• tough leadership styles misinterpreted as “abusive”
• hazing allegations based on tradition or humor
• training-related corrective actions
• emotional accusations from disgruntled subordinates
• personality conflicts reframed as “abuse”
• claims of verbal cruelty without evidence of actual harm
• allegations during command disputes or NJP hearings

In modern practice, Article 93 cases arise most often in:

• basic training environments
• recruit training depots
• schoolhouses and AIT environments
• small-unit teams (infantry, SOF, aviation crew)
• ships and Coast Guard cutters
• military police units

For service members stationed in Florida, Article 93 allegations frequently occur during:

• high-tempo training cycles
• heated barracks interactions
• leadership disputes in aviation, intel, or special operations units
• hazing accusations tied to initiation events
• recruit misconduct at Navy and Coast Guard facilities

This guide breaks down the elements of Article 93, explains how commands misuse it, provides real-world examples, and outlines the defense strategies Gonzalez & Waddington use to defeat these cases and protect military careers.

Article 93 – Full Legal Breakdown

Article 93 makes it a crime for a service member with authority over another to engage in:

• cruelty
• oppression
• maltreatment

The government must prove:

• The accused was in a position of authority over the victim
• The accused engaged in conduct toward the victim
• The conduct amounted to cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment

What Counts as “Maltreatment”?

Maltreatment includes acts that:

• humiliate
• degrade
• abuse
• cause undue suffering
• exploit power imbalance

But the law recognizes that:

• strict discipline
• firm leadership
• stressful training
• demands for performance

are not maltreatment when justified by military necessity.

What Does NOT Qualify as Maltreatment?

• raising your voice
• correcting deficiencies
• enforcing high standards
• negative counseling statements
• command decisions or disciplinary actions
• scheduling duties, shifts, or field assignments
• peer-to-peer conflicts (no authority relationship)

“Authority” Requirement

Article 93 UCMJ applies only when the accused has formal or informal authority over the alleged victim, such as:

• officer over enlisted
• NCO or staff NCO over junior enlisted
• team leader over subordinate
• drill instructor over trainee
• training instructor over student
• supervisor over subordinate

Examples of Conduct Commonly Charged Wrongfully Under Article 93

• public humiliation during corrective training
• excessive PT used as punishment
• “smoke sessions” during basic training
• inappropriate jokes or comments
• ordering a subordinate to perform unsafe tasks
• sexual harassment (if not charged under other articles)
• overly aggressive leadership styles

Maximum Punishments under Article 93

Penalties can include:

• up to 1 year confinement
• forfeitures
• reduction in rank
• bad-conduct discharge

And even without court-martial, Article 93 allegations often lead to:

• administrative separation
• loss of rank or billet
• GOMORs or letters of reprimand
• permanent career damage

How Prosecutors Build Article 93 Cases

Prosecutors rely heavily on:

• emotional testimony from junior troops
• perceived power imbalance
• statements from witnesses influenced by groupthink or rumor
• misinterpreted training actions
• emails, texts, or chats with limited context
• statements from disgruntled subordinates
• AR 15-6 or command investigation summaries

These cases often rely more on feelings than facts.

Common Misunderstandings in Article 93 Cases

• Tough leadership is not maltreatment.
• Feeling offended is not evidence of cruelty.
• Corrective training is allowed if appropriate and supervised.
• Being “mean” is not a crime.
• Subordinates may exaggerate to avoid accountability.
• Army/Navy/Marine culture varies—context matters.

Florida-Specific Dynamics in Article 93 Cases

Florida installations—especially those with recruit training, aviation units, and operational commands—produce Article 93 cases due to:

• high stress environments
• intense training pipelines
• barracks conflicts misinterpreted as abuse
• multiple witnesses sharing biased or aligned narratives
• command climate investigations that favor accusers

These patterns create opportunities for both wrongful accusations and selective enforcement.

Real World Article 93 Military Scenarios

Article 93 UCMJ cases almost always arise from misunderstandings, personality conflicts, emotional reactions, training pressure, or unit drama. These scenarios illustrate how easily normal leadership actions, corrective training, or tense moments get reframed as “cruelty” or “maltreatment” once investigators and commanders get involved.

