Complaint of Wrongs: Your Right to Go Over Your Commander's Head
Article 138 of the UCMJ gives every service member the right to formally complain against their commanding officer and compel a response from the highest level of the command chain. The complaint goes to a General Officer. It gets reported to the Secretary of the military department. It cannot be ignored. Almost nobody knows it exists — because commands have no incentive to advertise it.
What Article 138 Actually Is
Four sentences in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. A right that has existed since the founding of the UCMJ. Almost no service member has heard of it — not because it doesn't work, but because the people who would use it are the same people who are never told it exists.
"Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall forward the complaint to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of, and shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings had thereon."
The Statutory Text
Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice reads: "Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall forward the complaint to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of, and shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings had thereon." That is the whole statute. Four sentences. A right almost no service member knows they have.
What the Right Creates
Article 138 creates a mandatory procedural obligation on the command — not a suggestion, not a recommendation, but a legal duty. When a service member properly invokes Article 138, the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction (GCMJ) over the commanding officer — typically a General or Flag Officer — must examine the complaint and take "proper measures for redressing the wrong." The complaint also goes to the Secretary of the relevant military department. This is not a toothless grievance. It creates documented command accountability.
Why Almost Nobody Has Heard of It
Commands do not advertise Article 138. No unit brief explains it. No NCO course teaches it systematically. The rights it creates run directly against the interests of the commanders it targets. The regulation is self-concealing by the nature of military hierarchy: the people who would benefit from knowing about it are the same people the institution prefers not to have it used against. Honest MOS is telling you because no one else will.
How It Differs From an IG Complaint
This distinction matters practically. An IG complaint triggers an investigation — the IG's office examines the complaint, interviews people, and produces findings. The IG can recommend action but cannot compel it. Article 138 creates a command-level obligation to act: the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) must "take proper measures for redressing the wrong." The timeline is defined, the obligation runs to the Secretary of the military department, and the command cannot simply ignore it without creating its own exposure. Art. 138 has structural teeth that an IG complaint lacks.
The Legal Protection Against Retaliation
An Article 138 complaint is a protected communication under DoD Directive 7050.06 (Military Whistleblower Protection Act) and its implementing instruction DoDI 7050.06. This means retaliation against a service member for filing an Art. 138 complaint — an adverse action, a negative evaluation, an assignment change, a formal investigation — is itself a federal violation. The protection is real and enforceable. It does not guarantee you will be treated well. It guarantees you have recourse if you are not.
- — Creates a mandatory obligation to act
- — GCMCA must "take proper measures"
- — Reported to the Secretary of the military dept
- — Fastest direct command accountability mechanism
- — Limited to wrongs by commanding officers
- — Triggers an investigation, not mandatory action
- — IG recommends — cannot compel correction
- — Broader scope (any violation, any person)
- — Slower timeline, investigative function
- — Can be filed concurrently with Art. 138
Who Can File — and Against Whom
"Any member of the armed forces" sounds broad — it is. But "commanding officer" is a term of art that limits the complaint's target. Understanding the distinction between a commanding officer and a supervisor is essential before filing.
Who Can File
"Any member of the armed forces" — this includes all active duty enlisted soldiers, noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, and commissioned officers across all branches. It also includes activated National Guard and Reserve members serving on federal orders. There is no rank threshold, no time-in-service requirement, and no duty-status qualifier beyond being on federal military service.
Against Whom
The complaint must be directed against your "commanding officer" — the specific term in the statute. This is a term of art. A commanding officer is a commissioned officer who holds a command position with authority over the complaining member through the military chain of command. This is not the same as your rater, your section NCOIC, or your immediate supervisor if they do not hold command authority.
What "Command Authority" Means
Command authority is a specific legal status — it carries with it the authority to impose nonjudicial punishment (NJP), to initiate administrative actions, and to control the discipline and administration of assigned personnel. An officer who is your technical supervisor but is not your commanding officer does not have command authority. Typically, this means a company, battalion, brigade, or higher commander who has been formally given command. The key test: can this person give you an Article 15? If yes, they likely have command authority.
