## Facts

- Private Latonya M. Rogers, a U.S. Army soldier, was charged under Article 86, UCMJ, with three specifications of absence without leave (AWOL), each covering a separate period of unauthorized absence from her unit.
- Rogers pleaded guilty at court-martial to all three AWOL specifications.
- During the providence inquiry, Rogers told the military judge she had stayed away because she wanted out of the Army.
- Rogers also stated that, while she was AWOL, she was sometimes physically “on post.”
- After Rogers disclosed her on-post presence, the military judge asked whether she was under the control of her unit when she was on post.
- Rogers stated she went to her unit and saw some of her noncommissioned officers, but they did not comment about her AWOL status.
- Rogers further stated that she never turned herself in during these encounters.
- The military judge concluded the guilty plea was provident and found Rogers guilty of the charged AWOL offenses.
- The convening authority approved the findings, and the case went to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals for review under Article 66, UCMJ.

## Issues

1. Whether Rogers’s statements during the providence inquiry—that she was sometimes on post and saw unit noncommissioned officers—raised a substantial inconsistency with guilt that required rejection of her guilty pleas to AWOL.
2. Whether being on a military installation and having brief, informal contact with unit personnel, without turning oneself in, constitutes a return to unit control that would terminate an AWOL period.

## Decision

- The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings.
- The court held that Rogers’s guilty pleas remained provident despite her statements that she had been on post and had seen noncommissioned officers while AWOL.
- The court concluded that Rogers’s description did not establish that she had returned to her unit’s control or otherwise ended her unauthorized absences.

## Legal Principles

- A guilty plea in a court-martial must be supported by the accused’s admissions establishing each element of the offense; if the accused’s statements raise a substantial conflict with guilt, the military judge must resolve the conflict or reject the plea.
- For AWOL under Article 86, UCMJ, the offense concerns absence from the appointed place of duty, unit, or organization without authority for the charged period.
- Physical presence on a military installation, standing alone, does not necessarily amount to a return to military authority that ends an AWOL.
- Informal contact with unit members does not terminate AWOL when the accused does not submit to military authority or otherwise return to duty status (for example, by turning herself in or being taken into custody or control).

## Conclusion

The Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Rogers’s AWOL convictions because her providence-inquiry statements showed that, although she was sometimes on post and saw noncommissioned officers, she never turned herself in and was not placed back under unit control, so her admissions were consistent with remaining absent without authority during the charged periods.


United States v. Rogers, 59 M.J. 584 (2003)