How the Punitive Articles Fit into the UCMJ

The UCMJ is a federal criminal code that applies to active duty members, activated Guard and Reserve components, and in some cases retirees and other categories. Articles 1 through 76 provide definitions, jurisdiction rules, and procedural guidance. Articles 77 through 134 define specific offenses, such as failure to obey an order, sexual assault, wrongful use of drugs, larceny, assault, murder, and general disorder.

In practice, a command or investigative agency such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS receives a complaint or report, conducts an investigation, and then coordinates with the staff judge advocate. If the government believes it can prove one or more elements of a punitive article, it may prefer charges to a court martial, offer nonjudicial punishment, or pursue administrative separation. Understanding the exact article and its elements is the first step in building a winning defense.

Category Overview of Articles 77–134

To make this complex system more understandable, Articles 77 through 134 can be grouped into several functional categories:

• General principles and parties – Articles 77 through 79
• Crimes against persons – Articles 118, 119, 119a, 120, 120b, 120c, 128, 128b
• Sexual offenses – Articles 120, 120b, 120c and related conduct charged under Article 134
• Drug offenses – Article 112a and related misconduct
• Property and financial crimes – Articles 121 through 123a, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132
• Offenses against good order and authority – Articles 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 93a, 94, 99 through 101, 103, 103a, 104, 106, 106a
• Justice, false statements, and obstruction – Articles 107, 131, 131b, 133, 134
• Special and miscellaneous offenses – Articles 110 through 114 and other specialized provisions

The following sections walk through each article, provide a clear summary, and point you to the corresponding pillar page for deep analysis, case strategy, and Florida specific context.

General Principles and Parties: Articles 77–79

Article 77 – Principals

Article 77 establishes that anyone who commits an offense punishable by the UCMJ, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission, can be punished as a principal. This means that you do not need to be the one who physically commits the act to be treated as if you did. In complex military cases, especially in joint operations or training environments, prosecutors often use Article 77 to sweep in leaders, planners, or participants who never touched the alleged victim or property. Learn more about Article 77 UCMJ.

Article 78 – Accessory After the Fact

Article 78 covers those who, knowing that an offense has been committed, receive, comfort, or assist the offender in order to hinder or prevent apprehension, trial, or punishment. This charge can arise when friends, roommates, or teammates delete messages, hide a phone, lie to investigators, or help someone flee. The government often uses Article 78 to pressure witnesses in serious cases involving drugs, sexual assault, or violent offenses. Learn more about Article 78 UCMJ.

Article 79 – Lesser Included Offenses

Article 79 allows a court martial to convict an accused of a lesser included offense that is necessarily part of the greater offense charged. For example, an accused charged with a completed sexual assault could be convicted of abusive sexual contact or an attempt if the evidence supports the lesser offense. Understanding lesser included offenses is critical to trial strategy, potential pleas, and realistic outcome analysis. Learn more about Article 79 UCMJ.

Offenses against Authority and Good Order

Article 86 – Absence without Leave

Article 86 criminalizes unauthorized absence, ranging from being a few hours late for formation to extended desertion type conduct, depending on how the government charges the case. It can be charged for missing movement, failing to go to an appointed place of duty, or being absent from unit or organization without authority. Repeated or extended absences can lead to court martial, confinement, and punitive discharge. Learn more about Article 86 UCMJ.

Article 87 – Missing Movement

Article 87 targets those who intentionally or through neglect miss the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which they are required to move. This offense is often charged in deployment or training environments and can carry serious consequences, especially when the movement is into a combat zone or major operation. Learn more about Article 87 UCMJ.

Article 89 – Disrespect toward a Superior Commissioned Officer

Article 89 punishes disrespectful language or behavior toward a superior commissioned officer. The government often reaches for this article in heated moments, such as counseling sessions, confrontations on the flight line, or emotionally charged interactions in garrison. Proof hinges on the officer’s status, the accused’s knowledge, and the nature of the alleged disrespect. Learn more about Article 89 UCMJ.

Article 90 – Willfully Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer

Article 90 covers willful disobedience of a lawful command by a superior commissioned officer. Punishments can be extreme, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge, because this offense strikes at the heart of military discipline. In modern practice, Article 90 is sometimes misused when commands elevate routine disobedience into a felony level offense. Learn more about Article 90 UCMJ.

Article 91 – Insubordinate Conduct toward Warrant, Noncommissioned, or Petty Officer

Article 91 punishes insubordinate conduct including assault, disobedience, or disrespect toward warrant officers, NCOs, and petty officers. This article frequently appears in cases arising from barracks conflicts, training incidents, or confrontations in the field. The details matter, including what was said, who was present, and whether the order was lawful. Learn more about Article 91 UCMJ.

Article 92 – Failure to Obey Order or Regulation

Article 92 is one of the most commonly charged offenses in the UCMJ. It covers violations of lawful general orders or regulations, failures to obey other lawful orders, and dereliction of duty. Everything from violating a no contact order, ignoring a liberty policy, mishandling classified information, or failing to supervise subordinates can be pushed under Article 92. Because it is so broad, commands sometimes overcharge or misunderstand what must be proven. Learn more about Article 92 UCMJ.

Article 93 – Cruelty and Maltreatment

Article 93 punishes cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment of a person subject to the accused’s orders. It often appears in hazing, abuse of trainees, toxic leadership, and retaliatory conduct cases. The government must show that the treatment was unwarranted and caused physical or mental harm or suffering. Learn more about Article 93 UCMJ.

Article 93a – Prohibited Activities with Recruit or Trainee

Article 93a addresses sexual or romantic misconduct and certain other prohibited activities between training cadre or recruiters and trainees or applicants. These cases are aggressively prosecuted because they are perceived as abuses of authority and trust, especially in entry level training environments. Learn more about Article 93a UCMJ.

Article 94 – Mutiny and Sedition

Article 94 covers mutiny, sedition, and failure to suppress or report those offenses. While rarely charged in modern times, the article exists to address extreme breakdowns of command and control. The mere presence of an Article 94 allegation signals that the command believes there was an organized effort to overthrow, override, or refuse the authority of superiors. Learn more about Article 94 UCMJ.

Articles 99–101, 103, 103a, 104, 106, 106a

These articles address various offenses related to combat operations, enemy contact, misconduct as a prisoner, aiding the enemy, espionage, and related wartime misconduct. They are less common in garrison but can be decisive in deployed environments and special operations. Learn more about these wartime and enemy related offenses.

Crimes against Persons and Sexual Offenses

Article 118 – Murder

Article 118 criminalizes murder in several forms, including premeditated murder and unpremeditated murder with intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. These are among the most serious offenses in military law, carrying potential life sentences and mandatory minimums in some circumstances. Learn more about Article 118 UCMJ.

Article 119 – Manslaughter

Article 119 covers voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Cases often arise from fights that escalate, negligent handling of weapons, DUI related deaths, or negligent actions in training and deployment. The key issues usually involve intent, recklessness, and causation. Learn more about Article 119 UCMJ.

Article 119a – Death or Injury of an Unborn Child

Article 119a criminalizes causing the death or injury of an unborn child during the commission of certain offenses, tying liability to underlying violent conduct against the mother or others. It can significantly increase the stakes in domestic violence or assault cases. Learn more about Article 119a UCMJ.

Article 120 – Sexual Assault and Rape

Article 120 governs a wide range of sexual assault offenses, including rape, sexual assault by bodily harm, and penetration without consent under various circumstances such as intoxication or incapacity. The law has changed multiple times over the past decade, and the elements depend on the charged time period. These cases are intensely contested and politically charged, often involving forensic evidence, digital communications, and credibility disputes. Learn more about Article 120 UCMJ.

Article 120b – Rape and Sexual Assault of a Child

Article 120b addresses sexual offenses involving children. Accusations under this article carry extremely severe penalties and life changing consequences, including mandatory minimum confinement in some cases, sex offender registration, and total destruction of a military career. The government aggressively prosecutes these cases and often uses forensic interviews, expert witnesses, and digital forensics. Learn more about Article 120b UCMJ.

Article 120c – Other Sexual Misconduct

Article 120c covers other sexual misconduct such as indecent viewing, visual recording, and broadcast of private areas, as well as certain exposure and related conduct. It is often used in cases involving hidden cameras, unauthorized sharing of intimate images, and certain forms of voyeurism. Learn more about Article 120c UCMJ.

Article 128 – Assault

Article 128 criminalizes assaults ranging from simple unwanted touching to aggravated assaults with dangerous weapons or means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm. Many cases grow out of fights in barracks, bars, or off base locations, including popular Florida nightlife areas. Alcohol, mutual combat, and self defense are recurring themes in these cases. Learn more about Article 128 UCMJ.

Article 128b – Domestic Violence

Article 128b addresses domestic violence specifically and provides a framework for prosecuting abusive conduct between intimate partners. Allegations often arise from emotionally charged breakups, divorces, or custody disputes, and can include physical, emotional, and economic abuse claims. These cases can also trigger firearms restrictions and collateral consequences in civilian life. Learn more about Article 128b UCMJ.

Drug Offenses: Article 112a

Article 112a – Wrongful Use, Possession, or Distribution of Controlled Substances

Article 112a covers wrongful use, possession, manufacture, distribution, or introduction of controlled substances. It applies to illegal drugs as well as certain prescription medications used without a valid prescription. Proof often relies on urinalysis, digital messages, undercover buys, or statements to law enforcement. In Florida and other high tempo environments, drug cases frequently intersect with off base nightlife, local law enforcement, and joint investigations. Learn more about Article 112a UCMJ.

Property and Financial Crimes

Article 121 – Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation

Article 121 addresses theft and wrongful appropriation of property. It includes stealing government equipment, fellow service members’ gear, money, or items obtained through fraud. Modern cases often involve electronic transfers, Basic Allowance for Housing fraud, and misused government purchasing cards. Learn more about Article 121 UCMJ.

Article 122 – Robbery

Article 122 deals with robbery, the taking of something of value from a person or presence of another by force or violence, or by putting the person in fear. These cases may overlap with assault charges and can carry very heavy sentences. Learn more about Article 122 UCMJ.

Article 123 – Forgery

Article 123 punishes false making or altering of signatures or writings to defraud, including official military documents, leave forms, travel claims, or financial documents. The cases often involve digital forms and electronic signatures, which require specific forensic and documentary analysis. Learn more about Article 123 UCMJ.

Article 123a – Making, Drawing, or Uttering Check, Draft, or Order without Sufficient Funds

Article 123a targets issuing bad checks or similar instruments with intent to defraud. While less common today than in the past, it can still arise in off base financial disputes and can severely impact security clearances and career prospects. Learn more about Article 123a UCMJ.

Articles 126, 127, 129, 130, 132

These articles cover arson, extortion, burglary, housebreaking, and frauds against the United States. Cases may involve government housing, on base facilities, or financial schemes involving military benefits or contracts. Learn more about these property and fraud offenses.

Justice, False Statements, and Catch All Offenses

Article 107 – False Official Statements

Article 107 punishes making false official statements, either written or oral, with intent to deceive. It is frequently charged when someone lies to law enforcement, command, or in official paperwork. A single misstatement in an interview or memo can become the foundation for a felony level charge, even when the underlying allegation cannot be proven. Learn more about Article 107 UCMJ.

Article 131 – Perjury

Article 131 punishes willfully giving false testimony under oath in judicial proceedings. Perjury charges can arise from court martial testimony, depositions, or formal sworn statements. The government must prove not only that the statement was false, but that it was material and knowingly made. Learn more about Article 131 UCMJ.

Article 131b – Obstruction of Justice

Article 131b covers acts intended to influence, impede, or obstruct the administration of justice. Examples include tampering with witnesses, destroying evidence, or pressuring others to lie. In modern practice, messages, calls, and social media posts often become central evidence in obstruction cases. Learn more about Article 131b UCMJ.

Article 133 – Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman

Article 133 applies to commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen and punishes conduct that is disgraceful or dishonors the military profession. It is an inherently subjective article and often overlaps with other offenses or with off duty misconduct that damages credibility and leadership authority. Learn more about Article 133 UCMJ.

Article 134 – General Article

Article 134 is the general article that criminalizes conduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline or brings discredit upon the armed forces, as well as offenses that assimilate federal crimes not otherwise listed in the UCMJ. It is incredibly broad and used for everything from child pornography, indecent language, and fraternization to certain obstruction and cyber related offenses. Mastering Article 134 is essential because it can be used to charge conduct that does not fit neatly anywhere else. Learn more about Article 134 UCMJ.

Florida Specific Context and Risk Factors

Florida hosts a large concentration of active duty and reserve forces across all branches, including major installations for the Navy, Air Force, Space Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Many service members stationed in Florida live off base, travel frequently, and interact with a civilian environment that includes busy nightlife, tourism, and high tempo training and deployment cycles.

These conditions create unique risk factors for UCMJ cases. Alcohol related incidents in beach towns, domestic disputes in off base housing, altercations in tourist districts, and cross jurisdictional drug investigations often become Article 92, 112a, 120, 128, or 134 cases. Local law enforcement reports and Florida court records can interact with military investigations and can either help or hurt the defense, depending on how they are handled.

Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members with Florida connections across the state and around the world. Whether your case started in Pensacola, Tampa, Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, or at sea with a Florida homeport, a detailed understanding of how the UCMJ interacts with Florida law enforcement and civilian courts is essential to crafting the right defense strategy.

To learn more about Florida specific military defense representation, visit our Florida military defense lawyers page.

How Gonzalez & Waddington Approach UCMJ Article Cases

Defending a UCMJ case is not just about reading the statute. It is about understanding how the government investigates, what evidence they rely on, how military judges rule, and how panels react to different fact patterns and personalities. For each punitive article, our firm focuses on:

• Dissecting the elements and exposing weak points in the government proof
• Challenging digital forensics, forensic interviews, and law enforcement procedures
• Cross examining key witnesses including alleged victims, experts, and investigators
• Using motions to exclude unreliable or unfairly prejudicial evidence
• Preparing clients for testimony, boards, and sentencing
• Developing mitigation that shows the person behind the charges

At the board and administrative level, punitive articles also drive separation boards, boards of inquiry, and security clearance actions. Understanding how Article 92, 120, 112a, 128, 134 and others are framed in those forums is crucial for saving a career even when a court martial is not on the table.

The pillar pages linked from this hub will walk through each article in depth, with real world scenarios, investigative patterns, defense strategies, and practical advice for service members and their families.

Quick Index of Articles 77–134

Use this quick index to jump from the hub to the detailed article specific pillar pages.

