This page gives a general overview of these practice areas. For detailed explanations and practical guidance, see the related subpages.
The UCMJ articles that cover disobedience, AWOL, and Conduct Unbecoming form a single group of offenses aimed at protecting authority and maintaining discipline. They reach into almost every part of military life: speech, appearance, judgment, off-duty conduct, social media, readiness, relationships, and public behavior.
This overview explains how these cases develop and why they carry so much risk for a service member. We have a number of related subpages that go into more detail.
Article 133: Conduct Unbecoming an Officer
The subjective “moral fitness” standard
Article 133 is the broadest disciplinary article in military law. It applies only to officers, but it applies everywhere: on duty, off duty, online, in public, and in private. It does not require another crime or a specific rule violation. The question is whether the conduct shows a failure of character, judgment, or leadership.
The definition is case-by-case. It often includes:
- Official misconduct
- Private acts that become known to the command
- Social media conduct
- Boundary violations
- Sexual behavior that harms professional reputation
- Conduct that resembles another offense but does not meet its elements
The unifying issue is loss of confidence. If the chain of command no longer trusts the officer to lead, Article 133 becomes the method for removing that officer.
Trials for officers are referred to General Courts-Martial with exposure to confinement, a criminal record, and a Dismissal.
Rank as aggravation
Officers often believe their service record will work in their favor. The opposite is more common. Length of service and senior rank are treated as proof of higher expectations and a graver breach of trust.
Disobedience, Standards, and the Current Enforcement Climate
Articles 90 and 92: Refusal to obey
These articles anchor the enforcement of rules and orders.
- Article 90 covers willful disobedience of lawful orders from commissioned officers.
- Article 92 covers violations of general orders and dereliction of duty.
Orders are presumed lawful. They are not a matter of individual conscience. Challenging an order before obeying it is not protected. Disobedience is seen as a direct threat to authority.
Common modern violations involve:
- Fitness and weight requirements
- Grooming standards
- Orders regarding political posts
- Readiness and training obligations
- Social media restrictions
Articles 88, 89, and 91: Contempt and disrespect
Online behavior is now a major focus of discipline.
- Article 88 prohibits officers from using contemptuous words against senior civilian leaders.
- Article 89 covers disrespect toward superiors.
- Article 91 covers disrespect toward NCOs and petty officers.
Posting political insults, ridiculing commanders, or celebrating acts of political violence places a member at substantial risk. Being off duty when making the comment does not change the analysis.
Article 134: Disloyal statements and public misconduct
Speech or conduct that harms good order and discipline, or discredits the service, can be charged under Article 134. This includes online posts seen as endorsing violence or attacking the legitimacy of civilian leadership.
How resistance backfires
Trying to fight a disciplinary case through social media, political pressure, or public statements usually makes the situation worse. Once a member becomes a symbol in a political argument, the chain of command often treats the case as a challenge to authority. What military members fail to realize in these cases is that they have no leverage.
AWOL and Desertion
Both offenses involve unauthorized absence. The difference is intent.
- AWOL: absence without intent to remain away.
- Desertion: absence with intent to stay away permanently or to avoid hazardous duty.
Intent is usually proven through circumstantial details such as:
- Leaving after receiving deployment orders
- Destroying uniforms or ID
- Moving far from installations
- Statements about not returning
A deserter listing after 30 days is an administrative flag for law enforcement that allows for an arrest warrant. Duration of absence will be relevant at trial but it’s not true that 30 days is the cutoff between AWOL and Desertion. Desertion can be determined in an instant, but we have also had cases where clients were gone for many years and then returned.
What AWOL cases looked like during the wars
During Iraq and Afghanistan, unauthorized absence was handled in a relatively predictable pattern:
- Member leaves
- Warrant issued after 30 days
- Civilian arrest
- Return to military control
- Article 15 and an Other-Than-Honorable discharge
Members who left after receiving deployment orders were more likely to face courts-martial. Some commands sent members forward to complete the deployment before taking action.
The OTH “upgrade” myth
There is no automatic upgrade after six months. Upgrades are rare and often denied even decades later. Many veterans discover this too late.
Surrender vs. arrest
Voluntary surrender is the only way to regain control of an AWOL case. Arrests often involve long periods in county jail and lead to arguments about intent to remain away. See our AWOL page for more information.
How These Articles Work Together
Article 133, the disobedience articles, and AWOL cases appear to cover unrelated behavior. In practice, they protect the same core principles:
- Conduct and character for officers
- Obedience and respect for enlisted and officer ranks
- Reliability and commitment for all members
When there is a recommitment to enforcing standards, these articles appear together more often. These articles are not administrative tools. They are used to enforce authority, remove untrustworthy members, and protect the chain of command.
Call Us Before Taking a Risk
If you’re considering or have been accused of disobedience, disrespect, AWOL, or conduct unbecoming, call 800-319-3134. We can explain the articles involved, the risks, and the steps you can take now to protect yourself.