The duty can be imposed by any number of sources, including custom of the service. In dereliction of duty cases, the threshold question is whether the accused had a particular duty. Counsel must scrutinize the order to ensure that it is not an overly broad limitation on a personal right. The order can involve prohibitions on private activity if they relate to any of the above. It can also include activities intended to safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of a unit. That is, all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission. Nonetheless, counsel may attach whether the order had a valid military purpose. Cross-examination of government witnesses should frequently focus on the specificity of the order. The key in these cases is sometimes attacking the knowledge element of the order. In that regard, the person giving the order need not necessarily be superior in rank. Where the case involves violations of other lawful orders, a person with a status that imposes on the accused a duty to obey the order must have given the order. Counsel should also be careful to investigate whether any exceptions to the order or regulation exist. Counsel should note that the specification may be defective if it fails to specify the proper regulation or that the order is a general order. The regulation should specifically state that it is punitive. In many cases, the order or regulation is intended to provide guidance. Īs a threshold matter, the regulation must apply to the accused and prohibit the conduct that the accused is alleged to have performed. That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties and.That the accused failed to obey the order.

That the accused had a duty to obey the order and.That the accused had knowledge of the order and.That a member of the armed forces issued a certain lawful order.That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or regulation.That the accused had a duty to obey it and,.That there was in effect a certain lawful general order or regulation.Violation of or Failure to Obey a Lawful General Order or Regulation In that regard, one of the only areas of attack is usually to attack defects in the regulation. That particular provision does not require that the accused have specific knowledge of the order or regulation. It does not take very much effort for the government to find an allegation under Article 92 in most cases.įor charges related to violating or failing to obey lawful general orders or regulations, most defenses will focus on defects in the regulation. Article 92 charges are common in many prosecutions. UCMJ ARTICLE 92 – FAILURE TO OBEY AN ORDER What is article 92?Īrticle 92 defines disobeying a direct order as three types of offenses - violations or failures to obey lawful general orders or regulations, failures to obey other lawful orders, and dereliction of duty.

Rotc general orders