What Happens to Air Force Officers Facing Orders Violation Charges?
The Air Force records show 21 courts-martial of officers charged with orders violations under Article 92 between April 2016 and August 2025. 9 of the 20 convictions (45%) carried no confinement, compared with 19% in all Air Force Article 92 cases.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 92 › Officers
Short answer: The Air Force records show 21 courts-martial of officers charged with orders violations under Article 92 between April 2016 and August 2025. 9 of the 20 convictions (45%) carried no confinement, compared with 19% in all Air Force Article 92 cases. Members heard 33% of these cases, all of them officer panels.
Many Sentences Without Confinement
20 cases ended in a conviction, and confinement was part of 55% of them. 9 convictions (45%) carried no confinement. In all Air Force Article 92 cases, 19% carried none.
Among the sentences that did include confinement, half were 2 months or less. The median for all Air Force Article 92 cases was 4 months. Short terms under 6 months made up 8 convictions (40%), and 1 conviction (5%) was 6 months to 1 year.
Sentences longer than one year came less often than for the offense overall: 2 of 20 convictions (10%), against 15%. No conviction carried 5 years or more. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Air Force Article 92 cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 9 | 45% | 19% |
| Under 6 months | 8 | 40% | 50% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 1 | 5% | 16% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 2 | 10% | 12% |
| 5 years or more | 0 | 0% | 3% |
Officer Panels Heard 7 Cases
A military judge alone decided 14 cases. Officer panels heard 7 and enlisted panels heard none. Members heard 33% of the cases, compared with 24% in all Air Force Article 92 cases.
The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt.
Companion Charges
15 of the 21 cases charged at least one other article. The general article, Article 134, appeared in 8 cases, and conduct unbecoming an officer under Article 133 in 6.
Drug offenses under Article 112a appeared in 4, assault under Article 128 in 2, and property damage under Article 109 in 1. A sentence covers every charge in the case.
Pleas on Record
Only 10 of the 21 records list a plea. Of those, 7 officers pleaded guilty and 3 contested at least one charge. The contested share of 30% is about the same as the 29% in all Air Force Article 92 cases.
Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 rarely list a guilty plea, and they never report plea agreements.
2024 Had the Most Cases
The records show 6 cases in 2024, more than in any other year. The other years had 1 in 2016, 4 in 2017, 4 in 2018, 2 in 2019, 0 in 2020, 0 in 2021, 1 in 2022, 2 in 2023, and 1 in 2025.
Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel rather than commanders decide whether to prosecute covered offenses, and new sentencing parameters apply when every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023. The records give trial dates, not offense dates, so the 2024 trials mix old-rule and new-rule cases. The records cannot show whether the rule changes had any connection to the 2024 count.
Where the Cases Were Tried
JB Andrews, Maryland, tried 3 cases. Hurlburt Field, Florida, and McConnell AFB, Kansas, each tried 2. Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, and Shaw AFB, South Carolina, each tried 1. Together these 5 installations account for 43% of the 21 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.
Who Was Charged and What Is Missing
All 21 accused were officers, a more senior group than in all Air Force Article 92 cases. The Military Justice Act of 2016, which took effect on January 1, 2019, set fixed panel sizes and introduced written plea agreements.
The records do not show the evidence, the plea terms, or conduct handled by nonjudicial punishment. Air Force records rarely list the charges in a full acquittal, so this page gives no acquittal rate.
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 tried 2016–2025 that charged officers and warrant officers under Article 92 (21 cases), compared with every Air Force Article 92 case.
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)
- Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4) Charged Under Article 92 in the Army
- Army Orders Violation Cases Against NCOs (E-5 to E-9): Outcomes and Sentences
- What Happens to Air Force Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4) Facing Orders Violation Charges?
- Fewer or More? Orders Violation Charges at Army Courts-Martial, 2021–2025
- Air Force Article 92 Cases by the Numbers, 2016–2025
- 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.