NCOs and Civilians Cannot Be Subjects
Article 138 applies only to commissioned officers exercising command authority. Your first sergeant, your sergeant major, your civilian supervisor — none of them can be the subject of an Article 138 complaint. Their conduct may be relevant evidence in a complaint against the commanding officer (who is responsible for their subordinates' actions), but the complaint itself must be against a commissioned commanding officer.
Guard and Reserve Members
National Guard and Reserve members who are federally activated — on Title 10 orders, mobilization orders, or active duty for training — are covered. Guard members serving under state authority (Title 32 status) operate under state UCMJ equivalents, which vary. If you are uncertain about your status, the question of whether federal or state law applies determines whether Article 138 is available. When in doubt, consult JAG or Legal Assistance.
Not sure whether your superior is a "commanding officer" within the meaning of Art. 138? Ask three questions:
When in doubt, TDS or Legal Assistance can confirm whether a specific officer holds command authority over you for Art. 138 purposes.
What Qualifies as a "Wrong"
The statute uses the word "wronged" without further definition. Decades of implementing regulations and practice have developed a body of understanding around what constitutes a qualifying wrong. The key standard: a wrongful act or omission by the commanding officer in their official capacity that injures the service member.
Denial of Rights
A commanding officer who denies a service member a right they are entitled to under regulation, statute, or DoD policy has committed a wrong within the meaning of Art. 138. The denial must be attributable to the commanding officer in their official capacity — not a resource constraint entirely outside their control.
- —Denial of authorized leave without justification
- —Denial of liberty that is otherwise authorized
- —Wrongful denial of medical care or referral
- —Violation of due process rights in administrative proceedings
- —Denial of access to legal counsel when entitled
- —Denial of religious accommodation without required analysis
Wrongful Punishment
Punishment that exceeds the commander's authority, violates procedural requirements, or lacks a factual basis can form the basis of an Art. 138 complaint. This is distinct from the Art. 15 appeal process — Art. 138 is an additional remedy, not a replacement for the formal NJP appeal.
- —NJP imposed without factual basis or proper procedure
- —Extra duty, reduction in grade, or forfeiture imposed unlawfully
- —Punishment imposed in violation of Art. 15 procedural requirements
- —Double punishment for the same offense
- —Punishment imposed in excess of regulatory maximums
Discriminatory Treatment
A commanding officer who treats a service member differently than similarly situated members in a way that is unjust and traceable to the commanding officer's action or decision has committed a wrong that Art. 138 can address. Discriminatory treatment often also triggers EO complaint procedures — both remedies can run concurrently.
- —Disparate treatment based on protected characteristics (race, sex, religion, national origin)
- —Favoritism or prejudicial treatment in assignments, evaluations, or awards
- —Retaliation for prior protected activity
- —Systematic exclusion from opportunities available to similarly situated members
Wrongful Orders
An order does not become lawful merely because a commanding officer gives it. Orders must be lawful — within the commander's authority and not violating law or regulation. An order issued arbitrarily or to harass can form the basis of an Art. 138 complaint, in addition to being a potential defense to charges under Art. 92.
- —Orders that are patently illegal under domestic law or international law
- —Orders issued arbitrarily without basis in military necessity or legitimate command interest
- —Orders designed to punish rather than serve any legitimate military purpose
- —Orders that violate a specific regulatory or statutory prohibition
Failure to Process Administrative Actions
A commanding officer has affirmative obligations to process certain administrative actions within defined timelines. Deliberate delay, obstruction, or failure to process these actions can constitute a wrong. This is an underused basis for Art. 138 complaints — commanders who weaponize administrative processes as informal punishment are committing a documentable wrong.
