UCMJ Article 93: Cruelty, Oppression, Or Maltreatment

At Bilecki Law Group, we defend service members against charges of cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment of subordinates under Article 93 of the UCMJ. We also defend against Article 93a charges of prohibited activities with a recruit or trainee by a person in a position of special trust.

Get Free Case Evaluation

Take The Fight To The Military Justice System

At Bilecki Law Group, we bring an actual fight. The government does not get to substitute the attention surrounding a topic for proof in your case. Like they say, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth. We challenge the allegations, test the witnesses and make the prosecution prove its case.

We’ll look at who made the allegations, what each person actually observed, and whether the account is consistent with your service history. If you pulled your buddy out of a burning AAV in Iraq, that service deserves to be understood. It does not give you permission to abuse a subordinate. We examine the circumstances around the orders called cruel and whether the conduct served a lawful training or operational purpose, including the realities of combat where those facts apply.

The point is that we fight through the issues that matter. An allegation, or even evidence that you went too far in one respect, does not tell us the final result. If you are facing an investigation or charges under Article 93, don’t wait to get advice. Reach out and give us a call. We’ll give you a free consultation and explain what you are facing.

The tragedy of Article 93 charges is that they often hit a service member in a position of authority who has already decided to make the military a career. Don’t take these charges lightly. We’ll explain the strengths and weaknesses of the allegation and the government’s proof. As long as you are willing to fight, so are we, and we fight to win.

What Is Article 93 Of The UCMJ?

Article 93 addresses cruelty, oppression or maltreatment of a person subject to the accused’s orders. The person need not be in the accused’s immediate chain of command, and need not be a member of the armed forces. There must still be a duty to obey the accused’s lawful orders; being senior in a conversation does not establish every element.

Cruelty, oppression or maltreatment must be real, although it does not have to be physical. The imposition of necessary or proper duties on a service member, and the requirement that those duties be performed, does not establish this offense merely because the duties are hard, difficult or hazardous.

The conduct is evaluated objectively under all the circumstances. It must be abusive or otherwise unwarranted, unjustified and unnecessary for a lawful purpose, and cause or reasonably be capable of causing physical or mental harm or suffering. The government need not prove actual injury. But a person’s dislike of a demanding leader does not, by itself, prove maltreatment.

Talk with Bilecki Law Group about the allegation and your defense.

What Kinds Of Charges Can Come Out Of An Article 93 Investigation?

This guide covers Article 93 maltreatment and the separate Article 93a offenses involving recruits and trainees. From our experience, some maltreatment cases involve real abuse of authority. Others belong in what we would call the bullshit category: allegations that do not hold up when the actual conduct and evidence are examined. We need to know which issues your case presents.

It never ceases to amaze us how the military can create and thrive off a culture where the rigid and harsh are glorified, then pick a seemingly routine action and say, “Whoa, you’ve gone too far.” Old Blood and Guts General Patton would probably lose his mind if he saw some of the actions now being labeled as cruelty or oppression. That is not to say there is no line or that a leader cannot go too far. From a service member’s perspective, inconsistent decisions can make that line look more like a five-year-old’s crayon scribbling. The defense needs to bring the discussion back to the actual legal standard.

In one command, the grizzled Sergeant Major can be viewed as one tough S.O.B. who doesn’t take crap from anyone, then face an Article 93 allegation over similar conduct in another command. Whether you went too far or the evidence does not support the accusation, your defense must address what actually happened. Your career, retirement and freedom can be at stake.

What Must the Prosecution Prove To Convict Under Article 93?

Article 93 covers cruelty, oppression or maltreatment. The related recruit and trainee offenses discussed below arise under Article 93a. For Article 93, the government must prove both elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Cruelty, Oppression or Maltreatment

1. 1A particular person was subject to the accused’s orders.
2. 2The accused was cruel toward, oppressed or maltreated that person in the manner alleged.

The prosecution must also establish that the accused knew the person was subject to the accused’s orders and knowingly made the statements or engaged in the conduct at issue. It does not have to prove a specific intent to maltreat or knowledge that a reasonable person would call the conduct abusive. The conduct is evaluated objectively in its full context. Those distinctions come from United States v. Caldwell, and they matter to how the defense is built.

