Pleading Guilty to Article 92 in the Air Force: What Sentences Followed?
Air Force records hold 127 courts-martial from 2016–2025 in which the accused pleaded guilty and the charges included Article 92 (orders violation). The median confinement was 4 months, the same as across all Air Force guilty pleas.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 92 › Pleading Guilty to Article 92 in the Air
Short answer: Air Force records hold 127 courts-martial from 2016–2025 in which the accused pleaded guilty and the charges included Article 92 (orders violation). The median confinement was 4 months, the same as across all Air Force guilty pleas. A punitive discharge followed 50% of enlisted convictions, compared with 60% in all Air Force guilty pleas.
Orders Violations Were Rarely the Only Charge
Article 92 covers failing to obey a lawful order or regulation and dereliction of duty. In these guilty pleas, it was the only charge in only 16 of the 127 cases.
Article 112a (drug offenses) was the most common companion charge, in 50 cases. Article 128 (assault) and Article 134 (the general article) each appeared in 23, Article 86 (AWOL) in 17, and Article 128b (domestic violence, numbered since 2019) in 13.
An adjudged sentence covers all the charges in a case. The records therefore cannot show how much of any sentence was for the orders violation.
Confinement Was Common but Mostly Short
Confinement was part of 92% of the 127 convictions. The median confinement was 4 months, the same as for all Air Force guilty pleas in those years. A quarter of sentences were 7 months or longer.
Sentences under 6 months made up 64% of convictions here, compared with 55% across Air Force guilty pleas. Sentences of 6 months to 1 year made up 20%, compared with 16%. Only 10 convictions (8%) included no confinement, about the same as the 7% for all Air Force guilty pleas.
All of these figures are adjudged sentences: the sentences announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Air Force guilty pleas in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 10 | 8% | 7% |
| Under 6 months | 81 | 64% | 55% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 25 | 20% | 16% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 9 | 7% | 17% |
| 5 years or more | 2 | 2% | 5% |
Fewer Long Sentences
Sentences longer than one year came in 11 of 127 convictions (9%), compared with 22% across Air Force guilty pleas. Sentences of more than 1 year but under 5 years came in 9 convictions (7%), compared with 17%. Sentences of 5 years or more came in 2 convictions (2%), compared with 5%.
Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than one year of confinement. A special court-martial is capped at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
Most Were Special Courts-Martial
Of the 127 cases, 89 were special courts-martial and 38 were general courts-martial. The general court-martial share was 30%, lower than the 43% across all Air Force guilty pleas in those years.
The median confinement was 8 months at general courts-martial and 3 months at special courts-martial. The records do not show how the court level was chosen in any case.
Punitive Discharges and Dismissals
A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge for an enlisted member. Here, 50% of enlisted convictions included one: 54 bad-conduct discharges and 6 dishonorable discharges. Across all Air Force guilty pleas in those years, the share was 60%.
The records list 7 convicted officers or warrant officers, and 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, which these records do not track.
Who Pleaded Guilty
Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 68% of the accused, the same share as across all Air Force guilty pleas. NCOs made up 27% and officers 6%.
A military judge alone decided all 127 cases. That is typical of guilty pleas. In a guilty plea, the accused usually chooses to have a military judge accept the plea and set the sentence, rather than a panel of members.
Years and Installations
The period begins in 2016, but the records show 0 matching cases for 2016 through 2019. Air Force records from those years rarely list a guilty plea. The first matching case is from March 2020. The yearly counts were 21 in 2020, 27 in 2021, 24 in 2022, 18 in 2023, 17 in 2024, and 20 in 2025.
JB Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii (6), Keesler AFB, Mississippi (5), Fairchild AFB, Washington (5), Hurlburt Field, Florida (4), and Osan AB, South Korea (4), had the most cases. Together they account for 19% of the 127 cases. Larger installations try more cases overall, so a count says little about any one installation.
Law Changes in These Years
The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. It brought written plea agreements, fixed panel sizes, and judge-alone special courts-martial capped at six months with no punitive discharge. Offenses from before 2019 stayed under the old rules.
Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel decide whether to prosecute covered offenses. When every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters. The records give no offense dates, so trials from 2024 on include cases under both systems. The data cannot show what effect either change had.
What the Records Do Not Show
The records show charges, pleas, and sentences. They do not show the evidence or the terms of any plea agreement. Orders violations resolved through nonjudicial punishment or administrative action are not in these 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.
How We Counted
Air Force courts-martial tried 2016–2025: where the accused pleaded guilty to charges including Article 92 (orders violation) (127 cases), compared with all Air Force guilty pleas in those years.
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)
- Sentences (hub)
- Air Force Article 92 Cases by the Numbers, 2016–2025
- What Sentence Follows an Air Force Orders Violation Conviction?
- Pleading Guilty to Article 92 in the Army: What Sentences Followed? (another service)
- When Navy-Marine Corps Accused Plead Guilty to Orders Violation (another service)
- Guilty Pleas in Air Force Child Sexual Abuse Cases: How Often, and What Came Next
- 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.