• Article 77 – Principals – Full Article 77 guide
• Article 78 – Accessory after the Fact – Full Article 78 guide
• Article 79 – Lesser Included Offenses – Full Article 79 guide
• Article 86 – Absence without Leave – Full Article 86 guide
• Article 87 – Missing Movement – Full Article 87 guide
• Article 89 – Disrespect toward a Superior Commissioned Officer – Full Article 89 guide
• Article 90 – Willfully Disobeying a Superior Commissioned Officer – Full Article 90 guide
• Article 91 – Insubordinate Conduct toward Warrant, Noncommissioned, or Petty Officer – Full Article 91 guide
• Article 92 – Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation – Full Article 92 guide
• Article 93 – Cruelty and Maltreatment – Full Article 93 guide
• Article 93a – Prohibited Activities with Recruit or Trainee – Full Article 93a guide
• Article 94 – Mutiny and Sedition – Full Article 94 guide
• Articles 99–101, 103, 103a, 104, 106, 106a – Wartime and Enemy Related Offenses – Detailed wartime offenses guide
• Article 107 – False Official Statements – Full Article 107 guide
• Article 110 – Improper Hazarding of Vessel – Full Article 110 guide
• Article 111 – Drunken or Reckless Operation of a Vehicle or Aircraft – Full Article 111 guide
• Article 112 – Drunk on Duty and related offenses – Full Article 112 guide
• Article 112a – Wrongful Use, Possession, etc. of Controlled Substances – Full Article 112a guide
• Article 113 – Sentinel or Lookout Misconduct – Full Article 113 guide
• Article 114 – Firing Weapons, Endangering Human Life – Full Article 114 guide
• Articles 118, 119, 119a – Homicide and Related Offenses – Detailed homicide guide
• Articles 120, 120b, 120c – Sexual Offenses – Comprehensive sexual offenses guide
• Article 121 – Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation – Full Article 121 guide
• Article 122 – Robbery – Full Article 122 guide
• Article 123 – Forgery – Full Article 123 guide
• Article 123a – Bad Checks – Full Article 123a guide
• Articles 126, 127, 129, 130 – Arson, Extortion, Burglary, Housebreaking – Property crimes guide
• Article 131 – Perjury – Full Article 131 guide
• Article 131b – Obstruction of Justice – Full Article 131b guide
• Article 132 – Frauds against the United States – Full Article 132 guide
• Article 133 – Conduct Unbecoming – Full Article 133 guide
• Article 134 – General Article – Full Article 134 guide

Call to Action for Service Members Facing UCMJ Allegations

If you are under investigation or already charged under any punitive article of the UCMJ, your career, reputation, and freedom may be at risk. Commanders, investigators, and prosecutors have entire systems and staffs dedicated to building a case against you. You should have an experienced defense team that understands the law, the culture, and the battlefield of modern military trials.

Gonzalez & Waddington, Attorneys at Law, represent service members stationed across the United States and around the world, including those with Florida based allegations or duty stations. We focus on serious cases involving sexual offenses, violent crimes, complex property and fraud offenses, and contested administrative actions where your future is on the line.

To learn how we can help you, visit our Florida military defense hub at https://ucmjdefense.com/florida-military-defense-lawyers/ or contact us directly to discuss your situation in detail.

This page explains Article 92 in plain English and from a trial lawyer perspective. It shows how prosecutors use the article, how different branches apply it, where they overreach, and how a focused defense can push back. For a broader overview of all punitive articles under the UCMJ, see the main hub at UCMJ Articles 77–134 Guide.

Article 92 UCMJ – Full Legal Breakdown

Article 92 actually describes three separate offenses.

• Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation
• Failure to obey other lawful orders
• Dereliction in the performance of duties

Violation of Lawful General Order or Regulation

A lawful general order or regulation usually comes from a senior commander or service secretary level authority and applies to a large group of people. Examples include theater specific general orders, base wide liberty policies, and standing general regulations governing weapons, fraternization, and information security.

To prove this form of Article 92 the government must show:

• A certain lawful general order or regulation existed
• The accused had a duty to obey it
• The accused knew of the order or regulation
• The accused violated or failed to obey it

The maximum punishment can include a bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for up to two years, depending on the circumstances and aggravating factors.

Failure to Obey Other Lawful Orders

This version involves direct or specific orders that are not classified as general orders or regulations. It can be a written counseling, a verbal command, or a local policy issued by a superior with authority over the accused.

The government must usually prove:

• A specific lawful order was issued by a competent authority
• The accused knew of the order
• The accused had a duty to obey
• The accused failed to obey the order

The seriousness of punishment often depends on the content of the order and the impact of the violation. A no contact order in a sexual assault investigation will be treated more harshly than a minor administrative instruction.

Dereliction of Duty

Dereliction of duty is the most flexible and most abused form of Article 92. It punishes failure to perform duties properly. The duty can be imposed by regulation, custom, standard operating procedures, or position.

To prove dereliction of duty, the government must show:

• The accused had certain duties
• The accused knew or reasonably should have known of those duties
• The accused was derelict in those duties through willful, negligent, or culpably inefficient performance

The government prefers this version when they want to hold someone responsible for a bad outcome, but cannot tie it to a clear order. It is often used against leaders after a training accident, safety incident, or misconduct by subordinates.

