Article 86, UCMJ: AWOL, Failure to Report, and Unauthorized Absence

General information—not legal advice. Article 86 cases depend on the specific charge, facts, evidence, and law in effect when the alleged conduct occurred. A service member facing investigation, nonjudicial punishment, administrative action, or court-martial should seek confidential legal advice promptly.

Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice covers several forms of unauthorized absence, commonly called “AWOL.” It is not limited to a prolonged absence from a unit. An Article 86 allegation can involve missing a required formation, leaving an assigned duty location without permission, or being absent from a unit, organization, or other required place of duty.

The government must prove the particular charged form of Article 86 beyond a reasonable doubt. The reporting instruction, the source of authority, a member’s knowledge, leave or liberty status, communications, the period of absence, and the manner in which the absence ended can all matter.

What Article 86 prohibits

Article 86 prohibits a member of the armed forces, without authority, from:

1. Failing to go to an appointed place of duty at the prescribed time;
2. Going from that place after reporting there; or
3. Absenting themself or remaining absent from a unit, organization, or place of duty where they are required to be.

These are distinct theories of liability. A missed formation is not necessarily the same alleged offense as leaving a duty station after arriving, and neither is necessarily the same as an extended absence from a unit. The charge sheet and evidence determine what the government must prove.

The three common forms of AWOL

Failure to go to an appointed place of duty

This allegation is often informally called “failure to repair.” It concerns not reporting to a particular duty location at a prescribed time.

In United States v. Adams, 63 M.J. 223 (C.A.A.F. 2006), the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces explained that a failure-to-go allegation requires proof that an authority appointed a certain time and place of duty, that the accused knew of that time and place, and that the accused failed to go there without authority.

Evidence may include a duty roster, written orders, text messages, emails, muster records, witness testimony, leave paperwork, and statements. Whether a particular record proves knowledge or lack of authority depends on the facts and the applicable rules of evidence.

Going from an appointed place of duty

This form concerns a member who reports to an appointed place but then leaves without authority. Relevant questions can include the assigned duty location, when the member departed, whether permission was given, and what the member was instructed to do.

The allegation is different from failure to go. The focus is not a failure to arrive; it is an unauthorized departure after arrival.

Absence from a unit, organization, or place of duty

This is the form of Article 86 most people mean by “AWOL.” It concerns absence from a unit, organization, or required duty location without authority for a specified period.

The alleged start and end of the absence, any approved leave or pass, how and when the member returned, and whether the absence ended through apprehension can matter. Those facts can affect the applicable maximum punishment under the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition).

Authority, notice, and evidence

An Article 86 violation requires more than a person’s physical absence. The charged conduct must be without authority. Authority may come from approved leave, liberty, a pass, a competent supervisor’s permission, changed reporting instructions, medical direction, or other circumstances supported by the facts and governing law.

Common questions include who could excuse the member, what was communicated, whether a reporting requirement changed, and whether documentary records are complete and reliable. An informal conversation may not establish authorization; conversely, an administrative record’s conclusion that an absence was “unauthorized” does not itself resolve every factual or legal issue.

For failure-to-go allegations, knowledge of the appointed time and place is an element. In Adams, CAAF held that deliberate ignorance can, in an appropriate case, satisfy Article 86’s knowledge requirement. Deliberate ignorance is not simply administrative confusion or a missed message; the evidence must support the legal theory and the military judge must apply the law correctly.

Article 86 and desertion are different

Unlike Article 86, Article 85, UCMJ defines desertion and requires proof of an additional specified intent. One form of desertion requires proof that a member went or remained absent without authority with intent to remain away permanently. Another addresses quitting a unit or duty location with intent to avoid hazardous duty or shirk important service.

A lengthy absence can be relevant evidence, but it does not by itself prove every element of desertion. Likewise, a longer absence can increase the authorized maximum punishment for an Article 86 offense without automatically changing the charged offense to desertion.

Maximum punishments under Article 86

Article 86 provides that unauthorized absence is punishable “as a court-martial may direct.” The maximum punishments below are drawn from the Manual for Courts-Martial and depend on the charged form of absence, its duration, and how it ended.

Charged conduct	Maximum confinement	Other authorized maximum punishment
Failure to go to an appointed place of duty, or going from that place without authority	1 month	Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month
Unauthorized absence of 3 days or less	1 month	Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month
Unauthorized absence for more than 3 days but not more than 30 days	6 months	Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 6 months
Unauthorized absence for more than 30 days	1 year	Dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances
Unauthorized absence for more than 30 days that ends by apprehension	18 months	Dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances
Absence from guard or watch	6 months	Forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 6 months
Absence with intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises	6 months	Bad-conduct discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances
Absence with intent to avoid hazardous duty or shirk important service	2 years	Dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances

For offenses committed on or after December 27, 2023, the current MCM’s offense-based sentencing framework also applies. The precise punishment analysis in an individual case can depend on the offense date, the specification, sentencing rules, and other facts.

What to do after an allegation

A service member notified of an alleged unauthorized absence should consider the following practical steps:

• Seek confidential legal advice early. Ask how to contact the service’s defense organization before making a substantive statement or deciding how to respond to official paperwork.
• Preserve records. Keep leave approvals, passes, medical documents, travel records, duty rosters, messages, emails, and a timeline. Do not delete, alter, or ask another person to alter potentially relevant material.
• Review documents carefully. Record the alleged dates, time, location, period of absence, and source of the claimed duty requirement.
• Do not treat an informal explanation as a final resolution. An investigation or adverse action may rely on documents and statements that deserve legal review.
• Limit discussion of facts. Posts, group messages, and informal discussions with coworkers may create additional evidence or complications.

When a person subject to the UCMJ interrogates or requests a statement from someone suspected or accused of an offense, Article 31(b), UCMJ

Do I have a right to defense counsel at a court-martial?

Yes. Under Article 38, UCMJ, an accused at a general or special court-martial has the right to representation by detailed military defense counsel at no personal cost. The accused may also request military counsel of their own selection—often called Individual Military Counsel—if that counsel is reasonably available under applicable rules.

An accused may retain qualified civilian counsel at personal expense. If civilian counsel appears, detailed or selected military counsel ordinarily acts as associate counsel unless the accused asks to excuse that military counsel. The right and availability of counsel in an investigation, nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or another adverse administrative action can differ from the right to representation at a general or special court-martial.

Service defense resources

• Army: Trial Defense Service (TDS) provides defense legal services to Soldiers; installation offices may publish local intake instructions.
• Air Force and Space Force: The Area Defense Counsel contact list lists ADC locations and contact information.
• Navy and Marine Corps: The Navy Defense Service Office (DSO) provides advice and representation to eligible service members in courts-martial and certain administrative proceedings.
• Coast Guard: The Coast Guard Defense Counsel Program provides qualified military defense counsel for disciplinary proceedings, adverse personnel actions, administrative boards, and courts-martial.

Does OSTC handle Article 86 cases?

A standalone Article 86 allegation is generally not a statutorily defined covered offense assigned to Special Trial Counsel authority. Article 86 nevertheless can arise in an investigation that includes a covered offense, a related offense, or other allegations. Disposition authority depends on the relevant statute, service implementation, OSTC notices, and the facts of the particular case.

The statutory framework for Special Trial Counsel is Article 24a, UCMJ. Each service maintains its own public resources:

• Army Office of Special Trial Counsel
• Department of the Air Force Office of Special Trial Counsel
• Department of the Navy Office of Special Trial Counsel
• Coast Guard Office of the Chief Prosecutor, which handles prosecution and disposition of the Coast Guard’s most serious victim-centric offenses and all courts-martial

Frequently asked questions

Is being late always an Article 86 offense?

No. The government must prove the charged form of Article 86 and its elements. Depending on the facts and disposition decision, a late arrival may be handled administratively, through nonjudicial punishment, or by court-martial. A short delay does not automatically prove every required element.

Can a medical issue or emergency matter?

Yes. Medical records, emergency circumstances, transportation problems, and communications with the command may be relevant to authorization, notice, or proof of the charged allegation. The legal effect depends on the specific facts.

Does an absence longer than 30 days automatically mean desertion?

No. Article 85 requires proof of an additional specified intent. A longer absence can affect the maximum punishment for some Article 86 specifications, but it does not itself prove intent to remain away permanently.

Can Article 86 be handled through nonjudicial punishment?

It can be, depending on the allegation and disposition decision. A member offered nonjudicial punishment should request legal advice promptly before deciding how to respond.

Sources

• Article 86, UCMJ—10 U.S.C. § 886
• Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 edition)
• United States v. Adams, 63 M.J. 223 (C.A.A.F. 2006)
• Article 31, UCMJ—10 U.S.C. § 831
• Article 38, UCMJ—10 U.S.C. § 838
• Article 85, UCMJ—10 U.S.C. § 885
• Article 24a, UCMJ—Special Trial Counsel