Dereliction Of Duty Prosecutions In Military Law
Definition and Legal Framework
Dereliction of Duty is a specific military offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), particularly under Article 92, which addresses the failure to obey an order or regulation, including the failure to perform assigned duties. Dereliction occurs when:
A member of the armed forces had duties;
They knew or should have reasonably known of those duties;
They were willfully or negligently derelict in performing them.
Degrees of Dereliction:
Willful Dereliction – A service member intentionally or knowingly fails to perform their duty.
Negligent Dereliction – A service member fails to perform their duty through carelessness or lack of reasonable caution.
Punishment can include court-martial, reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, confinement, or dishonorable discharge.
Key Case Law and Examples
1. United States v. Negrete (2004)
Facts:
Private First Class Negrete was responsible for guarding a detainee at a military prison in Iraq. He fell asleep during his shift, and during that time, the detainee escaped. He was charged with dereliction of duty under Article 92.
Issue:
Whether sleeping on guard duty, which directly contributed to an escape, constituted willful or negligent dereliction of duty.
Ruling:
The military court found Negrete willfully derelict in his duties. Sleeping on duty, especially in a combat zone where detainee management is critical, demonstrated gross irresponsibility.
Significance:
This case highlighted that even brief lapses (such as falling asleep) could meet the standard for willful dereliction when they involve duties of high responsibility or risk.
2. United States v. Allen (2000)
Facts:
Sergeant Allen failed to maintain proper inventory and security of weapons under his control. Several weapons went missing, and it was found that logs were falsified.
Issue:
Was this a case of negligent dereliction or willful misconduct?
Ruling:
The court ruled Allen was willfully derelict. The falsification of records showed that he was aware of his responsibilities and actively avoided them.
Significance:
This case clarifies that tampering with or falsifying duty records not only supports a finding of dereliction but elevates it to willful misconduct.
3. United States v. Pritchett (1987)
Facts:
A naval officer failed to adequately investigate and report a sexual harassment claim under his command. He took no meaningful action despite complaints.
Issue:
Whether failure to act on a reported misconduct was dereliction of duty.
Ruling:
The court found the officer negligently derelict in his duty. As a commanding officer, he had an obligation to protect subordinates and enforce military conduct standards.
Significance:
This case established that failure to act, particularly in leadership roles, can amount to dereliction—even if the individual does not directly commit misconduct.
4. United States v. Graham (1991)
Facts:
Airman Graham was on fire watch duty in a hangar but left his post to make a phone call. During his absence, a small electrical fire occurred and went unnoticed for several minutes, causing damage.
Issue:
Was the temporary abandonment of duty grounds for dereliction?
Ruling:
Yes, Graham was found negligently derelict. Although the intent was not malicious, his failure to remain at his post during a critical period led to a serious lapse in safety.
Significance:
Even short lapses in judgment or absence from assigned duties—especially in high-risk environments—can support a charge of dereliction.
5. United States v. Santoro (2006)
Facts:
A military nurse failed to properly monitor a post-surgical patient despite clear directives. The patient went into distress and later died.
Issue:
Was the nurse’s failure a simple medical error or a breach of military duty?
Ruling:
The court found willful dereliction because the nurse had received multiple warnings and had left her station despite knowing the patient’s condition required supervision.
Significance:
This case demonstrates that professional roles (like medical staff) are still subject to military discipline and that failing to adhere to standard operating procedures may constitute dereliction.
Key Takeaways
Dereliction of duty can arise from both actions and omissions.
Intent and knowledge are key in determining whether the dereliction was willful or negligent.
Command responsibility increases the gravity of dereliction.
Courts consider the nature of the duty, environment (e.g., combat vs. peacetime), and consequences of the failure.
Repeated or deliberate disregard for orders or known responsibilities increases the severity of punishment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments