Yes. Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice can be charged when a service member passively fails to comply with what is required of them, not only when the member openly and defiantly refuses an order. This is one of the most practically important features of Article 92, and it is also one of the most misunderstood. The article is structured so that several of its theories reach inaction, neglect, and quiet failure to perform, rather than requiring a confrontational “no.”
The three offenses inside Article 92
Article 92 creates three separate offenses, and they differ in how much active resistance they require.
The first is violation of or failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation. The government must show that a lawful general order or regulation existed and applied to the accused and that the accused violated it or failed to obey it. Notably, knowledge of the order is presumed for general orders and regulations, because service members are charged with knowing the rules of general applicability that govern them. This theory plainly reaches passive conduct. A member who simply fails to do what a general regulation requires, without ever announcing any refusal, can violate it.
The second is failure to obey other lawful orders. Here the government must prove that a competent authority issued a lawful order other than a general order or regulation, that the accused had knowledge of the order, and that the accused failed to obey it. The verb is “failed to obey,” which encompasses both an open refusal and a quiet failure to carry out the order.
The third is dereliction of duty. This theory is the clearest illustration of passive liability. It requires that the accused had a duty, that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duty, and that the accused was derelict in performing it.
Why passive noncompliance fits Article 92
The distinction between active refusal and passive noncompliance matters because a different article governs the most defiant cases. Willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer is charged under Article 90, and willful disobedience of a superior noncommissioned or petty officer is charged under Article 91. Those articles target the deliberate, defiant refusal to obey a direct order from a specific superior in the chain of command, and they carry heavier potential punishments.
Article 92 occupies the broader and quieter territory. Its failure-to-obey theory does not require willful defiance; it requires only that the member knew of the order and failed to comply. Its dereliction theory does not require any order at all, and it does not require willfulness. That structure is precisely why Article 92 is the appropriate vehicle for passive noncompliance.
Dereliction: neglect and culpable inefficiency
Dereliction of duty deserves special attention because it expressly contemplates passive and even negligent conduct. A member can be derelict willfully, but also through simple neglect or through culpable inefficiency. Willful dereliction means intentionally failing to perform a known duty. Neglect or culpable inefficiency means failing to perform a duty through carelessness, inattention, or lack of effort that a reasonable member would not have displayed. In other words, a member need not decide to disobey anything. A member who knew or reasonably should have known of a duty and who simply did not perform it adequately can be charged.
This is the legal mechanism by which passive failures, such as not maintaining required equipment, not performing required checks, not completing required tasks, or not exercising required oversight, become chargeable. There is no requirement that the member ever say no or take any defiant step.
Knowledge remains an element
Passive liability does not mean automatic liability. Knowledge is still required, though its form varies by theory. For general orders and regulations, knowledge is presumed. For other lawful orders, actual knowledge of the order must be shown. For dereliction, the standard is that the member knew or reasonably should have known of the duty. A genuine and reasonable lack of awareness of a duty can defeat a dereliction charge, which is why the knowledge element is frequently the focus of the defense in passive noncompliance cases.
Practical consequences
Because Article 92 reaches passive conduct, it is one of the most commonly charged punitive articles. Its breadth is also its risk. The line between an honest performance shortfall and culpable dereliction can be thin, and commands sometimes reach for Article 92 when the real problem is inadequate training, unclear orders, or competing duties. A well-prepared defense will test whether a clear and lawful duty actually existed, whether the member truly knew or should have known of it, and whether the failure rose to the level of dereliction rather than ordinary, non-culpable imperfection.
Bottom line
Article 92 can absolutely be charged for passive noncompliance. Its failure-to-obey and dereliction-of-duty theories are built to reach members who simply do not do what is required, without any open refusal. Active, willful defiance of a direct order from a superior is the domain of Articles 90 and 91, while Article 92 covers the broader space of quiet failure and neglect. The decisive issues in any such case are whether a lawful duty or order existed, whether the member had the required knowledge, and whether the failure was culpable. Those are fact-intensive questions best evaluated with experienced military defense counsel.
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.