2008 edition - Fort Sam Houston - U.S. Army

2008 edition - Fort Sam Houston - U.S. Army 2008 edition - Fort Sam Houston - U.S. Army

samhouston.army.mil
from samhouston.army.mil More from this publisher
18.08.2013 Views

Pun. Art. 86 APPENDIX 23 (6) Inability to return. This subparagraph is taken from paragraph 165 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). (7) Determining the unit or organization of an accused. This s u b p a r a g r a p h i s b a s e d o n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . P o u n d s , 2 3 U . S . C . M . A . 1 5 3 , 4 8 C . M . R . 7 6 9 ( 1 9 7 4 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Mitchell, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 238, 22 C.M.R. 28 (1956). (8) Duration. This subparagraph is taken from paragraphs 127 c and 165 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.); United States v. Lovell, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 445, 22 C.M.R. 235 (1956). (9) Computation of duration. This subsection is based on paragraph 127 c(3) of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). (10) Termination—methods of return to military control. This subparagraph is based on paragraph 165 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.); United States v. Dubry, supra; United States v. Raymo, 1 M.J. 31 (C.M.A. 1975); United States v. Garner, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 578, 23 C.M.R. 42 (1957); United States v. Coates, 2 U.S.C.M.A. 625, 10 C.M.R. 123 (1953); United States v. Jackson, 1 U.S.C.M.A. 190, 2 C.M.R. 96 (1952); United States v. Petterson, 14 M.J. 608 ( A . F . C . M . R . 1 9 8 2 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C o g l i n , 1 0 M . J . 6 7 0 (A.F.C.M.R. 1981). See also United States v. Zammit, 14 M.J. 554 (N.M.C.M.R. 1982). (11) Findings of more than one absence under one specification. This subsection is based on United States v. Francis , 15 M.J. 424 (C.M.A. 1983). (e) Maximum punishment. The increased maximum punishment for unauthorized absence for more than 30 days terminated by apprehension has been added to parallel the effect of termination o f d e s e r t i o n b y a p p r e h e n s i o n a n d t o e n c o u r a g e a b s e n t s e r - vicemembers to voluntarily return. A bad-conduct discharge was added to the permissible maximum punishment for unauthorized absence with intent to avoid maneuvers of field duty, because with sensitive, high value equipment used in exercises currently, the effect of such absence is more costly and, because of limited available training time, seriously disrupts training and combat readiness. 1990 Amendment: The Note in subsection b(4) was inserted and a conforming change was made in subsection f(4) to clarify t h e d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n “ u n a u t h o r i z e d a b s e n c e f r o m a g u a r d , watch, or duty section” and “unauthorized absence from guard, watch, or duty section with the intent to abandon it.” See subsections c(4)(c) and c(4)(d). 11. Article 87—Missing movement c. Explanation. (1) Movement. This subparagraph is based on paragraph 166 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.); United States v. Kimply, 17 C.M.R. 469 (N.B.R. 1954). (2) Mode of movement. This subparagraph is based on United States v. Graham , 16 M.J. 460 (C.M.A. 1983); United States v. Johnson, 3 U.S.C.M.A. 174, 11 C.M.R. 174 (1953); United States v. Burke, 6 C.M.R. 588 (A.B.R. 1952); United States v. Jackson, 5 C.M.R. 429 (A.B.R. 1952). See also United States v. Graham, 12 M.J. 1026 (A.C.M.R.), pet granted, 14 M.J. 223 (1982). (3) Design. This subparagraph is based on United States v. Clifton, 5 C.M.R. 342 (N.B.R. 1952). (4) Neglect. This subparagraph is taken from paragraph 166 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). A23-4 (5) Actual knowledge. This subparagraph is based on United States v. Chandler, 23 U.S.C.M.A. 193, 48 C.M.R. 945 (1974); United States v. Thompson, 2 U.S.C.M.A. 460, 9 C.M.R. 90 (1953); and in part on paragraph 166 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). This paragraph rejects the language of paragraph 166 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.), which has provided for “constructive knowledge,” and adopts the “actual knowledge” requirement set forth in Chandler. (6) Proof of absence. This subparagraph is taken from paragraph 166 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). e. Maximum punishment. The maximum punishment for missing movement was increased to make these punishments more equivalent to aggravated offenses of unauthorized absences and violations of orders. The major reliance of the armed forces on rapid deployment and expeditious movement of personnel and equipment to deter or prevent the escalation of hostilities dictates that these offenses be viewed more seriously. 12. Article 88—Contempt toward officials c. Explanation. This paragraph is taken from paragraph 167 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). For a discussion of the history of Article 88, see United States v. Howe, 17 U.S.C.M.A. 165, 37 C.M.R. 429 (1967). e. Maximum punishment. This limitation is new and is based on the authority given the President in Article 56. Paragraph 127c of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) does not mention Article 88. The maximum punishment is based on the maximum punishment for Article of War 62, which was analogous to Article 88, as prescribed in paragraph 117 c of MCM (Army), 1949, and MCM (AF), 1949. 13. Article 89—Disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer c. Explanation. This paragraph is taken from Article 1(5); paragraph 168 of MCM, 1969 (rev.); United States v. Richardson, 7 M . J . 3 2 0 ( C . M . A . 1 9 7 9 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . F e r e n c z i , 1 0 U.S.C.M.A. 3, 27 C.M.R. 77 (1958); United States v. Sorrells, 49 C.M.R. 44 (A.C.M.R. 1974); United States v. Cheeks, 43 C.M.R. 1 0 1 3 ( A . F . C . M . R . 1 9 7 1 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M o n t g o m e r y , 1 1 C.M.R. 308 (A.B.R. 1953). e . M a x i m u m p u n i s h m e n t . T h e m a x i m u m p u n i s h m e n t w a s i n - creased from confinement for 6 months to confinement for 1 year to more accurately reflect the serious nature of the offense and to distinguish it from disrespect toward warrant officers under Article 91. See paragraph 15 c. 14. Article 90—Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer c. Explanation. (1) Striking or assaulting superior commissioned officer. This subparagraph is based on paragraph 169 a of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) and other authorities as noted below. (a) Definitions. “Strikes” is clarified to include any intentional offensive touching. Other batteries, such as by culpable negligence, are included in “offers violence.” As to “superior commissioned officer,” see Analysis, paragraph 13. (d) Defenses. This subparagraph modifies the former discussion of self-defense since technically, because unlawfulness is not an element expressly, the officer must be acting illegally or other-

