Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Ucmj article 92
Executive summary
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) criminalizes “failure to obey an order or regulation,” and it covers three distinct offenses: violating a lawful general order or regulation, failing to obey other lawful orders, and dereliction of duty [1] [2]. Military-defense firms and legal guides repeatedly stress that lawfulness, notice, and authority are central defenses, and that Article 92 is one of the most frequently charged—and sometimes contested—articles in practice [3] [4].
1. What Article 92 actually says — the statutory frame
The statutory text codified at 10 U.S.C. § 892 defines Article 92 as “Failure to obey order or regulation” and remains the controlling statement of the offense; the law addresses both violations of general orders/regulations and disobedience of specific lawful orders, plus dereliction of duty as a catch‑all for failures to perform required duties [1] [2].
2. Three distinct pathways to a charge — how prosecutors frame cases
Practitioners and summaries emphasize Article 92’s three branches: [5] violating a lawful general order or regulation, [6] failing to obey a specific lawful order, and [7] dereliction of duty (willful or negligent failure to perform duties or performing them in a culpably inefficient way) [2] [8]. That structure lets prosecutors charge everything from ignoring a specific command to alleging negligent performance that causes harm [8].
3. Lawfulness, notice, and authority — the common defenses
Legal guides and defense shops repeatedly flag that an Article 92 charge must be grounded in a lawful order or regulation and that the accused’s knowledge or notice of the order is crucial; defenses typically attack lawfulness, whether the order was properly published or communicated, chain-of-command authority, vagueness, and selective enforcement [3] [9] [4].
4. Real consequences — courts‑martial, administrative action, and career impact
Sources warn Article 92 allegations can lead to non‑judicial punishment (NJP/Article 15), summary/special/general courts‑martial, and even administrative separation boards; penalties vary by context but can be severe in practice, with defense firms describing both criminal sentences and long‑term career consequences [4] [10]. Defense firms also note commands may pursue separation on a preponderance standard even after an NJP or acquittal, making administrative risk distinct from litigated outcomes [4].
5. How prosecutors “stack” charges — leverage and sentencing exposure
Military defense commentary observes that Article 92 is often combined with other charges (for example, Articles 120/120c, 93, 112a, or 134) to increase leverage and aggregate sentencing exposure—something defense counsel cite when advising how to litigate or negotiate [4].
6. Dereliction of duty explained — negligence as well as willfulness
Dereliction under the Article 92 rubric can be willful or negligent; a person is derelict when they fail to perform duties or perform them so inefficiently that it amounts to a culpable breach. Case descriptions and practice notes show dereliction can be alleged where negligent acts cause harm, not only where someone deliberately disobeys [8].
7. Practical defense strategies used in practice
Defense advice centers on litigating lawfulness and notice (showing orders were vague, not published, or selectively enforced), assembling proof of mission value and positive performance for administrative proceedings, and attacking the government’s factual proofs at courts‑martial [4] [11]. Several defense sources explicitly urge early counsel involvement because many Article 92 allegations arise from poor communication or policy drafting rather than clear misconduct [4] [11].
8. Where reporting is thin or absent — limits of these sources
Available sources do not mention uniform sentencing ranges, detailed judicial precedents interpreting every element, or the latest appellate case law trends by circuit; the materials provided are primarily statutory text and defense‑oriented summaries and guides rather than a comprehensive body of caselaw [1] [4].
9. Bottom line for service members and commanders
Article 92 is legally broad and practically consequential: it criminalizes disobedience of lawful orders, breaches of regulations, and dereliction of duty, but its application hinges on lawfulness, adequate notice, and authority—factors routinely contested by defense lawyers [1] [9]. Where charges hinge on policy drafting, publication, or notice, defense counsel advise framing the dispute as a policy/communication failure to reduce both criminal and administrative fallout [4].
If you want, I can pull the actual text of 10 U.S.C. § 892 for exact statutory language [1] or summarize common appellate decisions interpreting key elements—tell me which you prefer.