Maximum Punishments under Article 92

Maximum punishments vary by type of violation and aggravating factors such as war time or resulting injury. They can include:

• Confinement that can reach up to two years for serious violations of lawful general orders or regulations
• Confinement up to six months or more for certain derelictions of duty
• Reduction in rank, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a bad conduct discharge

Even when the government does not seek the maximum, the long term damage of an Article 92 conviction is severe. It is a label that follows someone for life.

How Prosecutors Prove Article 92 Cases

Prosecutors rely heavily on paperwork and digital records. They want to show that the order existed, that the accused received it, and that the accused acted in a way that clearly violated it. Common evidence includes:

• Published general orders and regulations
• Command policies and emails
• Counseling statements and acknowledgment forms
• Training rosters and online training certificates
• Witness testimony that the order was briefed
• Digital footprints such as call logs, messages, GPS, access logs, and surveillance video

In dereliction cases, prosecutors often focus on what a reasonably careful service member would have done, then argue that the accused fell short. They draw on manuals, checklists, standard operating procedures, and the testimony of other leaders.

Common Misunderstandings about Article 92

Service members and even some commanders misunderstand Article 92 in several key ways.

• They assume every policy memo is a lawful general order, even when it was not issued by a proper authority or properly published.
• They fail to distinguish between negligent mistakes and willful disobedience.
• They assume that once an order exists, anything negative that happens can be blamed on anyone whose conduct touched the event.
• They use dereliction as a way to punish bad outcomes, rather than specific failures tied to a duty.

A solid defense often begins with forcing the government to prove that the order was lawful, that the accused had real notice, and that the duty was defined clearly before the alleged misconduct.

Branch Differences in Article 92 Enforcement

Each branch has its own culture and emphasis when it comes to Article 92.

• Army commands often use Article 92 for safety violations, weapons handling, and leadership failures after training incidents.
• Navy and Coast Guard cases frequently involve shipboard orders, watch standing rules, and liberty policies in port cities such as Jacksonville and Mayport.
• Air Force and Space Force focus heavily on technical orders, classified information handling, and flight line standards.
• Marine Corps commands are more likely to use Article 92 for barracks discipline, hazing, and leadership failures in tight units.

Understanding a branch’s culture is as important as understanding the black letter law. A defense that fits the culture and command climate is more likely to resonate with a panel or board.

Florida Specific Enforcement Patterns

In Florida, Article 92 cases often grow out of:

• Violations of liberty policies tied to beaches, bars, and tourist districts
• Violations of domestic no contact orders after local police respond to a disturbance
• Dereliction of duty for leaders after training mishaps at Florida based ranges or aviation facilities
• Failure to follow social media rules, including orders not to contact alleged victims or witnesses online
• Failure to follow medical restriction orders or liberty limits after injury or surgery

Commands in Florida are under significant media and political scrutiny. They are quick to send a message through Article 92 charges. A defense team that understands both the UCMJ and local Florida patterns is in a stronger position to push back.

Real World Article 92 Military Scenarios

Article 92 applies across every type of unit and mission. Here are sample fact patterns that mirror real world cases.

• A trainee at a Florida based schoolhouse repeatedly violates a phone use policy and later receives an Article 92 charge after a training incident that involves unauthorized recording.
• An NCO receives a written no contact order in a sexual assault investigation, then sends late night text messages to the alleged victim asking to smooth things over. The messages become the centerpiece of an Article 92 case.
• A pilot fails to follow a technical order checklist step related to fuel management, leading to an in flight emergency. The command reacts with an Article 92 dereliction of duty charge.
• A special operations member at a Florida installation ignores a command policy limiting alcohol consumption before high risk training. After an injury, the command alleges that the violation contributed to the mishap and charges Article 92.
• Junior sailors on liberty in a Florida port city violate curfew and alcohol restrictions under a deployed strike group general order. One gets into a fight off base. Several are charged with Article 92 violations tied to the liberty policy.
• A staff officer fails to properly safeguard a hard drive with classified data and leaves it in a personal vehicle overnight. When the vehicle is broken into, the command pursues Article 92 charges based on information security rules.
• A drill instructor uses unauthorized corrective training that conflicts with a published depot order. Recruits complain and the government charges the drill instructor with cruelty under Article 93 and dereliction of duty under Article 92.
• A squad leader signs that weapons were cleared and turned in after a range, despite never checking his soldiers’ rifles. One weapon later discharges in the arms room. The squad leader faces dereliction charges.
• A service member in Florida is ordered not to drink alcohol due to a pending alcohol related incident. They are later arrested off base for DUI. The command adds an Article 92 charge for violating the alcohol restriction order.
• A medical provider receives repeated guidance on documenting controlled substance prescriptions, but cuts corners on documentation. When an audit reveals irregularities, the command alleges dereliction of duty.
• A junior officer receives a direct order not to contact a witness in an ongoing investigation. He uses a mutual friend to relay messages instead. The government argues this was a deliberate violation of the spirit and letter of the order.
• A maintenance chief changes an established checklist to speed up inspections without proper authority. When an aircraft suffers damage, prosecutors argue that the change itself was a dereliction of duty under Article 92.
• A service member refuses vaccination or medical readiness requirements after a lawful order, arguing personal disagreement. The command initiates Article 92 charges and administrative separation based on failure to follow lawful orders.

These examples show how broad Article 92 can be. They also show why the defense must dig into the precise language of the order, how it was issued, and whether the accused actually had clear notice and a realistic ability to comply.

Investigation Phase – How Article 92 Cases Are Built

Article 92 investigations can start small and then grow rapidly once law enforcement or the command realizes that orders were ignored or duties were neglected.

Initial Complaint or Discovery

Many Article 92 cases begin with:

• A barracks or workplace complaint about misconduct
• A local police report from a Florida city that reaches the command
• An inspector general or hotline complaint
• A training accident or safety incident that triggers a command review
• A victim or witness in a different case who mentions that orders were violated

Role of NCIS, CID, OSI, and CGIS

For straightforward policy violations, the command may handle fact finding on its own through a commander inquiry or an AR 15 6 or similar investigation. In more serious cases, law enforcement becomes involved.

• CID may handle Army cases involving injuries, weapons, or related misconduct.
• NCIS often investigates violations tied to sexual assault, serious liberty incidents, and security breaches.
• OSI usually leads Air Force cases involving classified information, insider threats, or high profile incidents.
• CGIS handles Coast Guard matters, especially those with maritime or port security angles.

These agencies are trained to gather documents, conduct interviews, and collect digital evidence that can later support Article 92 charges, even if the original focus was a different offense, such as sexual assault under Article 120 or drug offenses under Article 112a.

Interviews and Statements

Investigators and commands tend to treat Article 92 as an easy win. They assume that if an order existed, anyone who signed a roster or attended a brief must have known about it. The most dangerous moment for the accused is often the first interview.

Common mistakes include:

• Admitting awareness of an order that may never have been properly issued or explained
• Trying to minimize by saying the violation was small or technical, which still satisfies the elements
• Guessing about what they were supposed to do rather than insisting on seeing the actual regulation
• Signing written statements without reading them carefully

Once those statements exist, prosecutors rarely forget them. They become trial exhibits used to argue that the accused knew exactly what they were doing and chose to ignore the rules.

Digital and Documentary Evidence

In the modern military, digital trails tell much of the story. Investigators routinely collect:

• Emails issuing orders and acknowledgment replies
• Digital training certificates and click through policies
• Text messages, social media messages, and call logs
• GPS and access card records showing who was present where and when
• Local Florida police reports and court records for off base incidents

Sometimes this evidence shows that the accused never received the order or that multiple members violated the same rule but only one was selected for punishment. A disciplined defense team will demand and analyze this data rather than accepting the command’s summary of what happened.

Preserving Favorable Evidence

Service members facing potential Article 92 accusations should preserve:

• Copies of emails, policy memos, and counseling statements
• Text messages showing confusion about orders or inconsistent enforcement
• Witness names for people who were briefed differently or not at all
• Any training or procedures that show how unclear the duties really were

Waiting until after charges are preferred often means that key digital evidence has been deleted, overwritten, or interpreted only through the government’s lens.

How Gonzalez & Waddington Defend Article 92 Cases

Article 92 charges look simple on paper. In court they become complex. Gonzalez & Waddington treat an Article 92 case with the same seriousness as a sex crime or violent felony, because the consequences can be career ending.

Challenging the Lawfulness and Scope of Orders

The first step is to examine the order or duty itself.

• Was the order issued by a competent authority with the power to bind the accused
• Was it properly published or delivered
• Was the order clear and specific enough to put a reasonable person on notice
• Did it conflict with higher law, constitutional protections, or existing regulations

Many cases collapse once a military judge realizes that what the command called a general order was actually a local policy memo or an email with no legal force.

Attacking the Knowledge and Notice Element

The government must show that the accused knew about the order or duty. Gonzalez & Waddington looks for:

• Gaps in the distribution process
• Lack of signatures or rosters
• Evidence that different groups were briefed in different ways
• Unclear or conflicting guidance issued around the same time

Even when the government can show general awareness of a policy, it may not be able to show that the accused understood it as written, especially if they received an incomplete or informal version.

Exposing Selective Enforcement and Command Overreach

Commands often enforce Article 92 selectively. One person is charged while others get counseling for similar conduct. This can support arguments about:

• Unlawful command influence or pressure to make an example of someone
• Retaliation, reprisal, or discrimination
• Improper command interference with the defense

A skilled defense team will develop evidence of how the order was enforced across the unit or base, not just against one accused.

