Article 86 — Absence without leave | Manual for Courts-Martial

Part IV · Punitive Articles

Article 86. Absence without leave · MCM ¶ 10

2024 Manual for Courts-Martial, United States

See all changes

(a) Text of statute. Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Elements.

(1) Failure to go to appointed place of duty.

(a) That a certain authority appointed a certain time and place of duty for the accused;

(b) That the accused knew of that time and place; and

(2) Going from appointed place of duty.

(a) That a certain authority appointed a certain time and place of duty for the accused;

(b) That the accused knew of that time and place; and

(3) Absence from unit, organization, or place of duty.

(a) That the accused absented himself or herself from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty at which he or she was required to be;

(b) That the absence was without authority from anyone competent to give him or her leave; and

Practice Note

[Note: if the absence was terminated by apprehension, add the following element]

(d) That the absence was terminated by apprehension.

(4) Abandoning watch or guard.

(a) That the accused was a member of a guard, watch, or duty;

(b) That the accused absented himself or herself from his or her guard, watch, or duty section;

Practice Note

[Note: If the absence was with intent to abandon the accused’s guard, watch, or duty section, add the following element]

(d) That the accused intended to abandon his or her guard, watch, or duty section.

(5) Absence from unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises.

(a) That the accused absented himself or herself from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty at which he or she was required to be;

(b) That the absence of the accused was without authority;

(d) That the accused knew that the absence would occur during a part of a period of maneuvers or field exercises; and

(e) That the accused intended to avoid all or part of a period of maneuvers or field exercises.

(1) In general. This article is designed to cover every case not elsewhere provided for in which any member of the armed forces is through the member’s own fault not at the place where the member is required to be at a prescribed time. It is not necessary that the person be absent entirely from military jurisdiction and control. The first part of this article—relating to the appointed place of duty—applies whether the place is appointed as a rendezvous for several or for one only.

(2) Actual knowledge. The offenses of failure to go to and going from appointed place of duty require proof that the accused actually knew of the appointed time and place of duty. The offense of absence from unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises requires proof that the accused actually knew that the absence would occur during a part of a period of maneuvers or field exercises. Actual knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(3) Intent. Specific intent is not an element of unauthorized absence. Specific intent is an element for certain aggravated unauthorized absences.

(4) Aggravated forms of unauthorized absence. There are variations of unauthorized absence under Article 86(3) which are more serious because of aggravating circumstances such as duration of the absence, a special type of duty from which the accused absents himself or herself, and a particular specific intent which accompanies the absence. These circumstances are not essential elements of a violation of Article 86. They simply constitute special matters in aggravation. The following are aggravated unauthorized absences:

(a) Unauthorized absence for more than 3 days (duration).

(b) Unauthorized absence for more than 30 days (duration).

(d) Unauthorized absence from guard, watch, or duty section with the intent to abandon it (special type of duty and specific intent).

(e) Unauthorized absence with the intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises (special type of duty and specific intent).

(5) Control by civilian authorities. A member of the armed forces turned over to the civilian authorities upon request under Article 14 ( see R.C.M. 106) is not absent without leave while held by them under that delivery. When a member of the armed forces, being absent with leave, or absent without leave, is held, tried, and acquitted by civilian authorities, the member’s status as absent with leave, or absent without leave, is not thereby changed, regardless how long held. The fact that a member of the armed forces is convicted by the civilian authorities, or adjudicated to be a juvenile offender, or the case is “diverted” out of the regular criminal process for a probationary period does not excuse any unauthorized absence, because the member’s inability to return was the result of willful misconduct. If a member is released by the civilian authorities without trial, and was on authorized leave at the time of arrest or detention, the member may be found guilty of unauthorized absence only if it is proved that the member actually committed the offense for which detained, thus establishing that the absence was the result of the member’s own misconduct.

(6) Inability to return. The status of absence without leave is not changed by an inability to return through sickness, lack of transportation facilities, or other disabilities. But the fact that all or part of a period of unauthorized absence was in a sense enforced or involuntary is a factor in extenuation and should be given due weight when considering the initial disposition of the offense. When, however, a person on authorized leave, without fault, is unable to return at the expiration thereof, that person has not committed the offense of absence without leave.

(7) Determining the unit or organization of an accused. A person undergoing transfer between activities is ordinarily considered to be attached to the activity to which ordered to report. A person on temporary additional duty continues as a member of the regularly assigned unit and if the person is absent from the temporary duty assignment, the person becomes absent without leave from both units, and may be charged with being absent without leave from either unit.

(8) Duration. Unauthorized absence under Article 86(3) is an instantaneous offense. It is complete at the instant an accused absents himself or herself without authority. Duration of the absence is a matter in aggravation for the purpose of increasing the maximum punishment authorized for the offense. Even if the duration of the absence is not over 3 days, it is ordinarily alleged in an Article 86(3) specification. If the duration is not alleged or if alleged but not proved, an accused can be convicted of and punished for only 1 day of unauthorized absence.

(9) Computation of duration. In computing the duration of an unauthorized absence, any one continuous period of absence found that totals not more than 24 hours is counted as 1 day; any such period that totals more than 24 hours and not more than 48 hours is counted as 2 days, and so on. The hours of departure and return on different dates are assumed to be the same if not alleged and proved. For example, if an accused is found guilty of unauthorized absence from 0600 hours, 4 April, to 1000 hours, 7 April of the same year (76 hours), the maximum punishment would be based on an absence of 4 days. However, if the accused is found guilty simply of unauthorized absence from 4 April to 7 April, the maximum punishment would be based on an absence of 3 days.

(10) Termination—methods of return to military control.

(a) Surrender to military authority. A surrender occurs when a person presents himself or herself to any military authority, whether or not a member of the same armed force, notifies that authority of his or her unauthorized absence status, and submits or demonstrates a willingness to submit to military control. Such a surrender terminates the unauthorized absence.

(b) Apprehension by military authority. Apprehension by military authority of a known absentee terminates an unauthorized absence.

(c) Delivery to military authority. Delivery of a known absentee by anyone to military authority terminates the unauthorized absence.

(d) Apprehension by civilian authorities at the request of the military. When an absentee is taken into custody by civilian authorities at the request of military authorities, the absence is terminated.

(e) Apprehension by civilian authorities without prior military request. When an absentee is in the hands of civilian authorities for other reasons and these authorities make the absentee available for return to military control, the absence is terminated when the military authorities are informed of the absentee’s availability.

(11) Findings of more than one absence under one specification. An accused may properly be found guilty of two or more separate unauthorized absences under one specification, provided that each absence is included within the period alleged in the specification and provided that the accused was not misled. If an accused is found guilty of two or more unauthorized absences under a single specification, the maximum authorized punishment shall not exceed that authorized if the accused had been found guilty as charged in the specification.

(d) Maximum punishment.

(1) Failing to go to, or going from, the appointed place of duty. Confinement for 1 month and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month.

(2) Absence from unit, organization, or other place of duty.

(a) For not more than 3 days. Confinement for 1 month and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month.

(b) For more than 3 days but not more than 30 days. Confinement for 6 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 6 months.

(d) For more than 30 days and terminated by apprehension. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 18 months.

(3) From guard or watch. Confinement for 3 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months.

(4) From guard or watch with intent to abandon. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

(5) With intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

(e) Sample specifications.

(1) Failing to go or leaving place of duty. In that _____ (personal jurisdiction data), did (at/on board—location), on or about _____ 20 __, without authority, (fail to go at the time prescribed to) (go from) (his) (her) appointed place of duty, to wit: (here set forth the appointed place of duty).

(2) Absence from unit, organization, or place of duty. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, on or about _____ 20 __, without authority, absent himself/herself from (his) (her) (unit) (organization) (place of duty at which (he) (she) was required to be), to wit: __________, located at __________, and did remain so absent until ((he) (she) was apprehended) on or about _____ 20 __.

(3) Absence from unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises. In that _____ (personal jurisdiction data), did, on or about _____ 20 __, without authority and with intent to avoid (maneuvers) (field exercises), absent himself/herself from (his) (her) (unit) (organization) (place of duty at which (he) (she) was required to be), to wit: _____ located at (_____), and did remain so absent until on or about _____ 20 __.

