UCMJ Article 89 Disrespect vs Article 91 Insubordinate Conduct: The Rank of the Victim Changes the Charge

A specialist who curses at and shoves a captain, and a specialist who curses at and shoves a staff sergeant, have done the same things to people of different status. The first case falls under Article 89, which protects a superior commissioned officer. The second falls under Article 91, which protects warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and petty officers. The two articles also attach different conditions to the same kinds of conduct.

The two articles

Article 89 has two subsections: (a) disrespect toward the accused’s superior commissioned officer, and (b) striking, drawing or lifting a weapon against, or offering violence against that officer “while the officer is in the execution of the officer’s office” (10 U.S.C. § 889). Subsection (b) took over the assault offense from Article 90 on January 1, 2019.

Article 91 applies to “Any warrant officer or enlisted member” who:

(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned 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;

Source: 10 U.S.C. § 891 (Article 91).

Four conditions that differ

1. Superior status. Article 89 protects only the accused’s superior commissioned officer, superior in rank or command (10 U.S.C. § 801(5)). Article 91 “does not require a superior-subordinate relationship as an element of any of the offenses,” though a superior noncommissioned or petty officer victim raises the maximum (MCM, Part IV, ¶ 17.c(1), ¶ 17.d).

2. Execution of office for disrespect. Disrespect under Article 89(a) has no execution-of-office condition. Disrespect or contempt under Article 91(3) requires that the warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer be in the execution of office at the time. An officer is in the execution of office “when engaged in any act or service required or authorized by treaty, statute, regulation, the order of a superior, or military usage” (¶ 15.c(3)(f), applied to Article 91 by ¶ 17.c(5)).

3. Presence. For Article 89(a), “It is not essential that the disrespectful behavior be in the presence of the superior,” though a purely private conversation ordinarily should not be the basis for liability (¶ 15.c(2)(c)). For Article 91(3), “‘Toward’ requires that the behavior and language be within the sight or hearing” of the warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer (¶ 17.c(5)).

4. Who can be charged. Article 89 applies to any person subject to the UCMJ, so an officer can commit it against a senior officer. Article 91 applies only to warrant officers and enlisted members.

Two conditions are shared. Both articles require actual knowledge of the victim’s status, provable circumstantially (¶ 15.c(2)(a), ¶ 17.c(2)), and the striking offenses in both require that the victim be in the execution of office.

When the victim is not in the execution of office

A strike on a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer who is not then in the execution of office falls outside Article 91(1), and a strike on a superior commissioned officer who is not in the execution of office falls outside Article 89(b). The conduct is then assault under Article 128, where the Manual raises the maximum for assaults on commissioned, warrant, noncommissioned, and petty officers and requires knowledge of the victim’s status; for that aggravation, it is not necessary “that the victim be superior in rank or command to the accused, that the victim be in the same armed force, or that the victim be in the execution of office at the time of the assault” (¶ 77.c(4)(a)).

Article 89 also recognizes a defense for disrespect: an officer whose conduct toward the accused “departs substantially from the required standards appropriate to that officer’s rank or position” loses the article’s protection (¶ 15.c(2)(d)).

How the facts sort

Picture a private who, at an off-base restaurant on a Saturday, insults a sergeant from another unit who is off duty and eating with family. Article 91(3) requires the sergeant to be in the execution of office, and nothing suggests the sergeant was acting in an official capacity, so the conduct may fall outside Article 91. Had the same words been aimed at the private’s company commander, Article 89(a) would not require execution of office. Whether a person was in the execution of office turns on what that person was doing at the time, measured against the ¶ 15.c(3)(f) definition; the accused’s knowledge of the person’s status must also be proved.

Maximum punishments

In a capital case, the members decide whether a death-eligible conviction results in death or life without eligibility for parole, or return the matter to the military judge (10 U.S.C. § 853(c)(1)). Otherwise, where every finding of guilty is for an offense committed after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence in a general or special court-martial (§ 853(b)(1)).

Sources

• 10 U.S.C. § 889, disrespect toward superior commissioned officer; assault of superior commissioned officer (Article 89)
• 10 U.S.C. § 891, insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer (Article 91)
• 10 U.S.C. § 928, assault (Article 128)
• 10 U.S.C. § 801, definitions (Article 1)
• 10 U.S.C. § 853, findings and sentencing (Article 53)
• Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition), Part IV, ¶ 15, ¶ 17, and ¶ 77.

Articles 89 and 91 are explained for general information; no incident or relationship between particular service members is assessed. This page reflects the UCMJ as amended through Public Law 119-60 (December 18, 2025) and the Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 edition) as amended by Executive Order 14130.