- —Failure to process a promotion packet within required timelines
- —Withholding or unreasonably delaying an award submission
- —Failure to process separation when entitled under service regulations
- —Blocking a voluntary separation or reenlistment without authority
- —Failure to process an EFMP enrollment or overseas screening package
Property Loss Caused by Command
Property claims that arise from a commanding officer's official action or direction can form the basis of an Art. 138 complaint, in addition to any claim under the Military Claims Act or other applicable authority.
- —Loss or damage to personal property caused by a command-directed action
- —Seizure of property without authority or due process
- —Failure to reimburse authorized expenses caused by command action
The Key Limitation: Official Capacity
The wrong must be committed by the commanding officer in their official capacity. Personal disputes, conduct entirely unrelated to their command role, and actions taken as an individual rather than as a commander are not within Art. 138's scope. The line is not always obvious — a commander who uses their command authority as leverage in a personal dispute has crossed into official conduct. But a purely personal grievance does not trigger Art. 138.
The Two-Step Process — Both Steps Are Mandatory
The most common error in Art. 138 complaints is skipping Step 1. The statute explicitly requires that the service member first request redress from the commanding officer and be refused before the formal complaint right arises. This two-step structure is not a bureaucratic inconvenience — it is the procedural foundation of the right. Skipping it renders the formal complaint defective.
Step 1 — The Initial Redress Request (Mandatory)
Before filing a formal Article 138 complaint, the service member must first submit a written request for redress directly to the commanding officer who committed the wrong. This is not optional — it is a prerequisite to the formal complaint. The statute specifies "upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress" as the trigger for escalation. Skipping this step makes the formal complaint procedurally defective.
- →The request must be in writing
- →It must be submitted to the commanding officer whose conduct is at issue
- →It must identify the wrong and request specific redress
- →You must preserve a copy — document that you submitted it and when
- →The request should be professional in tone — firm but not inflammatory
There is no statutory deadline for the initial request, but timeliness matters. Regulations and command policies may impose timelines, and delay weakens your position. Submit the redress request promptly after the wrong occurs.
The commanding officer has a duty to consider the redress request. They may grant full redress (your complaint ends), grant partial redress (you can escalate for the remainder), or refuse (triggering the right to formal escalation). If the commanding officer fails to respond within a reasonable time, that failure itself constitutes a refusal of redress.
Step 2 — The Formal Article 138 Complaint
Only after the commanding officer refuses or fails to grant redress does the formal Article 138 complaint arise. The complaint is submitted to "any superior commissioned officer" — not necessarily your next immediate superior, but any commissioned officer senior to the commanding officer against whom the complaint is made. The superior officer's obligation is to forward the complaint to the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) over the complained-against commander.
- →Identify the commanding officer whose conduct is the subject of the complaint
- →Describe the specific wrong with dates and factual detail
- →Explain how and when you requested redress (Step 1)
- →Explain how the commanding officer refused or failed to grant redress
- →State specifically what redress you are seeking
- →Attach supporting documentation (orders, emails, witness statements, prior correspondence)
Submit the formal complaint promptly after the refusal or failure to respond. While the statute does not impose a hard deadline, implementing regulations and common law construction favor timely filing. Delay suggests the wrong was not significant enough to pursue promptly.
The superior officer who receives the complaint must forward it up the chain to the GCMCA. The GCMCA must examine the complaint and take proper measures to redress the wrong. The GCMCA must also send a "true statement" of the complaint and proceedings to the Secretary of the military department. These obligations are mandatory.
The Formal Complaint — What It Must Contain
The formal Art. 138 complaint is a legal document. It should be structured, specific, and supported by documentation. Vague complaints give reviewing authorities grounds to dismiss without substantive engagement. A well-constructed complaint forces substantive review.
Caption and Identification
Identify yourself (name, rank, unit, duty station), the commanding officer against whom the complaint is made (name, rank, unit, command position), and the date of the complaint. State clearly at the top: "This is a complaint pursuant to Article 138, UCMJ." The caption anchors the document legally.
