> ## 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. # NCOs (E-5 to E-9) Charged Under Article 121 in the Air Force - URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-121-ncos/ - Published: 2026-10-28T08:18:44.000Z - Updated: 2026-11-03T01:46:14.000Z - Description: The Air Force tried 48 NCOs (E-5 to E-9) on Article 121 larceny charges from 2016–2025. Only 41% of those convicted received a punitive discharge, compared with 58% for all Air Force Article 121 cases. Of the cases with a recorded plea, 33% were contested, compared with 22%. - Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart - Tags: Understanding Trends, Article 121, Air Force [Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [By Offense](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/by-offense/) › [Article 121](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-121-courts-martial/) › NCOs (E-5 to E-9) **Short answer:** The Air Force tried 48 NCOs (E-5 to E-9) on Article 121 larceny charges from 2016–2025\. Only 41% of those convicted received a punitive discharge, compared with 58% for all Air Force Article 121 cases. Of the cases with a recorded plea, 33% were contested, compared with 22%. Based on 48 cases · 2016–2025 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026 ## Fewer Punitive Discharges for NCOs Of the 46 convicted NCOs, 19 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (41%). That is less often than the 58% for all Air Force Article 121 cases. Only 4 of those discharges were dishonorable. A punitive discharge is part of the court-martial sentence. An NCO whose sentence does not include one can still face an administrative separation later. These records do not include administrative separations. ## Many Sentences Without Confinement Confinement was part of 72% of the 46 convictions. The median term was 3 months, shorter than the 4 months for all Air Force Article 121 cases. A quarter of terms were 6 months or longer. No confinement was imposed in 13 convictions (28%), compared with 21% for the offense overall. Terms over one year were imposed in 4 of 46 convictions (9%), less often than the 13% for larceny across the Air Force. These are adjudged sentences, set at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. | Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Air Force Article 121 cases | | ------------------------------- | ----------- | ---------- | -------------------------------------- | | No confinement | 13 | 28% | 21% | | Under 6 months | 24 | 52% | 52% | | 6 months to 1 year | 5 | 11% | 14% | | More than 1 year, under 5 years | 3 | 7% | 10% | | 5 years or more | 1 | 2% | 3% | ## Similar Sentences at Both Court Levels General courts-martial heard 17 of the 48 cases (35%), compared with 40% for all Air Force Article 121 cases. Their median confinement was 4 months. The median at the 31 special courts-martial was 3 months, about the same. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including more than one year of confinement and a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial is capped at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. Since 2019, a special court-martial tried by a military judge alone is capped at six months with no punitive discharge. ## Larceny and False Official Statements Larceny was the only charge in 12 of the 48 cases. Across all Air Force Article 121 cases, 39 of 126 charged it alone. False official statements under Article 107 were the most common additional charge, in 19 cases. Orders violations under Article 92 appeared in 11 cases and the general article, Article 134, in 8\. Article 132 (frauds against the United States before 2019; retaliation since) appeared in 5, and Article 120, sexual assault, in 3\. Each sentence covers every charge in the case, so these offenses are part of the figures above. ## A Higher Contested Share, on Few Records Only 12 of the 48 records list a plea, because Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 rarely record a guilty plea. Of those 12, 8 NCOs pleaded guilty and 4 contested at least one charge with a not-guilty or mixed plea. The contested share was 33%, higher than the 22% for all Air Force Article 121 cases. With so few recorded pleas, a single case can change this comparison. ## Military Judges Decided Most Cases Of the cases with the forum listed, 38 were decided by a military judge alone. Members heard 21%: 6 with enlisted panels and 4 with officer panels. The accused usually chooses between a military judge alone and a panel. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the forum figures mostly follow how many cases were contested. ## Few Cases From 2020 to 2022 The 48 cases were tried from April 2016 to August 2025\. There were 9 in each of 2016 and 2017, 6 in 2018, and 7 in 2019\. There was 1 in 2020, 2 in 2021, and 0 in 2022\. There were 5 in each of 2023 and 2024, and 4 in 2025. Junior enlisted members made up 55% of all Air Force Article 121 cases, so NCOs were the smaller group for this offense. With yearly counts below 10, a few trials can make one year look very different from the next. The records do not explain the lower counts from 2020 to 2022. ## Bases With the Most Cases Osan AB, South Korea tried 4 of these cases. JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey and Minot AFB, North Dakota tried 3 each. Nellis AFB, Nevada and Dyess AFB, Texas tried 2 each. Together they account for 29% of the cases. The other cases were tried at many other installations. Larger bases try more cases of every kind, so a high count at one base does not by itself point to a local problem with theft. ## Rule Changes and Missing Information The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019\. The special trial counsel and judge-sentencing changes began on December 28, 2023\. Both apply by offense date, which the records do not include. Air Force records rarely list charges in full acquittals, so no acquittal rate appears here. The evidence, plea terms, and cases handled outside a court-martial are also missing. For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see [Article 121 on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-121/?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 121 (48 cases), compared with every Air Force Article 121 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 121 (Larceny): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-121-courts-martial/) (hub) - [Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial/) (hub) - [What Happens to Army Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4) Facing Larceny Charges?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-121-junior-enlisted/) - [What Happens to Army NCOs (E-5 to E-9) Facing Larceny Charges?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-121-ncos/) - [Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4) Charged Under Article 121 in the Air Force](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-121-junior-enlisted/) - [Army Article 121 Cases by the Numbers, 2021–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-121-trend-2021-2025/) - [Air Force Article 121 Cases by the Numbers, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-121-trend-2016-2025/) - [Article 121 explained on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-121/?ref=bodiesburied.com) - [Search every case in Military Trial Results](https://www.bodiesburied.com/military-trial-results/) (members) **Compare: federal court.** [Theft and Fraud: Federal Sentences vs. Air Force Courts-Martial, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-theft-fraud-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.