Army Courts-Martial With Article 107 and Article 134, 2021–2026

Trends › By Offense › Article 107 › Army, with Article 134

Based on 37 cases · 2021–2026 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Officers and NCOs Made Up Most of the Accused

19 of the 37 accused were NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 8 were officers or warrant officers. 10 were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4). Across Army Article 107 cases, 42% of the accused were junior enlisted, so this group was more senior.

7 convicted officers or warrant officers appear in these records, and 6 of them were dismissed. Dismissal is the officer form of a punitive discharge.

Contested Cases and Their Verdicts

14 accused contested at least one charge by pleading not guilty to it, and 23 pleaded guilty. The contested share was 38%, about the same as the 37% across Army Article 107 cases.

2 of the 14 contested cases that reached a verdict ended in a full acquittal (14%). That is lower than the 18% in the rest of the Army. 11 more were partial acquittals, meaning not guilty of at least one charge or specification but guilty of another. Army results list findings charge by charge, so partial acquittals are common in Army records.

20 of the 23 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement, and 3 have no entry. Army records show whether an agreement existed, not what it said.

Sentence Lengths

35 cases ended in a conviction, and 28 of those sentences included confinement. The median was 6 months. A quarter of the sentences were 2.3 years or longer.

10 of 35 convictions (29%) carried more than one year, compared with 19% in the rest of the Army. Sentences of more than 1 year but under 5 years were 20% here and 12% elsewhere. Sentences of 5 years or more were 9% and 7%. No confinement was 20% here and 27% elsewhere.

Each figure is the adjudged sentence, as announced at trial. A plea-agreement cap, clemency, or an appeal may have changed it later. The sentence covers every charge in the case.

Most Cases Were General Courts-Martial

27 of the 37 cases were general courts-martial (73%), compared with 63% in Army Article 107 cases overall. Their median confinement was 1 year, and 44% of them were contested. The 10 special courts-martial had a median of 2 months, and 20% were contested.

A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. Only a general court-martial can adjudge a longer term.

Discharges for Enlisted Members

16 of 28 convicted enlisted members received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (57%). That is about the same as the 60% across Army Article 107 cases. 9 of the 16 were dishonorable.

A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these records do not cover.

Who Decided Guilt in These Cases?

The forum is listed for 36 cases. A military judge alone decided guilt in 27 of them (75%). Members heard 9: 7 enlisted panels and 2 officer panels. Among contested cases, members heard 8 of 13 (62%).

The accused usually chooses whether a judge or a panel decides guilt. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the split follows how many cases were contested.

Other Charges in the Same Cases

Every case in this group charged Article 134 alongside Article 107. Article 128, assault, appeared in 14 cases. Article 92, failure to obey an order or regulation, appeared in 12. Article 120, sexual assault, appeared in 11, and Article 121, larceny, in 7.

Years and Installations

The cases were tried from April 2021 to June 2026: 15 in 2021, 11 in 2022, 4 in 2023, 0 in 2024, 4 in 2025, and 3 in 2026, a partial year. Army records in this data are sparse before 2021.

Fort Bragg and Fort Sill had 4 cases each. Joint Base Lewis-McChord had 3, and Wheeler Army Airfield and Fort Gordon had 2 each. These five installations account for 41% of the 37 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.

What These Records Cannot Show

The records give trial dates, not offense dates. Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel 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 cannot show which rules applied to cases tried from 2024 on. They also do not describe the evidence or plea terms, and they leave out nonjudicial punishment and administrative separations.

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.

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.