Air Force Article 120 Cases in 2023
In 2023, 24 Air Force courts-martial charged Article 120 (sexual assault), and 79% of them were contested, compared with 53% of all Air Force cases. The median confinement was 1.2 years, down from 2.6 years in 2022, and no conviction was sentenced to 5 years or more.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 120 › Air Force, 2023
Short answer: In 2023, 24 Air Force courts-martial charged Article 120 (sexual assault), and 79% of them were contested, compared with 53% of all Air Force cases. The median confinement was 1.2 years, down from 2.6 years in 2022, and no conviction was sentenced to 5 years or more. 18 of 22 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge.
No Sentences of 5 Years or More
0 of the 24 convictions were sentenced to 5 years or more of confinement. Across all Air Force cases in 2023, 3% were. The largest group was more than 1 year but under 5 years: 11 convictions (46%), compared with 21% Air Force-wide.
7 convictions (29%) were sentenced to 6 months to 1 year, 3 (12%) to under 6 months, and 3 (12%) to no confinement. Under 6 months was the most common band for the Air Force as a whole, at 49%.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Air Force cases in 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 3 | 12% | 9% |
| Under 6 months | 3 | 12% | 49% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 7 | 29% | 18% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 11 | 46% | 21% |
| 5 years or more | 0 | 0% | 3% |
A Lower Median Than in 2022
21 of the 24 sentences included confinement. The median was 1.2 years, and a quarter of the terms were 1.7 years or longer. The median for all Air Force cases in 2023 was 5 months.
In 2022, the median for this offense was 2.6 years. The records show the change but cannot show why it happened. All figures are adjudged sentences, as announced at trial and before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and each covers all charges in the case.
From 2022 to 2023
Cases fell from 31 to 24. The contested share was 81% in 2022 and 79% in 2023. Convictions with confinement were 90% and 88%. Punitive discharges for convicted enlisted members were 96% and 82%. General courts-martial were 97% and 96%.
These are small groups, and a handful of cases can produce a large change in any one figure.
| 2022 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 31 | 24 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | 81% | 79% |
| Convictions with confinement | 90% | 88% |
| Median confinement | 2.6 years | 1.2 years |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 96% | 82% |
| General courts-martial | 97% | 96% |
Pleas and Findings
19 of the accused contested at least one charge and 5 pleaded guilty. A contested case is one with a not-guilty or mixed plea. 10 of the 19 contested cases (53%) ended in a partial acquittal, meaning not guilty of at least one charge or specification and guilty of another.
Air Force records rarely list the charges in a full acquittal. This page therefore gives no acquittal rate for Article 120.
Panels of Members
Members decided 58% of the cases with the forum listed: 11 by enlisted panels and 3 by officer panels. The other 10 were decided by a military judge alone. In contested cases, members heard 14 of 19 (74%).
Discharges and Dismissals
18 of 22 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, 16 dishonorable and 2 bad-conduct, compared with 58% across the Air Force. 2 convicted officers or warrant officers appear in the records, and 1 was dismissed. A member without a punitive discharge may still face administrative separation.
The Accused, Court Level, Other Charges, and Bases
Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) were 67% of the accused, NCOs 25%, and officers 8%. Across the Air Force, junior enlisted members were 62%. General courts-martial made up 96% of the cases (23 of 24).
Article 120 was the only charge in 13 cases. Article 128 (assault) was added in 5, Article 128b (domestic violence) and Article 134 (general article) in 3 each, and Article 92 (orders violation) and Article 120c (indecent recording and exposure) in 2 each.
Scott AFB, Illinois, tried 3 cases. Hill AFB, Utah, Seymour Johnson AFB, North Carolina, and Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, tried 2 each, and RAF Mildenhall, United Kingdom, tried 1. These five held 42% of the cases. Bigger installations try more cases overall.
Gaps in the Data
The records include no offense dates, no plea agreement terms, and no description of the evidence. Allegations handled by nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action do not appear.
For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 120 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 2023 that charged Article 120 (24 cases), compared with all Air Force cases that year and with 2022.
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 120 (Rape and Sexual Assault): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Year (hub)
- Air Force Article 120 Cases in 2022 (previous / next)
- Sexual Assault at Air Force Courts-Martial, 2024: The Year in Numbers (previous / next)
- Is Air Force Sexual Assault Prosecution Rising or Falling? Article 120, 2016–2025 (the full trend)
- Air Force Article 120 Cases in 2018
- Air Force Article 120 Cases in 2019
- Air Force Article 120 Cases in 2025
- How Much Confinement for an Article 120 Conviction in the Air Force?
- S2 E1: Article 120 Dismissal & the Aftermath (podcast, members)
- Article 120 explained on the law firm's website
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Compare: federal court. Sexual Abuse of an Adult: Federal Sentences vs. Air Force Courts-Martial, 2016–2025
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.