UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward a Commissioned Officer

UCMJ Article 89 — Disrespect Toward a Superior Commissioned Officer

UCMJ Article 89 prohibits any person subject to the UCMJ from behaving with disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer. The offense covers contemptuous or insulting words, gestures, written communications, and other nonverbal conduct directed at — or communicated to others about — a superior commissioned officer. Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members charged under Article 89 across all branches and locations.

To convict under Article 89, the government must prove the accused knew the victim was a superior commissioned officer and that the accused's wrongful words or acts detracted from the respect owed to the officer's rank. Article 89 is a general-intent offense; specific intent to disrespect is not required. Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members facing Article 89 charges from investigation through court-martial.

Penalties and Defense Strategies for Article 89 Charges

Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, a disrespect conviction under Article 89 carries a maximum of one year of confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a bad-conduct discharge for enlisted members or a dismissal for officers. Collateral consequences include administrative separation, reduction to E-1, security clearance revocation, and loss of veterans' benefits. Service members near retirement risk losing all retirement pay.

Michael Waddington, a former Army Senior Defense Counsel, examines whether the accused's conduct objectively met the threshold of disrespect under military custom and whether the accused actually knew the victim was a superior commissioned officer.

Defense strategies include challenging the knowledge element, introducing context showing the conduct did not undermine the officer's authority, and identifying witness credibility issues. Gonzalez & Waddington also pursues pretrial negotiations that may reduce or eliminate punitive discharge exposure. For a confidential consultation, call 1-800-921-8607.

Reviewed by Michael Waddington, Founding Partner · Updated November 9, 2026

UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward a Commissioned Officer

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.

Criminalized Conduct

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.

• Contemptuous or insulting speech
• Disrespectful gestures or physical behavior
• Communications to third parties expressing contempt for a superior officer

Who May Be Charged

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.

Mental State Requirement

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.

Related Liability: Attempt, Conspiracy, Aiding

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.

Aggressive Military Defense Lawyers: Gonzalez & Waddington

Watch the military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington break down how they defend service members worldwide against UCMJ allegations, CID/NCIS/OSI investigations, court-martials, Article 120 cases, administrative separations, and GOMORs. If you’re under investigation or facing charges, this video explains what your rights are and how experienced civilian military counsel can make the difference.

Elements of UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward a Commissioned Officer

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.

Required Elements

• A certain commissioned officer was the victim of the alleged conduct.
• The accused knew that the victim was a commissioned officer.
• The accused committed or omitted certain acts or used language toward the officer that constituted disrespect.
• The officer was the superior commissioned officer of the accused, or the accused was in the officer’s presence when the conduct occurred.
• The conduct was wrongful and occurred under circumstances to the prejudice of good order and discipline or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

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.

Maximum Punishment and Sentencing Exposure

Punishment depends on when the offense was committed. Offenses committed on or before December 27, 2023 are sentenced under the maximum punishments in the Manual for Courts-Martial. Offenses committed after December 27, 2023 are sentenced by a military judge under the sentencing parameters required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 and set out in Executive Order 14103, which added Appendices 12B through 12D to the Manual for Courts-Martial.

Maximum Punishment for Offenses Committed On or Before December 27, 2023

For offenses committed on or before December 27, 2023, the maximum punishments are those set in Part IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial and summarized in its Appendix 12:

• Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer in command: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 1 year, and reduction to E-1.
• Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer in rank: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 6 months, and reduction to E-1.
• Striking, drawing or lifting up a weapon against, or offering violence to, a superior commissioned officer in time of war: death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
• Striking, drawing or lifting up a weapon against, or offering violence to, a superior commissioned officer, other cases: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 10 years, and reduction to E-1.

For commissioned officers, dismissal takes the place of a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge, and officers cannot be reduced in grade.

Sentencing Parameters for Offenses Committed After December 27, 2023

For offenses committed after December 27, 2023, a military judge sentences the accused within the confinement range for the offense category assigned in Appendix 12C of the Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.). The ranges are set in Appendix 12B (R.C.M. 1002(a)(2)).

• Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer: Category 1, 0 to 12 months of confinement.
• Striking or offering violence to a superior commissioned officer in time of war: no numbered category; sentenced under the Appendix 12D criteria.
• Striking or offering violence to a superior commissioned officer, other cases: Category 2, 1 to 36 months of confinement.

