What are the literal (real world) consequences of a ...

Deborah, I'll do my best to give you accurate information and I recent experience defending a NAVY AWOL (almost 1 year absent without leave and missing movement) which resulted in an administrative separation (other than honorable) without time served or a federal conviction. Additionally, I've also recently competed a diminished capacity defense at trial for a variety of charges with a client who suffered from PTSD from Iraq service which resulted in a complete acquittal and an honorable discharge (In the past I have several murder cases which I defending in Military courts martial (one of which became a movie) and have done more that 60 jury trials and 3000 criminal defenses).

But the Marine Corp of course is not typical of the rest of the military services and compounding this issue is of course the potential of missing a troop movement. So the consequences I would be worried about are for your son to serve significant time and a dishonorable discharge.

Additionally, the theft (which is what the USMC would effectively charge him with) could radically increase the punishment potential here.

So let me do two things. First, a recommended plan of action and second a review of law.

First, your son's idea to go underground would greatly compound his problems.    You need to insure that he receives a prompt and through psychological examination. I recommend that you work through a lawyer who has significant and ongoing experience doing court martial defense work (I've provided some names below for you to start shopping legal defenses). From what your indicating your son may have a significant impairment that should be treated. Getting the evaluation upfront on your terms with a good civilian psychiatrist who has experience with war-time PTSD (I bring PTSD up because it's so commonly found as a result of war-time service and because it is important to treat) and related mental difficulties that have resulted from his military service (assuming he has a prior tour in Iraq or elsewhere). Once you have the evaluation in hand his lawyer goes about making the arrangements turning your son in to his command and providing not only legal counsel but also a buffer between your son and an interview or interrogation that would serve to facilitate his own prosecution and undermine his defenses. It's essential that your son ONLY speak to his attorney about these issues and those who his attorney designates as a member of the defense.

Now of course the charges that could potentially result here can be severe.

According to the UCMJ and military case law, desertion is not measured by time away from the unit, but rather:
--by remaining absent from their unit, organization, or place of duty, where there has been a determined intent to not return;
--if that intent is determined to be to avoid hazardous duty or shirk important responsibility;
--if they enlist or accept an appointment in the same or another branch of service without disclosing the fact that they have not been properly separated from current service.

People who are away for more than 30 days but return voluntarily or indicate a credible intent to return may still be considered AWOL, while those who are away for fewer than 30 days but can credibly be shown to have no intent to return (as by joining the armed forces of another country) may nevertheless be tried for desertion or in some rare occasions treason if enough evidence is found.

The maximum U.S. penalty for desertion in wartime remains death, although this punishment was last applied to (former Private) Eddie Slovik in 1945. Here's a quick review of the law of possible or likely charges:

Desertion, UCMJ Article 85:

(a) Any member of the armed forces who—

      (1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

      (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

      (3) 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 enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

Desertion, UCMJ Article 85, carries a much greater punishment, than the offense of AWOL, Article 86. Many people believe that if one is absent without authority for greater than 30 days, the offense changes from AWOL to Desertion, but that's not quite true as I laid out above.

The primary difference between the two offenses is "intent to remain away permanently." If one intends to return to "military control," one is guilty of "AWOL," under Article 86, not Desertion, under Article 85, even if they were away for ten years. The confusion derives from the fact that, if a member is absent without authority for longer than 30 days, the government (court-martial) is allowed to assume there was no intent to return. Therefore, the burden of proof that the accused intended to someday return to "military control" lies with the defense.

A person who is absent for just a day or two, then apprehended, could still be charged with the offense of Desertion, but the prosecution would have to show evidence that the accused intended to remain away permanently.

Elements of Dessertion:

(1) Desertion with intent to remain away permanently.

      (a) That the accused absented himself or herself from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty;

      (b) That such absence was without authority;

      (c) That the accused, at the time the absence began or at some time during the absence, intended to remain away from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty permanently; and

      (d) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged. Note: If the absence was terminated by apprehension, add the following element

      (e) That the accused’s absence was terminated by apprehension.

(2) Desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.

      (a) That the accused quit his or her unit, organization, or other place of duty;

      (b) That the accused did so with the intent to avoid a certain duty or shirk a certain service;

      (c) That the duty to be performed was hazardous or the service important;

      (d) That the accused knew that he or she would be required for such duty or service; and

      (e) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged.

(3) Desertion before notice of acceptance of resignation.

      (a) That the accused was a commissioned officer of an armed force of the United States, and had tendered his or her resignation;

      (b) That before he or she received notice of the acceptance of the resignation, the accused quit his or her post or proper duties;

      (c) That the accused did so with the intent to remain away permanently from his or her post or proper duties; and

      (d) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged. Note: If the absence was terminated by apprehension, add the following element

      (e) That the accused’s absence was terminated by apprehension.

(4) Attempted desertion.

      (a) That the accused did a certain overt act;

      (b) That the act was done with the specific intent to desert;

      (c) That the act amounted to more than mere preparation; and

      (d) That the act apparently tended to effect the commission of the offense of desertion.

Desertion with intent to remain away permanently is complete when the person absents himself or herself without authority from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty, with the intent to remain away therefrom permanently. A prompt repentance and return, while material in extenuation, is no defense. It is not necessary that the person be absent entirely from military jurisdiction and control.

Absence without authority —inception, duration, termination. See paragraph 10c.

      (c) Intent to remain away permanently.

            (i) The intent to remain away permanently from the unit, organization, or place of duty may be formed any time during the unauthorized absence. The intent need not exist throughout the absence, or for any particular period of time, as long as it exists at some time during the absence.

            (ii) The accused must have intended to remain away permanently from the unit, organization, or place of duty. When the accused had such an intent, it is no defense that the accused also intended to report for duty elsewhere, or to enlist or accept an appointment in the same or a different armed force.

            (iii) The intent to remain away permanently may be established by circumstantial evidence. Among the circumstances from which an inference may be drawn that an accused intended to remain absent permanently or; that the period of absence was lengthy; that the accused attempted to, or did, dispose of uniforms or other military property; that the accused purchased a ticket for a distant point or was arrested, apprehended, or surrendered a considerable distance from the accused’s station; that the accused could have conveniently surrendered to military control but did not; that the accused was dissatisfied with the accused’s unit, ship, or with military service; that the accused made remarks indicating an intention to desert; that the accused was under charges or had escaped from confinement at the time of the absence; that the accused made preparations indicative of an intent not to return (for example, financial arrangements), or that the accused enlisted or accepted an appointment in the same or another armed force without disclosing the fact that the accused had not been regularly separated, or entered any foreign armed service without being authorized by the United States. On the other hand, the following are included in the circumstances which may tend to negate an inference that the accused intended to remain away permanently: previous long and excellent service; that the accused left valuable personal property in the unit or on the ship; or that the accused was under the influence of alcohol or drugs during the absence. These lists are illustrative only.

            (iv) Entries on documents, such as personnel accountability records, which administratively refer to an accused as a “deserter” are not evidence of intent to desert.

            (v) Proof of, or a plea of guilty to, an unauthorized absence, even of extended duration, does not, without more, prove guilt of desertion.

      (d) Effect of enlistment or appointment in the same or a different armed force. Article 85a(3) does not state a separate offense. Rather, it is a rule of evidence by which the prosecution may prove intent to remain away permanently. Proof of an enlistment or acceptance of an appointment in a service without disclosing a preexisting duty status in the same or a different service provides the basis from which an inference of intent to permanently remain away from the earlier unit, organization, or place of duty may be drawn. Furthermore, if a person, without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces, enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another armed force, the person’s presence in the military service under such an enlistment or appointment is not a return to military control and does not terminate any desertion or absence without authority from the earlier unit or organization, unless the facts of the earlier period of service are known to military authorities. If a person, while in desertion, enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another armed force, and deserts while serving the enlistment or appointment, the person may be tried and convicted for each desertion.

(2) Quitting unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.

