## Facts

- Technical Sergeant Chris E. Traxler, U.S. Air Force, was ordered to deploy in support of Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm by boarding a specific aircraft on December 15, 1990.
- Before departure, Traxler told his first sergeant he would not take the flight and did not intend to deploy.
- Three days before departure, Traxler reiterated his refusal to his commander, Captain Collins, who prepared a written order directing Traxler to board the aircraft.
- On December 15, Traxler went to the flightline but refused to board.
- Captain Collins personally confronted Traxler, read the written order to him, and obtained Traxler’s signed acknowledgment that he understood the order.
- Traxler again refused to board and missed the aircraft movement.
- At trial, Collins testified the order was issued to secure compliance with the deployment requirement, not to punish Traxler or increase criminal exposure.

## Issues

1. Whether convictions for missing movement by design (Article 87, UCMJ) and willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer’s lawful order (Article 90, UCMJ) were impermissibly multiplicious because the order to board allegedly restated an existing duty to deploy.
2. Whether the order to board was unlawful as a “punitive” order issued solely to increase the penalty for anticipated misconduct.

## Decision

- The United States Court of Military Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence.
- The court held Traxler’s conduct supported two distinct convictions: missing movement by design (Article 87) and willful disobedience of a superior officer’s lawful order (Article 90).
- The court held the commander’s order to board the aircraft was lawful and nonpunitive, and disobedience of that order was separately punishable.

## Legal Principles

- Article 87 (missing movement) and Article 90 (willful disobedience of a superior commissioned officer) are separate offenses when each requires proof of elements the other does not.
- A specific, personal directive from a superior commissioned officer to comply with an operational requirement can constitute a distinct lawful order, even if it relates to an existing duty.
- An order is unlawful if issued for the sole purpose of increasing the punishment for an offense the commander expects the accused to commit; an operational order aimed at obtaining compliance is lawful even if disobedience creates additional criminal liability.
- Missing movement protects the reliability of military movements; willful disobedience protects command authority and discipline, permitting separate punishment when both interests are harmed by the accused’s conduct.

## Conclusion

The court upheld dual convictions because Traxler both intentionally missed a scheduled deployment movement and willfully disobeyed a personally delivered, lawful, nonpunitive order to board, with each offense addressing distinct elements and military interests.


United States v. Traxler, 39 M.J. 476 (C.M.A. 1994)