Absence offenses under Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) depend on a precise fact: the appointed time and place of duty that the service member is alleged to have missed. When a commander or other authority informally changes a departure time, such as a verbal adjustment to a report time or a last-minute shift in when a movement begins, that change can directly affect whether an Article 86 charge is valid. The reason is that the offense is built on the appointed time of duty, and if the appointed time was altered, the charge must match the actual obligation rather than an outdated one.
The appointed time of duty is an element
Article 86 covers several related failures, including failing to go to an appointed place of duty at the time prescribed and being absent from a place of duty without authority. In each case, the government must prove what the member’s appointed time and place of duty actually were and that the member, without authority, failed to be there at that time. The appointed time is therefore not a background detail; it is a fact the government must establish and the defense can contest.
The member must also have known, or reasonably should have known, of the appointed time and place. Knowledge of the duty obligation is required even though AWOL is a general-intent offense and does not require proof of an intent to remain away. This combination, an accurate appointed time plus the member’s knowledge of it, is where an informal change of departure time becomes legally significant.
How an informal change can change the obligation
Orders setting a time and place of duty can be given verbally as well as in writing, and they can be modified by competent authority. If a commander or someone with proper authority informally moves the departure time, the member’s actual obligation becomes the new time, not the original one. From that point, the relevant question for an Article 86 charge is whether the member failed to meet the revised obligation.
This can affect the validity of a charge in two ways. First, a charge that alleges the original time may simply be factually wrong if the obligation was changed; the member may not have been absent at all relative to the actual, revised time. Second, even if the member was late under the new time, the charging documents and the proof must reflect the correct appointed time, because the government has to prove the obligation that actually existed.
The knowledge requirement and informal changes
Informal changes are most consequential when it comes to the member’s knowledge. The member can only be held accountable for a time of duty the member knew or reasonably should have known about. If a departure time is changed informally and the change is not communicated to the member, the member may lack the knowledge the offense requires for the new time. A member who reports at the time the member understood to be correct, and who had no reasonable way to learn of an informal change, has a strong argument that the absence was not knowing and wrongful.
The opposite is also true. If the informal change was clearly communicated to the member, or if the member reasonably should have known of it through the chain of command or standard procedures, then the member is accountable for the revised time. Whether the change was adequately communicated is a fact question that often determines the outcome.
Authority to change the time matters
For an informal change to alter the legal obligation, it must come from someone with authority to set or modify the member’s duty. A commander or a properly designated representative ordinarily has that authority. A change purporting to come from someone without authority may not validly alter the obligation. In disputed cases, the source of the change, the person’s authority, and the manner in which it was communicated all become relevant to whether the member’s true appointed time was the original or the revised one.
This also cuts toward a possible mistake-of-fact theory. If a member honestly and reasonably believed, based on an informal communication, that the departure time had been changed, that belief can bear on whether the member knowingly failed to be present. Because AWOL is a general-intent offense, such a mistake must be both honest and reasonable to serve as a defense, but a credible informal change from an apparent authority can support exactly that kind of reasonable belief.
Practical implications for a defense
When an Article 86 charge arises against the backdrop of an informal change to a departure time, the defense should focus on three things. First, what was the actual appointed time after any modification, and does the charge accurately allege it. Second, what did the member know, and how and when was any change communicated. Third, who made the change and did that person have authority to do so. Evidence such as text messages, emails, witness recollections of verbal orders, and the unit’s normal practice for communicating time changes can all be decisive.
These same facts can support either a complete defense or a significant mitigation argument. If the proof shows the member met the actual obligation, or reasonably believed the time had changed, the charge may fail on its elements. Even where some absence is established, the circumstances of an informal and poorly communicated change can substantially reduce culpability.
Conclusion
A commander’s informal change of departure time can affect the legal validity of an Article 86 charge because the offense depends on the member’s actual appointed time of duty and on the member’s knowledge of it. A valid change by competent authority redefines the obligation, so a charge must allege and prove the revised time rather than the original one, and a member who was not informed of the change may lack the knowledge the offense requires. Whether the change was authorized, properly communicated, and known to the member are fact-specific questions that can determine guilt, support a mistake-of-fact defense, or mitigate the offense. Because so much turns on these facts, a member facing such a charge should consult experienced military defense counsel to develop the record on the actual duty time and the communications surrounding 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.