Essay On Article 91 Of Ucmj

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Article 91: Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, NCO, or PO

Text. “Any warrant officer or enlisted member who—

(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;

(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or

(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that officer is in the execution of his office; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) Striking or assaulting warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer.

(a) That the accused was a warrant officer or enlisted member;

(b) That the accused struck or assaulted a certain warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer;

(c) That the striking or assault was committed while the victim was in the execution of office; and

(d) That the accused then knew that the person struck or assaulted was a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer. Note: If the victim was the superior noncommissioned or petty officer of the accused, add the following elements

(e) That the victim was the superior noncommissioned, or petty officer of the accused; and

(f) That the accused then knew that the person struck or assaulted was the accused’s superior non-commissioned, or petty officer.

(2) Disobeying a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer.

(a) That the accused was a warrant officer or enlisted member;

(b) That the accused received a certain lawful order from a certain warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer;

(c) That the accused then knew that the person giving the order was a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer;

(d) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and

(e) That the accused willfully disobeyed the order.

(3) Treating with contempt or being disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant, non-commissioned, or petty officer.

(a) That the accused was a warrant officer or enlisted member;

(b) That the accused did or omitted certain acts, or used certain language;

(c) That such behavior or language was used toward and within sight or hearing of a certain warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer;

(d) That the accused then knew that the person toward whom the behavior or language was directed was a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer;

(e) That the victim was then in the execution of office; and

(f) That under the circumstances the accused, by such behavior or language, treated with contempt or was disrespectful to said warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer. Note: If the victim was the superior noncommissioned, or petty officer of the accused, add the following elements

(g) That the victim was the superior noncommissioned, or petty officer of the accused; and

(h) 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.

Explanation.

(1) In general. Article 91 has the same general objects with respect to warrant, noncommissioned, and petty officers as Articles 89 and 90 have with respect to commissioned officers, namely, to ensure obedience to their lawful orders, and to protect them from violence, insult, or disrespect.

Unlike Articles 89, and 90, however, this article does not require a superior-subordinate relationship as an element of any of the offenses denounced. This article does not protect an acting noncommissioned officer or acting petty officer, nor does it protect military police or members of the shore patrol who are not warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officers.

(2) Knowledge. All of the offenses prohibited by Article 91 require that the accused have actual knowledge that the victim was a warrant, noncom missioned, or petty officer. Actual knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(3) Striking or assaulting a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer. For a discussion of “strikes” and “in the execution of office,” see paragraph 14c. For a discussion of “assault,” see paragraph 54c.

An assault by a prisoner who has been discharged from the service, or by any other civilian subject to military law, upon a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer should be charged under Article 128 or 134.

(4) Disobeying a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer. See paragraph 14c(2), for a discussion of lawfulness, personal nature, form, transmission, and specificity of the order, nature of the disobedience, and time for compliance with the order.

(5) Treating with contempt or being disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant, non-commissioned, or petty officer. “Toward” requires that the behavior and language be within the sight or hearing of the warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer concerned. For a discussion of “in the execution of his office,” see paragraph 14c. For a discussion of disrespect, see paragraph 13c.

Lesser included offenses.

(1) Striking or assaulting warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer in the execution of office.

(a) Article 128—assault; assault consummated by a battery; assault with a dangerous weapon

(b) Article 128—assault upon warrant, non-commissioned, or petty officer not in the execution of office

(c) Article 80—attempts

(2) Disobeying a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer.

(a) Article 92—failure to obey a lawful order

(b) Article 80—attempts

(3) Treating with contempt or being disrespectful in language or deportment toward warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer in the execution of office.

(a) Article 117—using provoking or reproachful speech

(b) Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment.

(1) Striking or assaulting warrant officer. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

(2) Striking or assalting superior noncommissioned or petty officer. Dishonorable discharge, for-feiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.

(3) Striking or assaulting other noncommissioned or petty officer. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

(4) Willfully disobeying the lawful order of a warrant officer. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

(5) Willfully disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned or petty officer. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

(6) Contempt or disrespect to warrant officer. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 9 months.

(7) Contempt or disrespect to superior noncommissioned or petty officer. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

(8) Contempt or disrespect to other noncommissioned or petty officer. Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months, and confinement for 3 months.

Next Article> Article 92-Failure to obey order or regulation >

Above Information from Manual for Court Martial, 2002, Chapter 4, Paragraph 15

Insubordination is the act of willfully disobeying an order or one's superior. Refusing to perform an action that is unethical or illegal is not insubordination; neither is refusing to perform an action that is not within the scope of authority of the person issuing the order.[citation needed]

Insubordination is generally a punishable offense in hierarchical organizations which depend on people lower in the chain of command doing what they are expected to do.

Military[edit]

Insubordination is when a serviceman or servicewoman wilfully disobeys the lawful orders of a superior officer. If a military officer were to disobey the lawful orders of his or her civilian superiors, this would also count. For example, the head of state in many countries, is also the most superior officer of the military as the Commander in Chief. (see Civilian control of the military)[1][2][3][4] Generally, an officer or soldier may be insubordinate to the point of mutiny if given an unlawful order, however. (see Nuremberg defense)

In the U.S. military, insubordination is covered under Article 91 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.[5] It covers disobeying lawful orders as well as disrespectful language or even striking a superior. The article for insubordination should not be confused with the article for contempt. While Article 91 of the UCMJ deals predominately with disobeying or disrespecting a superior and applies to enlisted members and warrant officers, Article 88 involves the use of contemptuous words against certain appointed or elected officials and only applies to commissioned officers.[6]

Economy[edit]

Other types of hierarchical structures, especially corporations, may use insubordination as a reason for dismissal or censure of an employee.

There have been court cases in the United States which have involved charges of insubordination from the employer with counter charges of infringement of First Amendment rights from the employee. A number of these cases have reached the U.S. Supreme Court usually involving a conflict between an institution of higher education and a faculty member.[7][8]

In the modern workplace in the Western world, hierarchical power relationships are usually sufficiently internalized so that the issue of formal charges of insubordination are rare. In his book Disciplined Minds, American physicist and writer Jeff Schmidt points out that professionals are trusted to run organizations in the interests of their employers. Because employers cannot be on hand to manage every decision, professionals are trained "to make sure that the subtext of each and every detail of their work advances the right interests — or skewers the disfavored ones” in the absence of overt control.[9]

Examples[edit]

There have been a number of famous and notorious people who have committed insubordination or publicly objected to an organizational practice.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

External links[edit]

Sixteen blindfolded partisan youth await execution by German forces in Serbia, August 1941. Allegedly, German soldier Josef Schulz refused to take part in the action and was executed along with the youth.
  1. ^usmilitary.about.com. Article 90—Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer. Accessed December 9, 2010.
  2. ^usmilitary.about.com.Article 91—Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, NCO, or PO. Accessed December 9, 2010.
  3. ^usmilitary.about.com.Article 92—Failure to obey order or regulation. Accessed December 9, 2010.
  4. ^usmilitary.about.com.Article 94—Mutiny and sedition. Accessed December 9, 2010.
  5. ^usmilitary.about.com.Article 91—Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, NCO, or PO. Accessed November 25, 2013.
  6. ^usmilitary.about.com.Article 88—Contempt toward officials. Accessed December 9, 2010.
  7. ^Imber, Michael and Tyll Van Geel (2001). A Teacher's Guide to Education Law. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. p. 196. ISBN 0-8058-3754-X. Google Book Search. Retrieved on December 10, 2010.
  8. ^Kaplin, William A. and Barbar A. Lee (2007). The Law of Higher Education. Jossey-Baass. p. 234. ISBN 978-0-7879-7095-6. Google Book Search. Retrieved on December 10, 2010.
  9. ^Schmidt, Jeff (2001). Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-battering System That Shapes Their Lives. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. p. 41. ISBN 0-7425-1685-7. Google Book Search. Retrieved on December 10, 2010.

0 thoughts on “Essay On Article 91 Of Ucmj”

    -->

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *