Failure to Obey Order or Regulation and Dereliction of Duty (UCMJ Article 92) – Military Defense Lawyer

Military Failure to Obey Order or Regulation and Dereliction of Duty Allegations Can be Very Serious and Can Threaten Your Military Career and Future.

When military members are accused of failing to obey an order or regulation or dereliction of duty, they can face a variety of military adverse actions and disciplinary actions, to include court-martial trial. If you are a military member facing this type of allegation, you need a strong military defense lawyer as your advocate. Attorney Richard V. Stevens is a civilian court-martial defense lawyer and military defense lawyer. He began handling military cases in 1995 and he has been handling military cases for over 30 years. This has included multiple military failure to obey order or regulation and dereliction of duty cases. In fact, this is one of the most common alleged violations of the UCMJ we encounter in our cases, and is often a charge that is included with other charges in the case. Attorney Stevens, and the military defense law firm he founded, are here to provide you with the zealous defense you are seeking to protect you from the potential consequences of this military criminal claim.

Military Failure to Obey Order or Regulation and Dereliction of Duty Cases (UCMJ Article 92)

Military failure to obey order or regulation and dereliction of duty allegations are charged under Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92. This military offense covers the following:

A military member 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.

Military dereliction of duty allegations can be charged as either a willful dereliction of duty or a negligent dereliction of duty, and a duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the Service.

It should be noted that violations of this UCMJ article requires that the order, regulation or duty to be a LAWFUL one.

This type of allegation has received considerable public scrutiny given the controversy surrounding the attempted punishment of Senator Mark Kelly for his involvement in a video that discussed military members having a duty not to follow illegal orders.

Lawfulness of Orders. The accused military member can challenge whether the order, regulation or duty was legal. The Military Judge’s instructions for this alleged offense describes that, “If the Military Judge (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…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 military member may commit.” It would be an illegal order, for example, to order a subordinate to rob a bank or commit murder.

Conversely, instead of alleging a violation of a lawful order, an accused military member could raise, as a defense, that he or she was “just following military orders.” Some of the more notorious military cases in which the accused military member(s) attempted to raise this defense, claiming their actions, while appearing to be illegal, were based on them following the military orders of their superiors were: high ranking Nazi military officers who faced war crimes allegations in the WWII Nuremberg trials and Lieutenant William Calley facing murder allegations arising out of the “Mi Lai Massacre” during the Vietnam War. In both situations, it was determined that the orders were illegal, and the accused military members were not shielded by arguing they were “only following orders.”

Over our many years of military law practice, our civilian court-martial defense lawyers have defended numerous military cases alleging these offenses, including in combat zones. Depending on the factual scenario alleged, these cases can be complicated and can be quite serious.

Handling these serious military cases requires the expertise of a skilled military defense lawyer. A military member accused of these offenses could face extreme jeopardy – possible federal criminal conviction, lengthy jail terms, dishonorable discharge or dismissal, and a variety of other legal, professional, personal, and family consequences.

An experienced and aggressive defense attorney is absolutely vital in these military cases.

Civilian court-martial defense attorney Richard V. Stevens is a civilian criminal defense attorney and former active duty military JAG lawyer who exclusively practices military law and defends military members stationed around the world who are facing military trials, discipline and investigations. If you’re facing theese military allegations, don’t hesitate to seek the legal help you’re going to need. For a free initial case consultation, please contact us.

No attorney can guarantee the outcome you seek in your military case. What we can promise is that we will apply our decades of experience to the defense of your military case. This includes our extensive experience in military law, military regulations, military investigations, military disciplinary actions, military adverse actions, and/or military court-martial trials and cases.

Client Testimonials and Reviews

Please see Client Testimonials and Client Reviews for Attorney Richard V. Stevens.

Law Firm Social Media Accounts

Please find updates on our law firm and our cases on our social media:
Our Blog
Successful Case Defenses Through 2025
Twitter X
Facebook
Instagram