Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

Note: This law applies only to Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation offenses allegedly committed on or after 1 January 2019.

What is Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation?

Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) addresses the failure to obey orders or regulations, which is a serious offense in the military. This article ensures that service members adhere to the standards and directives necessary for maintaining discipline, order, and effective operations within the armed forces.

Under Article 92, there are three primary types of violations:

1. Failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation occurs when a service member knowingly disobeys a general order or regulation issued by a superior authority.
2. Failure to obey other lawful orders includes disobeying direct orders from superiors, even if they are not general orders or regulations.
3. Dereliction of duty happens when a service member willfully or negligently fails to perform their duties as required by their position.

Violating Article 92 can lead to severe consequences, including court-martial, reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, confinement, and even a dishonorable discharge. The strict enforcement of Article 92 underscores the importance of obedience and discipline in maintaining the operational effectiveness and integrity of the military.

What are the Elements of Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation?

1. That there was in effect a certain lawful general (order) (regulation), to wit: (state the date and specific source of the alleged general order or regulation and quote the order or regulation or the specific portion thereof);
2. That the accused had a duty to obey such (order) (regulation); and
3. That (state the time and place alleged), the accused (violated) (failed to obey) this lawful general (order) (regulation) by (here the military judge should enumerate the specific acts and any state of mind or intent alleged which must be established by the prosecution in order to constitute the violation of the order or regulation).

What are the Maximum Punishments for Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation?

Maximum Punishment for Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation committed between 1 Jan 2019 to 27 Dec 2023:

• 2 Years of Confinement
• Dishonorable Discharge, BCD, Dismissal
• Total Forfeitures
• Reduction to E-1
• Collateral Consequences of a Federal Felony Conviction

Maximum Punishment for Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation committed after 27 Dec 2023

• Under the Sentencing Parameters, Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation is a Category 1 Offense – Confinement from 0-12 months
• Dishonorable Discharge, BCD, Dismissal
• Total Forfeitures
• Reduction to E-1
• Collateral Consequences of a Federal Conviction
• Note: The Military Judge MAY impose a period of confinement less than the jurisdictional maximum period of confinement upon finding specific facts that warrant such a sentence. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), Appendix 12B-C

Combined UCMJ Maximum Punishment Charts

• Maximum Punishments for UCMJ Offenses 2024: Combined UCMJ Punishments Chart
• UCMJ Lesser Included Offenses Chart 2024 UCMJ

Sample Specifications for Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

In that SPC Tyler Lamore, US Army, did, at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, on or about 3 March 2021, violate a lawful general order, which was his duty to obey, to wit: paragraph 7-5 of General Order No. 7, U.S. Navy, dated 1 June 2020, by wrongfully refusing the Covid Vaccine.

Model Specifications for Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

In that _________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location), on or about _________, (violate) (fail to obey) a lawful general (order) (regulation), which was (his) (her) duty to obey, to wit: paragraph _________, (Army) (Air Force) Regulation _________, dated _________) (Article _________, U.S. Navy Regulations, dated _________) (General Order No. _________, U.S. Navy, dated _________) (_________), by (wrongfully _________).

What are the Definitions for Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation?

Proof of the existence of order or regulation under Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

The existence of the order or regulation must be proven or judicial notice taken.

Lawfulness of order or regulation under Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

The lawfulness of the order or regulation is not a separate offense element. Thus, the MJ determines the lawfulness issue and does not submit it to the members. See US v. New, 55 MJ 95 (CAAF 2001); US v. Deisher, 61 MJ 313 (CAAF 2005). If the MJ determines that, based on the facts, the order was not lawful, the MJ should dismiss the affected specification, and the members should be so advised.

What is lawful under Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation?

To be lawful under Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation, the order or regulation must relate to a specific military duty and be one that the person was authorized to give the accused. The order or regulation must require the accused to do or stop doing a particular thing at once or in the future.

An order or regulation is lawful if reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect the command members’ morale, discipline, and usefulness. It is directly connected with maintaining good order in the services.

An order or regulation is illegal if, for example, it is unrelated to military duty, its sole purpose is to accomplish some private end, it is arbitrary and unreasonable, and it is given for the sole purpose of increasing the punishment for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit.

The military judge may modify and use the four preceding sentences during a providence inquiry to define “lawfulness” for the accused. When the MJ determines that, based on the facts, the order or regulation was lawful, the MJ should advise the members as follows:

As a matter of law, the (order) (regulation) in this case, as described in the specification, if there was such (an order) (a regulation), was a lawful (order) (regulation).

Dispute as to whether the order was general and Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

If there is a factual dispute about whether the order was general, the members must resolve it in connection with their determination of guilt or innocence.

The following instructions may be given in Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation cases:

General (orders) (regulations) are those (orders) (regulations) which are generally applicable to an armed force and which are properly published by (the President) (the Secretary of (Defense) (Homeland Security) (or) (a military department).

General (orders) (regulations) also include those (orders) (regulations) which are generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof and which are issued by (an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction) (or) (a general or flag officer in command) (or) (a commander superior to one of these).

You may find the accused guilty of violating a general (order) (regulation) only if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the (order) (regulation) was general.

An order issued by the previous commander and Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

If appropriate, the following additional instructions may be given:

A general (order) (regulation) issued by a commander with authority to do so retains its character as a general (order) (regulation) when another officer takes command until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action.

Orders or regulations containing conditions. When an alleged general order or regulation prohibits a certain act or acts “except under certain conditions” (e.g., “except in the course of official duty”), and the issue is raised by the evidence, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused is not within the terms of the exception.

In such a case, the MJ must inform the members of the specific exception(s) when listing the elements of the offense. Additionally, under present law, an instruction substantially as follows must be provided:

When a general (order) (regulation) prohibits (a) certain act(s), except under certain conditions, then the burden is on the prosecution to establish by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused does not come within the terms of the exception(s).

Mens Rea and Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

When there is an issue regarding mens rea, see Elonis v. US, 135 S.Ct. 2001 (2015) and US v. Haverty, 76 M.J.199 (CAAF 2017).

Legal references for Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

• US v. Cuffee, 10 MJ 381 (CMA 1981).

Hiring a Military Defense Lawyer for Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a cornerstone of military law in the United States, providing a comprehensive set of legal standards governing the conduct of military personnel. Article 92 often stands out among its various provisions due to its importance in maintaining order and discipline within the military ranks. This article specifically addresses “Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation” and entails serious consequences for those found in violation. Understanding Article 92 is crucial for service members, legal professionals, and anyone involved in military law.

Understanding Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

A general order or regulation applies broadly to the armed forces. Violation of such an order can lead to severe disciplinary action. For a violation to hold, the following must be established:
– The existence of a lawful general order or regulation.
– The accused had a duty to obey that order or regulation.
– The accused willfully failed to obey the order.

The severity of the punishment often depends on the specific nature of the order and its impact on military operations and discipline.

Legal Implications and Consequences of Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

Violating Article 92 can result in various punishments, from administrative actions like reprimands to more severe outcomes such as court-martial, reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, confinement, or even a dishonorable discharge. Each case is unique and often hinges on the severity of the infraction, the circumstances surrounding it, and the accused’s intent.

Defending Against Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation Charges

Mounting a robust defense is crucial for those facing charges under Article 92. Several defenses can be utilized, depending on the specifics of the case:

• Lawfulness of the Order: An order must have a valid military purpose and cannot be arbitrary or capricious. An order to perform an illegal act is inherently unlawful.
• Knowledge of the Order: The accused must have known the order and its specifics. If it can be shown that the order was not communicated clearly, this might serve as a defense.
• Inability to Comply: If complying with the order was impossible due to external factors, this could negate the willfulness required for a conviction.
• Duress or Coercion: If the service member was forced into disobeying the order due to threats or coercion beyond ordinary military discipline, this could be a viable defense.
• Mental State: It is crucial to determine the service member’s mental state at the time of the infraction. If they could not understand the order due to illness or another factor, this could impact the case.

Practical Advice for Service Members Involved in Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation Cases

• Seek Legal Counsel Immediately: The stakes are high in military legal cases. Legal representation specializing in military law ensures that the rights and interests of the accused are safeguarded.
• Document Everything: Keeping thorough records and documentation can be invaluable. Logs, notes, and any written communication about the order can help establish the facts.
• Stay Informed: Knowledge of one’s duties and obligations and the specifics of military regulations is paramount. Familiarizing oneself with the relevant orders and directives can help prevent inadvertent violations.
• Communicate Clearly: If there is any misunderstanding or ambiguity about an order, seek clarification. Proactive communication can prevent potential issues from escalating.
• Duty to Report: If a service member is given an order they believe to be unlawful, they must report it to a higher authority. Blind obedience to an illegal order is not a defense in a military trial.

The Chain of Command’s Role in Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation Cases

The chain of command is responsible for issuing lawful and clear orders and ensuring service members know their duties and obligations. Proper training and communication are vital in preventing misunderstandings and potential violations of Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation.

Article 92 UCMJ is a critical element of military law designed to uphold discipline and order within the armed forces. Violation of this article has severe implications, reflecting the importance of following lawful orders and regulations. For those involved in a military criminal case concerning Article 92, understanding the legal framework and potential defenses and seeking qualified legal assistance are essential steps in navigating the complexities of military justice.

Service members can better navigate their duties and responsibilities by fostering a comprehensive understanding of Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation. At the same time, legal professionals can advocate for their clients more effectively. The military’s efficiency and effectiveness rely heavily on disciplined adherence to orders and regulations, underscoring the significance of this pivotal article within the UCMJ.

Examples of conduct that could constitute a violation of Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation:

1. Unauthorized Absence: Failing to report for duty or leaving the duty station without permission.
2. Disobeying Curfew: Violating a base-imposed curfew by being outside designated areas after hours.
3. Improper Use of Uniform: Wearing the military uniform improperly or wearing unauthorized items with the uniform.
4. Unauthorized Use of Vehicle: Using a government vehicle for personal errands without permission.
5. Failure to Follow Safety Protocols: Not adhering to safety procedures during training exercises or operations.
6. Fraternization: Engaging in inappropriate relationships with subordinates, violating regulations on fraternization.
7. Improper Handling of Classified Information: Mishandling or improperly disclosing classified materials.
8. Failure to Maintain Physical Fitness: Not meeting physical fitness standards as required by regulation.
9. Unauthorized Use of Electronics: Using personal electronic devices in restricted areas where they are prohibited.
10.  Failure to Salute: Not saluting a superior officer when required by military customs and courtesies.
11. Disrespect to Superior Officers: Showing disrespect or insubordination to superior officers.
12. Unauthorized Alcohol Consumption: Consuming alcohol in areas or situations where it is prohibited by regulation.
13. Drug Use: Using illegal drugs or abusing prescription medications.
14. Misuse of Government Funds: Improperly using or misallocating government funds.
15. Violating Travel Restrictions: Traveling to restricted areas without proper authorization.
16. Failure to Follow Deployment Orders: Not adhering to deployment instructions or procedures.
17. Improper Use of Weapon: Mishandling or using a weapon in a manner not authorized by regulation.
18. Neglecting Equipment Maintenance: Failing to perform required maintenance on military equipment.
19. Disobeying Medical Orders: Not following medical treatment plans or orders given by military medical personnel.
20. Misuse of Communication Equipment: Using military communication equipment for unauthorized purposes.
21. Violating Housing Regulations: Not adhering to base housing rules and regulations.
22. Unauthorized Possession of Firearms: Possessing firearms on base without proper authorization.
23. Engaging in Prohibited Political Activities: Participating in political activities that are restricted by military regulations.
24. Failing to Secure Sensitive Items: Not properly securing sensitive or valuable military items.
25. Improper Use of Military Facilities: Using military facilities for unauthorized events or personal gain.
26. Failure to Report Violations: Not reporting known violations of military regulations or orders.
27. Engaging in Unauthorized Training: Conducting or participating in training not sanctioned by the military.
28. Improper Conduct in Foreign Countries: Violating host nation laws or customs while stationed overseas.
29. Unauthorized Disclosure of Personnel Information: Releasing personal information about service members without authorization.
30. Misuse of Military ID: Using a military ID card for unauthorized purposes.
31. Violating Quarantine Orders: Not adhering to quarantine or isolation orders issued for health reasons.
32. Engaging in Hazing: Participating in or allowing hazing activities that are prohibited by regulation.
33. Failure to Adhere to Dress Code: Not following prescribed dress codes for specific military functions or duties.
34. Improper Use of Force: Using excessive force during military operations or training.
35. Neglecting Duty: Not performing assigned duties as required by military orders or regulations.
36. Failure to Complete Mandatory Training: Not attending or completing required training sessions.
37. Engaging in Prohibited Business Activities: Participating in private business ventures that conflict with military duties.
38. Unauthorized Gambling: Engaging in gambling activities on base where prohibited.
39. Improper Use of Military Rank: Using military rank or position to gain personal advantages or benefits.
40. Violating Environmental Regulations: Not adhering to environmental protection regulations on military installations.

