The CID agent shows up at your unit at 0700. Your commander pulls you aside. By noon, your security clearance is under review-and no one has told you what evidence exists, whether anyone witnessed the alleged violation, or whether the order you supposedly disobeyed was even lawful.
Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice moves fast. Commanders use it for everything from uniform infractions to catastrophic mission failures. The charge is easy to write. The punishment is severe. Article 92, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 892, covers three distinct offenses: violation of a general order or regulation, failure to obey a lawful order issued by a superior, and dereliction of duty.
Each carries a different maximum punishment and requires the government to prove different legal elements. A charge sheet that lumps them together-or charges the wrong sub-offense-is a charge sheet your defense attorney can attack. Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army JAG Officer who served as both a prosecutor and defense counsel. As a former military prosecutor at Fort Hood, Texas and with the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea, Jordan tried Article 92 cases from the government’s side. He knows exactly how prosecutors build these cases-and where they cut corners. If you have received notice of charges or an investigation under Article 92, call **(888) 367-9489** now for a free consultation.
The Charge. Article 92 charges you with violating or failing to obey a lawful general order or regulation, or failing to obey a lawful order. This is the most broadly charged offense in the UCMJ because it covers any violation of any lawful order or regulation.
What the Government Must Prove. That a lawful order or regulation existed, that you had a duty to obey it, that you knew of the order (for specific orders) or should have known (for general orders), and that you failed to obey.
Where the Case Breaks. The order must be lawful. The order must have been properly communicated.
And the failure must be proven, not assumed. Defense counsel examines the lawfulness of the order, the adequacy of notice, and whether the accused’s conduct actually violated the specific terms of the order.
What Makes This Dangerous. Violating a general order carries up to 2 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Failure to obey other lawful orders carries up to 6 months and a BCD. The breadth of Article 92 means it can be stacked with nearly any other charge.
What to Do Right Now. Invoke your Article 31(b) rights. Call (888) 367-9489 for a free consultation.
Most service members hear “Article 92” and think of one thing. The law covers three separate offenses with distinct elements, different maximum punishments, and different defense strategies. The government’s choice of sub-offense tells you a great deal about the strength of their case.
A general order or regulation carries the weight of a direct command from a military superior. Violations are treated seriously under MCM 2024. Elements the Government Must Prove:
The phrase “lawful general order or regulation” does significant legal work here. Not every instruction issued within a military command qualifies. The government must establish that the order was properly promulgated and had the force of law. That threshold question-did a lawful general order actually exist and apply to this accused in this context?-is one of the first places this charge fractures under scrutiny.
This sub-offense requires a direct, specific order from a superior, not a general regulation. Elements the Government Must Prove:
The order must be lawful. An order to commit an illegal act, violate a service member’s constitutional rights, or exceed the scope of military authority is not lawful-and failure to obey an unlawful order is not a UCMJ violation. Every element is contestable. None is automatic.
Dereliction of duty is the broadest and most frequently charged Article 92 offense. It comes in two forms: negligent dereliction and willful dereliction. Elements the Government Must Prove (Negligent Dereliction):
Elements the Government Must Prove (Willful Dereliction):
The distinction between negligent and willful is not semantic-it determines the maximum punishment and affects every sentencing parameter under Executive Order 14103 (as amended by Executive Order 14130, December 2024). Prosecutors often charge willful dereliction when the evidence supports negligence at most. Defense counsel must force the government to prove what they charged.
Every Article 92 element requires actual proof. After each one, ask: can the government actually prove this?
For general order violations: Was the order lawfully issued? Was it in effect at the time? Did it apply to this accused in this assignment? Orders expire, get superseded, and apply to specific positions-not all service members equally. For failure to obey: Did the accused actually receive the order? Was it unambiguous? Was it lawful? An order that could not be followed without violating another rule is not a lawful order. For dereliction: What were the accused’s actual duties-not assumed duties, not informal expectations, but documented legal duties? Was the failure negligent or willful? The government cannot charge willful when the evidence supports only carelessness.
Maximum punishments are established by the Manual for Courts-Martial, 2024 edition. The sub-offense charged determines the ceiling-and the government’s choice of sub-offense is itself a strategic decision that defense counsel examines. | Sub-Offense | Punitive Discharge | Confinement | Forfeiture |
General order or regulation violation | Dishonorable discharge | 2 years | All pay and allowances |
Failure to obey other lawful order | Bad-conduct discharge | 6 months | All pay and allowances |
Negligent dereliction of duty | None | 3 months | 2/3 pay for 3 months |
Negligent dereliction resulting in death or GBH | Bad-conduct discharge | 18 months | All pay and allowances |
Willful dereliction of duty | Bad-conduct discharge | 6 months | All pay and allowances |
Willful dereliction resulting in death or GBH | Dishonorable discharge | 2 years | All pay and allowances |
A dishonorable discharge is the military equivalent of a felony conviction. It bars federal employment, triggers federal firearm prohibitions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6), and strips VA benefits. A bad-conduct discharge carries many of the same practical consequences. Neither outcome should be accepted without a full defense.
Executive Order 14103, signed 27 December 2023, restructured military sentencing for offenses committed on or after that date. Military judges-not panel members-now impose sentences. Judges operate within sentencing parameters established by the RCM and MCM 2024 but exercise individual discretion on mitigating factors, character evidence, and the circumstances of the specific offense. For Article 92 cases, this means:
If your offense occurred after 27 December 2023, the sentencing proceeding works differently than most online resources describe. Mr. Jordan has studied and applied EO 14103 parameters in current cases.
Article 92 prosecutions follow patterns. They also fail in predictable places. These are the five points where the government’s case most often breaks.
Vulnerability 1: The duty is assumed, not proven.
Prosecutors frequently charge dereliction without first establishing what the accused’s actual legal duties were. A position description, a general standard, or a supervisor’s expectation about what someone “should have done” is not proof of a legal duty under the UCMJ. Defense counsel demands the specific source: the regulation, the written order, the documented duty description. When the government cannot produce it, the element fails-not because the accused performed perfectly, but because the government never established the baseline from which to measure.
Vulnerability 2: Inexperience is charged as dereliction.
Mr. Jordan’s Article 92 results include a NOT GUILTY verdict in a combined Article 92, 108, and 121 case (Air Force TSgt) and a NOT GUILTY for a Marine Corps E-5 charged with failing to comply with a depot order.
New service members, service members placed in positions above their training level, and service members given inadequate supervision routinely face Article 92 charges for what amounts to command failure, not individual culpability. MCM 2024 dereliction standards require that the duty was knowable. If the accused was not adequately trained, informed, or supervised, the negligence analysis changes entirely. The government cannot blame the individual for failures it created.
Vulnerability 3: The duty was self-imposed by the command after the fact.
Commands sometimes assign duties informally-verbally, through assumption, through unwritten cultural expectations-and then charge a service member for failing to meet standards never formally established. Defense counsel examines whether the alleged duty existed in any official, documentable form before the alleged dereliction occurred. If the command created the duty on paper only after the incident in question, that sequence matters at trial.
Vulnerability 4: The wrong sub-offense was charged.
Prosecutors sometimes charge general order violations when only a specific order was issued. They charge willful dereliction when the evidence supports only negligence. The wrong sub-offense means the wrong elements, the wrong punishment range, and an error that can be attacked at the charge sheet level, during trial on the merits, or on appeal. Defense counsel reads the charge sheet first and the evidence second.
Vulnerability 5: The lawfulness of the order is presumed rather than established.
Orders are not automatically lawful. The government must establish that the order served a legitimate military purpose and did not violate the Constitution, federal law, or the UCMJ itself. An order that required the accused to engage in illegal conduct, discriminatory treatment, or activity outside the scope of command authority is not lawful. Failure to obey an unlawful order is not a UCMJ violation. Defense counsel raises this issue early-before the government can frame the charge as uncontested.
A conviction under Article 92 does not end at the courtroom. The consequences stack. A dishonorable discharge results in loss of VA health care, loss of GI Bill education benefits, and loss of VA home loan guaranty eligibility. Federal firearms prohibitions apply under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6). Federal civilian employment is restricted. Many states treat a dishonorable discharge as equivalent to a felony conviction for professional licensing purposes-nursing, law enforcement, teaching, financial services, and real estate licenses are all affected. The discharge characterization on your DD-214 is permanent and visible to every employer, every licensing board, and every federal background investigation. A bad-conduct discharge carries many of the same practical consequences. VA benefits eligibility depends on a character of discharge determination-a process that takes months, has no certain outcome, and often results in denial for service-connected conditions.
Security clearances are almost always revoked. A clearance revocation in defense or intelligence work effectively terminates an entire career sector-often permanently. Confinement compounds everything. Federal time, potential loss of voting rights in some states during the confinement period, and the practical consequences of a gap in employment history all accumulate. None of these consequences are inevitable. An acquittal eliminates them. A dismissal eliminates them. A plea agreement structured correctly can limit or eliminate the punitive discharge that triggers most of these downstream effects. But none of those outcomes happen without a defense built from the first day charges are filed.
Mr. Jordan has tried 250+ cases to verdict representing more than 1,000 service members. Article 92 is the most broadly charged offense in the UCMJ, and Jordan has defended these cases across Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Space Force at installations throughout the United States, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. He gets on a plane when the case requires it.
Charged Under Article 92? This Is When Decisions Matter Most.
The hours after Article 92 charges are filed determine the shape of your entire defense. Evidence is preserved or lost. Witnesses form impressions. Your command relationship shifts. Former Army JAG prosecutor Joseph L. Jordan has represented service members facing Article 92 charges at courts-martial, Article 32 hearings, and administrative separation boards.
Call (888) 367-9489 now for a free consultation. Available 24/7.
Authority and insubordination charges are among the most command-driven prosecutions in military law. These cases often arise from interpersonal conflicts within the chain of command, and the line between legitimate disagreement and criminal insubordination is narrower than most service members realize. Defense counsel must understand military hierarchy, command relationships, and the factual context that determines whether the accused’s conduct actually meets the elements of the offense. Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army JAG Officer who served as both a prosecutor and defense counsel, including as a former military prosecutor at Fort Hood, Texas and with the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea. He has prosecuted and defended authority-related offenses and understands the command dynamics that drive these cases.
He practices exclusively in military law and is highly experienced in criminal trial advocacy. Call (888) 367-9489 now. Available 24/7. defense attorney Joseph L. Jordan has defended service members facing these charges across all military branches. His Article 92 case history includes not guilty verdicts in failure-to-obey prosecutions. Review our selected case outcomes for examples of cases we have handled. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes; every case depends on its own facts. Before speaking to investigators or law enforcement, assert your Article 31 protections. Understand the full court-martial procedures before your case proceeds.
Destruction of evidence is a separate UCMJ violation and will compound your legal exposure. 4. Contact defense counsel immediately. The early stages of an investigation determine what evidence survives, what witnesses say in their first statements, and how the government frames its theory of the case. Mr. Jordan is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Can I be charged under Article 92 for violating a regulation I never saw?
Knowledge requirements differ by sub-offense. For dereliction of duty, the government must prove you knew or reasonably should have known of your duties. For general order violations, the government may be able to establish that the order was published and accessible to personnel in your position-constructive knowledge, not actual knowledge, may satisfy the element in some circumstances. Whether that standard applies to your facts is a legal analysis that depends on the specific sub-offense charged and how the government intends to prove it.
What separates an [Article 86](https://jordanucmjlaw.com/articles-of-the-ucmj/article-86-absence-without-leave/) AWOL charge from an Article 92 dereliction charge?
Article 86 addresses physical absence-being somewhere other than where you were ordered to be. Article 92 dereliction addresses failure to perform assigned duties while present for duty. If you were physically absent without authority, Article 86 is the more likely charge. If you were present but failed to execute your responsibilities, Article 92 applies. Commands sometimes charge both simultaneously, which creates a different set of strategic considerations for defense counsel.
