• ambiguous or unclear orders
• orders issued in chaotic environments
• conflicting guidance from NCOs or other officers
• verbal orders misheard or misunderstood
• orders issued unlawfully or outside the officer’s authority
• orders impossible to follow due to emergency or safety concerns
• mental health or medical crises affecting compliance

In Florida, Article 90 cases frequently arise from:

• shipboard or aviation operations where orders change rapidly
• high-tempo unit tasking in Jacksonville, Pensacola, Tampa, and Miami
• domestic or off-base incidents where police involvement blurs command authority
• emergency weather events (hurricanes, evacuations) causing confusion
• misunderstanding liberty restrictions, alcohol restrictions, or GEO limits

Article 90 charges are career-ending if not fought correctly. This guide breaks down the elements, legal defenses, real-world scenarios, and how Gonzalez & Waddington defend these cases in courts-martial, NJPs, and administrative actions.

Article 90 – Full Legal Breakdown

To convict someone of violating Article 90, the government must prove:

• A superior commissioned officer issued an order
• The order was lawful
• The accused knew the officer was a superior commissioned officer
• The accused knew of the order
• The accused willfully disobeyed the order

Key Concept: Willfulness

Willfulness requires more than simply failing to comply. The prosecution must prove the accused acted:

• intentionally
• purposely
• with knowledge of the order
• and with deliberate defiance

Mistakes, confusion, miscommunication, and emergencies are not willful disobedience.

Key Concept: Lawful Order

A lawful order must:

• come from a competent authority
• relate to military duty or discipline
• not violate constitutional rights
• not be overly vague, ambiguous, or impossible to perform

Orders that are unlawful, unclear, or impossible to follow cannot support an Article 90 conviction.

What Counts as an Order?

Under Article 90, an order may be:

• a written directive
• a formal instruction
• a verbal command
• a direct command given face-to-face
• a command issued electronically (text, radio, email) when appropriate

Orders That Are NOT Valid for Article 90

• suggestions or advice
• general statements not directed at the accused
• orders beyond the officer’s authority
• orders that violate rights or regulations
• orders that conflict with medical or safety restrictions
• orders issued under unclear or chaotic conditions

Maximum Punishments Under Article 90

A conviction for willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer may lead to:

• up to 5 years confinement
• total forfeitures
• reduction to E-1
• dishonorable discharge

This makes Article 90 one of the harshest non-violent offenses in the UCMJ.

Common Situations That Lead to Article 90 Charges

Article 90 is often charged when the command wants leverage, punishment, or an example—even when lesser charges like Article 91 or Article 92 would be more appropriate. These scenarios reflect real-world cases defended across the services.

• An officer verbally orders a soldier to remain in the barracks, but the soldier believes (based on an NCO’s earlier message) that the restriction was lifted.
• A sailor is ordered not to contact a civilian during an investigation. The sailor sends an emotional goodbye text. NCIS charges Article 90 instead of Article 92.
• An Airman with a medical profile is ordered by an inexperienced officer to perform physical tasks he physically cannot perform. The Airman refuses for safety reasons and is charged with Article 90.
• A Marine is told by a lieutenant to “do not leave the area,” but the Marine leaves to use the restroom after asking a sergeant. Conflicting orders lead to charges.
• During a hurricane readiness drill in Florida, an officer gives an unclear last-minute order to “report back immediately.” Traffic gridlock delays the accused. Command files Article 90.
• A Coast Guardsman is ordered to report for duty from off-base housing during a tropical storm warning. Unsafe road conditions prevent travel. Command still charges disobedience.
• An officer tells a soldier to stop recording an event. The soldier keeps recording due to safety concerns or legal rights. The command escalates to Article 90.
• A service member is told verbally to “stay away” from someone, but does not realize it constitutes an official order. Article 90 is charged for a single accidental encounter.
• A junior troop follows an NCO’s guidance over a conflicting officer order. Command claims willful defiance.
• An officer issues an order during a chaotic incident—multiple people talking at once. The accused genuinely did not hear it.

These cases illustrate why Article 90 is dangerous: commands often treat any deviation from an officer’s directive as deliberate defiance—even when the facts show confusion, emergency, or contradictory instructions.

Common Government Misinterpretations in Article 90 Cases

• Assuming all orders are clear. Many are not.
• Assuming the accused heard the order. Chaotic conditions often prevent clear communication.
• Assuming the order was lawful. Many are not.
• Assuming the officer had authority. Rank alone does not grant unlimited authority.
• Assuming any violation was willful. Most involve misunderstanding.
• Confusing Article 90 with Article 92. Article 90 requires much higher proof.

Florida-Specific Misinterpretations

Florida cases often involve:

• weather emergencies causing unavoidable non-compliance
• shipboard orders misinterpreted in noisy or chaotic environments
• aviation training where orders rapidly change
• police involvement where officers confuse their role with command authority

These regional patterns must be exposed at trial or administrative hearings.

Real World Article 90 Military Scenarios

Article 90 UCMJ charges arise from real-world environments where stress, noise, confusion, conflicting orders, emergencies, medical limitations, or unclear communication cause unintentional noncompliance. These scenarios illustrate how quickly a lawful order dispute becomes a felony-level allegation despite innocent explanations.

• A lieutenant orders a soldier to “stay in the barracks” during an investigation. A staff sergeant later tells the soldier he can go to the PX. The soldier obeys the NCO. The commander charges Article 90.
• A Marine is ordered by an officer to complete a maintenance task immediately. The Marine explains that he cannot because he is on a medical profile. The officer insists anyway. The Marine refuses for safety reasons and is charged with willful disobedience.
• A sailor receives a verbal order in a noisy engine room. He genuinely cannot hear it. When he performs a different task, NCIS wrongfully interprets it as intentional defiance.
• During a hurricane warning in Florida, an officer orders everyone on liberty to return to base “immediately.” Bridge closures and flooding delay one service member by hours. The command charges Article 90 rather than recognizing the impossibility of compliance.
• An Airman is ordered not to contact a witness in a legal matter. He sends a message to clarify a shared bill for their apartment. OSI accuses him of defiance.
• A soldier is ordered to stand-by in a specific location. He leaves temporarily to use the restroom after asking a sergeant. The lieutenant never hears this and charges him with disobeying a commissioned officer.
• A Marine officer orders a junior Marine not to leave formation. Minutes later the Marine collapses from heat exhaustion and steps out. NCIS claims this was intentional disobedience.
• A Coast Guardsman misunderstanding a radio instruction during a boat drill returns to the wrong muster point. CGIS alleges willful disobedience.
• During a domestic dispute, civilian police instruct a soldier to step away from his house. He complies. His officer later claims he was told to report directly to the unit. Article 90 is charged.
• An NCO gives one instruction, an officer gives another. The accused follows the NCO’s safety-based instruction. The officer perceives this as defiance.
• An Airman is ordered to remain available for duty at 0630 the next day. He texts his supervisor asking for clarification but receives no reply. He shows late, and command charges Article 90.
• A Marine is verbally instructed to remain in a barracks room pending further guidance. The Marine texts asking whether he may step out to smoke. He receives no response and leaves briefly. The command charges defiance.
• A lieutenant issues a quick order during a live fire drill. The noise and chaos cause confusion. A soldier moves left instead of right. CID charges him with willful disobedience.
• At a Florida training range, a commissioned officer issues rapid-fire instructions to multiple Marines. One Marine follows an NCO’s interpretation of the order. NCIS claims he ignored the officer.
• A Sailor in Jacksonville receives a GEO restriction order from an officer. Later, he leaves base to pick up medication after speaking to medical. Command claims he “defied the CO’s order.”
• An officer orders a soldier with diagnosed anxiety to stand in a crowded room during a briefing. The soldier leaves due to panic symptoms. CID interprets this as defiance.
• A Marine is ordered to “stop filming” during a barracks dispute. He continues recording to protect himself from potential misconduct. NCIS charges Article 90 despite safety concerns.
• An Airman receives a confusing verbal order from an unfamiliar officer outside his chain of command. He questions the legality but gets charged with disobedience for “hesitating.”
• A service member receives conflicting text messages from different leaders. He follows one and is charged for ignoring the other, even though the officer’s instruction was unclear.
• A Coast Guardsman misses a brief because the officer’s email went to the wrong distribution list. CGIS still charges Article 90 for “disregarding a direct order.”

