Table Content
Article 91 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes criminal liability for certain forms of misconduct directed at warrant officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), and petty officers. The provision is designed to protect the authority of these supervisors and ensure the maintenance of good order and discipline within the armed forces. It applies to specific acts of disobedience, disrespect, and assault when committed by enlisted personnel or warrant officers.
Article 91 criminalizes three categories of behavior:
The statute requires that the victim be performing official duties for the assault and disrespect elements, but the disobedience element does not require that the officer be in the execution of office at the moment the order is given.
Only enlisted service members and warrant officers may be charged under Article 91. Commissioned officers are not subject to this article but may fall under other UCMJ provisions for similar misconduct. The protected persons include warrant officers, NCOs, and petty officers of any service component.
The disobedience offense requires willful conduct, meaning deliberate and intentional refusal to obey. Disrespect may be committed through words or acts and generally requires knowledge of the victim’s status. Assault requires the general intent to commit the offensive act but does not require an intent to injure.
Attempt liability can apply, particularly to the assault component, when an accused takes a substantial step toward striking or assaulting the protected officer. Conspiracy charges are less common but may be used when two or more persons agree to engage in prohibited conduct. Standard principles of aiding and abetting under Article 77 may apply when a service member assists or encourages another to commit any Article 91 offense.
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.
Under Article 91, the government must prove each element of the charged misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the specific status-based relationship, required mental state, and prohibited conduct that constitute the offense.
The mens rea generally requires that the accused acted intentionally or knowingly with respect to the conduct, and with awareness of the victim’s status. Knowledge of status is essential because Article 91 protects the authority of specific classes of military superiors.
The actus reus consists of the physical or verbal misconduct—such as assaulting, disobeying, or showing contempt—that interferes with the authority or duties of the warrant officer or NCO. The conduct must occur while the victim is performing official duties, establishing the operational context necessary for criminal liability.
Statutory definitions emphasize the protected status of warrant officers and NCOs as supervisors and leaders within the chain of command. “Execution of office” refers to actions performed within the scope of their assigned duties and responsibilities.
Punishment for violations of Article 91, UCMJ, depends on the date the alleged offense occurred. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are governed by the traditional maximum_punishment model. Offenses committed on or after that date fall under the standardized sentencing_category system implemented by the Military Justice Act of 2023.
Article 91 covers several forms of misconduct toward warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and petty officers. The maximum punishment depends on the specific type of misconduct:
No mandatory minimum sentences apply under the pre_December 27, 2023 framework.
Under the revised sentencing system, Article 91 offenses fall within Sentencing Category D because the highest authorized confinement for any Article 91 specification is 3 years. Category D includes a confinement range of 0 to 36 months. A dishonorable discharge remains authorized for assaultive conduct; a bad_conduct discharge is authorized for other forms of Article 91 misconduct. Reduction to E_1 and total forfeitures may be adjudged as permitted under R.C.M. 1003.
Under the sentencing_category model, judges and panels select a sentence within the prescribed range, rather than relying on offense_specific maximums. This creates standardized confinement ranges across the UCMJ and replaces the prior system in which each offense carried its own unique maximum punishment.
Charging decisions under Article 91 typically reflect the specific fact pattern developed during initial reporting and investigation, as well as the command’s assessment of the service member’s conduct within the broader disciplinary environment. The article is applied most often when conduct disrupts authority relationships or undermines the supervisory roles of noncommissioned or warrant officers.
Article 91 charges usually arise from direct, observable interactions between an enlisted service member and an NCO or warrant officer. The most common patterns include:
Most Article 91 cases start with immediate reports from supervisors or witnesses routed through the chain of command. Commands often initiate preliminary inquiries to capture statements and clarify the sequence of events. When allegations involve physical aggression, repeat misconduct, or potential criminality, law enforcement entities such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS may conduct formal investigations. These agencies gather interviews, video evidence, and contextual information to validate whether the conduct meets the statutory thresholds for insubordination.
Practitioners frequently observe charge-stacking where overlapping provisions—such as Article 92 or 128—are listed alongside Article 91 to preserve alternative theories of liability. Overlap also arises when the same conduct supports both disrespect and disobedience elements, allowing prosecutors to tailor charges to the available evidence. Commands sometimes pursue multiple specifications to address both the immediate misconduct and its broader impact on good order and discipline, ensuring latitude during referral and disposition decisions.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 91 frequently involve disputes over whether the government has established each statutory element, as well as challenges related to witness credibility, evidentiary rulings, and the interpretation of the article’s operative language. Litigation commonly centers on the underlying facts and the legal sufficiency of the government’s proof.
Controversy often focuses on whether the alleged conduct satisfies the statutory elements of Article 91. These issues may include:
These challenges typically focus on the adequacy of the government’s proof rather than on affirmative defenses.
Intent-related disputes frequently arise because Article 91 encompasses varying mental-state requirements depending on the specific form of insubordination alleged. Courts may examine:
Mens rea is often central because it determines the line between punishable misconduct and behavior that is rude, negligent, or accidental but not criminal under the article.
Cases under Article 91 frequently hinge on conflicting accounts from the accused, the NCO or warrant officer, and other witnesses. Contested issues may involve:
Factfinders often must evaluate the reliability and plausibility of testimony to determine whether the government has met its burden.
Evidentiary disputes can arise concerning the admissibility of statements under Article 31(b), the handling of digital or video evidence, or the scope of searches and seizures conducted during the investigation. Courts may assess:
Litigation sometimes involves interpreting the scope of terms such as “disrespect,” “execution of office,” or “lawful order.” Ambiguities may arise from cross-referenced provisions in the Manual for Courts-Martial or from evolving judicial interpretations. Such issues can shape how broadly or narrowly Article 91 is applied in specific contexts.
