> ## 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. # Pleading Guilty to Article 115 in the Air Force: What Sentences Followed? - URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-115-plea-2021-2025/ - Published: 2026-10-28T08:06:41.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-30T05:13:38.000Z - Description: All 23 Air Force members who pleaded guilty to charges including Article 115 (communicating threats) in 2021–2025 were sentenced to confinement. The median confinement was 6 months, longer than the 4 months across all Air Force guilty pleas. - Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart - Tags: Understanding Trends, Article 115, Air Force [Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [By Offense](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/by-offense/) › [Article 115](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-115-courts-martial/) › Pleading Guilty to Article 115 in the Ai **Short answer:** All 23 Air Force members who pleaded guilty to charges including Article 115 (communicating threats) in 2021–2025 were sentenced to confinement. The median confinement was 6 months, longer than the 4 months across all Air Force guilty pleas. 70% of enlisted convictions included a punitive discharge, compared with 62% for all Air Force guilty pleas. Based on 23 cases · 2021–2025 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026 ## Every Sentence Included Confinement Article 115 makes it a crime to communicate a threat to injure another person, their property, or their reputation. The Air Force records include 23 courts-martial between April 2021 and January 2025 in which the accused pleaded guilty to charges that included Article 115\. All 23 convictions included confinement. Across all Air Force guilty pleas, 8% of convictions had no confinement. Here the share was 0%. The median confinement was 6 months, compared with 4 months for all Air Force guilty pleas. | Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Air Force guilty pleas in those years | | ------------------------------- | ----------- | ---------- | ------------------------------------------------ | | No confinement | 0 | 0% | 8% | | Under 6 months | 8 | 35% | 54% | | 6 months to 1 year | 9 | 39% | 16% | | More than 1 year, under 5 years | 4 | 17% | 17% | | 5 years or more | 2 | 9% | 5% | ## How Long Were the Sentences? 39% of convictions were sentenced to 6 months to 1 year, compared with 16% across Air Force guilty pleas. 35% were sentenced to under 6 months. For all Air Force guilty pleas, under 6 months was the most common range, at 54%. 6 of 23 convictions (26%) were sentenced to more than one year, slightly more often than the 23% for all Air Force guilty pleas. 4 of those were between 1 and 5 years, and 2 were 5 years or more. A quarter of the sentences were 1.2 years or longer. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. They cover every charge in the case. ## Domestic Violence Was Often Charged Too Article 115 was never the only charge in these records: 0 of the 23 cases charged it by itself. Article 128b (domestic violence) was also charged in 14 cases, Article 128 (assault) in 9, Article 134 (general article) in 7, Article 92 (orders violation) in 6, and Article 90 (disobeying an officer) in 5. The sentence covers every charge, so the confinement figures include domestic violence and assault convictions as well as the threat. The records do not show the punishment for each charge separately. ## Punitive Discharges After a Guilty Plea 16 of 23 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge: 14 bad-conduct and 2 dishonorable. That is 70%, compared with 62% across all Air Force guilty pleas. For an enlisted member, a punitive discharge means a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. A sentence without one does not rule out a later administrative separation. These records do not track administrative separations. ## Most Cases Were General Courts-Martial 13 of the 23 cases were general courts-martial (57%), compared with 44% across Air Force guilty pleas. The other 10 were special courts-martial. The median confinement was 1 year in the general courts-martial and 4 months in the special courts-martial. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence. Only the general courts-martial could adjudge the sentences longer than one year. ## Rank of the Accused and Who Decided Guilt 13 of the accused were junior enlisted members and 10 were NCOs. There were 0 officers. This group is more senior than all Air Force guilty pleas in those years. A military judge alone decided all 23 cases. A military judge usually hears a guilty plea, so this follows from the plea. Every accused here pleaded guilty. This page therefore describes sentences after a guilty plea, not results of contested trials. A guilty plea can cover some charges while others are dropped, and the records do not show those negotiations. ## Small Numbers Across Many Bases There were 5 cases in 2021, 5 in 2022, 7 in 2023, 4 in 2024, and 2 in 2025\. The last case was tried in January 2025\. No installation had more than 2 cases. JB Langley-Eustis, Virginia, Ramstein AB, Germany, JB Andrews, Maryland, Osan AB, South Korea, and Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, each had 2\. Together they had 43% of the cases. With counts this small, 1 case changes any percentage on this page noticeably. ## Law Changes and What the Records Do Not Show Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. When every guilty finding in a case is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters. The records give only trial dates, so trials from 2024 on include cases under both the old and new rules. Air Force records never report plea agreements, so any agreed limit on these sentences is unknown. The records also do not show the evidence, the words of the threat, or cases handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation. For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see [Article 115 on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-115/?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 2021–2025: where the accused pleaded guilty to charges including Article 115 (communicating threats) (23 cases), compared with all Air Force guilty pleas in those years. 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 115 (Malingering Before 2019, Communicating Threats Since): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-115-courts-martial/) (hub) - [Sentences](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/sentences/) (hub) - [Air Force Article 115 Cases by the Numbers, 2021–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-115-trend-2021-2025/) - [What Sentence Follows an Air Force Communicating Threats Conviction?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-115-sent-2021-2025/) - [Guilty Pleas in Army Communicating Threats Cases: How Often, and What Came Next](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-115-plea-2021-2025/) (another service) - [Pleading Guilty to Article 115 in the Navy-Marine Corps: What Sentences Followed?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/navy-marine-corps-article-115-plea-2021-2025/) (another service) - [Guilty Pleas in Air Force Child Sexual Abuse Cases: How Often, and What Came Next](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-120b-plea-2016-2025/) - [Article 115 explained on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-115/?ref=bodiesburied.com) - [Search every case in Military Trial Results](https://www.bodiesburied.com/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](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.