UCMJ Article 92: Failure to Obeyan Order or Regulation
Article 92 of the UCMJ makes it a crime to violate a lawful general order or regulation, to fail to obey another lawful order the service member knew about and had a duty to obey, or to be derelict in the performance of duties. The knowledge requirement depends on which offense is charged. For a general order violation, the government does not have to prove that you knew about the order. For another lawful order, it must prove actual knowledge.
Violating a lawful general order or regulation can carry a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and 2 years of confinement. Dereliction through neglect carries up to 3 months of confinement; willful dereliction can carry a bad-conduct discharge and 6 months, with higher maximums when death or grievous bodily harm results. These are offense maximums, not predictions of the sentence in a particular case. See the Manual for Courts-Martial, Part IV, paragraph 18.
Related charges include willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer under Article 90 and willfully disobeying a warrant, noncommissioned or petty officer under Article 91.
At Bilecki Law Group, we defend service members against charges of violating general orders or regulations, failing to obey other lawful orders and dereliction of duty under Article 92 of the UCMJ.
Facing an Article 92 charge? Related results: Bilecki Investigates Camp Pendleton Allegation; Sexual Assault and Order Cases End Without Action and Bilecki Challenges Chief’s Instruction and Presents Corpsman’s Service; Article 91 Dismissed at Mast. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. To talk with our firm about an Article 92 charge, call 813-669-3500 or book a free consultation.
What Is Article 92 of the UCMJ?
Article 92 governs obedience to lawful orders and the performance of military duties. A general order violation, disobedience of another lawful order and dereliction of duty have different requirements. Calling something an “Article 92” does not tell you what the prosecution actually has to prove.
If you remember reciting general orders in boot camp, you already know how seriously the military takes obedience. But the general orders you memorized during training do not define the entire legal category of a general order or regulation under Article 92. The actual document, who issued it, whom it applies to and what it requires all matter.
Now, it is right and proper that general orders exist. They serve a purpose in maintaining military order and discipline. But when one command tolerates conduct that another treats as a criminal matter, the service member caught in the middle can be left wondering what changed. Uneven enforcement does not by itself defeat a charge. It does make it worth examining the order, how it was communicated and why your conduct is being treated as a violation.
What Charges Can Come Out of Article 92 of the UCMJ?
There are three separate offenses under Article 92, and an Article 92 allegation may accompany other charges. Each allegation still needs its own proof. The prosecution must establish the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt; adding another charge does not make the underlying facts stronger.
Violating a Lawful General Order or Regulation
For this offense, the prosecution must prove that a lawful general order or regulation was in effect, that you had a duty to obey it and that you violated it.
General orders and regulations include those generally applicable to an armed force and properly published by the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security or the secretary of a military department. They also include qualifying orders issued throughout a command or a particular subdivision by an officer with general court-martial jurisdiction, a general or flag officer in command, or a commander superior to either.
Generally applicable, properly published by
- The President
- The Secretary of Defense
- The Secretary of Homeland Security
- The secretary of a military department
Issued throughout a command or subdivision by
- An officer with general court-martial jurisdiction
- A general or flag officer in command
- A commander superior to either
A properly issued general order retains its character when another officer takes command, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded. A change of command alone does not erase it.
Not every provision in a military regulation is enforceable as a punitive general order. A provision that merely supplies guidance or advice may not support this charge. We examine the language the government says you violated, not just the regulation’s title.
Actual knowledge of the general order is not an element, so “I never read it” is not, by itself, a defense. That does not relieve the prosecution of proving the prohibited conduct and any required mental state. The defense must match the particular order and the conduct alleged.
Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 2 years of confinement and reduction to E-1 for an enlisted member, subject to the qualifications below.
Failing to Obey Another Lawful Order
An order does not have to qualify as a general order for Article 92 to apply. For this offense, the prosecution must prove that a member of the armed forces issued a lawful order, that you actually knew about it, that you had a duty to obey it and that you failed to obey it.
The order need not be written. Nor must every lawful order come from a superior: a sentinel or military police officer, for example, may issue an order you have a duty to obey. Actual knowledge matters here. Who told you, what was said and when you received the instruction can become central questions.
An order’s exceptions matter too. If an order prohibits conduct except under specified conditions and the evidence raises that exception, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were outside it. The military judge decides whether the order was lawful. If the judge determines it was not, the affected specification should be dismissed.
Maximum punishment: Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 6 months of confinement and reduction to E-1 for an enlisted member, subject to the qualifications below.
Dereliction of Duty
Dereliction of duty reaches duties established by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure or custom of the service. It is a separate offense with its own requirements, not simply a fallback whenever the government cannot prove that someone issued an order.
The prosecution must identify your duty and prove that you were derelict in performing it. The required knowledge depends on the allegation:
- Willful dereliction: You actually knew of the duty and intentionally failed to perform it.
- Dereliction through neglect or culpable inefficiency: You knew or reasonably should have known of the duty. Neglect involves failing to exercise the care a reasonably prudent person would use in the same or similar circumstances. Culpable inefficiency means inefficient performance for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.
A poor result alone does not establish criminal dereliction. The Manual distinguishes ineptitude from willful or negligent failure: a service member who earnestly tries but lacks the ability to perform a task is not automatically guilty of this offense.
Ineptitude
Earnestly tries but lacks the ability: not automatically guilty
Dereliction
A willful or negligent failure to perform a known duty
When the government alleges that dereliction caused death or grievous bodily harm to another person, it must prove that additional allegation to obtain the higher maximum punishment. It does not have to prove an intent to cause that injury or death, but it does have to prove the required causal connection.
Maximum punishment for dereliction through neglect or culpable inefficiency: Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months, 3 months of confinement and reduction to E-1 for an enlisted member.
