Article 109 With Article 92 in the Army: What the Records Show
The records hold 14 Army courts-martial from 2021–2026 that charged both Article 109, property damage, and Article 92, orders violation. Every case ended in a conviction, and the median confinement was 10 months, compared with 6 months across all Army Article 109 cases.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 4 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 109 › Army, with Article 92
Short answer: The records hold 14 Army courts-martial from 2021–2026 that charged both Article 109, property damage, and Article 92, orders violation. Every case ended in a conviction, and the median confinement was 10 months, compared with 6 months across all Army Article 109 cases.
Longer Confinement Than Other Article 109 Cases
Confinement was part of 93% of the 14 convictions. The median confinement was 10 months, and a quarter of the terms were 11 months or longer. Across Army Article 109 cases overall, the median was 6 months.
Each figure is an adjudged sentence, set at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence covers all the charges in the case.
Domestic Violence Charges Appeared Often
Article 128b, domestic violence, was charged in 9 of the 14 cases. Article 128, assault, appeared in 7. Article 87a, resisting apprehension, and Article 115, communicating threats, each appeared in 4. Article 92 appeared in all 14 by definition of this group.
Pleas
11 accused pleaded guilty, and 3 contested at least one charge with a not-guilty or mixed plea. That is 21% contested, compared with 24% in Army-wide Article 109 cases.
10 of the 11 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement, and 1 has no entry. Army records show whether there was an agreement but not its terms.
Bad-Conduct and Dishonorable Discharges
All 14 convicted were enlisted members. 9 of them (64%) received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge, and 3 of those were dishonorable. The rate for Army-wide Article 109 cases was 68%. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Junior Enlisted Members Made Up Most of the Accused
10 accused were junior enlisted (E-1 to E-4) and 4 were NCOs (E-5 to E-9). No officers or warrant officers appear. Across Army-wide Article 109 cases, 65% were junior enlisted, so this group was more junior.
Court Level and Forum
9 cases were general courts-martial and 5 were special courts-martial. The general share was 64%, compared with 65% for all Army Article 109 cases in 2021–2026. A special court-martial cannot impose more than one year of confinement or a dishonorable discharge.
Members heard 14% of the cases with the forum listed: 2 cases, both before enlisted panels. The other 12 cases were decided by a military judge alone.
Years of Trial
The trials ran from March 2021 to October 2026. There were 4 in 2021, 3 in 2022, 3 in 2023, 0 in 2024, 0 in 2025, and 4 in 2026, which is a partial year.
What the Records Cannot Show
Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses, which include domestic violence. New sentencing parameters apply when every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023. The records give trial dates rather than offense dates, so they cannot show which rules applied to the 2026 trials. They also omit the evidence, the plea terms, and conduct handled outside a court-martial.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Army courts-martial with trial dates in 2021–2026 that charged both Article 109 and Article 92 (14 cases), compared with all 49 Army Article 109 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 109 (Property Other Than Military; Waste, Spoilage, Destruction): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 109 and Article 128b
- Army Courts-Martial With Article 109 and Article 128, 2021–2026
- 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 131b
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 80
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 81
- 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.