UCMJ Article 93: Cruelty and Maltreatment

What Is UCMJ Article 93 and Who Can Be Charged?

UCMJ Article 93 criminalizes cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment of any person subject to a superior's orders within the military. The statute targets officers, noncommissioned officers, and others in positions of authority who abuse that authority against subordinates. Article 93 focuses on misuse of command power, not ordinary interpersonal conflict or lawful but demanding discipline.

To convict under Article 93, the government must prove the accused held authority over the victim, the victim was subject to the accused's orders, and the accused deliberately engaged in cruel, oppressive, or maltreating conduct. Intent to harm is not required — only that the conduct was deliberate and objectively abusive. Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members facing Article 93 charges across all branches and at installations worldwide.

Article 93 Penalties and How Gonzalez & Waddington Defends These Cases

Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, Article 93 carries a maximum of a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, three years of confinement, and reduction to E-1. Offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023, fall under Sentencing Category 2, which retains the same three-year confinement ceiling. A conviction can also trigger administrative separation, loss of retirement eligibility, and security clearance revocation.

Michael Waddington, a former Army Senior Defense Counsel, examines Article 93 cases by scrutinizing whether the accused held genuine authority over the alleged victim, whether the conduct exceeded lawful supervisory bounds, and whether the government can prove deliberate — not merely negligent — behavior. The defense may challenge the superior-subordinate relationship, introduce evidence of legitimate command purpose, cross-examine the alleged victim on motive, and move to suppress improperly obtained statements.

Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members from every branch — Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space Force, Reserve, and National Guard — before military courts in the United States and overseas, including Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea. The firm handles courts-martial, Article 32 hearings, administrative separation boards, and security clearance matters arising from Article 93 allegations. Call 1-800-921-8607 for a confidential consultation.

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

Overview of UCMJ Article 93: Cruelty and Maltreatment

Article 93 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes acts of cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment committed by a person in a position of authority against someone subject to their orders. The provision is aimed at protecting subordinates from abusive treatment within the military hierarchy. The statute focuses on misuse of authority rather than mere interpersonal conflict.

Prohibited Conduct

Conduct violates Article 93 when it involves cruel, oppressive, or abusive actions directed at a subordinate. The term “maltreatment” includes physical abuse, sexual harassment, degrading behavior, or any conduct that a reasonable person would view as unwarranted, unjust, or abusive under the circumstances. The evaluation focuses on whether the behavior exceeded legitimate disciplinary or supervisory functions.

Examples of conduct commonly associated with Article 93 include:

• Physical assault or improper use of force against a subordinate
• Sexual advances, coercion, or harassment by a superior
• Verbal abuse, threats, or humiliation motivated by an abuse of authority
• Imposing duties or conditions intended to cause harm rather than serve a valid military purpose

Who May Be Charged

Only individuals who are in a position of authority over the victim—such as officers, noncommissioned officers, and others with supervisory responsibility—may be charged under Article 93. The victim must be subject to the accused’s orders or control. Rank alone is not determinative; the relationship of authority at the time of the conduct is what matters.

Mental State Required

Article 93 does not require proof of intent to injure. The government must show that the accused knowingly engaged in the conduct and that a reasonable person would view the conduct as cruel, oppressive, or maltreating. Negligent or accidental behavior does not meet the statutory standard.

Related Liability Doctrines

Attempt and conspiracy charges are uncommon but legally possible when supported by evidence of intent to commit maltreatment. Accomplice liability may apply if a supervisor aids, encourages, or permits abusive conduct by others under their authority. Separate offenses, including assault or sexual misconduct, may be charged alongside Article 93 when the same conduct satisfies multiple elements.

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 93: Cruelty and Maltreatment

The government must prove each element of the offense of cruelty and maltreatment beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements establish that the accused, by virtue of a superior-subordinate relationship, engaged in conduct that the law prohibits as abusive, oppressive, or otherwise incompatible with the proper exercise of authority.

Required Elements

• That the accused was a certain superior to the alleged victim, such as a superior officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer.
• That the alleged victim was subject to the lawful orders or authority of the accused.
• That the accused engaged in cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment toward the alleged victim.
• That the conduct occurred on or about a specific date and location.

The mens rea required for Article 93 is general intent. The government must show that the accused intentionally engaged in the conduct, though it need not prove an intent to harm or degrade. It is sufficient that the conduct was deliberate and not accidental.

The actus reus consists of acts or omissions that amount to cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment. This includes behavior that is abusive, degrading, unnecessary for any lawful purpose, or incompatible with the proper exercise of authority over a subordinate.

“Cruelty,” “oppression,” and “maltreatment” are not rigidly defined but are evaluated according to the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the relationship and the impact of the conduct on the subordinate. Conduct may qualify even without physical contact if it exceeds legitimate supervisory authority.

