How Air Force False Official Statement Cases Ended in 2016
In 2016, 20 Air Force courts-martial charged Article 107 (false official statement). 40% of the convictions carried no confinement, compared with 15% for all Air Force cases that year, and the median confinement was 4 months, the same as Air Force-wide.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 4 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 107 › Air Force, 2016
Short answer: In 2016, 20 Air Force courts-martial charged Article 107 (false official statement). 40% of the convictions carried no confinement, compared with 15% for all Air Force cases that year, and the median confinement was 4 months, the same as Air Force-wide. 47% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 54%.
Many Sentences Without Confinement
8 of the 20 convictions (40%) included no confinement. For all Air Force cases in 2016, that share was 15%. Confinement was part of 60% of the convictions here.
Among the sentences with confinement, half were 4 months or less, the same as the 4 months median for all Air Force cases in 2016. A quarter were 6 months or longer.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Air Force cases in 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 8 | 40% | 15% |
| Under 6 months | 9 | 45% | 44% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 1 | 5% | 20% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 0 | 0% | 13% |
| 5 years or more | 2 | 10% | 7% |
Sentences Longer Than One Year
2 of the 20 convictions (10%) were sentenced to more than one year, compared with 20% for all Air Force cases in 2016. Both were 5 years or more. 9 convictions (45%) were sentenced to under 6 months and 1 (5%) to 6 months to 1 year.
Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than one year of confinement. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and they cover every charge in the case.
Punitive Discharges and a Dismissal
9 of 19 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge: 7 bad-conduct discharges and 2 dishonorable discharges. The share for all Air Force cases in 2016 was 54%.
1 convicted officer or warrant officer appears, and that officer was dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Larceny Was the Most Common Other Charge
18 of the 20 cases charged at least one other article. Article 121 (larceny) appeared in 10 cases, Article 92 (orders violation) in 7, Article 134 (general article) in 6, Article 86 (AWOL) in 4, and Article 112a (drug) in 3.
Officer Panels Heard Most Members Cases
A military judge alone decided guilt in 12 of the 20 cases (60%). Members heard 8 cases: 6 officer panels and 2 enlisted panels. The accused usually chooses between a military judge alone and a panel.
Rank, Court Level, and Installations
The accused were 10 junior enlisted members, 9 NCOs, and 1 officer, a more senior group than all Air Force cases in 2016. 6 cases were general courts-martial and 14 were special courts-martial. The general share, 30%, was lower than the 47% Air Force-wide.
RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom, and JB Langley-Eustis, Virginia, each tried 2 cases. Whiteman AFB, Missouri, Laughlin AFB, Texas, and Aviano AB, Italy, each tried 1. Together these 5 installations account for 35% of the 20 cases.
Before the 2019 Changes
Every case here came before the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019, so none of its changes applied. Air Force records from 2016 rarely list a guilty plea, so no contested share is given. They also rarely list charges in a full acquittal, so this page gives no acquittal rate.
For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 107 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Air Force courts-martial with a trial date in 2016 that charged Article 107 (20 cases), compared with all Air Force cases that year and with 2015.
Source: public court-martial records (Article 140a, UCMJ) in Military Trial Results, data updated October 24, 2026. Definitions, sources, and known gaps: how this data was built. Errors: content@bodiesburied.com.
Related Analysis
- Article 107 (False Official Statements): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Year (hub)
- Air Force Article 107 Cases in 2018 (previous / next)
- Fewer or More? False Official Statement Charges at Air Force Courts-Martial, 2016–2025 (the full trend)
- False Official Statement at Air Force Courts-Martial, 2019: The Year in Numbers
- False Official Statement at Army Courts-Martial, 2021: The Year in Numbers
- False Official Statement at Army Courts-Martial, 2023: The Year in Numbers
- False Official Statement at Army Courts-Martial, 2024: The Year in Numbers
- What Sentence Follows an Air Force False Official Statement Conviction?
- Article 107 explained on the law firm's website
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
About the author. Jocelyn C. Stewart is a retired Army JAG with more than 24 years of trying courts-martial and more than 200 jury trials. She hosts Where All The Bodies Are Buried and runs the Law Office of Jocelyn C. Stewart. This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.