Article 92 — Failure to obey order or regulation

Part IV · Punitive Articles

Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation · MCM ¶ 18

2024 Manual for Courts-Martial, United States

See all changes

(a) Text of statute. Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Elements.

(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.

(a) That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation;

(b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and

(2) Failure to obey other lawful order.

(a) That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order;

(b) That the accused had knowledge of the order;

(d) That the accused failed to obey the order.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

(a) That the accused had certain duties;

(b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and

(c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.

Practice Note

[Note: In cases where the dereliction of duty resulted in death or grievous bodily harm, add the following element as applicable]

(d) That such dereliction of duty resulted in death or grievous bodily harm to a person other than the accused.

(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation.

(a) Authority to issue general orders and regulations. General orders or regulations are those orders or regulations generally applicable to an armed force which are properly published by the President or the Secretary of Defense, of Homeland Security, or of a military department, and those orders or regulations generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof which are issued by:

(i) an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction;

(ii) a general or flag officer in command; or

(iii) a commander superior to (i) or (ii).

(b) Effect of change of command on validity of order. A general order or regulation issued by a commander with authority under Article 92(1) retains its character as a general order or regulation when another officer takes command, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action, even if it is issued by an officer who is a general or flag officer in command and command is assumed by another officer who is not a general or flag officer.

(c) Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. See the discussion of lawfulness in subparagraph 16.c.

(d) Knowledge. Knowledge of a general order or regulation need not be alleged or proved as knowledge is not an element of this offense and a lack of knowledge does not constitute a defense.

(e) Enforceability. Not all provisions in general orders or regulations can be enforced under Article 92(1). Regulations which only supply general guidelines or advice for performing military functions may not be enforceable under Article 92(1).

(2) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order.

(a) Scope. Article 92(2) includes all other lawful orders which may be issued by a member of the armed forces, violations of which are not chargeable under Article 90, 91, or 92(1). It includes the violation of written regulations which are not general regulations. See also subparagraph (1)(e) of this paragraph as applicable.

(b) Knowledge. In order to be guilty of this offense, a person must have had actual knowledge of the order or regulation. Knowledge of the order may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(i) From superior. A member of one armed force who is senior in rank to a member of another armed force is the superior of that member with authority to issue orders which that member has a duty to obey under the same circumstances as a commissioned officer of one armed force is the superior commissioned officer of a member of another armed force for the purposes of Articles 89 and 90. See subparagraph 13.c.(1).

(ii) From one not a superior. Failure to obey the lawful order of one not a superior is an offense under Article 92(2), provided the accused had a duty to obey the order, such as one issued by a sentinel or a member of the armed forces police. See subparagraph 17.b.(2) if the order was issued by a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer in the execution of office.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

(a) Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the Service.

(b) Knowledge. Actual knowledge of duties may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge need not be shown if the individual reasonably should have known of the duties. This may be demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of the Service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.

(c) Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. It refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. Culpable inefficiency is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.

(d) Ineptitude. A person is not derelict in the performance of duties if the failure to perform those duties is caused by ineptitude rather than by willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency, and may not be charged under this article, or otherwise punished. For example, a recruit who has tried earnestly during rifle training and throughout record firing is not derelict in the performance of duties if the recruit fails to qualify with the weapon.

(e) Grievous bodily harm. For purposes of this offense, the term “grievous bodily harm” has the same meaning ascribed to it in Article 128 (paragraph 77).

(f) Where the dereliction of duty resulted in death or grievous bodily harm, the intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm is not required.

(d) Maximum punishment.

(1) Violation of or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

(2) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties.

(a) Through neglect or culpable inefficiency. Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months and confinement for 3 months.

(b) Through neglect or culpable inefficiency resulting in death or grievous bodily harm. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 18 months.

(d) Willful dereliction of duty resulting in death or grievous bodily harm. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

Practice Note

[Note: For (1) and (2) of this rule, the punishment set forth does not apply in the following cases: if, in the absence of the order or regulation which was violated or not obeyed, the accused would on the same facts be subject to conviction for another specific offense for which a lesser punishment is prescribed; or if the violation or failure to obey is a breach of restraint imposed as a result of an order. In these instances, the maximum punishment is that specifically prescribed elsewhere for that particular offense.]

(e) Sample specifications.

(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful general order or regulation. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about _____ 20 __, (violate) (fail to obey) a lawful general (order) (regulation) which was (his)(her) duty to obey, to wit: paragraph __ (Army) (Air Force) Regulation, dated ____) (Article, U.S. Navy Regulations, dated __) (General Order No.__, U.S. Navy, dated ____) (_______), by (wrongfully_______).

