Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes desertion—the act of abandoning one’s military duties with the intent to remain away permanently, avoid hazardous duty, or shirk important service. Desertion is one of the oldest and most severe military crimes, punishable by years of confinement, a dishonorable discharge, and historically—even death in wartime.
Most modern desertion cases arise from mental health crises, emotional stress, family emergencies, fear of retaliation, toxic command climates, administrative mistakes, misunderstanding of orders, or difficulty returning to duty after absence. Very few cases involve true “intent to abandon service,” despite aggressive charging by commands.
Florida’s military installations—NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, Pensacola, Whiting Field, Eglin, Hurlburt Field, Tyndall, Patrick SFB, MacDill, NSA Panama City, NAS Key West, and Coast Guard Sectors—experience a higher-than-average rate of desertion and long-term AWOL cases due to the state’s large military population, high-stress training environments, and frequent PCS transitions.
Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members worldwide in AWOL and desertion cases. We expose command failures, mental health triggers, administrative confusion, unlawful orders, toxic leadership environments, and false allegations of “intent to desert.” Most desertion cases can be reduced, dismissed, or resolved without confinement when handled strategically.
Article 85 includes several forms of desertion:
The service member leaves their unit or duty station with the intent never to return.
Leaving or attempting to avoid deployments, combat, field exercises, or dangerous missions.
Leaving to avoid major duty such as inspections, investigations, high-stakes missions, or significant responsibilities.
Taking steps to desert, even if the member fails or returns voluntarily.
Unlike Article 86 (AWOL), Article 85 requires specific intent—not just absence.
Any departure outside authorized leave or orders qualifies as “absence.”
No permission, leave approval, or proper authorization.
Intent is EVERYTHING. Without proving intent, the case falls apart.
The government must prove the service member intended to desert—not just leave temporarily.
Legitimate reasons for absence include:
None of these reflect “intent to remain away permanently.”
Desertion carries severe penalties depending on the type and circumstances:
Historically, desertion during wartime could carry the death penalty, but this is no longer pursued in modern courts-martial.
Florida’s military environment leads to elevated desertion allegations due to:
Most Florida desertion cases involve confusion, mental health struggles, or administrative mistakes—not true intent to desert.
Service members overwhelmed by stress disappear temporarily and later return voluntarily.
A toxic command environment drives members to flee temporarily.
Leaving to escape abuse or protect family—NOT desertion.
Incorrect report dates or misunderstood instructions lead to unauthorized absence allegations.
Some members are absent because they were detained—and command was never notified.
Common during Florida weekend trips, cruises, and nightlife outings.
Prosecutors sometimes overcharge AWOL as “desertion to avoid hazardous duty.”
Members spiraling with addiction may temporarily disappear.
Young service members often panic and flee during emotional stress.
Illness, divorce, custody disputes, or emergencies trigger sudden absences.
Desertion investigations typically involve:
Most “desertion” cases collapse once the actual intent—or lack thereof—is exposed.
The accused had no intention to remain away permanently or avoid service. This is the strongest defense.
Panic attacks, depression, PTSD, suicidal ideation, and emotional breakdowns undermine desertion claims.
Return to duty—especially voluntary—undercuts “permanent intent.”
A strong record contradicts claims of intent to abandon service.
Many cases boil down to confusion—not desertion.
AWOL is unauthorized absence. Desertion requires proof that the accused intended to remain away permanently or avoid duty. Proving intent is extremely difficult for prosecutors.
Absolutely. Depression, anxiety, PTSD, and emotional breakdowns often explain unauthorized absences and negate “intent to desert.” These are among the strongest defenses.
Voluntary return makes it significantly harder for the government to prove intent to remain away permanently. This often results in reduced charges.
Yes. Article 85 applies in both war and peacetime, although punishments may differ.
We are world-renowned military defense lawyers with decades of experience defeating desertion and AWOL cases. We expose command failures, rebuild intent narratives, and use mental health, digital evidence, and powerful cross-examination to dismantle prosecutions.
Article 85 desertion is an extremely serious charge—but most cases are rooted in confusion, emotional distress, mental health struggles, or breakdowns in communication, not a genuine intent to abandon service. With strong legal strategy, many desertion cases can be downgraded or defeated entirely.
Your silence protects you. Your lawyer shields you. Your strategy determines your future.
