Awol Prosecutions In Military Law
📘 What is AWOL?
AWOL (Absent Without Leave) refers to a military service member who is absent from their place of duty without official permission (leave or pass). It is a serious offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), particularly under Article 86.
Article 86, UCMJ: Covers AWOL and desertion offenses.
AWOL does not necessarily mean intent to desert; a service member might be absent temporarily without permission but with the intention to return.
If the absence is with the intent to remain away permanently, it is often classified as desertion (Article 85), which carries more severe penalties.
⚖️ Legal Framework: Article 86 UCMJ (AWOL)
AWOL can be for any unauthorized absence, ranging from a few hours to several days.
Penalties vary depending on duration and circumstances — from non-judicial punishment (NJP) to court-martial.
Factors influencing prosecution: length of absence, circumstances, previous records, intent.
🔍 Detailed Case Law Examples on AWOL Prosecutions
1. United States v. Allen (1975)
Court: U.S. Court of Military Appeals
Issue: AWOL over a long period; distinction between AWOL and desertion
Facts:
The accused was absent from his unit for several months. The case questioned whether the absence constituted AWOL or desertion under Article 85.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that intent is crucial — to prove desertion, the prosecution must show intent to remain away permanently. Absent such intent, the offense remains AWOL.
Significance:
This case clarified the intent requirement distinguishing AWOL from desertion, emphasizing the mental state in military absences.
2. United States v. Geer (2007)
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Issue: Procedural protections in AWOL prosecution
Facts:
The appellant argued that his due process rights were violated because of the way the evidence of AWOL was collected and presented.
Ruling:
The court held that due process rights apply fully in AWOL prosecutions and that the military must follow proper procedural rules to avoid unfair convictions.
Significance:
This case reinforced the importance of fair process in AWOL courts-martial, especially regarding evidence and notification of charges.
3. United States v. Armitage (2003)
Court: Army Court of Criminal Appeals
Issue: AWOL due to mental health issues
Facts:
The accused was AWOL for several days, but argued that mental health issues and stress caused his unauthorized absence.
Ruling:
The court found that mitigating circumstances such as mental illness could be considered in sentencing but did not excuse the AWOL offense itself.
Significance:
Established that while mental health may mitigate punishment, it does not negate the offense of AWOL under military law.
4. United States v. Rodriguez (2012)
Court: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
Issue: AWOL due to misunderstanding leave policy
Facts:
Rodriguez left his post, believing he had authorized leave due to confusing instructions.
Ruling:
The court acknowledged the misunderstanding but held that ignorance of the rules was not a defense to AWOL. However, it allowed leniency in sentencing.
Significance:
Highlighted that lack of knowledge of orders is not a defense, but courts may consider it in punishment.
5. United States v. Holley (2019)
Court: Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
Issue: AWOL during combat deployment
Facts:
Holley went AWOL during a deployment to a combat zone, raising concerns over discipline in wartime.
Ruling:
The court upheld a harsh sentence citing the critical importance of discipline in combat. The judgment emphasized that AWOL in combat zones is treated more severely due to potential risks to unit safety.
Significance:
Set precedent for stricter penalties for AWOL in combat environments, highlighting operational security concerns.
6. United States v. Montoya (2015)
Court: Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
Issue: Unauthorized absence to avoid military discipline
Facts:
Montoya went AWOL to avoid pending disciplinary action.
Ruling:
Court found this to be an aggravating factor and imposed a sentence reflecting that avoidance of discipline via AWOL is treated seriously.
Significance:
Confirmed that AWOL used as a means to evade punishment may result in harsher consequences.
🧩 Common Themes in AWOL Prosecutions
| Theme | Description |
|---|---|
| Intent | Critical to distinguish AWOL from desertion. |
| Mental Health | Mitigating factor, not a defense. |
| Procedural Fairness | Due process is required in courts-martial for AWOL. |
| Ignorance of Orders | Not a defense, but may reduce punishment. |
| Combat Zone AWOL | Heavier penalties due to operational risks. |
| Evading Discipline | Aggravating factor increasing sentence severity. |
⚠️ Summary and Practical Implications
AWOL is a serious offense under military law with varying degrees of punishment.
Courts focus on intent, circumstances, and impact on military order.
Defense arguments often focus on mental health, confusion about orders, or procedural defects.
Penalties can range from reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay, confinement, to dishonorable discharge.
AWOL in combat or wartime zones is punished especially severely due to risk to unit cohesion and safety.
Service members must be fully aware of their leave status and regulations to avoid prosecution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments