Technical manuals govern a great deal of military work, from maintaining aircraft to handling munitions to operating equipment. When a service member disregards a safety protocol set out in such a manual and something goes wrong, a common question is whether that lapse can be charged under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The answer is that it can, but only if the protocol and the conduct fit the specific structure of the offense.
The three offenses inside Article 92
Article 92 is not a single offense. It covers three distinct ways of failing to comply with directives. The first is violating or failing to obey a lawful general order or regulation. The second is failing to obey another lawful order that the accused had a duty to obey. The third is dereliction in the performance of duties. A technical-manual safety protocol can implicate any of these, but the elements differ, and which one applies depends on the nature of the protocol and how it was imposed.
Treating the protocol as an order or regulation
If a safety protocol carries the force of a general order or regulation, a violation can be charged under the first theory. For that theory, the government must show that a lawful general order or regulation existed, that the accused had a duty to obey it, and that the accused violated or failed to obey it. Knowledge of the order is generally not a separate element for a properly published general order, because such orders are presumed known.
A technical manual provision does not automatically qualify as a general order or regulation. Whether it does depends on its source and how it was promulgated. A protocol that is incorporated into or mandated by a general regulation, or that a competent authority has made binding through a general order, can supply the basis for this theory. A bare manual entry, standing alone, may instead be enforced through the order or dereliction theories rather than as a general regulation.
Treating the protocol as a lawful order to obey
A safety protocol can also reach a member through a specific lawful order. If a supervisor directs a member to follow the manual’s safety steps, or if the protocol is incorporated into a lawful order the member had a duty to obey, the second theory applies. There the government must prove that a lawful order was issued, that the accused had knowledge of the order, that the accused had a duty to obey it, and that the accused failed to do so. The knowledge element is important under this theory: the member must have known of the order.
Treating the lapse as dereliction of duty
The most common fit for a missed safety protocol is dereliction of duty. The elements are that the accused had a certain duty, that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duty, and that the accused was derelict in performing it through willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency. A duty can arise from a treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service. A safety procedure in a technical manual that defines how a task must be performed can be the source of such a duty.
Dereliction is often the natural theory for a safety lapse because it captures negligent or careless failures, not just intentional disobedience. A member who knew or should have known of a required safety step and failed to perform it carefully can be derelict even without intent to violate a rule.
Why the source and clarity of the protocol matter
Whether a technical-manual safety protocol supports an Article 92 charge turns on several practical questions. Was the protocol lawful and within the authority of the body that issued it? Was it actually applicable to the task the member was performing? Did the member know of the duty, or should the member reasonably have known of it? And was the manual provision clear enough to impose a definite requirement, as opposed to general guidance?
These questions also frame the defense. If the manual provision was ambiguous, outdated, superseded, or not actually applicable to the situation, the duty may not be as clear as the charge assumes. If the member did not know and could not reasonably have known of the specific protocol, the knowledge component is weakened. And if the member did follow the procedure as it could reasonably be understood, there may be no dereliction at all.
The lawfulness requirement runs through every theory
Each Article 92 theory requires that the underlying order, regulation, or duty be lawful. A protocol that conflicts with superior authority, exceeds the issuing authority’s power, or purports to regulate matters beyond the scope of military duty may not be enforceable through Article 92. Counsel examining a charge will test the protocol’s legitimacy, not just whether the member followed it.
Practical guidance
A service member facing an Article 92 charge based on a technical-manual safety protocol should look closely at which theory the government is using and whether the elements of that theory are met. The defense often centers on the source and applicability of the protocol, the member’s actual or constructive knowledge of the duty, the clarity of the requirement, and whether any failure rose to the level of dereliction. Because the three theories carry different elements, identifying the right one is the starting point for both the prosecution and the defense.
Bottom line
Failure to follow a safety protocol in a technical manual can result in an Article 92 charge. The most common fit is dereliction of duty, which requires a known or reasonably knowable duty and a willful, negligent, or culpably inefficient failure to perform it. The conduct can also be charged as violating a general order or regulation, or as failing to obey a lawful order, depending on how the protocol was imposed. In every case the protocol must be lawful and applicable, the member must have had the requisite knowledge, and the failure must satisfy the elements of the chosen theory.
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.