Tag: Articles of the UCMJ

---

What is UCMJ Article 100?
UCMJ Article 100 addresses the offense of compelling surrender. This article criminalizes actions where a service member, through coercion, threats, or intimidation, forces the surrender of an individual, a group, or a unit in a way that is unlawful, dishonorable, or in violation of military law or combat protocols.

What actions are considered “compelling surrender” under Article 100?
Compelling surrender involves using threats, force, or coercion to force a person, group, or unit to surrender, especially when such actions are in violation of military law or result in the loss of combat effectiveness or mission integrity. It can include instances where surrender is achieved in a cowardly or dishonorable manner.

Who can be charged under Article 100?
Any service member who engages in conduct that forces another to surrender unlawfully can be charged under Article 100. This can include both the individual forcing the surrender and any service member who aids or abets the act of compelling surrender.

What constitutes a “lawful surrender” under Article 100?
A lawful surrender occurs when a person, unit, or group voluntarily yields to the enemy or another authority under circumstances permitted by military law and combat rules. Surrender is not coerced, and it follows the proper chain of command and rules of engagement.

What actions can lead to a charge of compelling surrender?
Actions that can lead to charges under Article 100 include threatening, using physical force, or manipulating the situation to coerce someone into surrendering when it is not authorized by military law or combat rules. This can also involve actions that demoralize or intimidate subordinates into surrendering out of fear or cowardice.

Can a service member be charged with compelling surrender if they force a fellow service member to surrender during combat?
Yes, forcing a fellow service member to surrender during combat, especially through coercion or threats, can result in charges under Article 100, as it undermines the integrity of the military and disrupts the proper conduct of combat.

What is the punishment for compelling surrender under Article 100?
Punishments for compelling surrender under Article 100 can include a dishonorable discharge, confinement for up to 5 years, forfeiture of pay, and reduction in rank. The severity of the punishment depends on the circumstances of the offense and whether the forced surrender resulted in a significant breach of military discipline.

Can a service member be charged with compelling …

---

What is UCMJ Article 99?
UCMJ Article 99 addresses offenses related to misbehavior before the enemy, which includes conduct by a service member that betrays the military’s integrity, morale, and mission effectiveness during combat or in the presence of enemy forces. It punishes actions that compromise the military’s ability to function or endanger the safety of fellow service members.

What constitutes “misbehavior before the enemy” under Article 99?
Misbehavior before the enemy includes actions that disrupt military operations, such as cowardice, abandoning a position or post, or showing a lack of fighting spirit in the presence of enemy forces. It also includes actions like retreating in a manner that is not authorized or otherwise acting in a way that could negatively affect the military’s effectiveness in combat.

Can a service member be charged with misbehavior before the enemy even if they are not directly engaged in combat?
Yes, a service member can be charged under Article 99 if their actions or behavior disrupt military operations or endanger the safety and well-being of others while the unit is in combat or in the presence of enemy forces. This includes acting recklessly or failing to follow orders during combat scenarios.

What is considered “cowardice” under Article 99?
Cowardice under Article 99 refers to an extreme and unreasonable fear or panic that leads to failure to act in a combat situation, such as abandoning a position, refusing to engage in combat, or deliberately avoiding a confrontation with the enemy out of fear, regardless of the orders given.

Can a service member be charged with misbehavior before the enemy if they retreat without orders?
Yes, if a service member retreats without orders, especially in a combat scenario, they can be charged with misbehavior before the enemy under Article 99. Unauthorized retreat, particularly if it endangers the unit or mission, is considered a serious violation.

What actions could lead to a charge of misbehavior before the enemy under Article 99?
Examples include running from the battlefield, abandoning one’s post or position without orders, spreading panic among the ranks, or showing a lack of courage when ordered to engage the enemy. Any action that leads to the disruption of military operations or jeopardizes the safety of fellow service members could fall under this article.

