Table Content
Article 89 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes acts or language that constitute disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer. The provision is designed to protect the authority and command integrity of commissioned officers within the armed forces. Disrespect may occur in the officer’s presence or outside the officer’s presence if the conduct is communicated to others.
The offense covers contemptuous, insulting, or degrading words or behavior directed at a superior commissioned officer. Both verbal and nonverbal acts may qualify, including gestures, tone, or written communication. The conduct must undermine the respect customarily due to the officer’s rank and position.
Any person subject to the UCMJ may be charged under Article 89 if the disrespected party is a superior commissioned officer in relation to the accused. This includes enlisted members, warrant officers, and commissioned officers of junior or equal grade who are subordinate to the victim by command relationship. The superior status must exist at the time of the alleged misconduct.
Article 89 requires that the accused knew the person was a superior commissioned officer. The government is not required to prove an intent to disrespect; it is a general-intent offense. However, accidental or unknowing conduct does not meet the statutory threshold.
Attempt liability is uncommon because disrespect typically consists of completed speech or behavior rather than incomplete acts. Conspiracy charges are rare but may apply if two or more individuals agree to engage in coordinated disrespectful conduct. Aiding or abetting liability can apply when a person intentionally assists another in committing disrespect within the meaning of Article 89.
The government must prove each element of Article 89 beyond a reasonable doubt to establish that an accused service member committed the offense of disrespect toward a commissioned officer. These elements identify the required status relationships, the nature of the conduct, and the knowledge the accused must possess.
The mens rea typically requires that the accused acted knowingly with respect to the officer’s status. The government must show that the accused was aware that the individual toward whom the conduct was directed was a commissioned officer and, when required, that the officer was superior to the accused in the chain of command.
The actus reus consists of words or behavior that objectively demonstrate disrespect. This may include speech, gestures, or actions that detract from the officer’s rank or authority. The determination is made in light of military customs and the specific context in which the conduct occurred.
Key statutory terms include “commissioned officer” and “superior commissioned officer,” which refer to individuals holding a commission and, when applicable, occupying a higher position in the chain of command relative to the accused.
Punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice depends on when the alleged offense occurred. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are sentenced under the pre_2024 maximum_punishment model, while offenses on or after that date are governed by the revised sentencing_parameter framework implemented by the FY23 National Defense Authorization Act.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 system, Article 89 (Disrespect Toward a Commissioned Officer) carried the following maximum authorized punishments as specified in the Manual for Courts_Martial:
For offenses on or after December 27, 2023, Article 89 falls within Sentencing Category D, which establishes standardized confinement ranges and sentencing rules.
The post_December 2023 system differs from the prior model by assigning offenses to sentencing categories with defined confinement ranges rather than relying solely on fixed maximum punishments. This creates structured, offense_based sentencing parameters while retaining judicial discretion within those ranges and preserving traditional authorities regarding punitive separations, reductions, and forfeitures.
Charging decisions under Article 89 typically arise from specific fact patterns observed by command teams, documented in initial reports, and evaluated through command discretion. The charge is used when the conduct clearly reflects a service member’s disregard for a commissioned officer’s authority, and its use is shaped by the circumstances surrounding the incident and the quality of the supporting evidence.
Article 89 is most frequently implicated in routine duty environments where rank structure and authority relationships are visible and enforced.
Most Article 89 matters begin with a direct report to the chain of command, often from the officer involved or from immediate witnesses. Command_directed inquiries, including preliminary inquiries or commander’s investigations, are common starting points. When the conduct occurs in conjunction with potential criminal activity or significant misconduct, law_enforcement agencies such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS may become involved. Their role is generally focused on gathering statements, electronic evidence, and contextual information rather than treating Article 89 as a standalone criminal investigation.
Practitioners frequently observe charge_stacking where Article 89 is combined with related offenses to reflect multiple aspects of a single incident. Commands may also charge Article 89 in the alternative with Article 91 or Article 134 when factual uncertainty exists regarding the officer’s status or the exact nature of the misconduct. Overlap arises because disrespectful conduct often intersects with disobedience, disruption of good order, or conduct prejudicial to service reputation, leading to layered charging theories grounded in the same event.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 89 often revolve around whether the evidence establishes each required element, whether witness testimony is reliable, how evidentiary rules apply to the facts, and how statutory language should be interpreted. Litigation typically focuses on proof and legal sufficiency rather than on strategic considerations.
Disputes commonly arise over whether the government has established all elements of Article 89, including proof that the alleged victim was a commissioned officer, that the accused knew the individual’s status, and that the conduct or language was objectively disrespectful under the circumstances. Litigation frequently centers on:
These disputes usually involve factual development and interpretation of regulatory or command-wide norms relevant to military courtesy.
Questions regarding the accused’s mental state often become central in Article 89 cases. Courts may examine whether the accused acted knowingly, willfully, or with awareness of the officer’s status. Mens rea issues arise when:
Because disrespect can involve verbal tone, gestures, or context-dependent behavior, disputes over intent often require detailed factual analysis.
Witness credibility plays a significant role in many prosecutions. Divergent accounts of tone, phrasing, setting, or demeanor can create factual uncertainty. Differences in recollection among officers, enlisted personnel, or bystanders may influence how the conduct is legally characterized. Investigative notes and interviews may also be scrutinized for internal consistency and reliability.
Evidentiary disputes may involve the admissibility of statements made during command inquiries or formal investigations, including whether rights advisements were properly administered. Issues may also arise regarding:
Counsel may litigate whether evidence was obtained in compliance with military rules of evidence and investigative procedures.
Litigants may contest how terms such as “disrespect,” “presence,” or “execution of office” should be interpreted, particularly when cross-referenced definitions or historical interpretations create competing readings. Ambiguities in regulatory guidance or precedent can lead to disputes over the scope and application of Article 89 in varied operational or administrative contexts.
Insubordinate conduct involving NCOs and warrant officers
Willful disobedience of a commissioned officer
Contemptuous language toward officials
Failure to obey lawful orders frequently charged alongside disrespect
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of the sentence imposed by a court-martial. For a conviction under Article 89 of the UCMJ, these secondary outcomes can influence a service member’s career, post-service opportunities, and certain legal obligations, even after any direct punishment has been completed.
A conviction for disrespect toward a commissioned officer may factor into decisions regarding continued military service. Command authorities may initiate administrative separation based on a demonstrated loss of military bearing or unprofessional conduct. Related outcomes may include:
An Article 89 conviction may be reviewed in security clearance adjudications. Concerns may arise regarding judgment, reliability, or adherence to standards of conduct. Adverse findings can affect access to classified information, continued assignment to sensitive duties, and post-service employment in fields requiring clearance eligibility.
Convictions under Article 89 do not, by themselves, trigger sex offender registration or similar statutory reporting duties. Any registration requirements are governed by federal and state law and would apply only if the conduct involved elements covered by those statutes.
Although disrespect toward a commissioned officer is primarily a military offense, certain related acts—such as threats or physical contact—could also fall under federal or state criminal statutes. In rare circumstances, associated misconduct could lead to civil claims, depending on the nature of the behavior.
For non-citizens, a conviction under Article 89 generally does not trigger immigration consequences on its own. However, any criminal record may be reviewed in immigration or naturalization processes, where overall conduct, good moral character, and disciplinary history can be relevant factors.
When a service member is under investigation for UCMJ Article 89, the decisions made during the earliest stages often influence the direction and outcome of the case well before any formal charges are considered. The investigative phase shapes how facts are framed, what evidence is emphasized, and how the service member’s conduct is interpreted under military law.
Military investigators typically begin gathering evidence as soon as an allegation is reported. This may include witness statements, written communications, digital records, and command documentation. Early legal involvement helps ensure that evidence is preserved appropriately, that statements are not taken out of context, and that potentially exculpatory materials are not overlooked. Counsel can also address issues related to the accuracy and handling of collected information.
