Table Content
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice establishes criminal liability for service members who violate or fail to follow lawful orders or regulations. The provision is broad and covers multiple forms of misconduct involving rules, command directives, and duties. It is one of the most frequently charged offenses in military law due to its wide scope.
Article 92 prohibits three primary categories of conduct:
A general order or regulation carries automatic applicability to all service members, whereas a specific order must be directed to the individual accused.
Only persons subject to the UCMJ may be charged under Article 92. This includes active-duty service members, reservists on qualifying duty status, cadets and midshipmen, and certain other individuals under Article 2 jurisdiction. Civilians not subject to the UCMJ cannot be prosecuted under this article.
The required mental state depends on the subsection charged. Violations of general orders typically require proof that the order was lawful and in effect, not that the accused knew every detail of the regulation. Dereliction of duty may be committed willfully, through negligence, or through culpable inefficiency, each carrying different proof standards.
Attempt and conspiracy liability may apply when the underlying misconduct, if completed, would violate Article 92. Accomplice liability principles also apply, allowing prosecution of individuals who aid, abet, or encourage another service member’s violation. These doctrines are used less frequently than in other UCMJ offenses but remain legally available.
The government bears the burden of proving each element of Article 92 beyond a reasonable doubt. These elements define the specific factual predicates required to establish a violation involving a lawful order, a lawful general order or regulation, or a duty imposed by law, regulation, or superior authority.
The required mens rea for Article 92 depends on the subsection charged. Violations of lawful general orders or regulations are typically strict-liability offenses, whereas failure to obey other lawful orders and dereliction of duty generally require proof that the accused acted knowingly, willfully, or through culpable negligence.
The actus reus consists of the prohibited conduct: violating a binding regulation, disobeying a specific lawful order, or failing to perform a required duty. The government must show a clear nexus between the accused’s conduct and the order or duty alleged.
Key statutory terms include “lawful,” which requires the order or regulation to be validly issued by competent authority, and “derelict,” which refers to conduct falling below the standards reasonably expected under the circumstances.
Punishment for violations of Article 92, UCMJ depends on the date the alleged offense was committed. Offenses committed before December 27, 2023 are sentenced under the historical maximum_punishment model. Offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023 fall under the sentencing_category framework implemented by the Military Justice Act of 2016.
Article 92 includes three distinct offenses, each with its own maximum authorized punishment under the pre_December 2023 system:
Under the sentencing_category system, Article 92 offenses are assigned categories corresponding to their historical maximum confinement:
The sentencing_category system replaces the single maximum_punishment model with structured confinement ranges linked to offense categories. The adjudged discharge authorities remain consistent with those historically authorized but are applied within a framework designed to provide more uniform sentencing boundaries.
In military justice practice, Article 92 charging decisions typically reflect the specific fact pattern uncovered during preliminary inquiries, command reporting, or formal investigations. Commanders and prosecutors rely on the clarity of the underlying order or regulation, the service member’s knowledge of it, and the context in which noncompliance surfaced to determine whether an Article 92 violation is appropriate.
Article 92 charges often stem from routine military environments where compliance with published directives or direct orders is closely monitored. Some of the most frequent scenarios include:
Article 92 is often accompanied by other UCMJ articles when the conduct overlaps with additional offenses. Common pairings include:
Article 92 cases typically begin with observations by supervisors, reports from peers, or irregularities noted during routine inspections. Commands may initiate preliminary inquiries or commander’s investigations to confirm the existence of an enforceable order and the nature of any deviation. More serious allegations—especially those tied to safety, security, or criminal behavior—may prompt referral to CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS for formal investigative action. These agencies gather statements, documentation, and digital evidence to establish whether the alleged order existed, was communicated, and was disregarded.
Article 92 is frequently used in charge-stacking scenarios where prosecutors charge multiple theories to capture different aspects of the same conduct. It also appears as an alternative charge when the government anticipates evidentiary challenges with more specific offenses. Overlap is common because many regulatory violations can be charged under either Article 92 or article-specific punitive provisions. The article’s versatility makes it a routine part of charging packages that reflect the layered structure of military regulations and the broad range of orders service members must follow.