Statement of the Wrong
Describe the specific wrong with dates, times, locations, and witnesses. Be precise and factual. The statement of the wrong is the evidentiary core of your complaint. Vague complaints ("my commander treats me badly") are easily dismissed. Specific complaints ("On [date], my commanding officer denied my approved leave without explanation and in violation of AR 600-8-10 paragraph X, and then issued me an LOR the following week") create a reviewable record.
The Redress Request (Step 1 Documentation)
Describe how and when you submitted your request for redress to the commanding officer. Attach the written request if you have it. State the commanding officer's response — or their failure to respond. This documentation establishes the procedural prerequisite. Without it, the formal complaint is defective.
Refusal or Failure of Redress
State specifically that redress was refused, partially refused, or not provided within a reasonable time. If the commander gave a reason for refusal, include it — this creates a record that will be reviewed by the GCMCA. If no response was given, note the date of your request and the absence of response.
Specific Remedy Requested
State what you are asking the reviewing authority to do. "Redress" requires specificity — reversal of the action, rescission of a document, correction of a record, restoration of leave, processing of an overdue action. General requests for justice are not specific enough. Frame your requested remedy in terms of what the reviewing authority can actually order.
Supporting Documentation
Attach copies of all relevant documents: orders, regulations, emails, written counselings, prior administrative actions, witness statements, and your Step 1 redress request. The formal complaint is a documentary record. Every claim should be supported by documentary evidence where available.
What Happens After You File
Once a properly completed Art. 138 complaint is submitted to a superior commissioned officer, a mandatory process begins. Understanding each stage helps you know what to expect and when to follow up.
Receipt and Forwarding by Superior Officer
The superior commissioned officer who receives the complaint is required to forward it to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the commanding officer against whom the complaint is made. This is typically a General or Flag Officer (the GCMCA). The superior officer may add their own endorsement but cannot sit on the complaint — forwarding is mandatory.
GCMCA Examination
The General Court-Martial Convening Authority must examine the complaint. This is not a perfunctory review — "examine" in the legal context means a substantive inquiry. The GCMCA's staff judge advocate (SJA) typically conducts the preliminary analysis and provides legal advice. The GCMCA may direct an inquiry, interview witnesses, review records, and request a response from the complained-against commander.
The Commander's Response
The commanding officer against whom the complaint is filed has the right to respond. They will typically be given an opportunity to submit their account of the facts, explain their actions, and provide any evidence that the redress request was properly denied or that no wrong occurred. The complaining member is not typically present for this response, but the response becomes part of the formal record.
GCMCA Findings and Action
The GCMCA determines whether a wrong occurred and what proper measures for redress are required. The range of available action is broad: the GCMCA can direct the commanding officer to take specific action, can direct relief (reversal of an adverse action), can initiate further inquiry, or can find that no redress is warranted. The GCMCA can also take adverse personnel action against the commanding officer if the complaint is meritorious and the commander's conduct warrants it.
Report to the Secretary
The GCMCA must send a "true statement" of the complaint and the proceedings taken to the Secretary of the relevant military department (Secretary of the Army, Navy, or Air Force, as applicable). This reporting requirement means that Article 138 complaints that reach the GCMCA level create a paper trail that extends to the Secretariat. Commands are aware of this. It is one reason a properly filed Art. 138 complaint carries weight beyond a simple IG referral.
Notification to the Complainant
The service member who filed the complaint should be informed of the GCMCA's findings and what action, if any, was taken. The regulation requires that the complainant be advised of the outcome. If you have filed an Art. 138 and received no communication from anyone in the chain above your commanding officer, follow up — both with the superior officer you submitted to and with JAG.
The GCMCA finds that a wrong occurred and orders specific corrective action. The commanding officer is directed to take the remedial action. Most likely when the wrong is clear, documented, and the regulatory violation is unambiguous.
