A Guide to Article 138s and Article 1150s: How to Address Violations in the Military
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) provides service members with mechanisms to address grievances and wrongs committed by their commanding officers. Among these, Article 138 of the UCMJ and Article 1150 of the U.S. Navy Regulations stand out as powerful tools for service members to seek redress for personal wrongs.
These provisions are particularly relevant in the District of Columbia, where military personnel, including members of the D.C. National Guard, operate under federal military authority.
Below provides a comprehensive overview of Article 138 and Article 1150, detailing their purpose, scope, procedures, and specific considerations for addressing violations in the District of Columbia.
It aims to empower service members with the knowledge to traverse these processes effectively while verifying accountability and fairness within the military justice system. Read on to learn more about how a military administration lawyer from the Law Office of Shannon James, PLLC in Washington, DC, can assist you.
A Breakdown of Article 138 of the UCMJ
Article 138 of the UCMJ, codified under 10 U.S.C. § 938, allows any member of the armed forces who believes they have been wronged by their commanding officer to request redress.
If the commanding officer refuses to address the grievance, the service member may file a formal complaint with a superior commissioned officer, who must forward it to the officer exercising general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) over the respondent.
The GCMCA is required to investigate the complaint and take appropriate action to rectify the wrong.
The scope of Article 138 is broad but specific. It addresses discretionary acts or omissions by a commanding officer that adversely affect the complainant personally and meet one of the following criteria:
Violate a law or regulation.
Exceed the legitimate authority of the commanding officer.
Are arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
Are materially unfair or unjust.
Common examples include abuse of authority (e.g., unfairly denying leave), discrimination based on protected characteristics, retaliation for exercising legal rights, or violations of service-specific regulations.
However, Article 138 doesn’t apply to disciplinary actions under the UCMJ (e.g., nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 or court-martial convictions), as these have separate appeal processes. It also excludes matters with established administrative remedies, such as performance evaluations or administrative discharges.
Limitations
Article 138 complaints must be filed by an individual against their commanding officer, not on behalf of others or for systemic issues. Joint complaints are prohibited, and the wrong must be personal to the complainant.
Additionally, the complaint must be submitted within 90 days of the alleged wrong (180 days for Air Force members), though extensions may be granted for good cause.
For more information, contact the Law Office of Shannon James, PLLC in Washington, DC, and Phoenix, AZ.
A Breakdown of Article 1150 of the U.S. Navy Regulations
Article 1150 of the U.S. Navy Regulations, applicable to Navy and Marine Corps personnel, provides a parallel mechanism for addressing wrongs committed by officers, including those not in the complainant’s direct chain of command.
Unlike Article 138, which is limited to commanding officers, Article 1150 allows complaints against any officer acting under naval authority. The Navy’s Manual of the Judge Advocate General (JAGMAN), Chapter III, outlines the procedures for Article 1150 complaints, which mirror those of Article 138 in many respects.
A “wrong” under Article 1150 is defined as any act, omission, decision, or order by an officer that:
Results in personal detriment, harm, or injury to a subordinate.
Lacks statutory or regulatory basis, is unauthorized, constitutes an abuse of discretion, or is arbitrary, capricious, unjust, or discriminatory.
Examples include unfair treatment, improper orders, or failure to address subordinates’ misconduct. Article 1150 complaints supplement Article 138 for Navy and Marine Corps members, offering flexibility in addressing grievances against officers beyond the commanding officer.
Limitations
Similar to Article 138, Article 1150 complaints must be personal, timely, and exclude matters with other appeal processes. The JAGMAN specifies that complaints can’t address acts explicitly excluded by regulation, such as those under disciplinary proceedings.
For more information on Article 1150 of the U.S. Navy Regulations, speak with a military administration lawyer.
Procedures for Filing Article 138 and Article 1150 Complaints
Step 1: Informal Request for Redress
Both Article 138 and Article 1150 require service members to first seek redress informally from the officer responsible for the alleged wrong. This involves submitting a written request, typically in a military letter or memorandum format, that:
Explicitly references Article 138 (or Article 1150 for Navy/Marine Corps members).
