Article 93a UCMJ – Prohibited Activities With Military Recruits & Trainees – Military Defense Lawyers

UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington

Article 93a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes certain prohibited activities with military recruits and trainees. It is designed to prevent abuse, exploitation, or improper relationships between trainers, instructors, drill sergeants, cadre, recruiters, MTIs, RDCs, and the recruits or trainees under their authority.

Article 93a is a relatively recent addition to the UCMJ and grew out of multiple high-profile scandals at basic training and advanced training installations. It now covers a wide range of misconduct, including sexual activity, intimate relationships, harassment, favoritism, inappropriate communication, and abuse of authority involving those in vulnerable training or accession status.

However, because the language is broad and politically charged, Article 93a is frequently misused. Many service members are accused based on flirty conversations, joking texts, misunderstandings, false allegations, jealous peers, or blurred lines in training environments. Commands often overreact to any hint of impropriety, especially under media or IG scrutiny.

Florida has multiple training sites and recruiting hubs—NAS Pensacola, Whiting Field, MacDill AFB (for select training events), as well as extensive recruiting operations across Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, Tampa, and beyond. Article 93a is often weaponized against instructors, recruiters, and cadre who are operating under intense pressure with minimal margin for human error.

Gonzalez & Waddington defends trainers, recruiters, instructors, and leaders accused of Article 93a violations. We expose exaggeration, false allegations, misinterpretation of regulations, command overreach, and the political context behind many of these charges.

➤ Speak With an Article 93a Military Defense Lawyer

What Article 93a Prohibits

Article 93a targets misconduct involving:

• Military recruits – individuals in the initial accession pipeline (e.g., boot camp, basic training)
• Training program participants – AIT, tech school, flight school, pipeline courses, pre-commissioning programs
• Those under the authority of the accused – including direct or indirect chain-of-command or instructor-student relationships

Prohibited activities include (but are not limited to):

• Sexual acts or sexual contact with recruits or trainees
• Romantic or intimate relationships with those in training status
• Inappropriate touching (even if claimed “consensual”)
• Flirtatious or sexual comments, messages, or DMs
• Favoritism based on personal or sexual interest
• Abuse of power to coerce or influence trainees
• Unauthorized social contact off duty or off post with recruits/trainees
• “Grooming” behavior in person or online

Even when the recruit or trainee appears to consent, the relationship is presumed abusive because of the power imbalance.

Who Does Article 93a Apply To?

Article 93a primarily applies to:

• Drill Sergeants / RDCs / MTIs / MCRD DIs
• AIT / Tech School / “A” School Instructors
• Flight School & Advanced Course Instructors
• Cadre and Training Command Staff
• Recruiters and Recruiting Station Personnel
• Any leader in a training pipeline chain of command

Commands and prosecutors often apply the article broadly, sometimes extending it to anyone with perceived influence over a trainee or recruit.

Elements the Government Must Prove

To convict under Article 93a, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused:

1. Was in a Certain Authority Position

They were a trainer, recruiter, cadre, instructor, supervisor, or otherwise in a position of authority over the recruit or trainee.

2. Engaged in Prohibited Conduct

The accused engaged in one or more of the prohibited acts (sexual, intimate, or improperly personal conduct) with a recruit/trainee.

3. Knew the Person Was a Recruit or Trainee

The government must show that the accused knew the individual was in a training/recruit status.

4. Acted Wrongfully

The conduct must be intentional and without lawful justification or excuse, in violation of regulation and duty.

What Article 93a Is NOT

The following scenarios do not automatically equal a violation:

• Brief, incidental conversations in a public setting
• Neutral, professional communication via official channels
• Misinterpreted friendliness or encouragement
• Rumors created by jealous trainees or peers
• False allegations during mass IG complaints
• “Guilt by association” when others have been charged
• Post-training relationships that begin after the trainee leaves the program and chain of command

Article 93a requires a clear abuse of authority or improper relationship with someone in a vulnerable training status.

Why Article 93a Cases Are Often Weak

Despite the seriousness of the accusations, many Article 93a cases fall apart because:

• The trainee exaggerates or fabricates events
• The alleged conduct is based solely on texts or DMs with no context
• Relationships began after the student left the accused’s chain of command
• No physical evidence supports the allegation
• There are major credibility problems with the accuser
• Other trainees contradict the story
• Command’s own policies or oversight failures contributed to confusion

These cases are very fact-dependent and often rely on one witness’s word—something we aggressively challenge.

Why Article 93a Allegations Are Common in Florida

Florida has multiple training hubs and recruiting-heavy regions, leading to elevated risk of 93a allegations:

• NAS Pensacola – major training site for Navy, Marine, and Coast Guard aviation & technical specialties
• Whiting Field – Navy/Marine flight training
• Recruiting stations across Jacksonville, Miami, Tampa, Orlando, and panhandle
• High density of young trainees in transient status
• Large age and power gap between cadre/instructors and students
• Off-base nightlife where trainees and instructors may cross paths
• Social media proximity (Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok) amplifying boundaries issues

It is easy for young recruits and trainees—often away from home for the first time—to misconstrue attention, discipline, or personality as abusive or predatory.

Real-World Florida Article 93a Scenarios

1. Instructor–Trainee Texting After Hours

Instructors attempt to mentor or “check on” a trainee, which escalates into flirty or personal messaging. Screenshots are later sent to command.

2. Recruiter Accused by a Delayed Entry Program Applicant

Social media and text contact between a recruiter and applicant is later reframed as grooming or pressure.

3. Trainee Alleging “Relationship” After Failing Training

A trainee who fails out of training accuses cadre of impropriety out of anger or embarrassment.

4. Overlapping Social Circles

Trainees and instructors both frequent Florida bars and beaches; incidental off-duty contact is miscast as prohibited association.

5. Misinterpreted Tough Leadership

Harsh counseling or discipline is twisted into harassment, humiliation, or inappropriate conduct.

6. Anonymous Complaints

IG hotlines or EO/SHARP reports based on rumors, not direct observation.

7. Photos or DMs Taken Out of Context

Group chat messages spliced or selectively shared to paint a certain narrative.

How Article 93a Investigations Work

These cases typically involve:

• CID / NCIS / OSI / CGIS depending on branch
• Command-directed investigations (CDI, 15-6, JAGMAN, AR 15-6)
• IG, EO, or SHARP channels as initial complaint sources
• Digital forensics – phones, social media, chats
• Interviews with trainees/recruits and other cadre
• Review of training policies and SOPs

Common Problems We Expose in 93a Investigations

• One-sided interviewing (only accusers; not defense witnesses)
• Biased command climate (political need for “zero tolerance” arrests)
• Investigators ignoring exculpatory messages or statements
• No chain-of-custody for screenshots or digital media
• Improper leading questions asked of trainees
• Failure to review full contexts of chats or group messages
• Collusion between accusers who disliked the instructor

Defense Strategies for Article 93a Cases

1. Attack the Credibility of the Trainee/Recruit Accuser

We dig into motive, bias, inconsistencies, academic/performance history, prior complaints, and disciplinary issues.

2. Contextualize Digital Evidence

We obtain full message threads, not selective screenshots, and show when conversations were professional, mutual, or misinterpreted.

3. Prove Timing & Status

We show whether the relationship or communication occurred after the trainee left training or the chain of command, undermining 93a’s applicability.

4. Distinguish Mentorship From Misconduct

Command often mislabels tough or supportive mentorship attempts as “improper contact.” We reframe the narrative.

5. Show Command Bias or Political Pressure

High-profile training scandals push commands to prosecute borderline cases. We expose this pressure.

6. Florida-Specific Defense Angles

• Frequent civilian/military social overlap off base
• Uncontrolled student behavior in nightlife and beach areas
• Social media “clout” driving exaggerated accusations

7. Use Expert Testimony

We may employ training doctrine experts to explain what normal instructor behavior looks like in that pipeline.

Potential Punishments for Article 93a Violations

Depending on the severity (especially when sexual misconduct is alleged), Article 93a can lead to:

• Dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge
• Confinement (years in serious sexual cases)
• Reduction in rank to E-1
• Total forfeitures
• Sex offender registration in some cases (when charged alongside sexual offenses)
• Permanent loss of career, retirement, and reputation

Even when cases are handled at NJP or administratively, Article 93a accusations can end a career through:

• Instructor/recruiter decertification
• Relief for cause
• Negative OERs/NCOERs/FITREPs
• Administrative separation
• Loss of future command or leadership roles

Pro Tips for Anyone Accused Under Article 93a

• Do NOT talk to CID/NCIS/OSI/CGIS without a lawyer.
• Do NOT try to “explain” texts or messages to your chain of command.
• Preserve all messages, screenshots, and photos—do not delete anything.
• Make a private, privileged timeline of all interactions with the accuser.
• Identify defense witnesses (other trainees, instructors, or staff) who observed your professionalism.
• Avoid contact with the accuser or their friends.
• Avoid all social media commentary or joking about the allegation.
• Contact an experienced military defense attorney immediately.

➤ Protect Your Career & Reputation – Get Article 93a Defense Now

Article 93a – Frequently Asked Questions