      (a) Hazardous duty or important service. “Hazardous duty” or “important service” may include service such as duty in a combat or other dangerous area; embarkation for certain foreign or sea duty; movement to a port of embarkation for that purpose; entrainment for duty on the border or coast in time of war or threatened invasion or other disturbances; strike or riot duty; or employment in aid of the civil power in, for example, protecting property, or quelling or preventing disorder in times of great public disaster. Such services as drill, target practice, maneuvers, and practice marches are not ordinarily “hazardous duty or important service.” Whether a duty is hazardous or a service is important depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, and is a question of fact for the court-martial to decide.

      (b) Quits. “Quits” in Article 85 means “goes absent without authority.”

      (c) Actual knowledge. Article 85 a(2) requires proof that the accused actually knew of the hazardous duty or important service. Actual knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(3) Attempting to desert. Once the attempt is made, the fact that the person desists, voluntarily or otherwise, does not cancel the offense. The offense is complete, for example, if the person, intending to desert, hides in an empty freight car on a military reservation, intending to escape by being taken away in the car. Entering the car with the intent to desert is the overt act. For a more detailed discussion of attempts, see paragraph 4. For an explanation concerning intent to remain away permanently, see sub-paragraph 9c(1)(c).

(4) Prisoner with executed punitive discharge. A prisoner whose dismissal or dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge has been executed is not a “member of the armed forces” within the meaning of Articles 85 or 86, although the prisoner may still be subject to military law under Article 2(a)(7). If the facts warrant, such a prisoner could be charged with escape from confinement under Article 95, or an offense under Article 134.

Lesser included offense.

Article 86—absence without leave

Maximum punishment:

(1) Completed or attempted desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

(2) Other cases of completed or attempted desertion.

      (a) Terminated by apprehension. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.

      (b) Terminated otherwise. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

(3) In time of war. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Article 86-Absence without leave. AWOL/UA may be punished with nonjudicial punishment (NJP; called "office hours" in the Marines). It is usually punished by Court Martial for repeat or more severe offenses.

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Elements.

(1) Failure to go to appointed place of duty.

      (a) That a certain authority appointed a certain time and place of duty for the accused;

      (b) That the accused knew of that time and place; and

      (c) That the accused, without authority, failed to go to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.

(2) Going from appointed place of duty.

      (a) That a certain authority appointed a certain time and place of duty for the accused;

      (b) That the accused knew of that time and place; and

      (c) That the accused, without authority, went from the appointed place of duty after having reported at such place.

(3) Absence from unit, organization, or place of duty.

      (a) That the accused absented himself or her-self from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty at which he or she was required to be;

      (b) That the absence was without authority from anyone competent to give him or her leave; and

      (c) That the absence was for a certain period of time. Note: if the absence was terminated by apprehension, add the following element

      (d) That the absence was terminated by apprehension.

(4) Abandoning watch or guard.

      (a) That the accused was a member of a guard, watch, or duty;

      (b) That the accused absented himself or her-self from his or her guard, watch, or duty section;

      (c) That absence of the accused was without authority; and Note: If the absence was with intent to abandon the accused’s guard, watch, or duty section, add the following element

      (d) That the accused intended to abandon his or her guard, watch, or duty section.

(5) Absence from unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises.

      (a) That the accused absented himself or herself from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty at which he or she was required to be;

      (b) That the absence of the accused was with-out authority;

      (c) That the absence was for a certain period of time;

      (d) That the accused knew that the absence would occur during a part of a period of maneuvers or field exercises; and

      (e) That the accused intended to avoid all or part of a period of maneuvers or field exercises.

This article (86) is designed to cover every case not elsewhere provided for 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. It is not necessary that the person be absent entirely from military jurisdiction and control. The first part of this article—relating to the appointed place of duty—applies whether the place is appointed as a rendezvous for several or for one only.

The offenses of failure to go to and going from appointed place of duty require proof that the accused actually knew of the appointed time and place of duty. The offense of absence from unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises requires proof that the accused actually knew that the absence would occur during a part of a period of maneuvers or field exercises. Actual knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

Specific intent is not an element of unauthorized absence. Specific intent is an element for certain aggravated unauthorized absences.

