Insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer

SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER BY MAKING SUCH A REMARK, USE OF SUCH A TERM

CONSTITUTES DISRESPECT."

QUESTION:

DURING HIS COURT-MARTIAL THE ACCUSED POINTS A FINGER AT THE TRIAL

COUNSEL AND SAYS, "I AM GOING TO GET YOU." IS THIS DISRESPECT?

ANSWER:

YES.

U.S. V. GRAY, 14 MJ 551 (ACMR, 1982).

Also, the disrespect must be directed toward the victim.

An example of this is

U.S. v. Sorrells, 49 CMR 44 (ACMR, 1974). The accused (Sorrells) had gotten into

an argument with an individual named Howell. The commander called both of them to

his office. Sorrells was highly agitated as he discussed the incident, and started

waving his arms and swearing. The commander told him to go to the first sergeant's

office and cool off. As Sorrells left the commander's office, he said "I'm going

to get that son of a bitch." His conviction for disrespect was reversed, because

it was not clear to whom these words were directed.

Insubordinate conduct toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or

petty officer (Article 91). The elements of this crime are as follows:

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 was used toward and within the 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 his 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.

This article does not require that there be a superior-subordinate

relationship. If that element exists, it is an aggravated form of the offense, and

subjects the offender to a more serious punishment.

Under Article 91, the disrespect must be within the hearing or sight of the

victim. Also, the victim must be in the execution of his office.

For this offense, the NCO must be "in the execution of his office?"

This

occurs when one is "engaged in any or service required or authorized by treaty,

statute, regulation, the order of a superior, or military usage "(MCM, paragraph

14(c)(1)(b).)

In U.S. V. NELSON, 38 CMR 418 (CMA, 1968), the court held that

"disorder among persons in the military service can have numerous adverse

consequences to the military establishment, whether the disorderly

1-5

MP1018