Linking Article 92 to the Larger Case

Article 92 often appears as a secondary charge near more serious allegations such as sexual assault under Article 120, drug offenses under Article 112a, or domestic violence under Article 128b. Gonzalez & Waddington uses the Article 92 count to:

• Challenge the credibility of key government witnesses
• Expose sloppy command timelines and poor documentation
• Show that the command is overreacting or trying to stack charges
• Negotiate plea options that involve Article 92 in place of higher exposure charges

Boards, NJP, and Administrative Actions

Many Article 92 cases play out in nonjudicial punishment, separation boards, or boards of inquiry rather than full courts martial. Gonzalez & Waddington treats these forums as serious trials where the future of a career is on the line. They:

• Prepare focused cross examination of investigators and commanders
• Present context and mitigation that shows the accused as a professional with a long track record, not a single mistake
• Highlight unclear orders, mixed messages, and selective enforcement
• Work to preserve retirement, benefits, and post service opportunities

When a command wants to separate someone based on Article 92, the defense can often show that the incident was a training issue, a failure of supervision, or a misunderstanding, not willful disobedience.

For related offenses that often accompany Article 92, see the guides for Article 120 sexual offenses, Article 112a drug offenses, Article 128 assault, and Article 134 general article. For a Florida focused overview of investigations and boards, see Florida military defense hub.

Pro Tips for Service Members Facing Article 92 Allegations

The decisions you make in the first days and weeks of an Article 92 investigation often shape the entire outcome. These practical tips come from defending service members around the world.

• Do not assume that a policy memo is automatically a lawful order. Ask to see the actual source and how it was issued.
• Exercise your right to remain silent until you speak with a defense lawyer who understands Article 92 and your branch.
• Never guess in an interview about whether you were briefed on an order. If you do not remember, say that you do not remember.
• Preserve your own copies of emails, texts, and documents that relate to the alleged order or duty.
• Write down your recollection of how you first heard about the order, who briefed it, and what exactly was said while it is fresh in your mind.
• Identify other people in your unit who may have received different guidance or who also violated the order without being punished.
• Be careful about social media. Posts or private messages complaining about an order or mocking command policies can become evidence.
• If you receive a new order from the command during an investigation, read it carefully, ask questions through counsel, and follow it strictly.
• Do not destroy or alter any documents, messages, or digital records. That can turn an Article 92 case into an obstruction case under Article 131b.
• Maintain professionalism. The way you handle yourself while under scrutiny often influences whether the command pushes for court martial, NJP, or counseling.
• Understand that dereliction of duty can be based on negligence, not just wilful disobedience. Small shortcuts can be twisted into criminal negligence after a bad outcome.
• Do not rely on rumors or barracks lawyering about what the order really means. Get accurate legal advice from someone who has defended Article 92 cases.
• If your case involves Florida law enforcement, get copies of police reports, court records, and body camera footage as soon as possible.
• At boards and administrative separations, treat the process as seriously as a trial. Prepare witnesses, exhibits, and a coherent defense narrative.
• Consider the long term impact on security clearances, future employment, and professional licensing. A seemingly minor Article 92 finding can surface years later.
• In multi charge cases, think strategically about whether to contest every count at trial or negotiate to narrow exposure by focusing on the strongest defenses.
• Involve your family early. They may provide important context and mitigation and need to understand what is at stake.

Call to Action for Article 92 Accusations

If you are under investigation or charged under Article 92 UCMJ for failure to obey an order or regulation or dereliction of duty, you are up against a system that uses this article every day. Commands and prosecutors know how to frame these cases in ways that sound simple to a panel. Your defense must be smarter, more precise, and grounded in real world experience.

Gonzalez & Waddington, Attorneys at Law, focus on serious UCMJ and administrative cases worldwide. We defend service members at courts martial, separation boards, and boards of inquiry, including those stationed in or connected to Florida. We have tried and defended Article 92 allegations in combination with sexual assault, drug, domestic violence, and complex operational cases.

To discuss your situation and learn how we approach Article 92 and related UCMJ charges, visit our Florida military defense hub at https://ucmjdefense.com/florida-military-defense-lawyers/ or contact us directly for a confidential consultation.

For a complete overview of all punitive articles, return to the main hub at UCMJ Articles 77–134 Guide.

How Gonzalez & Waddington Defend Article 120 Cases

Defending an Article 120 allegation is not about reciting law school definitions. It is about understanding people, psychology, and the way modern military investigations really work. Gonzalez & Waddington bring trial focused strategy to every case, whether it involves a single contested encounter or a series of alleged assaults over time.

Building a Coherent Defense Theory

The first task is to develop a unified theory of the case that explains:

• What actually happened on the night in question
• How both parties perceived it at the time
• What changed between the alleged assault and the report
• Why the government’s narrative does not fit the evidence

This theory must align with digital records, witness accounts, and human behavior. It should give the panel a clear, straightforward story that fits the facts better than the prosecution’s version, without demonizing the alleged victim in ways that turn members against the defense.

Cross Examination of the Alleged Victim

Cross examination is the heart of most Article 120 trials. Gonzalez & Waddington focus on:

• Differences between initial reports and later testimony
• Details added only after investigators or advocates make suggestions
• Inconsistencies between physical evidence and the alleged sequence of events
• Statements that clash with digital time stamps, location data, or video
• Potential motives to lie, exaggerate, or reframe a consensual encounter

The goal is not to attack or humiliate, but to respectfully show that the testimony is unreliable or incomplete. A controlled, precise cross examination can be far more effective than anger or theatrics.

