• Home   /  
  • Archive by category "1"

Ucmj Article 91 Essay Writing

From Wikisource

Jump to: navigation, search

When one seeks to explain something, first they must define what they are explaining. In the case of a document or other media, the definition is usually the thing itself. But, sometimes, the 'by the book' definition doesn't do a thing full justice. So, in order to insure full justice, as far as the author is able to provide it, UCMJ Article 92 is defined as the following:

Any person serving in the Armed Forces of America, is guilty of violating this article if they, through any means that can be prevented, disobey any order given by a superior, as long as that order is not itself illegal.

Let us break that down into more easily-digested terms.

Any person in the Armed Forces. That means, anyone who is currently (currently being at the time of the infraction) serving in any component of the Armed Forces. That means active duty, ready reserve, inactive reserve, training, DEP, shipboard, shore, infantry, deployed, on notification for deployment, or even when attached to a civilian job and not wearing a uniform. Any person who fits those critera is eligible, regardless of rank, duties, time in the service, time remaining until retirement, or history of conduct (either good or bad).

-Through any means that can be prevented. If the servicemember has any reasonable way to prevent the disobeyal of that order, and failed to, they are guilty. Unpreventable lapses are generally excusable, unless the reason it was unpreventable was the fault of the servicemember. Example: Order is given to belay a line and you go to your bunk instead: Culpable. Order is given to belay a line and the pylon breaks: Not culpable, unless something you did led to the pylon breaking.

-As long as the order itself is not illegal. Any order that, if carried out, would result in a disobeyal of any of the other UCMJ articles, is illegal. Any order that the superior does not have the authority to give, is illegal. Example: Telling a servicemember to commit hazing: illegal. Telling a servicemember to go to another command, when that superior giving the order is not in authority to send servicemember: illegal.

Article 92 is perhaps the most important article in the entirety of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It lays down the ground law, the absolute line which may not be crossed. Everything else in the UCMJ is explanation of the various forms that disobeying an order can take. Without the support given by Article 92, servicemembers would be free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and wouldn't be any more accountable than a civilian court. And the Judicial system in this country has been, sadly, much perverted from the goals it was created with.

However, military members are held to a higher standard. We are the line that protects this country, we are the defense against the storm. Without us, this country would not exist, could not exist. And for that, we must be strong, unified, and together. One voice, crying out against the enemy. One team, fighting to keep our countrymen's dreams untroubled. And if one person is disenting against that, it undermines the entire system. If the captain of a ship can't count on his orders being obeyed, without question, right away and to the best ability of the servicemember who is given them, then he might as well be sitting out there by himself, shooting his sidearm at the enemy.

The military can only function if orders, when given, are obeyed. And, as much as we would like to trust in the honesty and integrity of the human spirit, of the men and women who made that oath, put their lives on the line for their country, and fight to keep our brothers and sisters free, the sad truth is that there are many out there that, if not given a clear set of rules, a clear set of punishments for transgressions, will not follow the rules, will not care about the punishments, will not be productive, efficient members of the military machine.

That is why Article 92, and the entire UCMJ, are necessary. They reinforce the behavior of those who do the right thing, promoting it and praising it. They punish those who do not do the right thing, undercutting and stamping out such behaviors. With such a system, the bad eggs, those who are unable to fit into the machine, will be ground up by it and spit out. Broken, incomplete, forever bemoaning the lack of foresight and flexibility that would have saved them.

When we all work together, we are the most powerful fighting force the world has ever known.
When we do not, we are no more powerful than the least cohesive among us.

Which would you rather be a part of?

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

One thought on “Ucmj Article 91 Essay Writing

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *