A voluntary return to military control does not affect a service member’s legal “culpability,” or guilt, for the unauthorized absence itself. The crime of AWOL under Article 86 is completed the moment the service member is absent from their place of duty without authority. The subsequent act of returning to the unit does not erase the fact that an unauthorized absence has already occurred. The soldier is still legally guilty of being AWOL for the duration of their absence.
However, a voluntary return has a massive and critical impact on the sentencing and the overall disposition of the case. The Manual for Courts-Martial explicitly provides for a much lower maximum punishment for an absence that is terminated by a “voluntary return” as opposed to one that is terminated by “apprehension.” This is a formal recognition that a soldier who takes responsibility and turns themselves in should be treated with much more leniency than one who remains at large until they are caught.
A military defense attorney will always advise an absent client that the single most important thing they can do is to return voluntarily. The attorney will then use the voluntary return as their most powerful mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase of a trial or when negotiating with the command. They will argue that the soldier’s decision to return on their own demonstrates their fundamental loyalty and their desire to make amends. This is often the key factor that leads to a much lighter sentence and can even persuade a command to handle the case with NJP instead of a court-martial.