> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.bodiesburied.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Air Force Courts-Martial, June 2020: The Month in Review - URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial-june-2020/ - Published: 2026-10-30T08:08:10.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-30T08:08:10.000Z - Description: The records show 15 Air Force trials in June 2020. Special courts-martial made up most of them: 11 of 15, with a general court-martial share of 27% compared with 51% across the Air Force in 2020. 3 of 11 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge. - Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart - Tags: Understanding Trends, Air Force [Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [By Year](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/by-year/) › June 2020 **Short answer:** The records show 15 Air Force trials in June 2020\. Special courts-martial made up most of them: 11 of 15, with a general court-martial share of 27% compared with 51% across the Air Force in 2020\. 3 of 11 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge. Based on 15 cases · June 2020 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026 ## Mostly Special Courts-Martial There were 4 general and 11 special courts-martial. The general share was 27%, compared with 51% for the Air Force in all of 2020. A special court-martial is limited to one year of confinement and can impose a bad-conduct discharge but not a dishonorable discharge. Since 2019, a special court-martial can also be tried by a military judge alone, capped at six months of confinement with no punitive discharge. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence. ## Few Punitive Discharges 3 of 11 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge: 2 bad-conduct and 1 dishonorable. Across the Air Force in 2020, the share was 50%. The month had 1 convicted officer or warrant officer, and 1 was dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation. ## Confinement Of 12 convictions, 11 included confinement. The median confinement was 3 months, close to the 4-month median for the Air Force in 2020\. A quarter of the confinement terms were 4 months or longer. These are adjudged sentences, set at trial for every charge of conviction, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. ## June 2019 and June 2020 June 2019 had 39 cases, and June 2020 had 15\. The median confinement went from 5 months to 3 months. Punitive discharges for convicted enlisted members went from 62% to 27%, and the general court-martial share went from 41% to 27%. Convictions with confinement went from 86% to 92%. Small groups can move with a few cases, so these figures show direction only. | | June 2019 | June 2020 | | ----------------------------- | --------- | --------- | | Cases | 39 | 15 | | Contested (of pleas recorded) | — | 40% | | Convictions with confinement | 86% | 92% | | Median confinement | 5 months | 3 months | | Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 62% | 27% | | General courts-martial | 41% | 27% | ## Drug Charges and AWOL 12 of the 15 records list the charges. Article 112a (drug offenses) was the most common article, in 6 cases or 50%, about the same as the 51% for the year. Article 86 (AWOL) appeared in 3 cases (25%), compared with 8% across the Air Force in 2020\. Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) also appeared in 3 cases (25%), compared with 16%. Article 128 (assault) and Article 134 (general article) appeared in 2 each. Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer), Article 80 (attempts), and Article 114 (dueling before 2019, endangerment since) appeared in 1 case each. | UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the Air Force for all of 2020 | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----- | ---------- | ------------------------------------ | | [Art. 112a](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/ucmj/article-112a-drug-offenses/?ref=bodiesburied.com) Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 6 | 50% | 51% | | [Art. 86](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-86/?ref=bodiesburied.com) AWOL | 3 | 25% | 8% | | [Art. 92](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-92/?ref=bodiesburied.com) Failure to obey order or regulation | 3 | 25% | 16% | | [Art. 128](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-128/?ref=bodiesburied.com) Assault | 2 | 17% | 17% | | [Art. 134](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-134/?ref=bodiesburied.com) General article | 2 | 17% | 22% | | Art. 133 Conduct unbecoming an officer | 1 | 8% | 2% | | [Art. 80](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-80/?ref=bodiesburied.com) Attempts | 1 | 8% | 1% | | Art. 114 Dueling before 2019, endangerment since | 1 | 8% | 2% | ## Pleas and Forum 9 accused pleaded guilty and 6 entered a not-guilty or mixed plea. The contested share was 40%, lower than the 48% for the Air Force in 2020. A military judge alone decided 9 cases. Members heard 6: 5 with enlisted panels and 1 with an officer panel. Members heard 40% of the cases, compared with 35% for the year. ## Rank and Limits By rank, the accused were 10 junior enlisted members, 4 NCOs, and 1 officer. That mix is similar to the Air Force as a whole in 2020. The records cover only cases that reached a courtroom. Nonjudicial punishment, administrative separations, the evidence, and the plea terms are not in them. Air Force records rarely list charges in full acquittals and never report plea agreements. Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: [UCMJ change timeline](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/ucmj-change-timeline/). ### How We Counted Air Force courts-martial with a trial date in June 2020 (15 cases), compared with the whole year. Source: public court-martial records (Article 140a, UCMJ) in [Military Trial Results](https://www.bodiesburied.com/military-trial-results/), data updated October 24, 2026\. Definitions, sources, and known gaps: [how this data was built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/how-the-military-trial-results-data-was-built/). Errors: content@bodiesburied.com. ## Related Analysis - [Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial/) (hub) - [By Year](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/by-year/) (hub) - [Air Force Courts-Martial, May 2020: The Month in Review](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial-may-2020/) (previous / next) - [July 2020 at Air Force Courts-Martial: 29 Cases](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial-july-2020/) (previous / next) - [Air Force Courts-Martial in 2020: Year in Review](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial-2020-year-in-review/) (the whole year) - [Air Force Courts-Martial, April 2018: The Month in Review](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial-april-2018/) - [Air Force Courts-Martial, April 2019: The Month in Review](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial-april-2019/) - [Air Force Courts-Martial, August 2018: The Month in Review](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial-august-2018/) - [Air Force Courts-Martial, August 2020: The Month in Review](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial-august-2020/) - [Search every case in Military Trial Results](https://www.bodiesburied.com/military-trial-results/) (members) ← Previous: [Air Force Courts-Martial, May 2020: The Month in Review](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial-may-2020/)Next: [July 2020 at Air Force Courts-Martial: 29 Cases](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/air-force-courts-martial-july-2020/) → **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](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/?ref=bodiesburied.com). This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.