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:

• Cruelty toward, oppression of, or maltreatment of a subordinate: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 3 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)).

• Cruelty and maltreatment: Category 1, 0 to 12 months of confinement.

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.

How UCMJ Article 93: Cruelty and Maltreatment Is Commonly Charged

Charging decisions under Article 93 are shaped by the specific fact pattern, the nature of the complaint, the available evidence, and the discretion of both investigators and commanders. Although the article is broad, actual charging practices tend to follow recognizable patterns that emerge from routine military operations, supervisory relationships, and the command climate in which allegations surface.

Common Charging Scenarios

Article 93 allegations typically arise from interactions where a service member in a position of authority is accused of behavior that crosses the line from firm leadership into abusive conduct. Common scenarios include:

• Persistent verbal harassment, belittling, or humiliating treatment directed at subordinates or trainees.
• Improper use of authority in training environments, such as excessive corrective measures or conduct perceived as demeaning.
• Retaliatory behavior by supervisors following complaints, safety reports, or interpersonal conflicts.
• Misuse of rank to pressure or coerce subordinates in ways unrelated to legitimate mission requirements.
• Instances where inappropriate conduct overlaps with command climate issues, leading to multiple complainants reporting similar treatment.

Frequently Co-Charged Articles

Article 93 is often paired with other UCMJ offenses when the same conduct touches multiple statutory provisions. Common co-charged articles include:

• Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation), especially when the alleged conduct violates command policies on leadership, hazing, or professional boundaries.
• Article 128 (Assault) when physical contact or aggressive actions accompany the alleged maltreatment.
• Article 117 (Provoking Speeches or Gestures) in cases involving demeaning or inflammatory language.
• Article 133 (Conduct Unbecoming) or Article 134 (General Article) when the conduct implicates broader standards of officer or enlisted professionalism.

Investigative Pathways

Article 93 cases frequently begin with subordinate complaints made to a supervisor, first sergeant, or equal opportunity representative. Commands may initiate a commander-directed investigation or AR 15-6–type inquiry (or service-equivalent) to capture preliminary facts. When allegations suggest criminal conduct or involve multiple victims, law enforcement agencies such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS commonly assume the investigation. These cases often rely heavily on witness interviews, climate assessments, and review of digital communications.

Charging Trends and Overlap

Prosecutors commonly employ charge-stacking or alternative charging theories when conduct fits within multiple articles, both to preserve charging options and to reflect the full scope of alleged behavior. Overlap is frequent because maltreatment often coexists with regulatory violations, unprofessional interpersonal conduct, or acts that could be interpreted as assaultive. While commands may tailor charges to the operational environment, the overall trend is to capture the supervisory misuse of authority along with any accompanying misconduct under related UCMJ provisions.

Common Defenses and Contested Legal Issues

Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 93 often hinge on whether the government can prove specific statutory elements and whether the evidence reliably supports those elements. Litigation typically focuses on credibility assessments, the scope of permissible evidence, and interpretations of the statute’s language and intent. These issues frequently determine how factfinders evaluate the alleged conduct within the broader context of command authority, duty relationships, and military discipline.

Element-Based Challenges

Element-based disputes commonly arise over whether the alleged conduct legally qualifies as cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment. Because Article 93 applies only when the accused is in a position of authority over the victim, parties often contest the existence or scope of a supervisory or duty relationship. Questions may also arise regarding whether the conduct was sufficiently severe or abusive to meet the statutory threshold, particularly when the behavior includes ambiguous or mixed professional and personal interactions. Challenges may also focus on whether the alleged actions were directed “toward a person subject to the accused’s orders,” with litigation centered on organizational structure, tasking authority, or informal influence.

Mens Rea and Intent Issues

The required mental state is often a central point of contention. Parties may dispute whether the government must prove intent, knowledge, recklessness, or another mens rea with respect to the alleged maltreatment. These debates typically involve the characterization of the conduct—whether it was purposeful, negligent, or a product of operational pressures. Disagreements can also involve whether the statute imposes an objective or subjective standard when evaluating the accused’s state of mind and the impact of the conduct on the subordinate.

Credibility and Factual Disputes

Witness testimony frequently plays a decisive role in Article 93 cases. Inconsistencies, differing recollections, and varying perceptions of tone, authority, or context may influence how the facts are understood. Credibility assessments may be affected by rank disparities, operational stressors, or prior interactions between the parties. Investigators’ methods and the completeness of documentary records can also influence how factfinders assess the reliability of the evidence.