When that negligent or culpably inefficient dereliction causes death or grievous bodily harm: Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 18 months of confinement and reduction to E-1 for an enlisted member.
Maximum punishment for willful dereliction: Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 6 months of confinement and reduction to E-1 for an enlisted member.
When willful dereliction causes death or grievous bodily harm: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 2 years of confinement and reduction to E-1 for an enlisted member.
These are the offense maximums for enlisted members under the 2024 Manual for Courts-Martial. Officers are not reduced to E-1; commissioned officers may face dismissal instead of a punitive discharge. The actual limits depend on the offense date, the type of court-martial and any plea agreement. For order violations, the lower punishment for another specific offense controls when the same facts would establish that offense without the order, or when the violation is a breach of restraint.
Couldn’t Every Service Member Be Charged Under Article 92?
Article 92 reaches a broad spectrum of military life, which is why it can feel that way. Think of the Marine Lance Corporal sleeping in a closet to avoid working party duties or the PFC who fails to salute when colors plays. Ask the Corps’ Lance Corporal underground and you will hear plenty of stories. But an example of barracks behavior is not a substitute for proving an offense. The applicable order or duty, the circumstances and the required knowledge still matter.
An allegation under Article 92 does not erase your service or establish that you are a bad Soldier, Marine, Airman, Sailor or Guardian. Your performance, training and the circumstances surrounding the allegation deserve a full examination. If your command is treating a mistake as deliberate disobedience, we need to test that distinction with the facts.
How to Fight and Win Against Charges Under Article 92
If your command decides to make an example out of you, an Article 92 allegation can feel anything but minor. Your career and freedom may be at stake. Waiting for the command to show mercy is not a defense strategy. You need to understand the charge and get the facts that support your side into the fight.
We’re going to make the prosecution prove its case. That means testing every required element and challenging assumptions about what you were ordered to do, what you knew and what actually happened.
This might mean questioning the legality of the order or whether it conflicted with another order or regulation. Perhaps another officer gave you contradictory instructions. We need the actual orders, their dates, the issuing authority and the surrounding communications before we can tell what those conflicts mean for your defense. A disagreement with an order is not the same thing as a legal defect in it.
We also examine how the order was published or communicated, whether it applied to you and whether an exception covered your conduct. For an “other lawful order” charge, messages, briefings and witness accounts may establish whether you actually received the instruction. For a general order charge, lack of actual knowledge alone does not defeat the case, so the defense must address the requirements that apply to that offense.
For dereliction, we examine the duty itself, your training, the instructions you received and what you could reasonably do in the circumstances. Duty rosters, standard operating procedures, equipment records and witnesses may tell a very different story from the accusation. If death or grievous bodily harm is alleged, we examine the claimed failure and the evidence connecting it to the injury.
Bilecki Law Group’s court-martial lawyers defend Article 92 charges at every level, from nonjudicial punishment to general court-martial.
What Is the Punishment for Violating Article 92?
Article 92 punishment depends on the offense charged. A general order violation carries a higher offense maximum than an ordinary failure to obey another lawful order. For dereliction, willfulness and an allegation that the failure caused death or grievous bodily harm change the maximum. Those distinctions must be proved; they are not interchangeable labels.
Under the 2024 Manual for Courts-Martial, these confinement parameters apply in noncapital general or special courts-martial when all offenses of which the accused is convicted were committed after 27 December 2023. The ranges below reflect each offense’s lower authorized maximum where applicable. They are not automatic sentences or substitutes for offense maximums. A military judge may depart from a parameter when specific facts justify departure and the judge places a written statement of the factual basis in the record, but cannot exceed the lawful maximum. Court-martial and plea-agreement limits may further restrict the sentence. Cases involving earlier offenses follow different sentencing rules.
| Offense | Category | Confinement parameter |
|---|---|---|
| Violation of a general order or regulation | 1 | 0 to 12 months |
| Failure to obey another lawful order | 1 | 0 to 6 months |
| Dereliction through neglect or culpable inefficiency | 1 | 0 to 3 months |
| Dereliction through neglect or culpable inefficiency resulting in death or grievous bodily harm | 2 | 1 to 18 months |
| Willful dereliction | 1 | 0 to 6 months |
| Willful dereliction resulting in death or grievous bodily harm | 2 | 1 to 24 months |
The maximum punishments and confinement parameters above come from the 2024 Manual for Courts-Martial, Part IV, paragraph 18, R.C.M. 1002 and Appendices 12B and 12C.
Fight to Win and Fight to the End
You may remember a drill instructor pressing a campaign cover into your face while you tried to recite your general orders. An Article 92 defense requires a closer look than that memory supplies. If the facts call for questioning the officer who issued the order, we will prepare to do it. Rank does not put a witness’s account beyond examination.
Consider the Christmas Eve 2021 recall involving an 82nd Airborne Division platoon at Fort Bragg. Stars and Stripes reported that a platoon leader recalled soldiers after another soldier received a DUI citation. The message threatened UCMJ action for failing to appear without a valid excuse.
The formation actually happened. A division spokesman said 34 paratroopers were recalled, including three on leave, and remained in the company area for about 45 minutes after formation. The Army described the recall as unwarranted, counseled the leaders involved and arranged compensatory time off.
That example shows why the circumstances behind an order deserve scrutiny. It does not establish that a court found the order unlawful or that any soldier was acquitted of disobeying it. In your case, we need to examine the order and the facts before deciding how to attack the charge. Your career and your freedom are worth fighting for. We are going to fight to keep you out of military prison, and we are going to fight to win.
Please don’t take these charges lightly and assume you’ll get a slap on the wrist. If you are facing investigation or charges under Article 92, get us into the fight. We’ll examine what the government has to prove, build the defense the facts support and fight for your career and your freedom.