How Air Force Orders Violation Cases Ended in 2025

Trends › By Offense › Article 92 › Air Force, 2025

Based on 35 cases · 2025 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026

Mostly Short Sentences

Of 31 convictions, 24 included confinement. The median confinement was 3 months. Across all Air Force courts-martial in 2025, the median was 6 months. A quarter of the sentences here were 6 months or longer.

These are adjudged sentences, as announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence covers every charge in the case, not only the orders violation.

Sentences under 6 months were the largest group, with 17 convictions (55%), compared with 43% for the service. No confinement was imposed in 7 convictions (23%), compared with 12% across the Air Force. Only 2 of 31 convictions (6%) included more than one year, compared with 27% across the service. No sentence here was 5 years or more.

Fewer Punitive Discharges

A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge that a court-martial can include in an enlisted sentence. Here, 14 of 31 convicted enlisted members received one: 12 bad-conduct and 2 dishonorable. That rate, 45%, is lower than the 60% for all Air Force cases in 2025.

A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation. These trial records do not include administrative separations.

Compared With 2024

The number of cases was 28 in 2024 and 35 in 2025. The median confinement was 2 months in 2024 and 3 months in 2025. The share of convictions with confinement was 70% and then 77%. The enlisted punitive discharge rate was 33% and then 45%.

The general court-martial share was 46% of these cases in 2024 and 20% in 2025. The contested share was 32% and then 29%. With groups this small, a few cases can change any of these figures. The direction of each change is more reliable than its exact size.

Mostly Special Courts-Martial

The court level sets the maximum punishment. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial is limited to one year of confinement and cannot adjudge a dishonorable discharge. Only a general court-martial can impose more than one year.

Of these 35 cases, 7 were general and 28 were special courts-martial. The general court-martial share was 20%, compared with 51% for all Air Force cases in 2025. Few sentences here were longer than one year, and few cases were at the level that can impose them.

Pleas and Who Decided Guilt

A plea is listed in 28 of 35 records. Of those, 20 were guilty pleas and 8 were contested. A contested case is one with a not-guilty plea to at least one charge. The contested share was 29%, lower than the 41% across the Air Force in 2025.

The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. A military judge alone heard 28 cases. Members heard 20% of cases with the forum listed: 5 enlisted panels and 2 officer panels. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so this split mostly follows how many cases were contested.

Other Charges in the Same Case

Only 8 of the 35 cases charged Article 92 alone. Drug charges were the most common companion charge: Article 112a (drug) appeared in 13 cases. Article 107 (false official statement) appeared in 5, Article 128 (assault) and Article 86 (AWOL) in 4 each, and Article 113 (drunken or reckless driving) in 3.

Each adjudged sentence covers every charge. A sentence in an orders violation case may therefore reflect a drug or assault finding as well as the Article 92 finding.

Rank and Installations

By rank, 21 accused were junior enlisted (E-1 to E-4), 13 were NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 1 was an officer or warrant officer. That mix is similar to the Air Force overall, where 60% of the accused in 2025 were junior enlisted.

No installation tried more than 2 of these cases. JB Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, Hurlburt Field, Florida, Travis AFB, California, Whiteman AFB, Missouri, and Malmstrom AFB, Montana, each tried 2. Together they account for 29% of the 35 cases. Larger installations try more cases of all kinds, so a count alone says little about any one installation.

Rule Changes Before These Trials

Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. When every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence under new sentencing parameters. Both rules depend on the offense date, so trials in 2025 can include cases under either set of rules.

What the Records Do Not Show

Air Force records rarely list the charges in a full acquittal, so this post gives no acquittal rate for the offense. The records never report plea agreements, and they give trial dates, not offense dates. The evidence, plea terms, nonjudicial punishment, and administrative separations are not in these court-martial records.

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.