What Happens If You Refuse Deployment in the Military
On this page
Refusing to deploy is not a single offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The charge depends on what the refusal looked like. Failing to go when the unit leaves can be missing movement under Article 87. Refusing a direct order to deploy can be willful disobedience under Article 90 or 91, or failure to obey under Article 92. Staying away to avoid the deployment can be desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty under Article 85, which carries up to five years in peacetime. Applying for conscientious objector status is a separate administrative process for people who oppose war in any form, and it does not excuse a refusal that has already happened.
The Articles a Refusal Can Trigger
| What happened | Article | Maximum punishment (MCM 2024) | App. 12C category |
|---|---|---|---|
| The unit moved and the member, required to go and aware of the departure, did not, on purpose | 87, missing movement by design (para. 11) | dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, 2 years | Category 2 |
| Same, through neglect | 87, missing movement by neglect | bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, 1 year | Category 1 |
| A superior commissioned officer gave a lawful order to deploy, and the member willfully refused | 90 (para. 16) | dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, 5 years; in time of war, death or other punishment | Category 2; time of war "Criteria" |
| A warrant officer gave the lawful order | 91 (para. 17) | dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, 2 years | Category 1 |
| A noncommissioned or petty officer gave the lawful order | 91 (para. 17) | bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, 1 year | Category 1 |
| A lawful general order or regulation required reporting, or another lawful order was not obeyed | 92 (para. 18) | general order: dishonorable discharge, 2 years; other order: bad-conduct discharge, 6 months | Category 1 |
| The member quit the unit with intent to avoid hazardous duty or shirk important service | 85 (para. 9) | dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, 5 years; in time of war, death or other punishment | Category 2; time of war "Criteria" |
The categories in the last column govern sentencing for offenses committed after December 27, 2023. Appendix 12B gives the confinement ranges: Category 1 is 0 to 12 months and Category 2 is 1 to 36 months, capped by the offense’s own maximum. Where death may be adjudged, as for some offenses in time of war, R.C.M. 925(b) sends sentencing to R.C.M. 1004.
These articles can overlap. One refusal can be charged under more than one, and the convening authority or prosecutor decides which counts to bring.
Missing Movement and Desertion: What the Government Must Show
Missing movement under Article 87 requires that the member was “required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft, or unit”, “knew of the prospective movement”, and missed it “through design or neglect.” The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), Part IV, paragraph 11, defines design as acting “on purpose, intentionally, or according to plan”, which “requires specific intent to miss the movement.” The Manual says “movement” includes a move of a ship, aircraft, or unit “involving a substantial distance and period of time”, which describes a unit deployment.
Desertion to avoid hazardous duty under Article 85 requires that the member “quit his or her unit,” intended “to avoid a certain duty or shirk a certain service”, that the duty was hazardous or the service important, and that the member “knew that he or she would be required for such duty or service”. Paragraph 9 lists “duty in a combat or other dangerous area” and “embarkation for certain foreign or sea duty” among its examples.
The Lawful-Order Question
A disobedience charge requires a lawful order, and the Manual sets the starting point in paragraph 16.c: “An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.” The same paragraph says “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge”, and that the issuing officer “must have authority to give such an order.” An order to deploy with a unit is an order to perform a military duty, and the same paragraph says “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.” Disagreement with a deployment’s wisdom, or with the policy behind a war, is not the same as an order to commit a crime. Raising the question with defense counsel before refusing keeps the options open. Raising it afterward means it is argued as a defense to a charge already filed.
Conscientious Objection: A Separate Track
A member on active duty may apply for conscientious objector status, and Duke Law’s LawFire explains that the process is governed by DoD Instruction 1300.06, Conscientious Objection. The standard is demanding. Quoting the instruction, LawFire reports that the applicant must prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that the belief “is firm, fixed, sincere, and deeply held”, and that a qualifying belief “does not include a belief that rests solely upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, expediency, or political views.” The same source describes the Supreme Court’s holding in Gillette v. United States (1971) that opposition to particular “unjust” wars is not enough. The objection must be to war in any form.
The application and a refusal are separate. Filing an application is the recognized route for a member whose beliefs have changed. Refusing an order or missing a movement while the application is pending can still be charged under the articles above. How a pending application affects deployment orders is governed by the instruction and service regulations. The questions for counsel are how the application is filed and what duty status applies while it is decided.
What Happens After a Refusal
The order and the refusal are the core facts of a disobedience case, so how the order was given and recorded matters. The command chooses among administrative action, nonjudicial punishment under Article 15 (which a member not attached to or embarked in a vessel may refuse), and court-martial. A general court-martial requires a preliminary hearing under Article 32 unless the accused waives it in writing and the convening authority agrees. The unit’s movement does not wait for the case to be resolved.
Questions to Settle Before Acting
- What exactly is the order, who gave it, and in what form? That decides which article could apply.
- Is the objection to war in any form, or to this deployment? Only the first fits conscientious objector status.
- Has an application under DoD Instruction 1300.06 been prepared with counsel, and what duty instructions apply while it is pending?
- Has the member received an Article 31(b) warning before being asked to explain the refusal?
Sources
- 10 U.S.C. 885, Article 85, Desertion (Cornell LII)
- 10 U.S.C. 887, Article 87, Missing movement (Cornell LII)
- 10 U.S.C. 890, Article 90, Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer (Cornell LII)
- 10 U.S.C. 891, Article 91, Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer (Cornell LII)
- 10 U.S.C. 892, Article 92, Failure to obey order or regulation (Cornell LII)
- 10 U.S.C. 815, Article 15, Commanding officer’s non-judicial punishment (Cornell LII)
- 10 U.S.C. 832, Article 32, Preliminary hearing (Cornell LII)
- Duke Law LawFire, “Conscientious objection: more complicated than you may think”, June 28, 2024
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), Part II, R.C.M. 925(b); Part IV, paras. 9, 11, 16 (including 16.c on lawfulness of orders), 17, 18; Appendix 12B; Appendix 12C.
This guide explains how a refusal to deploy can be charged under the UCMJ and the 2024 Manual for Courts-Martial, and where conscientious objection fits. It is general information, not legal advice about a particular order.