UCMJ Article 92: Failure to Obey Order or Regulation

The MCM states a service member may be charged with a violation of Article 92 if they:

  1. violate or fail to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
  2. know any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to follow the order; or
  3. is derelict in the performance of his duties.

To the convicted of an Article 92 violation for failure to follow any lawful general order or regulation, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

  1. that there was, in effect, a specific lawful general order or regulation;
  2. that the accused had a duty to obey it; and
  3. that the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation.

To be prosecuted for an Article 92 violation of failure to obey other lawful order, the prosecution must demonstrate:

  1. that a member of the armed forces issued a specific lawful order;
  2. that the accused knew the order;
  3. that the accused had a duty to obey the order and
  4. that the accused failed to obey the order.

The accused may be prosecuted for an Article 92 violation through dereliction of duty if it can be shown:

  1. that the accused had specific duties;
  2. that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties and
  3. the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in performing those duties.

Suppose the dereliction of duty resulted in the death or grievous bodily harm. In that case, the prosecution must also prove the dereliction of duty resulted in death or grievous physical damage to a person other than the accused.

Understanding Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation) of the UCMJ

To be prosecuted for an Article 92 violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation, the order must have been given by someone with the authority to do so, and the order retained validity after a change of command. The order or regulation must have been lawful and enforceable.

A service member may be prosecuted under Article 92 for a violation of or failure to obey other lawful orders if the order was legal and the accused was aware of the order or regulation. The accused must have also had a duty to obey the order, even if it was issued by an authority that was not superior in rank to the accused.

The accused may be guilty of a violation of Article 92, dereliction of duty, if they reasonably should have known of the duty and then willfully or negligently fail to perform said duty or perform the duty in a culpably inefficient manner.

Maximum Possible Punishment for Violations of Article 92

The maximum possible punishment associated with violations of Article 92 depends upon the specifics of the violation itself.

A violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation may result in a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and two years' confinement. It or perform it.

A conviction of violating or failing to obey other lawful orders carries the punishment of a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and six-month confinement.

The penalty for dereliction of duty due to neglect or culpable inefficiency includes the forfeiture of two-thirds of pay per month for three months and confinement for three months.

The punishment for dereliction in performing duties through neglect or culpable inefficiency resulting in death or grievous bodily harm includes a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 18 months.

A conviction of willful dereliction in performing duties may result in a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for six months.

The willful dereliction of duty resulting in death or grievous bodily harm yields a punishment of a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for two years.

How do you defend against Article 92 Failure to Obey Order or Regulation charges?

When facing the combined resources of the military and the current cultural climate, you need to be prepared to defend your career and your freedom. Crisp and Associates, LLC has a team of experienced trial attorneys who have won these cases. This team includes the firm’s founder, Jonathan Crisp, a highly respected former Army JAG with over 23 years of experience in military law and a sought-after speaker and lecturer on martial law. Donald Gordon has litigated cases before the Discharge Review Board, the Board for Correction of Military Records, and the Board for Correction of Naval Records regarding various matters and a diverse background of clients.

If you or someone you know is facing Article 92 charges for Failure to Obey Order or Regulation charges, you need to speak with a Military defense attorney immediately.