> ## 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. # How Much Confinement for an Article 91 Conviction in the Air Force? - URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-91-sent-2016-2025/ - Published: 2026-10-30T08:05:19.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-30T08:05:19.000Z - Description: 12 Air Force courts-martial from 2016–2025 ended in a conviction under Article 91 (insubordination). Every sentence included confinement, and the median was 7 months, compared with 4 months for all Air Force convictions in those years. - Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart - Tags: Understanding Trends, Article 91, Air Force [Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [By Offense](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/by-offense/) › [Article 91](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-91-courts-martial/) › How Much Confinement for an Article 91 C **Short answer:** 12 Air Force courts-martial from 2016–2025 ended in a conviction under Article 91 (insubordination). Every sentence included confinement, and the median was 7 months, compared with 4 months for all Air Force convictions in those years. 67% of the convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, against 56% Air Force-wide. Based on 12 cases · 2016–2025 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026 ## Confinement in All 12 Sentences Confinement was part of 100% of the 12 sentences. The median was 7 months, longer than the 4-month median for all Air Force convictions from 2016 to 2025\. A quarter of the sentences were 1 year or longer. These are sentences as adjudged at trial. They do not reflect a later plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each one also covers the other charges in the case. ## Which Other Charges Appeared? Article 92 (orders violation) and Article 112a (drug) each appeared in 5 of the 12 cases. Article 134 (general article), Article 86 (AWOL), and Article 89 (disrespect) each appeared in 4. With these other charges in the same cases, the sentences on this page are not a measure of punishment for insubordination alone. ## Bad-Conduct and Dishonorable Discharges 8 of the 12 convicted enlisted members received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (67%). 2 of the 8 were dishonorable. The share across all Air Force convictions in those years was 56%. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation. ## Almost All Junior Enlisted Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 92% of the accused, and NCOs made up 8%. No officers appear. Across all Air Force convictions in those years, 66% were junior enlisted. General courts-martial made up 33% of these cases (4 of 12). The rest were special courts-martial. A general court-martial can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year. ## How Guilt Was Decided A military judge alone decided guilt in 11 of the 12 cases. An enlisted panel decided 1\. Members heard 8% of these cases, compared with 28% across Air Force convictions in those years. ## Year by Year The first of these trials was in October 2018 and the last in November 2025\. The counts were 2 in 2018, 0 in 2019 and 2020, 2 in 2021, 1 in 2022, 3 in 2023, 2 in 2024, and 2 in 2025\. None were tried in 2016 or 2017. ## Law Changes and Missing Information The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019, and cases with offenses from before 2019 kept the old rules. Since December 28, 2023, more changes to prosecution and sentencing apply based on the offense date. Because the records give trial dates only, they cannot show which rules governed each case. Plea figures are not reported here. Air Force records never report plea agreements, from 2016 to 2019 rarely list a guilty plea, and rarely list the charges in a full acquittal. The records also leave out nonjudicial punishment and administrative separations. Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: [UCMJ change timeline](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/ucmj-change-timeline/). ### How We Counted Air Force courts-martial tried 2016–2025: ending in a conviction under Article 91 (insubordination) (12 cases), compared with all Air Force convictions 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 91 (Insubordinate Conduct Toward NCO): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-91-courts-martial/) (hub) - [Sentences](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/sentences/) (hub) - [How Has Article 91 Changed in Air Force Courts-Martial Since 2016?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-91-trend-2016-2025/) - [What Sentence Follows an Army Insubordination Conviction?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-91-sent-2021-2025/) (another service) - [What Sentence Follows a Navy-Marine Corps Insubordination Conviction?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/navy-marine-corps-article-91-sent-2017-2025/) (another service) - [Article 118 Sentences in the Air Force: Confinement and Discharges, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-118-sent-2016-2025/) - [Article 128b Sentences in the Air Force: Confinement and Discharges, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-article-128b-sent-2016-2025/) - [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.