Using Science and Experts Wisely

In complex Article 120 cases, Gonzalez & Waddington may work with:

• Forensic medical experts to review sexual assault exams and injury reports
• Toxicologists to explain alcohol effects, blackout, and memory
• Digital forensics experts to interpret phone, computer, and cloud data
• Psychologists or psychiatrists when mental health or personality issues affect credibility

The purpose is not to flood the panel with jargon. It is to give them simple, trustworthy explanations that support the defense theory and help them understand why the government’s experts may be overstating their conclusions.

Motions Practice and Evidence Battles

Article 120 cases often involve extensive motion practice. Key areas include:

• Efforts to exclude unreliable expert testimony or junk science
• Challenges to suggestive or biased investigative interviews
• Litigation over prior sexual behavior evidence under Military Rule of Evidence 412
• Motions to introduce prior false allegations or credibility issues
• Challenges to search authorizations and digital evidence seizures

These battles may not make headlines, but they shape what the panel hears. A single ruling can decide whether a jury sees the full context or only the government’s filtered version of events.

Boards, Administrative Actions, and Collateral Consequences

Not every Article 120 allegation goes to court martial. Some go to boards of inquiry, administrative separation boards, or informal actions such as relief for cause, letter of reprimand, or loss of clearance. Gonzalez & Waddington treat these forums as serious trials with lasting consequences.

They work to:

• Preserve careers and retirement for those who have served honorably
• Challenge one sided command investigations and biased findings
• Present character witnesses, performance records, and deployments that show the full person, not only the allegation
• Protect future employment and professional licensing when a court martial is not pursued but the command still tries to stamp the service member with guilt

For related articles that frequently intersect with Article 120, see the pages for Article 92, Article 128, Article 128b, Article 131b obstruction, and the child specific offenses under Article 120b and Article 120c. Return to the UCMJ hub for the full article index.

Pro Tips for Service Members Facing Article 120 Allegations

These points are not theory. They come from experience defending service members across branches in some of the toughest sexual assault courts martial in the military.

• Do not try to talk your way out of the situation with investigators or your chain of command. polite silence and a request for counsel are far safer than a desperate explanation.
• Exercise your Article 31 rights. once you give a statement, the government will use every line against you, but they will not tell the panel what you refused to say.
• Preserve every text, message, photo, and social media post related to the relationship or encounter. what seems embarrassing may later save you.
• Do not delete or edit anything. deletion can look like consciousness of guilt and can lead to obstruction charges under Article 131b.
• Write down your memory of events as soon as you can, including what was said, who was present, and how much each person drank.
• Identify witnesses who saw you and the alleged victim before, during, and after the incident, especially those not in the same unit or chain of command.
• Avoid contact with the alleged victim in every form once you are aware of an allegation or a no contact order. even a harmless text can be portrayed as intimidation.
• Stay off social media regarding the case. sarcastic memes, vague posts about betrayal, or comments on mutual friends’ pages can be twisted into evidence.
• Take care of your mental health. an Article 120 investigation is a long, stressful process. you need a clear mind to help your defense team and to make smart decisions.
• Do not rely on barracks legal advice. other service members do not know the full facts or the law, and their opinions can lead you into serious mistakes.
• Understand that alcohol and regret do not automatically create a crime. the law still requires proof of specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Prepare for the long haul. sexual assault cases often take many months from allegation to resolution. patience and discipline are part of your defense.
• If your allegation involves Florida civilian police or courts, coordinate with your defense team so that statements in one system do not damage your position in the other.
• Be honest with your defense counsel about every detail, including facts that make you look bad. they can only protect you from what they know.
• Remember that there is no automatic best strategy. some cases should go to trial without fear. others are best resolved through negotiation after the defense exposes weaknesses in the government case.
• In multi charge cases that include Article 92, 112a, or 128, consider how decisions in those areas affect the Article 120 allegations and the overall sentencing exposure.

Call to Action for Article 120 Accusations

If you are facing an Article 120 allegation, you are in one of the most serious situations a service member can experience. Commands, investigators, and prosecutors have institutional backing, specialized training, and significant political pressure to secure convictions in sexual assault cases. You need a defense team that understands not only the law, but the reality of how these cases are tried.

Gonzalez & Waddington, Attorneys at Law, focus on contested UCMJ cases worldwide, with particular experience in sexual assault litigation under Article 120 and related offenses. We have defended service members at trial, on appeal, and at boards where sexual allegations threaten careers and freedom. We understand the intersection of UCMJ, Florida law, and the complex investigative machinery behind these cases.

To learn how we approach Article 120 defense, visit our Florida military defense hub at https://ucmjdefense.com/florida-military-defense-lawyers/ or contact us for a confidential consultation. For an overview of related offenses and strategies, you can also return to the UCMJ Articles 77–134 Guide.