Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is the provision that addresses absence without leave. A natural question arises when a service member is on approved leave or pass and engages in some kind of misconduct: can that misconduct be charged under Article 86? The short answer is that Article 86 is about the absence itself, not about what a member does while lawfully away. Understanding why requires looking closely at what Article 86 actually punishes and which other provisions reach conduct during authorized time off.
What Article 86 Punishes
Article 86 criminalizes unauthorized absence. It covers a service member who, through the member’s own fault, fails to go to an appointed place of duty, leaves that place, or is absent from a unit, organization, or place of duty without authority. The common thread across its forms is the absence of authorization. The offense is the unauthorized status of being away when and where the member was required to be present. Article 86 is, in essence, a presence offense: it punishes not being where one is supposed to be, without permission.
Why Authorization Is the Dividing Line
The word that controls Article 86 is authority. An absence is only an offense if it is without authority. When a member is on approved leave, an authorized pass, or otherwise properly excused from duty, the absence is by definition authorized. There is no unauthorized absence to charge, because the member has permission to be away. For this reason, the simple fact that misconduct occurred during a period of authorized absence does not create an Article 86 violation. The leave or pass was lawful, and Article 86 has nothing to fasten onto.
Separating the Absence From the Conduct
The key analytical move is to separate two different things: the status of being away and the conduct engaged in while away. Article 86 governs only the first. It asks whether the member was where the member should have been, with authority. It does not ask whether the member behaved well during the time off. Misconduct committed during authorized leave is therefore addressed not by Article 86 but by whatever provision actually fits the misconduct itself. The leave does not shield the conduct, and the conduct does not transform the lawful leave into an unauthorized absence.
Which Provisions Reach Conduct During Authorized Leave
A service member remains subject to the UCMJ during authorized leave. Misconduct committed in that period can be charged under the article that matches the act. Conduct that would be an offense regardless of duty status, such as assault, drunk driving, larceny, or drug use, can be charged under the corresponding punitive articles. Conduct unbecoming, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, or service-discrediting conduct can be reached by the relevant articles even though it occurred off duty and away from the unit. The point is that the misconduct is prosecuted on its own terms, under its own article, not repackaged as an absence offense.
When Authorized Absence Becomes Unauthorized
There is one situation where Article 86 can re-enter the picture, but it is about the absence, not the misconduct. If a member fails to return at the end of authorized leave, the absence becomes unauthorized from the moment the leave expires. Likewise, if leave is properly revoked and the member is ordered back but does not report, an unauthorized absence can begin. In these scenarios the charge still rests on the unauthorized status that arises after the authorization ends, not on the conduct during the originally authorized period. The misconduct itself remains chargeable under its own provision.
The Knowledge and Fault Requirements
Article 86 also carries a fault component. The absence must be through the member’s own fault, and for several forms the member must have known of the appointed time and place of duty. These requirements reinforce that the offense is about the failure to be present without authority. They are not satisfied by proof that the member misbehaved during an authorized period. A clean, properly approved leave does not become an Article 86 offense merely because the member did something wrong while on it, because the elements of unauthorized, faulty absence are simply not present.
Practical Guidance
A member facing allegations arising from conduct during leave should be precise about what is actually being charged. If the command attempts to characterize lawful leave as an absence offense, the defense can point to the authorization that defeats the Article 86 elements. If the real issue is the misconduct, the member should understand which provision applies and respond to that charge on its own terms. Documenting the approved leave, the dates, and the scope of the authorization is useful, because it cleanly establishes that there was no unauthorized absence even if other charges are pursued.
Conclusion
Misconduct that occurred during an authorized absence is generally not prosecuted under Article 86, because Article 86 punishes unauthorized absence rather than conduct during lawful time off. When a member is properly on leave or pass, the absence is authorized and there is no Article 86 offense to charge. The misconduct itself is reached by the article that fits the act. Article 86 returns only if the absence later becomes unauthorized, such as a failure to return when leave expires. In short, the absence and the conduct are evaluated separately, each under the provision that actually governs it.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.