Article 91 | Insubordinate Conduct Toward Warrant Officer, Noncommissioned Officer, or Petty Officer

Facing an Article 91 Charge? Stress, confusion, and a damaged reputation can feel overwhelming. Don’t go it alone. Military Law Center can help.

Insubordinate Conduct Toward Warrant Officer, Noncommissioned Officer, or Petty Officer in the military can be detrimental to your career and reputation.  Even an accusation under Article 91 can trigger administrative or criminal consequences.  There are three theories in which the government can try you for Article 91 allegations: 

• Striking or Assaulting
• Willfully Disobeying a Lawful Order; or
• Disrespecting

The government must prove the following elements at trial for striking or assaulting a Warrant Officer, Noncommissioned Officer, or Petty Officer:

1. That the accused was a warrant officer or enlisted member;
2. That the accused struck or assaulted a certain warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer;
3. That the striking or assault was committed while the victim was in the execution of office; and
4. That the accused then knew that the person struck or assaulted was a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer.
   [If the victim was the superior noncommissioned or petty officer of the accused, add the following elements]
5. That the victim was the superior noncommissioned, or petty officer of the accused; and
6. That the accused then knew that the person stuck or assaulted was the accused’s superior noncommissioned, or petty officer.

The prosecution must prove the following elements at trial for disobeying a Warrant, Noncommissioned, or Petty Officer:

1. That the accused was a warrant officer or enlisted member;
2. That the accused received a certain lawful order from a certain warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer; 
3. That the accused then knew that the person giving the order was a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer;
4. That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and
5. That the accused willfully disobeyed the order.

The Trial Counsel must prove the following elements for Treating with Contempt or Being Disrespectful toward a Warrant, Noncommissioned, or Petty Officer:

1. That the accused was a warrant officer or enlisted member;
2. That the accused did or omitted certain acts, or used certain language;
3. That such behavior or language was used toward and within sight or hearing of a certain warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer;
4. That the accused then knew that the person toward whom the behavior or language was directed was a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer;
5. That the victim was then in the execution of officer; and
6. That under the circumstances the accused, by such behavior or language, treated with contempt or was disrespectful to said warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer.
   [If the victim was the superior noncommissioned or petty officer of the accused, add the following elements]
7. That the victim was the superior noncommissioned or petty officer of the accused; and
8. That the accused then knew that the person toward whom the behavior or language was directed was the accused’s superior noncommissioned, or petty officer.

The terms found within the elements above have specific definitions.  The following definitions apply:

1. Knowledge. 
   The accused must have actual knowledge of the order and of the fact that the person issuing the order was the accused’s superior commissioned officer.  It may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
2. Lawfulness of the Order. 
   The order from the officer must be lawful.  Service members are not expected to follow patently illegal orders.

Service members find themselves in trouble when emotions get involved and they become disrespectful. Although subordinates know they are supposed to remain respectful even then they feel they are being unfairly targeted or counseled publicly, servicemembers who vocalize their emotions towards the Warrant, Noncommissioned, or Petty Officer may find themselves defending an Article 91 charge.

An Article 91 charge can feel daunting to defend against, but there are potential defenses available to fight the accusation:

• Lacking Actual Knowledge:
  You were unaware of the order because it was never passed down to you via your chain of command.  Just because your Warrant Officer told the First Sergeant to deliver the written order to clean the bathroom showers does not mean the First Sergeant delivered it to you.  Proving you did not have actual knowledge of the order is a defense.
• The Order Was Illegal:
  Although there is a presumption that all orders are legal until proven otherwise, if you are asked to perform an illegal task, this could be a defense to your entire case.
• Your Disobedience Was Not Willful:  
  If you can show you were not willfully disobedient, then you would have a defense to Article 90.  You must show an “intentional defiance of authority.”  For example, if the superior commissioned officer told you to attend a course on Friday morning, getting hit by another car and going to the hospital would show you were not willfully disobedient when you failed to attend the course.
• Voluntary Intoxication: 
  In a case where an Army Private was so intoxication he could not form the willfulness to violate the order, the Army Court of Military Review determined voluntary intoxication was a defense to the willfulness element.  While it is a question of fact at trial that must be supported by evidence, a skilled trial attorney will be able to raise this defense.  See United States v. Cameron, 37 M.J. 1042 (1993).