Describes the wrong, supported by evidence such as witness statements, documents, or references to violated regulations.
Proposes specific actions to resolve the issue.
Sets a reasonable deadline for resolution (e.g., 10–15 days).
The tone should be professional and collaborative, framing the request as an opportunity to resolve the issue without escalating to a formal complaint. Service members may also use their commanding officer’s open-door policy to discuss the issue orally before submitting a written request, though this isn’t required.
The officer must respond in writing, indicating whether the redress is granted or denied and providing the basis for denial. If additional evidence is considered, it must be included in the response. For assistance with tone and the information needed, contact a military administration lawyer.
Step 2: Filing a Formal Complaint
If the request for redress is denied or inadequately addressed, the service member may file a formal complaint. For Article 138, the complaint is submitted to any superior commissioned officer, who is obligated to forward it to the GCMCA over the respondent.
For Article 1150, Navy and Marine Corps members follow JAGMAN procedures, typically submitting the complaint through their chain of command to the GCMCA.
The formal complaint should include:
A statement that it’s filed under Article 138 or Article 1150.
A detailed description of the wrong, including dates, events, and impacts.
Copies of the initial request for redress, the officer’s response, and all supporting evidence.
An explanation if the complaint is filed beyond the time limit (if applicable).
The GCMCA can’t delegate its responsibility to review the complaint. They must investigate, which may involve reviewing documents, interviewing witnesses, or appointing an investigating officer.
The GCMCA then makes findings on whether the act was wrong and takes corrective action if substantiated. The complaint, findings, and related documents are forwarded to the service’s Judge Advocate General for review on behalf of the Secretary of the service. A military administration lawyer can help in filing the complaint.
Step 3: Service-Specific Review
Each branch has specific regulations governing the process:
Army: AR 27-10, Chapter 19, requires the GCMCA to make specific findings and forward the complaint to the Office of the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) for review.
Navy and Marine Corps: JAGMAN, Chapter III, mandates reporting to the Secretary of the Navy via the Office of the Judge Advocate General.
Air Force: AFI 51-505 requires forwarding results to HQ USAF/JAG for Secretarial review.
Coast Guard: COMDTINST M5810.1H, Chapter 25, outlines similar procedures.
The Secretarial review confirms compliance with regulations and may return the file for further investigation if needed.
For assistance from a military administration lawyer, contact the Law Office of Shannon James, PLLC in Washington, DC, and Phoenix, AZ.
Strategic Considerations for Service Members
The decision to file an Article 138 or Article 1150 complaint requires careful consideration of timing, potential repercussions, and available support.
When to File
Service members should consider filing an Article 138 or Article 1150 complaint when:
The wrong is personal, discretionary, and lacks another appeal process.
The commanding officer’s action is clearly unfair, unlawful, or abusive.
Informal resolution attempts have failed.
However, complaints should be approached cautiously, as they become part of the officer’s official record and may impact unit dynamics. Service members should weigh the potential benefits against risks, such as retaliation, and seek legal advice.
Preventing Retaliation
Retaliation for filing a complaint is prohibited and can itself be grounds for an Article 138 or Article 1150 complaint. Service members should document any retaliatory actions and report them promptly. The Department of Defense Inspector General (IG) hotline can also address retaliation concerns.
Legal and Advocacy Support
Consulting a military defense attorney or civilian counsel experienced in military law (e.g., Military Justice Attorneys or Aaron Meyer Law) can enhance the complaint’s effectiveness. These professionals can confirm compliance with procedural requirements and strengthen the case with legal arguments.
Contact a Military Administration Lawyer
Article 138 and Article 1150 are vital tools for service members in the District of Columbia to address wrongs by commanding officers and other officers. By providing a formal mechanism to seek redress, these provisions uphold fairness, accountability, and due process within the military justice system. For assistance from an experienced military administration lawyer, the Law Office of Shannon James, PLLC serves clients across the nation and worldwide. Contact the firm today.