Prosecutions under UCMJ Article 92 often involve disputes over whether the government has established each element of the offense, along with disagreements about witness credibility, evidentiary rulings, and interpretation of statutory or regulatory language. These cases typically turn on the factual circumstances surrounding the alleged order or regulation, the service member’s knowledge and conduct, and the procedural safeguards applied during the investigation.
Litigation frequently centers on whether the government has met its burden with respect to each statutory element. Controversies may involve:
These disputes often arise when documentation is incomplete, when there are inconsistencies in how the order was disseminated, or when the regulatory framework is complex.
Although Article 92 offenses may impose strict or lesser mens rea standards depending on the subtype of violation, questions about the accused’s mental state remain common. Issues may include:
Disputes about intent often intersect with the factual context in which the order was issued and executed.
Assessing the reliability of witnesses can be central to Article 92 cases. Contested issues may include differing recollections of when and how an order was given, the accuracy of reports documenting the alleged violation, or potential inconsistencies between statements by supervisors, subordinates, or investigators. Such disputes can influence whether the factfinder determines that an order was clear, communicated, or enforceable.
Evidentiary questions may arise regarding the admissibility of statements made during command inquiries or official investigations, especially where rights advisements or voluntariness are disputed. Challenges may also involve searches of digital devices, operational spaces, or personal effects, as well as the reliability of electronic records or logs used to show compliance or noncompliance. Chain-of-custody issues can further complicate the evidentiary landscape.
Ambiguities in statutory text, regulatory definitions, or cross-references within the Manual for Courts-Martial can lead to disputes over the scope and applicability of Article 92. Questions may arise about the distinction between punitive and non-punitive regulations, the level of specificity required for enforceable orders, and the interaction between Article 92 and other UCMJ provisions. These issues often require careful parsing of regulatory language and judicial precedent.
Willful disobedience of a commissioned officer under Article 90
Insubordinate conduct toward warrant or noncommissioned officers under Article 91
Dereliction of duty as an alternative Article 92 offense
False official statements commonly charged alongside disobedience violations
Collateral consequences are administrative, professional, or legal effects that may arise independently of the sentence announced at a court-martial. These consequences are typically imposed through separate military or civilian processes and can affect a service member’s career, benefits, and life outside the military even after the formal punishment has been completed.
A conviction under UCMJ Article 92 may influence several administrative and career-related outcomes. These may include:
A conviction for failure to obey an order or regulation may lead to adverse security clearance findings. Commanders or adjudicators may question judgment, reliability, or adherence to rules, which can affect eligibility for access to classified information. Loss or suspension of clearance can also limit post-service employment opportunities in fields that require federal background investigations or clearance reciprocity.
Article 92 convictions do not ordinarily trigger sex offender registration or similar reporting requirements. However, if the underlying misconduct involves conduct covered by federal or state registration laws, separate reporting obligations may apply. Registration requirements are governed by civilian jurisdiction statutes rather than the UCMJ itself.
The same conduct that supports an Article 92 conviction may, in some cases, also violate federal or state law. This can result in exposure to separate civilian criminal proceedings or potential civil liability, depending on the nature of the act.
For non-citizen service members, certain convictions may have implications for immigration status, admissibility, or naturalization eligibility. Any effect depends on the specific conduct and how it is classified under federal immigration law.
During the investigative phase of a potential UCMJ Article 92 violation, key decisions are often made before any formal charges are preferred. How a service member responds at this stage can shape the evidentiary record, influence command perceptions, and affect later judicial or administrative proceedings.
Military investigators typically collect statements, documents, electronic records, and command correspondence at the outset of an inquiry. Early legal involvement can help ensure that evidence is preserved accurately, that ambiguous information is properly contextualized, and that a service member’s rights are considered when investigators request digital access or written statements. Civilian military defense lawyers are familiar with how early evidence collection affects later stages of a case.