The GCMCA finds some merit in the complaint and directs limited corrective action, while finding that other aspects of the complaint do not warrant redress. Common when some claims are documentable and others are credibility disputes.
The GCMCA finds the commanding officer acted within their authority and declines to order corrective action. This is the adverse outcome. It does not necessarily mean the complaint was frivolous — it means the reviewing authority exercised their discretion against you.
Retaliation Prohibition — Your Rights After Filing
Filing an Art. 138 complaint does not guarantee immunity from command climate pressure. What it does guarantee is a legal framework that prohibits retaliation and provides a mechanism to hold retaliators accountable. The protection is real. The risk is real. Knowing how to use both is essential.
- — Filing an Art. 138 complaint
- — Preparing to file an Art. 138 complaint
- — Assisting another member in filing Art. 138
- — Contacting JAG or TDS about Art. 138
- — Providing information in an Art. 138 inquiry
- — Any adverse personnel action
- — Any threat of adverse action
- — Action that would dissuade a reasonable person from exercising the right
- — Specific intent to punish is NOT required
- — Temporal proximity creates presumption of connection
Authority: 10 U.S.C. § 1034 (Military Whistleblower Protection Act) · DoD Directive 7050.06 · DoDI 7050.06
What Retaliation Looks Like
- —Initiation of a new investigation (AR 15-6, IG, CID) shortly after complaint filing
- —Negative counseling or evaluation submitted after the complaint but referencing conduct known before it
- —Reassignment or removal from position without legitimate military justification
- —Sudden denial of previously approved or authorized actions (leave, awards, schools)
- —Social isolation from peers at command direction or implicit command encouragement
- —Increased scrutiny or targeting for minor infractions ignored for similarly situated members before the complaint
The Legal Protection
DoD Directive 7050.06 and its implementing instruction DoDI 7050.06 prohibit retaliation ("reprisals") against service members who make or prepare to make a protected communication. An Article 138 complaint is explicitly a protected communication. A reprisal is defined as an action that would dissuade a reasonable person from making or supporting a protected communication — it does not require the specific intent to punish, only that the action is adverse and follows the protected communication.
Documenting Retaliation
Documentation is everything. The moment you file an Art. 138 complaint, begin a written log of every adverse action, every change in treatment, every conversation in which your complaint is referenced. Note dates, times, who was present, and what was said. Preserve copies of all written communications. Your log is evidence — the difference between a retaliatory adverse action that is corrected and one that is treated as coincidental is often the quality of contemporaneous documentation.
The IG Reprisal Complaint
If you experience what you believe is retaliation for filing Art. 138, file a reprisal complaint with the Inspector General simultaneously with any other response. The DoD IG and service-level IGs have authority to investigate reprisals. A reprisal finding creates its own mandatory corrective action and adverse accountability for the commander who retaliated. The IG complaint preserves a federal record of the retaliation that is independent of the Art. 138 chain.
The TDS Referral
Contact Trial Defense Service before or immediately upon experiencing retaliation. TDS can advise you on how to document retaliation, when and how to escalate, and whether any adverse actions are procedurally defective. TDS representation during an Art. 138 proceeding where retaliation is occurring creates a legal record and signals to the command that you have professional legal support — which alone can deter further adverse action.
Art. 138 vs. Other Remedies
Article 138 is one tool among several. Understanding when to use it — and when to use something else, or both simultaneously — is the difference between an effective strategy and an ineffective one.
Article 138 Complaint
Subject of This GuideInspector General Complaint
Congressional Inquiry
Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR)
JAG Professional Responsibility Complaint
Why Commands Fear It
Understanding why Art. 138 creates real command-level concern is not about creating a weapon — it is about understanding the mechanism that makes the right effective. A service member who understands why Art. 138 creates accountability is better positioned to use it strategically.
