Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Article 91 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 5 page paper discusses Article 91 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with regard to an Army E-4 who has been given deliberately misleading orders by a superior NCO. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HV91ucmj.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
uniforms, equipment, food, housing and so on. It also has its own system of laws, codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which is part of the United
States Code (USC). Its provisions cover all members of the military, both active and reserve, under certain specific conditions. It does not apply to civilians except in rare cases. This
paper discusses Article 91 of the UCMJ. Discussion Article 91 is one of the "punitive articles" of the UCMJ; the term applies to Articles 77 through 134 and indicates that
violation of any of these articles will result in punishment by court-martial (Powers, 2004). Specifically, Article 91 says that any enlisted member or warrant officer who "(1) strikes or assaults
a warrant officer, non-commissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office"; or who disobeys a lawful order from such person; or who displays
contempt toward such person, "shall be punished as a court-martial may direct" (Powers, 2008). In the situation under discussion, an E-4 enlisted member feels that his superior, a higher-ranking NCO,
is deliberately compromising him by making it appear that he is derelict in his duties. The senior NCO fails to give the E-4 a specific time and place to report
for duty, and then claims the error is the E-4s fault. The senior NCO thus appears blameless and the junior, derelict in his duty. This essay is the E-4 response
to the unfair behavior of the superior NCO. Unfortunately, it would appear that this is a case where the UCMJ is not on the side of the E-4. For one
thing, this is a case that appears to be a "he said, she said" thing, where the only facts are the differing accounts offered by the two people involved. The
...