UCMJ Article 85: Desertion | Joseph L. Jordan

Free Case Evaluation

You left. You know that. What you may not know is that the difference between desertion and AWOL-between a federal felony and a military infraction-is not how long you were gone. It is what was in your mind when you left.

Article 85 of the UCMJ requires the government to prove specific intent: that you intended to remain away permanently, or that you left to avoid hazardous duty, or that you shirked important service. Intent is a mental state. Mental states are contested. And the government’s ability to prove what you intended-not just what you did-is the foundation that every Article 85 defense must examine. Article 85, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 885, covers desertion in three forms: desertion with intent to remain absent permanently, desertion to avoid hazardous duty, and desertion by surrender to the enemy.

Each carries different elements and different maximum punishments. In time of war, desertion is punishable by death. Congress has not formally declared war since World War II. In peacetime, the maximum is five years of confinement and a dishonorable discharge for the most serious theories. Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army JAG Officer who served as both a prosecutor and defense counsel, including as a former military prosecutor at Fort Hood, Texas and with the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea. He has prosecuted desertion cases from the government’s side. He understands how the intent element is built-and how defense counsel can dismantle it. Call (888) 367-9489 now for a free consultation.

What You Are Facing: Article 85 Desertion

The Charge. Article 85 charges you with desertion, which requires proof of intent to remain away permanently or to avoid hazardous duty. This is a more serious charge than AWOL under Article 86 because it requires proof of specific intent.

What the Government Must Prove. That you absented yourself from your unit or place of duty, and that you intended to remain away permanently or intended to avoid hazardous duty or important service. The intent element is what elevates AWOL to desertion.

Where the Case Breaks. Intent is the battleground. The government infers intent from circumstantial evidence: length of absence, disposal of military property, assumption of a new identity, statements made to others.

Defense counsel will challenge each inference and present evidence of intent to return.

What Makes This Dangerous. Desertion in time of war carries the death penalty. In peacetime, desertion carries up to 5 years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The charge also triggers administrative separation and loss of all benefits.

What to Do Right Now. If you are absent, return. If you have returned, invoke your Article 31(b) rights and do not explain your absence to investigators. Call (888) 367-9489 for a free consultation.

Three Theories of Desertion Under Article 85

The government must select and prove one of three distinct theories. Each theory has different elements, and the defense strategy varies accordingly.

Theory 1: Desertion with Intent to Remain Away Permanently

This is the most commonly charged theory of desertion. Elements the Government Must Prove:

That the accused absented themselves from their unit, organization, or place of duty
That the absence was without authority
That the accused, at the time of the absence, intended to remain away permanently

The third element-intent to remain away permanently-is the element the government most struggles to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The government must establish what was in the accused’s mind at the moment of departure, not just that the accused was away for a long time. Length of absence creates an inference of intent, but it is not proof. Defense counsel challenges the inference with evidence of the circumstances of departure, the accused’s statements and actions during the absence, and any evidence bearing on what the accused actually intended.

Theory 2: Quitting Unit to Avoid Hazardous Duty

This theory requires proof that the accused left specifically to avoid a particular hazardous duty or important service. Elements the Government Must Prove:

That the accused quit their unit, organization, or place of duty
That the quitting was without authority
That the accused intended to avoid a certain duty, defined as hazardous, or a certain service, defined as important
That the accused knew that they were required for that duty or service

The government must specifically identify the hazardous duty or important service and prove the accused knew about it and left to avoid it. A service member who left before knowing about an upcoming deployment cannot be convicted on this theory. Defense counsel examines the knowledge element with particular care: when did the accused learn of the duty or service, and does the evidence establish that knowledge predated the departure?

Theory 3: Surrender to the Enemy

Desertion by surrendering to or going to the enemy without authority is separately charged. Elements the Government Must Prove:

That the accused was in the presence of the enemy
That the accused surrendered to or went over to the enemy
That the accused did so without authority

This theory is rarely charged outside of active combat zones. When it is charged, it involves separate evidentiary and legal questions unique to the combat context.

