What Happens to Army Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4) Facing AWOL Charges?

Trends › By Offense › Article 86 › Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4)

Based on 56 cases · 2021–2025 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Few AWOL Cases Against Junior Enlisted Members Were Contested

A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. Contested cases made up 5% of those with a plea recorded: 3 contested and 53 guilty pleas. Across all Army Article 86 cases, the contested share was 25%. The comparison group in this post is every Army Article 86 case in the same years, including cases against NCOs and officers.

Plea agreements are recorded for 49 of the 53 guilty pleas, and 4 have no entry. The records show that an agreement existed, not what it said. Only 3 cases were contested, so this post does not state acquittal rates.

More Punitive Discharges

A punitive discharge was adjudged in 80% of enlisted convictions in this group, compared with 67% across all Army Article 86 cases. There were 39 bad-conduct discharges and 6 dishonorable discharges.

For an enlisted member, a punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. A sentence without one does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these court records do not track.

Confinement Was Common but Short

Of 56 convictions, 50 included confinement. The median confinement was 4 months, the same as for all Army Article 86 cases. A quarter of sentences were 6 months or longer.

No confinement was adjudged in 11% of convictions here, compared with 21% for the offense overall. Terms under 6 months made up 61%, compared with 55%. Sentences longer than one year were adjudged in 6 of 56 convictions (11%), compared with 8% across all Army Article 86 cases.

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

AWOL Charged With Drugs and Desertion

Article 86 was the only charge in 13 of 56 cases. The most common other charges were Article 112a (drug) in 13 cases, Article 134 (general article) in 11, Article 85 (desertion) in 11, Article 92 (orders violation) in 10, and Article 128 (assault) in 10.

A sentence covers the whole case. The records do not divide a sentence among the charges, so the longer sentences cannot be assigned to the absence alone.

Court Level and Sentence Length

There were 22 general and 33 special courts-martial, and the level is not listed for 1 case. The general share was 40%, compared with 45% in all Army Article 86 cases. The median confinement was 6 months at general courts-martial and 2 months at special courts-martial. The contested share was 0% at general courts-martial and 6% at special courts-martial.

A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and can impose no more than a bad-conduct discharge. Since 2019, a special court-martial can also be tried by a military judge alone, capped at six months with no punitive discharge.

Few Panels

A military judge alone decided 54 cases. Enlisted panels heard 2, and no case went to an officer panel. Members heard 4% of the cases, compared with 13% across all Army Article 86 cases. The accused usually chooses the forum, and most guilty pleas go before a military judge alone. The low panel share matches the low contested share.

Cases by Year and Installation

The 56 cases were tried from January 2021 through September 2025. There were 17 in 2021, 12 in 2022, 11 in 2023, 11 in 2024, and 5 in 2025. The records do not explain the lower count in 2025.

Fort Riley tried 8 of these cases, Joint Base Lewis-McChord 7, Fort Carson and Fort Hood 5 each, and Fort Bliss 4. Those five installations had 52% of the 56 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a high count alone does not mean a base has a problem with absences.

What the Records Do Not Show

Since December 28, 2023, new sentencing parameters apply when every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023. The records give trial dates, not offense dates, so recent trials include cases under both systems.

The records do not show how long each absence lasted, the evidence, or the plea terms. Absences handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation are not in this data. These 56 cases are only the ones that reached a courtroom. Army records are sparse before 2021.

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.