It Creates a Mandatory Documented Paper Trail
Every Art. 138 complaint that reaches the GCMCA level creates a formal record that includes the complaint, the proceedings, and a report to the Secretary of the military department. Unlike an informal grievance or a verbal objection, this documentation cannot be destroyed, cannot be minimized, and cannot be managed by the unit. It is a formal federal record.
The Reviewing Authority Is Senior to the Commander
The GCMCA is typically a General or Flag Officer who holds command authority over the complained-against commander's entire chain. This means the review is conducted by someone who outranks the target by multiple grades and who has the authority to take action against them. A battalion commander who receives a sustained Art. 138 complaint has had their conduct reviewed — and found wanting — by a General Officer. This has professional consequences.
The Secretariat Is Notified
The statute requires the GCMCA to send a report of the complaint and proceedings to the Secretary of the military department. For Army complaints, this means the Secretary of the Army. For Navy and Marine Corps, the Secretary of the Navy. For Air Force and Space Force, the Secretary of the Air Force. The administrative office handling these reports tracks commanders who receive Art. 138 complaints — including whether complaints were sustained or the commander's conduct was found to have been improper.
A Sustained Complaint Is a Career Document
A commanding officer whose Art. 138 complaint is sustained — meaning the GCMCA finds that a wrong occurred — has that documented in the proceedings. Depending on the severity of the wrong and the GCMCA's response, this can affect the commander's promotion file, evaluation record, and assignment eligibility. For company and battalion commanders who are still in promotion windows, a sustained Art. 138 complaint is a documented adverse finding by a General Officer.
The Complaint Itself Cannot Be Retaliated Against
The fact that Art. 138 complaints are protected communications under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act means that a commander cannot respond to an Art. 138 with adverse action without creating a second exposure. The retaliation claim itself becomes actionable and creates additional review. Commands are aware of this dynamic. It is why Art. 138 complaints, once properly filed, often cause commanders to moderate their conduct or seek resolution — the alternative is compounding their legal exposure.
Commands Often Settle Once Art. 138 Is Formally Invoked
Experienced military attorneys and JAG officers have observed a consistent pattern: Art. 138 complaints that are properly filed — with the two-step process completed correctly, documented in writing, and submitted with supporting evidence — frequently result in the command reversing or modifying the contested action without a full GCMCA review. The formal invocation of Art. 138 signals that the service member has legal awareness and institutional knowledge that most complainants lack. It changes the command's calculus.
Article 138 is not a magic shield. It does not guarantee that the wrong will be corrected. It does not guarantee protection from every form of command displeasure. What it does is create a formal, documented, mandatory process that reaches above your commanding officer to a General or Flag Officer and ultimately to the Secretary of the military department. In an institution where informal command pressure is the most common tool of coercion, a tool that forces formal documentation and senior command review — and that is protected against retaliation — is a meaningful countermeasure. The right exists. Use it when the situation warrants it and when you have documented the wrong properly.
Strategic Use and Practical Guidance
Having a right and using a right effectively are different skills. This section covers the practical guidance that determines whether an Art. 138 complaint produces results or becomes an exercise in futility.
When Art. 138 Is the Right Tool
Article 138 is the right tool when the wrong is clearly attributable to your commanding officer in their official capacity, you have documented the wrong and have evidence to support your account, you have attempted (or are prepared to attempt) informal resolution first, and you want the fastest path to a mandatory command response. It is particularly powerful for: wrongful denial of entitlements, wrongful punishment, and failure to process administrative actions that are clearly required by regulation.
When Art. 138 Is Overkill
Article 138 is a formal legal proceeding with command-wide implications. It is not the right first response to a personality conflict, a training disagreement, or a command decision you simply dislike but that is within the commander's discretion. Commands have broad authority over legitimate military matters. Art. 138 addresses wrongs — not disappointments. Before filing, ask: Is this a wrong, or is this a decision I disagree with? The distinction is not always obvious, and JAG or TDS consultation is valuable here.
