Article 86 and Article 87 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice both address a service member’s failure to be where the military requires. At first glance they can seem similar, and service members sometimes assume that any absence is simply absence without leave. The two articles are distinct offenses, however, with different elements, different mental states, and very different punishment ranges. Article 86 covers unauthorized absence in general, while Article 87 specifically targets the failure to deploy or move with an aircraft, ship, or unit. Understanding how culpability and punishment diverge between them is essential to evaluating any case.
What Each Article Covers
Article 86, absence without leave, is the broad catch-all for unauthorized absence. It applies when a service member, through the member’s own fault, is not at the place where required at the prescribed time. The article reaches several variations, including failing to go to an appointed place of duty, leaving that place, and being absent from a unit or organization. Notably, a service member need not leave military jurisdiction to be charged. Remaining in one’s quarters without permission while the assigned unit is conducting a required activity can constitute an Article 86 offense.
Article 87, missing movement, is far narrower. It applies when a service member fails to move with a ship, aircraft, or unit with which the member is required to move. The defining feature is the connection to a scheduled movement, often a deployment or operationally significant relocation. Because missing a movement can disrupt a mission, leave a unit short of personnel, or undermine readiness, the law treats it as a more serious failure than ordinary unauthorized absence.
The Culpability Difference
The most important conceptual difference lies in the mental state, or culpability, that each article requires.
Under Article 86, the central question is whether the absence was the result of the service member’s own fault. The offense does not require an intent to remain away permanently for the basic forms of the violation, and it does not require any specialized state of mind beyond the absence being attributable to the member. Aggravated variations, such as absence terminated by apprehension or absence with intent to avoid certain duties, add elements, but the foundational offense rests on a fault-based unauthorized absence.
Article 87 recognizes two distinct mental states, and the choice between them drives the seriousness of the case. The first is missing movement by design, which means the service member intentionally and purposefully failed to make the movement. The second is missing movement through neglect, which means the service member failed to exercise the care a reasonably prudent person would have used and, as a result, missed the movement. This second mental state is significant because it means a service member can be convicted even without any intent to miss the movement. Forgetfulness or carelessness is not a defense. If a reasonably prudent service member would have taken steps to make the movement and the accused did not, neglect can be established.
This neglect theory is what makes Article 87 distinct from a simple unauthorized absence analysis. A service member might genuinely not intend to miss a deployment yet still be criminally liable because the failure resulted from a lack of due care. The article essentially imposes a duty of diligence in ensuring that one makes a required movement.
How Punishment Diverges
The punishment ranges reflect the differing seriousness of the two offenses.
For Article 86, punishment generally scales with the length and nature of the absence. Short absences are treated as relatively minor and may result in limited confinement and partial forfeitures. As the duration lengthens, the maximum punishment increases. Longer absences, particularly those extending beyond thirty days, can expose the service member to a punitive discharge, total forfeitures, and confinement measured in months. Certain aggravating circumstances, such as absence terminated by apprehension or absence intended to avoid important duties like deployment or field exercises, can raise the exposure further. The structure recognizes that a brief, quickly resolved absence is far less harmful than a prolonged disappearance.
For Article 87, the punishment depends heavily on whether the movement was missed by design or through neglect. Missing movement through neglect is punished less severely than missing movement by design, but both are serious. Missing movement by design carries a substantial maximum punishment that can include reduction to the lowest enlisted grade, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for a period of years, and a dishonorable discharge. This elevated exposure reflects the operational harm caused when a service member intentionally fails to deploy or move with the unit.
In broad terms, a routine Article 86 absence often carries lower maximum exposure than missing a movement under Article 87, particularly when the missing movement is charged as having been done by design. The law signals that failing to move with a deploying ship, aircraft, or unit strikes more directly at mission readiness than ordinary unauthorized absence.
Why the Distinction Matters in Practice
The differences between these articles are not academic. They affect both charging decisions and defense strategy. Because Article 87 requires proof of a connection to a specific required movement, the defense may challenge whether the accused was actually required to move with the particular ship, aircraft, or unit, and whether a movement in the legal sense even occurred. Because Article 87 can rest on neglect, the defense may focus on whether the accused exercised reasonable diligence, while the prosecution will look for evidence that the accused had notice of the movement and failed to take ordinary steps to make it. For Article 86, the inquiry centers on whether the absence was the accused’s fault, when it began and ended, and whether any aggravating circumstances apply.
A service member facing either charge should pay close attention to which article is alleged and which mental state the government intends to prove. The label assigned to the conduct, the operational context, and the specific theory of culpability will shape both the likelihood of conviction and the punishment at stake. Although both articles concern being where the military requires, Article 87 treats the failure to move with a deploying unit as a distinctly serious matter, with a culpability framework and punishment range that set it apart from ordinary absence without leave under Article 86.
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.