wise outside the role of an officer before self-defense may be in issue. See United States v. Struckman, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 493, 43 C.M.R. 333 (1971). ( 2 ) D i s o b e y i n g s u p e r i o r c o m m i s s i o n e d o f f i c e r . T h i s s u b - paragraph is based on paragraph 169 b of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) and other authorities as noted below. (a) Lawfulness of the order. (i) Inference of lawfulness. See United States v. Keenan, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 108, 39 C.M.R. 108 (1969); United States v. Schultz, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 133, 39 C.M.R. 133 (1969); United States v. Kinder, 14 C.M.R. 742 (A.B.R. 1954). (ii) Authority of issuing officer. See United States v. Marsh, 3 U.S.C.M.A. 48, 11 C.M.R. 48 (1953). (iii) Relationship to military duty. See United States v. Martin, 1 U.S.C.M.A. 674, 5 C.M.R. 102 (1952); United States v. Wilson, 12 U.S.C.M.A. 165, 30 C.M.R. 165 (1961) (restriction on drinking); United States v. Nation, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 724, 26 C.M.R. 5 0 4 ( 1 9 5 8 ) ( o v e r s e a s m a r r i a g e ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . L e n o x , 2 1 U.S.C.M.A. 314, 45 C.M.R. 88 (1972); United States v. Stewart, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 272, 43 C.M.R. 112 (1971); United States v. Wilson, 19 U.S.C.M.A. 100, 41 C.M.R. 100 (1969); United States v. Noyd, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 483, 40 C.M.R. 195 (1969) (all dealing with matters that do not excuse the disobedience of an order). (iv) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. This subparagraph is based on Article 31; United States v. McCoy, 12 U.S.C.M.A. 68, 30 C.M.R. 68 (1960); United States v. Aycock, 15 U.S.C.M.A. 158, 35 C.M.R. 130 (1964). ( b ) P e r s o n a l n a t u r e o f t h e o r d e r . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Wartsbaugh, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 535, 45 C.M.R. 309 (1972). (d) Specificity of the order. See United States v. Bratcher, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 125, 38 C.M.R. 125 (1969). ( e ) K n o w l e d g e . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . P e t t i g r e w , 1 9 U.S.C.M.A. 191, 41 C.M.R. 191 (1970); United States v. Oisten, 13 U.S.C.M.A. 656, 33 C.M.R. 188 (1963). ( g ) T i m e f o r c o m p l i a n c e . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S t o u t , 1 U.S.C.M.A. 639, 5 C.M.R. 67 (1952); United States v. Squire, 47 C . M . R . 2 1 4 ( N . C . M . R . 1 9 7 3 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C l o w s e r , 1 6 C.M.R. 543 (A.F.B.R. 1954). 15. Article 91— Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer c. Explanation. (1) In general. This subparagraph is based on p a r a g r a p h 1 7 0 o f M C M , 1 9 6 9 ( R e v . ) a n d p a r a g r a p h 1 7 0 o f MCM, 1951; a review of the legislative history of Article 91; United States v. Ransom, 1 M.J. 1005 (N.C.M.R. 1976); United States v. Balsarini, 36 C.M.R. 809 (C.G.B.R. 1965). Paragraph 170 of MCM, 1951 and MCM, 1969 (Rev.) discussed Article 91 as if Congress had required a superior-subordinate relationship in Article 91. See Legal and Legislative Basis, Manual for Courts- Martial, United States, 1951, at 257. Analysis of Contents, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised edition), DA PAM 27–2, at 28–6. This was in error and all references thereto have been removed. An amendment to Article 91 was suggested by The Judge Advocate General of the Army (see Hearings on S.857 and H.R. 4080 Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Service Committee, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 274 (1949)) to conform ANALYSIS OF PUNITIVE ARTICLES Pun. Art. 92 Article 91 to Articles 89 and 90, which explicitly require superiority, and was later offered, but it was not acted on. See Congressional Floor Debate on the Uniform Code of Military Justice (amendment M. p. 170). See also Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on H.R. 2498, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. 772, 814, 823 (1949). This present interpretation is consistent with the unambiguous language of Article 91 and its predecessors. See Articles of War 65 and 1(b) (1920); and paragraph 135, MCM, 1928; paragraph 153, MCM, (Army), 1949 and MCM (AF), 1949. See also Act of Aug. 10, 1956, Pub.L. No. 84–1028, §49(e), 70A Stat. 640 (catchlines in U.C.M.J. not relevant to congressional intent). The remaining subparagraphs are all taken from paragraph 170 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) and the discussion paragraphs of other articles. e. Maximum punishment. Subparagraphs (2) and (7) are based on the aggravating circumstances that the victim is also superior to the accused. When this factor exists in a given case, the superiority of the victim must be alleged in the specification. The penalties for disobedience of noncommissioned and petty officers and for assault on and disrespect toward superior noncommissioned and petty officers were increased. In the case of the latter two offenses, this is done in part to distinguish assault on or disrespect toward a superior noncommissioned or petty officer from other assaults or disrespectful behavior, in light of the expansive coverage of the article. Moreover, increasing responsibility for training, complex and expensive equipment, and leadership in combat is placed on noncommissioned and petty officers in today’s armed forces. The law should reinforce the respect and obedience which is due them with meaningful sanctions. The maximum punishment for disrespect toward warrant officers was adjusted to conform to these changes. 16. Article 92— Failure to obey order or regulation c. Explanation. This paragraph is taken from paragraph 171 of MCM, 1969 (Rev.). The requirement that actual knowledge be an element of an Article 92(3) offense is based on United States v. Curtin, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 427, 26 C.M.R. 207 (1958). As to publication under subparagraph c(1)(a), see United States v. Tolkach, 14 M.J. 239 (C.M.A. 1982). Subparagraph (1)(e) Enforceability is new. This subparagraph is based on United States v. Nardell, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 327, 45 C.M.R. 101 (1972); United States v. Hogsett , 8 U.S.C.M.A. 681, 25 C.M.R. 185 (1958). The general order or regulation violated must, when examined as a whole, demonstrate that it is intended to regulate the conduct of individual servicemembers, and the direct application of sanctions for violations of the regulation must be self-evident. United States v. Nardell, supra at 329, 45 C.M.R. at 103. See United States v. Wheeler, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 149, 46 C.M.R. 149(1973); United States v. Scott, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 25, 46 C.M.R. 24 (1972); United States v. Woodrum, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 5 2 9 , 4 3 C . M . R . 3 6 9 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B r o o k s , 2 0 U.S.C.M.A. 42, 42 C.M.R. 220 (1970); United States v. Baker, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 504, 40 C.M.R. 216 (1969); United States v. Tassos, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 12, 39 C.M.R. 12 (1968); United States v. Farley, 11 U.S.C.M.A. 730, 29 C.M.R. 546 (1960); DiChiara, Article 92; Judicial Guidelines for Identifying Punitive Orders and Regulations, 17 A.F.L. Rev. Summer 1975 at 61. A23-5

