Desertion is one of the most serious absence offenses in military law, and it carries a high bar of proof. Because the offense turns on a specific state of mind, genuine confusion about deployment orders can be directly relevant to whether the charge holds. Miscommunication does not erase an absence, but it can undercut the intent that desertion requires, and that distinction is often decisive.
What desertion requires under Article 85
Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice defines desertion. Unlike a simple unauthorized absence, desertion is a specific intent offense. The most common theory requires the government to prove that the accused was absent without authority and that, at some point during the absence, the accused intended to remain away from the unit, organization, or place of duty permanently. Article 85 also reaches a member who quits the unit to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service, each of which carries its own intent requirement.
The key feature is intent. The government must prove the required mental state beyond a reasonable doubt. A member can be absent for a long time and still not be guilty of desertion if that specific intent is missing.
How desertion differs from unauthorized absence
Article 86 addresses absence without leave, which is a general intent offense. AWOL requires only that the absence was unauthorized; it does not require proof of intent to remain away permanently. Desertion adds the specific intent element on top of an unauthorized absence. The difference is not the length of the absence. Duration may be circumstantial evidence of intent, but a long absence does not automatically convert AWOL into desertion, and a short absence accompanied by clear evidence of permanent departure could support a desertion charge.
This structure is why the deployment-orders question matters. If the facts show an unauthorized absence but not the intent desertion requires, the proper charge may be AWOL rather than desertion, or the absence may be excused entirely.
Where miscommunication fits in
Because desertion depends on intent, genuine miscommunication about deployment orders can be relevant in two ways.
First, it can negate the intent to remain away permanently. The government infers intent from circumstantial evidence such as the length of the absence, disposal of military property, assumption of a new identity, and statements made to others. Evidence that the member was confused about when or where to report, was given conflicting instructions, or reasonably believed the reporting date or location was different points away from an intent to abandon service permanently. A member who is trying to comply, but acts on mistaken information, does not display the mental state desertion requires.
Second, miscommunication can bear on whether the absence was unauthorized at all. If the member can show that orders were unclear, contradictory, or never properly communicated, that may affect whether the absence was without authority in the first place, which is a predicate for both AWOL and desertion.
The difference between negating intent and excusing the absence
It is important to separate two outcomes. Defeating the specific intent element does not necessarily mean the member is free of all liability. If the absence was in fact unauthorized but the member lacked intent to remain away permanently, the conduct may still support an AWOL charge under Article 86 rather than desertion under Article 85. In that sense, miscommunication often reduces the offense rather than eliminating it.
By contrast, if the confusion shows that the member reasonably believed the absence was authorized, or that the reporting requirement was satisfied or not yet triggered, that can go to the unauthorized nature of the absence itself and may defeat both charges. The strength of the defense depends on the specific facts: what the orders said, how they were delivered, and how a reasonable member in that position would have understood them.
Evidence that supports a miscommunication defense
The defense is built on documentation and context. Relevant material can include the written orders, any amendments or corrections, messages and emails about reporting dates and locations, records of who delivered the instructions, and evidence of the member’s attempts to clarify or comply. Statements the member made at the time, and conduct consistent with intending to report, weigh against a finding of intent to remain away permanently. Because the government bears the burden on intent, gaps and contradictions in the orders process work in the accused’s favor.
Practical guidance
A service member facing a desertion charge tied to deployment orders should focus the defense on the intent element and on the clarity of the orders. Counsel will examine whether the orders were lawful, clear, and properly communicated, and whether the member’s conduct reflected an intent to abandon service or simply a misunderstanding. The goal is often to show that, at most, the facts support an unauthorized absence, not the specific intent that desertion requires.
Bottom line
Miscommunication about deployment orders can negate a desertion charge when it undermines the specific intent the offense requires, because Article 85 demands proof that the member intended to remain away permanently or to avoid hazardous duty or important service. Genuine confusion about reporting dates, locations, or instructions points away from that intent. It may not eliminate all liability, since an unauthorized absence can still support an AWOL charge under Article 86, but it can be the difference between a serious desertion conviction and a lesser offense or an acquittal.
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.