Punishment Under Article 91,92.
SGT Darion Smith
A CO WRAMC
Plan of Action Essay
Articles 91, 92, 98, 134
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
A CO WRAMC
Plan of Action Essay
Articles 91, 92, 98, 134
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