The Army’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program, like comparable programs across the services, periodically administers surveys and climate assessments. Service members sometimes ask whether declining to complete one of these surveys, or refusing to attend the session at which it is given, can be charged as insubordination or some related offense. The accurate answer separates two distinct things: completing the substance of a survey, which is frequently anonymous and voluntary in content, and obeying an order to appear at or take part in mandatory training. The label “insubordination” is also frequently misused. Whether anything can be charged depends on what exactly was ordered and whether that order was lawful.
What the surveys are and how participation is framed
Command climate and prevention surveys are tools commanders use to assess a unit. Many are administered anonymously, and anonymity is in tension with the idea of compelling specific answers, because an anonymous instrument cannot meaningfully verify who answered what. As a practical and policy matter, the substantive content of an anonymous survey is generally treated as voluntary. That distinction is central. A member may be ordered to be present for a mandatory training or assessment block, which is an administrable order, while the act of writing particular answers on an anonymous form is a different thing that is not realistically compelled.
“Insubordination” is a precise term
In military justice, “insubordination” is not a catch-all for any refusal. The UCMJ contains specific offenses. Insubordinate conduct toward a noncommissioned, warrant, or petty officer is addressed by its own article, and willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer is a separate article. Most refusals to follow general directives or routine orders are instead charged, if at all, under Article 92, which covers failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation, failure to obey other lawful orders, and dereliction of duty. So the realistic question is usually not “insubordination” in the strict sense but whether a refusal could be a failure to obey a lawful order under Article 92.
The lawfulness of the order is the hinge
Article 92 punishes failure to obey a lawful order. The word “lawful” is doing the work. An order is presumed lawful, and the member bears the burden to show that an order is manifestly unlawful. But the presumption does not convert every instruction into a punishable command. To support an Article 92 charge, there must be an actual order, given by someone with authority, that is lawful, clear, and directed at the member.
This produces a sharp split. An order to report to and remain present at a mandatory SHARP training session is the kind of routine, duty-related order a commander can give, and an unexcused refusal to attend could expose the member to an Article 92 theory. By contrast, compelling a member to enter specific responses into an anonymous survey is far weaker ground. Anonymous surveys are generally voluntary in content, so a refusal to provide particular answers is not naturally a violation of a lawful order. Treating that kind of refusal as insubordination would require an order that, on inspection, may not exist or may not be lawful.
Other limits on compelling answers
Two further constraints matter. First, the Fifth Amendment and Article 31 of the UCMJ protect against compelled self-incrimination. If survey questions touched on a member’s own potential misconduct, an order compelling incriminating answers would collide with those protections, and statements obtained in violation of Article 31 may not be used against the member. Second, surveys structured to protect respondent anonymity are functionally inconsistent with disciplining a person for the content of their responses, because the program design does not attribute answers to individuals. These features reinforce that the substance of an anonymous survey is not a proper subject of an order to obey.
What could realistically be charged, and what could not
To summarize the realistic landscape: refusing to physically attend a properly ordered, mandatory training formation may be treated as a failure to obey a lawful order under Article 92 if the order was clear, lawful, and given by proper authority. Refusing to write specific answers on an anonymous, voluntary survey is generally not a sound basis for any charge, because there is usually no lawful order to compel the content and because doing so can implicate self-incrimination protections. Loosely labeling either situation as “insubordination” is usually inaccurate, since that term targets specific disrespect or willful disobedience offenses rather than a routine refusal.
Practical guidance for the member
A member who objects to a survey should be careful to identify exactly what is being required. Attending a mandatory session is different from answering particular questions. If the member intends to decline, the safest course is to attend any required formation, raise the objection through the chain of command, and, where the objection concerns self-incrimination or unlawful compulsion, consult counsel before refusing a direct order. Because the presumption of lawfulness places the burden on the member, self-help refusal carries risk, and documenting the basis of any objection at the time protects the member if adverse action follows.
Adverse administrative action
Even without a charge, a refusal can draw administrative consequences such as a counseling statement or an unfavorable evaluation comment. Those measures are challengeable, especially where they punish protected conduct or rest on a directive that was not a lawful order, and they can be contested through the chain of command, equal-opportunity channels, and records-correction processes. As with the criminal analysis, the member’s position is strongest when the objection and its basis are recorded contemporaneously.
Conclusion
Refusal to participate in a mandatory SHARP survey can be cited as a disciplinary matter only when an actual, lawful order was disobeyed, and even then the proper framing is usually a failure to obey a lawful order under Article 92 rather than “insubordination” in its strict sense. Attending a required session is an order a commander can lawfully give; compelling the content of an anonymous, voluntary survey is not, and it can run into self-incrimination protections. Because the analysis is fact-specific and the burden falls on the member, anyone considering refusal should secure qualified military defense counsel first.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.