Each of these examples highlights behaviors that violate specific military orders or regulations, demonstrating the importance of adherence to the standards and rules set forth to maintain discipline, order, and the effective functioning of the armed forces.

Sample cases involving Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation with U.S. military service members (names and details are fictitious):

Case 1: Camp Pendleton, California Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

Case Details: Staff Sergeant Jessica Turner was found guilty of violating a general order by consuming alcohol during a field exercise where such consumption was strictly prohibited. Turner brought a flask to the training and was caught drinking by her superior officer.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Turner faced non-judicial punishment, resulting in a reduction in rank to Sergeant, forfeiture of half a month’s pay for two months, and 30 days of extra duty. The incident tarnished her previously clean record and hindered her chances for future promotions.

Case 2: Fort Knox, Kentucky Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

Case Details: Private First Class Andrew Collins was caught using a personal electronic device in a classified area, violating the base’s security regulations. He used his phone to take photos, which is strictly forbidden in secure zones.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Collins was court-martialed and received a reduction in rank to Private, confinement for 60 days and a bad conduct discharge. His actions resulted in a loss of security clearance and significantly impacted his ability to find employment in civilian sectors that require security clearance.

Case 3: Ramstein Air Base, Germany Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

Case Details: Technical Sergeant Laura Martinez violated travel restrictions by visiting a prohibited country during her leave without informing her command or seeking approval. She was found out when she posted pictures on social media.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Martinez faced a court-martial, which resulted in a reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and a 45-day restriction to base. Her actions led to a formal reprimand in her record, making future promotions unlikely and negatively affecting her career trajectory.

Case 4: Naval Station Rota, Spain Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

Case Details: Petty Officer Second Class Samuel Johnson was discovered operating a private business selling unauthorized merchandise on the base, violating Navy regulations against such activities. He was using his military email to conduct business transactions.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Johnson was subjected to non-judicial punishment, receiving a reduction in rank to Petty Officer Third Class, forfeiture of pay for two months, and 45 days of extra duty. His entrepreneurial activities led to losing trust among his peers and superiors, and his chances for reenlistment were significantly reduced.

Case 5: Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

Case Details: Lieutenant Mark Thompson failed to secure classified information properly, leaving sensitive documents in his car overnight. The documents were discovered missing during a routine security audit.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Thompson was court-martialed and received a formal reprimand, a reduction in rank to Lieutenant Junior Grade, and 30 days of confinement. The breach led to his loss of security clearance, severely limiting his career opportunities and prospects for advancement.

Case 6: Fort Wainwright, Alaska Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

Case Details: Sergeant Kevin Lewis was found guilty of fraternization by engaging in a romantic relationship with a subordinate, violating the Army’s regulations on inappropriate relationships. Their relationship was discovered during an internal investigation.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Lewis faced non-judicial punishment, resulting in a reduction in rank to Corporal, forfeiture of pay, and 30 days of extra duty. The incident damaged his professional reputation and hindered his prospects for future leadership roles within the Army.

Case 7: Yokota Air Base, Japan Article 92 UCMJ Violation of a General Order or Regulation

Case Details: Senior Airman Rachel Kim was caught using a government vehicle for personal errands, violating Air Force regulations. She used the vehicle to drive to a local shopping center during off-duty hours.

Repercussions and Career Impact: Kim was subjected to non-judicial punishment, receiving a reduction in rank to Airman First Class, a letter of reprimand, and 45 days of restriction to base. Her misuse of government property affected her standing within her unit and delayed her next scheduled promotion.

Each of these cases demonstrates the consequences of violating general orders or regulations under Article 92 UCMJ, highlighting the importance of adherence to military standards and the potential impacts on a service member’s career and reputation.