What Happens to Army Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4) Facing False Official Statement Charges?
Army records from 2021 through 2025 hold 71 courts-martial charging junior enlisted soldiers (E-1 to E-4) with false official statements under Article 107. Of those convicted, 78% received a punitive discharge, compared with 61% across all Army Article 107 cases.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 107 › Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4)
Short answer: Army records from 2021 through 2025 hold 71 courts-martial charging junior enlisted soldiers (E-1 to E-4) with false official statements under Article 107. Of those convicted, 78% received a punitive discharge, compared with 61% across all Army Article 107 cases. The median confinement was 6 months, compared with 5 months.
Most Convicted Soldiers Received a Punitive Discharge
Of 68 junior enlisted soldiers convicted, 53 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (78%). Across all Army Article 107 cases, which include NCOs and officers, the share was 61%. Of these 53 discharges, 19 were dishonorable discharges.
A punitive discharge is part of the sentence a court-martial adjudges. A soldier whose sentence did not include one can still face administrative separation later, which these trial records do not show.
Longer Terms Than for All Article 107 Cases
Confinement was part of 59 of the 68 sentences. The median confinement was 6 months, longer than the 5 months for all Army Article 107 cases. A quarter of terms were 1.3 years or longer.
Terms of more than one year were part of 19 of 68 convictions (28%), compared with 19% for all Army Article 107 cases. Terms of more than 1 year and under 5 years were part of 18%, compared with 11%. Terms of 5 years or more were part of 10%, compared with 8%. No confinement was part of 13% of convictions, compared with 27%.
Each sentence is as adjudged at trial and covers every charge in the case, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Army Article 107 cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 9 | 13% | 27% |
| Under 6 months | 27 | 40% | 41% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 13 | 19% | 13% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 12 | 18% | 11% |
| 5 years or more | 7 | 10% | 8% |
Article 107 Was Usually Charged With Other Articles
Article 107 was the only charge in 4 of the 71 cases. Article 128 (assault) was charged with it in 20, Article 120 (sexual assault) in 19, Article 112a (drug) in 17, Article 90 (disobeying an officer) in 9, and Article 134 (general article) in 8.
A false statement charged with a sexual assault or assault count is sentenced as part of the whole case. The confinement figures above therefore cover all of the convictions in each case together.
Pleas and Plea Agreements
Of the 71 accused, 49 pleaded guilty and 22 entered a not-guilty or mixed plea. The contested share was 31%, lower than the 37% across all Army Article 107 cases. A case counts as contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge.
Army records also note whether a guilty plea came with a plea agreement. Here 46 of the 49 guilty pleas are recorded with one, and 3 have no entry. The records show only that an agreement existed, not its terms.
How Contested Cases Ended
Of the 22 contested cases that reached a verdict, 14% ended in a full acquittal, meaning not guilty of all charges. That is close to the 15% across all Army Article 107 cases. Another 16 cases ended in a partial acquittal: not guilty of at least one charge or specification, and guilty of another. Army results list findings charge by charge, so partial acquittals appear in Army data.
By forum, members returned a full acquittal in 1 of 10 contested cases (10%), and a military judge alone in 1 of 11 (9%). These counts are too small to compare members and judges.
Who Heard the Cases
A military judge alone decided 60 cases, and enlisted panels decided 10. There were no officer panels. Members decided 14% of cases, compared with 21% across all Army Article 107 cases. Among contested cases, members decided 10 of 21 (48%). The accused usually chooses the forum, and most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas.
General courts-martial heard 50 of the 69 cases with a court level listed (72%), with a median confinement of 9 months and 30% contested. Special courts-martial heard 19, with a median of 4 months and 26% contested. The court level is missing for 2 cases. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
Counts by Year and Post
The number of cases went down each year: 34 in 2021, 15 in 2022, 10 in 2023, 7 in 2024, and 5 in 2025. The services had to begin publishing trial records under Article 140a by December 2020, and Army records in this data are sparse before 2021.
Fort Campbell and Fort Bliss tried 9 cases each, Fort Hood 8, Fort Riley 5, and Fort Benning 4. Together they accounted for 49% of these cases. Larger posts try more cases of every kind.
All 71 accused were junior enlisted. Across all Army Article 107 cases, 43% were.
Rule Changes and Record Limits
Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel decide whether to prosecute covered offenses. Military judges set sentences under new parameters when every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023. The records list trial dates, not offense dates, so trials from 2024 on include cases under both sets of rules. They also do not include the statement at issue, the evidence, plea terms, or nonjudicial punishment.
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 tried 2021–2025 that charged junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) under Article 107 (71 cases), compared with every Army Article 107 case.
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)
- Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- NCOs (E-5 to E-9) Charged Under Article 107 in the Army
- Army False Official Statement Cases Against Officers: Outcomes and Sentences
- Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4) Charged Under Article 107 in the Air Force
- Army Article 107 Cases by the Numbers, 2021–2025
- Fewer or More? False Official Statement Charges at Air Force Courts-Martial, 2016–2025
- Article 107 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.