The refusals to deploy by units may have been the result of organizing:
Rather than concentrating on large base-wide actions, an effort was made to concentrate on localized, unit organizing. ... These groups would put out small, mimeographed unit newspapers ... struggle against immediate forms of harassment, and occasionally submit group Article 138 complaints against a particularly oppressive officer. ... Because they dealt with immediate local issues, these unit organizations were frequently able to effect some genuine changes. In addition, these unit groups could raise conceptually the issue of power in the military: "We know that to achieve these goals will take a long fight. To begin to implement this program we intend to build our own democratic organizations within our units which serve our own interests, to protect us now from our present leaders, and later to replace the existing organization of the military."
What's interesting to me is that this is very similar to the IWW's current model of "solidarity unionism" where the goal is to use direct action to build a culture of fighting, win small changes, and eventually stage bigger actions over issues like wages, always with an eye towards anarchist revolution.