Daniel Conway | Military Attorney
  • Practice Areas
    • Correcting Military Records >
      • Evaluation Report Appeals
      • Reprimand Appeals
      • Family Advocacy Program Appeals
      • Discharge Review Boards
      • Cadet Misconduct
      • Titling Actions
      • Military Protective Orders
    • Separation Boards
    • Military Medical Malpractice Claims
    • Forms, Downloads, and Regulations
  • Military Crimes and Defenses
    • Military Law >
      • Court-martial Information >
        • Know Your Rights
        • Court-Martial Rules >
          • Pretrial Confinement
          • Unlawful Command Influence
          • Article 31 Violation
          • Military Rule of Evidence 412
          • Involuntary Statements
          • Failure to State an Offense
          • Wheeler Factors
      • Court-Martial Defense >
        • Military Sexual Assault Defense
        • Military Drug Defense >
          • Drug Detection Windows
          • Marijuana
          • Cocaine
          • Morphine and Heroin
        • Disrespect Offenses
        • Conspiracy Cases
        • False Statements >
          • Obstruction of Justice
        • Use of Force
        • Assault Cases
        • Conduct Unbecoming
      • Court-Martial Appeals >
        • Petitions for a New Trial
        • Insufficient Evidence
    • Introduction
    • Article 77 Principles
    • Article 78 Accessory After the Fact
    • Article 79 Lesser Included Offenses
    • Article 80 Conspiracy
    • Article 81 Attempts
    • Article 82 Solicitation
    • Article 85 Desertion
    • Article 86 AWOL
    • Article 88 Contempt Towards Officials
    • Article 92 Failure to Obey an Order
    • Article 93 Maltreatment
    • Article 107 False Official Statement
    • Article 112a Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance
    • Article 119 Manslaughter
    • Article 119b Child Endangerment
    • Article 121 Larceny or Wrongful Appropriation
    • Article 125 Kidnapping
    • Article 133 Conduct Unbecoming
    • Article 134 Bribery and Graft
    • Article 134 Indecent Language
    • Article 134 Obstruction of Justice
  • Firm History
    • Films
    • Books
    • Sketches
    • My Lai
    • Abu Ghraib
    • Haditha
    • MARSOC
    • The Stryker 5
    • Gary Myers
  • Results
  • Blog

Chapter 13: Article 88, UCMJ contempt towards officials

§ 13:1
Elements

§ 13:2
Generally

§ 13:3
Practice Pointers

§ 13:4
Standard Instructions

§ 13:5
Maximum Punishment and Lesser Included Offenses

§ 13:1 – Elements
  1. That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
  2. That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article; 
  3. That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and,
  4. That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used;
 
Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element.
 
  1. That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
 
§ 13:2 – Generally
 
Article 88 was intended to avoid the impairment of discipline and promotion of insubordination.[1]  Howe is the only reported case analyzing the history and purpose of Article 88, UCMJ. The original British Article of War of 1765 provided for the court-martial of any officer or soldier who “presumed to use traitorous or disrespectful words against the ‘Sacred Person of his Majesty, or any of the Royal family’…or…behave himself with Contempt or Disrespect towards the General, or other Commander in Chief of Our Forces, or shall speak Words tending to his Hurt or Dishonour."[2]  The Articles of War adopted by the Continental Congress in 1775 revised the language to punish contemptuous speech or disrespect towards general grade officers and the commanders in chief of the continental forces.
​
The official or legislature subject of the contemptuous speech must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in the article at the time of the offense.  Those offices include the President, Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of any military department, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the governor or legislature of any state, territory, commonwealth, or possession in which the accused is on duty.  The term legislature does not include members of Congress individually.  The language must be personally contemptuous. Contemptuous means insulting, rude, and disdainful conduct, or otherwise disrespectfully attributing to another a quality of meanness, disreputableness, or worthlessness.[3]

Though Howe is the only reported case, Article 88 allegations tend to be resolved through administrative channels. The only Article 88 case that the authors are aware of during Operation Iraqi freedom involved an officer who edited a collection essays critical of President.  The case was resolved through nonjudicial punishment.  It should also be noted that Article 88 does not exclude potential prosecution of retired officers.  Article 2(a)(4) creates jurisdiction over individuals receiving retirement pay. 

