Military Police contains information about military police functions in maneuver and mobility support, area security, law and order, internment/resettlement, and police intelligence operations.
Issue link: https://militarypolice.epubxp.com/i/484012
22
MILITARY POLICE
.
19-15-1
The key factor is ensuring that the Soldier is correctly
identifed as a deserter as soon as possible. The distinguish-
ing factor is the intent of the Soldier to remain absent per-
manently, regardless of how much time has lapsed since he
or she departed.
One of the challenges facing the Army is the terminology
related to absences. The ice
lists absence without leave and desertion as punishable of-
fenses:
• AWOL. In Article 86, a Soldier who is AWOL is defned
as "any member of the armed forces who, without author-
ity, fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time
prescribed; goes from that place; or absents himself or re-
mains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty
at which he is required to be at the time prescribed."
12
• In Article 85, a deserter is defned as "any
member of the armed forc-
es who, without authority,
goes or remains absent
from his unit, organiza-
tion, or place of duty with
intent to remain away
therefrom permanently;
quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent
to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
without being regularly separated from one of the armed
forces, enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or
another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing
the fact that he has not been regularly separated or en-
ters any foreign armed service, except when authorized
by the United States."
13
The primary difference between the two defnitions is in re-
gard to the intent. Although a Soldier who is absent without
leave is not present—and the absence is deliberate and in-
tentional—there is no reason to believe that it is permanent;
a deserter, on the other hand, intends to permanently re-
main absent.
Absence without leave is a much less serious offense than
desertion. It general, the term applies to situations in which
"any member of the armed forces is, through the member's
own fault, not at the place where the member is required to
be at a prescribed time."
14
Other stipulations regarding the
duration and circumstances of the absence may result in the
mitigation of punishment.
The maximum punishment for the more serious offense
of desertion is a "dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay
and allowances, and confnement for 5 years."
15
However, in
time of war, the punishment may be "death or such other
punishment as a court-martial may direct."
16
In 2013, the U.S. Army Audit Agency examined policies,
procedures, and controls regarding the handling of Soldiers
in absentee or deserter status.
17
The investigators concluded
that the Army did not have suffcient controls in place to
enforce the established policies and procedures for report-
ing absent Soldiers. As a result of the shortcomings, these
Soldiers continued to receive pay and benefts. From Jan-
uary 2010 to July 2012, the Army made more than 9,000
payments totaling about $16 million to absent Soldiers .
18
In
addition, absent Soldiers who were not properly processed
continued to receive military benefts, including medical
care and facility access. In cases in which an absent Soldier
who had not been properly processed died, the Soldier's fam-
ily received death benefts.
The audit report identifed specifc procedural defcien-
cies that contributed to fnancial loss to the Army. Although
the Army reporting system had relied on subordinate units
to submit information to higher headquarters, the head-
quarters did not place any emphasis on the need for this
information.
19
Unit commanders did not confrm the status
of Soldiers incarcerated in civilian confnement facilities;
therefore, these Soldiers were released from civilian control,
but not returned to military duty.
20
Furthermore, gaining
commands did not reconcile
rosters of expected person-
nel transfers with those of
in-processed personnel. In
addition, discrepancies that
were noted were not report-
ed. The audit report cited
an overall lack of command
leadership emphasis as the fundamental cause of these
problems.
21
The audit report projected a possible savings of $39 mil-
lion from fscal year 2013 through 2018 if emphasis were
placed on unit commanders to correctly process administra-
tive actions for absent Soldiers.
22
Although the percentage
of absent Soldiers may be low, units that correctly follow
established procedures can save large amounts of money.
Conclusion
Contemporary evidence clearly demonstrates the nega-
tive ence that desertion has on the Army. This is an ex-
pensive problem, costing the Army in terms of discipline and
resources. With a total active duty population of half a mil-
lion Soldiers, it may be impractical for the Army to consider
the total elimination of desertion; however, it is incumbent
upon Army leaders to make every effort to minimize the dis-
ruption that desertion causes within the ranks.
Endnotes:
1
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2012 Edition),
p. IV-10.
2
Audit Report A-2013-0119-FMF, "Stopping Pay for Soldiers
in an Absentee/Deserter Status," U.S. Army Audit Agency,
13 July 2013, p. 5.
3
FY12 Profle, G-1, DA, 30 September 2012,