wise outside the role of an officer before self-defense may be in<br />

issue. See United States v. Struckman, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 493, 43<br />

C.M.R. 333 (1971).<br />

( 2 ) D i s o b e y i n g s u p e r i o r c o m m i s s i o n e d o f f i c e r . T h i s s u b -<br />

paragraph is based on paragraph 169 b of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) and<br />

other authorities as noted below.<br />

(a) Lawfulness of the order.<br />

(i) Inference of lawfulness. See United States v. Keenan,<br />

18 U.S.C.M.A. 108, 39 C.M.R. 108 (1969); United States v.<br />

Schultz, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 133, 39 C.M.R. 133 (1969); United States<br />

v. Kinder, 14 C.M.R. 742 (A.B.R. 1954).<br />

(ii) Authority of issuing officer. See United States v. Marsh,<br />

3 U.S.C.M.A. 48, 11 C.M.R. 48 (1953).<br />

(iii) Relationship to military duty. See United States v.<br />

Martin, 1 U.S.C.M.A. 674, 5 C.M.R. 102 (1952); United States v.<br />

Wilson, 12 U.S.C.M.A. 165, 30 C.M.R. 165 (1961) (restriction on<br />

drinking); United States v. Nation, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 724, 26 C.M.R.<br />

5 0 4 ( 1 9 5 8 ) ( o v e r s e a s m a r r i a g e ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . L e n o x , 2 1<br />

U.S.C.M.A. 314, 45 C.M.R. 88 (1972); United States v. Stewart,<br />

20 U.S.C.M.A. 272, 43 C.M.R. 112 (1971); United States v.<br />

Wilson, 19 U.S.C.M.A. 100, 41 C.M.R. 100 (1969); United States<br />

v. Noyd, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 483, 40 C.M.R. 195 (1969) (all dealing<br />

with matters that do not excuse the disobedience of an order).<br />

(iv) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. This<br />

subparagraph is based on Article 31; United States v. McCoy, 12<br />

U.S.C.M.A. 68, 30 C.M.R. 68 (1960); United States v. Aycock, 15<br />

U.S.C.M.A. 158, 35 C.M.R. 130 (1964).<br />

( b ) P e r s o n a l n a t u r e o f t h e o r d e r . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v .<br />

Wartsbaugh, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 535, 45 C.M.R. 309 (1972).<br />

(d) Specificity of the order. See United States v. Bratcher,<br />

18 U.S.C.M.A. 125, 38 C.M.R. 125 (1969).<br />

( e ) K n o w l e d g e . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . P e t t i g r e w , 1 9<br />

U.S.C.M.A. 191, 41 C.M.R. 191 (1970); United States v. Oisten,<br />

13 U.S.C.M.A. 656, 33 C.M.R. 188 (1963).<br />

( g ) T i m e f o r c o m p l i a n c e . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S t o u t , 1<br />

U.S.C.M.A. 639, 5 C.M.R. 67 (1952); United States v. Squire, 47<br />

C . M . R . 2 1 4 ( N . C . M . R . 1 9 7 3 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . C l o w s e r , 1 6<br />

C.M.R. 543 (A.F.B.R. 1954).<br />

15. Article 91— Insubordinate conduct toward<br />

warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or<br />

petty officer<br />

c. Explanation. (1) In general. This subparagraph is based on<br />

p a r a g r a p h 1 7 0 o f M C M , 1 9 6 9 ( R e v . ) a n d p a r a g r a p h 1 7 0 o f<br />

MCM, 1951; a review of the legislative history of Article 91;<br />

United States v. Ransom, 1 M.J. 1005 (N.C.M.R. 1976); United<br />

States v. Balsarini, 36 C.M.R. 809 (C.G.B.R. 1965). Paragraph<br />

170 of MCM, 1951 and MCM, 1969 (Rev.) discussed Article 91<br />

as if Congress had required a superior-subordinate relationship in<br />

Article 91. See Legal and Legislative Basis, Manual for Courts-<br />

Martial, United States, 1951, at 257. Analysis of Contents, Manual<br />

for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969 (Revised <strong>edition</strong>), DA<br />