Article 85 vs. Article 86: Why the Distinction Matters

Article 86 covers absence without authority-AWOL. Article 85 covers desertion. The difference is not duration. The legal distinction is specific intent: Article 85 requires intent to remain away permanently (or the other specific intents for the other theories). Article 86 requires only that the absence was unauthorized. Why this matters for your case:

Article 86 AWOL: maximum of 18 months confinement for absence over 30 days with dishonorable discharge authorized; shorter maximums for shorter absences. No capital punishment in any circumstance. Article 85 desertion (intent to remain away): dishonorable discharge, 5 years confinement in peacetime; death in time of war. The government often has evidence of the absence but not of the intent. Defense counsel’s first analysis in every desertion case is whether the evidence the government has actually supports Article 85 or whether it supports only Article 86. Overcharging-charging desertion when the evidence supports only AWOL-is a legal error that defense counsel challenges at the charge sheet level and on the merits.

What the Government Uses to Prove Intent

Because the government cannot directly observe intent, they build it from circumstantial evidence. Understanding what the government uses is the first step in building the defense. Evidence the government typically relies on to prove intent to remain away permanently:

Length of the absence (the longer, the stronger the inference)
Whether the service member disposed of military equipment or uniforms
Whether the service member took civilian employment in another location
Whether the service member established a new residence in another location
Whether the service member made statements to others about not returning
Whether the service member attempted to conceal their whereabouts
Whether the service member returned voluntarily or was apprehended

What defense counsel examines:

Did the accused return military equipment-inconsistent with permanent intent? – Did the accused contact family members who were associated with the military-inconsistent with concealment? – Did the accused leave behind personal property-inconsistent with permanent departure? – Was the accused experiencing a mental health crisis, family emergency, or other circumstance that explains the departure without establishing permanent intent? – Did the accused return voluntarily-the strongest single indicator against permanent intent? Each piece of evidence the government relies on can be challenged, contextualized, or countered with evidence that supports a different inference. The battle over intent is a battle over the meaning of circumstantial evidence.

Maximum Punishment Under UCMJ Article 85 (MCM 2024)

Theory	Time Period	Punitive Discharge	Confinement	Forfeiture
Desertion with intent to remain away	Peacetime	Dishonorable	5 years	All pay and allowances
Desertion with intent to remain away	Time of war	Death or any lesser punishment	See below	See below
Quitting to avoid hazardous duty	Peacetime	Dishonorable	5 years	All pay and allowances
Quitting to avoid hazardous duty	Time of war	Death or any lesser punishment	See below	See below
Surrender to the enemy	Any	Dishonorable	5 years (peacetime)	All pay and allowances

Time of war designation: The death penalty for desertion applies only when the United States is in a time of war as declared by Congress. The last formal congressional declaration of war was World War II. Subsequent armed conflicts have generally been authorized under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which courts have not consistently treated as equivalent to a congressional declaration of war. Whether a specific armed conflict constitutes “time of war” under Article 85 is a legal question with implications for the applicable maximum punishment.

Executive Order 14103 and Article 85 Sentencing

For offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023, EO 14103 shifts sentencing from the panel to the military judge in non-capital cases. For Article 85 desertion cases:

The military judge considers the sentencing parameters established by MCM 2024, the specific circumstances of the absence, the duration, the accused’s service record, and any mitigating factors. – Mental health issues, family circumstances, and the conditions that drove the departure are all relevant mitigating evidence that defense counsel presents in a judge-alone sentencing proceeding. – Voluntary return to military control is the most powerful mitigating circumstance in a desertion sentencing and should be documented and presented fully.

Defense Vulnerabilities in Article 85 Prosecutions

Vulnerability 1: The intent element is not proven-the evidence supports AWOL, not desertion.

The most important defense analysis in every Article 85 case is whether the government’s evidence actually establishes intent to remain away permanently. Defense counsel challenges every piece of the government’s circumstantial evidence package: the length of the absence, what the accused did during the absence, whether the accused concealed their location, whether the accused returned voluntarily, and any statements the accused made. Evidence that the accused did not dispose of military equipment, maintained contact with family in the military community, or returned voluntarily all cut against permanent intent.

Vulnerability 2: The absence was not without authority.

Article 85 requires that the absence be unauthorized. If leave was granted, if emergency conditions created an implicit authorization, or if the accused was excused through command action during the absence, the unauthorized element is contested. Defense counsel attacks the leave records, the command’s knowledge of the accused’s whereabouts, and whether any official or unofficial authorization existed.

Joseph Jordan has achieved sentence reductions in AWOL and Desertion cases, including for an Army E-3. In fact, every desertion case that Mr. Jordan has dealt with has been dismissed, in large part because the intent element could not be proven. Alternate resolutions were found.

