¶ … Ucmj As a military specialist, it is incumbent upon me, just as it is incumbent upon all of my colleagues in the military, to obey any and all lawful orders passed down from a superior officer. Pursuant of the terms of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), any military personnel willfully disobeying orders, failing to comply with orders or acting in dereliction of one's prescribed duties is subject to disciplinary action.

The direct terms of Article 92 state that "any person subject to this chapter who (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation; (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." (Powers, p. 1) The discussion here below considers the implications of this Article as well as some of the exceptions that might apply to consideration of cases brought before a court martial.

Legal and Moral Consequences of Disobeying Lawful Orders:

The variance of potential consequences for transgressing the terms of Article 92 is proportional to the variance in the types of transgressions which are possible while wearing the uniform of the United States armed forces. Where the disobeying of orders or dereliction of duty is significant enough, such as in cases where an individual might not report for duties and might thus be reported as AWOL, the outcome can carry a range of extremely serious consequences. Among them, a court martial is likely to find it appropriate to subject the offending party to a dishonorable discharge and, additionally, some period of incarceration may also follow. According to the Article 92 as denoted by Powers (2010), the maximum sentence possible for a "violation or failure to object lawful general order or regulation" is the above-noted...

By contrast, 'other lawful orders' will refer to orders given by an NCO or in general delivered from a superior officer to one ranking below him. In such cases, a failure to obey can result in what is referred to as a "bad conduct discharge" for which the same forfeiture applies but for which potential confinement only extends to a maximum period of six months. (Powers, p. 2)
The range of potential conduct penalties relating to the Article 92, however, are widely variant and highly contingent upon the nature and severity of the offense in question. The prescription for punishment of the most severe failures to obey orders are actually contained alternately in Article 90 but shed some light onto the seriousness with which the military handles such offenses. According to Powers, "under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death." (Powers1, p. 1)

The severity of the sentencing here above, including execution, discharge and imprisonment, demonstrates the focus on reducing the moral hazards of disruptive or disobedient behavior. There is an important ethical responsibility on the part of commanding officers to ensure the permeation of discipline and respect for the chain of command. Any shortcoming in invoking penalties can have the impact of reducing disciplinary structure and, consequently, of reducing efficiency and chances of survival in combat.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Article 92 will also apply to…