How to Write the Initial Redress Request
The initial redress request (Step 1) should be professional, specific, and factual. Do not use inflammatory language. Do not threaten Art. 138 in the request itself — simply submit the request and document that you did so. The request should identify the specific action you believe was wrong, cite the regulation or policy you believe was violated, and state specifically what redress you are requesting. Keep a copy. Note the date and how you submitted it (hand-delivered, email, through your chain).
Keeping Copies of Everything
Documentation discipline is the foundation of a successful Art. 138 complaint. Keep copies of every document relevant to the wrong: orders, counselings, emails, written policies, prior communications with your commanding officer. Keep copies of your redress request and any response. Keep a contemporaneous written log of events with dates, times, and witnesses. Store copies outside the reach of the command — do not keep your only copy on a government computer or in a unit space where it can be accessed or removed.
The Value of TDS Consultation Before Filing
Trial Defense Service consultation before filing an Art. 138 complaint is strongly recommended. TDS attorneys understand the procedural requirements, can assess whether your facts support an Art. 138 claim, can help you draft the complaint and supporting documentation, and can advise on simultaneous strategies (IG complaint, Congressional inquiry). TDS consultation is free. The time invested before filing prevents procedural errors that would undermine an otherwise meritorious complaint.
What "Redress" Means — Frame It Specifically
The reviewing authority can only grant redress that is within their authority to order. This means your requested remedy must be specific and achievable: reversal of a specific action, rescission of a specific document, processing of a specific overdue action, restoration of a specific entitlement. "I want to be treated fairly" is not a specific redress request. "I request the rescission of the letter of reprimand dated [date], which was issued without factual basis and in violation of AR [X], para. [Y]" is a specific redress request.
Common Mistakes
The most common mistakes in Art. 138 complaints are: (1) Skipping Step 1 — the initial redress request to the commanding officer is mandatory. (2) Vague complaint — the wrong must be specifically described with dates, facts, and regulatory citations. (3) No documentation — a well-documented complaint changes the reviewability of the complaint; an undocumented complaint is a credibility contest. (4) Delay — filing long after the wrong occurred weakens the complaint and may raise timeliness questions. (5) Inflammatory tone — professional language preserves the appearance of legitimacy; an angry screed gives the reviewing authority a reason to dismiss the complainant rather than engage the merits.
- →Written timeline of events with dates
- →Copies of all relevant documents
- →Names of witnesses who observed the wrong
- →Draft of your initial redress request (Step 1)
- →Description of specific redress you are seeking
- →Does my commanding officer have Art. 138 jurisdiction?
- →Is my situation a "wrong" under Art. 138 standards?
- →Should I also file an IG complaint simultaneously?
- →What is the realistic outcome given my facts?
- →How do I document and protect against retaliation?
Frequently Asked Questions
The questions that come up most — answered directly.
Who can I file an Article 138 against?
You can file an Article 138 complaint against any commissioned officer who is your "commanding officer" — meaning a commissioned officer who holds command authority over you through the military chain of command. This typically means your company commander, battalion commander, or any other officer in your direct command chain who has been formally given command authority, which includes the authority to impose nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15. The complaint must identify a specific wrong committed by that specific commanding officer in their official capacity. You cannot file Art. 138 against a supervisor who does not hold command authority, a noncommissioned officer, a warrant officer who is not your commanding officer, or a civilian.
What if my complaint is against a senior NCO, not an officer?
Article 138 does not apply to NCOs, warrant officers who are not commanding officers, or civilians. However, if a senior NCO's conduct constitutes a wrong because your commanding officer directed it, failed to prevent it when they had a duty to act, or ratified it after the fact, your complaint can be directed at the commanding officer for their role in the wrong. The commanding officer bears responsibility for the conduct of their subordinates in their official capacity. Additionally, NCO misconduct can be addressed through Equal Opportunity complaints, Inspector General complaints, or by raising the issue with the superior commanding officer through informal channels. Consult TDS to determine the best mechanism for the specific situation.
Will filing an Article 138 hurt my career?
This is the question that prevents most service members from exercising this right. The honest answer is: it depends on the command climate, the strength of your complaint, and your documentation. Article 138 complaints are protected communications under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. Retaliation is legally prohibited. The real-world risk of adverse command climate exists — but it exists whether you file or not if the command relationship has deteriorated to the point where Art. 138 is warranted. Filing a well-documented, procedurally correct Art. 138 complaint typically changes the command's behavior because it signals legal awareness and creates formal documentation that senior leadership must review. The greatest risk is filing an incomplete or poorly documented complaint — it is dismissed and creates resentment without creating protection. Invest in proper preparation and TDS consultation before filing.
How is this different from an IG complaint?
The fundamental difference is in the nature of the obligation it creates. An IG complaint triggers an investigation — the IG investigates and recommends. The IG cannot compel corrective action, only recommend it, and IG recommendations are advisory. An Article 138 complaint, when properly filed and forwarded, requires the General Court-Martial Convening Authority to "examine the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong." That is a mandatory obligation, not an advisory one. Additionally, Art. 138 complaints are reported to the Secretary of the military department — they create accountability at the Secretariat level. IG complaints are valuable for their investigative function and their broader scope (they can address wrongs by anyone, not just commanding officers), but for direct wrongs by your commanding officer, Art. 138 creates faster and more direct remedial pressure.
What if the commander I'm complaining about ignores my initial request?
If your commanding officer fails to respond to your initial redress request within a reasonable time, that failure is itself a refusal of redress and triggers your right to file the formal Article 138 complaint. "Reasonable time" is not defined in the statute, but it is generally understood as sufficient time for the commander to consider and respond — typically a week to ten days for most matters, with some complex administrative issues warranting more time. Document the date you submitted the request, how you submitted it, and the absence of any response. The formal Art. 138 complaint should note the date of the request, the method of submission, and the failure to respond. The silence is evidence — treat it as such.
What remedies can an Article 138 actually produce?
The GCMCA who reviews an Art. 138 complaint can order any "proper measures for redressing the wrong." In practice, this includes: directing the commanding officer to reverse a specific adverse action, rescinding a letter of reprimand or counseling, directing the processing of an overdue administrative action (award, promotion packet, leave), directing restoration of revoked privileges, ordering the commanding officer to take specific steps the regulation required them to take, or, in cases of serious command misconduct, initiating adverse action against the commanding officer themselves. The GCMCA can also find that no wrong occurred or that the commanding officer acted within their discretion — this is the adverse outcome. The range of possible outcomes runs from full remediation to no action. Realistic expectations matter: Art. 138 is most powerful for specific, documentable, regulatory violations and least powerful for broad complaints about command climate or leadership style.
Can I file an Article 138 and an IG complaint at the same time?
Yes. These are parallel remedies and there is no legal prohibition on pursuing both simultaneously. In fact, concurrent filing is often strategically sound: the Art. 138 complaint creates the mandatory command response obligation and Secretariat reporting requirement, while the IG complaint creates an independent investigative track and a record that is maintained outside the command chain. Filing both signals seriousness and creates multiple independent documentation threads. Be consistent across both — the factual account you provide to the GCMCA chain via Art. 138 and the account you provide to the IG should match, as inconsistencies will undermine both claims. TDS can advise on coordination between simultaneous remedies.
Official Resources
Related Guides
This guide provides general educational information about UCMJ Article 138 and the Complaint of Wrongs process only. It is not legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Article 138 complaints are procedurally specific and time-sensitive. Individual situations vary. Consult Trial Defense Service (TDS) or installation Legal Assistance before filing. TDS is free to all service members. Regulations and implementing instructions may change — always verify current guidance.