Accountability for a leader’s failure does not require proving the leader meant to do wrong. Military law reaches negligent failure too, through the offense of dereliction of duty, and understanding that this offense includes negligence is the key to understanding how command negligence becomes a matter of accountability rather than just criticism.
The offense: dereliction of duty
The relevant offense is dereliction of duty under Article 92(3) of the UCMJ. To prove it, the government must establish three elements:
- that the accused had certain duties;
- that the accused knew, or reasonably should have known, of those duties; and
- that the accused was willfully, or through neglect or culpable inefficiency, derelict in performing them.
The structure is what makes it useful for addressing negligence: it does not demand intent.
Why negligence is enough
The decisive point is the mental state. Although the statute does not spell out a single required mens rea, negligence is an authorized level of culpability for an Article 92(3) dereliction offense; the military has long interpreted the article to allow punishment for negligent dereliction, not only willful failure. So a leader who negligently fails to perform a known duty can be held accountable, even absent any intent to cause harm.
That is precisely the territory “command negligence” occupies: a failure of attention or diligence in carrying out responsibilities, rather than a deliberate wrong.
Where the duties come from
A dereliction case turns on identifying the duty that was breached, and duties have many sources. A duty may be imposed by statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the service. Knowledge of the duty need not always be proven directly; it can be shown that the person reasonably should have known of it, using regulations, training materials, the customs of the service, or the responsibilities of the position itself.
This matters for accountability because a leader cannot always escape responsibility by claiming ignorance of a duty their position plainly carried.
The throughline
Suppose a leader ignored a known safety duty and harm followed: the attorney analyzes it as dereliction, which requires a duty the leader knew or should have known and a willful or negligent failure to perform it.
Pursuing accountability for command negligence, then, is largely a matter of framing it correctly as negligent dereliction of duty: establishing the duty, showing the leader knew or should have known of it, and demonstrating the negligent failure to perform it. Because the offense reaches neglect and not just intentional misconduct, military law provides a real avenue to hold leadership accountable for failures of diligence, which is what most “command negligence” actually involves.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a leader be held accountable for negligence rather than intentional misconduct?
Yes. Dereliction of duty can be committed through neglect, so a negligent failure to perform known duties can be an offense.
Where do a service member’s duties come from?
They can be imposed by statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or the custom of the service.
Does the accused have to have actually known about the duty?
Not necessarily. It can be enough that the person reasonably should have known of the duty, which may be shown through training, regulations, or the nature of the position.
This article is general information about dereliction of duty. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Charges and outcomes depend on the specific facts and elements and can change. This article describes the framework in general terms only.
Sources