For criteria offenses, the judge weighs the factors listed for the offense in Appendix 12D and may sentence up to the maximum punishment. If the maximum confinement for the offense is lower than the top of its category range, the lower maximum controls. The judge may sentence outside a range only after finding specific facts that warrant it and stating them in writing on the record. The parameters govern confinement. A punitive discharge, forfeitures, and reduction in grade remain available up to the maximum punishment for the offense. A case referred as capital is sentenced under R.C.M. 1004 instead.

How UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward a Commissioned Officer Is Commonly Charged

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.

Common Charging Scenarios

Article 89 is most frequently implicated in routine duty environments where rank structure and authority relationships are visible and enforced.

• Direct verbal outbursts toward a commissioned officer during a counseling session, inspection, or on-the-spot correction.
• Publicly disrespectful statements or gestures made in formation areas, headquarters spaces, or during unit events where witnesses are present.
• Electronic communications, such as messages or posts sent to or about an officer, that contain contemptuous or derogatory language.
• Refusal to acknowledge or respond appropriately to a lawful instruction accompanied by disrespectful demeanor, tone, or body language.
• Interpersonal conflicts where an officer attempts to de-escalate a situation and the enlisted member or junior officer reacts with overt disrespect.

Frequently Co-Charged Articles

• Article 92 (Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation): Common where the alleged disrespect arises in the context of an ignored or challenged order.
• Article 91 (Insubordinate Conduct): Sometimes added when the conduct overlaps but involves warrant officers, NCOs, or petty officers.
• Article 117 (Provoking Speeches or Gestures): Paired when the disrespectful statements also meet the criteria for provoking language.
• Article 134 (General Article): Used when the conduct has broader service-discrediting effects or does not fully fit within Article 89’s elements.

Investigative Pathways

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.

Charging Trends and Overlap

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.

Common Defenses and Contested Legal Issues

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.

Element-Based Challenges

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:

• Whether the officer was in the execution of official duties
• Whether the accused’s conduct meets the legal threshold for disrespect
• Whether contextual factors negate or diminish the disrespectful character of the conduct

These disputes usually involve factual development and interpretation of regulatory or command-wide norms relevant to military courtesy.

Mens Rea and Intent Issues

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:

• The accused claims lack of knowledge of the officer’s rank or identity
• The language or conduct could plausibly be interpreted as unintentional or misdirected
• Operational conditions or stressors create ambiguity about purposeful disrespect

Because disrespect can involve verbal tone, gestures, or context-dependent behavior, disputes over intent often require detailed factual analysis.

Credibility and Factual Disputes

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 and Suppression Issues

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:

• Recordings of interactions, including body-worn or security camera footage
• Digital communications offered to show tone, context, or contemporaneous reactions
• Searches of electronic devices or workspaces that reveal contextual evidence

Counsel may litigate whether evidence was obtained in compliance with military rules of evidence and investigative procedures.

Statutory Interpretation Issues

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.

Related UCMJ Articles

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 Beyond Court-Martial Punishment

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.

Administrative and Career Consequences

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:

• Consideration for an other-than-honorable or general discharge characterization.
• Reduced competitiveness for promotion or special duty assignments.
• Impact on eligibility for reenlistment or commissioning programs.
• Potential influence on retirement determinations, particularly with respect to characterization of service at separation.

Security Clearance and Professional Impact

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.

Registration and Reporting Requirements

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.

Related Civilian Legal Exposure

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.

Immigration and Citizenship Considerations

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.

Why Early Legal Representation Matters

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.

Timing of Evidence Collection

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.

Risks of Early Interviews

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-Driven Investigations

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.

Long-Term Impact of Early Decisions

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.

Video transcript

Transcript of the video “Article 89 UCMJ | Disrespect or Assault of a Superior Commissioned Officer,” with Michael Waddington of Gonzalez & Waddington.

Read the full transcript of this video

Article 89 of the UCMJ makes it a crime to behave with disrespect toward your superior commissioned officer and since 2019 to strike, draw a weapon against or offer violence to a superior commissioned officer. One version is usually handled at Article 15. The other is one of the most serious purely military offenses there is. I’m Michael Waddington, civilian military defense lawyer and co-founder of Gonzalez & Waddington. Here’s what Article 89 covers, what it carries, and how to defend it, including in the age of social media.

First, disrespect. The government has to prove that you did or said something toward a certain commissioned officer, that the officer was your superior commissioned officer, that you knew it, and that your behavior or language was disrespectful. Disrespect can be words, tone, gestures, or conduct. Cursing at an officer, mocking them, ignoring them while being addressed, refusing to salute, or an insulting gesture. And contrary to what most people assume, it doesn’t have to happen in the officer’s presence. Disrespectful comments about your commander made to others can be charged, though a truly private conversation generally shouldn’t be.

