. In Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), a case that arose from a Naval Investigative Service interrogation, the suspect said, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” The Court held that this was too ambiguous to count as a request for counsel, and that investigators were not required to stop questioning or to ask clarifying questions. The lesson is that tentative phrasing such as “maybe,” “I think,” or “I might” can leave a suspect unprotected, because it does not clearly assert the right.

Language that invokes the rights clearly

To invoke the rights effectively, a suspect should state both the decision to remain silent and the request for counsel in plain, definite terms, without qualifiers. …

A court-martial panel must be impartial, and the rules allow either side to challenge a member for cause when something about that member casts doubt on the fairness of the proceeding. A common question concerns relationships: if a prospective panel member knows the accused socially, must that member be removed? The answer is that a social connection can be grounds for disqualification, but it is not automatically disqualifying. Whether removal is required depends on the nature of the relationship and on the doctrines of actual bias, implied bias, and the liberal grant mandate. This article explains how military law treats social connections to the accused.

The governing standard

Challenges for cause at a court-martial are governed by Rule for Courts-Martial 912. Among its grounds, the rule directs that a member should not sit when doing so would leave the court-martial with substantial doubt as to its legality, fairness, and impartiality. This catch-all ground is understood to encompass two distinct kinds of disqualifying bias: actual bias and implied bias. A social connection to the accused is analyzed through both lenses.

It is important to be precise about terminology. Many people speak of “mandatory” or automatic disqualification, but military law rarely treats a relationship as disqualifying per se. Instead, the question is whether the particular relationship produces actual bias or implied bias on the facts. If it does, the member must be excused. If it does not, the connection alone does not require removal.

Actual bias from a social connection

Actual bias is bias in fact. It exists when the evidence shows that the member will not act impartially, that the member holds a personal bias that will not yield to the military judge’s instructions and to the evidence presented at trial. A social connection to the accused can create actual bias when, for example, the member expresses an inability to be fair, reveals a deep personal loyalty or animosity, or otherwise demonstrates that the relationship will color the verdict regardless of the proof.

Actual bias is evaluated subjectively, based on the individual member’s state of mind as revealed during questioning. A close friend of the accused who candidly states that he could never vote to convict someone he cares about so much has shown actual bias and must be removed. So has a member whose relationship with the accused has soured into hostility that would prevent a fair hearing.

Implied bias

…

When a service member reports misconduct and then finds themselves placed under restraint by the very people they reported, the situation raises both whistleblower protection law and the military justice system. Article 97 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) punishes unlawful detention, and it can, in principle, reach a confinement imposed as retaliation. But whether Article 97 is the right tool, or whether other provisions fit better, depends on the facts. This article explains how Article 97 interacts with whistleblower reprisal.

What Article 97 covers

Article 97 (codified at 10 U.S.C. 897) makes it an offense for any person subject to the code to apprehend, arrest, or confine another person, except as provided by law. The two elements are that the accused apprehended, arrested, or confined a person, and that the accused did so without proper authority, meaning without a valid legal basis. Confinement here means physical restraint, such as holding someone under guard or in a cell. The offense focuses on whether the restraint itself was lawful, not on the accused’s broader purpose.

Why a retaliatory confinement can be unlawful

A confinement is lawful only when it rests on proper authority. Pretrial confinement, for example, is governed by the Rules for Courts-Martial, which require a reasonable belief that an offense was committed by the person and that confinement is warranted, along with specified procedures and review. A confinement imposed not because of any genuine belief in those grounds, but to punish or silence a service member for making a protected disclosure, lacks a valid legal basis. In that situation the detention can be without proper authority, which is exactly what Article 97 prohibits. Retaliatory motive is relevant because it tends to show that the asserted lawful grounds were a pretext and that the accused did not actually have a reasonable belief in the legality of the restraint.

Where retaliatory motive fits in the proof

Article 97 does not contain a separate “retaliation” element. The government proves the offense by showing the restraint occurred and that it was without proper authority. The retaliatory purpose is not itself the crime under Article 97; it is evidence. If the only reason for the confinement was to punish a whistleblower, then the procedural and substantive prerequisites for lawful confinement were almost certainly not met, and the absence of a reasonable belief in proper grounds is what makes the detention unlawful. So …

Article 89 of the UCMJ, codified at 10 U.S.C. section 889, addresses disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and following the 2019 restructuring of the punitive articles it also covers assault of a superior commissioned officer. A conviction for the disrespect variant rests on proof that the accused behaved with disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, knowing the officer’s status. Service members holding clearances often ask what such a conviction does to their access to classified information. The honest answer is that an Article 89 conviction does not automatically revoke a clearance, but it feeds directly into the adjudicative process and can be a significant negative factor, especially the assault variant or a pattern of disrespect.

Clearance adjudication is separate from the conviction

The first thing to understand is that a court-martial and a security clearance determination are two different systems. The conviction is a criminal result. A clearance decision is an administrative judgment about whether allowing a person access to classified information is consistent with the national interest. The clearance question is governed by the national adjudicative guidelines, which an adjudicator applies under a whole-person standard. A conviction is evidence the adjudicator considers, not a switch that flips the clearance off.

That separation cuts both ways. It means an Article 89 conviction will not by itself end a clearance in every case, but it also means the conviction can be reviewed and weighed even though the criminal matter is closed and punishment has been served.

Which guidelines an Article 89 conviction implicates

Two adjudicative guidelines are most directly engaged. The first is Guideline J, criminal conduct. A court-martial conviction is criminal conduct by definition, and the guidelines treat evidence of criminal conduct as a concern regardless of whether the person was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted. A conviction therefore squarely raises a Guideline J concern.

The second is Guideline E, personal conduct. This guideline reaches conduct involving questionable judgment, unreliability, or an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer maps closely onto this concern, because the essence of the offense is a refusal to conform to the discipline and hierarchy the military depends on. An adjudicator can reasonably read an Article 89 conviction as a marker of difficulty following authority and rules, which is exactly what Guideline E targets.

Severity matters: disrespect versus assault

Because Article 89 now spans both disrespect and assault …