Initial interviews with command representatives or law-enforcement personnel often occur before a service member fully understands the nature or scope of the allegations. Without guidance, a member may provide incomplete or inaccurate information, inadvertently waive rights, or make statements that are later interpreted unfavorably. Legal counsel, including civilian military defense lawyers, can help clarify rights and prevent misunderstandings during these early interactions.
Command-directed inquiries, such as administrative investigations or AR 15-6 proceedings, may move forward independently of any criminal process. Early participation in these processes can affect findings that later influence disciplinary decisions, evaluations, or further legal actions.
Choices made at the outset—such as consenting to searches, providing written statements, or responding to administrative requests—can have effects throughout a court-martial or administrative review. These early actions often shape the evidentiary record and the command’s understanding of the incident.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that represents service members worldwide in cases arising under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The firm focuses on defending individuals facing courts_martial, administrative actions, and military investigations, providing informed guidance on the complex rules, procedures, and expectations unique to the military justice system.
If you are facing allegations under UCMJ Article 89 or have questions about your rights and options, you may contact Gonzalez & Waddington to discuss your situation. The firm offers consultations to help service members understand the process and obtain informed guidance regarding their case.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward a Commissioned Officer cover?
A: UCMJ Article 89 addresses conduct that shows disrespect toward a commissioned officer, whether the officer is in the accused’s chain of command or not. The conduct can be verbal, written, or nonverbal, and it must be directed at the officer in their official capacity. The standard focuses on whether the behavior undermines the authority or dignity of the officer and affects good order and discipline within the military environment.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward a Commissioned Officer?
A: The maximum punishment for an Article 89 conviction depends on whether the disrespect occurred in the officer’s presence and whether it involved commissioned officers in the accused’s chain of command. Possible punishments may include confinement, forfeiture of pay, reduction in rank, and a punitive discharge in the most serious circumstances. The actual sentence varies based on the facts, the member’s record, and the adjudicating authority’s determination.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commands have discretion to initiate administrative separation based on substantiated or credible allegations of disrespect, even if no court-martial conviction occurs. Administrative actions rely on a lower evidentiary standard and may be pursued if the command believes the conduct negatively affects readiness or discipline. Outcomes depend on the service member’s record, the seriousness of the conduct, and the reviewing authority’s assessment of whether retention is appropriate.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: A civilian military defense lawyer is not required, but some service members choose to consult one to better understand the process and potential consequences. Article 89 cases can involve conflicting accounts, credibility assessments, and evaluations of intent, which may benefit from legal guidance. Service members are also entitled to appointed military counsel when facing certain actions, and combining both types of counsel is an option for those seeking additional support.
Q: Can this be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Commands often address Article 89 allegations through nonjudicial punishment, counseling, reprimands, or other administrative measures when the conduct is considered minor or isolated. These options allow resolution without the formalities of trial. The chosen approach depends on the severity of the disrespect, the member’s record, the impact on the unit, and the command’s judgment regarding the most appropriate corrective action under the circumstances.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly used in Article 89 investigations?
A: Evidence in Article 89 cases may include witness statements, command observations, written or recorded communications, and any available digital evidence reflecting the interaction in question. Investigators typically evaluate the context of the incident, the relationship between the parties, and whether the conduct occurred in an official setting. Commands also consider intent and tone, as disrespect can stem from both direct statements and behavior that implicitly challenges an officer’s authority.
If you want to review the Articles of the UCMJ and learn more about military law, you can start here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. You may also find helpful official information from the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps at afjag.af.mil.
A renowned military criminal defense attorney and best-selling author, Michael Waddington defends clients worldwide in serious cases and trains lawyers in advanced cross-examination. He is frequently featured by major media outlets like CNN and 60 Minutes.
Alexandra González-Waddington is a top military and civilian defense attorney who has handled high-profile sexual assault, violent crime, and war-crimes cases globally. Her work is widely recognized by media outlets including 60 Minutes and ABC’s Nightline.
