This question carries a common misconception that needs to be corrected before it can be answered accurately. Under the current Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 90 no longer covers assault on a superior commissioned officer. As part of the reorganization of the punitive articles that took effect on January 1, 2019, the assault portion of the old Article 90 was moved to Article 89. Article 90 today addresses only the willful disobedience of a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer. So the precise answer depends on which version of the law applies to the conduct in question.
What Article 90 Covered Before 2019
For decades, Article 90 carried two distinct offenses against a superior commissioned officer: striking or assaulting the officer, and willfully disobeying that officer’s lawful command. Under that prior structure, the maximum punishment for striking or assaulting a superior commissioned officer who was in the execution of office, when the offense occurred in time of peace, was a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for ten years. In time of war, the statute authorized death as a maximum for the assault branch. The willful disobedience branch in time of peace carried a maximum of dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, and confinement for five years, with death authorized in time of war.
So if a charged assault on a superior commissioned officer arose from conduct before January 1, 2019, the older Article 90 framework applies, and the ten-year peacetime maximum for the assault branch is the relevant figure.
What Changed in 2019
The 2019 amendments separated the two offenses. The assault on a superior commissioned officer was relocated to Article 89, which had previously addressed only disrespect. Article 90 was left to govern willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer’s lawful command. This was a structural reorganization rather than a wholesale change in the seriousness of the conduct. The relevant point for anyone researching a current case is that a charge for striking or assaulting a superior officer today is brought under Article 89, not Article 90.
The Current Maximum for Assault on a Superior Officer Under Article 89
Because the assault offense now lives in Article 89, that is where the maximum punishment is found. For assault on a superior commissioned officer who is in the execution of office, committed in time of peace, the maximum punishment is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for ten years. The conduct covered includes striking the officer, drawing or lifting a weapon against the officer, or offering any violence against the officer while the officer is in the execution of office. As with the historical version, the statute provides for the death penalty as a maximum in time of war.
The maximum punishments set out in military law are ceilings established in the Manual for Courts-Martial, not the sentence that any particular case will produce. A court-martial may adjudge a far lesser sentence, and the actual outcome depends heavily on the facts, the forum, and the accused’s record.
What Article 90 Punishes Today
For completeness, the current Article 90 addresses willful disobedience of a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer. The maximum punishment for willful disobedience in time of peace is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years, with death authorized in time of war. The disobedience must be willful, meaning a deliberate refusal to comply rather than a mistake, a misunderstanding, or an inability to perform, and the command must be lawful.
Key Elements That Affect Whether the Maximum Applies
Several elements shape whether the most severe ceiling is even available. The accused must have known that the victim held a superior commissioned officer status. The officer generally must have been in the execution of office for the aggravated form to apply. The act must qualify as an assault, which in military law includes an offer or attempt to do bodily harm, not only completed physical contact. And the wartime maximums apply only in time of war as that term is understood in military law, which is a narrow and rarely satisfied condition in modern practice.
The Practical Takeaway
If someone asks for the maximum punishment under Article 90 for assault on a superior officer, the accurate response is that the current Article 90 no longer contains that offense. For conduct on or after January 1, 2019, the assault charge is brought under Article 89, where the peacetime maximum is a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, and ten years of confinement. For older conduct, the same ten-year peacetime ceiling applied under the prior Article 90. Either way, the figure is ten years in peacetime, but the governing article depends on when the conduct occurred. Anyone facing such a charge should consult qualified military defense counsel to confirm which article and which maximum apply to the specific facts.
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.