Punishment Under Article 91,92 Essay
Punishment under Article 91 states that a violation is made if an enlisted member strikes or assaults a Warrant Officer, a Non-Commissioned Officer and/or Petty Officer while the officer is in execution of his or her office. The Article also states that there will be additional consequences for disobedience of a lawful order, verbal contempt, or disorderly language to an officer while they are in execution of office. The Article as it stands leaves very little room for verbal disagreement with any officer in execution in office.
The Article is very specific when it explains physical confrontation, and the consequences for physical confrontation with a superior officer. But the text leaves the power to certain governing bodies to determine exactly what may be considered verbal contempt, or disorderly language. The Article does not go into detail to define the two. An enlisted member can be subject to being punished by this article just on the superior’s thoughts on whether or not a soldier was in verbal contempt.
Many superiors feel that the line of verbal contempt can be broken on many different levels. One can only assume that foul language, and language that may impose threat, violence or outright disobedience will ultimately fall in to the category of verbal contempt and disorderly language. A simple verbal disagreement with no foul language or violent intent can be considered as verbal contempt and/or disorderly language to the officer in an office of execution.
If that is the case this Article will give the legal Leigh way to act accordingly through governing bodies like NCO Support Channels, and Chain of Command to make a combined personal decision on whether or not the soldier deserves an Article 15 or discharge from the military all in itself. As an enlisted member and an NCO, I realize that military bearing can be a very effective tool when avoiding the violation of Article 91. One of the many definitions for the word bearing is to hold up and remain firm under a heavy load. A soldier with bearing can avoid any emotional dispute or simple disagreements with their superiors and ind ultimate means of resolving a situation. If a soldier felt at any time that they cannot express themselves in a way where military bearing is in the equation, then that soldier must find an alternate outlet to express themselves, in a less formal setting. In a professional environment a soldier must find a way to conduct themselves as a professional at all times, regardless of personal and emotion experienced at the time. That maybe what separates soldiers from our civilian counter parts. The ability to resilient in not only the work place but in our daily lives as well
The punishment under Article 92 under UCMJ is a situation in which an individual has failed to obey an order or regulation from a superior officer, or an order indirectly given by a superior officer. Dereliction of his or her duties when given an order. The soldier must have actual knowledge of the duties that are given, and this maybe proved with valid evidence through documentation, or verbal testimony by the individual. If a soldier receives an order from a superior it is his/her obligation to follow through with the other as long as the order can be ruled as justified or moral.
As long as the order in itself is not illegal. Any order that is not carried out should be followed, it is our requirement as military personnel to follow, all general and direct orders. Any order that the superior does not have the authority to give, is illegal. A superior’s standard orders are to make sure a soldier is in the right place, in adequate attire at the appointed time. Subsequently a superior would not be allowed to give an order the would cause unnecessary harm, suicide, or hazing.
In the military we are held to a higher standard so strict guidelines like that of Article 92 are put in place to leave little Leigh way to defy an order. In the lifestyle of a service member it is so important to follow orders. In the Army following orders can easily become the difference between life and death. On a more serious note, in the battlefield the ability to follow a direct order can be extremely important because the ability to follow an order can not only save a soldier’s but the life of the others in his element as well.
Vice versa if a soldier disobeys certain direct order the consequence can be his life, and that of others. The military is able to maintain an overall integrity within the within many facets of the organization by having Article 92 set in place. In many cases some might believe that soldiers will follow all orders simply because of the fact that they are soldiers, but the governing bodies who wrote this article were realists. They understood that there would be several situations in which a soldier would allow fear, emotional instinct, mental lapse, and self disposition to make affect their ability to follow an order.
Because there are many controversial reasons why an order might be disobeyed the punishment may vary. The punishment may also vary depending on the order given, or based on the negative outcome by the order the order that was disobeyed. Article 92 is pretty much bold and straight to the point, but yet our humane actions can sometimes lead us to disobey a standard order. A natural emotion that can sometimes affect a soldier duty. There are two types of dereliction, willful and negligent covered under Article 92. Sometimes they also charge an orders violation, also under article 92 for the same or similar conduct.
In many cases like stated earlier, willful and negligent may be punished in vastly different ways. Willful disobedience usually receives a relatively stern punishment as opposed to a negligent disobedience of an order. An example of a negligent act would be a soldier that was supposed to appear at a certain place or time, and the soldier did not show up because of car troubles or unforeseen traffic. The soldier could have left his home earlier just in case there is traffic; also the soldier could have made sure his vehicle is properly maintained and fit for the travel before leaving his home.
An example of willful disobedience would be that says to himself that I am not going to work today and I would rather do something else with my time as opposed that order that was given to me. You can see easily separate the bearing differences between the two scenarios. One soldier has shown an utter disrespect towards the order that was given to him and no intention of following the other at the time of execution. The other soldier that committed the negligent act can be worked with essentially and that same problem can be rectified in the future if possible. Article 98 is another one of those punitive