UCMJ Article 91 Insubordinate Conduct vs Article 92 Failure to Obey: NCO Orders and the Broader Duty to Comply
On this page: 6 sections
When a noncommissioned officer’s order goes unobeyed, the charge depends on why. Article 91 punishes willful disobedience, which the Manual for Courts-Martial defines as “an intentional defiance of authority.” A failure to comply “through heedlessness, remissness, or forgetfulness” is not willful disobedience, though it may violate Article 92 (MCM, Part IV, ¶ 16.c(2)(f), applied to Article 91 by ¶ 17.c(4)).
Article 92 also reaches ground Article 91 never touches: general orders and regulations, orders from people who are not warrant or noncommissioned officers, and dereliction of duty.
The text of Article 91
Article 91 applies to “Any warrant officer or enlisted member” who:
(1) strikes or assaults a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;
(2) willfully disobeys the lawful order of a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer; or
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office;
Source: 10 U.S.C. § 891 (Article 91).
Only clause (2) overlaps with Article 92. Clauses (1) and (3), striking and disrespect, have no Article 92 counterpart.
Who is protected, and who can be charged
The accused. Article 91 can be committed only by a warrant officer or an enlisted member (¶ 17.b(2)(a)). A commissioned officer who disobeys a noncommissioned officer’s order cannot be charged under it.
The person giving the order. The article protects warrant, noncommissioned, and petty officers. It “does not protect an acting noncommissioned officer or acting petty officer,” and it does not protect military police or shore patrol members who are not warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officers (¶ 17.c(1)).
No chain of command needed. Unlike Articles 89 and 90, Article 91 “does not require a superior-subordinate relationship as an element” (¶ 17.c(1)). A sergeant from another unit can give an order that falls under the article, if the order is lawful and the accused had a duty to obey it.
Knowledge. Every Article 91 offense requires actual knowledge that the person was a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer, which may be proved circumstantially (¶ 17.c(2)).
Where Article 92 takes over
(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;
Source: 10 U.S.C. § 892 (Article 92).
Article 92(2) is the residual order offense. The Manual says it covers “all other lawful orders which may be issued by a member of the armed forces, violations of which are not chargeable under Article 90, 91, or 92(1),” including written regulations that are not general regulations (MCM, Part IV, ¶ 18.c(2)(a)). It also covers orders from someone who is not a superior, when the accused had a duty to obey, “such as one issued by a sentinel or a member of the armed forces police” (¶ 18.c(2)(c)(ii)).
| Article 91(2) | Article 92(2) | |
|---|---|---|
| Who can be charged | Warrant officers and enlisted members | Any person subject to the UCMJ |
| Who gave the order | A warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer | Any member of the armed forces whose order the accused had a duty to obey |
| Mental state | Willful: intentional defiance of authority | Actual knowledge of the order and failure to obey; willfulness not required |
| Knowledge of the giver's status | Actual knowledge that the giver was a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer | Not an element |
Sources for the table: 10 U.S.C. §§ 891, 892; MCM, Part IV, ¶ 16.c(2)(f), ¶ 17.b-c, ¶ 18.c(2).
How the facts sort
For example, a sergeant orders a private to wear a reflective belt on an evening run. If the private answers “No” and runs without it, the refusal is intentional defiance of a noncommissioned officer’s lawful order, and Article 91(2) fits. If the private agrees, then forgets the belt, the failure comes from forgetfulness, which the Manual places outside Article 91 and possibly under Article 92.
A lieutenant who ignores the same sergeant’s order at a range is outside Article 91 altogether, because the accused must be a warrant officer or enlisted member. Whether the lieutenant had a duty to obey, and so whether Article 92(2) applies, depends on the circumstances, such as whether the sergeant was posted as a sentinel.
Timing also matters. When an order requires immediate compliance, a declared intent not to obey plus no move to comply constitutes disobedience; an order that allows future performance is not disobeyed by a present statement of refusal alone (¶ 16.c(2)(g), applied by ¶ 17.c(4)). Defiance or forgetfulness in a given case is proved from the surrounding evidence, including what the accused said and did.
Maximum punishments
| Offense | Maximum (MCM, Part IV, ¶ 17.d and ¶ 18.d) |
|---|---|
| Willfully disobeying a warrant officer's lawful order | Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 2 years |
| Willfully disobeying a noncommissioned or petty officer's lawful order | Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 1 year |
| Striking or assaulting a warrant officer | Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 5 years |
| Striking or assaulting a superior noncommissioned or petty officer | Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 3 years |
| Striking or assaulting another noncommissioned or petty officer | Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 1 year |
| Contempt or disrespect toward a warrant officer | Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 9 months |
| Contempt or disrespect toward a superior noncommissioned or petty officer | Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 6 months |
| Contempt or disrespect toward another noncommissioned or petty officer | Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months and confinement for 3 months |
| Violating a lawful general order or regulation, Article 92(1) | Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 2 years |
| Failing to obey another lawful order, Article 92(2) | Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, 6 months |
Dereliction of duty under Article 92(3) has four tiers, from 3 months of confinement for dereliction through neglect up to a dishonorable discharge and 2 years for willful dereliction resulting in death or grievous bodily harm (¶ 18.d(3)). The note to ¶ 18.d limits the Article 92 order maximums where the same facts would support a specific offense with a lesser punishment.
In a general or special court-martial, where every finding of guilty is for an offense committed after December 27, 2023 and the case is not capital, the military judge determines the sentence (10 U.S.C. § 853(b)(1)).
Sources
- 10 U.S.C. § 891, insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer (Article 91)
- 10 U.S.C. § 892, failure to obey order or regulation (Article 92)
- 10 U.S.C. § 853, findings and sentencing (Article 53)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition), Part IV, ¶ 16, ¶ 17, and ¶ 18.
Legal information on Articles 91 and 92 as written and explained in the Manual; it does not assess any order or any service member’s response to one. This page reflects the UCMJ as amended through Public Law 119-60 (December 18, 2025) and the Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 edition) as amended by Executive Order 14130.