The separate Article 93a offenses address abuse of a training leadership position or a position as a military recruiter. They can involve trainees, other specially protected junior members, or civilian applicants for service.

Contact Bilecki Law Group for a free consultation about your case.

Article 93a: Prohibited Activities With a Recruit or Trainee

With recruiting offices for every service branch across the country, this reaches well beyond a single installation. The current Manual describes two forms of the offense:

Abuse of Training Leadership Position:

1. 1The accused was a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned or petty officer.
2. 2The accused held a training leadership position with respect to a specially protected junior member of the armed forces.
3. 3The accused engaged in prohibited sexual activity with a person the accused knew was a specially protected junior member of the armed forces.

Abuse of Position as a Military Recruiter:

1. 1The accused was a commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned or petty officer.
2. 2The accused was performing duties as a military recruiter.
3. 3The accused engaged in prohibited sexual activity with a person the accused knew was an applicant for military service or a specially protected junior member enlisted under a delayed entry program.

Prohibited sexual activity means inappropriate physical intimacy specified in the applicable service regulations. Those regulations and the actual training or recruiting relationship matter. Not every contact or association is prohibited. The rules must account for circumstances such as a preexisting marriage.

Consent is not a defense to Article 93a. But a 25-year-old Marine and a 19-year-old poolee do not establish every element merely by their ages. The government still must prove the qualifying role and relationship, prohibited activity, and knowledge of the other person’s protected status. Knowledge can be proved through circumstantial evidence; it cannot simply be assumed.

What Punishment Can Follow a Conviction Under Articles 93 and 93a?

Do not be lulled into complacency because an allegation sounds mild when you first hear it. The government may view the conduct very differently, and the authorized punishment is serious. A maximum is not a prediction that you will receive it.

For Article 93 conduct on or after 1 January 2019, the maximum punishment for an enlisted member includes a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, three years of confinement, and reduction to E-1. That’s a hell of a price to pay, especially if you are sitting at nineteen and a half years of service.

The confinement ceiling was two years for conduct from 17 June 2015 through 31 December 2018. Earlier conduct must be evaluated under the Manual and amendments then in effect. Later increases do not authorize a higher punishment for earlier conduct. The alleged offense date must be checked before selecting the ceiling.

For Article 93a, the maximum punishment for an enlisted member includes a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, five years of confinement, and reduction to E-1.

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 use the applicable confinement range unless specific facts justify a departure, explained in a written statement. The offense maximum, the forum’s limits, and any binding plea agreement still matter. A category range is not a prediction of your sentence. The Article 93 category range of 0–12 months does not replace the three-year offense maximum; a lawful departure requires the necessary facts and written explanation.

Reduction to E-1 applies to enlisted members. Dismissal is the punitive separation for commissioned officers, including commissioned warrant officers, and for cadets and midshipmen. A dishonorable discharge may apply to enlisted members and uncommissioned warrant officers; a bad conduct discharge applies only to enlisted members. The offense date, forum, and any plea agreement can further limit the authorized punishment.

Get Free Case Evaluation

How To Fight And Win Against Charges Under Article 93?

One well-known example concerns the abuse investigations at Parris Island. Recruit Raheel Siddiqui died in March 2016 following an altercation with his drill instructor. A separate earlier incident involved another recruit being forced into a clothes dryer. Those serious allegations are very different from a case that turns on whether difficult but lawful training crossed into maltreatment. The actual conduct and evidence matter.

A headline about abuse does not decide the next case. Some allegations describe conduct that has no legitimate training purpose. Others require much closer examination of the order, the conditions and what the accused actually did.

When it comes to your defense, it matters whether the evidence proves abuse or whether lawful training has been misunderstood. If some conduct crossed the line, the defense still has work to do on the precise allegations, the extent of responsibility and the appropriate result. Standing up for yourself begins with an honest assessment of the case.

Frequently Asked Questions About Article 93

More Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

• Penalties for Failure To Obey Order Or Regulation
• UCMJ Article 94: Mutiny And Sedition
• Article on Provoking Speeches Or Gestures
• UCMJ Assault
• Article 133: Conduct Unbecoming An Officer And Gentleman

Get Free Case Evaluation