Aggravated forms of unauthorized absence. There are variations of unauthorized absence under Article 86(3) which are more serious because of aggravating circumstances such as duration of the absence, a special type of duty from which the accused absents himself or herself, and a particular specific intent which accompanies the absence. These circumstances are not essential elements of a violation of Article 86. They simply constitute special matters in aggravation. The following are aggravated unauthorized absences:

      (a) Unauthorized absence for more than 3 days (duration).

      (b) Unauthorized absence for more than 30 days (duration).

      (c) Unauthorized absence from a guard, watch, or duty (special type of duty).

      (d) Unauthorized absence from guard, watch, or duty section with the intent to abandon it (special type of duty and specific intent).

      (e) Unauthorized absence with the intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises (special type of duty and specific intent).

Control by civilian authorities. A member of the armed forces turned over to the civilian authorities upon request under Article 14, (see R.C.M. 106) is not absent without leave while held by them under that delivery. When a member of the armed forces, being absent with leave, or absent without leave, is held, tried, and acquitted by civilian authorities, the member’s status as absent with leave, or absent without leave, is not thereby changed, regardless how long held. The fact that a member of the armed forces is convicted by the civilian authorities, or adjudicated to be a juvenile offender, or the case is “diverted” out of the regular criminal process for a probationary period does not excuse any unauthorized absence, because the member’s inability to return was the result of willful misconduct. If a member is released by the civilian authorities with-out trial, and was on authorized leave at the time of arrest or detention, the member may be found guilty of unauthorized absence only if it is proved that the member actually committed the offense for which detained, thus establishing that the absence was the result of the member’s own misconduct.

(6) Inability to return. The status of absence without leave is not changed by an inability to return through sickness, lack of transportation facilities, or other disabilities. But the fact that all or part of a period of unauthorized absence was in a sense en-forced or involuntary is a factor in extenuation and should be given due weight when considering the initial disposition of the offense. When, however, a person on authorized leave, without fault, is unable to return at the expiration thereof, that person has not committed the offense of absence without leave.

(7) Determining the unit or organization of an accused. A person undergoing transfer between activities is ordinarily considered to be attached to the activity to which ordered to report. A person on temporary additional duty continues as a member of the regularly assigned unit and if the person is absent from the temporary duty assignment, the person becomes absent without leave from both units, and may be charged with being absent without leave from either unit.

(8) Duration: Unauthorized absence under Article 86(3) is an instantaneous offense. It is complete at the instant an accused absents himself or herself without authority. Duration of the absence is a matter in aggravation for the purpose of increasing the maximum punishment authorized for the offense. Even if the duration of the absence is not over 3 days, it is ordinarily alleged in an Article 86(3) specification. If the duration is not alleged or if alleged but not proved, an accused can be convicted of and punished for only 1 day of unauthorized absence.

(9) Computation of duration. In computing the duration of an unauthorized absence, any one continuous period of absence found that totals not more than 24 hours is counted as 1 day; any such period that totals more than 24 hours and not more than 48 hours is counted as 2 days, and so on. The hours of departure and return on different dates are assumed to be the same if not alleged and proved. For example, if an accused is found guilty of unauthorized absence from 0600 hours, 4 April, to 1000 hours, 7 April of the same year (76 hours), the maximum punishment would be based on an absence of 4 days. However, if the accused is found guilty simply of unauthorized absence from 4 April to 7 April, the maximum punishment would be based on an absence of 3 days.

(10) Termination—methods of return to military control.

      (a) Surrender to military authority. A surrender occurs when a person presents himself or herself to any military authority, whether or not a member of the same armed force, notifies that authority of his or her unauthorized absence status, and submits or demonstrates a willingness to submit to military control. Such a surrender terminates the unauthorized absence.

      (b) Apprehension by military authority. Apprehension by military authority of a known absentee terminates an unauthorized absence.

      (c) Delivery to military authority. Delivery of a known absentee by anyone to military authority terminates the unauthorized absence.

      (d) Apprehension by civilian authorities at the request of the military. When an absentee is taken into custody by civilian authorities at the request of military authorities, the absence is terminated.

      (e) Apprehension by civilian authorities with-out prior military request. When an absentee is in the hands of civilian authorities for other reasons and these authorities make the absentee available for return to military control, the absence is terminated when the military authorities are informed of the absentee’s availability.

(11) Findings of more than one absence under one specification. The accused may properly be found guilty of two or more separate unauthorized absences under one specification, provided that each absence is included within the period alleged in the specification and provided that the accused was not misled. If an accused is found guilty of two or more unauthorized absences under a single specification, the maximum authorized punishment shall not exceed that authorized if the accused had been found guilty as charged in the specification.

Maximum punishment:

(1) Failing to go to, or going from, the appointed place of duty. Confinement for 1 month and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month.

(2) Absence from unit, organization, or other place of duty.

      (a) For not more than 3 days. Confinement for 1 month and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month.

      (b) For more than 3 days but not more than 30 days. Confinement for 6 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 6months.

      (c) For more than 30 days. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

      (d) For more than 30 days and terminated by apprehension. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 18 months.

(3) From guard or watch. Confinement for 3 months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months.

(4) From guard or watch with intent to abandon. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

(5) With intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

UCMJ Article 87: "Missing Movement" is another term which is used to describe when a particular servicemember fails to arrive at the appointed time to deploy (or "move out") with their assigned unit, ship, or aircraft; in the United States military. The offense is based on AWOL, but brings more severe consequences.

Elements:

(1) That the accused was required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft or unit;

(2) That the accused knew of the prospective movement of the ship, aircraft or unit;

(3) That the accused missed the movement of the ship, aircraft or unit; and

(4) That the accused missed the movement through design or neglect.

Explanation.

“Movement” as used in Article 87 includes a move, transfer, or shift of a ship, aircraft, or unit involving a substantial distance and period of time. Whether a particular movement is substantial is a question to be determined by the court-martial considering all the circumstances. Changes which do not constitute a “movement” include practice marches of a short duration with a return to the point of departure, and minor changes in location of ships, aircraft, or units, as when a ship is shifted from one berth to another in the same shipyard or harbor or when a unit is moved from one barracks to another on the same post.

(2) Mode of movement.

      (a) Unit. If a person is required in the course of duty to move with a unit, the mode of travel is not important, whether it be military or commercial, and includes travel by ship, train, aircraft, truck, bus, or walking. The word “unit” is not limited to any specific technical category such as those listed in a table of organization and equipment, but also includes units which are created before the movement with the intention that they have organizational continuity upon arrival at their destination regardless of their technical designation, and units intended to be disbanded upon arrival at their destination.

      (b) Ship, aircraft. If a person is assigned as a crew member or is ordered to move as a passenger aboard a particular ship or aircraft, military or chartered, then missing the particular sailing or flight is essential to establish the offense of missing movement.

(3) Design. “Design” means on purpose, intentionally, or according to plan and requires specific intent to miss the movement.

(4) Neglect. “Neglect” means the omission to take such measures as are appropriate under the circumstances to assure presence with a ship, aircraft, or unit at the time of a scheduled movement, or doing some act without giving attention to its probable consequences in connection with the prospective movement, such as a departure from the vicinity of the prospective movement to such a distance as would make it likely that one could not return in time for the movement.

(5) Actual knowledge. In order to be guilty of the offense, the accused must have actually known of the prospective movement that was missed. Knowledge of the exact hour or even of the exact date of the scheduled movement is not required. It is sufficient if the approximate date was known by the accused as long as there is a causal connection be-tween the conduct of the accused and the missing of the scheduled movement. Knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(6) Proof of absence. That the accused actually missed the movement may be proved by documentary evidence, as by a proper entry in a log or a morning report. This fact may also be proved by the testimony of personnel of the ship, aircraft, or unit (or by other evidence) that the movement occurred at a certain time, together with evidence that the accused was physically elsewhere at that time.

Lesser included offenses.

(1) Design.

