Standard operating procedures, commonly called SOPs, are the written routines that tell members of a unit how to do their jobs. They cover everything from weapons handling to vehicle maintenance to administrative processing. When a member departs from an SOP and something goes wrong, the command may want to discipline that member. A natural question follows: can violating an SOP be a punishable offense if the SOP was never formally published? The answer turns on how the SOP functions in the disciplinary framework and what the government would actually have to prove.
SOPs usually fit under Article 92
Most SOP-violation cases are analyzed under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 92 contains three different offenses. The first is violation of a lawful general order or regulation. The second is failure to obey other lawful orders that the accused had a duty to obey. The third is dereliction of duty. Which of these applies has everything to do with whether and how the SOP was published, because the publication status affects the knowledge the government must prove.
The general order theory depends on formal issuance
A lawful general order or regulation carries a powerful advantage for the government: knowledge is presumed because such orders are widely published and broadly applicable. But that presumption is exactly why formal status matters. To rely on the general order theory, the directive generally must be a properly issued general order or regulation from an authority empowered to issue one, disseminated in the way such orders are normally promulgated.
A typical unit-level SOP that was never formally published as a general order usually does not qualify for this theory. The presumed-knowledge advantage flows from the formal, published nature of true general orders. An informal or unpublished SOP cannot borrow that presumption simply by being called an SOP. So if the directive was not formally issued and published as a general order, the government ordinarily cannot use the general order theory and its built-in presumption of knowledge.
The other-lawful-order theory requires actual knowledge
That does not end the inquiry. An unpublished SOP can still support a charge under the second theory, failure to obey other lawful orders, if it operated as an order the accused had a duty to obey. The catch is that this theory requires the government to prove the accused had actual knowledge of the requirement. Actual knowledge can be shown by circumstantial evidence, such as proof that the member was briefed on the SOP, trained on it, signed for it, worked under it daily, or was personally told to follow it.
This is the crucial point for an unpublished SOP. Lack of formal publication does not automatically defeat a charge, but it shifts the burden onto the government to prove the member actually knew the requirement. If the SOP existed only in a draft, was never communicated to the member, or was so obscure that the member had no actual knowledge of it, the other-lawful-order theory can fail. Many SOP cases are won or lost on this knowledge question.
Lawfulness and military purpose still apply
Whatever theory is used, the directive must be lawful. A lawful order must come from proper authority and relate to a military purpose, meaning it must be reasonably necessary to accomplish the mission or to maintain the morale, discipline, and effectiveness of the unit. Orders are presumed lawful, and the accused bears the burden of showing otherwise. An SOP that addresses how the unit performs its mission will usually clear the military purpose requirement. But an SOP issued by someone without authority to bind the member, or one that conflicts with higher regulations, may be challengeable.
Dereliction of duty: a separate path
There is a third route that does not depend on the SOP being an order at all. Dereliction of duty under Article 92 addresses the failure to perform duties the member was required to perform, through neglect, culpable inefficiency, or willful failure. If an SOP simply describes how a known duty is to be performed, a member who knew of the duty and failed to perform it competently may be charged with dereliction even where the SOP itself is informal. The focus shifts from whether an order was published to whether the member knew or should have known the duty and failed to carry it out.
Practical implications
For a member accused of violating an unpublished SOP, the defense examines several questions. Was the SOP formally issued as a general order, or only an internal procedure? If it was not a general order, can the government actually prove the member had actual knowledge of the requirement? Did the SOP come from someone with authority, and did it serve a legitimate military purpose? Could the conduct instead be recharged as dereliction, and if so, did the member know the underlying duty? A weakness in the knowledge element is often the strongest defense when the SOP was never formally published.
Commands, for their part, can strengthen their position by briefing, training on, and documenting acknowledgment of SOPs, which converts an informal procedure into something the government can prove the member actually knew.
The bottom line
Violating an SOP can be a punishable offense even if the SOP was not formally published, but the lack of formal publication changes the path to conviction. The government generally cannot use the general order theory with its presumed knowledge. Instead it must prove the member had actual knowledge of the requirement under the other-lawful-order theory, or proceed on a dereliction of duty theory tied to a known duty. In each case the directive must be lawful and serve a military purpose. Anyone facing discipline for violating an unpublished SOP should consult a qualified military defense attorney, because the knowledge element is frequently the decisive issue.
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.