This article is part of a comprehensive series covering the punitive articles of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Service members facing any UCMJ charge should consult a qualified military defense attorney.
A specialist walks past a guard post at 0200 and mutters something derogatory about the private standing watch. No physical contact, no threat, no disruption to operations. Three months’ confinement and forfeiture of two-thirds pay for three months. That is the maximum punishment under Article 95a, and the fact that the UCMJ assigns its own article to what might seem like a minor slight tells you something about how military law values the sentinel function.
Article 95a (10 U.S.C. § 895a) is one of the new punitive articles created by the Military Justice Act of 2016, effective January 1, 2019. Before the MJA, disrespect toward a sentinel could be prosecuted under Article 134 (the general article) or, depending on the circumstances, under Article 91 if the sentinel happened to be an NCO or petty officer. The MJA gave the offense its own article, a deliberate structural choice that elevated sentinel protection from a catch-all provision to a specific prohibition.
Disrespectful Language and Disrespectful Behavior
Subsection (a): Disrespectful Language
The prosecution must prove that a certain person was a sentinel or lookout; that the accused knew that person was a sentinel or lookout; that the accused used wrongful and disrespectful language directed toward and within the hearing of the sentinel or lookout; that the sentinel or lookout was in the execution of duties at the time; and that, under the circumstances, the conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting. The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 20a) sets out the elements: the accused engaged in disrespectful behavior toward a person known to be a sentinel or lookout in the execution of duty.
Subsection (b): Disrespectful Behavior
The elements mirror subsection (a) with one substitution: “behavior” replaces “language,” and “within the sight” replaces “within the hearing.” The accused must have behaved in a wrongful and disrespectful manner directed toward and within the sight of an on-duty sentinel or lookout whom the accused knew to be serving in that capacity.
The knowledge requirement is critical. Article 95a does not apply to someone who insults another service member without knowing that person is a sentinel. If a service member shouts obscenities near a gate guard but does not know the person is posted as a sentinel, perhaps in a training exercise where roles are not visually obvious, the knowledge element fails. The prosecution must establish that the accused was aware of the sentinel’s status, though circumstantial evidence can satisfy this: a uniformed guard at a clearly marked post creates a strong inference of knowledge.
“Wrongful and disrespectful” carries the same general meaning it does throughout UCMJ disrespect provisions. The MCM explains that disrespect detracts from the respect due to the sentinel or lookout. It may consist of acts or language, however expressed. Whether the accused was referring to the sentinel as an on-duty official or as a private individual is irrelevant, the statute protects the sentinel function, not the person’s feelings.
How Article 95a Relates to the Sentinel Protection Framework
Article 95a is the companion provision to Article 95. Together, they create what the series has previously described as bidirectional sentinel protection: Article 95 punishes sentinels who fail their own duties (sleeping, drunkenness, leaving post, loitering, sitting down), while Article 95a punishes anyone who undermines sentinels performing those duties through disrespect.
The logic is straightforward. If the UCMJ treats sentinel failure severely enough to authorize the death penalty in wartime (Article 95(a)), then it must also protect sentinels from conduct that could compromise their ability to function. A sentinel who is being verbally abused or subjected to disrespectful behavior faces a distraction that could degrade their alertness. Article 95a removes the sentinel’s dilemma, they do not have to choose between confronting the disrespectful person and maintaining their post. The UCMJ handles the confrontation for them.
The “execution of duties” requirement in both subsections means that Article 95a applies only while the sentinel is actively performing sentinel functions. Disrespect directed at the same person off-duty, or between assignments, falls outside Article 95a. It might still be prosecutable under Article 91 (if the sentinel is an NCO or petty officer), Article 89 (if the sentinel is a commissioned officer), or Article 134, but not under the sentinel-specific provision.
This mirrors the pattern seen across UCMJ disrespect articles. Article 89 protects commissioned officers. Article 91(3) protects warrant officers, NCOs, and petty officers while in execution of office. Article 95a protects sentinels and lookouts while in execution of duties. Each provision identifies a category of person performing a specific function and shields that function from disruptive conduct.
What Article 95a Does Not Cover
Article 95a is narrowly drawn. It does not cover physical interference with a sentinel, that falls under assault provisions (Article 128) or potentially under Article 134 for conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. It does not cover disobedience of a sentinel’s lawful orders, that falls under Article 92 or, if the sentinel holds appropriate rank, Article 90 or 91.
The article also does not apply to conduct that occurs outside the sentinel’s hearing or sight. Complaining about a sentinel to a third party in the barracks, even using disrespectful language, does not violate Article 95a because the language is not directed toward and within the hearing of the sentinel. The proximity requirements. “within the hearing” for language and “within the sight” for behavior, serve as limiting principles that prevent the article from reaching ordinary grumbling.
The maximum punishment, three months’ confinement and two-thirds forfeiture for three months, with no punitive discharge, places Article 95a among the lightest offenses in the UCMJ. It carries less punishment than Article 89 disrespect toward a commissioned officer (which is as a court-martial may direct, with no statutory cap) and less than Article 91(3) contempt toward an NCO (also as a court-martial may direct). The lighter punishment reflects the nature of the offense: it is disrespect toward a function rather than toward rank, and the UCMJ treats rank-based disrespect as the more serious category.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 95a, created by the MJA 2016, makes it a separate offense to direct disrespectful language or behavior toward a sentinel or lookout in the execution of duty. The article covers both verbal disrespect and physical acts that disrupt the sentinel’s performance.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ or need legal guidance regarding military justice matters, consult a qualified military defense attorney.