Pleading Guilty to Article 114 in the Army: What Sentences Followed?
In 13 Army courts-martial from 2021–2025 where the accused pleaded guilty to charges including Article 114 (endangerment), 10 of 12 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge (83%), compared with 75% for all Army guilty pleas in those years.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 4 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 114 › Pleading Guilty to Article 114 in the Ar
Short answer: In 13 Army courts-martial from 2021–2025 where the accused pleaded guilty to charges including Article 114 (endangerment), 10 of 12 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge (83%), compared with 75% for all Army guilty pleas in those years. The median confinement was 6 months, compared with 5 months.
Punitive Discharges for 10 of 12 Enlisted Members
Among 12 enlisted members convicted, 10 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (83%). The rate for all Army guilty pleas in those years was 75%. 1 of the 10 was a dishonorable discharge.
The group also includes 1 convicted officer or warrant officer, who was dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Every Conviction Included Confinement
Confinement was part of 100% of the 13 convictions. The median confinement was 6 months, compared with 5 months for all Army guilty pleas in those years.
These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence covers every charge in the case.
Plea Agreements
12 of the 13 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement, and 1 has no entry. Army records say whether an agreement existed, not what it said. Any cap on confinement in an agreement is not reflected in the adjudged sentences above.
Charges Filed Alongside Article 114
12 of the 13 cases charged at least one other article. Article 134 (general article) appeared in 5 cases and Article 92 (orders violation) in 4. Article 113 (drunken or reckless driving) and Article 90 (disobeying an officer) each appeared in 3, and Article 128 (assault) in 2.
Court Level, Rank, and Forum
8 of the 13 cases were general courts-martial (62%), compared with 68% for all Army guilty pleas in those years. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
By rank, 8 of the accused were junior enlisted, 4 were NCOs, and 1 was an officer. The mix was similar to all Army guilty pleas. The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. A military judge alone decided guilt in all 13 cases.
Cases per Year
The 13 trials took place between April 2021 and September 2025. The yearly counts were 3 in 2021, 2 in 2022, 2 in 2023, 3 in 2024, and 3 in 2025.
Rule Changes That Apply
All of these trials took place after the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. That act added written plea agreements, fixed panel sizes, and the judge-alone special court-martial, which is limited to six months of confinement with no punitive discharge. An offense committed before 2019 kept the old rules even if tried later.
December 2023 brought further change. From December 28, 2023, special trial counsel decide whether covered offenses such as murder, sexual assault, and domestic violence are prosecuted. Where all guilty findings concern offenses after December 27, 2023, the military judge sentences within set parameters. The records do not say which 2024 and 2025 trials met that test.
Gaps in the Records
The records do not describe the evidence or the plea terms. Cases handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation are not included.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Army courts-martial tried 2021–2025: where the accused pleaded guilty to charges including Article 114 (endangerment) (13 cases), compared with all Army guilty pleas 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 114 (Dueling Before 2019, Endangerment Since): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Sentences (hub)
- Is Army Endangerment Prosecution Rising or Falling? Article 114, 2021–2025
- What Sentence Follows an Army Endangerment Conviction?
- How Often Are Contested Army Article 114 Cases Acquitted?
- Guilty Pleas in Navy-Marine Corps Endangerment Cases: How Often, and What Came Next (another service)
- Guilty Pleas in Army Child Endangerment Cases: How Often, and What Came Next
- Guilty Pleas in Army Communicating Threats Cases: How Often, and What Came Next
- 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.