When a service member fails to report as required, a unit cannot jump straight to a formal absence report. Unauthorized absence under Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a status that must be properly established, and the early administrative steps a unit takes are what give later action a sound footing. Doing this correctly protects the member from an inaccurate record and protects the command from acting on a misunderstanding. This article walks through the procedural groundwork that ordinarily precedes a formal absence report.
Confirm that an unauthorized absence actually exists
The first step is verifying that the member is in fact absent without authority, not merely late or accounted for elsewhere. Article 86 requires that the member had a duty to be at a certain place at a certain time, knew of that duty, and was absent without authorization. So the unit must confirm there was a fixed report time or place, that the member was aware of it, and that no leave, pass, temporary duty, hospitalization, or other authorization explains the absence. A member who is on approved leave, in a medical facility, or otherwise lawfully elsewhere is not absent without authority, and treating that member as AWOL would be an error.
Establishing the inception of the absence is part of this step. The unit should pin down the exact date and time the member was first required to be present and failed to appear, because that moment marks the beginning of any unauthorized absence and drives much of what follows.
Make reasonable efforts to locate and account for the member
Before formalizing anything, the unit should attempt to contact the member and determine the reason for the absence. This typically includes trying known phone numbers and addresses, checking with the member’s supervisor and coworkers, and reviewing recent leave and duty records. The command should also rule out the possibility that the member is hospitalized, in civilian custody, or otherwise unable to report through no fault of their own. These inquiries serve two purposes. They may resolve the matter quickly if the member is found and accounted for, and they create a documented record showing the unit acted responsibly if the absence turns out to be genuine.
Document the absence contemporaneously
Accurate, timely documentation is the backbone of any later action. The unit records when the member was due, when the absence was discovered, what efforts were made to account for the member, and the results. Service personnel and pay systems must be updated to reflect the member’s duty status, because duty status drives pay, accountability, and reporting. Contemporaneous entries are far more reliable than reconstructions made later, and they form the evidentiary basis if the absence is eventually addressed through administrative or disciplinary channels.
Apply the unit’s reporting timelines and chain-of-command review
Services set timelines and procedures for how long an unexplained absence is handled internally before it escalates. The command typically notifies the chain of command, keeps leadership informed, and follows the applicable service regulation for accounting for absent members. The decision to escalate is a command decision, made with awareness of the member’s circumstances and after the locating efforts have been exhausted or have run their course. The point is that escalation follows verification and documentation, not the other way around.
Understand where the formal absentee report fits
When an absence continues and meets the criteria in the governing regulations, the military uses a formal mechanism to report and seek the return of the member. The Department of Defense form used to report a deserter or absentee wanted by the armed forces is DD Form 553, which identifies the absent member, describes the circumstances of the absence, and provides instructions to law enforcement regarding apprehension. This formal report is the culmination of the earlier steps. It depends on an established inception date, confirmed lack of authorization, completed efforts to account for the member, and accurate duty-status records. Issuing it without that foundation risks an inaccurate or premature report.
Keep the distinction between AWOL and desertion in view
The procedural groundwork also matters because of how the absence may later be characterized. A simple unauthorized absence under Article 86 is different from desertion under Article 85, which additionally requires an intent to remain away permanently or to avoid important service. The early records, including the circumstances of the departure and any statements or actions of the member, can later bear on which characterization is appropriate. Building a careful factual record at the outset therefore supports an accurate legal assessment down the line, rather than prejudging the member’s intent.
Practical checklist for the unit
In practical terms, before initiating a formal absence report a unit should confirm the report requirement and the member’s knowledge of it, rule out leave or other authorization, fix the inception date and time, make and document reasonable efforts to locate the member, update duty-status and pay records, notify and consult the chain of command, and follow the applicable service regulation and timelines. Only after this groundwork is complete should the formal report be prepared. When questions arise about characterization or process, the unit should consult its servicing legal office.
Conclusion
The procedural steps before a formal AWOL report are about verification and documentation, not speed. A unit should confirm that an unauthorized absence genuinely exists under Article 86, establish the inception of the absence, make and record reasonable efforts to account for the member, update duty-status records, and proceed through the chain of command under the governing regulations. The formal absentee report, captured on DD Form 553, comes only after that foundation is laid. Following these steps protects both the member and the command and ensures that any later disciplinary or administrative action rests on an accurate record.
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.