If you're a service member facing an Article 92 charge, you're probably feeling overwhelmed and unsure of what comes next. Let's cut through the noise. Article 92 of the UCMJ is the military's catch-all tool for enforcing discipline, used to punish anyone who fails to obey a lawful order or regulation. It’s one of the most common charges thrown around in the military justice system simply because it covers so much ground.

What an Article 92 Charge Really Means for You

Think of the UCMJ as the rulebook for military life. Article 92 is the chapter that says, "You must follow the rules." An accusation under this article isn't just a slap on the wrist; it suggests a serious breakdown in the fundamental trust between you and the chain of command.

Military justice is often wrapped in confusing legal jargon, making it tough to understand what you're up against and reinforcing the need for ending legalese in the system. At its core, an Article 92 charge simply means the government believes you failed to do something you were lawfully required to do.

The Three Paths to an Article 92 Violation

An Article 92 charge isn't a one-size-fits-all offense. The government has three different ways to come after you, and each requires them to prove a unique set of facts. Figuring out which clause you're facing is the first critical step in building your defense.

Here's a quick breakdown of how Article 92 works.

The Three Clauses of Article 92 at a Glance

Clause	Offense Description	Common Example
Clause 1	Violation of a Lawful General Order or Regulation: Disobeying a broad, written directive that applies to everyone, issued by a high-level authority.	Violating a service-wide order prohibiting alcohol consumption in the barracks or engaging in prohibited relationships.
Clause 2	Violation of Other Lawful Order: Failing to obey a specific order (written or verbal) given to you personally by a superior officer or NCO.	A sergeant tells you to clean the barracks latrine by 1600, and you blow it off.
Clause 3	Dereliction of Duty: Willfully or negligently failing to perform your duties, or performing them in a dangerously incompetent way.	A guard falls asleep on watch or a mechanic fails to properly inspect a vehicle's brakes before a mission.

Knowing the specific clause is crucial because the government's burden of proof changes for each one. Your entire defense strategy will hinge on attacking the specific elements of the offense you've been charged with.

Why This Charge Is So Common and Serious

Because this article is so broad, it’s a commander's go-to charge. It can cover anything from showing up late to a formation to mishandling classified information. In fiscal year 2023 alone, thousands of UCMJ actions were initiated, and Article 92 is consistently one of the top five most prosecuted offenses every single year.

Don't let the frequency of the charge fool you into thinking it's not serious. In recent years, Article 92 has accounted for roughly 15-20% of all general court-martial convictions. The consequences can be devastating, ranging from a simple NJP to a court-martial that ends your career with confinement, loss of all pay, and a punitive discharge.

Understanding the specific details of what a failure to obey an order or regulation means is absolutely non-negotiable if you want to protect your future.

The Three Flavors of an Article 92 Charge

To beat an Article 92 charge, you first have to know exactly what the government is trying to prove. Article 92 isn't one single crime; it's a family of three distinct offenses, and prosecutors have to pick one and stick to it. Each one has a different set of ingredients the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Think of it like this: the prosecutor has three different tools in their toolbox. They can’t just say you broke a rule. They have to specify whether you violated a big, service-wide regulation, disobeyed a direct order from your boss, or simply failed to do your job. Your defense attorney's job is to show they’ve picked the wrong tool for the facts or that one of their key ingredients is missing.

Let's pull apart each clause to see how they work and, more importantly, where they fall apart under pressure.

Clause 1: Violation of a Lawful General Order

This is the broadest type of Article 92 offense. It covers violations of lawful general orders or regulations—the big rules that apply to entire commands, a whole branch of the service, or sometimes everyone in the DoD.

These aren't orders given to you personally. They are the massive, standing directives published by high-ranking officials.

• What Makes It "General"? A general order is one issued by a major command authority, like the Secretary of the Navy or a four-star general. It has to apply to the command as a whole, not just one person.
• The "Duty to Know" Trap: This is the critical part. The prosecution doesn't have to prove you actually read the order. They only need to show the order was properly published and that you had a duty to know about it because of your rank and position. That’s a much easier hurdle for them to jump.

Example: A new MARADMIN comes out banning all personnel from posting videos of themselves in uniform on TikTok. A Lance Corporal who never saw the message posts a video and gets charged. The prosecutor doesn't need to prove he read the MARADMIN, only that it was a lawful general order he had a duty to be aware of.

