[OldDeckHand]

"I am pretty sure that he had no intent to disobey a lawful order. "

To keep from wading to far into the weeds of jury instructions especially considering an affirmative defense, I'll keep this brief. The problem for Lakin is that he was counseled prior to disobeying his orders (and missing his movement) that his orders were presumptively lawful. He was also advised to seek the advice of military counsel prior to his decision to disobey orders. He chose to ignore the notice of presumptive lawfulness as well as the advice of military counsel. Article 92 is not a "specific intent offense", or so the appellate courts have held.

[SeaHawkFan]

The problem for Lakin is that he was counseled prior to disobeying his orders (and missing his movement) that his orders were presumptively lawful.

Who did the 'counseling'?