Army Courts-Martial With Article 112a and Article 134, 2021–2025

Trends › By Offense › Article 112a › Army, with Article 134

Based on 28 cases · 2021–2025 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Every Conviction Included Confinement

Of 27 convictions, 27 carried confinement. None of the convictions in this group ended without it (0%), while 11% of Army-wide Article 112a convictions had no confinement.

The median confinement was 1.2 years. For the Army as a whole, the Article 112a median was 5 months. A quarter of the sentences in this group were 3 years or longer. These are adjudged sentences, set at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and each covers every charge in the case.

Terms by Length

Sentences of more than 1 year came in 14 of 27 convictions (52%). In the rest of the Army, the share was 17%. The largest group was terms of more than 1 year but under 5 years, at 41% of convictions, compared with 12% Army-wide. Terms of 5 years or more made up 11%, compared with 5%.

Terms of 6 months to 1 year made up 30%, compared with 27%. Terms under 6 months made up 19%, compared with 46%.

Most Cases Were General Courts-Martial

22 of the 28 cases were general courts-martial (79%). In Army Article 112a cases overall, the general share was 53%. Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than 1 year of confinement or a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial caps confinement at 1 year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.

Since 2019, a special court-martial can also be tried by a military judge alone. In that form, confinement is capped at six months and no punitive discharge can be imposed.

Dishonorable Discharges Were Common

23 of 25 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge. Of those, 12 were bad-conduct discharges and 11 were dishonorable discharges. In Army-wide Article 112a cases, the punitive discharge share was 81%. A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge for enlisted members. A dishonorable discharge can only come from a general court-martial.

2 convicted officers or warrant officers appear in this group, and 2 were dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.

Pleas and the Forum

19 accused pleaded guilty and 9 contested at least one charge. A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share was 32%, compared with 14% in Army Article 112a cases overall. All 19 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement. The records say whether there was an agreement, not what it said.

A military judge alone decided 27 cases. An enlisted panel heard 1, and an officer panel heard 0. Members heard 4% of the cases, compared with 8% in the rest of the Army. The accused usually chooses between a judge alone and a panel of members. The records in this sheet give no acquittal figures for the contested cases.

Rank of the Accused

Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 75% of the accused, NCOs 18%, and officers 7%. Across all Army Article 112a cases in 2021–2025, junior enlisted members were 73%, so the rank mix is close to the wider group.

What Article 134 Was Charged With

Article 134 covers conduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting. Each case also had other charges. Article 92 (orders violation), Article 90 (disobeying an officer), and Article 128 (assault) were each charged in 9 cases. Article 131b (obstruction) was charged in 6.

Fort Bliss Had the Most Cases

Fort Bliss tried 8 of the 28 cases. Fort Riley and Fort Bragg had 3 each, and Fort Stewart and Fort Hood had 2 each. These five installations account for 64% of the cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a high count alone says little about any one base.

By year, there were 10 cases in 2021, 6 in 2022, 5 in 2023, 5 in 2024, and 2 in 2025. The cases run from January 2021 through December 2025.

Limits of These Records

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 to offenses after December 27, 2023. Trials from 2024 on mix cases under both sets of rules. Cases resolved by nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action are not included, and the records do not describe the evidence or the plea terms.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 112a on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.

Compare: federal court. Drug Use: Federal Sentences vs. Army Courts-Martial · Drug Distribution: 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.