Military Lawyers

The phrase “military crimes” is a broad, definitional query, and the search engine results page it produces reflects that breadth. Unlike a narrow query naming a specific UCMJ article or a specific lawyer, “military crimes” signals that the searcher is trying to understand a category rather than resolve a single fact. This analysis examines how the results for that kind of query are typically structured, what content earns visibility for it, and how a page should be organized to serve the underlying intent. It deliberately avoids inventing rankings, traffic numbers, or competitor statistics, because those cannot be stated responsibly without direct measurement. The focus is on observable structure and on the real taxonomy of military offenses that any accurate page must reflect.

The intent behind a broad definitional query

A searcher typing “military crimes” is usually at an early, orienting stage. They may be a service member or family member trying to understand whether a situation is serious, a student or journalist researching the subject, or someone trying to figure out which specific offense applies before searching more narrowly. The query is informational and broad, not transactional.

This shapes the SERP. Broad definitional queries tend to favor comprehensive overview pages, explanatory articles that define the category and then enumerate its parts, and authoritative reference sources. Pure commercial landing pages compete less effectively for the broad term itself, because the term does not signal readiness to hire; they compete better for the narrower, higher-intent queries that follow.

The content archetypes that surface

For a category query like this, a few archetypes dominate.

The first is the overview-and-enumeration page. This is an article that defines what military crimes are, explains that they are governed by the UCMJ, and then walks through the categories and examples of offenses. Its structure mirrors the question itself: what are military crimes, and what are the main ones.

The second is the authoritative reference source. Official material, particularly the punitive articles in Part IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial, anchors the factual layer. Part IV publishes the punitive articles and lists the elements for each offense, and accurate overview content ultimately traces back to it.

The third is the hub-style explainer that links outward to detailed pages on individual offenses. A well-built site uses the broad term as a top-of-funnel hub and routes searchers to specific article pages as their questions narrow.

The real taxonomy any accurate

…

An unauthorized absence charge can feel routine until a service member sees how quickly it can escalate into lost rank, lost pay, a punitive discharge, or even a more serious allegation. The answer to the question is yes: a military attorney can help with an unauthorized absence charge at every stage, from understanding the charge to contesting the facts, raising defenses, and minimizing the consequences. This article explains what an unauthorized absence is, how it is charged, and the specific ways an attorney adds value.

Understanding Unauthorized Absence

What the Charge Covers

Unauthorized absence is prosecuted under Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The article covers several forms of being where one is not supposed to be: failing to go to an appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, going from the appointed place of duty without authority, and being absent from one’s unit, organization, or place of duty without authority.

Terminology Across the Services

The same conduct goes by different names depending on the branch. In the Army and Air Force it is usually called absence without leave, or AWOL. In the Navy and Marine Corps it is called unauthorized absence, or UA. The underlying offense is the same; the label differs by service.

The Core of the Offense

At its heart, the offense requires that the member was absent without authority. Authority means official approval from a competent military authority. An absence that was actually authorized, even if later disputed, is not an offense under Article 86.

How Unauthorized Absence Is Punished

Punishment Scales by Duration

The maximum punishment under Article 86 rises with the length of the absence and how it ended. A very short absence carries limited confinement and no punitive discharge. As the absence lengthens, the exposure grows. An absence of more than thirty days exposes the member to a bad-conduct discharge and significant confinement, with the exposure being greater when the absence is terminated by apprehension rather than by the member’s own surrender.

Why Duration and Termination Matter

Because the punishment turns heavily on how long the absence lasted and whether it ended by surrender or apprehension, these facts are often the most important in the case. They shape both the charging decision and the potential sentence, and they are frequently where an attorney focuses attention.

Beyond the Sentence

In addition to court-martial exposure, an unauthorized absence can trigger nonjudicial …

Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, found at 10 U.S.C. 886, addresses one of the most frequently charged offenses in the military: being where you are not supposed to be, or failing to be where you are supposed to be, without authority. The article is broad and flexible, covering everything from showing up late to a duty formation to disappearing for weeks. Because the offense turns on the simple fact of unauthorized absence rather than on any intent to stay away for good, it is distinct from the far more serious crime of desertion.

What the Article Covers

Article 86 punishes a service member who, without proper authority, fails to go to an appointed place of duty, goes from that place after reporting, or absents himself or herself from a unit, organization, or place of duty. The same conduct can range from trivial to significant depending on how long it lasts and the circumstances surrounding it. The article also reaches aggravated forms of absence, such as absence from a guard, watch, or duty, and absence intended to avoid maneuvers or field exercises.

A key feature of Article 86 is that it does not require any specific intent regarding the future. The government does not have to prove that the accused meant to stay away permanently or to shirk a particular duty. It only needs to prove the unauthorized absence itself. That distinction is what keeps most short absences within Article 86 rather than escalating them to desertion under Article 85.

The Elements

For the most common form, failure to go to or going from an appointed place of duty, the government must prove that a certain authority appointed a time and place of duty for the accused, that the accused knew of that time and place, and that the accused, without authority, failed to go to the appointed place at the prescribed time or went from it after reporting.

For absence from a unit, organization, or place of duty, the government must prove that the accused absented himself or herself from the unit, organization, or place of duty at which required to be, that the absence was without authority from anyone competent to grant it, and that the absence continued for a certain period of time. Knowledge that the absence was unauthorized, and the duration of the absence, become important because they affect both guilt and punishment.…

The United States and Pakistan each maintain a distinct system of military law for their armed forces, but the two systems sit in very different constitutional and political settings. The American system is consolidated in a single congressional statute, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, enforced through commander-convened courts-martial with civilian appellate review. The Pakistani system is grounded in the Pakistan Army Act of 1952 and parallel service legislation, enforced through military courts, and it has become internationally prominent because of a recurring and deeply contested practice: the trial of civilians before military courts. Comparing the two highlights not only structural differences but a sharp divergence over who may be subjected to military justice at all.

The American framework: the UCMJ and courts-martial

In the United States, military law is consolidated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, enacted by Congress and codified in Title 10 of the United States Code. The UCMJ governs members of all the armed forces and contains both military-specific offenses, such as desertion and disobedience of a lawful order, and ordinary crimes, such as theft, assault, and murder, that can be tried under military jurisdiction.

The UCMJ is implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial, a presidential document supplying the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence. Article 16 sets out three tiers of court-martial, summary, special, and general. A general court-martial consists of a military judge and a panel of members, with the accused entitled to elect a judge-alone trial. The 2016 Military Justice Act, reflected in the 2019 edition of the Manual, fixed statutory panel sizes and modernized voting and sentencing.

A foundational principle of the American system is that, as a general rule, military jurisdiction reaches service members rather than civilians. The Supreme Court has sharply limited the circumstances in which civilians may be subjected to court-martial. The American system is administered internally by the military, applies jurisdiction based on military status, and provides appellate review through the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the civilian Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, with possible Supreme Court review.

The Pakistani framework: the Army Act and military courts

Pakistan’s military law for its army is grounded in the Pakistan Army Act of 1952, enacted by Parliament as the primary statute governing the affairs of the Pakistan Army, with parallel acts for the air force and the navy. The Army Act …

A conviction under Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the statute at 10 U.S.C. 920 covering rape, sexual assault, and related offenses, is not necessarily the end of the matter. The military justice system provides a structured series of appellate options, some automatic and some requiring a petition, and a service member who has been convicted should understand each level and the deadlines that govern it. This article describes the appellate path that follows a court-martial conviction, focusing on how it applies to the serious offenses charged under Article 120.

Post-trial review by the convening authority

Before the appellate courts become involved, the case passes through post-trial processing. The convening authority takes action on the case, and the accused has the right to submit matters for consideration, including clemency requests. The convening authority’s power to alter findings and sentence has been limited by reform, particularly for serious offenses, but submitting post-trial matters remains an important early step. Counsel typically uses this stage to raise legal errors and to request relief before the record moves to the appellate court.

Review by the service Court of Criminal Appeals

The first true appellate court is the Court of Criminal Appeals for the accused’s branch, such as the Army, Navy-Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals. These courts review cases under Article 66 of the UCMJ. Review by a Court of Criminal Appeals is automatic and mandatory when the approved sentence meets certain thresholds, which include a punitive discharge or confinement of a year or more, and the serious sentences typical of Article 120 convictions ordinarily qualify. Under reforms expanding Article 66, the scope of cases eligible for review has broadened.

What makes the Courts of Criminal Appeals distinctive is the breadth of their authority. Unlike most civilian appellate courts, a Court of Criminal Appeals can review not only whether the trial was legally correct but also whether the evidence is factually sufficient. This means the court can weigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses to determine whether it is itself convinced of guilt. For an Article 120 conviction that turned on contested testimony and the meaning of consent, factual sufficiency review can be a meaningful avenue, because the court examines the strength of the proof rather than merely the procedure.