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of the sentence imposed by a court-martial. These consequences stem from military regulations, federal law, or policies of other governmental or civilian entities and may continue to affect a service member after the formal punishment is complete.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 91 for insubordinate conduct toward noncommissioned officers or warrant officers may prompt administrative action separate from the court-martial. Possible outcomes include:
A conviction for insubordination can raise concerns related to judgment, reliability, and adherence to standards, which may affect eligibility for a security clearance. Loss or suspension of a clearance can limit access to classified information and may restrict assignment opportunities. After separation, a prior clearance issue may influence hiring decisions for positions that require or prefer eligibility for cleared work.
Article 91 offenses do not ordinarily trigger sex offender registration or similar statutory reporting obligations. Any registration requirement would depend on the specific conduct involved and on federal or state law governing registrable offenses.
If the underlying behavior also violates federal or state law—such as assault or threats—the service member could face separate civilian criminal proceedings or potential civil liability. This exposure is independent of the court-martial process.
For non_citizens, certain convictions may carry immigration implications, such as effects on admissibility or naturalization eligibility. Whether Article 91 conduct triggers such consequences depends on the facts of the case and applicable immigration law.
Decisions made during the investigative phase of an alleged Article 91 violation often influence the outcome long before any charges are preferred. Actions taken at this stage shape the evidentiary record, frame the command’s understanding of the incident, and determine what information investigators rely on throughout the case.
Military investigators collect statements, digital records, and documents immediately after an allegation is reported. Early legal representation helps ensure that a service member’s rights are observed during this process and that evidence is contextualized accurately. Counsel can also advise on how evidence should be preserved, preventing misunderstandings or incomplete records from becoming fixed in the investigative file.
Command or law-enforcement interviews often occur before a service member fully understands the nature of the allegation or the scope of the investigation. Without legal guidance, statements may be incomplete, inconsistent, or unintentionally incriminating. Early consultation—even with a civilian military defense lawyer—can help a service member understand their rights and the implications of participating in interviews.
Command-directed investigations, including administrative inquiries, can proceed independently of criminal proceedings. Decisions made during these processes, such as written responses or witness statements, may later influence disciplinary actions or charging decisions, making early legal awareness important.
Choices made at the outset—whether consenting to searches, providing initial statements, or responding to administrative requests—can have continuing effects throughout a court-martial or administrative action. These early actions can shape the evidentiary landscape and the command’s perception of the case, affecting decisions at every subsequent stage.
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 clients facing courts-martial, administrative actions, and military investigations, providing guidance grounded in extensive experience with complex UCMJ matters. Their practice includes representation for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Space Force members across all branches and commands.
If you are facing allegations under UCMJ Article 91 or have questions about how these charges may affect your military career, you may contact Gonzalez & Waddington to discuss your situation. The firm can review your case and help you understand the legal processes involved in a confidential consultation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 91: Insubordinate Conduct Toward NCOs or Warrant Officers cover?
A: Article 91 addresses acts of insubordination directed at noncommissioned officers, petty officers, or warrant officers. It covers behaviors such as striking, disobeying lawful orders, or using contemptuous or disrespectful language while the superior is in the execution of official duties. The article applies to enlisted personnel and certain junior officers, and it is designed to maintain good order and discipline by reinforcing the authority of senior enlisted and warrant personnel within the military structure.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 91: Insubordinate Conduct Toward NCOs or Warrant Officers?
A: Maximum punishment varies based on the specific subsection violated. Striking or assaulting a warrant officer or NCO carries the most severe potential penalties, which may include confinement, reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and a punitive discharge if adjudged at court-martial. Lesser forms of insubordination, such as disrespect or failure to obey a lawful order, have lower maximum penalties, but they can still result in significant adverse consequences if proven.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commanders may initiate administrative separation based on substantiated misconduct, even if no court-martial conviction occurs. Administrative processes have a lower evidentiary threshold and may rely on the overall pattern of behavior, the reliability of statements, and the service member’s performance record. Potential outcomes can include retention, remedial measures, or separation with a characterization of service determined by the circumstances and the supporting documentation available to decision-makers.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members are not required to hire a civilian attorney, but many choose to consult one to better understand the investigative process, the applicable regulations, and potential outcomes. Military defense counsel is provided at no cost for courts-martial, but civilian counsel can offer additional perspectives or time resources. The decision typically depends on the complexity of the allegations and the member’s preference for representation during interviews or potential proceedings.
Q: Can an Article 91 allegation be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Yes. Many Article 91 cases are addressed through nonjudicial punishment, formal counseling, or other administrative measures, depending on the severity of the conduct and the command’s assessment of the situation. Minor or first-time incidents may be resolved at a lower level, while more serious actions or repeated misconduct may prompt referral to a court-martial. Commanders evaluate the evidence, intent, and impact on unit discipline when choosing the appropriate forum.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly used in an Article 91 investigation?
A: Evidence may include witness statements, duty logs, recorded communications, body-worn camera footage when available, and written orders or directives relevant to the alleged misconduct. Investigators may also review the service member’s prior disciplinary history and statements made during the inquiry. The focus is generally on clarifying the interaction between the accused and the senior enlisted or warrant officer, whether the order was lawful, and whether the conduct met the criteria for insubordination.
To better understand the Articles of the UCMJ and how military law works in practice, you can review the UCMJ and related authorities here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. For additional official guidance, visit the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps website at jag.navy.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.
