The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) governs the military justice system within the United States Armed Forces. Article 86 of the UCMJ specifically addresses offenses related to Absence Without Leave (AWOL), also known as unauthorized absence. This article is crucial for maintaining military readiness and discipline, outlining the legal ramifications for service members who fail to report for or remain at their assigned duties.
This article delves into key aspects of Article 86, drawing upon significant case law to clarify its interpretation and application. Understanding Article 86 is essential for military personnel, legal professionals, and anyone interested in the intricacies of military law.
Key Elements of Article 86: Failure to Go to Appointed Place of Duty
One common violation of Article 86 involves the failure to go to an appointed place of duty. The case of United States v. Adams, 63 M.J. 223 (2006), provides a clear breakdown of the elements required to prove this offense. According to the court, a conviction for failing to go to an appointed place of duty under Article 86 necessitates demonstrating:
- Appointment of Duty: A proper authority must have assigned a specific time and place of duty to the accused.
- Knowledge of Duty: The accused must have been aware of the appointed time and place of duty.
- Unauthorized Absence: The accused, without proper authorization, failed to report to the appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.
Notably, the Adams case emphasizes the element of knowledge. The prosecution must prove that the accused actually knew about their duty assignment. While direct evidence of knowledge is ideal, the court acknowledged that circumstantial evidence can also be used to establish this element.
The Knowledge Requirement and Deliberate Ignorance
Further elaborating on the knowledge requirement, United States v. Adams introduced the concept of deliberate ignorance. The court stated that in offenses where knowledge is essential, specific knowledge isn’t always mandatory. Instead, “purposeful ignorance” can suffice to meet the knowledge requirement under Article 86.
For the government to successfully argue deliberate ignorance, they must present evidence suggesting:
- The accused was subjectively aware of a high probability of illegal conduct (in this context, the illegal conduct being their unauthorized absence).
- The accused purposefully avoided learning about their duty assignment to remain in a state of ignorance.
The court clarified that deliberate avoidance of knowledge can be considered equivalent to actual knowledge for all Article 86 offenses. In essence, intentionally remaining ignorant of a duty assignment does not absolve a service member of responsibility under Article 86. As illustrated in Adams, an accused’s admission of purposefully avoiding finding their appointed duty station by staying in their barracks room was sufficient to support a guilty plea for failing to go to their appointed place of duty.
Termination of Unauthorized Absence under Article 86
The duration of an unauthorized absence is a critical factor in determining the legal consequences under Article 86. The case of United States v. Phillippe, 63 M.J. 307 (2006), outlines the ways in which an unauthorized absence can be terminated. According to Phillippe, an unauthorized absence can end in five ways, including surrender to military authority.
Surrender, in legal terms, occurs when an individual:
- Presents themselves to any military authority (regardless of armed force affiliation).
- Notifies the authority of their unauthorized absence status.
- Submits or demonstrates a willingness to submit to military control.
Conversely, the case of United States v. Gaston, 62 M.J. 404 (2006), addresses the termination of absence by apprehension. Gaston clarifies that apprehension involves the involuntary return of the service member to military control. The court distinguished between surrender (voluntary termination) and apprehension (involuntary termination), emphasizing that apprehension implies the absence ends due to involuntary means.
In Gaston, the court found that an accused who voluntarily surrendered to his commander after being informed that his squadron was looking for him was considered to have terminated his absence by surrender, not apprehension. The key factor was the lack of evidence that the dorm manager who initially contacted the accused had the authority to take him into custody, highlighting the requirement for involuntary control in cases of apprehension.
Inception Date and Punishment for Article 86 Violations
Determining the inception date of an unauthorized absence is crucial for prosecution under Article 86. United States v. Hardeman, 59 MJ 389 (2004), underscores the indispensability of a definitive inception date. The court stated that a precise inception date is not only necessary to establish that an unauthorized absence offense occurred but also to determine the duration of the absence, which directly impacts the legal punishment.
United States v. Phillippe further emphasizes that the length of the unauthorized absence is the “essential element” in determining the legal punishment for an Article 86 offense. This highlights the direct correlation between the duration of AWOL and the severity of potential penalties under military law.
Conclusion
Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice plays a vital role in maintaining order and discipline within the military. Cases like United States v. Adams, United States v. Phillippe, United States v. Gaston, and United States v. Hardeman provide essential legal interpretations of key aspects of Article 86, including the elements of proof for failure to go to appointed duty, the concept of deliberate ignorance, the methods of terminating unauthorized absence, and the critical importance of the absence’s duration in determining punishment. Understanding these legal nuances is crucial for ensuring both justice and military effectiveness within the U.S. Armed Forces.
