Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case involves unique facts and circumstances. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ, consult with a qualified military defense attorney immediately.
Both Article 86 (AWOL) and Article 87 (Missing Movement) punish service members for not being where they should be. But missing movement is a specialized offense designed to address a specific problem: units and ships that must move according to schedule cannot wait for stragglers. When your unit, ship, or aircraft moves without you, the military treats this as a distinct and often more serious offense than simple unauthorized absence.
The Operational Reality Behind Article 87
Missing movement exists because military operations depend on coordinated movement. A ship departing on deployment cannot turn around because one Sailor didn’t show up. An aircraft flying a combat mission cannot delay takeoff for a late crew member. A unit convoying to a field exercise cannot halt the entire column because someone missed the bus.
The military’s solution is Article 87, which specifically targets service members who, through design or neglect, miss the movement of their ship, aircraft, or unit. This offense captures a particular harm: not just absence, but absence that disrupts planned military movement.
Understanding this operational context helps explain why prosecutors sometimes choose missing movement over AWOL, even when both might technically apply. Missing movement emphasizes the operational impact of your absence. AWOL treats your absence as the primary offense without necessarily highlighting what your unit was doing when you weren’t there.
Distinguishing the Two Offenses
Article 86 (AWOL) covers unauthorized absence from your unit, organization, or place of duty. The elements focus on your duty to be present and your failure to be there without authorization. Duration matters for sentencing, but the offense is complete when you fail to appear as required.
Article 87 (Missing Movement) requires something more specific: that your ship, aircraft, or unit moved to another location, and that you knew or should have known of the movement, and that you missed the movement either through design (intentionally) or through neglect.
These offenses can overlap. If your unit deploys and you’re not there, you’ve both missed the movement and you’re absent without leave. But the charges emphasize different aspects of your conduct. Missing movement focuses on the movement you missed. AWOL focuses on the time you were absent.
In practice, when the evidence supports missing movement, prosecutors often prefer it because it captures the specific military harm. The offense tells the story of what happened: your unit moved, you didn’t go with it, and that matters.
Design vs Neglect: The Mental State Divide
Article 87 contains an internal distinction that significantly affects punishment. Missing movement “by design” is far more serious than missing movement “through neglect.”
Missing movement by design means you intentionally missed the movement. You knew your ship was departing, you knew you were supposed to be on it, and you deliberately chose not to go. This is the more culpable form of the offense and carries harsher maximum punishment.
Missing movement through neglect means you failed to meet the movement through carelessness, inattention, or lack of proper care. You didn’t intend to miss the ship, but your failure to take reasonable precautions resulted in you being left behind. Maybe you overslept. Maybe you didn’t confirm the departure time. Maybe you got too drunk the night before and couldn’t function in the morning.
The distinction matters enormously. Missing movement by design, if the movement is in time of war, can carry up to two years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Missing movement through neglect in wartime carries a maximum of one year and a bad-conduct discharge. The peacetime maximums are similarly differentiated.
For defense attorneys, converting a “by design” allegation to “through neglect” (or establishing that neither applies) is often a primary objective. For prosecutors, proving design rather than mere neglect strengthens the case for serious punishment.
When Do Prosecutors Choose Missing Movement Over AWOL?
Prosecutors typically charge missing movement when: the movement is significant (deployment, extended training, combat operations), the service member’s absence disrupted planned operations, and the circumstances suggest either intentional avoidance or serious negligence.
They might choose AWOL instead when: the movement was routine or could easily accommodate one person’s absence, the absence extended well beyond the movement (making the ongoing absence more significant than the missed departure), or the evidence of when the absence began is clearer than the evidence of specifically missing the movement.
Sometimes both are charged. A service member who misses a deployment and remains absent for six months might face charges for missing movement (for the specific act of not deploying) and AWOL (for the extended unauthorized absence that followed).
The choice often comes down to what story the prosecutor wants to tell. If the case is fundamentally about a deployment that someone skipped, missing movement puts that front and center. If the case is about an extended disappearance from military life, AWOL may better capture the offense.
Typical Fact Patterns
Clear missing movement by design:
A Sailor knows her ship is deploying in three days. She has been dreading the deployment, has told friends she doesn’t want to go, and has made no preparations. On the morning of departure, she checks into a hotel off-base and turns off her phone. The ship deploys without her. She later claims she “lost track of time,” but the evidence of her hotel check-in, her statements, and her deliberate avoidance of contact establish design.
A Soldier receives orders to report to a departure point for convoy to a field training exercise. He decides he’d rather not spend two weeks in the field. On the morning of movement, he calls in sick with complaints that the medical staff can’t verify. When the convoy departs, he’s not on it. When he’s found later that day at his off-post apartment, the evidence supports intentional avoidance.
Clear missing movement through neglect:
An Airman knows his unit is flying out early Friday morning for a training exercise. On Thursday night, he goes out with friends and drinks heavily. He fails to set an alarm. He sleeps through his departure time. When he wakes at noon, his unit is gone. He didn’t intend to miss the movement; he was negligent in failing to ensure he could meet his obligations.
A Marine has the correct date of her unit’s departure but writes it down wrong. She believes the movement is on Thursday when it’s actually Wednesday. When she shows up Thursday morning, the unit has already left. Her failure to verify the information and her record-keeping error constitute neglect, not design.
AWOL rather than missing movement:
A service member stops coming to work and doesn’t show up for three weeks. During those three weeks, his unit participates in routine daily operations but doesn’t conduct any movement. When he’s finally located, the charge is AWOL because there was no movement to miss.
A Soldier goes on authorized leave and fails to return on time. Her unit deploys two days after her leave was supposed to end, but the charge focuses on her failure to return from leave (AWOL) rather than missing the specific movement. Either charge could technically apply, but the AWOL charge better captures that her absence began before any movement was scheduled.
The Knowledge Requirement
Both forms of missing movement require that you knew or should have known about the movement. This knowledge requirement can become a genuine issue in cases where:
Communication was poor and departure times or dates weren’t clearly disseminated.
You were legitimately away (on leave, temporary duty, medical status) and claim you weren’t informed of changes to the movement schedule.
The movement was hastily arranged and not all personnel received adequate notice.
Defense attorneys often explore whether their client actually received adequate notice of the movement. If you genuinely didn’t know your ship was departing and had no reasonable way to know, you may have a defense. But willful blindness (deliberately avoiding information so you can claim ignorance) won’t protect you.
The “should have known” standard means you can be convicted even if you claim actual ignorance, if a reasonable service member in your position would have known about the movement. If departure dates were posted, briefed, and discussed, claiming you somehow missed all that information is unlikely to succeed.
The Relationship to Desertion
Missing movement, particularly missing movement by design, can overlap with desertion concepts. Both offenses can indicate intent to avoid military service or hazardous duty. In fact, missing a deployment to a combat zone intentionally might support charges under both Article 85 (Desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty) and Article 87 (Missing movement by design).
When both apply, prosecutors decide based on which charge better fits the evidence and circumstances. Desertion requires proving intent to remain away permanently or intent to avoid hazardous duty. Missing movement focuses on the specific act of missing the movement. A service member who misses a deployment but immediately returns to the rear detachment hasn’t deserted (no intent to remain away permanently), but has clearly missed movement.
Consequences Beyond the Courtroom
Missing movement can affect your military career even without court-martial. Commanders may view a service member who missed a deployment as unreliable for future deployments and operational assignments. This perception can affect evaluations, promotions, and reenlistment eligibility.
Within your unit, missing movement often carries significant social consequences. Your peers who did deploy may view you with suspicion or resentment. You’ve effectively told your unit that when it mattered, you weren’t there. Rebuilding trust after missing movement is difficult.
If the movement was to a combat zone, the stigma is particularly severe. Service members who missed deployment to combat while their comrades faced danger occupy an uncomfortable position that no amount of explanation fully resolves.
Defenses to Missing Movement
Successful defenses to missing movement typically focus on:
Impossibility. If you genuinely could not make the movement through no fault of your own (medical emergency, natural disaster, transportation failure beyond your control), you may have a defense. The key is that the impossibility wasn’t caused by your own design or neglect.
Lack of knowledge. If you weren’t informed and had no reasonable way to learn of the movement, you didn’t have the knowledge required for the offense. This defense is difficult when movement schedules were widely disseminated, but it can apply in cases of genuine communication failure.
Authorization. If you had authorization to miss the movement (approved leave extending through the movement, temporary duty elsewhere, command authorization to remain behind), you haven’t committed the offense.
Negating design. When charged with missing movement by design, establishing that your miss was through neglect rather than intent can significantly reduce your exposure. This doesn’t eliminate liability, but it reduces the maximum punishment.
What to Do If You’ve Missed Movement
If you’ve missed your unit’s movement, the situation is serious but not hopeless. Take these steps:
Report to your chain of command (or the rear detachment, or any military authority) as soon as possible. Extended absence after missing movement only makes things worse.
Do not make statements to investigators without first consulting with a defense attorney. What you say about why you missed movement can establish whether it was by design or through neglect.
Gather any evidence that supports your position. If you were ill, get documentation. If you didn’t receive notice, identify who should have informed you. If circumstances beyond your control prevented your attendance, document those circumstances.
Consult with a military defense attorney immediately. The difference between design and neglect, between missing movement and simple AWOL, and between court-martial and non-judicial punishment may turn on how the early stages of your case are handled.
Frequently Asked Questions
If my unit’s departure was delayed at the last minute and I showed up for the original departure time, can I still be charged with missing movement?
Generally, no. If you reported at the originally scheduled time and in good faith, and the movement occurred at a different time that you weren’t informed of, you have a strong defense. The offense requires that you knew or should have known of the actual movement time. However, if you were informed of the delay and the new departure time and then failed to appear, you could still be charged. The key questions are what time the movement actually occurred, whether you knew of any schedule changes, and whether you had a reasonable opportunity to make the revised departure.
Can I be charged with missing movement if I was in military custody (confinement, restriction) when my unit moved?
If you were lawfully in military custody at the time of movement and therefore physically unable to deploy with your unit, you generally cannot be convicted of missing movement for that specific event. Your inability to participate wasn’t through your own design or neglect at the moment of movement; it was due to your custodial status. However, if you committed offenses specifically to get yourself confined and thereby miss the movement, prosecutors might argue that your earlier conduct constituted design. Additionally, if your custody was unlawful or if you should have been released in time for the movement, the analysis becomes more complex. The circumstances matter significantly.
My unit conducts movement training every month where we convoy to a training area and back. Is missing one of these routine movements treated the same as missing a deployment?
The legal elements of missing movement are the same regardless of the movement’s significance, but the practical consequences are very different. Prosecutors and commanders have discretion in how they handle offenses, and missing a routine training convoy is typically treated less severely than missing a combat deployment. You might face non-judicial punishment or administrative action rather than court-martial for missing a routine movement, particularly if it was through neglect rather than design. However, repeated instances of missing even routine movements can establish a pattern that leads to more serious consequences. The key factors are the operational impact of your absence, whether you acted intentionally or negligently, and your overall service record.