Command or law-enforcement interviews may occur before the service member fully understands the specific allegations or the potential scope of the investigation. Without guidance, a service member may provide incomplete or imprecise information, consent to broad questioning, or inadvertently affect the direction of the inquiry. Understanding rights under Article 31(b) and the nature of the questions being asked is essential before participating in any interview.
Administrative inquiries, such as command-directed investigations or inspections, can proceed independently of any criminal action. Early decisions made during these processes—such as providing documents or statements—may later be referenced in disciplinary or administrative forums. Awareness of each process’s purpose and limitations helps maintain clarity in the record.
Choices made early in the investigation, including consenting to searches, providing statements, or responding to administrative requests, can have long-term effects on potential court-martial proceedings or adverse administrative actions. These early steps can influence the evidentiary landscape and narrow or expand the options available during later stages of the case.
Gonzalez & Waddington is a civilian military defense law firm that concentrates on representing service members facing UCMJ allegations, including matters involving Article 92. The firm handles cases across all branches of the armed forces and provides legal counsel to active-duty members, reservists, and veterans navigating complex military justice issues.
If you are facing concerns related to UCMJ Article 92 or would like to understand your legal options, you may contact Gonzalez & Waddington to discuss your situation in a confidential consultation. The firm can provide information about the process and help you consider the best way to move forward.
Q: What does UCMJ Article 92: Failure to Obey Order or Regulation cover?
A: Article 92 covers three primary types of misconduct: violating or failing to obey a lawful general order or regulation, failing to obey another lawful order, and dereliction in the performance of duties. The article applies to service members regardless of rank and requires proof that the order was lawful, that the member knew or reasonably should have known about it, and that the failure to comply was willful or negligent.
Q: What is the maximum punishment for UCMJ Article 92: Failure to Obey Order or Regulation?
A: The maximum punishment depends on the specific subsection of Article 92. Violating a general order or regulation carries the most severe potential penalties, which can include a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement. Lesser forms of disobedience or dereliction may involve reduced maximum penalties. The actual punishment in any case depends on the facts, the member’s record, and the forum in which the case is handled.
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, patterns of behavior, or a determination that the member’s conduct is inconsistent with service expectations. This can occur even without a court_martial conviction. Administrative proceedings use a lower standard of proof than criminal trials and focus on suitability for continued service rather than criminal liability, allowing separation actions to proceed independently of judicial outcomes.
Q: Do I need a civilian military defense lawyer for an investigation under this article?
A: Service members are not required to hire a civilian attorney, as they may receive assistance from appointed military defense counsel. Some individuals choose to retain civilian counsel for additional guidance, independent analysis, or broader availability. The decision typically depends on the complexity of the case, potential consequences, and personal preference. Consulting with counsel early can help a service member understand the process, their rights, and possible courses of action.
Q: Can an Article 92 allegation be handled without a court-martial, such as through administrative action or nonjudicial punishment?
A: Many Article 92 cases are addressed through nonjudicial punishment, written reprimands, corrective training, or other administrative measures. Commands have discretion to determine the appropriate level of response based on the seriousness of the conduct, the service member’s history, and the impact on the unit. These alternatives allow the command to address the issue without the formal procedures and potential consequences of a court_martial, though they can still affect a member’s record.
Q: What types of evidence are commonly used in investigations involving Article 92?
A: Evidence in Article 92 cases often includes written orders, regulations, emails, witness statements, duty logs, and documentation showing the service member was informed of the order or requirement. Investigators may also review command policies, training records, or digital communications. The focus is typically on proving the existence of a valid order, the member’s knowledge of it, and the nature of the alleged failure to comply or perform required duties.
If you want to review the Articles of the UCMJ and learn more about military law, you can start here: UCMJ Articles and Military Justice Resources. You may also find helpful official information from the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps at afjag.af.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.