Vulnerability 3: Mental health and capacity issues.

A service member who departed due to a mental health crisis-undiagnosed PTSD, severe depression, anxiety disorder, or other mental disease or defect-may lack the cognitive capacity to form the specific intent required for desertion. Mental health evaluation is a standard component of the Article 85 defense analysis. If a mental health condition existed at the time of departure and affected the accused’s ability to form the intent to remain away permanently, that evidence is directly relevant to the intent element.

Vulnerability 4: The departure was to avoid a duty that was not lawfully hazardous or important.

For the second theory-quitting to avoid hazardous duty-the government must identify a specific duty that qualifies as hazardous or important. Not every difficult or dangerous assignment automatically qualifies. Defense counsel contests whether the duty was within the scope of lawful orders, whether the accused knew about it before the departure, and whether the government can establish the causal connection between the known duty and the decision to leave.

Vulnerability 5: Illegal pretrial punishment or command pressure.

Service members who remained absent for extended periods sometimes surrender to military control following significant personal hardship. The conditions of confinement, the nature of command pressure before departure, and any unlawful punishment or treatment that contributed to the absence are relevant both to the defense case and to sentencing. Defense counsel targets whether any Article 13 pretrial confinement violations occurred during any period of confinement and whether command conduct before the departure bears on the defense narrative.

Collateral Consequences of an Article 85 Conviction

A dishonorable discharge following an Article 85 conviction carries the full range of lifetime consequences:

Elimination of all VA benefits, including health care, education benefits, and home loan guaranty
Federal firearms prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6)
Federal civilian employment restrictions, including virtually all government and defense-adjacent positions
Professional licensing restrictions in most states-most regulated professions treat a dishonorable discharge as a disqualifying felony equivalent
Permanent visibility in all federal background investigations

For service members who are otherwise close to retirement eligibility, an Article 85 conviction and dishonorable discharge eliminates all retirement pay and pension benefits. The financial value of a full military retirement-years of monthly payments, commissary access, Tricare coverage-is a direct consequence of the charge and conviction that must factor into every defense and plea decision. An Article 85 conviction also affects federal civilian employment more directly than many other UCMJ convictions: the desertion record signals to federal employers a fundamental breach of duty to country that effectively closes most government career paths permanently. These consequences operate independently of one another and begin taking effect before any appeal is resolved.

Contact Joseph L. Jordan: Article 85 Defense

Desertion Is a Specific Intent Crime. The Government Must Prove What You Intended-Not Just What You Did.

The fact of the absence is not the crime. The intent behind it is. If the government cannot establish that you intended to remain away permanently-or that you left to avoid a specific hazardous duty-the Article 85 charge cannot be sustained. Joseph L. Jordan has prosecuted numerous desertion cases and now he defends them.

Call (888) 367-9489 now for a free consultation. Available 24/7.

Why Joseph L. Jordan for Desertion Cases

Military duty offenses are unique to the UCMJ. They carry no civilian equivalent, and the defense strategies that work in civilian court do not apply. These charges require defense counsel who understands military operations, unit dynamics, command discretion, and the specific regulatory frameworks that define the duty alleged to have been violated. Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army JAG Officer who served as both a prosecutor and defense counsel, including as a former military prosecutor at Fort Hood, Texas and with the 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea. He understands the operational context in which these charges arise and how command decisions shape the prosecution.

Jordan has represented more than 1,000 service members and tried 250+ cases to verdict across every branch of the Armed Forces: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Space Force. Desertion cases arise at installations throughout the United States and at overseas commands in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Jordan has tried cases in all of these jurisdictions. When a service member’s career and freedom are at stake, Jordan gets on a plane.

Mr. Jordan has achieved sentence reductions in AWOL and desertion cases, including for an Army E-3.

He practices exclusively in military law and is highly experienced in criminal trial advocacy. Call (888) 367-9489 now. Available 24/7. Military defense attorney Joseph L. Jordan has defended service members facing these charges across all military branches. Review our past case results for examples of cases we have handled. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes; every case depends on its own facts. Before speaking to investigators or law enforcement, assert your Article 31 rights. Understand the court-martial process before your case proceeds.