• A drill instructor forces a trainee platoon to perform corrective push-ups after repeated safety violations. One trainee collapses and later claims the DI “abused” them. NCIS charges Article 93 despite decades of precedent allowing corrective training.
• A squad leader loudly reprimands a soldier in formation for unsafe weapons handling. The soldier claims humiliation and files a complaint. CID interprets the leader’s tone as “verbal abuse.”
• A Marine sergeant uses profanity during a field exercise when a private repeatedly ignores orders. The private accuses him of oppression. Command pressures NCIS to investigate.
• A petty officer assigns cleaning duties to a junior sailor who has repeatedly shirked responsibilities. The sailor accuses her of “targeting” and “harassment.” NCIS steps in.
• An NCO orders a soldier to redo a task multiple times to ensure proficiency. The soldier claims the repeated corrections were “psychological abuse.”
• A Coast Guard cutter chief berates a seaman for sleeping on watch. The seaman files a misconduct complaint, alleging “cruelty.” CGIS initiates an investigation.
• During barracks cleanup, an NCO picks up a soldier by the shirt to get his attention. The soldier interprets this as “physical assault.” Article 93 and 128 are both charged.
• A soldier claims their platoon sergeant “pressed him too hard” during PT sessions, leading to Article 93 accusations of excessive physical training.
• A Marine corporal jokes crudely with junior Marines, believing the relationship is friendly. One Marine, after receiving a negative counseling, retroactively claims harassment and humiliation.
• A supervisor issues multiple written counselings to a chronically late troop. The troop files an IG complaint accusing the supervisor of “oppression.” Command adds Article 93.
• A drill sergeant makes a trainee repeat a drill after multiple failures. The trainee later claims “punishment and emotional torment.”
• A Navy LPO raises his voice during watch turnover over safety violations. A junior sailor records part of the conversation and claims emotional abuse.
• A Marine team leader physically separates two Marines during a fight. One later claims the leader “grabbed him aggressively.” NCIS charges maltreatment.
• An Army sergeant removes a private from a team after poor performance. The private alleges retaliation and maltreatment.
• A petty officer tells a sailor to “stop crying” and return to duty during a stressful deployment. The sailor claims psychological harm.
• A service member claims a leader hazed him during an unofficial squad tradition. Witnesses disagree, but command still prefers charges.
• A young soldier with anxiety claims his drill sergeant “screamed too close to his face,” framing a normal training technique as oppression.
• A Marine undergoing remedial PT says his NCO made him do “unsafe workouts.” In reality, he was following standard training protocols.
• A female soldier alleges a senior NCO “belittled her repeatedly,” but witnesses describe normal corrective training.
• A Sailor records a chief yelling at a junior in the engine room for violating safety procedures. Later, the chief is charged with maltreatment.

These scenarios show why Article 93 is one of the most abused articles in the UCMJ. Leadership, discipline, and corrective action are often wrongly interpreted as cruelty—especially when subordinate performance issues or personal conflicts are involved.

How Article 93 Investigations Are Conducted

Investigators approach cruelty and maltreatment cases through the lens of power imbalance, often assuming guilt based solely on the subordinate’s emotional response. Article 93 cases quickly become biased, subjective, and driven by command pressure.

The Command Pressure Problem

Commands often initiate Article 93 investigations because:

• they fear claims of “toxic leadership”
• they want to show they take complaints seriously
• higher commands or IG offices are watching
• they want to avoid public scrutiny
• they seek to protect their own reputations

This pressure leads to overcharging and biased investigations.

The “Emotion Equals Abuse” Mindset

Investigators often treat emotional reactions from junior troops as proof of abuse. This is deeply flawed logic, because:

• subordinates often exaggerate to avoid discipline
• frustration or embarrassment does not equal cruelty
• yelling is not a crime
• firm leadership is not oppression
• corrective PT is not hazing when properly supervised

The Role of Witness Bias

Witnesses may be influenced by:

• peer pressure
• unit rumors
• groupthink
• fear of being labeled disloyal
• personal dislike of the accused leader

Investigators rarely account for these distortions.

Misinterpretation of Corrective Training

Article 93 cases often hinge on misunderstanding the line between:

• authorized corrective training
• unauthorized hazing

Defense must emphasize:

• the leadership purpose of the training
• the safety measures in place
• the training doctrine supporting the action

NCIS / CID / OSI / CGIS Patterns in Article 93 Cases

• CID: often treats normal leadership behavior as abusive if a soldier complains emotionally.
• NCIS: aggressively charges maltreatment in recruit training and shipboard environments.
• OSI: focuses on digital messages, chats, or emails that are interpreted out of context.
• CGIS: often misinterprets rough interactions on cutters or during coastal operations.

Evidence Commonly Misused

• texts taken out of context
• partial witness statements
• emotionally charged interviews from subordinates
• videos showing only a snippet of a training interaction
• counseling forms interpreted unfairly

Florida-Specific Article 93 Investigative Pitfalls

Florida bases generate unique maltreatment cases due to:

• extreme heat and harsh training conditions
• high-volume recruit throughput at Navy/Coast Guard installations
• tight barracks environments causing interpersonal drama
• camera footage of only fragments of events
• IG and command investigations influenced by public pressure

These cases often escalate due to environment, not criminality.

How Gonzalez & Waddington Defend Article 93 Maltreatment Cases

Article 93 cases are emotional, politically charged, and often fueled by misunderstandings. The defense must dismantle the claim that normal military leadership—especially tough or high-intensity leadership—equals “cruelty.” Gonzalez & Waddington approach these cases by exposing exaggerations, faulty assumptions, and investigative bias while reframing the accused as a professional leader, not an abuser.

Step 1 – Attack the Terminal Element

To convict, the government must prove cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment. The defense forces prosecutors to explain:

• how the conduct was abusive, not corrective
• why the subordinate’s feelings equal maltreatment
• whether unit standards support the leader’s actions
• whether discipline—not abuse—motivated the conduct
• whether other leaders behaved similarly without issue

The government rarely proves an objective standard—only subjective complaints.

Step 2 – Build a Leadership and Performance Narrative

Article 93 cases require reframing the accused as:

• a demanding but fair leader
• someone who corrected unsafe or poor performance
• a respected professional targeted by disgruntled subordinates
• a leader doing their job during high-stress missions

Character witnesses and evaluation reports often destroy the maltreatment narrative.

Step 3 – Challenge the Credibility and Motives of the Alleged Victim

Many Article 93 allegations come from:

• subordinates facing discipline
• soldiers trying to avoid UCMJ or NJP
• Marines angry after poor evaluations
• sailors who misperceived corrective action
• junior troops attempting to retaliate
• trainees who misinterpreted training intensity

Cross-examination reveals ulterior motives and inconsistencies.

Step 4 – Use Training Doctrine to Justify Leadership Actions

The defense demonstrates:

• training manuals authorize the corrective action
• discipline was appropriate for safety or mission readiness
• the accused followed established procedures
• the actions were consistent with branch culture

Commands often ignore their own doctrine—until the defense highlights it.

Step 5 – Expose Overreach in AR 15-6 and Command Investigations

Many Article 93 cases start with flawed investigations that:

• accept subjective complaints as fact
• ignore exculpatory witnesses
• selectively quote statements
• misinterpret tone, context, or nuance
• fail to examine the alleged victim’s performance issues

Cross-examining investigating officers often reveals bias, incompetence, or confirmation bias.

Step 6 – Use Video, Audio, and Digital Messages Carefully

If video exists:

• it often shows normal corrective action
• witnesses exaggerate compared to what is seen
• the accused’s tone was firm, not abusive
• the alleged victim behaved differently than claimed

If video does not exist:

• witnesses often describe events inconsistently
• investigators rely on rumor and groupthink
• tone and intent become subjective—not provable

Step 7 – Highlight the Psychology of Subordinate Perception

The defense explains:

• junior troops often misinterpret intensity as hostility
• stress amplifies perceived negativity
• recruits lack perspective on normal training expectations
• emotional soldiers tend to exaggerate discipline as “abuse”

Panels understand that subordinate “feelings” do not equal criminal maltreatment.

Step 8 – Show Pattern of Good Leadership

This includes:

• NCOERs / FITREPs / OERs showing strong leadership
• awards or commendations
• deployment history
• letters from peers and superiors
• performance metrics for the accused’s unit

This evidence demonstrates the accused is a high-performing leader—not a bully.

Step 9 – Use Branch Culture as a Defense

Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, and Coast Guard leadership cultures vary significantly. The defense shows:

• what is normal in one branch may be misinterpreted in another
• Marine Corps training intensity is routinely misunderstood
• special operations culture is task-focused, not personal
• aviation or shipboard environments require strict enforcement

Step 10 – Florida-Specific Defense Angles

Florida bases produce many Article 93 cases due to:

• high operational tempo
• intense shipboard or aviation stress
• tight barracks living conditions
• large training pipelines
• hot, exhausting environments exaggerating perceived cruelty

The defense must contextualize allegations within Florida’s climate, tempo, and personnel turnover.

Pro Tips for Service Members Facing Article 93 Allegations

These practical tips protect your career and strengthen your defense immediately.

• Do not make statements to investigators—your words will be twisted into “admissions.”
• Preserve texts, emails, chat logs, and training schedules showing your leadership style.
• Identify witnesses early—especially those with positive experiences.
• Do not talk about your case with your chain of command.
• Document all performance or disciplinary issues involving the accuser.
• Gather proof of your adherence to training doctrine.
• Request copies of AR 15-6 or command inquiry notes immediately.
• Preserve videos if barracks cameras or phones recorded interactions.
• Do not delete anything—deletions are misinterpreted as guilt.
• Request written guidance about the corrective training you administered.
• Maintain professionalism in all communications—angry messages become evidence of “oppression.”
• Document the accuser’s performance history—this is critical.
• Show patterns of positive leadership and mentorship.
• Get statements from peers and superiors about your leadership style.
• Do not apologize in writing—investigators treat apologies as admissions.
• Immediately create a timeline of events with your lawyer.
• Preserve physical training logs, safety briefs, and unit SOPs.
• Understand that subordinate feelings do not determine criminal guilt.
• Prepare for exaggerated or coordinated witness statements.
• Stay calm—leadership cases collapse when the defense is organized and disciplined.

Call to Action for Article 93 Maltreatment Allegations

Article 93 allegations can destroy a career, reputation, and future—even when they arise from normal leadership, corrective training, or performance-based discipline. Subordinates may exaggerate, misinterpret, or weaponize complaints for personal reasons. Commands often overreact out of fear of appearing weak on leadership issues.

Gonzalez & Waddington have defended service members worldwide in high-stakes Article 93 cases involving drill instructors, NCOs, officers, training cadre, aviation supervisors, special operations leaders, and shipboard petty officers. We know how to dismantle emotional accusations and expose the truth behind exaggerated claims.

For immediate assistance, visit our Florida military defense hub at
https://ucmjdefense.com/florida-military-defense-lawyers/.

For the full UCMJ article index, return to
UCMJ Articles 77–134 Guide.