How Much Confinement for an Article 133 Conviction in the Air Force?

Trends › By Offense › Article 133 › How Much Confinement for an Article 133

Based on 34 cases · 2016–2025 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026

A Group Made Up Entirely of Officers

This post covers only convictions: Air Force cases that ended with a guilty finding and included an Article 133 charge. Every accused in the group was an officer or warrant officer. The records list no junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) and no NCOs (E-5 to E-9).

The comparison group is different. Across all Air Force convictions in those years, 66% of the accused were junior enlisted members. The comparisons below are therefore between officers and a mostly enlisted group.

Confinement Was Less Common and Usually Short

Confinement was part of 68% of the 34 convictions. The other 11 convictions (32%) included none, compared with 15% across all Air Force convictions.

Among those confined, the median term was 3 months, slightly shorter than the 4-month median Air Force-wide. A quarter of the terms were 1.3 years or longer. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and each covers every charge in the case.

Few Long Sentences

Terms under 6 months made up 44% of these convictions, about the same as the 48% Air Force-wide. Terms of 6 months to 1 year were less common: 6%, compared with 15%.

Long sentences were less common than in Air Force convictions generally. Sentences longer than one year were imposed in 6 of 34 convictions (18%), compared with 23%. Terms of more than 1 year and under 5 years made up 15%, compared with 16%. Only 1 conviction (3%) included 5 years or more, compared with 7%. Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than one year of confinement.

More Contested Cases, Often Before Officer Panels

Only 14 of the 34 records list the plea. Of those, 8 were guilty pleas and 6 were contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share was 43%, higher than the 31% across Air Force convictions. With so few pleas recorded, this share is based on a small number of cases.

Members decided guilt in 41% of cases with the forum listed. All 14 of those panels were made up of officers. A military judge alone heard the other 20 cases. Enlisted members can sit on a panel only when the accused is enlisted, so officer panels are the only members option in a group like this one.

Conduct Unbecoming Was Usually Charged With Other Offenses

In 32 of the 34 cases, at least one other article was charged. Article 134 (the general article) was the most common additional charge, in 15 cases. Article 112a (drug offenses) appeared in 7, Article 92 (orders violation) in 6, Article 120 (sexual assault) in 4, and Article 128 (assault) in 4.

A sentence covers every charge, so the confinement figures cover all the charges in these cases. The records do not break a sentence down by article.

Few Cases Each Year

The cases were tried from March 2016 to December 2025. The yearly counts were small: 6 in 2016, 1 in 2017, 5 in 2018, 6 in 2019, 3 in 2020, 1 in 2021, 1 in 2022, 2 in 2023, 3 in 2024, and 6 in 2025.

No installation had more than 3 cases. JB Andrews, Maryland had 3. Aviano AB, Italy; Nellis AFB, Nevada; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; and Hurlburt Field, Florida each had 2. Together those five account for 32% of the cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.

Legal Changes in These Years

The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. It set fixed panel sizes, added judge-alone special courts-martial capped at six months with no punitive discharge, and introduced written plea agreements. Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel decide whether to prosecute covered offenses. When every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters.

The later changes depend on offense dates, which these records lack, so trials from 2024 on include cases under both sets of rules. The records cannot show whether any change affected these sentences.

What These Records Cannot Show

Only cases that reached a court-martial are included. Officers can also face nonjudicial punishment or administrative action, and those outcomes are not included. The records do not describe the evidence. Air Force records never report plea agreements, and from 2016 to 2019 they rarely list a guilty plea. Many records in this group therefore show no plea.

Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.

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.