Immediate Steps If You Are Facing Article 85 Charges

Understand that voluntary return is your strongest mitigating factor. If you have not yet returned to military control and are considering your options, returning voluntarily-rather than being apprehended-is the single most powerful fact in your defense and sentencing case. It is direct evidence against permanent intent. 2. Invoke Article 31(b) rights immediately upon return or apprehension. Do not make statements to MPs, investigators, or your chain of command about why you left, where you went, or what you intended. The intent element is what the government needs to prove.

Do not give it to them. 3. Document the circumstances of your departure. The conditions that led to your absence-mental health crisis, family emergency, command environment, financial hardship-are relevant both to the intent element and to the sentencing case. Preserve any documentation of those circumstances. 4. Contact defense counsel before any Article 32 hearing. The Article 32 preliminary hearing is the government’s first formal examination of the evidence. Defense counsel who enters the case before this stage has maximum opportunity to shape the proceeding.

Frequently Asked Questions: UCMJ Article 85

What is the difference between Article 85 desertion and Article 86 AWOL?

Both involve unauthorized absence. Article 86 covers absence without authority—being somewhere other than where you were ordered to be. Article 85 requires specific intent: intent to remain away permanently, intent to avoid hazardous duty, or surrender to the enemy. A service member who left temporarily for a personal emergency and returned is not a deserter—they may have been AWOL. The specific intent requirement is what distinguishes a criminal felony from an AWOL charge with substantially lower maximum punishment.

Does the length of my absence determine whether I am charged with desertion or AWOL?

No. Length of absence creates an inference that may support a desertion charge, but it is not determinative. A service member absent for two years may still show they never intended to remain away permanently. A service member absent for two weeks who made statements about never returning or disposed of military equipment may face stronger desertion evidence despite the shorter absence. Intent, not duration, is the legal standard.

Can I be charged with desertion for missing a deployment?

Missing a deployment is serious, but whether it constitutes desertion depends on the circumstances. If the absence was unauthorized and the government can prove intent to remain away permanently—or intent to avoid a hazardous duty—desertion charges are possible. However, a service member who missed a deployment due to a personal emergency and returned at the first opportunity has stronger grounds to contest the charge.

What happens if I return voluntarily after being absent for years?

Voluntary return is strong evidence against intent to remain away permanently. It directly contradicts the government’s theory. The circumstances of the return—why you came back, whether you surrendered or were apprehended, and what occurred during the absence—all affect the intent analysis. Defense counsel often uses voluntary return as a central defense and key mitigating factor in sentencing.

Is there a statute of limitations on Article 85 desertion?

Desertion during wartime has no statute of limitations under Article 43, UCMJ. The statute of limitations is tolled during the period of absence. In peacetime, the general five-year statute of limitations applies. The analysis depends heavily on the facts, including whether the individual remains subject to UCMJ jurisdiction and the nature of the alleged desertion.

Does mental health justify a desertion absence?

Mental health is relevant to the specific intent element of desertion and can be powerful mitigation in sentencing. If a mental health condition prevented the formation of intent to remain away permanently—such as a psychotic episode or severe incapacitation—it may negate the intent element. Otherwise, it is typically considered strong mitigating evidence rather than a complete defense. Mental health evaluation is a key part of defense strategy.

Is desertion a more serious charge than AWOL?

Yes. Desertion requires proof of intent to remain away permanently or to avoid hazardous duty, making it a far more serious offense than AWOL under Article 86, which only requires unauthorized absence.

Is there a statute of limitations for Article 85?

For wartime desertion, there is no statute of limitations under Article 43, UCMJ. The government may bring charges at any time. For peacetime desertion, the standard five-year statute of limitations applies. Each case requires detailed legal analysis to determine applicability.

Article 85 Disclaimer

This page provides general legal information about UCMJ Article 85 and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. Military law is complex. Outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case, the service branch involved, applicable regulations, and the Manual for Courts-Martial, 2024 edition, in effect at the time of the alleged offense. The death penalty for desertion in time of war and the statutory tolling provisions described reflect current UCMJ and MCM 2024 law. Executive Order 14103 sentencing parameters apply to offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023. For advice specific to your situation, contact Joseph L. Jordan at (888) 367-9489.

jordanucmjlaw.com | (888) 367-9489 | Serving all branches of the U.S. military worldwide

Joseph L. Jordan is a civilian military defense lawyer serving all six branches of the Armed Forces.