Second, who’s a superior commissioned officer? An officer in your chain of command is your superior regardless of rank. An officer in your own service who outranks you is also your superior, even if they’re not in your chain. An officer of another service who outranks you counts only if they’re in your chain of command or otherwise exercising command over you. And you have to know the person’s status. A civilian clothed officer you didn’t recognize is a different case.

Third, assault of a superior commissioned officer. Before 2019, this was part of Article 90. Now, it’s Article 89. It covers striking a superior commissioned officer, drawing or lifting up any weapon against them, or offering any violence against them while they’re in the execution of their office. Offering violence doesn’t require contact. A raised fist, a lunge, or a threatening move can be enough.

Fourth, the punishment. Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer carries up to a year and a bad-conduct discharge. Assaulting a superior commissioned officer carries up to 10 years and a dishonorable discharge and in time of war death. The gap between those two numbers is enormous and the facts of a confrontation whether there was an actual offer of violence or just angry words can move a case from one to the other.

Fifth, social media. Disrespect cases increasingly come from posts, group chats, and memes about commanders and senior officers. A screenshot from a unit group chat can be the whole case. Commissioned officers face an additional risk. Article 88, which prohibits officers from using contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense, and certain other officials. Enlisted members aren’t covered by Article 88, but they can still face Article 89 or Article 134 for posts about their own officers, and their services’ social media policies apply.

Sixth, the defenses. Not disrespectful. Blunt disagreement, a complaint made through proper channels or an honest opinion delivered respectfully is not disrespect. Context. The full exchange, including what the officer said first. Knowledge. You didn’t know the person was your superior commissioned officer. Private conversation. Comments made in a truly private setting generally aren’t punishable. Abandonment of office. An officer whose own conduct departs so far from what’s expected by instigating a fight or acting as a private individual in a personal dispute may lose the special protection of the article. Self-defense, for assault charges. And not in the execution of office, which is required for the assault offense.

Seventh, consequences beyond the punishment. A single disrespect charge at Article 15 usually won’t end a career, but it can mean reduction in rank, extra duty, and a record that follows you into promotion boards and reenlistment decisions. An assault charge almost always means court-martial, and a conviction will almost certainly end your career. For officers, disrespect toward a senior officer also raises Article 133, conduct unbecoming and administrative action.

Eighth, what to do. One, after a confrontation, stop. Don’t go back to the officer to argue or apologize in a way that becomes an admission. Two, don’t post about it and don’t delete what you already posted without talking to a lawyer first. Three, write down for your lawyer exactly what was said and done by both of you and who saw it. Four, identify witnesses right away.

Five, get advice before you accept an Article 15 and get a lawyer immediately if the allegation involves any physical contact or a weapon.

At Gonzalez & Waddington, we defend Article 89 cases from the Article 15 level to general court-martial and we always start with the full context of the encounter because the officer’s version is rarely the whole story.

So, what is Article 89 of the UCMJ? It covers disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer with up to a year and a bad-conduct discharge and assault of a superior commissioned officer with up to 10 years and a dishonorable discharge.

I’m Michael Waddington, a civilian military defense lawyer and co-founder of Gonzalez & Waddington with my law partner Alexandra González-Waddington. For more than 20 years, we’ve defended service members stationed around the world in military investigations, courts-martial, Article 15s, reprimands, and administrative separation boards.

If you’re facing a disrespect or assault charge involving an officer, don’t wait. The decisions you make early can shape the entire case. When the government builds a case, we build your defense. You can learn more at ucmjdefense.com or call 1-800-921-8607 for a free, confidential consultation.

When the command knows you’ve got real defense, the game changes.

About Gonzalez & Waddington

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.

How We Help in UCMJ Article 89: Disrespect Toward a Commissioned Officer

• Representation in courts-martial involving allegations of disrespect, disobedience, or related military-specific offenses under Article 89.
• Support and guidance during military criminal investigations conducted by CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS, including interview preparation and assertion of rights.
• Assistance with command-directed investigations and responses to allegations, statements, rebuttals, and supporting documentation.
• Advocacy in administrative separation boards, boards of inquiry, and other adverse administrative actions stemming from alleged disrespect toward a commissioned officer.
• Analysis of the facts, context, and elements of Article 89 to help service members understand the evidence, potential consequences, and available defense strategies.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

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.

Michael Waddington

A former Army JAG, best-selling author and FIU adjunct law professor, 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

Alexandra González-Waddington is a military and civilian defense attorney with more than 20 years of experience 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.