AWOL at Army Courts-Martial, 2021: The Year in Numbers

Trends › By Offense › Article 86 › Army, 2021

Based on 28 cases · 2021 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Shorter Terms Than Other Army Cases

Of 27 convictions, 81% included confinement. Half of those terms were 3 months or less. The median for all Army cases in 2021 was 6 months.

Terms under 6 months were the largest group: 17 convictions (63%), compared with 37% Army-wide. Only 2 of 27 convictions (7%) included more than one year, compared with 26% across the Army. No sentence was 5 years or more.

No confinement was adjudged in 5 convictions (19%), the same share as across the Army. Terms of 6 months to 1 year made up 3 convictions (11%), compared with 17% Army-wide. Most sentences here were short terms.

These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. They cover every charge in the case, not the absence alone.

Special Courts-Martial Heard Most Cases

Only 8 of the 28 cases were tried at a general court-martial (29%), compared with 73% for all Army cases in 2021. The rest were special courts-martial.

Court level sets the maximum sentence. A special court-martial can adjudge no more than one year of confinement and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence. The records do not show why a case was referred to one level or the other.

Since 2019, a special court-martial can also be tried by a military judge alone. In that form, confinement is capped at six months and no punitive discharge is available.

Few AWOL Cases Were Contested

Of the 28 cases, 23 were guilty pleas and 5 were contested. A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share was 18%, lower than the Army-wide rate of 36%.

Of the 23 guilty pleas, 19 are recorded with a plea agreement and 4 have no entry. Army records show whether an agreement existed but not what it contained.

Other Charges in the Same Cases

Article 86 was the only charge in 8 of the 28 cases. The other cases included at least one more article.

Article 90 (disobeying an officer) and Article 112a (drug) each appeared in 6 cases. Article 85 (desertion) and Article 128 (assault) each appeared in 5, and Article 107 (false official statement) in 4. The sentence covers every charge, so it reflects these other offenses too.

How Many Received a Punitive Discharge?

Of 26 convicted enlisted members, 16 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (62%). That is lower than the 70% for all Army cases in 2021. Only 1 of those discharges was dishonorable.

For an enlisted member, a punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. Only a general court-martial can adjudge a dishonorable discharge, and most cases here were special courts-martial.

The group also includes 1 convicted officer or warrant officer, who was dismissed. Dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.

Rank and Forum

The accused were 17 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 10 NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 1 officer or warrant officer. That mix is similar to the Army as a whole in 2021, where 58% of the accused were junior enlisted.

A military judge alone decided 25 cases. Enlisted panels heard 3, and no case went to an officer panel. Members heard 11% of the cases with a forum listed. The accused usually chooses between a judge and members, and most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas.

Where the Cases Were Tried

Fort Drum tried 5 of these cases. Fort Hood and Joint Base Lewis-McChord tried 4 each, and Wheeler Army Airfield and Fort Bragg 2 each. Those five installations had 61% of the 28 cases.

Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a high count alone does not mean a base has a problem with AWOL.

The First Full Year of Records

The services had to begin publishing trial records under Article 140a by December 2020, and Army records in this data are sparse before 2021. The 2021 cases here were tried between January and November.

The records list trial dates, not offense dates. They do not describe the evidence or the plea terms. They do not include absences handled through nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation.

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.