PAM 27–2, at 28–6. This was in error and all references thereto<br />

have been removed. An amendment to Article 91 was suggested<br />

by The Judge Advocate General of the <strong>Army</strong> (see Hearings on<br />

S.857 and H.R. 4080 Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Armed<br />

Service Committee, 81st Cong., 1st Sess. 274 (1949)) to conform<br />

ANALYSIS OF PUNITIVE ARTICLES<br />

Pun. Art. 92<br />

Article 91 to Articles 89 and 90, which explicitly require superiority,<br />

and was later offered, but it was not acted on. See Congressional<br />

Floor Debate on the Uniform Code of Military Justice<br />

(amendment M. p. 170). See also Hearings Before a Subcommittee<br />

of the House Armed Services Committee on H.R. 2498, 81st<br />

Cong. 1st Sess. 772, 814, 823 (1949). This present interpretation<br />

is consistent with the unambiguous language of Article 91 and its<br />

predecessors. See Articles of War 65 and 1(b) (1920); and paragraph<br />

135, MCM, 1928; paragraph 153, MCM, (<strong>Army</strong>), 1949 and<br />

MCM (AF), 1949. See also Act of Aug. 10, 1956, Pub.L. No.<br />

84–1028, §49(e), 70A Stat. 640 (catchlines in U.C.M.J. not relevant<br />

to congressional intent).<br />

The remaining subparagraphs are all taken from paragraph 170<br />

of MCM, 1969 (Rev.) and the discussion paragraphs of other<br />

articles.<br />

e. Maximum punishment. Subparagraphs (2) and (7) are based on<br />

the aggravating circumstances that the victim is also superior to<br />

the accused. When this factor exists in a given case, the superiority<br />

of the victim must be alleged in the specification. The penalties<br />

for disobedience of noncommissioned and petty officers and<br />

for assault on and disrespect toward superior noncommissioned<br />

and petty officers were increased. In the case of the latter two<br />

offenses, this is done in part to distinguish assault on or disrespect<br />

toward a superior noncommissioned or petty officer from other<br />

assaults or disrespectful behavior, in light of the expansive coverage<br />

of the article. Moreover, increasing responsibility for training,<br />

complex and expensive equipment, and leadership in combat is<br />

placed on noncommissioned and petty officers in today’s armed<br />

forces. The law should reinforce the respect and obedience which<br />

is due them with meaningful sanctions. The maximum punishment<br />

for disrespect toward warrant officers was adjusted to conform<br />

to these changes.<br />

16. Article 92— Failure to obey order or<br />

regulation<br />

c. Explanation. This paragraph is taken from paragraph 171 of<br />

MCM, 1969 (Rev.). The requirement that actual knowledge be an<br />

element of an Article 92(3) offense is based on United States v.<br />

Curtin, 9 U.S.C.M.A. 427, 26 C.M.R. 207 (1958).<br />

As to publication under subparagraph c(1)(a), see United States<br />

v. Tolkach, 14 M.J. 239 (C.M.A. 1982).<br />

Subparagraph (1)(e) Enforceability is new. This subparagraph<br />

is based on United States v. Nardell, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 327, 45<br />

C.M.R. 101 (1972); United States v. Hogsett , 8 U.S.C.M.A. 681,<br />

25 C.M.R. 185 (1958). The general order or regulation violated<br />

must, when examined as a whole, demonstrate that it is intended<br />

to regulate the conduct of individual servicemembers, and the<br />

direct application of sanctions for violations of the regulation<br />

must be self-evident. United States v. Nardell, supra at 329, 45<br />

C.M.R. at 103. See United States v. Wheeler, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 149,<br />

46 C.M.R. 149(1973); United States v. Scott, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 25,<br />

46 C.M.R. 24 (1972); United States v. Woodrum, 20 U.S.C.M.A.<br />

5 2 9 , 4 3 C . M . R . 3 6 9 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . B r o o k s , 2 0<br />

U.S.C.M.A. 42, 42 C.M.R. 220 (1970); United States v. Baker, 18<br />

U.S.C.M.A. 504, 40 C.M.R. 216 (1969); United States v. Tassos,<br />

18 U.S.C.M.A. 12, 39 C.M.R. 12 (1968); United States v. Farley,<br />

11 U.S.C.M.A. 730, 29 C.M.R. 546 (1960); DiChiara, Article 92;<br />

Judicial Guidelines for Identifying Punitive Orders and Regulations,<br />

17 A.F.L. Rev. Summer 1975 at 61.<br />

A23-5

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!