> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.bodiesburied.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Fighting an Army Communicating Threats Charge: How Contested Cases Ended
- URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-115-acq-2021-2025/
- Published: 2026-10-28T08:06:38.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-30T08:04:58.000Z
- Description: Of 46 contested Army cases under Article 115 (communicating threats) in 2021–2025, 24% (11 of 46) ended in a full acquittal, compared with 38% across all contested Army cases. The median confinement was 6 months, compared with 1.5 years Army-wide.
- Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart
- Tags: Understanding Trends, Article 115, Army

[Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [By Offense](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/by-offense/) › [Article 115](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-115-courts-martial/) › Fighting a Army Communicating Threats Ch

**Short answer:** Of 46 contested Army cases under Article 115 (communicating threats) in 2021–2025, 24% (11 of 46) ended in a full acquittal, compared with 38% across all contested Army cases. The median confinement was 6 months, compared with 1.5 years Army-wide.

Based on 46 cases · 2021–2025 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

## Fewer Full Acquittals, More Partial Acquittals

The records hold 46 Army courts-martial in which the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge that included Article 115, which covers communicating threats. Only 11 ended in a full acquittal, meaning not guilty on every charge. That is a 24% rate, lower than the 38% across all contested Army cases in those years.

The most common result was a partial acquittal. In 31 cases (67%), the accused was acquitted of at least one charge or specification and convicted of another. Army results list findings one charge at a time, so partial acquittals are common in Army records. Each one still counts as a conviction.

## Every Case Included Another Charge

All 46 of the 46 cases charged at least one other article with the threat charge. Article 128 (assault) was the most common other charge, in 32, followed by Article 128b (domestic violence) in 19, Article 120 (sexual assault) in 16, Article 134 (general article) in 12, and Article 90 (disobeying an officer) in 8.

This affects the sentences below. An adjudged sentence covers every charge in the case. The confinement figures include assault, domestic violence, and other convictions as well as the threat itself.

## Shorter Terms, but Confinement in Most Convictions

Confinement was part of 94% of the 35 convictions. Half of those terms were 6 months or less. The median for all contested Army cases was 1.5 years.

Only 2 convictions (6%) included no confinement, compared with 25% across contested Army cases. Terms under 6 months made up 40%, and terms of 6 months to 1 year made up 26%. Both were higher than the Army comparison. Terms longer than one year were given in 10 of 35 convictions (29%), compared with 44%. All of these are adjudged figures, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal.

| Adjudged confinement            | Convictions | Share here | Share, all contested Army cases in those years |
| ------------------------------- | ----------- | ---------- | ---------------------------------------------- |
| No confinement                  | 2           | 6%         | 25%                                            |
| Under 6 months                  | 14          | 40%        | 22%                                            |
| 6 months to 1 year              | 9           | 26%        | 9%                                             |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 6           | 17%        | 28%                                            |
| 5 years or more                 | 4           | 11%        | 15%                                            |

## Full Acquittals by Members and by Judges

In the contested cases with the forum listed, 26% of cases decided by members ended in a full acquittal, compared with 12% of cases decided by military judges. Those percentages are based on 44 contested cases that reached a verdict.

Members heard 27 of those 44 (61%): 26 enlisted panels and 1 officer panel. A judge alone decided the other 17\. In most cases the accused chooses who decides guilt, so the cases heard by panels and by judges are different. The difference does not show how either would decide the same facts.

## Punitive Discharges

A punitive discharge, meaning a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge for enlisted members, was adjudged in 53% of enlisted convictions. That is lower than the 64% across contested Army cases. There were 8 bad-conduct and 8 dishonorable discharges.

Among officers and warrant officers, 5 were convicted and 2 were dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not prevent a later administrative separation, which falls outside these records.

## A More Senior Group of Accused

The accused included 17 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 23 NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 6 officers or warrant officers. Junior enlisted members made up 44% of all contested Army cases, so this group is more senior.

General courts-martial heard 38 of the 46 cases (83%), about the same as the 85% Army-wide. A special court-martial is limited to one year of confinement and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence.

## Cases by Year and Installation

The cases were tried from January 2021 to October 2025: 11 in 2021, 14 in 2022, 8 in 2023, 9 in 2024, and 4 in 2025\. The records give trial dates, not offense dates, so a case tried in one year may involve conduct from an earlier one.

Fort Bragg had the most cases, 11\. Joint Base Lewis-McChord had 8, Fort Hood 6, and Wheeler Army Airfield and Fort Sill 3 each. Those five installations had 67% of the 46 cases. Large installations try more cases of every kind, so a high count is not evidence of a local problem.

## Rule Changes and Gaps in the Record

Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. Military judges set sentences within new parameters when every guilty finding involves an offense after December 27, 2023\. These records do not give offense dates, so 2024 and 2025 trials include both old-rule and new-rule cases.

Threat allegations handled by nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action do not appear here. The records also do not describe the words allegedly spoken, the evidence, or any plea terms.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see [Article 115 on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-115/?ref=bodiesburied.com). Dates and sources for the law changes: [UCMJ change timeline](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/ucmj-change-timeline/).

### How We Counted

Army courts-martial tried 2021–2025: where the accused contested a charge under Article 115 (communicating threats) (46 cases), compared with all contested Army cases in those years.

Source: public court-martial records (Article 140a, UCMJ) in [Military Trial Results](https://www.bodiesburied.com/military-trial-results/), data updated October 24, 2026\. Definitions, sources, and known gaps: [how this data was built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/how-the-military-trial-results-data-was-built/). Errors: content@bodiesburied.com.

## Related Analysis

- [Article 115 (Malingering Before 2019, Communicating Threats Since): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-115-courts-martial/) (hub)
- [By Offense](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/by-offense/) (hub)
- [Army Article 115 Cases by the Numbers, 2021–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-115-trend-2021-2025/)
- [How Much Confinement for an Article 115 Conviction in the Army?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-115-sent-2021-2025/)
- [Guilty Pleas in Army Communicating Threats Cases: How Often, and What Came Next](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-115-plea-2021-2025/)
- [Fighting an Army Child Endangerment Charge: How Contested Cases Ended](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-119b-acq-2021-2025/)
- [Fighting an Army Domestic Violence Charge: How Contested Cases Ended](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-128b-acq-2021-2025/)
- [Fighting an Army General Article Charge: How Contested Cases Ended](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-134-acq-2021-2025/)
- [Fighting an Army Larceny Charge: How Contested Cases Ended](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-121-acq-2021-2025/)
- [Article 115 explained on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-115/?ref=bodiesburied.com)
- [Search every case in Military Trial Results](https://www.bodiesburied.com/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](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/?ref=bodiesburied.com). This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.