> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.bodiesburied.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Air Force Drug Cases Against NCOs (E-5 to E-9): Outcomes and Sentences - URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-112a-ncos/ - Published: 2026-10-28T08:18:34.000Z - Updated: 2026-11-03T01:46:19.000Z - Description: The Air Force tried 145 NCOs (E-5 to E-9) on Article 112a drug charges from 2016–2025. 30% of NCO cases with a plea recorded were contested, compared with 21% for all Air Force Article 112a cases. - Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart - Tags: Understanding Trends, Article 112a, Air Force [Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [By Offense](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/by-offense/) › [Article 112a](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-112a-courts-martial/) › NCOs (E-5 to E-9) **Short answer:** The Air Force tried 145 NCOs (E-5 to E-9) on Article 112a drug charges from 2016–2025\. 30% of NCO cases with a plea recorded were contested, compared with 21% for all Air Force Article 112a cases. Only 30% of convicted NCOs received a punitive discharge, compared with 45% for all Air Force Article 112a cases. Based on 145 cases · 2016–2025 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026 ## NCOs Contested Drug Charges More Often 57 records list a plea. In those cases, 40 NCOs pleaded guilty and 17 entered a not-guilty or mixed plea. The contested share was 30%, higher than the 21% for all Air Force Article 112a cases. Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 rarely list a guilty plea, so few of the 145 records list a plea. These figures describe only the cases where the plea was recorded. ## Members Heard More of These Cases A military judge alone decided 86 of these cases. Officer panels decided 47, and enlisted panels decided 11\. Members heard 40% of the cases, compared with 26% for all Air Force Article 112a cases. The accused usually chooses between a military judge alone and a panel of members. Members heard 15 of the 17 contested cases (88%). Most guilty pleas are heard by a military judge alone. NCO cases had both a higher contested share and a higher share heard by members. ## Fewer Punitive Discharges 41 of the 137 convicted NCOs (30%) received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. That is lower than the 45% for all Air Force Article 112a cases. Only 3 of those 41 discharges were dishonorable. An NCO sentenced without a punitive discharge can still be separated administratively after the court-martial. Administrative separations do not appear in these records. ## More Sentences Had No Confinement 101 of the 137 sentences included confinement. The median confinement was 3 months, the same as for all Air Force Article 112a cases. A quarter of terms were 5 months or longer. 36 convictions (26%) had no confinement, compared with 13% for all Air Force Article 112a cases. 4 of 137 convictions (3%) were sentenced to more than one year, compared with 5%. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case. | Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Air Force Article 112a cases | | ------------------------------- | ----------- | ---------- | --------------------------------------- | | No confinement | 36 | 26% | 13% | | Under 6 months | 80 | 58% | 69% | | 6 months to 1 year | 17 | 12% | 14% | | More than 1 year, under 5 years | 2 | 1% | 4% | | 5 years or more | 2 | 1% | 1% | ## Sentences by Court Level Only 17 of the 145 cases (12%) were general courts-martial. A general court-martial can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. In those cases, 94% of convictions included confinement, and the median confinement was 6 months. The other 128 cases were special courts-martial. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. Since 2019, a special court-martial heard by a military judge alone is capped at six months with no punitive discharge. In the special courts-martial, 71% of convictions included confinement, and the median confinement was 2 months. ## Most Cases Charged Only Drug Offenses Only 41 of the 145 cases charged another article along with Article 112a. Orders violations under Article 92 were the most common, in 18 cases. The general article, Article 134, was charged in 11, and AWOL under Article 86 in 10\. False official statements under Article 107 and assault under Article 128 were each charged in 4\. A sentence covers every charge in the case. The confinement and discharge figures on this page therefore include these other offenses as well as the drug charge. ## Cases by Year The 145 cases were tried from March 2016 to December 2025\. There were 11 cases in 2016, 25 in 2017, and 28 in 2018, the highest yearly count. There were 16 in 2019, 12 in 2020, 12 in 2021, and 15 in 2022\. There were 7 in 2023, 10 in 2024, and 9 in 2025. Junior enlisted members were 79% of the accused in all Air Force Article 112a cases. NCOs are a much smaller share of Air Force drug cases. Yearly counts this small can change noticeably with only a few trials. ## Installations Nellis AFB, Nevada, tried 13 of these cases, and JB Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, tried 12\. Travis AFB, California, tried 8, Holloman AFB, New Mexico, tried 7, and Eglin AFB, Florida, tried 6\. Together these installations account for 32% of the 145 cases. Larger bases try more cases of every type, so a high count alone does not mean a base has a problem with this offense. ## Law Changes and What the Records Do Not Show The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019\. The special trial counsel and sentencing changes took effect on December 28, 2023\. Both apply according to offense dates. The records list only trial dates, so the rules that applied to each case are unknown. This page gives no acquittal rate, because Air Force records rarely list the charges in a full acquittal. The records also do not show the evidence, plea terms, or nonjudicial punishment. For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see [Article 112a on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/ucmj/article-112a-drug-offenses/?ref=bodiesburied.com). Dates and sources for the law changes: [UCMJ change timeline](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/ucmj-change-timeline/). ### How We Counted Air Force courts-martial tried 2016–2025 that charged NCOs (E-5 to E-9) under Article 112a (145 cases), compared with every Air Force Article 112a case. Source: public court-martial records (Article 140a, UCMJ) in [Military Trial Results](https://www.bodiesburied.com/military-trial-results/), data updated October 24, 2026\. Definitions, sources, and known gaps: [how this data was built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/how-the-military-trial-results-data-was-built/). Errors: content@bodiesburied.com. ## Related Analysis - [Article 112a (Wrongful Use, Possession of Controlled Substances): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-112a-courts-martial/) (hub) - [Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial/) (hub) - [Army Drug Cases Against Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4): Outcomes and Sentences](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-112a-junior-enlisted/) - [NCOs (E-5 to E-9) Charged Under Article 112a in the Army](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-112a-ncos/) - [Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4) Charged Under Article 112a in the Air Force](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-112a-junior-enlisted/) - [Army Article 112a Cases by the Numbers, 2021–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-112a-trend-2021-2025/) - [Are Air Force Drug Courts-Martial Disappearing? Article 112a, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-112a-trend-2016-2025/) - [Article 112a explained on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/ucmj/article-112a-drug-offenses/?ref=bodiesburied.com) - [Search every case in Military Trial Results](https://www.bodiesburied.com/military-trial-results/) (members) **Compare: federal court.** [Drug Use: Federal Sentences vs. Air Force Courts-Martial, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-drug-use-vs-air-force/) · [Drug Distribution: Federal Sentences vs. Air Force Courts-Martial, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-drug-distribution-vs-air-force/) **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](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/?ref=bodiesburied.com). This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.