Yes, a violation of a lawful military regulation can be the basis for a conviction under Clause 1 or 2 of Article 134, the General Article, but the prosecution must prove more than just the violation itself. Article 134 prohibits, among other things, all “disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline” and all “conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.” A violation of a regulation can fall into one of these categories.
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, they must prove that the accused committed a certain act—namely, violating the specific regulation. Second, they must prove that, under the circumstances, this act was prejudicial to good order and discipline OR was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. This is the crucial “nexus” element. Not every minor regulatory violation meets this standard.
Third, the prosecution must prove that the conduct was not justified or excused. A military defense attorney will attack the second element. They will argue that their client’s violation of the regulation was a minor, technical infraction that had no actual, palpable impact on the unit’s discipline or the military’s reputation. The legal battle is often over whether the specific regulatory violation was serious enough to truly harm the service in a way that warrants a federal criminal conviction under Article 134.