When Article 86 and Article 92 Are Charged Together, How Do Cases End?
In 84 Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial from 2013–2026 that charged absence without leave (Article 86) together with an orders violation (Article 92), 33% of cases with a recorded plea were contested. For all Article 86 cases, 20% were contested.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 86 › With Article 92
Short answer: In 84 Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial from 2013–2026 that charged absence without leave (Article 86) together with an orders violation (Article 92), 33% of cases with a recorded plea were contested. For all Article 86 cases, 20% were contested. Most cases still ended in a conviction, and the median confinement was 5 months, compared with 4 months for all Article 86 cases.
More Not-Guilty Pleas
The plea is listed in 66 of the 84 records. Of those, 44 were guilty pleas, and 22 accused contested at least one charge. A contested case is one where the accused pleaded not guilty to some or all of the charges.
The contested share, 33%, is higher than the 20% for all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 86.
Verdicts in Contested Cases
Few contested cases ended in a full acquittal. Of the 22 contested cases that reached a verdict, 5% ended in a full acquittal. That is lower than the 11% rate for all Article 86 cases.
Another 13 contested cases ended in a partial acquittal: the accused was found not guilty of at least one charge or specification and guilty of another. In total, 83 of the 84 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge.
Drug Charges Were the Most Common Other Charge
Article 112a, the drug article, was charged in 34 of the 84 cases. Larceny (Article 121) was charged in 15, assault (Article 128) in 14, and false official statement (Article 107) in 13.
A court-martial imposes 1 sentence for the whole case. So the sentence figures below cover all of these charges together.
How Much Confinement?
Confinement was part of 69 of the 83 sentences (83%). The median confinement was 5 months, compared with 4 months for all Article 86 cases. A quarter of the terms were 9 months or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, set at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. The time actually served can be shorter.
General and Special Courts-Martial
Of the 84 cases, 21 went to a general court-martial (25%), and the other 63 went to a special court-martial. A special court-martial is limited to 1 year of confinement and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. The longest sentences come from general courts-martial.
The median confinement was 1.1 years at general courts-martial, where 44% of cases were contested. It was 3 months at special courts-martial, where 30% of cases were contested. Across all convictions, terms of more than 1 year followed 10 of 83 (12%), compared with 9% for all Article 86 cases. The table gives the full breakdown.
Terms under 6 months made up 47% of convictions here, compared with 56% for all Article 86 cases. Terms from 6 months to 1 year made up 24%, compared with 20%. Terms of more than 1 year but under 5 years made up 11%, compared with 6%. Terms of 5 years or more made up 1% here and 3% in the comparison group.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 86 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 14 | 17% | 14% |
| Under 6 months | 39 | 47% | 56% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 20 | 24% | 20% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 9 | 11% | 6% |
| 5 years or more | 1 | 1% | 3% |
Most Discharges Were Bad-Conduct Discharges
A punitive discharge followed 67% of enlisted convictions, slightly higher than the 62% for all Article 86 cases. These included 47 bad-conduct discharges and 3 dishonorable discharges.
The records list 4 convicted officers or warrant officers, and 1 was dismissed. Dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge. An enlisted member who received no punitive discharge could still be separated administratively. Administrative separations are not in these records.
Who Faced These Charges
The accused were 62 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 14 NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 4 officers or warrant officers. This group is more junior than all Article 86 cases, where 73% of the accused were junior enlisted.
The rank figures and the court-level figures describe the same 84 cases. The records do not link an accused's rank to the decision about which court heard the case.
Trial Years and Installations
The cases were tried from January 2013 to September 2026. Each year through 2022 had fewer than 10 cases, and the records show no cases in 2016. There were 12 cases in both 2023 and 2024, and 6 in 2025. The 5 cases in 2026 cover only part of the year.
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina had the most cases, with 11. San Diego, California had 9, Great Lakes, Illinois had 6, and Fort Riley and Pensacola, Florida had 5 each. These five installations account for 43% of the total. Installations with large populations try more cases of every kind.
What the Records Do Not Show
Law changes in 2019 and at the end of 2023 changed panel rules, plea agreements, charging authority for certain serious offenses, and sentencing. Each change applies according to the offense date, and the records list only the trial date.
The records also do not show the evidence or the terms of any plea agreement. Absence and orders cases resolved 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.
How We Counted
Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial that charged both Article 86 and Article 92 (84 cases). Air Force cases are left out because Air Force records rarely list the charges in acquittals.
Source: public court-martial records (Article 140a, UCMJ) in Military Trial Results, data updated October 24, 2026. Definitions, sources, and known gaps: how this data was built. Errors: content@bodiesburied.com.
Related Analysis
- Article 86 (AWOL): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- When Article 86 and Article 90 Are Charged Together, How Do Cases End?
- AWOL Plus Disrespect: Courts-Martial Charging Articles 86 and 89
- When Article 86 and Article 91 Are Charged Together, How Do Cases End?
- Army Article 86 Cases by the Numbers, 2021–2025
- Air Force Article 86 Cases by the Numbers, 2016–2025
- Article 86 explained on the law firm's website
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
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.