Can a service member be charged under Article 99 for failure to obey orders during combat?
Yes, if a service member refuses …

---

What is UCMJ Article 98?
UCMJ Article 98 addresses noncompliance with procedural rules in military justice and legal proceedings. This article ensures that military personnel follow prescribed procedural rules in relation to investigations, trials, and the handling of military justice matters. It applies when a service member fails to comply with legal and procedural requirements during court-martial proceedings or other military judicial processes.

What actions constitute noncompliance under Article 98?
Noncompliance under Article 98 involves failing to follow rules of procedure set forth by military regulations, including refusing to cooperate with investigations, failing to execute orders related to the handling of cases, or obstructing the legal process in any way that violates procedural rules.

Who can be charged under Article 98?
Any service member who intentionally fails to comply with military justice procedural rules can be charged under Article 98. This includes individuals involved in investigations, court-martial procedures, or anyone who refuses to follow regulations related to military justice proceedings.

What is the purpose of Article 98?
The purpose of Article 98 is to ensure the integrity and efficiency of military justice procedures. By enforcing compliance with procedural rules, Article 98 helps maintain order in legal proceedings and ensures that cases are handled fairly and according to the law.

What constitutes “procedural rules” under Article 98?
Procedural rules refer to the guidelines and regulations that govern the conduct of investigations, trials, and the administration of military justice. These include rules about the conduct of courts-martial, investigations, the handling of evidence, and the treatment of individuals involved in legal proceedings.

What are examples of noncompliance under Article 98?
Examples of noncompliance under Article 98 include a service member refusing to testify during an investigation, failing to appear for a scheduled court-martial, intentionally delaying or obstructing the legal process, or not following orders related to the handling of evidence or witnesses.

Can noncompliance with procedural rules under Article 98 be considered an obstruction of justice?
Yes, noncompliance with procedural rules under Article 98 can be seen as obstruction of justice, especially if the failure to comply interferes with the fair and proper administration of military justice or causes delays in legal proceedings.

What is the punishment for violating Article 98?
The punishment for violating Article 98 can vary depending on the severity of the noncompliance. Penalties may include confinement, reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, a dishonorable discharge, and other disciplinary actions, …

---

What is UCMJ Article 97?
UCMJ Article 97 addresses the offense of unlawful detention, which occurs when a service member detains another person without legal authority. This article applies to situations where an individual is confined, detained, or held against their will in violation of military law, regulations, or lawful orders.

What constitutes unlawful detention under Article 97?
Unlawful detention occurs when a person, without proper authority or justification, confines or holds someone against their will. This can include physically restraining someone, preventing them from leaving, or keeping them in custody without legal authorization.

Who can be charged under Article 97?
Any military service member who unlawfully detains another individual, whether they are in a position of authority or not, can be charged under Article 97. This includes personnel who detain others without proper orders or legal authority, even if done in the course of their duties.

What does “legal authority” mean under Article 97?
Legal authority refers to having proper orders or justification for detaining someone. This can come from a superior officer, a court order, or established military regulations. Without this authority, any detention is considered unlawful under Article 97.

What are examples of unlawful detention under Article 97?
Examples of unlawful detention include a service member holding another against their will without proper orders, such as a military police officer detaining a person without a legal arrest warrant or a commanding officer ordering a service member to be confined without justification.

Can unlawful detention occur if the detainee is not physically restrained?
Yes, unlawful detention does not require physical restraint. If a person is unlawfully prevented from leaving a location or is detained against their will without legal authority, this constitutes unlawful detention, even if no physical force is used.

What is the punishment for unlawful detention under Article 97?
The punishment for unlawful detention under Article 97 can include confinement for up to 2 years, a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and reduction in rank. The specific punishment depends on the circumstances surrounding the unlawful detention and the severity of the offense.

Can a service member be charged under Article 97 for detaining someone for a short period of time?
Yes, even short-term detention can lead to charges under Article 97 if the detention is unlawful. The length of the detention does not affect whether it is unlawful; it is the lack of proper authority that …

---

What is UCMJ Article 96?
UCMJ Article 96 prohibits the unlawful release of a prisoner from military confinement or custody without proper authority. This offense is committed when a service member, without lawful permission, frees or allows a prisoner to escape or leaves confinement facilities. It ensures that those who are lawfully confined remain under custody until released by proper authority.