Review by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

After the Court of …

Among the offenses that protect the chain of command, Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) sits at the serious end. Codified at 10 U.S.C. section 890, it has long carried the heading “Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer.” The willful disobedience of a lawful command from one’s superior commissioned officer strikes at the heart of military authority, and the Code treats it accordingly, with potential punishment far exceeding that for mere disrespect. Anyone studying this article should also understand a structural change made in recent years, discussed below, that affects where the assaultive conduct in the heading is now charged.

What the article addresses today

The willful-disobedience offense is the core of Article 90 as it now stands. It punishes a person subject to the Code who, having received a lawful command from that person’s superior commissioned officer, willfully disobeys that command. This is a deliberate refusal to comply with a direct, lawful order from a superior officer who has authority over the accused.

The “assaulting” portion of the traditional heading deserves a word of explanation. The Military Justice Act of 2016, effective January 1, 2019, reorganized the punitive articles, and the statutory title of Article 90 now centers on willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer. Assaultive conduct directed at a superior commissioned officer is addressed through the assault provisions of the Code, principally Article 128. Because the historical heading combining assault and disobedience remains familiar and is still widely used, it is preserved here, but a reader should know that a present-day charge for striking or offering violence to a superior officer is typically brought under the assault article, while willful disobedience is brought under Article 90.

The elements of willful disobedience

To convict under Article 90 for willful disobedience, the government must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that a certain commissioned officer gave the accused a lawful command. Second, that this officer was the superior commissioned officer of the accused. Third, that the accused knew that this officer was the accused’s superior commissioned officer. Fourth, that the accused willfully disobeyed the lawful command.

Each element carries weight. The command must be one the officer was authorized to give and the accused was bound to obey. The superior relationship must exist, meaning the officer was superior in rank or command in the sense the Code defines. The accused must have known …

When a Marine’s court-martial conviction is reversed because of a Fourth Amendment violation, it is because evidence that should never have been admitted was used to secure the conviction. The Fourth Amendment protects service members against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the military enforces that protection through a structured set of rules and an appellate system that can undo a conviction built on unlawfully obtained evidence. Understanding how such a reversal happens requires understanding how the Fourth Amendment applies in the armed forces, how the exclusionary rule operates under the Military Rules of Evidence, and how the appellate courts review search and seizure issues. This article explains that process and the legal principles that drive it, without attributing the analysis to any particular case the reader should independently verify.

The Fourth Amendment in the Military

Service members do not surrender their Fourth Amendment rights when they put on the uniform. The amendment protects them against unreasonable searches and seizures, and official intrusions into protected areas generally require search authorization supported by probable cause unless the search is otherwise lawful under the Military Rules of Evidence or the Constitution. The military adapts familiar Fourth Amendment doctrine to its own structure. In place of a civilian magistrate issuing a warrant, a commander with proper authority may grant search authorization based on probable cause, and a military judge may issue a search warrant or authorization in some circumstances. Recognized exceptions to the authorization requirement, such as consent, searches incident to apprehension, exigent circumstances, inspections, and inventories, apply much as they do in civilian law, with military-specific refinements.

A search becomes unlawful when it lacks the required authorization or probable cause, when it exceeds the scope of the authorization that was granted, when a claimed exception does not actually apply, or when consent was not voluntary. A common scenario involves the search of a service member’s cell phone or other digital device, where the breadth of the data and the privacy interests at stake are great. The Supreme Court has held that police generally may not search the digital contents of a cell phone seized incident to arrest without a warrant, a principle that carries directly into the military context. A search that begins with valid authorization can still become unlawful if investigators range beyond what the authorization permitted, treating a limited authorization as license to comb through unrelated material.

The Exclusionary Rule Under

…

Most punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) address misconduct by the accused in a case. Article 98 is unusual because it points the other way. It polices the people who run the military justice system itself, making it an offense to drag out a case unnecessarily or to deliberately ignore the procedural protections the Code guarantees. Codified at 10 U.S.C. section 898 and titled “Noncompliance with procedural rules,” it is a safeguard meant to keep the machinery of military justice both prompt and fair.

Why the article exists

Military justice gives commanders and legal officers significant power over the lives of service members facing discipline. Cases move through apprehension, pretrial confinement decisions, investigation, referral, trial, and post-trial review, and at each stage the Code imposes rules designed to protect the accused’s rights and to keep the process moving. Article 98 backs those rules with the threat of criminal liability for the officials responsible for administering them. In doing so it reflects a recognition that procedural protections mean little if the people charged with honoring them can ignore or stall them without consequence.

