Orders Violation at Air Force Courts-Martial, 2018: The Year in Numbers

Trends › By Offense › Article 92 › Air Force, 2018

Based on 42 cases · 2018 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026

Shorter Sentences Than Most Air Force Cases

Of the 42 convictions in 2018 orders violation cases, 33 included confinement. The median confinement was 3 months, about the same as the 4 months across the Air Force. A quarter of the sentences were 6 months or longer.

Sentences under 6 months were the largest group, with 23 convictions (55%), compared with 48% across the service. These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before clemency or appeal. Each sentence covers every charge in the case, not only the Article 92 charge.

Few Long Sentences

Sentences longer than one year came in 4 of 42 convictions (10%), compared with 20% for the Air Force. Of those 4, 3 were between 1 and 5 years and 1 was 5 years or more. Sentences of 5 years or more made up 2% of convictions here, compared with 8% for the Air Force.

Sentences of 6 months to 1 year came in 6 convictions (14%), about the same as the 13% across the service. No confinement was imposed in 9 convictions (21%).

Most Cases Were Special Courts-Martial

There were 14 general and 28 special courts-martial. The general court-martial share was 33%, compared with 50% across all Air Force cases in 2018. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence.

The median confinement was 10 months at general courts-martial and 3 months at special courts-martial. Most cases were at the special court-martial level, so most sentences were short.

Fewer Punitive Discharges Than Across the Air Force

Of 38 enlisted members convicted, 17 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (45%). That is lower than the 58% across the Air Force. Only 3 of those 17 were dishonorable. Of 4 convicted officers or warrant officers, 3 were dismissed. A dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge.

A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation. Administrative separations are not part of this data.

A More Senior Group of Accused

The accused included 20 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 18 NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 4 officers or warrant officers. That mix is more senior than all Air Force cases in 2018, where 63% of the accused were junior enlisted. The numbers of NCOs and junior enlisted members were almost the same.

What Else Was Charged

Article 92 was the only charge in 8 of 42 cases. The most common companion charges were Article 134 (general article), in 15 cases, and Article 112a (drug), in 13. Article 107 (false official statement) appeared in 7, Article 128 (assault) in 6, and Article 121 (larceny) in 5.

A single sentence covers all of these charges. A drug or false statement charge in the same case is therefore part of the figures above. Only the 8 single-charge cases involve an orders violation alone, and the records do not report their sentences separately.

Who Decided Guilt?

The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. Members heard 19% of the cases with a forum listed: 5 enlisted panels and 3 officer panels. A military judge alone decided the other 34. Records from this period rarely list a guilty plea, so the forum figures cannot be compared with a contested share.

Changes From 2017 to 2018

The number of cases was 51 in 2017 and 42 in 2018. The median confinement was 6 months in 2017 and 3 months in 2018. The share of convictions with confinement was 75% in 2017 and 79% in 2018. The enlisted punitive discharge rate was 45% in both years. The general court-martial share was 47% in 2017 and 33% in 2018. These are small groups, so a few cases can change the figures. The changes show direction only.

Installations, Rules, and Limits

Robins AFB, Georgia, tried 3 cases. Yokota AB, Japan, Offutt AFB, Nebraska, Dover AFB, Delaware, and Whiteman AFB, Missouri, tried 2 each. Together they account for 26% of the cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.

These trials came before January 1, 2019, when the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect. That law set fixed panel sizes, created judge-alone special courts-martial capped at six months, and brought in written plea agreements. Air Force records rarely list charges in a full acquittal, so no Article 92 acquittal rate is given. The records do not include offense dates, evidence, or nonjudicial punishment.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 92 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: 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.