(4) Abandoning watch or guard. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), being a member of the __________ (guard) (watch) (duty section), did, (at/on board—location), on or about _____ 20 __, without authority, go from (his) (her) (guard) (watch) (duty section) (with intent to abandon the same).

Information on this tab is reproduced from the U.S. Army Military Judges’ Benchbook (Electronic Benchbook v2.70, updated 2026-05-26). It is for informational purposes only to compare to the text on the Manual for Courts-Martial on the MCM tab. Always check the current EBB to make sure you’re reviewing the most recent information.

NOTE 1. If convicted of only offenses committed on or after 28 December 2023, the judge shall sentence the accused in accordance with the sentencing parameters or criteria, as appropriate, or state reasons for deviating in writing. See RCM 925(c)(2), RCM 1002(a)(2), Appendices 12B (Parameter Table-Confinement Categories), 12C (Offense Category Chart), and 12D (List of Criteria Offenses), 2024 MCM.

Maximum punishment

2/3 pay/month x 1 month, 1 month, E-1. (Category1)

Sample specification

In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did (at/on board—location), on or about __________, without authority, (fail to go at the time prescribed to) (go from) (his) (her) appointed place of duty, to wit: (here set forth the appointed place of duty).

Elements

(1) That (state the certain authority) appointed a certain time and place of duty for the accused, that is, (state the certain time and place of duty);

(2) That the accused knew that (he) (she) was required to be present at this appointed time and place of duty; and

(3) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused, without authority, (failed to go to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed) (went from the appointed place of duty after having reported at such place).

Definitions & other instructions

NOTE 2. Applicability of specification. This specification applies whether a place of rendezvous for one or many and contemplates a failure to repair for routine duties as prescribed by routine orders, e.g., kitchen police, etc., but doesn’t apply to an ordinary duty situation to be at one’s unit or organization.

NOTE 3. “Deliberate avoidance” raised. The following instruction should be given when the issue of “deliberate avoidance,” as discussed in US v. Adams, 63 MJ 223 (CAAF 2006), is raised:

I have instructed you that the accused must have known that (he) (she) was required to be present at the appointed time and place of duty. You may not find the accused guilty of this offense unless you believe beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually knew that (he) (she) was required to be present at the appointed time and place of duty.

The accused may not, however, willfully and intentionally remain ignorant of a fact important and material to (his) (her) conduct in order to escape the consequences of criminal law. Therefore, if you have a reasonable doubt that the accused actually knew that (he) (she) was required to be present at the appointed time and place of duty, but you are nevertheless satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a. The accused was aware that there was a high probability that (he) (she) was required to be present at an appointed time and place of duty; and

b. The accused deliberately and consciously tried to avoid learning that (he) (she) was required to be present at an appointed time and place of duty, then you may treat this as the deliberate avoidance of positive knowledge. Such deliberate avoidance of positive knowledge is the equivalent of actual knowledge.

In other words, if you find the accused had (his) (her) suspicions aroused that (he) (she) was required to be present at a certain place of duty at a time prescribed, but then deliberately omitted making further inquiries because he wished to remain in ignorance, you may find the accused had the required knowledge.

I emphasize, however, that knowledge cannot be established by mere negligence, foolishness, or even stupidity on the part of the accused. The burden is on the prosecution to prove every element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including that the accused actually knew that (he) (she) was required to be present at the appointed time and place of duty. Consequently, unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused either had actual knowledge that (he) (she) was required to be present at the appointed time and place of duty, or that the accused deliberately avoided that knowledge, as I have defined that term, then you must find the accused not guilty.

NOTE 4. Other instructions. Instruction 7-3, Circumstantial Evidence (Knowledge), is ordinarily applicable.

