When troops don’t show up for work, commanders should quickly presume that they are “potentially in danger,” a federal watchdog said, after finding that over 90% of troops with “involuntary” absences are eventually found dead.
In a new report, the Government Accountability Office found that in 295 cases of involuntary absences across the military services from fiscal years 2015 to 2024, 93% (274) resulted in a service member’s death. In most cases, troops had suffered an accident, while about 10% were eventually found to have died by suicide.
The GAO recommended that “commanders should presume a service member’s absence indicates that they are potentially in danger and should presume absences are most likely involuntary after a specific time period unless available information indicates the absence should be considered voluntary.”
But slow reaction by commanders and different policies across different military services continue to be an issue for missing troops in terms of timelines, mental health considerations, and safety risks that a search might entail, the GAO said in a report released this month.
Josh Connolly, senior vice president of Protect Our Defenders, said the report’s recommendation is a “no-brainer” and agreed that the presumption should be that unjustifiable absences are taken seriously.
“There are, unfortunately, countless examples [of] individuals who’ve gone missing because of danger,” he said. “If they were treated with seriousness and with the presumption that there was something that was amiss, it could potentially prevent someone from either taking their own life or, if that individual is in danger, helping them before the situation gets even more dire and serious.”
The watchdog notes that the Army created new guidance in 2020 for how units handle missing soldier cases in the wake of the murder of Vanessa Guillén, at Fort Hood, Texas. The Navy and Air Force, whose rules also cover the Space Force, updated their policies in 2021. Notably, the Marine Corps does not have its own guidance despite the GAO’s 2022 recommendation. Marine Corps officials told the GAO that officials would issue an interim directive by March and a full policy by 2028.
The GAO report was directed by Congress in 2023 to review progress on policies for missing and absent service members in the wake of Guillén’s murder. The Army specialist was murdered off-post by a fellow soldier and an accomplice, but supervisors were found to have delayed searching for her.
As the GAO final report noted, military rules have not historically reflected that missing troop cases often end in tragedy.
In May, Angelina Resendiz, a sailor assigned to Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, didn’t show up to work. Her body was discovered off base and advocates criticized the delays in the case and how her absence was categorized, though Navy officials have insisted a search began immediately. A fellow culinary specialist was charged with premeditated murder in the case.
In 2020, Elder Fernandes, a Fort Hood soldier, died by suicide. Officials found that Fernandes was sexually assaulted, bullied for reporting the attack, and later hospitalized for mental health. He was found off base more than a week after he went missing.
Missing from formation
When troops don’t show up for duty, their units have to take certain steps that classify their absence as involuntary or voluntary under Department of Defense policies.
Voluntary absences — which include unauthorized absence, Absence Without Leave or AWOL, and desertion — are typically considered criminal matters and are prosecutable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But involuntary absences fall into two categories: Duty status-whereabouts unknown, or DUSTWUN, and Missing. Troops are classified as DUSTWUN if their leadership is unsure of the reason for their absence but believes they might be able to return. Missing applies to troops that commanders have reason to believe troops are missing for “involuntary” reasons.
In its response to the report, the Department of Defense said officials would “revisit and review its policies in coordination with the military services and determine whether a specific time period would be appropriate.”
Connolly said these policies and procedures need to be in place for finding troops because of the nature of the military, which is “not analogous” to a student being absent from class at a university or a civilian not showing up to work.
“These individuals are closely tracked, and there’s a reason for that, and that’s part of the deal with entering the military. If you’re an active duty service member, you are responsible and accountable for being present and your whereabouts,” he said. “It’s just apples and oranges compared to, compared to civilians.”
Air Force, Navy have different rules for missing troops
Connolly said the services have lacked a “uniform forcing function” for when a service member is absent, adding that there’s “too much discretion and not enough consistency” across the military.
The GAO found that the three services use different timelines and guidance when classifying service members as missing and initiating actions to locate them. The Army has step-by-step instructions for missing troops, including a detailed timeline for when to contact law enforcement (within three hours of discovery) and notifying the next of kin (within eight hours). But the Navy and Air Force’s guidance did not get into that level of specificity.
These variations can lead to “different interpretations among officials regarding how quickly certain actions should be initiated.”
During site visits, the GAO found that some personnel alerted higher-level commanders of an absence within a few hours, others waited until the end of the day, the next day, or longer if it was a Friday before non-duty days over the weekend. This also varied when contacting base police. Some waited a few hours or a day, while others expressed wanting to “exhaust all efforts to locate an individual before involving law enforcement.”
Army, Navy, and Air Force officials told the GAO that they “commonly observed” instances where service member absences became mental health crisis management, but GAO found that policies are not consistent in addressing that “interconnected nature” between service member absences and mental health.
The GAO said that there was a lack of relevant guidance and “consistent perspective on how mental health considerations should inform the strategies used to locate absent personnel,” which could affect how fast actions are taken to locate them with social workers, chaplains or initiating a legal process to geolocate them using their cell phone.
