Under Article 134 of the UCMJ, drunkenness and disorderly conduct are punishable when they are prejudicial to good order and discipline or bring discredit upon the armed forces. Military service demands sobriety, professionalism, and reliability, and drunken behavior that disrupts unit cohesion or damages public trust is considered incompatible with these standards.
This enumerated offense covers not just being intoxicated, but also behaving in a disorderly, disruptive, or scandalous manner while drunk. Even off-duty conduct may be punishable if it harms the reputation of the service or undermines discipline.
Key Elements
To prove drunkenness and disorderly conduct under Article 134, the prosecution must show:
- That the accused was drunk or disorderly.
- That the conduct was wrongful.
- That the behavior was prejudicial to good order and discipline or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.
Scope and Application
Drunkenness charges under Article 134 may involve:
- Public intoxication that disturbs others.
- Fighting, shouting, or otherwise disruptive behavior while drunk.
- Acting in a scandalous manner in public places, damaging the military’s reputation.
- Alcohol-related misconduct not covered by more specific provisions such as Article 111 (drunken operation of vehicles, vessels, or aircraft).
This article ensures accountability for behavior that, even if off duty, reflects poorly on the service member and the armed forces.
Punishment
- Maximum punishment: Confinement for 1 month, forfeiture of two-thirds pay for 1 month, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.
Defenses
Possible defenses include:
- No intoxication: If the prosecution cannot prove the accused was drunk.
- No disorderly conduct: If the accused was intoxicated but not disruptive or discrediting.
- Medical or involuntary intoxication: If intoxication was caused without the accused’s knowledge or against their will.
- No prejudice or discredit: If the behavior, although intoxicated, did not affect discipline or reputation.
Examples
If a soldier becomes heavily intoxicated and disrupts civilians in a public bar, Article 134 applies. If a Marine gets drunk in uniform and causes a public disturbance, it qualifies as misconduct. If an airman drinks excessively but quietly goes to bed without disturbing others, it may not meet the standard for disorderly conduct under this article.
Conclusion
Article 134 drunkenness charges protect the armed forces from reputational harm and ensure service members maintain discipline on and off duty. While the punishments are relatively minor compared to other offenses, they reinforce that unprofessional intoxication is unacceptable in military life.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Is being drunk by itself a violation of Article 134?
Not necessarily. The government must prove that drunkenness was accompanied by disorderly or discrediting behavior. Simply being intoxicated without disturbing others or harming discipline usually is not enough. The focus is on wrongful conduct tied to intoxication.
2. What is considered disorderly conduct?
Disorderly conduct includes fighting, shouting, disturbing the peace, or behaving scandalously in public. The behavior must disrupt good order or discredit the military. Disorderliness is measured by how the conduct affects others, not just the accused’s level of intoxication.
3. What is the maximum punishment for drunkenness under Article 134?
The maximum punishment is confinement for 1 month, forfeiture of two-thirds pay for 1 month, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. While relatively light, the consequences include a criminal record under the UCMJ. This can harm a service member’s career despite short confinement.
4. Can this offense apply off base and off duty?
Yes. Misconduct under Article 134 applies worldwide, whether on duty or off duty. If behavior while drunk harms good order or brings discredit, it can be punished. Even civilian incidents off base can trigger charges if they embarrass the service.
5. How does Article 134 differ from Article 111 (drunken operation)?
Article 111 specifically punishes operating vehicles, vessels, or aircraft while drunk. Article 134 drunkenness covers disorderly or discrediting behavior due to intoxication that does not involve operation of vehicles. The two can overlap if both conditions are met.
6. Can involuntary intoxication be a defense?
Yes. If the accused consumed alcohol unknowingly or under coercion, intoxication may not be considered wrongful. Courts will evaluate whether the accused could reasonably avoid the intoxication. This defense is rare but recognized.
7. Can a civilian be charged under Article 134 drunkenness?
Generally no, unless the civilian is accompanying the armed forces in certain wartime situations. Article 134 primarily applies to service members. Civilian drunkenness is usually handled under local law.
8. What if the accused was drunk but not in public?
If drunkenness occurred privately and did not affect discipline or reputation, Article 134 may not apply. The misconduct must be prejudicial or discrediting. Quiet intoxication without impact is not criminal.
9. Does Article 134 drunkenness apply to drug intoxication?
Yes, in some cases. While the article typically addresses alcohol, drug-related intoxication that causes disorderly or discrediting behavior can also be punished under this article. Specific drug use, however, is usually charged under Article 112a.
10. Why is this offense included in the UCMJ if punishments are minor?
Because even minor disorderly conduct damages discipline and reputation. Article 134 drunkenness serves as a deterrent and a tool for commanders to enforce standards. It reinforces accountability and professionalism in all circumstances.
Sources
- Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 934, Article 134 (Drunkenness)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition)
- Army Regulation 27-10, Military Justice
- Navy JAGMAN (Judge Advocate General’s Manual) § 0166 (Drunkenness and Disorderly Conduct)
- Air Force Instruction 51-201, Administration of Military Justice
- Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, United States v. Wilcox, 66 M.J. 442 (2008)
- Military Attorney Joseph L. Jordan, Articles of the UCMJ web page
This content is for informational purposes only. If you are facing issues related to Article 134 or any other UCMJ provision, you should consult a qualified military attorney.