Table Content
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a criminal offense for a service member to violate or fail to obey lawful orders or regulations, or to willfully or negligently perform duties in a deficient manner. The provision is designed to ensure discipline, accountability, and the reliable execution of assigned responsibilities within the armed forces. The statute applies regardless of rank or occupational specialty.
Article 92 encompasses three primary categories of misconduct. A service member may be charged for violating or failing to obey a lawful general order or regulation, for disobeying any other lawful order, or for dereliction in the performance of duties. Dereliction occurs when a member either willfully neglects a duty, is culpably inefficient in performing it, or fails to perform it through neglect.
All individuals subject to the UCMJ may be charged under Article 92, including active-duty personnel, reservists on active status, and certain other categories defined in Article 2 of the UCMJ. The statute applies uniformly across branches and duty stations. Civilian personnel are not charged under Article 92 but may be subject to other administrative or contractual consequences.
The mental state required depends on the specific clause. Violations of lawful orders typically require proof that the order was known and that the member intentionally failed to comply. Dereliction may be based on willful misconduct, culpable inefficiency, or simple negligence, with the degree of fault affecting potential punishment.
Attempt and conspiracy liability generally arise under Articles 80 and 81 of the UCMJ rather than Article 92 itself. These theories can apply when a service member takes substantial steps toward violating an order or forms an agreement to do so with others. Aiding and abetting liability may apply under Article 77 when a member assists or encourages another’s violation or dereliction.
The government must prove each element of dereliction of duty beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the specific duty at issue, the accused’s knowledge or means of knowledge of that duty, and the nature of the alleged failure to perform it.
The mens rea for dereliction of duty varies by the charged theory. Willful dereliction requires proof that the accused intentionally disregarded the known duty. Negligent dereliction requires showing that the accused’s conduct deviated from the standard of care expected of a reasonably prudent service member. Culpable inefficiency involves a level of carelessness amounting to a culpable disregard of duty.
The actus reus consists of an affirmative failure to perform a required duty or an improper performance of that duty. The government must establish both the existence of the duty and the manner in which the accused’s conduct failed to meet its requirements.
Critical statutory terms include “duty,” which encompasses obligations arising from laws, regulations, orders, or inherent responsibilities of a position, and “dereliction,” which denotes performance that falls below the standard required under the circumstances.
Punishment for Article 92 (Dereliction of Duty) under the UCMJ depends on the date of the alleged offense. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are governed by the pre_Military Justice Act maximum_punishment model, while offenses committed on or after that date fall under the updated sentencing_parameters system.
Under the pre_December 27, 2023 framework, Article 92(3) dereliction of duty carries different maximum punishments depending on whether the dereliction was willful or negligent.
For offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023, sentencing is governed by the standardized sentencing_parameters system established by the Military Justice Act revisions and implemented in the Manual for Courts_Martial. Under this system, Article 92(3) dereliction of duty falls within a sentencing category that authorizes confinement not to exceed 6 months.
The sentencing_category model differs from the prior maximum_punishment system by providing standardized confinement ranges tied to offense categories rather than individualized maximums for each offense. The categories create uniform sentencing brackets while still allowing adjudged sentences anywhere within the authorized range.
In practice, charging decisions under Article 92 for Dereliction of Duty are shaped by concrete fact patterns, the path an allegation takes through investigative channels, and the priorities of the command reviewing the matter. Commands usually look for clear evidence of a duty, a deviation from that duty, and circumstances showing the service member knew or reasonably should have known what was required.
Dereliction charges most commonly arise from routine operational environments rather than unusual or extreme misconduct. Typical scenarios include:
Prosecutors often pair Article 92 with other UCMJ provisions when the facts support parallel theories of misconduct, such as:
Most Article 92 cases begin with direct reporting by supervisors, irregularities noted during inspections, or complaints from affected personnel. Commands frequently initiate preliminary inquiries or command-directed investigations to establish the duty in question and document alleged deviations. When the matter suggests potential criminality or broader impact, law-enforcement elements such as CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS may assume investigative control, conducting interviews, evidence collection, and corroboration through records or digital data.
Article 92 is often used in conjunction with overlapping statutes, allowing prosecutors to frame misconduct through multiple legal avenues. Charge-stacking occurs when both dereliction and related conduct-based articles capture different aspects of the same event. Alternative charging is also common, with prosecutors alleging both willful and negligent dereliction to accommodate varied evidentiary outcomes. These patterns reflect the broad scope of Article 92 and its role as a flexible tool for addressing failures of duty across the full range of military functions.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 92 for dereliction of duty often turn on whether the government can prove each statutory element beyond a reasonable doubt. Disputes commonly arise regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, the reliability of investigative processes, and the interpretation of statutory or regulatory duties. Courts frequently focus on how these components interact within the specific factual context of the alleged dereliction.