What does “releasing a prisoner without authority” mean under Article 96?
Releasing a prisoner without authority means allowing a person who is lawfully confined or detained to leave or escape from custody without being authorized by a competent military authority, such as a commanding officer or court order.

Who can be charged under Article 96?
Any military service member, including those in positions of authority such as military police or guards, can be charged under Article 96 if they unlawfully release a prisoner from military custody or detention without proper authorization.

What constitutes “lawful authority” for releasing a prisoner under Article 96?
Lawful authority refers to permission granted by military regulations, a commanding officer, or a court order. It includes cases where a prisoner has completed their sentence or has been authorized for release by an appropriate superior authority.

What are examples of unlawful release under Article 96?
Examples of unlawful release include military police officers freeing a prisoner without orders, a guard allowing a prisoner to escape, or any unauthorized individual removing a prisoner from custody. Even if the release is done out of good intentions, it is still punishable under Article 96.

Can a service member release a prisoner under Article 96 if the prisoner requests it?
No, a service member cannot release a prisoner based solely on the prisoner’s request. Release must always be authorized by proper authority, such as a commanding officer or a judicial order. The prisoner’s request does not justify an unlawful release.

What is the punishment for violating Article 96?
The punishment for unlawfully releasing a prisoner can vary depending on the severity of the offense. Possible penalties include confinement, a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and reduction in rank. The punishment depends on factors such as the circumstances surrounding the release and the rank of the accused.

Can a service member be charged under Article 96 if they inadvertently release a prisoner?
Yes, even an inadvertent release may lead to charges under Article 96 if the release is not authorized. Intent …

---

What is UCMJ Article 95?
UCMJ Article 95 addresses offenses related to resistance to lawful authority, flight from arrest, breach of arrest, and escape from custody or confinement. It applies to service members who attempt to evade lawful military control or obstruct the military justice process.

What actions are considered “resistance” under Article 95?
Resistance under Article 95 refers to any attempt to physically resist, obstruct, or hinder the efforts of military authorities when they are attempting to enforce lawful orders, make an arrest, or execute duties related to the service member’s legal status.

What constitutes “flight” under Article 95?
Flight refers to a service member’s intentional attempt to evade military authorities by leaving or fleeing from their assigned post, location, or duty station. Flight from arrest, for example, occurs when a service member attempts to escape or avoid being taken into custody.

What does “breach of arrest” mean under Article 95?
Breach of arrest occurs when a service member, after being lawfully arrested, knowingly escapes, forcibly resists, or attempts to break free from custody or confinement, violating the terms of their arrest.

What actions would lead to an “escape” charge under Article 95?
Escape under Article 95 includes any attempt to leave confinement or custody unlawfully. This could involve physically breaking out of a detention facility, escaping from military police custody, or fleeing the scene after being placed under arrest.

Can resistance to arrest be considered a separate offense from other charges under Article 95?
Yes, resistance to arrest can be a separate offense under Article 95. If a service member resists arrest or physically obstructs military authorities from carrying out their duties, they can face additional charges, even if they are already facing other offenses.

What is the punishment for resisting arrest under Article 95?
Punishments for resisting arrest under Article 95 can include a dishonorable discharge, confinement for up to 5 years, reduction in rank, and forfeiture of pay. The severity of the punishment depends on the circumstances and the extent of the resistance.

How does the military define “escape” under Article 95?
Escape under Article 95 is defined as a service member’s intentional act of fleeing from military custody, confinement, or detention, with the intention of avoiding their legal obligations or charges. This includes both physical and circumstantial escapes.

Is there a difference between “escape” and “flight” under Article 95?
Yes, while both terms involve evading …

---

What is UCMJ Article 94?
UCMJ Article 94 defines and penalizes mutiny and sedition within the military. Mutiny involves the intentional revolt against military authority, particularly by a group of service members. Sedition refers to conduct that incites rebellion or resistance to lawful authority, threatening the integrity of the military chain of command.

What is the difference between mutiny and sedition under Article 94?
Mutiny involves direct actions to overthrow or resist lawful orders or authority, often by force or violence. Sedition involves encouraging or attempting to incite others to rebel against lawful authority, typically through speech, writing, or other forms of incitement, without necessarily using force.

What constitutes mutiny under Article 94?
Mutiny involves a service member or group of service members willfully refusing to obey lawful orders, actively resisting a superior officer’s authority, or attempting to overthrow lawful authority by force or violence. Acts of mutiny threaten the discipline and order of the military.

What is considered sedition under Article 94?
Sedition is the incitement of resistance or rebellion against lawful authority. This includes any action, speech, writing, or behavior that promotes insurrection, civil disobedience, or undermines the chain of command within the military.

Can an individual be charged under Article 94 for mutiny even if no violence occurred?
Yes, even if no violence occurred, the mere act of resisting lawful orders or disobeying authority can lead to mutiny charges under Article 94 if the intent to undermine authority is present. Violence is not a requirement for mutiny; defiance of lawful orders can be sufficient.

Is sedition a lesser offense than mutiny under Article 94?
Yes, sedition is generally considered a lesser offense compared to mutiny because sedition involves incitement rather than direct action. However, both offenses can lead to serious penalties under military law.

What is the punishment for mutiny under Article 94?
Punishments for mutiny can include a dishonorable discharge, confinement for up to 20 years, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. In extreme cases, mutiny can result in the death penalty, although this is rare.

What is the punishment for sedition under Article 94?
Sedition can result in a maximum punishment of life imprisonment, a dishonorable discharge, and forfeiture of pay and allowances. The severity of the punishment depends on the degree of the offense and its impact on military discipline.

Can a service member be charged with mutiny if they are not part …

---

What is UCMJ Article 93?
UCMJ Article 93 prohibits cruelty, oppression, and maltreatment of any service member under the command of a superior. This includes actions that intentionally harm or degrade another person through physical or psychological means, violating the military’s standards for behavior and discipline.

Who can be charged under Article 93?
Any military service member, regardless of rank, can be charged under Article 93 if they engage in cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment toward a subordinate. The article typically applies to individuals in a position of authority or control, but subordinates can also be held accountable.

What actions constitute “cruelty” under Article 93?
Cruelty includes actions that cause physical or psychological harm, humiliation, or suffering to a subordinate. This could involve physical abuse, excessive punishment, or behavior that instills fear, distress, or unnecessary suffering in the victim.

What does “maltreatment” mean under Article 93?
Maltreatment refers to the intentional infliction of suffering or harm upon another service member. It can involve physical abuse, neglect, or other forms of inappropriate treatment that damage the dignity, well-being, or health of the person being mistreated.

What constitutes “oppression” under Article 93?
Oppression involves the abuse of power or authority to demean or mistreat a service member. It can include acts of psychological abuse or imposing undue hardship, often by using rank or position to coerce, intimidate, or control a subordinate.

Is it possible to be charged under Article 93 for verbal abuse alone?
Yes, verbal abuse can qualify as cruelty or maltreatment under Article 93 if the language used is severe enough to harm, intimidate, or degrade the individual being targeted. Insulting, demeaning, or threatening language can be considered oppression or maltreatment.

Can cruelty or maltreatment occur between peers?
Although Article 93 typically focuses on those in positions of authority over subordinates, maltreatment or cruelty can occur between peers. However, for the offense to fall under Article 93, it generally requires the abuser to be in a position of authority or control over the victim.

Can a service member be charged with Article 93 for failure to intervene in cases of abuse?
Yes, if a service member witnesses abuse and has a duty or opportunity to intervene but fails to do so, they can be charged with failure to intervene under Article 93, especially if they were in a position to stop the maltreatment.