Is an informal verbal order from an NCO enough to support a failure-to-obey charge?
A verbal order from a person subject to the UCMJ who has authority to give it can support an Article 92 charge if the other elements are met. The informal nature of the order creates practical evidentiary problems for the government: they must prove through witness testimony what was said, when it was said, and that it was unambiguous. Credibility disputes, inconsistent accounts, and the absence of any documentation all create issues that defense counsel can develop during cross-examination and closing argument.
Can the government charge willful dereliction when the evidence shows I made a mistake rather than a deliberate decision?
The government charges what it believes it can prove. Willful dereliction requires the government to establish that you knew your duties and made a conscious decision not to perform them. If the evidence shows you made an honest error, were inadequately trained, or were placed in a position without sufficient resources or supervision, the facts support negligence at most. Defense counsel must hold the government to the standard they charged-and the distinction between negligent and willful carries a significant difference in maximum punishment.
What happens to my security clearance when Article 92 charges are filed?
Charges alone can trigger a security clearance suspension pending the outcome of the proceeding. A conviction-particularly one resulting in a punitive discharge or confinement-creates a strong presumption of revocation under DoD security clearance adjudicative guidelines. Even an acquittal may not automatically restore a suspended clearance if the underlying investigation raised concerns about trustworthiness, reliability, or judgment. Clearance consequences should be part of every defense decision, including whether to accept a plea agreement.
How does EO 14103 affect sentencing if I am convicted under Article 92?
For offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023, the military judge imposes the sentence rather than the panel. Judges work within the sentencing parameters established by the RCM and MCM 2024 but weigh mitigating factors, character evidence, and circumstances individually. Defense counsel who understands the judge-alone sentencing structure can present a more targeted, analytically focused sentencing case than was possible in panel sentencing. If your offense falls under EO 14103, the entire sentencing strategy needs to be calibrated accordingly.
Do I have the right to choose trial by military judge alone?
Yes. Under the UCMJ and Rules for Courts-Martial, an accused has the right to request trial by military judge alone for both the findings and the sentencing phases. The judge may decline if there is good cause. The decision to request judge-alone trial is strategic-certain Article 92 cases, particularly those involving complex legal questions about the lawfulness of an order or the legal definition of a duty, are better suited for judicial determination than for panel deliberation.
What is a pretrial agreement and how does it work in Article 92 cases?
A pretrial agreement (PTA) is a negotiated arrangement between the accused and the convening authority in which the accused typically agrees to plead guilty in exchange for limitations on punishment. Under EO 14103, the convening authority’s formal role in sentencing has shifted, which affects how PTAs are structured and what protection they provide. A PTA can cap confinement, limit the type of discharge, or include other provisions. Whether a PTA serves your interests depends on the strength of the government’s evidence, the elements at issue, and the realistic sentencing range if you go to trial and lose.
If the order I was convicted of violating is later found to be unlawful, what are my options?
The lawfulness of the order is an element of an Article 92 failure-to-obey offense. If the order was not lawful, a conviction should not have occurred. If the order is subsequently determined to be unlawful through a legal challenge, regulatory change, or appellate decision, that determination may be grounds for appeal through the Court of Criminal Appeals or the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The specific legal analysis, the record of trial, and the timing of the subsequent ruling all affect the appellate analysis. This is a fact-specific question that requires review of the full case record.
This page provides general legal information about UCMJ Article 92 and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. Military law is complex. Outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case, the service branch involved, the convening authority’s decisions, and the regulations in effect at the time of the alleged offense. MCM 2024 punishments and EO 14103 sentencing parameters apply to offenses committed on or after the effective dates of those authorities. For legal advice specific to your situation, contact Joseph L. Jordan at (888) 367-9489.
jordanucmjlaw.com | (888) 367-9489 | Serving all branches of the U.S. military worldwide
Joseph L. Jordan is a military trial lawyer serving all six branches of the Armed Forces.