Clause 2: Violation of Another Lawful Order

This is the most common type of Article 92 charge, and it's much more personal. This clause covers violations of any other lawful order that isn't a "general" order. We're talking about the day-to-day verbal commands and written instructions from your NCOs and officers.

Unlike with a general order, the government has a much bigger mountain to climb here.

The key difference is actual knowledge. The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you personally heard the order, understood it, and then deliberately chose to disobey it. This creates massive opportunities for a strong defense.

• Was the Order Clear? Vague orders are unenforceable. A command like "get this place cleaned up" is wide open to interpretation and can be challenged. An order must be a clear, specific, and positive command.
• Did Miscommunication Happen? Maybe you didn't hear the order correctly over the engine noise. Perhaps it was passed down a chain of command and the message got twisted. A simple breakdown in communication can destroy the "actual knowledge" element.

Example: A Chief verbally tells a Seaman to finish a maintenance report by 1600. The Seaman, working in a loud engine room, thinks he heard "get it done before you leave." When the report isn't done at 1600, charges are preferred. The defense here is simple: the "actual knowledge" element is missing because the order was never clearly received or understood.

Clause 3: Dereliction of Duty

The final clause is a completely different animal. Dereliction of duty isn't about disobeying an order. It’s about failing to do a job you were supposed to do, either because you chose not to or because you were simply too careless.

This charge splits into two distinct paths: willful dereliction and negligent dereliction. Your mindset is everything here.

1. Willful Dereliction: This is intentional. The government has to prove you knew your duty and made a conscious choice to blow it off.
2. Negligent Dereliction: This is about carelessness. It means you failed to exercise the "due care" that a reasonable person in your shoes would have. It's not about intent; it's about being sloppy.

An honest mistake is not a crime. The prosecution must show your negligence was "culpable"—a legal term meaning it was a serious, blameworthy failure, not just a simple oversight. You can learn more about how to defend against a charge for dereliction of duty and see why a simple human error often doesn't meet the criminal standard.

By zeroing in on the specific clause you're charged under, an experienced military lawyer can attack the exact elements the government has to prove, exposing the weak points in their case and building a defense engineered to win.

What’s at Stake? The Punishments for an Article 92 Conviction

Let's be clear: the consequences of an Article 92 conviction don't stay neatly inside a courtroom. They follow you home, impacting every corner of your life, your career, and your future. Understanding the full range of potential punishments isn't just an academic exercise—it's about knowing exactly what you're fighting to protect.

The penalties for violating Article 92 aren't one-size-fits-all. They scale dramatically based on what happened, who was harmed, and where your case ends up. The difference between a simple letter in your file and a federal criminal conviction is vast.

The Ladder of Consequences: From Slap on the Wrist to Career-Ender

The military justice system has a full toolkit for punishing an Article 92 UCMJ violation. Think of it as a ladder, with each rung representing a more severe outcome for your career and freedom.

• Administrative Actions: This is the lowest rung and is handled inside your command. These actions are non-criminal but create a permanent paper trail. Think letters of counseling, admonishment, or reprimand that get stapled into your official military file, making promotions and good assignments much harder to get.
• Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP): Better known as an Article 15, this is a serious step up. Your commander can hit you with a reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, extra duties, and restriction to base. While it's not a federal conviction, it can absolutely derail a career.
• Court-Martial: This is the top of the ladder and the most severe forum. A court-martial is a federal criminal trial. A conviction here means you're facing life-altering consequences, including jail time, a punitive discharge, and a permanent criminal record that follows you forever.

Maximum Punishments Under the UCMJ

The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) doesn't pull any punches when it lays out the maximum allowable punishments. Even for a "simple" violation of a lawful general order, the stakes are incredibly high.

For a standard violation, the MCM authorizes a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months. But the penalties get much worse if your dereliction of duty causes serious harm. If someone dies or suffers grievous bodily injury because of your actions, the maximum punishment skyrockets to a dishonorable discharge and confinement for 2 years.

While military justice statistics show that over 70% of Article 92 cases end with punishments below these maximums—often due to plea deals or strong mitigation—these numbers still reveal the serious legal danger you're in from the start. You can get a deeper sense of the system by exploring the military justice framework outlined by legal scholars.

Here's a breakdown of the maximum penalties for the most common Article 92 scenarios.

Maximum Punishments Under Article 92 UCMJ

The table below summarizes the maximum possible penalties for different types of Article 92 violations, straight from the Manual for Courts-Martial. It shows just how severely the military can punish these offenses, depending on the specific circumstances.

Violation Type	Maximum Confinement	Maximum Forfeitures	Punitive Discharge
Violation of General Order	2 years	All Pay & Allowances	Dishonorable Discharge
Violation of Other Lawful Order	6 months	Two-thirds pay per month for 6 months	Bad-Conduct Discharge
Dereliction of Duty	3 months	Two-thirds pay per month for 3 months	None
Dereliction Causing Harm	18 months	All Pay & Allowances	Bad-Conduct Discharge

As you can see, the consequences range from significant to life-changing. These maximums are the military's way of saying how seriously they take failures to obey orders and perform duties, especially when those failures cause real harm.

The Hidden Penalties: Long-Term Collateral Damage

Perhaps the most devastating part of a court-martial conviction isn’t the time spent in the brig or the loss of pay. It's the lifelong consequences that chase you back into the civilian world. A punitive discharge and a federal conviction are permanent roadblocks to a normal life.

A court-martial conviction is a stain that never washes out. It’s not just a mark on your military record; it’s a federal criminal conviction that will appear on every background check for the rest of your life, closing doors you never even knew existed.

These are the collateral consequences that can cripple your future:

• Loss of Veterans' Benefits: A Bad-Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge can mean you lose your eligibility for the GI Bill, VA home loans, and VA medical care—benefits you earned.
• Inability to Own a Firearm: A federal conviction for any crime with a maximum punishment of more than one year in jail results in a lifetime federal ban on owning firearms.
• Employment Obstacles: Good luck getting a job that requires a security clearance, a professional license, or a position of trust. Many employers simply won't hire someone with a federal criminal record.

Facing an Article 92 charge isn't about defending against one mistake. It's a fight to protect your freedom, salvage your career, and secure your entire future.

Navigating the Military Justice Process Step by Step

When you're accused of violating Article 92 UCMJ, the world can feel like it's shrinking. Suddenly, you're thrust into a complex legal system where every single step is critical. Understanding this process is the first step toward taking back control and making smart decisions when your entire career is on the line.

The journey rarely starts with a formal charge. It's more likely to begin with a quiet knock on your barracks room door or an unexpected summons to an office. This is the investigation phase, and everything you say and do from this moment forward can have massive consequences.

The Initial Investigation and Interrogation

It almost always starts with a visit from military law enforcement—CID, NCIS, OSI, or CGIS. Their one and only job is to gather evidence, and you are likely their primary target. They’ll ask you to come in for an "interview," framing it as a simple chance to "clear things up."

This is the most critical moment in the entire process. Before you answer a single question, you must invoke your rights under Article 31, UCMJ—your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney. Investigators are trained professionals skilled at getting people to make incriminating statements. Anything you say will be used against you. Period.

The moment you request a lawyer, all questioning has to stop. Invoking your rights isn't an admission of guilt; it’s the single most powerful move you can make to protect yourself.

The Commander's Preliminary Inquiry

After the initial investigation wraps up, all the findings land on your commander's desk. The commander will then conduct what's known as a preliminary inquiry to decide if there's credible evidence to believe an offense was committed and, if so, who is responsible.

This isn't a formal hearing. Your commander is simply reviewing the evidence package, which might include investigator reports, witness statements, and any statements you might have made. Based on this review, they will decide how to proceed.

This is the first major fork in the road. Your commander is weighing the different levels of disciplinary action available, from a slap on the wrist to a court-martial. The infographic below shows how quickly a charge can escalate.

As you can see, what starts as a minor issue can quickly spiral into a career-ending event, with key decision points determining the path forward.

The Critical NJP or Article 15 Decision

If your commander believes misconduct occurred but doesn't think it rises to the level of a court-martial, they may offer you Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP), commonly known as an Article 15. This puts you in a high-stakes, high-pressure situation.

You have only two choices:

• Accept the Article 15: You are not admitting guilt, but you are consenting to let your commander act as judge and jury. They can then impose punishments like reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, and extra duties.
• Refuse the Article 15: You can turn it down and demand a trial by court-martial. This is a powerful move that forces the government to prove its case against you beyond a reasonable doubt in a formal courtroom.

This decision is irreversible and should never be made without first speaking to an experienced military defense attorney. Accepting an NJP might seem like the easy way out, but it creates a permanent black mark on your record and can severely damage your career.

The Article 32 Preliminary Hearing

If you refuse NJP or if the commander believes the offense is serious enough for a General Court-Martial, the next step is usually an Article 32 Preliminary Hearing. You can think of this as the military’s version of a civilian grand jury proceeding.