§ 13:3 – Practice Pointers
In any case involving speech, counsel’s first instinct should be to examine first amendment issues – including whether the speech was political or religious in nature and not personally contemptuous towards individuals named in the statute.  In Howe, the court rejected the view that contemptuous speech by military officers was absolutely protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The court, likewise, rejected the notion that Article 88 was void for vagueness. 

Notwithstanding, in certain cases argument can be made whether the speech is, in fact, personally contemptuous, usually towards the President. During Operation Iraqi Freedom substantial numbers of reservists were activated. The authors received many phone calls involving particularly religious service members. Some of those members publicly questioned whether President Bush’s decision to use force was consistent with Catholic views on just war. Those kinds of distinctions between acts of personal conscience and actual contemptuous speech that promotes insubordination are helpful in negotiating the administrative disposition of a case rather than trial by court-martial.

§ 13:4 – Standard Instructions[DK1] 
Standard Instructions (Citations taken from Department of the Army Pamphlet 27-9)
3-12-1 – Contempt Towards Officials by Commissioned Officer
 
§ 13:5 – Maximum Punishments
The maximum punishment under Article 88 is dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

The only lesser included offense is Article 80 attempts. 


[1] United States v Howe, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 165, 174 (1967).

[2] United States v Howe, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 165 (1967).

[3] Benchbook Instruction 3-12-1.


Court Martial Defense
Sexual Crime Defense
Drug Crimes
Violent Crimes
Larceny & Financial Fraud
Desertion & Awol


Services
Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP)
UCMJ Investigations
GOMOR Rebuttals
Administrative Separations
Resources
Case Results
Videos
Testimonials
Blogs
Locations
United States
South Korea
Okinawa, Japan
Mainland Japan
Europe
Worldwide
CALL 833-934-UCMJ
Email
Resources
Free Initial Consultations
Confidential. In depth. Valuable.

833-934-8265 (UCMJ)
Picture
© COPYRIGHT 2019. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 
The information on this page is informational in nature. Nothing on this or associated pages should be construed as legal advice for a particular case. Likewise, the information on this website does not constitute the creation of an attorney-client relationship. No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
  • Practice Areas
    • Correcting Military Records >
      • Evaluation Report Appeals
      • Reprimand Appeals
      • Family Advocacy Program Appeals
      • Discharge Review Boards
      • Cadet Misconduct
      • Titling Actions
      • Military Protective Orders
    • Separation Boards
    • Military Medical Malpractice Claims
    • Forms, Downloads, and Regulations
  • Military Crimes and Defenses
    • Military Law >
      • Court-martial Information >
        • Know Your Rights
        • Court-Martial Rules >
          • Pretrial Confinement
          • Unlawful Command Influence
          • Article 31 Violation
          • Military Rule of Evidence 412
          • Involuntary Statements
          • Failure to State an Offense
          • Wheeler Factors
      • Court-Martial Defense >
        • Military Sexual Assault Defense
        • Military Drug Defense >
          • Drug Detection Windows
          • Marijuana
          • Cocaine
          • Morphine and Heroin
        • Disrespect Offenses
        • Conspiracy Cases
        • False Statements >
          • Obstruction of Justice
        • Use of Force
        • Assault Cases
        • Conduct Unbecoming
      • Court-Martial Appeals >
        • Petitions for a New Trial
        • Insufficient Evidence
    • Introduction
    • Article 77 Principles
    • Article 78 Accessory After the Fact
    • Article 79 Lesser Included Offenses
    • Article 80 Conspiracy
    • Article 81 Attempts
    • Article 82 Solicitation
    • Article 85 Desertion
    • Article 86 AWOL
    • Article 88 Contempt Towards Officials
    • Article 92 Failure to Obey an Order
    • Article 93 Maltreatment
    • Article 107 False Official Statement
    • Article 112a Wrongful Use of a Controlled Substance
    • Article 119 Manslaughter
    • Article 119b Child Endangerment
    • Article 121 Larceny or Wrongful Appropriation
    • Article 125 Kidnapping
    • Article 133 Conduct Unbecoming
    • Article 134 Bribery and Graft
    • Article 134 Indecent Language
    • Article 134 Obstruction of Justice
  • Firm History
    • Films
    • Books
    • Sketches
    • My Lai
    • Abu Ghraib
    • Haditha
    • MARSOC
    • The Stryker 5
    • Gary Myers
  • Results
  • Blog