Can a service member be charged under Article …

---

What is UCMJ Article 92?
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) addresses the failure of military personnel to obey lawful orders or regulations. This includes both direct orders from superior officers and standing regulations that govern military conduct. It is a vital article in ensuring discipline and order within the armed forces.

What types of offenses are covered under Article 92?
Article 92 covers two primary offenses: (1) failing to obey a lawful general order or regulation and (2) dereliction of duty, which includes a failure to perform one’s responsibilities.

What is the difference between “failure to obey an order” and “dereliction of duty”?
Failure to obey an order occurs when a service member intentionally disobeys a lawful order, while dereliction of duty involves neglecting or failing to perform assigned duties, either intentionally or due to negligence.

What is considered a “lawful order” under Article 92?
A lawful order is one that is issued by a superior officer within their scope of authority and is not in conflict with military law, the UCMJ, or regulations. Orders that are illegal, immoral, or unethical do not fall under this article.

Can an order be considered unlawful under Article 92?
Yes, an order is unlawful if it violates established laws, regulations, or ethical standards. A service member is not required to obey an unlawful order, and doing so may lead to a defense in a court-martial.

What is the difference between a “general order” and a “specific order”?
A general order applies to a broad group of individuals and typically includes regulations that govern the overall conduct of military personnel. A specific order is directed at an individual or a small group and pertains to a particular task or action.

What constitutes failure to obey a “general regulation” under Article 92?
Failure to obey a general regulation includes not following rules that are outlined by official military instructions, such as dress codes, conduct during duty hours, or general administrative procedures that apply to all service members.

Can a service member be charged under Article 92 for failing to obey an order that is not in writing?
Yes, a verbal order can be the basis for a charge under Article 92, as long as the order is lawful, specific, and clear. The service member must understand the order, and there must be no reasonable doubt about the intent or nature …

---

What is UCMJ Article 91?
UCMJ Article 91 addresses insubordinate conduct directed at warrant officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), or petty officers. It specifically covers behavior such as willful disobedience of their orders, disrespect, or failure to obey their lawful authority, ensuring the integrity and discipline of the military chain of command.

Who qualifies as a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer?
A warrant officer is an officer who holds a rank between enlisted personnel and commissioned officers. NCOs and petty officers are enlisted members of the military who hold leadership positions over lower-ranking soldiers, sailors, or airmen.

What is considered “insubordinate conduct” under Article 91?
Insubordinate conduct includes any act of willfully disobeying, disrespecting, or challenging the authority of a warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer. This could involve verbal insults, refusal to follow lawful orders, or physical altercations.

What does “willful disobedience” mean under Article 91?
Willful disobedience refers to a deliberate, knowing refusal to obey a lawful order issued by a warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer. It implies a conscious choice not to follow the order, rather than a mistake or misunderstanding.

Can verbal disrespect alone lead to an Article 91 charge?
Yes, verbal disrespect toward a warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer can lead to charges under Article 91 if the language used demonstrates clear insubordination or a challenge to the authority of the individual.

Does Article 91 apply to disrespect toward all officers?
No. Article 91 applies specifically to disrespect toward warrant officers, NCOs, and petty officers, not commissioned officers. Disrespect toward commissioned officers is addressed under Article 89.

What is the difference between Articles 89 and 91?
Article 89 deals with disrespect or insubordination toward a commissioned officer, while Article 91 covers similar behavior toward warrant officers, NCOs, and petty officers. Both ensure the chain of command is respected but pertain to different categories of military personnel.

What actions are considered disrespectful under Article 91?
Actions such as mocking, insulting, or refusing to obey a direct order from a warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer can be considered disrespectful. These actions undermine the authority and discipline required in the military.

Can a physical altercation with an NCO lead to Article 91 charges?
Yes, if the physical altercation involves insubordination or disrespect toward an NCO, warrant officer, or petty officer, it may result in charges under Article 91, especially if the altercation is seen …