UCMJ Article 93: Cruelty and Maltreatment

Article 93 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice addresses a specific kind of wrong: the abuse of authority. It does not punish harm in the abstract. It punishes harm inflicted by someone in a position of power over the person harmed. The statute is short, but its reach is wide, covering physical abuse, verbal abuse, hazing, sexual harassment, and psychological cruelty alike, and it sits at the center of some of the military’s most difficult questions about where demanding leadership ends and criminal mistreatment begins.

The article is codified at 10 U.S.C. 893. Its language is direct: any person subject to the code who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. Two ideas are doing the work. There must be a relationship of authority, the victim must be subject to the accused’s orders, and there must be conduct that qualifies as cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment.

The authority relationship

The defining feature of Article 93 is that it requires a superior-subordinate relationship. The victim must have been subject to the orders of the accused at the time of the offense. This is what separates Article 93 from ordinary assault: the same physical act becomes an Article 93 offense when it is committed by someone with authority over the victim, because the wrong includes the betrayal of that authority.

Importantly, “subject to his orders” is read broadly. It is not limited to the accused’s direct or immediate chain of command. It extends to all persons, whether or not they are themselves subject to the code, who by reason of some duty are required to obey the lawful orders of the accused. A drill instructor and a trainee, a shift supervisor and a junior service member, a senior noncommissioned officer and lower-ranking personnel in the same unit, all of these can satisfy the relationship even where there is no formal command line between them. The government establishes the relationship through evidence of command structure, duty assignments, training roles, and organizational hierarchy.

What counts as cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment

The conduct element is measured by an objective standard. Cruelty, oppression, and maltreatment cover treatment that, under all the circumstances, is unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful purpose, and that results in physical or mental harm or suffering. The test is whether a reasonable person would regard the conduct as cruel or oppressive given the situation.

Several points follow from that standard. Physical injury is not required. The harm can be mental or emotional, and even temporary suffering or humiliation can qualify. The article expressly reaches non-physical mistreatment: sustained verbal abuse, degrading or threatening language, deliberate humiliation, isolation, and the creation of hostile conditions can all be maltreatment when directed at a subordinate from a position of authority. Hazing falls within the article precisely because it involves mistreatment imposed by those with authority or seniority on junior personnel. Sexual harassment can also constitute maltreatment, for instance where a superior influences, offers to influence, or threatens the career, pay, or duties of a subordinate in connection with a demand for sexual favors.

The line between lawful training and maltreatment

Because so much of military service involves demanding, deliberately stressful training, the hardest Article 93 cases turn on distinguishing rigorous but lawful instruction from criminal abuse. The line is drawn at necessity and proportionality. Training that serves a legitimate military purpose is permissible even when it is physically exhausting or psychologically taxing, provided it is consistent with approved training standards and does not exceed what is needed to meet the training objective.

Cruelty begins where the conduct loses that connection to a legitimate purpose. Conduct exceeds the article’s tolerance when it goes beyond what training requires, is driven by personal animosity or sadism, singles out individuals for reasons unrelated to instruction, or violates the service’s own training regulations. Corrective measures must be proportional to the deficiency they address and consistent with service policy. A drill that is hard but authorized is lawful leadership; the same drill imposed as punishment for a personal grievance, or carried past the point any standard sanctions, can become maltreatment.

Maximum punishment

The maximum punishment for cruelty and maltreatment under Article 93 is a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, and confinement for three years. The maximum confinement was raised to three years in the 2019 edition of the Manual for Courts-Martial, increasing the exposure that had previously applied. The sentence actually imposed depends on the severity of the conduct, its duration and frequency, the number of victims, the degree of harm, and the extent to which the accused exploited a position of trust. Because reform editions of the Manual periodically adjust maxima, the precise punishment authorized for a given offense should be confirmed against the current Manual for Courts-Martial.

The same conduct can sometimes support more than one charge, and the choice carries strategic weight. Where a superior physically harms a subordinate, both Article 93 and Article 128, the general assault article, may apply. A prosecutor may charge under Article 93 to foreground the abuse of authority, under Article 128 to focus on the physical harm, or under both. The articles carry different exposure, and an aggravated assault under Article 128 can authorize substantially more confinement than Article 93, which is one reason the charging decision matters.

Hazing and bullying frequently implicate service-specific regulations as well. A violation of an anti-hazing policy can be charged under Article 92 as a failure to obey a lawful general regulation, under Article 93 as the maltreatment itself, or both. Those policies also shape how Article 93 is applied in practice, because they define prohibited conduct, set reporting requirements, and inform what a reasonable person would regard as cruel or oppressive in a given service context.

Why the article matters

Article 93 enforces a basic principle of military leadership: authority over others is a trust, and it must be exercised lawfully. The article protects the most vulnerable members of a unit, trainees, junior personnel, anyone bound to obey, while preserving a leader’s ability to maintain discipline and conduct demanding training. The evolution of its application, from a focus on physical abuse toward a broader recognition of verbal, psychological, and online mistreatment, tracks a wider shift in how the services understand the harm that flows from the misuse of rank. Where that misuse causes real suffering and serves no lawful purpose, Article 93 is the provision that names it as a crime.

Sources

10 U.S.C. 893 (UCMJ Article 93, Cruelty and maltreatment): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/893
10 U.S.C. 893, Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. Code: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title10-section893
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Part IV (Punitive Articles), Article 93: https://jsc.defense.gov/Military-Law/Current-Publications-and-Updates/

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It describes military law and procedure of public record, does not address any individual case, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.