## Facts

- Specialist William Walker, a practicing Muslim soldier stationed in Germany, faced deployment orders to Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield.
- Walker submitted a conscientious-objector application asserting religious objections to taking offensive action against fellow Muslims.
- After an Army personnel message directed that certain conscientious-objector applications be processed at the member’s new duty station, Walker’s command stopped processing his application and told him to refile after arrival in Saudi Arabia.
- A later Army message dated January 2 permitted processing at the soldier’s current duty station, but Walker’s command did not learn of it before the unit’s January 6 deployment date.
- Walker was ordered to deploy on January 6 and refused; after the unit departed, he was again ordered to deploy on January 8 and refused.
- Walker was charged under the UCMJ and convicted by general court-martial of missing movement and willful disobedience of lawful deployment orders.

## Issues

1. Whether a pending or improperly processed conscientious-objector application, and alleged noncompliance with related regulations, renders otherwise facially lawful deployment orders unlawful or provides a defense to missing movement and willful disobedience charges.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed the intermediate appellate court and reinstated Walker’s convictions and sentence.
- The court held that defects in conscientious-objector processing did not invalidate the deployment orders or excuse Walker’s refusals.
- The court rejected the view that pending conscientious-objector processing made Walker legally “ineligible” to deploy in a way that could defeat UCMJ liability.

## Legal Principles

- A servicemember must obey orders that are lawful on their face and issued by competent authority; administrative or regulatory errors in the background generally do not negate that duty.
- Conscientious-objector regulations and processing procedures do not create a self-executing immunity from criminal liability for missing movement or disobeying lawful orders.
- Alleged violations of internal personnel regulations ordinarily provide administrative remedies, not a substantive defense at court-martial, absent a showing that the order itself was unlawful.
- The lawfulness of an order is assessed based on its facial validity and the command’s authority and knowledge at the time it was issued, not later-discovered changes in administrative guidance.

## Conclusion

The court held that Walker’s unresolved conscientious-objector request and any mishandling of related procedures did not permit him to refuse facially lawful deployment orders, so his convictions for missing movement and willful disobedience were properly reinstated.


United States v. Walker, 41 M.J. 462 (C.A.A.F. 1995)