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:
- violate or fail to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
- have knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
- is derelict in the performance of his duties.
In order to the convicted of an Article 92 violation for failure to any lawful general order or regulation, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
- that there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation;
- that the accused had a duty to obey it; and
- 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:
- that a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;
- that the accused had knowledge of the order;
- that the accused had a duty to obey the order; and
- 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:
- that the accused had certain duties;
- that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and
- that the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.
If the dereliction of duty resulted in the death or grievous body harm, the prosecution must also prove the dereliction of duty resulted in death or grievous bodily harm to a person other than the accused.
Understanding Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation) of the UCMJ
In order 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 order if the order was lawful 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 fails to perform said duty or performs 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 lawful general order or regulation may result in a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.
A conviction of a violation of or failure to obey other lawful order carries the punishment of a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.
The penalty for a dereliction in the performance of duties through neglect or culpable inefficiency includes the forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months and confinement for 3 months.
The punishment for a dereliction in the performance of 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 the performance of duties may result in a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 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 2 years.
How do you defend against Article 92 Failure to Obey Order or Regulation charges?
When you are facing the combined resources of the military as well as 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 military 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 a wide variety of 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 right away. Please call Crisp and Associates Military at 888-258-1653 for a free consultation.
View more UCMJ Articles.
Deborah Miskie