An impartial preliminary hearing officer (PHO) is appointed to review all the evidence and hear witness testimony. The goal is to determine if there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and to recommend whether the case should actually go to a court-martial. For your defense, this is a golden opportunity. Your lawyer can cross-examine the government's witnesses and present your evidence, giving you a chance to poke holes in their case early on.

A strong performance at the Article 32 hearing can sometimes convince the command to reduce the charges or even drop the case entirely. It is your first and best chance to formally challenge the evidence before trial.

Referral to Court-Martial

After the Article 32 hearing, the PHO makes a recommendation, but the final decision rests with the convening authority (usually a high-ranking officer like a general or an admiral). If they decide to move forward, your case is officially "referred" to a court-martial.

At this point, you are formally charged, and the pre-trial battle begins in earnest. This is where motions are filed, discovery is exchanged, and trial strategy is built. Each step, from that first investigator's knock to the final referral, is a battleground where a skilled defense attorney can intervene and fight for the best possible outcome.

Proven Defense Strategies for Article 92 Charges

Getting hit with an Article 92 charge feels like standing in front of a freight train. But an accusation is just that—an accusation. It’s the start of the story, not the end. The most important thing to remember is that the government carries the entire burden of proof. Your job, with an expert defense attorney, is to take their case apart, brick by brick.

Every single element of an Article 92 charge is a potential weak point for the prosecution. Think of it like a chain; if you can break a single link—the lawfulness of the order, your knowledge of it, or even the possibility of complying—the whole case falls apart. This isn't about making up excuses. It’s about strategically challenging the government's evidence and showing a court-martial panel that they haven't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Challenging the Lawfulness of the Order

The very first word in the phrase "lawful order" is your first and best line of defense. If an order isn't lawful, you can't be convicted for disobeying it. Period. While orders are presumed to be lawful, that presumption can be shattered.

So, what makes an order unlawful? It generally falls into one of three buckets:

• It’s unrelated to a valid military duty. An order to go wash your First Sergeant’s personal car is not a lawful military order. It's personal servitude.
• It conflicts with the Constitution, a federal law, or another lawful regulation. You cannot be lawfully ordered to commit a crime, like falsifying a maintenance record or roughing up a local civilian.
• It’s given for a private purpose or to abuse authority. Commands designed purely to punish, humiliate, or "smoke" a service member, rather than to achieve a legitimate military goal, are not lawful.

Now, let's be realistic. In the heat of the moment, refusing an order is incredibly risky, even if you think it's illegal. The much safer and smarter strategy is to analyze the order's legality after the fact with your lawyer, not to get into a shouting match with your NCO.

The Power of "Lack of Knowledge"

This defense is a silver bullet, especially for charges of violating a direct, specific order (Clause 2 of Article 92). The government must prove that you had actual knowledge of the order. This isn’t a small detail. They have to show with hard evidence that you personally heard or saw the command and understood what was being asked of you.

Simple miscommunication is not a crime. This defense is a game-changer in common military scenarios:

• Vague or ambiguous commands. What does "get your area squared away" really mean? An order that's wide open to interpretation can be challenged as fatally unclear.
• Noisy or chaotic environments. If you're on a busy flight line or in a loud engine room and couldn't hear the order, the government can't prove you knowingly disobeyed it.
• Orders passed down the chain. We've all played the game of telephone. When a command is relayed from a Captain to a Lieutenant to a Sergeant to you, it can easily get twisted. If the order you received wasn't the one originally given, you can't be held accountable.

The Impossibility Defense

Sometimes, following an order is just not possible. The defense of impossibility argues that you couldn't obey the order because of circumstances completely beyond your control. This isn't about something being difficult or inconvenient; it's about it being genuinely impossible.

There are two main types of impossibility:

1. Physical Impossibility: You were physically unable to comply. The classic example is being ordered to be in two different places at the exact same time.
2. Legal Impossibility: Following the order would have forced you to break another law or regulation.

To use this defense effectively, you have to show that you made a good-faith effort to comply or, at the very least, tried to tell your superior that it was impossible. Simply ignoring an order because it's hard won't cut it.

Mitigation and Extenuation Evidence

Even if the evidence against you looks overwhelming, the fight is far from over. Mitigation and extenuation are powerful tools used during the sentencing phase to dramatically reduce your punishment. The goal is simple: paint a complete picture of who you are as a person and a service member, not just the person accused of a single mistake.