Source: Instruction 3a-10-1 · view original on jagcnet.army.mil

Maximum punishment

(1) Up to 3 days: 2/3 pay/month x 1 month, 1 month, E-1. (Category 1)

(2) Over 3 to 30 days: 2/3 pay/month x 6 months, 6 months, E-1. (Category 1)

(3) Over 30 days: DD, TF, 1 year, E-1. (Category 1)

(4) Over 30 days and terminated by apprehension: DD, TF, 18 months, E-1. (Category 1)

Sample specification

In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, on or about __________, without authority, absent himself/herself from (his) (her) (unit) (organization) (place of duty at which (he) (she) was required to be), to wit: __________, located at __________, and did remain so absent until ((he) (she) was apprehended) on or about __________.

Elements

(1) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused absented (himself) (herself) from (his) (her) (unit) (organization) (place of duty at which (he) (she) was required to be), that is, (state name of unit, organization, or place of duty);

(2) That the absence was without authority from someone who could give the accused leave; (and)

(3) That the accused remained absent until (state the date of alleged termination of absence); [and]

NOTE 2. If termination by apprehension alleged, add the following:

[(4)] That the accused’s absence was terminated by apprehension.

Definitions & other instructions

NOTE 3. Termination by apprehension alleged. If termination by apprehension is alleged, give the following:

“Apprehension” means that the accused’s return to military control was involuntary. It must be shown that neither the accused nor persons acting at (his) (her) request initiated the accused’s return.

(That the accused was apprehended by civilian authorities, for a civilian violation, and was thereafter turned over to military control by the civilian authorities, does not necessarily indicate that the accused’s return was involuntary. Such return may be deemed involuntary if, after the accused was apprehended, such civilian authorities learned of the accused’s military status from someone other than the accused or persons acting at (his) (her) request.)

(In addition, the return may be involuntary if, after being apprehended by civilian authorities, the accused disclosed (his) (her) identity as a result of a desire to avoid trial, prosecution, punishment, or other criminal action at the hands of such civilian authorities. However, if the accused disclosed (his) (her) identity to the civilian authorities because of the accused’s desire to return to military control, the accused’s return should not be deemed involuntary or by apprehension.)

(The arrest of an accused by civilian authorities does not, in the absence of special circumstances, terminate (his) (her) unauthorized absence by apprehension where the record does not show such apprehension to have been conducted with or done on behalf of the military authorities. Thus, in the absence of special circumstances, mere apprehension by civilian authorities does not sustain the government’s burden of showing that the return to military control was involuntary.)

NOTE 4. Apprehension controverted. When the question of apprehension is at all controverted, the following instruction must be given:

You will note that of the four elements that I have listed, only the last element concerns apprehension. To convict the accused of AWOL terminated by apprehension, you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of all four elements, including the element of apprehension. If you are convinced of all the elements except the element of apprehension, you may convict the accused of AWOL, but not of AWOL terminated by apprehension.

NOTE 5. Apprehension by civil authorities. If raised by the evidence, the following instructions may be appropriate:

There has been evidence presented which may indicate that the accused was taken into custody by civil authorities and returned to military control by civil authorities. This evidence, if you believe it, does not by itself prove that the accused’s absence was terminated involuntarily. Rather, it is only some evidence to be considered by you along with all the other evidence in this case in deciding whether the accused’s absence ended voluntarily or involuntarily.

A return to military control may be involuntary if, after the accused was apprehended by civil authorities for a civil violation, the civil authorities learned of the accused’s military status in some way other than by a voluntary disclosure by the accused or by some person acting at the accused’s request.

(In addition) (A return to military control may be involuntary if, after being apprehended by civil authorities for a civil violation, the accused disclosed (his) (her) identity and military status because of a desire to avoid trial, prosecution, punishment, or other criminal action by civil authorities.) (However) (If it appears that, after apprehension by civil authorities for a civil violation, the accused voluntarily disclosed (his) (her) identity and military status to the civil authorities because of a desire to return to military control and not because of a primary desire to avoid criminal action by civil authorities, the accused’s return should be considered voluntary and not terminated by apprehension.)

