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 UCMJ’s first punitive articles (Articles 88 through 90) protect commissioned officers and the civilian officials they serve under. Article 91 extends that protective framework downward. It recognizes what every service member learns in their first week of military service: noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, and petty officers run the day-to-day operations of the armed forces. Without legal protection for their authority, the chain of command has a gap between the officers who set strategy and the enlisted personnel who execute it.
Article 91 (10 U.S.C. § 891) has existed in substantially the same form since the UCMJ’s enactment in 1950. The Military Justice Act of 2016 did not amend its text. Unlike Article 90, which lost its assault provision to Article 89(b) during the MJA reorganization, Article 91 retained all three of its offenses under one statutory roof. That continuity reflects the provision’s settled role in military justice: it fills the space that Articles 89 and 90 leave open by covering the same categories of misconduct, assault, willful disobedience, and disrespect, but directed at a different class of leaders.
Assault, Disobedience, and Disrespect
Article 91 criminalizes three distinct acts by warrant officers or enlisted members against warrant officers, NCOs, or petty officers: The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 16) defines three separate offense categories under Article 91, each protecting a different aspect of NCO and warrant officer authority.
Subsection (1) covers striking or assaulting a warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer while that person is in the execution of their office. Subsection (2) covers willfully disobeying the lawful order of a warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer. Subsection (3) covers treating with contempt or being disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer while that person is in the execution of their office.
Each subsection is a separate offense with its own elements and its own maximum punishment. They share the statute but not the analysis.
The “Execution of Office” Requirement
Two of the three offenses, assault and disrespect, require that the victim was in the execution of their office at the time of the alleged conduct. This is a significant limitation that does not apply to Article 89’s disrespect offense (which does not require the victim’s presence or official capacity) or to Article 91’s own disobedience subsection.
The requirement means that a purely personal encounter between two enlisted service members of different rank, occurring outside any official context, may not support an Article 91 charge for assault or disrespect even if one outranks the other. An NCO who is off-duty at a bar, not exercising any military authority, and gets into a personal dispute with a junior enlisted member has not been assaulted “in the execution of office.” The junior member might be charged under the general assault provision (Article 128), but Article 91’s enhanced protections would not apply.
For the disobedience subsection, the requirement is different. The order itself must be lawful, but the statute does not explicitly require that the NCO or warrant officer was in the execution of their office when they gave it. The CAAF confirmed in United States v. Ranney, 67 M.J. 297, that Article 91, like Article 90, punishes disobedience only of lawful commands, and that an order must relate to military duty and not purport to regulate purely personal affairs unless there is a legitimate military nexus.
Who Can Be Charged, and Who Cannot
Article 91’s scope is narrower than it first appears. Only warrant officers and enlisted members can be charged under Article 91. Commissioned officers who assault, disobey, or disrespect warrant officers or NCOs are not charged under this provision. Their misconduct toward subordinate leaders would typically fall under Article 128 (assault), Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer), or Article 134 (the general article).
This asymmetry is deliberate. The UCMJ treats commissioned officers and enlisted personnel as subject to different behavioral frameworks. Articles 89 and 90 protect commissioned officers from anyone subject to the UCMJ. Article 91 protects enlisted leaders and warrant officers from those below them in the hierarchy, not from commissioned officers above them. The theory is that a commissioned officer who mistreats an NCO has violated the officer’s own standards of conduct (Article 133), not the NCO’s statutory protection under Article 91.
The victim must be a warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer. In practice, this means the prosecution must prove the victim’s actual status, that they held the relevant grade and, for assault and disrespect, were functioning in their official capacity. The accused must also have known the victim held that status.
Punishment Tiers and the Rank of the Victim
Article 91’s punishment structure varies based on the victim’s category and the nature of the offense. Assault of a warrant officer carries a maximum of dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture, and five years’ confinement. Assault of an NCO or petty officer carries dishonorable discharge, total forfeiture, and three years. Disobedience and disrespect carry their own scales, generally less severe than assault but still including the possibility of punitive discharge.
The tiered structure reflects the military’s judgment about relative authority. Warrant officers occupy a unique position, they are technical experts who hold officer-grade commissions but operate primarily at the tactical and operational level. The UCMJ gives them the highest level of enlisted-leader protection because their authority bridges the officer-enlisted divide. NCOs and petty officers receive slightly less severe protection, but still far more than what civilian law provides for workplace insubordination.
In wartime, assault on a warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer can carry the death penalty. This parallels the wartime escalation provisions in Articles 89(b) and 90, reflecting the military’s consistent judgment that violence against leaders during armed conflict threatens operational survival.
The Overlap Problem: Articles 89, 90, 91, and 92
The UCMJ’s authority-protection articles create a matrix where the same category of misconduct, disrespect, disobedience, assault, is charged under different articles depending on two variables: the identity of the victim and the identity of the accused.
Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer is Article 89. Disrespect toward a warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer by an enlisted member or warrant officer is Article 91(3). Failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation is Article 92(1). Failure to obey a specific lawful order from any member of the armed forces is Article 92(2). Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer is Article 90. Willful disobedience of a warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer is Article 91(2).
This matrix means the same physical act, refusing an order, for instance, can be charged under different articles depending on who gave the order and what type of order it was. A private who refuses a direct order from a captain faces Article 90. Refuse the same type of order from a staff sergeant, and the charge shifts to Article 91. The same private ignoring a posted regulation faces Article 92. Different articles, different elements, different maximum punishments.
For defense counsel, the matrix creates opportunities to challenge whether the prosecution selected the correct article. For prosecutors, it provides flexibility to charge the article that most accurately describes the misconduct. For the system as a whole, it reflects a deliberate design: different levels of authority receive different levels of legal protection, calibrated to the damage that different types of insubordination can inflict on the chain of command.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 91 criminalizes three forms of insubordinate conduct directed at warrant officers, NCOs, or petty officers: striking or assaulting them, willfully disobeying their lawful orders, and treating them with contempt or disrespect while they are in the execution of their office.
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.