When Army Accused Plead Guilty to Desertion

Trends › By Offense › Article 85 › When Army Accused Plead Guilty to Desert

Based on 42 cases · 2021–2025 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Short Confinement and Frequent Discharges

In these desertion pleas, confinement was shorter than the Army median, but a punitive discharge was more common than in other Army guilty pleas.

Of 42 convicted enlisted members, 38 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (90%). Of those discharges, 4 were dishonorable. Across all Army guilty pleas in those years, the share was 75%. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these records do not show. No officers were convicted in this group, so there are no dismissals.

How Much Confinement

Of 42 convictions, 37 included confinement (88%). The median confinement was 3 months, shorter than the 5-month median across Army guilty pleas. A quarter of terms were 5 months or longer, and 1 sentence was confinement for life.

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

Most Terms Were Under 6 Months

Terms under 6 months made up 67% of these convictions, compared with 44% across Army guilty pleas. Terms of 6 months to 1 year made up 12%, compared with 18%. No confinement was adjudged in 5 convictions (12%), about the same as the Army figure of 14%.

Only 4 of 42 convictions (10%) included more than one year, compared with 24% for all Army guilty pleas. Of those 4, 2 were between 1 and 5 years and 2 were 5 years or more.

Mostly Special Courts-Martial

Special courts-martial heard 27 of the cases and general courts-martial 14. The level is not listed for 1 case. General courts-martial, the level that can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge, made up 34% of the 41 cases with a court level listed.

The median confinement was 6 months at general courts-martial and 2 months at special courts-martial. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year. It can impose a bad-conduct discharge but not a dishonorable discharge.

Desertion and Absence Charges Together

In 20 of the 42 cases, at least one other article was charged with Article 85. The most common was Article 86 (AWOL), a related absence offense, in 11 cases. Article 112a (drugs) appeared in 5 cases, Article 90 (disobeying an officer) in 4, Article 128 (assault) in 3, and Article 87a (resisting apprehension) in 2.

Desertion differs from AWOL because it requires, among other forms, an intent to remain away permanently or to avoid hazardous duty. The records list the charges. They do not show the length of any absence, whether it ended in apprehension or a voluntary return, or where the accused went.

Almost All Junior Enlisted

Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 88% of the accused, and NCOs made up 12%. No officers appear. Across all Army guilty pleas in those years, junior enlisted members were 60%.

A military judge alone decided all 42 cases. There were 0 enlisted panels and 0 officer panels. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so this follows from the fact that every case here was a guilty plea. Army records show whether a plea agreement existed, not its terms.

Years and Installations

The cases were tried from February 2021 to April 2025. There were 8 in 2021, 10 in 2022, 12 in 2023, 9 in 2024, and 3 in 2025.

Fort Bliss had 8 cases, Fort Campbell 7, Fort Hood 6, Fort Carson 4, and Joint Base Lewis-McChord 3. Those five installations had 67% of the 42 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a high count alone does not mean a base has a problem with desertion.

Rule Changes in Late 2023

Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. When every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters.

Both rules depend on the offense date, which these records do not give. Trials from 2024 on therefore include cases under both systems. The records cannot show whether the changes affected outcomes. Army records here are sparse before 2021, after Article 140a publication was required by December 2020.

What the Records Do Not Show

The records give trial dates, not the dates an absence began or ended. They do not describe the evidence or the plea terms. Absences resolved through nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation are not counted.

Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: 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.