UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward a Superior Commissioned Officer
At Bilecki Law Group, we defend service members against charges of disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer under Article 89 of the UCMJ. We believe you shouldn’t pay the price for an officer’s feeling of insecurity.
Facing an Article 89 charge? See how our court martial defense lawyers handle these cases. Related result: Bilecki Challenges Major’s Account at Board; Gunnery Sergeant Retained at Rank. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
An Officer Is Not Always a Gentleman Or Always Right
HBO’s Band of Brothers dramatized this friction through Easy Company’s encounters with Captain Sobel. The example may feel familiar if you have served under an officer whose judgment you question. It is not a legal defense to disrespect or a license to disobey an order. The actual interaction and the governing requirements still matter.
Facing charges under Article 89 does not tell the whole story of your service. You still have to fight the charge. So, let’s talk about how we fight and how we win.
How To Fight And Win Against Charges Under Article 89 Of The UCMJ
We examine the actual interaction with the superior officer, the witnesses and the surrounding circumstances. If the officer’s conduct or credibility matters to the defense, we develop the evidence that supports the challenge.
We’re also going to look at whether the officer in question conducted themselves in a proper manner during the incident of disrespect. Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, an officer whose conduct in the circumstances substantially departs from the standards appropriate to that rank or position may lose the protection Article 89 would otherwise provide. That is often called divestiture. It does not erase the officer’s rank or give a service member a general license to insult or assault that officer. We examine what the officer actually did and whether it meets that standard.
DIVESTITURE IS
Loss of the protection Article 89 would otherwise provide
When the officer’s conduct substantially departs from the standards appropriate to that rank or position
DIVESTITURE IS NOT
A license to insult or assault the officer
It does not erase the officer’s rank
Then, we’re going to examine how you have conducted yourself throughout your career. An outstanding service record matters, although it does not erase the elements of a charged offense. If the prosecution has overreached, we’ll develop the evidence to show it. Finally, we’re going to consider getting that officer on the stand where we will put their credibility to the test. You have to follow the UCMJ and show the respect the law requires. We can challenge the officer through cross-examination, but we still have to follow the rules of evidence and the court’s orders. If need be and warranted, we’ll take that account apart on the stand. No quarter. No compromise. No cozying up to the very system that is trying to destroy our client.
Holding The Military Accountable For Misuse And Abuse Of The UCMJ
Absolutely nothing gets us fired up more than misuse and abuse of the UCMJ. It’s not that the UCMJ doesn’t serve a proper purpose. It does, and military order and discipline is essential to service. When a command uses an Article 89 allegation to make an example out of someone, the defense still has to make the government prove its case. Don’t let your side of the story go unheard.
If you are facing charges of disrespect or assault under Article 89, reach out to us for a free initial consultation. We’ll discuss the allegation, urgent issues, and whether we are the right firm for your case. An officer’s reaction does not tell the whole story. We fight like hell to protect your career and the future you have worked for.
What is Article 89 Of The UCMJ?
Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer under Article 89 of the UCMJ can involve an act, an omission, or language directed toward an officer you knew was your superior commissioned officer. The Manual for Courts-Martial defines disrespectful behavior as behavior that detracts from the respect due the authority and person of that officer. The government must prove the elements below, including that the conduct was disrespectful under the circumstances.
Now, you might be questioning whether you read that correctly and, if you are finding yourself facing charges under Article 89, you may not have known this charge was even possible. Unfortunately, you did read that correctly. An officer’s hurt feelings can lead to an allegation, but hurt feelings alone do not establish the offense. Whereas good order and discipline is essential to the military, this charge can be used in a fickle and capricious manner when wielded by an insecure officer.
Keep in mind that one can become a commissioned officer in one’s early twenties while a 20-year veteran of multiple deployments serves under that officer’s command. That difference in experience does not decide whether disrespect occurred. If you are facing these charges, you are not alone. You need a defense that looks at the actual conduct and the circumstances.
Sentencing Guidelines
For noncapital general and special courts-martial, the sentencing parameter system applies when every offense of conviction occurred on or after 28 December 2023. The military judge must sentence within the applicable confinement range unless specific facts justify a departure. If the judge departs, the record must contain a written statement explaining the factual basis. These ranges do not replace the lawful maximum punishment for the offense or the court-martial’s jurisdictional limits. For offenses assigned sentencing criteria instead of a category, the judge must consider those criteria.
The punishment summaries describe the current offense limits for enlisted members; earlier conduct must be assessed under the law applicable on its date. Reduction to E-1 applies to enlisted members. Dismissal applies to commissioned officers, including commissioned warrant officers, cadets, and midshipmen. A dishonorable discharge applies to enlisted members and uncommissioned warrant officers; a bad-conduct discharge applies only to enlisted members. Court-martial jurisdiction and any plea agreement can further limit the sentence.
| Offense under Article 89 | Sentencing category or criteria | Category confinement range | Maximum confinement or punishment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer in command | Category 1 | 0–12 months | 1 year |
| Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer in rank, but not in command | Category 1 | 0–6 months after applying the offense maximum | 6 months |
| Striking, drawing or lifting a weapon, or offering violence to a superior commissioned officer in the execution of office, in time of war | Sentencing criteria in a noncapital case | No category range | Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, subject to the requirements for a capital case |
| The same assault offense at any other time | Category 2 | 1–36 months | 10 years |
What Must Be Proven To Convict Under Article 89?
There are five essential elements that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to convict you of disrespect under Article 89. They are as follows:
- You did or omitted certain acts, or used certain language, concerning a commissioned officer;
- The behavior or language was directed toward that officer;
- The officer was your superior commissioned officer;
- You knew the officer was your superior commissioned officer; and
- Under the circumstances, the behavior or language was disrespectful to that officer.
Whether an officer is your superior depends on the applicable rank, command and service relationship. It is not enough merely to identify someone who holds a commission.
As it pertains to disrespect, the Manual for Courts-Martial offers some additional clarification. Disrespect by words may be conveyed by abusive epithets or other contemptuous or denunciatory language. The truth of those words is no defense, despite the fact that some officers do indeed deserve to hear those truths. Disrespect by acts includes neglecting the customary salute, or showing a marked disdain, indifference, insolence, impertinence, undue familiarity, or other rudeness in the presence of the superior officer.
Now, here is the real kicker. It is not essential that the disrespectful behavior alleged be in the presence of the superior. The Manual for Courts-Martial explains that an accused ordinarily should not be held accountable under this article for conduct or words in a purely private conversation. But speaking to a platoon outside the lieutenant’s presence is not necessarily a purely private conversation. If a Staff Sergeant tells the platoon not to listen to the lieutenant’s instruction on land navigation, the words, audience and circumstances matter. Trying to keep the platoon from getting lost does not, by itself, resolve the disrespect charge.
A PURELY PRIVATE CONVERSATION
An accused ordinarily should not be held accountable under this article
NOT IN THE OFFICER’S PRESENCE
Not essential that it be in the presence of the superior · Speaking to a platoon is not necessarily a purely private conversation
The words, audience and circumstances matter
Assault Of Superior Commissioned Officer Under Article 89
If the new boot Lieutenant made you angry and you said some unkind words to him, you may face a disrespect allegation under Article 89. However, if that anger boils over into violence, the charges can get serious real quick. Article 89 also covers striking, drawing or lifting a weapon, or offering violence against a person you knew was your superior commissioned officer while that officer was in the execution of office. The government must prove those requirements. An accidental touch is not automatically this offense.
For an enlisted member, the nonwartime assault offense carries a maximum of a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 10 years of confinement, and reduction to E-1. The wartime provision authorizes death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. A death sentence requires a capital case and the applicable capital safeguards; it is not the automatic consequence of a wartime conviction. The offense date, member status and court-martial limits discussed above still matter.
Striking includes intentional offensive touching of an officer, however slight. Drawing or lifting a weapon includes raising or brandishing it in a threatening manner against the officer. The phrase “offering violence against” reaches other forms of battery or assault; if the violence is not carried out, it must be physically attempted or menaced. Mere threatening words are not enough for this assault offense. The way some commands operate, we wouldn’t be surprised if there was some poor PFC accused over merely passing gas in the officer’s general direction.
STRIKING
Intentional offensive touching, however slight
DRAWING OR LIFTING A WEAPON
Raising or brandishing it in a threatening manner
OFFERING VIOLENCE
If not carried out, physically attempted or menaced
Mere threatening words are not enough · An accidental touch is not automatically this offense
Contact Bilecki Law Group today for a consultation of your case.
Frequently Asked Questions About Article 89
How Does the Military Define “Disrespect” Toward a Superior Officer?
According to the Manual for Courts-Martial: Disrespectful behavior is that which detracts from the respect due the authority and person of a superior commissioned officer. It may consist of acts or language, however, expressed, and it is immaterial whether they refer to the superior as an officer or as a private individual. Disrespect by words may be conveyed by abusive epithets or other contemptuous or denunciatory language. The military does not consider truth a defense under Article 89. A service member who is in the right may still be found guilty of disrespect.
What Is the Maximum Possible Punishment for Article 89: Disrespect Toward a Superior Commissioned Officer?
For disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer in command, the maximum includes one year of confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a bad-conduct discharge. If the officer is superior in rank but not in command, the confinement maximum is six months. The assault offense under Article 89 has the separate, higher maximum described above. For an enlisted accused, reduction to E-1 is also authorized.
The two disrespect offenses are Category 1. The rank-only offense’s six-month maximum caps the otherwise applicable 0–12 month range. Nonwartime assault under Article 89 is Category 2 (1–36 months), while the wartime offense uses sentencing criteria in noncapital cases.
Can an Article 89 Case Result in a Lesser Offense?
We will always try to win your case outright. Depending on the charge and the evidence, a lesser included offense or an attempt may also be at issue. Article 79 governs which offenses can be considered. A lesser included offense must be necessarily included in the charged offense or designated by the President under Article 79. A plea agreement may resolve a case through a different charge, but that does not make the agreed charge a lesser included offense.
Article 117: Provoking Speeches or Gestures is a separate offense with its own requirements. It should not be treated as an automatic lesser included offense of every Article 89 charge.
Article 80: Attempts may apply when the law and facts support an attempt. We assess that possibility against the particular charge rather than assuming the same outcome in every case.