A commissioned officer of the United States Armed Forces who uses contemptuous words against officials of any branch of the U.S. government or any State government will be punished as a court-martial may direct under Article 88 of the UCMJ: Contempt toward Officials. Military protocol dictates that officers conduct themselves properly in front of government officials. A breach of this protocol can jeopardize the military’s reputation and standing as an unbiased, non-political entity. Because of this, sentencing for Article 88 can be extremely harsh. For example:

You may face dismissal as a commissioned officer. Even if you do avoid being discharged from the military, your advancement will almost surely grind to a halt.

You may face dismissal as a commissioned officer. Even if you do avoid being discharged from the military, your advancement will almost surely grind to a halt. You may face imprisonment for up to a year along with a forfeiture of all pay. You may put your family at risk of extreme debt.

Your civilian reputation could be impacted by a prison sentence and a dismissal – the officer equivalent of a dishonorable discharge.

You could spend a year in jail simply by speaking your mind to a politician. Under no circumstance should you allow this to happen. Fight back against your charges with the help of the attorneys at Bilecki & Tipon TODAY.

What Is Article 88 of the UCMJ?

Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a criminal offense for a commissioned officer to use contemptuous language against a government official—elected or not. Prosecutors will attempt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you broke Article 88 by convincing a judge or jury of the following elements:

That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used.

In addition to these elements, a final element is added in the case that the contempt was toward a governor or legislature:

That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

Our Take: Military prosecutors do not care whether the words against the official occurred in a public or private setting, although from a defense standpoint, the distinction matters. The broad definition of “contemptuous language” may be a boon for prosecutors, but a defense attorney can combat this with preparation and a strong strategy. The government will aggressively defend its elected and unelected officials from contemptuous remarks made by commissioned officers of the U.S. Armed Forces. But where those remarks were said, how they were said, and to whom they were said to, are all factors that a military defense attorney will take into account when building your case. Here are just a few of the questions Bilecki & Tipon may ask to build your defense and secure the best possible outcome in your case: