Pleading Guilty to Article 86 in the Air Force: What Sentences Followed?

Trends › By Offense › Article 86 › Pleading Guilty to Article 86 in the Air

Based on 45 cases · 2016–2025 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026

Guilty Pleas Recorded From 2020 On

This page covers only Air Force courts-martial in which the accused pleaded guilty to charges that included Article 86, the article on unauthorized absence. Every case in this group is a guilty plea. None was contested, and a military judge alone decided all 45 cases.

The period runs from 2016 to 2025, but the records hold 0 qualifying cases before 2020. Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 rarely list a guilty plea, so most earlier guilty pleas cannot be identified. The yearly counts were 11 in 2020, 5 in 2021, 5 in 2022, 14 in 2023, 4 in 2024, and 6 in 2025.

Most Sentences Were Short

Of the 45 convictions, 44 included confinement (98%). The median confinement was 3 months, slightly lower than the 4-month median for all Air Force guilty pleas in the same years. A quarter of the sentences were 6 months or longer.

Sentences under 6 months made up 76% of these convictions, compared with 55% of all Air Force guilty pleas. Sentences of more than 1 year but under 5 years made up 4% (2 convictions), compared with 17%. No conviction here included 5 years or more, compared with 5% across the service.

These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence covers every charge in the case.

Absence Was Almost Never the Only Charge

Only 2 of the 45 cases charged Article 86 by itself. Drug offenses were the most common companion charge: Article 112a appeared in 26 cases. Article 92 (orders violation) appeared in 17, Article 107 (false official statement) in 12, Article 90 (disobeying an officer) in 6, and Article 87b (offenses against correctional custody, numbered since 2019) in 6.

A sentence covers the whole case. The confinement and discharge figures therefore reflect all the charges, not the absence alone.

Fewer Punitive Discharges Than Other Guilty Pleas

A punitive discharge followed 48% of enlisted convictions in this group. All 21 were bad-conduct discharges, and 0 were dishonorable. Across all Air Force guilty pleas in the same years, 60% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge.

For enlisted members, a punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. A sentence without one does not rule out a later administrative separation. The 1 convicted officer or warrant officer in this group was dismissed. A dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge.

Most Were Special Courts-Martial

Of the 45 cases, 37 were special courts-martial and 8 were general courts-martial. The general court-martial share was 18%, compared with 43% across all Air Force guilty pleas. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year. It can impose a bad-conduct discharge but not a dishonorable discharge.

Since 2019, a special court-martial can also be tried by a military judge alone, with confinement capped at six months and no punitive discharge. These records do not separate that form from other special courts-martial.

Most of the Accused Were Junior Enlisted

Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 84% of the accused, NCOs 13%, and officers 2%. Across all Air Force guilty pleas, junior enlisted members made up 68% of the accused. This group is more junior than Air Force guilty pleas as a whole.

Installations

Osan AB, South Korea, had the most cases, with 4. Travis AFB, California; JB Langley-Eustis, Virginia; McConnell AFB, Kansas; and JB Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, had 2 each. Together these 5 installations account for 27% of the 45 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a count alone says little about any one installation.

Rule Changes in These Years

The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. It set fixed panel sizes, created judge-alone special courts-martial, and introduced written plea agreements. Cases with offenses from before 2019 kept the old rules. For offenses after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters. These rules depend on the offense date, which the records do not give, so trials from 2024 on include both old-rule and new-rule cases.

What the Records Do Not Show

The records show trial dates, not offense dates. They do not show the length of an absence, the evidence, or plea terms. Air Force records never report plea agreements. Absences handled through nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation do not appear.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 86 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.

About the author. Jocelyn C. Stewart is a retired Army JAG with more than 24 years of trying courts-martial and more than 200 jury trials. She hosts Where All The Bodies Are Buried and runs the Law Office of Jocelyn C. Stewart. This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.