These scenarios show how Article 90 charges often hinge on confusion, miscommunication, medical issues, or competing instructions—not deliberate defiance.

How Article 90 Investigations Are Conducted

Investigators and prosecutors approach Article 90 cases with a dangerous assumption:
“If a superior commissioned officer gave an order, any noncompliance must be willful.”
This flawed logic drives many unjust prosecutions.

The “Willfulness Presumption”

Investigators frequently assume:

• the order was communicated clearly
• the accused heard the order
• the accused understood the order
• the order was lawful
• the accused had the ability to comply

The defense must show where these assumptions break down.

Common Evidence Used (and Often Misused)

• statements from the officer (often biased)
• partial messages or texts
• radio transmissions
• training videos or CCTV clips
• third-party witness statements
• command-directed investigations (often one-sided)
• emails or orders taken out of context

The Real Issues Investigators Often Ignore

• medical limitations preventing compliance
• conflicting orders from multiple leaders
• emergencies that prevented compliance
• mental health episodes
• unclear or poorly communicated orders
• environmental noise or chaos obscuring the order
• lack of proof the accused heard the order
• failure to confirm understanding

CID / NCIS / OSI / CGIS Patterns in Article 90 Cases

• CID: typically accepts the officer’s version as fact and ignores subordinate accounts.
• NCIS: aggressively charges Article 90 in shipboard or barracks contexts where noise and chaos complicate communication.
• OSI: over-relies on digital messages, even when timestamps or context undermine the order’s clarity.
• CGIS: misinterprets maritime or operational orders given under stress or poor conditions.

Misinterpretations of “Lawful Order”

Investigators often treat any order from a commissioned officer as lawful—even when it:

• exceeds their authority
• violates safety regulations
• conflicts with medical profiles
• conflicts with SOP or established procedures
• is too vague to be actionable
• is not actually directed at the accused

Digital Evidence Pitfalls

Article 90 cases often include:

• texts not received due to service issues
• emails sent to wrong distribution lists
• radio calls distorted by interference
• timestamp confusion due to device settings
• messages taken out of context

Florida-Specific Article 90 Investigation Issues

Florida installations produce unique challenges:

• hurricane evacuations causing unavoidable delay
• bridge or road closures disrupting compliance
• shipboard chaos during port operations
• aviation orders rapidly changing during training flights
• noise from training ranges complicating verbal commands
• police involvement causing confusion about authority

These realities often undermine the government’s theory of willful disobedience.

How Gonzalez & Waddington Defend Article 90 Cases

Article 90 prosecutions are often built on emotion, rank bias, and flawed assumptions about what the accused heard, understood, or intended. Gonzalez & Waddington dismantle these cases by attacking the core elements: the lawfulness of the order, the clarity of communication, and—most importantly—whether the accused acted willfully. Strong Article 90 defenses often lead to dismissal, reduction to Article 92, or complete acquittal.

Step 1 – Attack “Willfulness” at Every Angle

Willful disobedience requires deliberate defiance. The defense must show the absence of intentional misconduct by proving:

• the accused misunderstood the order
• the order was unclear, rushed, or ambiguous
• the accused did not hear the order due to environment or noise
• the accused thought they had permission from an NCO or staff member
• the accused attempted to comply but was unable due to emergency or safety concerns
• communication failed—no reception, wrong number, delayed text, unread email
• the accused was dealing with medical or mental health limitations

If willfulness cannot be proven, Article 90 collapses.

Step 2 – Demonstrate the Order Was Unlawful or Invalid

An order must be:

• clear
• specific
• directed at the accused
• within the officer’s authority
• related to military duty
• legal and reasonable

Many Article 90 orders fail one or more of these requirements.

Step 3 – Highlight Conflicting Orders

Few things destroy an Article 90 case faster than showing:

• an NCO gave a contradictory order
• another officer contradicted the order
• the accused followed the most reasonable or safe instruction
• the chain of command created confusion

Commands often forget that confusing or contradictory instructions undermine willfulness.

Step 4 – Use Environmental or Operational Context

In many cases, commands ignore the conditions under which the order was given. The defense uses:

• battlefield or field exercise realism
• shipboard noise and chaos
• aviation training confusion
• range noise and radio distortion
• crowded or stressful environments

These factors often explain why the accused did not hear or properly understand the order.

Step 5 – Use Medical or Mental Health Context

Many service members charged under Article 90 were:

• having a panic attack
• suffering a flashback or PTSD trigger
• experiencing depression or anxiety
• on medication affecting awareness
• medically restricted or on profile

Prosecutors often ignore these facts unless forced to confront them.

Step 6 – Challenge the Officer’s Credibility and Motivation

Officers are not immune to:

• anger
• ego
• retaliation impulses
• misremembering details
• miscommunication

Cross-examination often shows the officer overreacted or exaggerated the event.

Step 7 – Expose Flaws in Command Investigations

Article 90 cases frequently come from:

• flawed AR 15-6 investigations
• NJP-driven narratives
• command pressure to “make an example”
• biased investigators who only interview one side
• incomplete message logs

Step 8 – Florida-Specific Defense Strategies

Florida installations present unique issues:

• hurricane evacuations affecting compliance
• bridge or interstate closures delaying movement
• shipboard noise preventing hearing verbal orders
• aviation orders changing mid-flight or mid-brief
• confusion created by joint military/civilian police involvement

These factors often undermine the government’s claim of deliberate disobedience.

Pro Tips for Service Members Facing Article 90 Allegations

These steps help protect your case and your military future.

• Do not make statements to investigators—your words will be used to try to prove “willfulness.”
• Preserve texts, emails, and calls related to the order.
• Document conflicting instructions from NCOs or other officers.
• Write down exactly what you heard or believed at the time.
• Identify witnesses who saw the confusion or environment.
• Gather medical records showing limitations or profiles.
• Request video or radio logs if the order was given in chaos.
• Do not delete messages—deletion can be misinterpreted as guilt.
• Preserve screenshots of duty rosters or instructions.
• Document weather, road, or flight conditions if relevant.
• Stay off social media and avoid emotional posts.
• Request a complete copy of any AR 15-6 or command investigation.
• Secure statements from peers who experienced the same confusion.
• Be honest with your attorney about what you heard or thought.
• Never admit willfulness in an attempt to “explain yourself.”
• Remember: confusion is not disobedience.
• Command frustration does not equal criminal violation.
• Prepare for the government to exaggerate the clarity of the order.
• Stay calm and professional—emotional reactions are often misinterpreted.
• Let your defense team control the narrative early.

Call to Action for Article 90 Allegations

Article 90 charges are among the most severe obedience-related offenses in the UCMJ. Commands often misuse Article 90 as a hammer when they feel disrespected or want to assert authority. But most cases are based on confusion, conflicting orders, unclear communication, emergencies, or honest misunderstandings—not willful defiance.

Gonzalez & Waddington have defended Article 90 cases worldwide, including high-profile cases involving officers, NCOs, aviation units, special operations teams, and deployed personnel. We know how to expose weak command narratives, dismantle the willfulness element, and demonstrate that the accused acted reasonably under the circumstances.

To build your defense, visit our Florida military defense hub at
https://ucmjdefense.com/florida-military-defense-lawyers/.

For the complete UCMJ article index, return to
UCMJ Articles 77–134 Guide.