NOTE 6. Voluntary termination and casual presence. When some evidence has been presented that raises the issue of voluntary termination of an unauthorized absence prior to the end date alleged in the specification (see US v. Rogers, 59 MJ 584 (ACCA 2003)), the following instruction should be given:

There has been some evidence that the accused was present (on a military (installation) (base) (camp) (post)) (in a military facility) (at/on board—location) prior to the end date alleged in (The) Specification _____ of (The) (Additional) Charge _____. Casual presence for personal reasons (on a military (installation) (base) (camp) (post)) (in a military facility) (at/on board—location), without more, does not terminate an unauthorized absence. To voluntarily terminate an unauthorized absence, the absentee must physically present (himself) (herself) to someone with authority to apprehend (him) (her), that is, a commissioned officer, a noncommissioned officer, or a military policeman (or __________) with the intent to return to military duty. The absentee must properly identify (himself) (herself) and disclose (his) (her) absentee status and submit to the control exercised over (him) (her). If the absentee does not disclose (his) (her) status, the person to whom the absentee presented (himself) (herself) must have been aware already of the absentee’s status, or had a duty to inquire and could have, with reasonable diligence, determined the absentee’s status.

The prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not voluntarily terminate (his) (her) absentee status. In order to find the accused guilty of an unauthorized absence for the entire period alleged in the specification, you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not voluntarily terminate (his) (her) absentee status prior to the end date alleged in the specification.

(If you find that the accused went from or remained absent without authority as alleged, but voluntarily terminated (his) (her) absentee status prior to the end date alleged, but later absented (himself) (herself) from (his) (her) (unit) (organization) (place of duty at which (he) (she) was required to be), you may find the accused guilty, by exceptions and substitutions, of two or more separate unauthorized absences under one specification, provided that each unauthorized absence is included within the overall period alleged in the specification.)

NOTE 7. Multiple unauthorized absences under single specification. An accused may be found guilty of two or more separate unauthorized absences under one specification, provided that each absence is included within the period alleged in the specification and provided that the accused was not mislead. If an accused is found guilty of two or more unauthorized absences under a single specification, the maximum authorized punishment shall not exceed that authorized if the accused had been found guilty as charged in the specification.

Source: Instruction 3a-10-2 · view original on jagcnet.army.mil

Maximum punishment

BCD, TF, 6 months, E-1. (Category1)

Sample specification

In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, on or about __________, without authority and with intent to avoid (maneuvers) (field exercises), absent himself/herself from (his) (her) (unit) (organization) (place of duty at which he/she was required to be), to wit: __________ located at (__________), and did remain so absent until on or about _________.

Elements

(1) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused absented (himself) (herself) from (his) (her) (unit) (organization) (place of duty at which (he) (she) was required to be, that is, (state the name of unit, organization, or place of duty);

(2) That this absence was without authority;

(3) That the accused remained absent until (state the date of alleged termination of absence);

(4) That the accused knew that the absence would occur during (a part of) a period of (maneuvers) (field exercises) in which (he) (she) was required to participate; and

(5) That the accused intended by (his) (her) absence to avoid (all) (part) of the period of such (maneuvers) (field exercises).

Definitions & other instructions

NOTE 2. Voluntary termination and casual presence. When some evidence has been presented that raises the issue of voluntary termination of an unauthorized absence prior to the end date alleged in the specification (see US v. Rogers, 59 MJ 584 (ACCA 2003)), the following instruction should be given:

NOTE 3. “Deliberate avoidance” raised. The following instruction should be given when the issue of “deliberate avoidance,” as discussed in US v. Adams, 63 MJ 223 (CAAF 2006), is raised:

I have instructed you that the accused must have known that the absence would occur during (a part of) a period of (maneuvers)(field exercises) in which (he)(she) was required to participate. you may not find the accused guilty of this offense unless you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually knew that the absence would occur during (a part of) a period of (maneuvers)(field exercises) in which (he)(she) was required to participate.

