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.
The difference between Article 99 and Article 100 is directional. Article 99 punishes service members who fail in their own combat duties, running away, abandoning a position, refusing to engage the enemy. Article 100 punishes service members who force others to fail. Specifically, it targets subordinates who compel a commander to surrender or abandon military assets, or who take the symbolic act of striking the colors without authority. The offense doesn’t require the commander to actually comply. The attempt alone is enough.
Compelling Surrender and Striking Colors
Article 100 (10 U.S.C. § 900) defines three distinct offenses under a single provision.
First: compelling or attempting to compel the commander of any place, vessel, aircraft, or other military property to give it up to an enemy. “Compelling” means applying sufficient pressure, force, threats, coercion, or intimidation, to override the commander’s independent judgment. The target is always a commander with responsibility for a specific asset: a base, a ship, an aircraft, a defensive position. The subordinate’s action must aim at making the commander hand that asset to the enemy.
The second: compelling or attempting to compel a commander to abandon military property or a body of armed forces. Abandonment differs from surrender, surrender transfers control to the enemy, while abandonment simply means leaving it. Both are covered because both deprive the military of assets it needs.
The third: striking the colors or flag to an enemy without proper authority. This offense stands apart from the first two. It doesn’t require compelling anyone. A single service member who hauls down the national flag or unit colors in the presence of the enemy, signaling surrender, commits this offense regardless of whether anyone else was involved or influenced. “Without proper authority” is the key qualifier: only the commander with authority over the position or unit may authorize the lowering of colors to the enemy.
Elements, the Attempt Threshold, and the Line Between Article 100 and Mutiny
The overlap with Article 94 (mutiny and sedition) appears substantial on paper. Both involve subordinates acting against military authority. The distinction is precise.
Article 94 mutiny requires intent to usurp or override lawful military authority as a system. The mutineer wants to replace command authority, not just influence a specific decision. Article 100 targets a narrower act: forcing a commander to make a specific tactical decision, surrender or abandonment, under specific circumstances involving the enemy. A subordinate who holds a gun to a commander’s head and demands he surrender the outpost is compelling surrender under Article 100, not committing mutiny under Article 94, unless the intent extends beyond this specific decision to overriding the chain of command itself.
Concert of action illustrates the difference further. Article 94 mutiny by refusal requires acting “in concert” with at least one other person. Article 100 has no such requirement. A single subordinate acting alone can commit the offense.
For the compelling offense, prosecution must prove: the accused compelled or attempted to compel the commander of a specific place, vessel, aircraft, military property, or body of armed forces to give it up to the enemy or abandon it. The attempt threshold matters because the statute explicitly includes it. “compels or attempts to compel.” A subordinate who threatens a commander with violence unless the position is surrendered has committed the offense even if the commander ignores the threat, holds the position, and the enemy is repelled.
For striking colors, the elements under MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 52) are: the accused struck the colors or flag to an enemy, and did so without proper authority. No intent to compel anyone is required. The act itself, lowering the colors in the enemy’s presence, constitutes the offense if unauthorized.
Both offenses carry the maximum punishment of death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. Article 100 sits in the peacetime-and-wartime capital tier alongside Articles 81, 94, 99, 101, 102, 103a, 103b, 110, and 118. The death penalty authorization applies regardless of whether the compelling succeeded or the enemy actually gained control of the asset.
Two offenses, two actors, one battlefield outcome. Article 99 looks at the commander who failed. Article 100 looks at the subordinate who forced the failure. The distinction matters because the chain of command matters: who caused the surrender determines which provision applies, and the UCMJ demands that precision even when the consequences are identical.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 100 punishes a subordinate who compels or attempts to compel a commander to surrender, abandon military property, or strike the colors without authority. The offense is complete upon the attempt. In wartime, the maximum punishment is death.
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.