Orders Violation at Air Force Courts-Martial, 2019: The Year in Numbers
The Air Force tried 38 courts-martial charging Article 92 (orders violation) in 2019, and drug charges under Article 112a appeared in 20 of them. The median confinement was 4 months, the same as for all Air Force cases. Of 36 convicted enlisted members, 20 received a punitive discharge.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 92 › Air Force, 2019
Short answer: The Air Force tried 38 courts-martial charging Article 92 (orders violation) in 2019, and drug charges under Article 112a appeared in 20 of them. The median confinement was 4 months, the same as for all Air Force cases. Of 36 convicted enlisted members, 20 received a punitive discharge.
Drug Charges in Most Cases
Article 112a (drug) was charged with Article 92 in 20 of the 38 cases. Article 128 (assault) appeared in 11, Article 134 (general article) in 8, Article 107 (false official statement) in 4, and Article 115 (malingering before 2019; communicating threats since) in 3.
Article 92 was the only charge in only 4 cases. A sentence covers the whole case, so the figures below include the drug charges and other charges. The records do not split a sentence by charge.
Sentences Were Similar to the Air Force Overall
Of 38 convictions, 31 included confinement. The median confinement was 4 months, the same as the 4 months for all Air Force courts-martial in 2019. A quarter of the sentences were 1 year or longer. These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before clemency or appeal.
Sentences under 6 months made up 53% of convictions here and 50% across the Air Force. Confinement of more than one year came in 7 of 38 convictions (18%), about the same as the 20% across the service. Of those 7, 5 were between 1 and 5 years and 2 were 5 years or more.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Air Force cases in 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 7 | 18% | 15% |
| Under 6 months | 20 | 53% | 50% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 4 | 11% | 15% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 5 | 13% | 12% |
| 5 years or more | 2 | 5% | 8% |
Most Cases Were Special Courts-Martial
General courts-martial heard 12 of the 38 cases (32%), compared with 50% across the Air Force. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. A general court-martial can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge.
The median confinement was 2 years at the 12 general courts-martial and 3 months at the 26 special courts-martial. From 2019, a special court-martial could also be tried by a military judge alone, with confinement capped at six months and no punitive discharge. The records do not identify those trials separately.
Punitive Discharges
Of 36 convicted enlisted members, 20 received a punitive discharge: 15 bad-conduct and 5 dishonorable. Across all Air Force cases in 2019, the share was 57%. Only a general court-martial can impose a dishonorable discharge, and general courts-martial heard a smaller share of cases here than across the service. The group also includes 2 convicted officers or warrant officers, and 0 were dismissed.
A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge for enlisted members and a dismissal for officers. A sentence without one does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these records do not include.
Most of the Accused Were Junior Enlisted
By rank, the accused were 30 junior enlisted members, 6 NCOs, and 2 officers. The group was more junior than all Air Force cases in 2019. Only the 2 officers could receive a dismissal.
Officer Panels Only
The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. A military judge alone decided 30 cases. Members heard 8 cases, all with officer panels. Enlisted panels heard 0. Members heard 21% of cases, compared with 42% across the Air Force in 2019.
Records through 2019 rarely list a guilty plea, so the forum figures cannot be compared with a contested share for these cases.
Changes From 2018 to 2019
The number of cases was 42 in 2018 and 38 in 2019. The median confinement was 3 months in 2018 and 4 months in 2019. The share of convictions with confinement was 79% and then 82%. The enlisted punitive discharge rate was 45% and then 56%. The general court-martial share was 33% and then 32%. These are small groups, so a few cases can change the figures. The records cannot show why the discharge rate was higher while the general court-martial share stayed about the same.
| 2018 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 42 | 38 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | — | — |
| Convictions with confinement | 79% | 82% |
| Median confinement | 3 months | 4 months |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 45% | 56% |
| General courts-martial | 33% | 32% |
Installations
Beale AFB, California, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, Moody AFB, Georgia, and JB Lewis-McChord, Washington, each tried 3 cases. Together they account for 39% of the cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a high count alone does not mean an installation has a problem with this offense.
Limits of the Records
Air Force records rarely list the charges in a full acquittal, so no Article 92 acquittal rate is given. The records give trial dates, not offense dates. They do not include evidence, plea terms, or cases handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation.
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.
How We Counted
Air Force courts-martial with a trial date in 2019 that charged Article 92 (38 cases), compared with all Air Force cases that year and with 2018.
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 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Year (hub)
- Orders Violation at Air Force Courts-Martial, 2018: The Year in Numbers (previous / next)
- How Air Force Orders Violation Cases Ended in 2020 (previous / next)
- Air Force Article 92 Cases by the Numbers, 2016–2025 (the full trend)
- Air Force Article 92 Cases in 2021
- Air Force Article 92 Cases in 2023
- Air Force Article 92 Cases in 2024
- What Sentence Follows an Air Force Orders Violation Conviction?
- Article 92 explained on the law firm's website
- Search every case in 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. This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.