The accused may not, however, willfully and intentionally remain ignorant of a fact important and material to (his) (her) conduct in order to escape the consequences of criminal law. Therefore, if you have a reasonable doubt that the accused actually knew that the absence would occur during (a part of) a period of (maneuvers)(field exercises) in which (he)(she) was required to participate, but you are nevertheless satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that:

a. The accused was aware that there was a high probability that the absence would occur during (a part of) a period of (maneuvers)(field exercises) in which (he)(she) was required to participate; and

b. The accused deliberately and consciously tried to avoid learning that the absence would occur during (a part of) a period of (maneuvers)(field exercises) in which (he)(she) was required to participate, then you may treat this as the deliberate avoidance of positive knowledge. Such deliberate avoidance of positive knowledge is the equivalent of actual knowledge.

In other words, if you find the accused had (his) (her) suspicions aroused that the absence would occur during (a part of) a period of (maneuvers)(field exercises) in which (he)(she) was required to participate but then deliberately omitted making further inquiries because he wished to remain in ignorance, you may find the accused had the required knowledge. I emphasize, however, that knowledge cannot be established by mere negligence, foolishness, or even stupidity on the part of the accused. The burden is on the prosecution to prove every element of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt, including that the accused actually knew that the absence would occur during (a part of) a period of (maneuvers)(field exercises) in which (he)(she) was required to participate. Consequently, unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused either had actual knowledge that the absence would occur during (a part of) a period of (maneuvers)(field exercises) in which (he)(she) was required to participate, or that the accused deliberately avoided that knowledge, as I have defined that term, then you must find the accused not guilty.

NOTE 4. Multiple unauthorized absences under single specification. An accused may be found guilty of two or more separate unauthorized absences under one specification, provided that each absence is included within the period alleged in the specification and provided that the accused was not mislead. If an accused is found guilty of two or more unauthorized absences under a single specification, the maximum authorized punishment shall not exceed that authorized if the accused had been found guilty as charged in the specification.

NOTE 5. Other Instructions. Instruction 7-3, Circumstantial Evidence (Intent and Knowledge) is ordinarily applicable.

Source: Instruction 3a-10-3 · view original on jagcnet.army.mil

Maximum punishment

(1) Unauthorized absence: 2/3 pay/month x 3 months, 3 months, E-1. (Category 1)

(2) With intent to abandon: BCD, TF, 6 months, E-1. (Category1)

Sample specification

In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), being a member of the __________ (guard) (watch) (duty section), did, (at/on board—location), on or about __________, without authority, go from (his) (her) (guard) (watch) (duty section) (with intent to abandon the same).

Elements

(1) That the accused was a member of the (guard) (watch) (duty section) at (state the time and place alleged);

(2) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused absented (himself) (herself) from (his) (her) (guard) (watch) (duty section); (and)

(3) That this absence was without authority; [and]

NOTE 2. If the absence was with intent to abandon the accused’s guard, watch, or duty section, add the following element:

[(4)] That the accused intended to abandon (his) (her) (guard) (watch) (duty section).

Definitions & other instructions

(“Intended to abandon” means that the accused, at the time the absence began or at some time during the absence, must have intended to completely separate (himself) (herself) from all further responsibility for (his) (her) particular duty as a member of the (guard) (watch) (duty section).)

NOTE 3. Definition of “duty section”. The term “duty section” has a specialized meaning, and does not refer to the place where a member performs routine duties. If abandonment of duty section is alleged, give the following additional instruction:

“Duty section” describes a group of personnel who have been designated to remain within the limits of a military (vessel) (command) during those times, such as liberty hours, when personnel strength is below normal, in order to accomplish the mission and ensure the safety of the (vessel) (command).

NOTE 4. Other instructions. Instruction 7-3, Circumstantial Evidence (Intent), is ordinarily applicable.

Source: Instruction 3a-10-4 · view original on jagcnet.army.mil

Article 86. Absence without leave · MCM ¶ 10

3a-10-1 · FAILING TO GO TO OR GOING FROM PLACE OF DUTY

3a-10-2 · ABSENCE FROM UNIT, ORGANIZATION, OR PLACE OF DUTY

3a-10-3 · ABSENCE FROM UNIT, ORGANIZATION, OR PLACE OF DUTY WITH INTENT TO AVOID MANEUVERS OR FIELD EXERCISES

3a-10-4 · ABANDONING WATCH OR GUARD