(2) Violation or failure to obey other lawful written order. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), having knowledge of a lawful order issued by _____, to wit: (paragraph, (the Combat Group Regulation No. __) (USS_____, Regulation ______), dated____) (_________), an order which it was (his) (her) duty to obey, did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about _____ 20 __, fail to obey the same by (wrongfully) _______________________.

(3) Failure to obey other lawful order. In that__________ (personal jurisdiction data) having knowledge of a lawful order issued by __________ (to submit to certain medical treatment) (to) (not to ____________) (__________________), an order which it was (his) (her) duty to obey (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about__20__, fail to obey the same (by (wrongfully) ________________________.

(4) Dereliction in the performance of duties. In that, _________ (personal jurisdiction data), who (knew) (should have known) of (his) (her) duties (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), (on or about ____ 20__) (from about ____ 20__ to about _____ 20__), was derelict in the performance of those duties in that (he) (she) (negligently) (willfully) (by culpable inefficiency) failed _______, as it was (his) (her) duty to do, [ and that such dereliction of duty resulted in (grievous bodily harm, to wit: (broken leg) (deep cut) (fractured skull) (______) to _______) (the death of ____________)].

Information on this tab is reproduced from the U.S. Army Military Judges’ Benchbook (Electronic Benchbook v2.70, updated 2026-05-26). It is for informational purposes only to compare to the text on the Manual for Courts-Martial on the MCM tab. Always check the current EBB to make sure you’re reviewing the most recent information.

NOTE 1. If convicted of only offenses committed on or after 28 December 2023, the judge shall sentence the accused in accordance with the sentencing parameters or criteria, as appropriate, or state reasons for deviating in writing. See RCM 925(c)(2), RCM 1002(a)(2), Appendices 12B (Parameter Table-Confinement Categories), 12C (Offense Category Chart), and 12D (List of Criteria Offenses), 2024 MCM.

Maximum punishment

DD, TF, 2 years, E-1 (but see paragraph 18d (Note), Part IV, MCM). (Category 1)

Sample specification

In that _________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location), on or about _________, (violate) (fail to obey) a lawful general (order) (regulation), which was (his) (her) duty to obey, to wit: paragraph _________, (Army) (Air Force) Regulation _________, dated _________) (Article _________, U.S. Navy Regulations, dated _________) (General Order No. _________, U.S. Navy, dated _________) (_________), by (wrongfully _________).

Elements

(1) That there was in effect a certain lawful general (order) (regulation), to wit: (state the date and specific source of the alleged general order or regulation and quote the order or regulation or the specific portion thereof);

(2) That the accused had a duty to obey such (order) (regulation); and

(3) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused (violated) (failed to obey) this lawful general (order) (regulation) by (here the military judge should enumerate the specific acts and any state of mind or intent alleged which must be established by the prosecution in order to constitute the violation of the order or regulation).

Definitions & other instructions

NOTE 2. Proof of existence of order or regulation. The existence of the order or regulation must be proven or judicial notice taken.

NOTE 3. Lawfulness of order or regulation. The lawfulness of the order or regulation is not a separate element of the offense. Thus, the issue of lawfulness is determined by the MJ and is not submitted to the members. See US v. New, 55 MJ 95 (CAAF 2001); US v. Deisher, 61 MJ 313 (CAAF 2005). If the MJ determines that, based on the facts, the order was not lawful, the MJ should dismiss the affected specification, and the members should be so advised. To be lawful, the order or regulation must relate to specific military duty and be one that the person was authorized to give the accused. The order or regulation must require the accused to do or stop doing a particular thing either at once or at a future time. An order or regulation is lawful if reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect the morale, discipline, and usefulness of the members of a command and is directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the services. An order or regulation is illegal if, for example, it is unrelated to military duty, its sole purpose is to accomplish some private end, it is arbitrary and unreasonable, and/or it is given for the sole purpose of increasing the punishment for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit. (The four preceding sentences may be modified and used by the MJ during a providence inquiry to define “lawfulness” for the accused.) When the MJ determines that, based on the facts, the order or regulation was lawful, the MJ should advise the members as follows:

As a matter of law, the (order) (regulation) in this case, as described in the specification, if in fact there was such (an order) (a regulation), was a lawful (order) (regulation).

NOTE 4. Dispute as to whether order was general. If there is a factual dispute whether the order was general, that dispute must be resolved by the members in connection with their determination of guilt or innocence. The following instruction may be given:

General (orders) (regulations) are those (orders) (regulations) which are generally applicable to an armed force and which are properly published by (the President) (the Secretary of (Defense) (Homeland Security) (or) (a military department).