This is where your whole career comes into play. Powerful mitigation evidence includes:

• A stellar service record filled with positive evaluations, awards, and commendations.
• Character statements from your peers, your NCOs, and your officers who can speak to your work ethic and value to the unit.
• Personal hardships or difficult circumstances that might have played a role in the incident.

A strong mitigation case can be the difference between a career-ending conviction and getting a second chance. To learn more about protecting yourself from the very beginning, read about the best legal practices during an investigation for Article 92 to ensure you are shielded from the start.

Why You Need an Experienced Military Defense Lawyer

Let's be blunt: going up against the U.S. government alone in a military justice proceeding is a losing battle. The detailed military counsel (TDS or DSO) you're assigned is almost always a well-meaning officer. But that's where the good news ends.

They are typically young, massively overworked, and, most importantly, part of the exact same system that's trying to convict you. Relying solely on appointed counsel is a huge gamble when your career, your freedom, and your future are on the line. A specialized civilian military defense attorney works for you, and only you—completely outside the chain of command.

The Civilian Counsel Advantage

An experienced civilian lawyer has one mission: to protect you and win your case. They don't have to worry about command politics, their next promotion, or getting a good fitness report.

This singular focus changes everything. It means your lawyer can:

• Launch an independent investigation to find the facts and witnesses the command either ignored or didn't want to find.
• Aggressively attack the government's evidence and cross-examine their witnesses without fear of professional blowback.
• Negotiate from a position of true strength, backed by a deep, real-world understanding of the UCMJ's weak points.
• Dedicate the time, energy, and resources needed to build a defense strategy tailored specifically to you.

Choosing your lawyer is the single most important decision you will make in this entire process. You aren't just hiring representation; you are hiring a dedicated fighter whose only job is to win your Article 92 UCMJ case and save your future.

Frequently Asked Questions About Article 92

When you're staring down an Article 92 UCMJ charge, the questions come fast and furious. Below are some straight answers to the most common issues service members face, designed to cut through the noise and give you some clarity.

Can I Be Charged for Disobeying an Order I Thought Was Illegal?

Yes, you can be charged. The critical detail here is that the "lawfulness" of the order is an element the prosecution has to prove. While military orders carry a presumption of lawfulness, a defense can be built if the order had nothing to do with military duty, was genuinely illegal, or was issued for a commander's personal gain.

But let's be clear: refusing to obey an order on the spot is incredibly risky. The military justice system strongly prefers that you obey the command first and then immediately report the issue up your chain of command or to the Inspector General. The only real exception is if obeying would cause immediate, irreparable harm. A seasoned military defense lawyer is the only person who can properly dissect the order and tell you if challenging its lawfulness is a winning strategy.

Key Takeaway: For a refusal to be justified, the order's illegality usually has to be obvious and blatant. Simply disagreeing with an order is not a defense—it's a fast track to an Article 92 prosecution.

What Is the Difference Between Dereliction of Duty and Making a Mistake?

This is one of the most important distinctions in any Article 92 UCMJ case. Making an honest mistake is not a crime. To get a conviction for dereliction of duty, the government has to prove you had a specific duty and that you were either willfully (on purpose) or negligently derelict in performing it.

"Negligence" here means more than just a simple error. The standard is "culpable" negligence—a reckless or careless disregard for your duties that falls far below what a reasonably prudent person would have done in the same situation. A powerful defense often comes down to showing that you acted reasonably under the circumstances or that your mistake simply didn't rise to the level of a crime.

If I Accept an Article 15, Can I Still Be Court-Martialed?

Generally, no. The principle of double jeopardy kicks in. The command can't punish you with an Article 15 (non-judicial punishment, or NJP) and then turn around and try you at a court-martial for the exact same offense.

However, the decision to accept or refuse an Article 15 is a huge one. When you accept an NJP, you are not admitting guilt, but you are letting your commander act as judge and jury.

Turning down an Article 15 is your absolute right. It forces the government to prove its case against you beyond a reasonable doubt at a full-blown court-martial. This decision can make or break your career and should never be made without talking to an experienced defense counsel who can weigh the specific risks and rewards for you.

---

Your career, your freedom, and your future are all on the line. Facing an Article 92 charge without an expert in your corner is a risk you can't afford to take. The attorneys at Gonzalez & Waddington have a proven history of defending service members across the globe. Contact us today for a confidential consultation.