It is not necessary that the person be absent entirely from military jurisdiction and control. 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.
These circumstances are not essential elements of a violation of Article 86. They simply constitute special matters in aggravation. 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. If a member is released by the civilian authorities without 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. The status of absence without leave is not changed by an inability to return through sickness, lack of transportation facilities, or other disabilities.