Evidentiary and Suppression Issues

Common evidentiary questions include the admissibility of statements made during command inquiries, workplace interactions captured in digital form, and documentation of performance or discipline. Suppression motions may address the voluntariness of statements, compliance with search and seizure requirements, or the handling of electronic communications. The scope of permissible character or propensity evidence can also be a recurring issue.

Statutory Interpretation Issues

Litigation may involve disputes over the meaning of specific terms within Article 93, such as “maltreatment” or “oppression,” and how those terms relate to broader military customs and regulatory guidance. Ambiguities in cross-referenced provisions, including those defining positions of authority or duty status, can also generate interpretive challenges.

Related UCMJ Articles

Failure to obey lawful orders, often associated with abusive or improper treatment of subordinates

Insubordinate conduct involving disrespect or mistreatment within the chain of command

Prohibited trainee and recruit relationships that may overlap with abusive authority concerns

Assault and aggravated assault, frequently co-charged when cruelty involves physical harm

Collateral Consequences Beyond Court-Martial Punishment

Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise outside of the sentence imposed by a court-martial. These consequences are typically governed by military regulations, federal law, or state law and may continue to affect a service member after completion of any court-martial punishment.

Administrative and Career Consequences

A conviction under UCMJ Article 93 may influence a wide range of administrative and career determinations. Potential outcomes include:

• Administrative separation proceedings, which may result in early removal from service.
• Adverse discharge characterization, such as General or Other Than Honorable, depending on the circumstances.
• Reduced eligibility for promotion, reenlistment, or special assignments.
• Impact on retirement eligibility or calculation of benefits if separation occurs before required service milestones.
• Limitations on future military service, including accession into other components or services.

Security Clearance and Professional Impact

A conviction for cruelty or maltreatment may affect eligibility to hold or maintain a security clearance. Decision-makers may consider the nature of the offense, reliability concerns, and any indications of abuse of authority. Loss of clearance can limit access to certain military roles and may also affect post-service employment in fields that require clearance eligibility or suitability determinations.

Registration and Reporting Requirements

Convictions under Article 93 do not automatically trigger sex offender registration. However, if the underlying conduct involves behavior covered by federal or state registration laws, reporting requirements may apply. Registration obligations are determined by specific statutory criteria and vary among jurisdictions.

Related Civilian Legal Exposure

Conduct supporting an Article 93 conviction may also fall within federal or state criminal statutes, potentially leading to separate civilian investigation or prosecution. Additionally, individuals involved may pursue civil claims, such as tort actions, depending on the circumstances and applicable law.

Immigration and Citizenship Considerations

For non-citizen service members, certain convictions may affect immigration status, admissibility, or future naturalization eligibility. Any impact depends on the specific facts of the offense and how it is classified under immigration law.

Why Early Legal Representation Matters

During the investigative phase of a UCMJ Article 93 allegation, decisions made by the service member and by investigators often influence the direction and outcome of the case long before any formal charges are preferred. Early legal representation helps ensure that these initial steps are managed with a clear understanding of the legal landscape.

Timing of Evidence Collection

Military investigators typically begin gathering statements, documents, electronic records, and command communications immediately after an allegation is raised. Early legal involvement can help a service member understand how evidence may be interpreted, how statements may be contextualized, and how digital material should be preserved. Civilian military defense lawyers can also help clarify what information must be provided and what may be withheld under applicable rights.

Risks of Early Interviews

Command or law-enforcement interviews often occur before the service member fully understands the scope of the allegation. Without legal guidance, a service member may provide information that is incomplete, inaccurate, or unnecessary, creating challenges later in the process. Early representation ensures that the service member understands their rights under Article 31(b) and the implications of waiving them.

Command-Driven Investigations

Administrative inquiries, command-directed investigations, and climate assessments may proceed separately from any criminal process. Early decisions in these settings—including responses to taskings or questionnaires—can influence command perceptions and later administrative or disciplinary actions.

Long-Term Impact of Early Decisions

Choices made early in an investigation, such as providing statements, consenting to searches, or responding to administrative inquiries, can shape later proceedings. These decisions may affect the admissibility of evidence, the scope of a court-martial, or the outcome of administrative measures such as adverse evaluations or separation actions.

Video transcript

Transcript of the video “Article 93 UCMJ Maltreatment | Toxic Leadership, Hazing & Abuse of Authority Defense,” with Michael Waddington of Gonzalez & Waddington.

Read the full transcript of this video

Article 93 of the UCMJ makes it a crime for anyone to be cruel toward, oppress, or maltreat a person who is subject to their orders. It’s the charge used against leaders accused of abusing their authority. NCOs, officers, drill instructors, and anyone else in a position to give orders. I’m Michael Waddington, civilian military defense lawyer and co-founder of Gonzalez & Waddington. Here’s what Article 93 requires, what it carries, and how leaders accused of maltreatment, hazing, or toxic leadership defend themselves.