General (orders) (regulations) also include those (orders) (regulations) which are generally applicable to the command of the officer issuing them throughout the command or a particular subdivision thereof and which are issued by (an officer having general court-martial jurisdiction) (or) (a general or flag officer in command) (or) (a commander superior to one of these).

You may find the accused guilty of violating a general (order) (regulation) only if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the (order) (regulation) was general.

NOTE 5. Order issued by previous commander. If appropriate, the following additional instruction may be given:

A general (order) (regulation) issued by a commander with authority to do so retains its character as a general (order) (regulation) when another officer takes command, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action.

NOTE 6. Orders or regulations containing conditions. When an alleged general order or regulation prohibits a certain act or acts “except under certain conditions,” (e.g., “except in the course of official duty”), and the issue is raised by the evidence, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused is not within the terms of the exception. In such a case, the MJ must inform the members of the specific exception(s) when listing the elements of the offense. Additionally, under present law an instruction substantially as follows must be provided:

When a general (order) (regulation) prohibits (a) certain act(s), except under certain conditions, then the burden is on the prosecution to establish by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused does not come within the terms of the exception(s).

NOTE 7. Mens Rea. When there is an issue regarding mens rea, see Elonis v. US, 135 SCt 2001 (2015) and US v. Haverty, 76 M.J.199 (CAAF 2017).

References

US v. Cuffee, 10 MJ 381 (CMA 1981).

Source: Instruction 3a-18-1 · view original on jagcnet.army.mil

Maximum punishment

BCD, TF, 6 months, E-1 (but see paragraph 18d (Note), Part IV, MCM). (Category 1)

b. SAMPLE SPECIFICATIONS:

Violation or failure to obey other lawful written order:

In that _________, (personal jurisdiction data), having knowledge of a lawful order issued by _________, to wit: (paragraph, (the Combat Group Regulation No. _________) (USS _________, Regulation _________), dated _________) (_________), an order which it was (his) (her) duty to obey, did, (at/on board— location), on or about _________, fail to obey the same by (wrongfully) _________.

Failure to obey other lawful order:

In that _________, (personal jurisdiction data), having knowledge of a lawful order issued by _________ (to submit to certain medical treatment) (to) (not to ________) (________), an order which it was (his) (her) duty to obey (at/on board— location), on or about _________, fail to obey the same (by (wrongfully) _________.

Elements

(1) That (state the name and rank or grade of the person issuing the order or regulation), a member of the armed forces, issued a lawful order, to wit: (state the date and specific source of the alleged order and quote the order or the specific portion thereof);

(2) That the accused had knowledge of the order;

(3) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and

(4) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused failed to obey the order by (state the manner alleged).

Definitions & other instructions

NOTE 2. Applicability of this instruction. This instruction should be given in any case arising under Article 92(2), when the written order is not “general” in the sense of Article 92(1).

NOTE 3. Lawfulness of order or regulation. The lawfulness of the order is not a separate element of the offense. Thus, the issue of lawfulness is determined by the MJ and is not submitted to the members. See US v. New, 55 MJ 95 (CAAF 2001); US v. Deisher, 61 MJ 313 (CAAF 2005). If the MJ determines that, based on the facts, the order was not lawful, the MJ should dismiss the affected specification, and the members should be so advised. To be lawful, the order must relate to specific military duty and be one that the person was authorized to give the accused. The order must require the accused to do or stop doing a particular thing either at once or at a future time. An order is lawful if reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect the morale, discipline, and usefulness of the members of a command and is directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the services. An order is illegal if, for example, it is unrelated to military duty, its sole purpose is to accomplish some private end, it is arbitrary and unreasonable, and/or it is given for the sole purpose of increasing the punishment for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit. (The four preceding sentences may be modified and used by the MJ during a providence inquiry to define “lawfulness” for the accused.) When the MJ determines that, based on the facts, the order was lawful, the MJ should advise the members as follows:

As a matter of law, the order in this case, as described in the specification, if in fact there was such an order, was a lawful order.

NOTE 4. Exceptions to prohibited acts. When an alleged order prohibits a certain act or acts “except under certain conditions,” (e.g., “except in the course of official duty”), and the issue is raised by the evidence, the burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused is not within the terms of the exception. In such a case, the MJ must inform the members of the specific exception(s) when listing the elements of the offense. Additionally, an instruction substantially as follows must be given:

When an order prohibits (a) certain act(s), except under certain conditions, then the burden is on the prosecution to establish by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused does not come within the terms of the exception(s).

NOTE 5. Other instructions. Instruction 7-3, Circumstantial Evidence (Knowledge), is ordinarily applicable.

References

US v. Cuffee, 10 MJ 381 (CMA 1981).

Source: Instruction 3a-18-2 · view original on jagcnet.army.mil

Maximum punishment

(1) Neglectful or culpably inefficient dereliction of duty: 2/3 x 3 months, 3 months, E-1. (Category 1)

(2) Neglectful or culpably inefficient dereliction of duty resulting in death or grievous bodily harm: BCD, TF, 18 months, E-1. (Category 2)

(3) Willful dereliction of duty: BCD, TF, 6 months, E-1. (Category 1)

(4) Willful dereliction of duty resulting in death or grievous bodily harm: DD, TF, 2 years, E-1. (Category 2)

Sample specification

In that __________, (personal jurisdiction data), who (knew) (should have known) of (his) (her) duties (at/on board—location), (on or about __________) (from about __________ to about __________), was derelict in the performance of those duties in that (he) (she) (negligently) (willfully) (by culpable inefficiency) failed __________, as it was (his) (her) duty to do [, and that such dereliction of duty resulted in (grievous bodily harm, to wit: (broken leg) (deep cut) (fractured skull) (__________) to (________) (the death of (________)].

Elements

NOTE 2. Willful and negligent dereliction. Whether the accused is found guilty of willful or negligent dereliction of duty affects the maximum punishment. For the enhanced punishment of willful dereliction to apply, the government must allege, and prove, that the accused actually knew of the duty. US v. Ferguson, 40 MJ 823 (NMCMR 1994). The military judge must be mindful of this distinction in selecting the elements and definitions to give the court members.

(1) That the accused had (a) certain (duty) (duties), that is: (state the nature of the duties alleged);

NOTE 3. Willful dereliction alleged. If a willful dereliction is alleged, give the following as element (2):

[(2)] That the accused knew of the (duty) (duties); (and)

NOTE 4. Neglect or culpable inefficiency. If a willful dereliction is not alleged, give the following as element (2):

[(2)] That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the (duty) (duties); (and)

(3) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of (that duty) (those duties), by (state the manner alleged); [and]

NOTE 5. Death or grievous bodily harm alleged. If the dereliction of duty is alleged to have resulted in death or grievous bodily harm, give element (4), below:

(4) That such dereliction of duty resulted in [death to (state the name of the person alleged to have died)] [grievous bodily harm to (state the name of the person alleged to have been injured), to wit: (state the grievous bodily harm alleged)].

Definitions & other instructions

A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service.

A person is “derelict” in the performance of duty when (he) (she) (willfully) ((or) (negligently)) fails to perform his/her duties (or when (he) (she) performs them in a culpably inefficient manner). “Dereliction” is defined as a failure in duty, a shortcoming, or delinquency.

(“Willfully” means intentionally. It refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act.)

(“Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances.)

(“Culpably inefficiency” is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.)

(That an individual reasonably should have known of duties may be demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of the service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.)

NOTE 6. Death or grievous bodily harm alleged. The following definitions and instructions are appropriate if death or grievous bodily harm is alleged. If cause of death is in issue, the military judge should also refer to Instruction 5-5.

“Grievous bodily harm” means a bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.

An intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm is not required.

(If you are not convinced that the alleged dereliction of duty resulted in [death] [grievous bodily harm], but you are convinced that the other elements of the offense have been proven, you may find the accused guilty by excepting the language alleging that the dereliction of duty resulted in [death] [grievous bodily harm].)

NOTE 7. Willful dereliction alleged—exceptions and substitutions. If a willful dereliction was alleged and the military judge determines the members could find the accused guilty of a negligent dereliction, Instruction 7-15 and the definitions applicable to a negligent dereliction should be given. A tailored Findings Worksheet is also appropriate.

NOTE 8. Other instructions. Instruction 7-3, Circumstantial Evidence (Intent and Knowledge), may be applicable if the accused is charged with a willful dereliction.

References

(1) Source of duty; violations of self-imposed duties not an offense. US v. Dallmon, 34 MJ 274 (CMA 1992).

(2) Noncommissioned officer’s failure to report the drug use of others as an offense. US v. Medley, 33 MJ 75 (CMA 1975).

Source: Instruction 3a-18-3 · view original on jagcnet.army.mil

Article 92. Failure to obey order or regulation · MCM ¶ 18

3a-18-1 · VIOLATING GENERAL ORDER OR REGULATION

3a-18-2 · VIOLATING OTHER WRITTEN ORDER OR REGULATION / FAILING TO OBEY OTHER LAWFUL ORDER

3a-18-3 · DERELICTION OF DUTY