Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 131b
18 Army courts-martial from 2021–2026 charged both a false official statement (Article 107) and obstruction (Article 131b).
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 4 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 107 › Army, with Article 131b
Short answer: 18 Army courts-martial from 2021–2026 charged both a false official statement (Article 107) and obstruction (Article 131b). A punitive discharge followed 47% of enlisted convictions, compared with 60% in Army-wide Article 107 cases, and both convicted officers or warrant officers were dismissed. The median confinement was 5 months, the same as Army-wide.
Discharges and Dismissals
A punitive discharge followed 47% of enlisted convictions: 5 bad-conduct discharges and 2 dishonorable discharges. Across Army-wide Article 107 cases, the rate was 60%.
2 convicted officers or warrant officers appear in these records, and both were dismissed. Dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
More Senior Than Other Article 107 Cases
10 accused were NCOs (E-5 to E-9), 6 were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), and 2 were officers or warrant officers. In Army-wide Article 107 cases, junior enlisted members were 42% of the accused, so this group is more senior.
The records list 12 general courts-martial and 5 special courts-martial, with 1 not listed. The general share, 71%, compares with 63% in Army-wide Article 107 cases.
Confinement
17 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge, and 11 of those sentences included confinement (65%). The median term was 5 months, the same as in Army-wide Article 107 cases. A quarter of the terms with confinement were 2 years or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, set at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each one covers every charge in the case.
Pleas and Plea Agreements
11 accused pleaded guilty, and 7 contested at least one charge with a not-guilty or mixed plea. The contested share, 39%, was close to the 37% in Army-wide Article 107 cases.
Of the 11 guilty pleas, 9 are recorded with a plea agreement and 2 have no entry. Army records show whether an agreement existed, not what it said.
Who Decided Guilt?
A military judge alone decided 14 cases with the forum listed. Members heard 22%: 3 enlisted panels and 1 officer panel. The accused usually chooses whether a judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt.
Other Charges
No case charged Article 107 alone. Besides Article 131b, Article 128 (assault), Article 134 (general article), and Article 92 (orders violation) each appeared in 6 cases, and Article 120 (sexual assault) appeared in 5.
Years, Rule Changes, and Limits
The cases were tried from March 2021 to March 2026: 7 in 2021, 5 in 2022, none in 2023, 2 in 2024, 3 in 2025, and 1 in 2026, a partial year.
Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel decide whether to prosecute covered offenses, and new sentencing parameters apply to offenses after December 27, 2023. Offense dates are not in the records, so trials from 2024 on mix both sets of rules. The records also do not show the evidence or conduct handled outside a court-martial.
For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 107 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Army courts-martial with trial dates in 2021–2026 that charged both Article 107 and Article 131b (18 cases), compared with all 184 Army Article 107 cases 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 107 (False Official Statements): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 131b (Obstruction, Numbered Since 2019): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 120
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 121
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 80
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 81
- Army Courts-Martial With Article 107 and Article 128, 2021–2026
- Army Courts-Martial With Article 107 and Article 128b, 2022–2026
- Army Courts-Martial With Article 107 and Article 134, 2021–2026
- Article 107 explained on the law firm's website
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Compare: federal court. Obstruction of Justice: Federal Sentences vs. Army Courts-Martial
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.