What Happens If You Refuse or Disobey an Order in the Military
On this page
Refusing a lawful order is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the article charged depends mainly on who gave the order. Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer falls under Article 90, with a peacetime maximum of five years and a dishonorable discharge. Disobeying a warrant officer or a noncommissioned or petty officer falls under Article 91. Violating a general order or regulation, or another lawful order, falls under Article 92. An order to perform a military duty may be inferred to be lawful, and that inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as an order to commit a crime. An order also has to relate to military duty and come from someone with authority to give it. Disagreeing with the order, or acting on conscience, does not excuse disobedience.
Which Article Applies
| Order from | Article and offense | Maximum punishment (MCM 2024) | App. 12C category |
|---|---|---|---|
| Superior commissioned officer | Art. 90, willfully disobeying (para. 16) | dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, 5 years; in time of war, death or other punishment | Category 2; time of war "Criteria" |
| Warrant officer | Art. 91, willfully disobeying (para. 17) | dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, 2 years | Category 1 |
| Noncommissioned or petty officer | Art. 91, willfully disobeying (para. 17) | bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, 1 year | Category 1 |
| General order or regulation | Art. 92(1) (para. 18) | dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, 2 years | Category 1 |
| Any other lawful order | Art. 92(2) (para. 18) | bad-conduct discharge, total forfeitures, 6 months | Category 1 |
| A duty the member knew or should have known | Art. 92(3), dereliction (para. 18) | through neglect, 3 months and two-thirds pay for 3 months; willful, bad-conduct discharge and 6 months; more if death or grievous bodily harm results | Category 1 or 2 |
The categories apply to offenses committed after December 27, 2023. Appendix 12B sets Category 1 at 0 to 12 months and Category 2 at 1 to 36 months, capped by the offense’s own maximum. Where death may be adjudged, as for disobeying a superior commissioned officer in time of war, R.C.M. 925(b) sends sentencing to R.C.M. 1004. The same refusal can fit more than one article, and the charging authority decides which to bring.
What Article 90 Requires
The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), Part IV, paragraph 16, lists four elements:
- “That the accused received a lawful command from a superior commissioned officer”
- “That this officer was the superior commissioned officer of the accused”
- “That the accused then knew that this officer was the accused’s superior commissioned officer”
- “That the accused willfully disobeyed the lawful command.”
Several parts of the explanation narrow the offense:
- Willfulness. “‘Willful disobedience’ is an intentional defiance of authority. Failure to comply with an order through heedlessness, remissness, or forgetfulness is not a violation of this article but may violate Article 92.”
- Specificity. “The order must be a specific mandate to do or not to do a specific act. An exhortation to ‘obey the law’ or to perform one’s military duty does not constitute an order under this article.”
- Timing. “Immediate compliance is required for any order that does not explicitly or implicitly indicate that delayed compliance is authorized or directed.” For an order to act in the future, “an accused’s present statement of intention to disobey the order does not constitute disobedience of that order, although carrying out that intention may.”
Article 92: Knowledge Works Differently
Article 92 treats knowledge differently for each kind of order. For a lawful general order or regulation, the Manual says “Knowledge of a general order or regulation need not be alleged or proved as knowledge is not an element of this offense and a lack of knowledge does not constitute a defense.” For any other lawful order, the government must prove “the accused had knowledge of the order”. For dereliction, it is enough that the accused “knew or reasonably should have known of the duties”, and a duty “may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the Service.”
The Manual also limits the general-order maximum. It does not apply if, without the order, the conduct would be “another specific offense for which a lesser punishment is prescribed”.
The Lawfulness Question
Paragraph 16.c sets the rule: “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 lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” The order must come from an officer with authority to give it, and it “must relate to military duty”. Without a valid military purpose, it “may not … interfere with private rights or personal affairs.”
The Manual then closes the conscience argument: “the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”
The opposite side of the rule is in Rule for Courts-Martial 916(d). Obeying an order is “a defense to any offense … unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.” Obedience was Lieutenant William Calley’s defense to the My Lai killings, and the Court of Military Appeals affirmed his conviction on December 21, 1973, according to a White House chronology held by the Ford Presidential Library. A member must not carry out an order to commit a plain crime, and following it is no defense.
After the Order Is Refused
The order, how it was given, and the response are the core facts, so the record of who said what matters from the start. The command can respond with counseling or other administrative action, nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, or court-martial. A member not attached to or embarked in a vessel may demand trial instead of NJP. Under Article 31(b), a person subject to the UCMJ who questions a suspect must first give a warning about the nature of the accusation and the right not to make a statement.
The Order, Its Source, and the Failure to Obey
- Who gave the order: a superior commissioned officer, a warrant officer, or an NCO? Or does a general order or regulation apply?
- Was the order a specific mandate, and did it require immediate or future compliance?
- Was the failure an intentional refusal, or forgetfulness or carelessness? Only the first fits Article 90 or 91.
- Did the order relate to military duty, and did the person giving it have authority to give it?
Sources
- 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. 831, Article 31, Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited (Cornell LII)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), Part II, R.C.M. 916(d), R.C.M. 925(b); Part IV, paras. 16, 17, 18; Appendix 12B; Appendix 12C.
- Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library, White House “Calley Case Chronology”, Apr. 6, 1976 (PDF)
This guide explains how disobedience offenses are defined and punished under the UCMJ and the 2024 Manual for Courts-Martial. It is general information, not legal advice about a particular order.