      (a) Article 87—missing movement through neglect

      (b) Article 86—absence without authority

      (c) Article 80—attempts

(2) Neglect. Article 86—absence without authority

Maximum punishment.

(1) Design. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

(2) Neglect. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

Less severe is "Failure to Repair," consisting of missing a formation, or failing to appear at an assigned place and time when so ordered.

Now as far as the missing piece of equipment please refer to UCMJ, Article 108, Destruction of Government Property:

Any person subject to this chapter who, without proper authority:

      (1) sells or otherwise disposes of;

      (2) willfully or through neglect damages, destroys, or loses; or

      (3) willfully or through neglect suffers to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of, any military property of the United States, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Elements.

(1) Selling or otherwise disposing of military property.

      (a) That the accused sold or otherwise disposed of certain property (which was a firearm or explosive)

      (b) That the sale or disposition was without proper authority;

      (c) That the property was military property of the United States, and

      (d) That the property was of a certain value.

(2) Damaging, destroying, or losing military property.

      (a) That the accused, without proper authority, damaged or destroyed certain property in a certain way, or lost certain property;

      (b) That the property was military property of the United States;

      (c) That the damage, destruction, or loss was willfully caused by the accused or was the result of neglect by the accused; and

      (d) That the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount.

(3) Suffering military property to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of.

      (a) That certain property (which was a firearm or explosive) was lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of;

      (b) That the property was military property of the United States;

      (c) That the loss, damage, destruction, sale, or wrongful disposition was suffered by the accused, without proper authority, through a certain omission of duty by the accused;

      (d) That the omission was willful or negligent; and

      (e) That the property was of a certain value or the damage was of a certain amount.

Military property is all property, real or personal, owned, held, or used by one of the armed forces of the United States. If is immaterial whether the property sold, disposed, destroyed, lost, or damaged had been issued to the accused, to someone else, or even issued at all. If it is proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence that items of individual issue were issued to the accused, it may be inferred, depending on all the evidence, that the damage, destruction, or loss proved was due to the neglect of the accused.

(2) Suffering military property to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of. “To suffer” means to allow or permit. The willful or negligent sufferance specified by this article in cludes: deliberate violation or intentional disregard of some specific law, regulation, or order; reckless or unwarranted personal use of the property; causing or allowing it to remain exposed to the weather, insecurely housed, or not guarded; permitting it to be consumed, wasted, or injured by other persons; or loaning it to a person, known to be irresponsible, by whom it is damaged.

(3) Value and damage. In the case of loss, destruction, sale, or wrongful disposition, the value of the property controls the maximum punishment which may be adjudged. In the case of damage, the amount of damage controls. As a general rule, the amount of damage is the estimated or actual cost of repair by the government agency normally employed in such work, or the cost of replacement, as shown by government price lists or otherwise, whichever is less.

Maximum punishment:

(1) Selling or otherwise disposing of military property.

      (a) Of a value of $500.00 or less. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowance, and confinement for 1 year.

      (b) Of a value of more than $500.00 or any firearm or explosive. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 10 years.

(2) Through neglect damaging, destroying, or losing, or through neglect suffering to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of, military property.

      (a) Of a value or damage of $500.00 or less. Confinement for 6 months, and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 6 months.

      (b) Of a value or damage of more than $500.00. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

(3) Willfully damaging, destroying, or losing, or willfully suffering to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of, military property.

      (a) Of a value or damage of $500.00 or less. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.

      (b) Of a value or damage of more than $500.00, or of any firearm or explosive. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 10 years.

Your son must be substance free when he turns himself in (he may be using a controlled substance to self-medicate and ease his mental anxiety and pain. The defense counsel should confer with your son about this), and should endeavor to maintain his military bearing (the command always responds more favorably when a soldier returns who looks like a soldier (proper uniform, haircut and attitude (has to play the game here).

Defense counsels you may wish to confer with:

GREG D. McCORMACK:(NNN) NNN-NNNN
CHARLES W. GiTTENS: (NNN) NNN-NNNN
(Retired USMC Judge) Neal Puckett: (NNN) NNN-NNNN