First, the elements. The government has to prove two things. One, a certain person was subject to your orders. Two, you were cruel toward, oppressed, or maltreated that person. Subject to your orders is broader than people think. It includes people directly under your command and anyone who because of your position or duties is required to obey your lawful orders. Trainees, junior service members in your section, and people you supervise on a detail can all qualify even if you’re not their rating official.

Second, what maltreatment means. The test is objective. The question is whether the treatment viewed objectively under all the circumstances was abusive or otherwise unwarranted, unjustified and unnecessary for any lawful purpose and caused or reasonably could have caused physical or mental harm or suffering. The person doesn’t have to have actually been harmed. Maltreatment can be physical like excessive or punitive physical training or verbal like degrading, humiliating or demeaning language. And it can include sexual harassment of a subordinate, which was the most common way sexual harassment was prosecuted before it became its own Article 134 offense.

For most leaders, the bigger consequences are administrative, relief for cause, a general officer memorandum of reprimand or letter of reprimand, a referred evaluation, removal from a promotion list, and in the case of officers, a board of inquiry or elimination proceedings.

Fourth, the related offenses. Maltreatment charges often come with others. Article 92 for violating hazing or fraternization regulations. Article 128 for assault if there was physical contact. Article 93a for prohibited activities with a recruit or trainee, which applies to recruiters, drill instructors, and others in training environments. Article 132 for retaliation if the leader took action after someone complained. And Article 133 for officers. We cover hazing and retaliation in separate videos.

Fifth, the fact patterns. A platoon sergeant who uses smoke sessions as punishment. A drill instructor accused of physical abuse or degrading language toward recruits. A supervisor who singles out one subordinate for humiliating tasks. A chief accused of a pattern of yelling, cursing, and public belittling. A leader accused of sexually explicit comments or advances toward a subordinate and investigations that start as command climate surveys or IG complaints alleging toxic leadership which then turn up specific incidents that get charged.

Sixth, how these cases start. Most begin with a complaint from one or more subordinates, often through the IG, the Equal Opportunity Office, a chaplain, or the command climate survey. The command usually opens an administrative investigation first, an AR 15-6, a command investigation, or a commander-directed investigation. The investigating officer interviews the unit, and those interviews can paint a picture of a leader that’s far worse than any single incident. If the findings are serious, the command may refer the case to law enforcement or prefer charges.

Seventh, the defenses. Lawful purpose. Corrective training, demanding standards, and tough training are lawful when they’re authorized and tied to a legitimate purpose. The regulations allow a lot of hard leadership, and the line between that and maltreatment is where the case is fought. Objective standard. The question isn’t whether a subordinate felt mistreated. It’s whether the conduct was abusive or unjustified viewed objectively. Context. Unit mission, operational stress, standards, and how other leaders operated. Motive. Complaints that follow a bad evaluation, discipline, or a failed course deserve scrutiny. Not subject to orders. The person may not have been in your chain or under your authority. And character. The testimony of the many subordinates who say you were tough, fair, and made them better.

Eighth, what to do. One, don’t give a statement in the administrative investigation without legal advice. You usually have the right to remain silent and the right to know what you’re accused of. Two, don’t talk to your subordinates about the complaint or try to find out who made it. That can be charged as retaliation or obstruction. Three, gather training schedules, counseling records, emails, and the regulations that authorized what you did.

Four, identify former subordinates, peers, and supervisors who can speak to your leadership. Five, get a lawyer early because the administrative findings often decide whether charges follow.

At Gonzalez & Waddington, we represent leaders accused of maltreatment, hazing, and toxic leadership from the first investigation through boards and courts-martial.

So, what is Article 93 of the UCMJ? It’s cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment of someone subject to your orders judged by an objective standard with a punitive discharge and confinement at stake.

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 maltreatment complaint or investigation, 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 clients facing complex military criminal allegations, including those charged under UCMJ Article 93: Cruelty and Maltreatment. Its attorneys have extensive experience navigating the military justice system and advising clients through each stage of the process.

How We Help in UCMJ Article 93: Cruelty and Maltreatment

• Court-martial defense for service members facing Article 93 allegations
• Representation during military criminal investigations, including CID, NCIS, OSI, and CGIS inquiries
• Guidance and advocacy during command-directed investigations and related responses
• Support in administrative separation boards and other adverse administrative actions
• Advice on collateral consequences and strategic considerations associated with Article 93 cases

If you are facing an allegation involving UCMJ Article 93 or have concerns about an ongoing investigation, Gonzalez & Waddington is available to discuss your situation. Contact the firm to request a confidential consultation and learn more about the services they provide.

Frequently Asked Questions

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.

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.