What the Air Force Tried in December 2016

Trends › By Year › December 2016

Based on 21 cases · December 2016 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026

Few Punitive Discharges

For enlisted members, a punitive discharge is a bad-conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge. In December 2016, 4 of the 18 convicted enlisted members received one. That is 22%, compared with 54% for the Air Force over the year. Of those 4, 2 were dishonorable. A special court-martial cannot impose a dishonorable discharge, so those 2 came from the month's general courts-martial.

A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation. Those separations are not part of these trial records.

Shorter Confinement, and Often None

Of 18 convictions, 11 included confinement (61%). The median confinement was 2 months, compared with 4 months for the year. A quarter of the terms were 4 months or longer.

These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. They cover every charge in the case.

Mostly Special Courts-Martial

Of the 21 cases, 5 were general courts-martial. That is 24% of cases, compared with 47% for the year. The other cases were special courts-martial, which cannot adjudge more than one year of confinement or a dishonorable discharge.

A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge or dismissal.

Members Decided 18 of 21 Cases

The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. In December 2016, members decided 18 cases: 11 with officer panels and 7 with enlisted panels. A military judge alone decided 3 cases (14%).

An officer panel has only officers. An enlisted accused can ask for enlisted members on the panel. Air Force records from this period rarely show a guilty plea, so the forum figures cannot be compared with the number of contested cases.

Drug Offenses and Sexual Assault

Charges are listed for 18 of the 21 cases, and each article counts once per case. Drug offenses under Article 112a appeared in 9 cases, or 50%, compared with 46% for the year. Article 120, rape and sexual assault, appeared in 3 cases (17%), compared with 7%.

Each of 4 other articles appeared in 2 cases (11%). For Article 86 (AWOL), that share compares with 5% for the year. Article 134 (the general article) was lower than its annual 27%. Article 121 (larceny) compares with 12%, and Article 107 (false official statements) with 10%. Article 128 (assault) and Article 115 (malingering) each appeared in 1 case.

The Article 115 label follows the numbering in force at the time. Before 2019, Article 115 covered malingering. Since the 2019 renumbering, that article number covers communicating threats. Older and newer records with the same number can therefore describe different conduct.

Fewer Full Acquittals Than the Year

Of the 21 cases, 3 ended in a full acquittal (14%), compared with 18% for the Air Force in 2016. This rate uses every case as its base, not only contested cases. Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 rarely record guilty pleas.

Air Force records also rarely list the charges in a case that ends in a full acquittal. The charge shares above therefore mostly describe the 18 cases with a conviction.

A Junior, All-Enlisted Group

Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 71% of the accused, and NCOs 29%. No officers were tried this month. For the full year, junior enlisted members were 65% of the accused.

Fairchild AFB, Washington, tried 2 cases. Scott AFB, Illinois, Peterson SFB, Colorado, Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota, and Kunsan AB, South Korea, tried 1 each. Those 5 bases account for 29% of the month's cases, and no base tried more than 2.

The Pre-2019 Rules and Record Gaps

All of these trials took place before the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. That law brought fixed panel sizes, judge-alone special courts-martial capped at six months with no punitive discharge, and written plea agreements. None of those changes applied to these cases.

The records give trial dates, not offense dates. They do not describe the evidence or the plea terms. Air Force records do not report plea agreements, and the records do not include nonjudicial punishment or administrative separations.

Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: 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.