The two offenses within Article 98

Article 98 defines two distinct offenses. The first targets unnecessary delay. It punishes a person who is responsible for unnecessary delay in the disposition of a case of a person accused of an offense under the Code. The second targets the deliberate disregard of procedural rules. It punishes a person who knowingly and intentionally fails to enforce or comply with any provision of the Code regulating the proceedings before, during, or after the trial of an accused. The two offenses guard different values: the first protects against languishing cases, and the second protects against the willful evasion of required procedures.

Elements of the unnecessary-delay offense

To convict on the delay branch, the government must prove that the accused was charged with a certain duty in connection with the disposition of a case of a person accused of an offense under the Code; that the accused knew of that duty; that delay occurred in the disposition of the case; that the accused was responsible for that delay; and that, under the circumstances, the delay was unnecessary. Each element matters. The accused must have had a recognized responsibility in the case, must have known of it, and the delay must have been both attributable to the accused and unnecessary in …

In the period surrounding 2016, the military’s system for handling sexual assault reports was the subject of intense legislative and policy attention. Proposals circulating in Congress and within the Department of Defense sought to strengthen confidentiality for reporting victims, to reduce the role of the immediate chain of command in handling reports and disposition decisions, and to build in independent oversight of the process. Each of these features carries distinct legal implications. This article examines the legal architecture of military sexual assault reporting as it stood in that period, the rationale for the proposed changes, and the legal questions that confidentiality, command bypass, and oversight reforms raise.

The Existing Reporting Framework

By 2016 the military’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program had established two formal reporting options. Unrestricted reporting initiates an official investigation and notifies the command, allowing the full machinery of military justice to engage. Restricted reporting allows a victim to disclose the assault confidentially to specified personnel, such as a sexual assault response coordinator, a victim advocate, or a healthcare provider, and to receive medical care and advocacy services without triggering an investigation or command notification. These options are set out in Department of Defense policy and reflected in federal regulation governing the program.

Layered onto this framework were victim rights protections. The fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act added Article 6b to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, establishing enforceable rights for victims of offenses under the code. Article 6b includes the right to confer with the government attorney in the case, the right to be reasonably protected from the accused, the right to notice of proceedings, and other protections modeled on civilian crime victim rights statutes. This created a statutory foundation for victim participation that proposals in the 2016 period built upon.

Confidentiality and Its Legal Tensions

Confidentiality is the cornerstone of restricted reporting, and proposals in this period sought to reinforce it. The legal appeal of strong confidentiality is straightforward: victims are far more likely to come forward and obtain care if they can do so without automatically setting an investigation in motion or exposing themselves to command attention and possible retaliation. Congress addressed this directly, with provisions in the fiscal year 2016 defense authorization legislation aimed at protecting confidential reporting against competing requirements that might otherwise force disclosure.

Confidentiality also creates legal tension. A confidential report that does not reach investigators can limit …

In a court-martial charging a violation of Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the accuser’s account is usually central to the government’s case. So it is natural to assume that if the accuser recants, meaning takes back or withdraws the accusation, the case must collapse. The reality is more complicated. A recantation can be powerful, but it does not automatically end a prosecution, and how the military justice system treats it depends on the circumstances. This article explains what a recantation is, why it does not necessarily dismiss a case, and how it can affect the proceedings.

What A Recantation Is And Is Not

A recantation occurs when the person who made an accusation later says that the accusation was untrue, inaccurate, or made in error. It is different from a witness simply becoming unavailable or reluctant. In an Article 120 case, a recantation typically means the complaining witness now states that the alleged offense did not happen as previously described, or did not happen at all.

It is important to understand that a recantation is the accuser’s statement, not a ruling by the court. It does not by itself erase the earlier statement, the investigation, or any other evidence the government has gathered. The earlier account still exists, and the case now contains two conflicting statements from the same person.

Why A Recantation Does Not Automatically End The Case

In the military, the decision to prosecute belongs to the command and the convening authority, not to the accuser. Unlike a civilian who might be thought of as pressing charges, the complaining witness in a court-martial does not control whether the case proceeds. This means that even when an accuser wants to withdraw the accusation, the government can decide to move forward if it believes the evidence supports the charges.

The government may also view a recantation with suspicion. Prosecutors are aware that a person can be pressured, persuaded, or frightened into taking back a true accusation, and they may argue that the recantation itself is the product of influence rather than a sincere correction. In some cases the government will continue the prosecution and ask the members to credit the original statement over the later one. For these reasons, a recantation changes the landscape of a case but does not guarantee dismissal.

How A Recantation Can Affect The Proceedings

Even though it is not automatically decisive, …