Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case involves unique facts and circumstances. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ, consult with a qualified military defense attorney immediately.
Both Article 98 and Article 92 address failures to comply with official directives, but they target different types of noncompliance. Article 98 specifically addresses violations of procedural rules in judicial and administrative proceedings, particularly by those responsible for administering military justice. Article 92 addresses general failure to obey lawful orders and regulations. One protects the integrity of the military justice system; the other enforces obedience to orders generally.
The Context Distinction
Article 98 Noncompliance with Procedural Rules addresses:
Violations by those administering military justice
Failure to follow required procedures in legal proceedings
Misconduct by convening authorities, staff judge advocates, and others
Interference with proper administration of justice
Article 92 Failure to Obey Order addresses:
Violation of lawful general orders or regulations
Failure to obey any lawful order
General disobedience in any military context
Noncompliance with command directives
Different Protected Interests
Article 98 protects:
The military justice system itself
Fair treatment of accused service members
Proper procedures in courts-martial
Integrity of legal proceedings
Article 92 protects:
Military discipline generally
The chain of command
Operational effectiveness
Order and obedience throughout the force
Article 98 is specialized for justice administration; Article 92 is general obedience.
Article 98: Noncompliance Elements
Article 98 covers several types of misconduct:
Responsible for unnecessary delay. Failing to move cases forward properly.
Knowingly and intentionally failing to enforce. Not following required procedures.
Failing to comply with provisions of the UCMJ. Violating specific code requirements.
The offense focuses on those with responsibilities in the justice system who fail to perform them properly.
Article 92: Failure to Obey Elements
Failure to obey includes:
Violation of general order or regulation. Breaking published rules that apply broadly.
Failure to obey lawful order. Not following specific directions from superiors.
Dereliction of duty. Failing to perform known duties.
The offense applies to all service members in any context.
Who Article 98 Targets
Article 98 typically applies to:
Convening authorities. Those who refer cases to court-martial.
Staff judge advocates. Legal advisors with procedural responsibilities.
Military judges. Though separately regulated, similar principles apply.
Court-martial members. Those serving on panels.
Others with justice responsibilities. Anyone involved in administering military justice.
This is a specialized offense for those in the justice system, not ordinary service members.
Typical Fact Patterns
Clear Article 98 (procedural noncompliance):
A staff judge advocate knowingly fails to provide required discovery to defense counsel. Intentional failure to follow procedural rules.
A convening authority deliberately delays processing a case to prejudice the accused. Responsible for unnecessary delay.
Someone with justice responsibilities intentionally ignores UCMJ requirements. Knowingly failing to enforce provisions.
Clear Article 92 (failure to obey):
A service member violates the installation’s general order prohibiting alcohol in barracks. Violation of general order.
A subordinate refuses to follow a supervisor’s direct order. Failure to obey lawful order.
A service member doesn’t perform their assigned duties. Dereliction of duty.
Not overlapping:
Article 98 is for justice system personnel violating justice procedures.
Article 92 is for anyone violating any order or regulation.
An ordinary service member doesn’t face Article 98; a judge advocate doesn’t typically face Article 92 for procedural failures.
Punishment Comparison
Article 98 (Noncompliance with Procedural Rules):
Dismissal (for officers), dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years
Reflects the seriousness of corrupting the justice system
Article 92 (Failure to Obey):
Violation of general order: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture, confinement for 2 years
Violation of other lawful order: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture, confinement for 6 months
Dereliction: varies based on whether willful or negligent
Article 98 can carry serious punishment because it undermines the entire justice system.
The Intent Question
For Article 98:
“Knowingly and intentionally” is often required
Inadvertent procedural errors aren’t typically Article 98 violations
The failure must be deliberate
For Article 92:
Knowledge of the order is required
Intent to disobey isn’t always required (negligent dereliction exists)
Willful violations are punished more severely
Defenses
For Article 98:
The procedural requirement didn’t exist
No knowing or intentional violation occurred
The delay wasn’t unnecessary
Compliance was impossible
For Article 92:
The order wasn’t lawful
The order wasn’t known
The order was impossible to obey
The regulation didn’t apply
Why Article 98 Exists
The military justice system depends on:
Fairness. Accused service members deserve proper procedures.
Integrity. Those running the system must follow the rules.
Accountability. Justice personnel who cheat the system must face consequences.
Trust. The force must trust that courts-martial are fair.
Article 98 ensures those administering justice follow the rules themselves.
Relationship to Other Offenses
Article 98 violations may accompany:
Obstruction of justice charges
Dereliction charges
Ethics violations for attorneys
Article 92 violations often accompany:
Other misconduct the orders were meant to prevent
Disrespect or insubordination
Failure to repair (specific reporting failures)
The Supervisory Role
Both articles involve authority relationships:
Article 98 holds those with power over the justice system accountable for using it properly.
Article 92 holds everyone accountable for following orders from those above them.
Both enforce accountability, just in different directions.
Frequently Asked Questions
If I’m a paralegal who makes a procedural error, can I be charged under Article 98?
Article 98 requires “knowing and intentional” failure for most provisions. An honest mistake or inadvertent error typically isn’t an Article 98 violation. However, if you deliberately ignored procedures you knew were required, or intentionally delayed processing cases, Article 98 could apply. The key is whether the noncompliance was deliberate. Paralegals and others with justice responsibilities should follow procedures carefully, but good-faith errors are treated differently from intentional misconduct. Consult with your supervising attorney about any procedural questions.
What’s the difference between Article 92 dereliction and Article 98 noncompliance?
Dereliction under Article 92 applies to anyone failing to perform known duties. It’s a general offense covering any failure to do your job. Article 98 specifically addresses failures by those administering military justice to follow justice procedures. A service member who doesn’t maintain their equipment commits dereliction (Article 92). A staff judge advocate who deliberately fails to follow discovery rules commits Article 98 noncompliance. The distinction is the specialized context of military justice procedures versus general duty performance.
Can a military judge be charged under Article 98 for a legal ruling I disagree with?
Judicial decisions within a judge’s authority aren’t Article 98 violations even if they’re wrong. Judges have discretion, and their rulings are challenged through appeals, not criminal charges. Article 98 addresses deliberate failures to follow required procedures, not judgment calls within judicial discretion. If a judge refuses to follow clear procedural requirements (not just makes a debatable ruling), that might implicate Article 98, but normal judicial decisions, even erroneous ones, are handled through the appellate process.