Controversy often centers on whether the government has established the existence and scope of a duty, the accused’s awareness of that duty, and the alleged failure or neglect. Determining whether a duty is clearly defined in a regulation, order, or custom of the service can be a contested issue, especially when the directive is ambiguous or applied inconsistently. Evidence must typically show the nature of the obligation and whether the accused’s conduct deviated from it. Challenges may arise when documentation is incomplete, when the applicability of a directive is unclear, or when the government relies heavily on inference rather than explicit proof.
Mens rea disputes typically involve whether the alleged dereliction was willful, negligent, or the product of simple error. These distinctions materially affect the government’s burden and the characterization of the conduct. Questions often arise regarding the accused’s actual knowledge of a duty or whether a reasonable service member in similar circumstances would have recognized the obligation. Determining the mental state may require interpretation of training materials, duty qualifications, and contemporaneous communications, leading to litigation over how much awareness or foresight the law requires.
Cases frequently hinge on competing accounts from supervisors, subordinates, or other witnesses. Credibility questions may arise from inconsistent statements, memory limitations, or potential bias stemming from workplace dynamics or command relationships. Investigative interviews, reports, and prior statements may be examined to assess reliability. Factual disputes can affect every element of the offense, including what the duty required, what the accused knew, and how events unfolded.
Litigation often involves challenges to the admissibility of statements made during command inquiries, rights advisements, or inspections. Issues may also arise concerning searches of electronic devices, access to digital communications, or the chain of custody for documentary materials. Courts may evaluate whether evidence was obtained in compliance with the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and military rules of evidence, and whether probative value outweighs potential prejudice.
Ambiguities in regulatory language, definitional provisions, or cross-referenced duties can lead to disputes over the meaning and scope of Article 92. Questions may center on how broadly a duty should be construed, whether a directive qualifies as a lawful order, or how negligence standards apply. These interpretive issues can shape the contours of the offense and influence how elements are assessed in individual cases.
Insubordinate conduct under Article 91, often charged alongside dereliction-related misconduct
Willful disobedience of a commissioned officer, a closely related offense to failure to obey orders
False official statement allegations that are frequently paired with duty-related violations
Conduct unbecoming an officer, which can accompany dereliction charges in officer cases
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of the sentence imposed by a court-martial. These outcomes stem from military regulations, federal rules, or civilian systems that operate alongside the criminal process and may continue to affect a service member after the court-martial has concluded.
A conviction for dereliction of duty under Article 92 can influence several administrative determinations. Commands may initiate administrative separation based on a loss of confidence or unsatisfactory performance, and the characterization of discharge may be affected by the underlying misconduct. Promotion boards may view the conviction as an adverse indicator, potentially limiting advancement. For service members approaching retirement, the conviction may influence retention decisions or high-year tenure considerations. In addition, reenlistment eligibility may be restricted through reenlistment codes or service-specific quality review processes.
Dereliction of duty can raise concerns regarding reliability, judgment, and trustworthiness, which may affect eligibility for security clearances or continued access to classified information. Clearance reviews may consider both the conviction and the circumstances surrounding it. Post-service employment in fields requiring clearance eligibility or sensitive positions may also be affected if adjudicators determine that the misconduct reflects negatively on professional suitability.
Convictions under Article 92 generally do not trigger sex offender registration or similar reporting requirements unless the underlying conduct independently meets federal or state criteria. Registration obligations, when applicable, are governed by civilian law and may vary by jurisdiction.
In some cases, the same conduct leading to a dereliction of duty conviction may also violate federal or state law. This may result in potential exposure to civilian criminal investigation or civil claims, depending on the nature of the conduct and local jurisdictional rules.
For non-citizens, certain convictions may factor into assessments of admissibility, removability, or good moral character for naturalization. While dereliction of duty is not categorically disqualifying, immigration authorities may consider the circumstances of the offense when making determinations.
During an investigation for UCMJ Article 92: Dereliction of Duty, decisions made in the initial stages often influence the direction and outcome of the case. Actions taken before charges are preferred—including statements, cooperation choices, and responses to command inquiries—can shape both the evidentiary record and how the case is interpreted by investigators and commanders.
Military investigators typically gather statements, documents, and digital data early in the process. Once collected, this evidence may be difficult to modify or contextualize. Early legal involvement helps ensure that evidence is preserved accurately, that service members understand the implications of providing materials, and that any potential misinterpretations are addressed promptly. Civilian military defense lawyers and military counsel can also help evaluate whether the evidence-gathering process complies with applicable regulations.
Command or law-enforcement interviews may occur when a service member has limited information about the allegations or the scope of the inquiry. Without guidance, a member may provide incomplete or inaccurate statements, waive rights unintentionally, or agree to questioning without understanding potential consequences. Early representation helps clarify rights and minimizes the risk of misunderstandings.
Administrative inquiries and command-directed investigations can proceed independently from any criminal case. Decisions made during these processes—such as initial statements or cooperation levels—may influence administrative outcomes, performance evaluations, or collateral actions. Early legal guidance helps navigate overlapping administrative and criminal considerations.
Initial choices, including whether to consent to searches, provide documents, or submit written responses, can have lasting effects throughout the case. These decisions may influence charging decisions, plea negotiations, or administrative measures and can shape the record relied on by commanders or legal authorities later in the process.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that focuses on representing service members facing UCMJ investigations, administrative actions, and courts-martial. The firm handles cases across all branches of the armed forces and is experienced in the complexities of military justice, including matters arising under Article 92: Dereliction of Duty.
If you are facing an investigation or adverse action involving Article 92: Dereliction of Duty, Gonzalez & Waddington can provide guidance on your options and help you understand the process. To discuss your situation in confidence, you may contact the firm to request a consultation.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 92: Dereliction of Duty cover?
A: Article 92 addresses a service member’s failure to perform assigned duties or performing them in a negligent or willful manner. It also covers violations of lawful general orders or regulations and failure to obey other lawful orders. The article applies when a duty is established, the member knew or should have known about the duty, and they failed to meet the required standard of performance. It applies across all branches of the armed forces.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 92: Dereliction of Duty?
A: The maximum punishment depends on the specific nature of the violation. A willful dereliction can lead to harsher penalties than a negligent dereliction. Potential punishments may include confinement, reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay, or a punitive discharge if addressed at a court-martial. The exact exposure varies based on the circumstances, the member’s record, and whether the case is charged alongside additional misconduct.
Q: Can an allegation under this article lead to administrative separation even without a conviction?
A: Yes. Commands may initiate administrative separation based on substantiated misconduct or a pattern of performance concerns, even without a court-martial conviction. Administrative processes operate under different evidentiary and procedural standards than criminal proceedings. As a result, a service member may face career-impacting actions, including separation or characterization of service decisions, based on the command’s assessment of the underlying conduct and its effects on mission readiness or discipline.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: A service member is not required to hire a civilian defense lawyer, but may choose to do so. Military defense counsel are available at no cost, and civilian counsel can provide additional representation if desired. The decision often depends on the seriousness of the allegations, the potential consequences, and the service member’s preference for personalized legal support. Both military and civilian counsel can advise on rights, procedures, and likely command actions.
Q: Can an allegation of dereliction of duty be handled without a court-martial?
A: Yes. Commands may address alleged dereliction through administrative measures or nonjudicial punishment instead of a court-martial. Options may include counseling, reprimands, corrective training, Article 15 or NJP proceedings, or other command-directed actions. These alternatives allow the command to respond to the conduct while using a process that requires fewer procedural steps. The chosen approach generally depends on the severity of the conduct and any related mission or discipline concerns.
Q: Which agencies typically investigate alleged dereliction of duty?
A: The investigating agency varies by the circumstances and the service branch. Many cases are handled at the unit level through command-directed inquiries. More serious or complex allegations may involve organizations such as CID, NCIS, or OSI when criminal violations are suspected. The scope of the investigation is determined by the potential impact on mission performance, involvement of other offenses, and the need for formal fact-finding and documentation.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly used to evaluate a dereliction of duty allegation?
A: Evidence may include duty rosters, written or verbal orders, operational logs, witness statements, training records, and performance reports. Commands may also review emails, messages, or other documentation showing what the service member knew and when. The focus is on establishing the existence of a duty, the service member’s awareness of that duty, and whether their performance met the required standard. Both direct and circumstantial evidence may be considered.
You can review the individual Articles of the UCMJ and learn more about military law by clicking here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. You can also explore official military law guidance from the Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps at jagcnet.army.mil.
A renowned military criminal defense attorney and best-selling author, Michael Waddington defends clients worldwide in serious cases and trains lawyers in advanced cross-examination. He is frequently featured by major media outlets like CNN and 60 Minutes.
Alexandra González-Waddington is a top military and civilian defense attorney who has handled high-profile sexual assault, violent crime, and war-crimes cases globally. Her work is widely recognized by media outlets including 60 Minutes and ABC’s Nightline.