At Military Law Center, we understand the weight of an Article 91 accusation. These charges can cast a shadow over your military career and reputation, even if ultimately dismissed. That’s why we fight tirelessly to protect your rights and clear your record.

We build strong, transparent client relationships. We’ll keep you informed every step of the way, empowering you to participate actively in your defense. Our team of experienced attorneys will explore all available options and fight aggressively to achieve the best possible outcome for your Article 91 case.

We understand the importance of a clean record. If your case is dismissed or you prevail, we can help you navigate the expungement process to ensure your Article 91 accusation is removed from your military record.

The maximum punishment for Article 91 depends on the status of the victim.

• Striking or Assaulting

• • Warrant Officer:  Dishonorable Discharge, five years confinement, and total forfeitures.

• • Superior Noncommissioned Officer: Dishonorable Discharge, three years confinement, and total forfeitures.

• • Other Noncommissioned Officer: Dishonorable Discharge, one year confinement, and total forfeitures.

• Willfully Disobeying:

• • Warrant Officer:  Dishonorable Discharge, two years confinement, and total forfeitures, and total forfeitures.

• • Noncommissioned Officer: Bad Conduct Discharge, one year confinement, and total forfeitures.

• Contempt or Disrespect: 

• • Warrant Officer:  Bad Conduct Discharge, nine months confinement, and total forfeitures.
  • Superior Noncommissioned Officer: Bad Conduct Discharge, six months confinement, and total forfeitures.
  • Other Noncommissioned Officer: Three months confinement, and two-thirds forfeitures for three months.

The maximum punishment for Article 91 listed in the Manual for Court-Martial is shown above. But there can be some other punishments. For example, a service member could also be punished with restriction, fines not to exceed the jurisdictional maximum, and punitive letters of reprimand. Additionally, the criminal conviction itself will trigger collateral consequences later in life.

An Article 91 charge can have a significant impact beyond the courtroom. It can damage your reputation within the military, affect your career progression, and potentially hinder future job opportunities.

Facing an Article 91 charge can be a frightening and stressful experience. At Military Law Center, we understand the challenges you’re facing, and we’re here to help. Here’s what sets us apart:

• Experienced Military Defense Attorneys:
  Our team is comprised of former military personnel with a deep understanding of military law and the UCMJ. We’ve successfully defended countless service members facing Article 91 charges, and we know how to navigate the complexities of military justice.
• Personalized Attention:
  We treat every client as an individual. We’ll take the time to understand your specific situation and develop a personalized defense strategy designed to achieve the best possible outcome.
• Aggressively Protecting Your Rights:
  We’re committed to fighting for your rights and ensuring you receive fair treatment throughout the legal process. We’ll explore all available defense options and work tirelessly to protect your career and future.
• Clear Communication:
  We understand legal jargon can be confusing. We’ll keep you informed about the progress of your case and explain everything in clear, understandable terms.
• Free Consultation:
  We offer a free consultation to discuss your situation and answer any questions you may have. This allows you to make informed decisions about your defense strategy.

Don’t Face Article 91 Charges Alone. We Can Help.

An Article 91 charge can derail your military career and reputation. But you don’t have to fight this alone. Military Law Center has a proven track record of success defending service members facing these accusations. Our experienced attorneys understand the military justice system and will work tirelessly to protect your rights and achieve the best possible outcome for your case.

Contact Military Law Center today for a free consultation. We’ll stand by your side and fight for you.

Military Law Center Is Ready to Help You – Right Now.

Call Us Today – (760) 536-9038