AWOL Military vs. Desertion: What's the Difference Under the UCMJ?

AWOL means a service member was absent from a required place of duty without permission. Desertion is more serious because it generally requires proof that the service member intended to remain away permanently or avoid hazardous duty or important service.

The length of the absence matters, but it is not the only difference. A long absence does not automatically prove desertion. The service member’s intent, actions, statements, and surrounding circumstances can determine whether the allegation falls under Article 86 or Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

What Does AWOL Military Mean?

AWOL stands for absent without leave. It describes a service member who is not at an assigned place of duty and does not have authorization to be absent.

The statutory language of Article 86 UCMJ covers three basic forms of unauthorized absence:

• Failing to report to an appointed place of duty at the required time
• Leaving an appointed place of duty without permission
• Remaining absent from a unit, organization, or required place of duty without authorization

An Article 86 offense can therefore involve more than leaving a military installation for several days. Arriving late for formation, leaving a duty post early, or failing to return when approved leave ends may also fall under the article.

The term unauthorized absence, or UA, is also used in military settings, particularly in the Navy and Marine Corps. In this context, AWOL and UA describe similar conduct: being away from a required duty location without proper authorization.

What Is Military Desertion?

Military desertion is addressed under Article 85 of the UCMJ. It is not simply a longer version of being AWOL.

A service member may be accused of desertion when the government alleges that the person:

• Left or remained away with the intent to stay away permanently
• Left with the intent to avoid hazardous duty
• Left with the intent to avoid important service
• Joined another armed force without properly disclosing an existing military obligation
• Entered a foreign armed service without U.S. authorization

Article 85 also addresses a commissioned officer who leaves duties after submitting a resignation but before being notified that the resignation was accepted, when the officer intended to remain away permanently.

The key issue in most desertion cases is not simply where the person went. It is what the person intended when the absence began or while it continued.

AWOL Military vs. Desertion: The Main Difference

The main difference between AWOL military conduct and desertion is specific intent.

Article 86 generally does not require the government to prove that the service member planned to abandon military service forever. The government usually must show that the member was required to be at a certain place and was absent without authority.

Article 85 requires more. In a permanent-desertion case, the prosecution must show that the accused intended to remain away permanently. In another form of desertion, it must prove an intent to avoid hazardous duty or shirk important service.

The distinction can be summarized as follows:



Does AWOL Become Desertion After 30 Days?

An absence lasting more than 30 days does not automatically prove desertion under Article 85.

A military branch may change the member’s administrative status or classify the person as a deserter after a certain period or when facts indicate desertion. However, an administrative label is not proof that the member had the intent required for an Article 85 conviction.

Being listed as a “deserter” in personnel records does not, by itself, prove that a service member intended to desert. Likewise, a long period of unauthorized absence alone is not enough to establish desertion without additional evidence showing the required intent.

A period longer than 30 days is still important. Under Article 86, it is an aggravating circumstance that increases the maximum authorized punishment. It may also be one piece of circumstantial evidence considered in an Article 85 case.

What Must Be Proven Under Article 86 UCMJ?

The elements depend on the type of unauthorized absence charged.

Failure to Go to an Appointed Place of Duty

The government generally must establish that:

• A military authority appointed a specific time and place of duty
• The accused knew about that time and place
• The accused failed to report without authority

Leaving an Appointed Place of Duty

The prosecution generally must show that:

• The accused had an appointed place of duty
• The accused knew about the assignment
• The accused reported there
• The accused left without authority

Absence From a Unit or Place of Duty

The government generally must prove that:

• The accused was required to be with a unit, organization, or at another duty location
• The accused was absent
• The absence was not authorized
• The absence continued for the period alleged

If the government alleges that the absence ended through apprehension, it must also prove that fact.

Article 86 can cover even a brief absence. The Manual for Courts-Martial explains that an unauthorized absence is complete once a service member leaves or remains away without authority.

Its length becomes relevant when deciding the seriousness and maximum punishment.

What Must Be Proven for Military Desertion?

The elements of military desertion depend on the theory used by the prosecution.

Intent to Remain Away Permanently

The government generally must prove that:

• The accused left a unit, organization, or place of duty
• The absence was unauthorized
• The accused intended to remain away permanently
• The accused remained absent until the date alleged

The intent does not have to exist when the absence first begins. The Manual for Courts-Martial states that it can be formed at any point during the unauthorized absence.

Intent to Avoid Hazardous Duty or Important Service

The government generally must establish that:

• The accused left the required unit or duty location
• The accused intended to avoid a particular duty or service
• The duty was hazardous or the service was important
• The accused knew that the duty or service was expected
• The accused remained absent until the date alleged

Hazardous duty may include service in combat or another dangerous area. Important service depends on the circumstances and is a question that may need to be resolved through the military justice process.

What Evidence May Be Used to Show Intent?

Because intent exists in a person’s mind, prosecutors may rely on surrounding conduct and circumstantial evidence.

Facts that may support an allegation of intent to remain away permanently include:

• A lengthy period of absence
• Selling or disposing of uniforms or military property
• Buying transportation to a distant location
• Making statements about never returning
• Hiding from military authorities
• Making long-term financial or living arrangements elsewhere
• Leaving while facing charges or confinement
• Having opportunities to surrender but failing to do so

Other facts may weaken an allegation of permanent intent. Examples include leaving important property at the unit, having a strong prior service record, attempting to contact the command, or evidence that the person planned to return.

No one factor decides every case. The Manual for Courts-Martial describes these circumstances as examples rather than a complete checklist.

What Are the Maximum Punishments for Article 86?

The possible punishment under UCMJ Article 86 depends on the form and duration of the absence.

The 2024 Manual for Courts-Martial lists maximum punishments that include:

• Failure to go to or leaving an appointed duty location: Confinement for one month and forfeiture of two-thirds pay for one month
• Absence for no more than three days: Confinement for one month and forfeiture of two-thirds pay for one month
• Absence for more than three days but no more than 30 days: Confinement for six months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay for six months
• Absence for more than 30 days: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for one year
• Absence for more than 30 days ending through apprehension: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 18 months

Other maximums apply to absences from guard or watch and absences intended to avoid maneuvers or field exercises. These are authorized maximums, not automatic outcomes. The disposition may depend on the evidence, duration, service history, reason for the absence, manner of return, and other circumstances.

What Are the Maximum Punishments for Desertion?

The authorized maximum punishment for Article 85 is generally more severe.

The Manual for Courts-Martial lists:

• Desertion to avoid hazardous duty or shirk important service: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for five years
• Other desertion ending through apprehension: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for three years
• Other desertion ending in another way, including voluntary return: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for two years

The UCMJ states that desertion committed in time of war may be punished by death or another punishment directed by a court-martial.

What Issues May Affect an AWOL or Desertion Case?

The facts surrounding the absence can change how the allegation is evaluated. Potential issues may include:

• The member did not know about the assigned duty
• Leave or permission had been granted
• The member reasonably believed the absence was authorized
• A medical emergency prevented the member from returning
• Transportation failed through no fault of the member
• The command recorded the dates incorrectly
• The member did not intend to remain away permanently
• The member did not know about the hazardous duty or important service
• The absence ended through a voluntary surrender rather than apprehension
• Statements or records were taken out of context

The Manual for Courts-Martial notes that a person who is on authorized leave and, without fault, cannot return when leave expires has not committed absence without leave. An inability that begins after an unauthorized absence has already started may be treated differently.

Anyone accused under Article 85 or Article 86 should speak with qualified military defense counsel before giving a detailed statement, surrendering documents, or making decisions about an Article 15 proceeding or court-martial.

Does Florida Law Change the UCMJ Rules?

No. Articles 85 and 86 are federal military laws. The same core UCMJ rules apply whether a service member is assigned in Jacksonville, Pensacola, Tampa, another Florida community, elsewhere in the United States, or overseas.

The location may affect where witnesses, records, military authorities, and legal resources are found. It does not replace the federal elements of AWOL or military desertion.

Get the Right Legal Help for Your Situation

An AWOL or desertion allegation may affect a service member’s military record, pay, rank, freedom, and career. A service member facing an Article 86 investigation, nonjudicial punishment, or court-martial should consult a qualified military defense attorney about the evidence, possible consequences, and available defenses.

Tucker Law Group represents qualifying civilian contractors in Defense Base Act claims involving overseas work-related injuries and occupational illnesses. The firm also handles Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act claims, Florida workers’ compensation, personal injury, Social Security Disability, and hearing loss matters.

If your situation involves an overseas work injury, maritime employment, a Florida workplace accident, hearing damage, or a disability claim, contact Tucker Law Group to discuss the benefits and legal options that may apply. The Defense Base Act provides workers’ compensation protection to qualifying civilian employees working outside the United States on military bases or under certain U.S. government contracts.

Frequently Asked Questions