Article 91 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 891, addresses insubordinate conduct toward warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and petty officers. Because the article covers several different kinds of misconduct against several different categories of victims, there is no single maximum punishment. Instead, the Manual for Courts-Martial sets a graduated schedule of maximum penalties keyed to the seriousness of the conduct and the rank of the officer involved. At a general court-martial, the most serious form of an Article 91 offense, the maximum punishment can reach a punitive discharge, total forfeitures, and several years of confinement. This explains how the ceilings are structured and why the answer depends on what was charged.
Why the Forum Matters
The maximum punishment for any UCMJ offense is capped by two things working together: the punishment ceiling set for that specific offense in the Manual for Courts-Martial, and the jurisdictional limits of the forum hearing the case. A general court-martial is the highest level of court-martial and can adjudge the full punishment authorized for an offense, including a punitive discharge and confinement up to the listed maximum. Lower forums, such as a special court-martial, carry their own jurisdictional caps that may be lower than the offense-specific maximum. Because a general court-martial has no jurisdictional cap below the offense maximum for these offenses, the controlling figure at a general court-martial is the maximum authorized for the particular Article 91 offense charged.
The Graduated Schedule of Maximums
The Manual sets escalating maximum punishments depending on which of the three Article 91 theories is charged and which category of officer is the victim. The three theories are striking or assaulting, willfully disobeying a lawful order, and contempt or disrespect.
Striking or Assaulting
The most severe penalties attach to striking or assaulting an officer in the execution of office. For striking or assaulting a warrant officer, the maximum punishment is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years. For striking or assaulting a superior noncommissioned or petty officer, the maximum is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for three years. For striking or assaulting another noncommissioned or petty officer, the maximum is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for one year. The five-year confinement ceiling for striking a warrant officer is the highest authorized under Article 91.
Willfully Disobeying a Lawful Order
The disobedience theory carries the next tier of punishment. For willfully disobeying the lawful order of a warrant officer, the maximum punishment is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for two years. For willfully disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned or petty officer, the maximum is a bad-conduct discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The distinction reflects the greater authority accorded to warrant officers within this structure.
Contempt or Disrespect
The disrespect theory carries the lowest tier, again graduated by the rank of the officer. For contempt or disrespect toward a warrant officer, the maximum is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for nine months. For contempt or disrespect toward a superior noncommissioned or petty officer, the maximum is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for six months. For contempt or disrespect toward another noncommissioned or petty officer, no punitive discharge is authorized, and the maximum is confinement for three months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for three months.
What the Top of the Range Looks Like
Putting the schedule together, the harshest sentence available for an Article 91 conviction at a general court-martial is reserved for striking or assaulting a warrant officer, where the authorized maximum is a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures of pay and allowances, and five years of confinement. A general court-martial is empowered to adjudge that full punishment because it sits above the jurisdictional limits that constrain lesser forums. The far milder end of the schedule, disrespect toward another noncommissioned or petty officer, authorizes no discharge and only limited confinement and forfeitures even at a general court-martial, because the offense-specific ceiling itself is low.
Collateral and Practical Consequences
The listed maximums describe what a court-martial may adjudge, not what it will. Sentencing authorities weigh the facts, the accused’s record, and matters in mitigation and aggravation. Beyond the formal sentence, a punitive discharge carries lasting consequences. A dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge can affect veterans benefits, future employment, and the loss of pay and allowances reflected in the forfeiture provisions. Confinement, reduction in grade where applicable, and the stigma of a federal conviction compound the impact. These realities are why the difference between, for example, a disrespect charge and a striking charge, or between conduct toward a warrant officer and conduct toward a junior noncommissioned officer, is so consequential.
The Bottom Line
There is no flat maximum for Article 91. At a general court-martial the maximum depends on the specific theory and the victim’s category, ranging from no discharge and a few months of confinement for disrespect toward a junior noncommissioned or petty officer, up to a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and five years of confinement for striking or assaulting a warrant officer. Identifying exactly which offense was charged is therefore the first step in determining the real exposure a service member faces.
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.