When Article 86 and Article 90 Are Charged Together, How Do Cases End?

Trends › By Offense › Article 86 › With Article 90

Based on 43 cases · 2017–2026 · Army, Navy, and Marine Corps records · data updated October 24, 2026

More Cases Were Contested

The plea appears in 41 of the 43 records. Of those, 27 accused pleaded guilty and 14 pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. A case with a not-guilty plea to at least one charge is a contested case. The contested share was 34%.

Among all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 86, 20% were contested. So absence cases that also charged disobeying an officer were contested more often than other absence cases in these records.

Verdicts in the 14 Contested Cases

All 14 contested cases that reached a verdict ended with at least one guilty finding. None ended in a full acquittal: 0 of 14. For all Article 86 cases, the full-acquittal rate was 11%.

Partial acquittals were common. In 11 of the 14, the accused was found not guilty of at least one charge or specification and guilty of another.

Longer Confinement Than in All Absence Cases

Of 42 convictions, 30 included confinement (71%). The median confinement was 6 months, compared with 4 months across all Article 86 cases. A quarter of the terms were 10 months or more.

These are adjudged sentences: the sentences announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers the whole case, including any other charges.

Sentences by Length

Both the shortest and longest sentences were more common here than in all Article 86 cases. No confinement was part of 29% of convictions here, compared with 14%. Sentences of more than 1 year followed 5 of 42 convictions (12%), compared with 9%. Terms under 6 months were the most common length for all Article 86 cases, at 56%. Here they made up 38%.

A special court-martial cannot impose more than 1 year of confinement. Only a general court-martial can impose a longer term. At the 18 general courts-martial, the median confinement was 9 months, and 41% of cases were contested. At the 24 special courts-martial, the median confinement was 3 months, and 29% of cases were contested. The court level is not listed for 1 case.

A More Senior Group

The accused were 19 junior enlisted members, 17 NCOs, and 5 officers. This group is more senior than all Article 86 cases. General courts-martial, which can impose a dishonorable discharge or long confinement, heard 42% of these cases, compared with 20% for all Article 86 cases.

There were only 5 officers, but they were a noticeable share of a group of 43 cases.

Discharges and Dismissals

A punitive discharge followed 58% of enlisted convictions here: 19 bad-conduct discharges and 2 dishonorable discharges. The rate for all Article 86 cases was 62%, slightly higher.

For officers, the equivalent of a punitive discharge is a dismissal. Of the 5 convicted officers or warrant officers, 1 was dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge or dismissal does not rule out an administrative separation later.

Other Charges in These Cases

Besides the absence and disobedience charges, assault (Article 128) was charged in 11 cases. Disrespect (Article 89) and the general article (Article 134) were each charged in 9, and drug offenses (Article 112a) in 8.

So many of these cases included more than the 2 main charges at sentencing.

Cases by Year and Installation

The 43 cases were tried from September 2017 through September 2026. There was 1 case in 2017, 1 in 2018, none in 2019, and 3 in 2020. There were 8 cases in each of 2021, 2022, and 2024. The 6 cases in 2026 cover only part of the year.

San Diego, California, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, and Fort Bragg had 4 cases each, and Fort Riley had 3. These five installations account for 44% of the cases. Large installations try more cases of every kind, so these counts say little about any single base.

Limits of the Trial Records

The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. Changes in December 2023 moved some charging and sentencing decisions. Each change depends on the offense date, and the records give only trial dates.

The records also do not include the evidence or the terms of plea agreements. Absence and disobedience cases handled through nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation are not included.

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.