What Constitutes Insubordination and Mutiny Under the UCMJ?
On this page
Which article governs insubordination depends on whose authority was defied. Disrespect, assault, and disobedience toward a superior commissioned officer fall under Articles 89 and 90; the same conduct toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer falls under Article 91, titled “Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer”; disobeying a rule or general order falls under Article 92. Mutiny under Article 94 is a different offense: it requires intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, and it, along with sedition and failure to suppress or report either, is punishable by death at any time, not only in war.
Insubordination: the article depends on whose authority was defied
| Target of the conduct | Disrespect | Assault | Disobedience |
|---|---|---|---|
| Superior commissioned officer | Art. 89(a) | Art. 89(b), while the officer is in the execution of office | Art. 90, willful disobedience of a lawful command |
| Warrant officer, NCO, or petty officer | Art. 91(3), while that officer is in the execution of office | Art. 91(1), while that officer is in the execution of office | Art. 91(2), willful disobedience of a lawful order |
| A general order, regulation, or other order, or a duty | Not applicable | Not applicable | Art. 92 |
Four points follow from the statutory text:
- Articles 89 and 90 were reorganized in 2019. Before the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019, Article 90 covered both assaulting and willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer. The amendment note to 10 U.S.C. § 890 says the prior section “related to the offense of assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer” and refers to section 889(b). Assault now sits in Article 89(b).
- Article 91 applies only to warrant officers and enlisted members. It begins “Any warrant officer or enlisted member who”; a commissioned officer’s misconduct toward a sergeant is not charged under Article 91.
- The execution-of-office element matters. Article 91 reaches disrespect and assault only “while that officer is in the execution of his office”. Rank alone does not decide whether Article 91(3) applies.
- Article 92 covers rules and duties, Article 90 covers personal orders. The Manual explains that an Article 90 order “must be directed specifically to the subordinate”, and that violations of “regulations, standing orders or directives, or failure to perform previously established duties are not punishable under this article, but may violate Article 92” (MCM 2024, Part IV, ¶16.c(2)(b)).
Maximum punishments
The statutes for Articles 89(a), 91, and 92 authorize punishment “as a court-martial may direct”, and Articles 89(b) and 90 allow death in time of war and “such punishment, other than death,” at any other time. The specific maximums below come from the Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.), Part IV, not from the statutes:
| Offense | Maximum punishment (peacetime) |
|---|---|
| Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer in command (Art. 89(a)) | Bad-conduct discharge, 1 year |
| Disrespect toward a commissioned officer superior in rank (Art. 89(a)) | Bad-conduct discharge, 6 months |
| Assault of a superior commissioned officer in the execution of office (Art. 89(b)) | Dishonorable discharge, 10 years (death in time of war) |
| Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer (Art. 90) | Dishonorable discharge, 5 years (death in time of war) |
| Striking or assaulting a warrant officer (Art. 91(1)) | Dishonorable discharge, 5 years |
| Willful disobedience of a warrant officer (Art. 91(2)) | Dishonorable discharge, 2 years |
| Willful disobedience of an NCO or petty officer (Art. 91(2)) | Bad-conduct discharge, 1 year |
| Contempt or disrespect toward a warrant officer (Art. 91(3)) | Bad-conduct discharge, 9 months |
| Failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation (Art. 92(1)) | Dishonorable discharge, 2 years |
| Failure to obey any other lawful order (Art. 92(2)) | Bad-conduct discharge, 6 months |
Total or partial forfeitures accompany these maximums as the Manual specifies. In non-capital cases in which all findings of guilty are for offenses committed after December 27, 2023, the military judge sentences within the Manual’s sentencing parameters beneath these maximums (see how the sentencing phase of a court-martial proceeds).
“Willfully” and “lawful”
Willfully. Article 90 and Article 91(2) punish willful disobedience. For Article 90, the Manual explains that the accused “must have actual knowledge of the order” and of the issuer’s status as a superior commissioned officer, that “Willful disobedience” is “an intentional defiance of authority”, and that failure to comply “through heedlessness, remissness, or forgetfulness is not a violation of this article but may violate Article 92” (¶16.c(2)(e)-(f)).
Lawful. Only a lawful order creates a duty to obey. The Manual sets the framework (¶16.c(2)(a)):
- An order “requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate.” The inference “does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.”
- Lawfulness is “a question of law to be determined by the military judge.”
- The order must relate to military duty and may not, “without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs”, and it must not conflict with the recipient’s statutory or constitutional rights.
- Conscience is not a defense: “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”
A member who refuses an order because of a disagreement about its wisdom takes the risk that the military judge will find it lawful; if so, the refusal is a completed offense.
The other direction: following an unlawful order. Under R.C.M. 916(d), acting under orders “is a defense to any offense … unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.” Obedience is no defense to carrying out a manifestly unlawful order. How this standard applies in combat cases is covered in military justice and the law of armed conflict.
Mutiny and sedition under Article 94
Article 94(a) defines three offenses:
- Mutiny: a person who, “with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance”.
- Sedition: a person who, “with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority”.
- Failure to suppress or report: a person who “fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place”.
What turns disobedience into mutiny is intent. A refusal by several members together is a set of individual disobedience offenses unless it is undertaken “with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority”. The two forms differ in one respect: the Manual explains that mutiny by creating violence or disturbance “may be committed by one person acting alone or by more than one acting together” (¶21.c(1)(a)), while the refusal form requires acting “in concert with any other person”.
Punishment. Article 94(b): “A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.” There is no time-of-war condition, and the same authorization covers the bystander who fails to suppress or report. Because these offenses are punishable by death, they can be tried at any time under Article 43(a). A capital referral brings the twelve-member and unanimity rules described in how the death penalty works in the military justice system.
From refusal to mutiny on one watch (hypothetical)
An ensign orders a petty officer to muster the watch section. The petty officer refuses, calling the order pointless: that is willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer under Article 90, with a peacetime maximum of a dishonorable discharge and 5 years.
If the same petty officer instead persuades the watch section to lock the compartment, announce that they will run the ship’s routine themselves, and refuse to recognize the officer of the deck, the refusal is now in concert, and its object is to override lawful military authority: that is mutiny under Article 94, punishable by death. A sailor in the compartment who takes no part but does not report what is happening may face a charge of failure to report a mutiny, which carries the same authorized punishment.
Sources
- 10 U.S.C. § 889, Article 89 (Cornell LII)
- 10 U.S.C. § 890, Article 90, with 2016 amendment note (Cornell LII)
- 10 U.S.C. § 891, Article 91 (Cornell LII)
- 10 U.S.C. § 892, Article 92 (Cornell LII)
- 10 U.S.C. § 894, Article 94, Mutiny or sedition (Cornell LII)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), Part IV, ¶¶ 15-18 and 21; R.C.M. 916(d)
This article is general information about military law, not legal advice for any individual case.