> ## 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. # Army Cases Charging Both Article 115 and Article 90 - URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-115-and-article-90-charged-together/ - Published: 2026-10-30T05:28:10.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-30T08:17:53.000Z - Description: The Army tried 20 courts-martial from 2021 to 2026 that charged both communicating threats under Article 115 and disobeying an officer under Article 90. The median confinement was 9 months, longer than the 6 months for Army Article 115 cases overall. - Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart - Tags: Understanding Trends, Article 115, Article 90, 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/) › Army, with Article 90 **Short answer:** The Army tried 20 courts-martial from 2021 to 2026 that charged both communicating threats under Article 115 and disobeying an officer under Article 90\. The median confinement was 9 months, longer than the 6 months for Army Article 115 cases overall. The contested share, 45%, was the same as in Army-wide Article 115 cases. Based on 20 cases · 2021–2026 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026 ## Median Confinement of 9 Months Of 19 convictions, 17 carried confinement. The median term was 9 months. Across Army Article 115 cases overall, the median was 6 months. A quarter of the terms in this group were 1.5 years or longer. These are adjudged sentences. They show what was announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence covers every charge in the case, so the terms reflect the full set of charges, not only Article 115 and Article 90. ## A More Senior Group of Accused 10 of the accused were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4). 8 were NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 2 were officers or warrant officers. That mix is more senior than all Army Article 115 cases in 2021–2026, where 54% were junior enlisted. 2 convicted officers or warrant officers appear in this group, and none was dismissed. Dismissal is the officer form of a punitive discharge. ## Court Level General courts-martial made up 70% of these cases (14 of 20). Special courts-martial made up the rest. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge or dismissal. A special court-martial caps confinement at 1 year and can impose a bad-conduct discharge but not a dishonorable discharge. Since 2019, a special court-martial can also be tried by a military judge alone, capped at six months of confinement with no punitive discharge. ## Pleas Matched the Army Rate Contested cases made up 45% of those with a plea recorded. There were 9 not-guilty or mixed pleas and 11 guilty pleas. In Army-wide Article 115 cases, the contested share was also 45%. Of the 11 guilty pleas, 9 are recorded with a plea agreement and 2 have no entry. Army records say whether there was an agreement, not what it said. The sheet does not give verdict results for the contested cases in this group. ## Military Judges Decided Most Cases A military judge alone decided guilt in 16 of 20 cases with the forum listed (80%). Members heard 4 cases, all enlisted panels, and there were 0 officer panels. The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the split mostly follows how many cases were contested. ## Punitive Discharges 12 of 17 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge. There were 8 bad-conduct discharges and 4 dishonorable discharges. In the rest of the Army, the punitive discharge share for Article 115 cases was 69%. A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge for enlisted members. A sentence without one does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these records do not show. ## Other Charges Besides Article 90, the most common other charges were Article 128 (assault) in 13 of the 20 cases, Article 128b (domestic violence) in 9, Article 134 (general article) in 8, and Article 120 (sexual assault) in 5\. Each case counts under every article it charged. Article 115 is seldom charged alone in the Army. Across Army Article 115 cases, only 1 of 112 charged it by itself. ## Years and Installations The cases were tried from January 2021 through March 2026\. There were 6 in 2021 and 6 in 2022, then 2 in each year from 2023 through 2026\. The 2026 count is a partial year. Fort Bragg had 4 cases and Fort Hood had 3\. Fort Polk, Wheeler Army Airfield, and Joint Base Lewis-McChord had 2 each. Together these five installations account for 65% of the 20 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind. ## Limits of This Data This data covers only what reached a courtroom. Cases resolved by nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action are not included. The records do not describe the evidence or the plea terms. The records also give trial dates, not offense dates. New sentencing parameters apply to offenses after December 27, 2023, and special trial counsel have decided whether to prosecute covered offenses since December 28, 2023\. The records cannot show which of these cases fell under the new rules. Army records in this data are sparse before 2021, after the services were required to begin publishing trial records under Article 140a by December 2020. 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 with trial dates in 2021–2026 that charged both Article 115 and Article 90 (20 cases), compared with all 112 Army Article 115 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) - [Article 90 (Willfully Disobeying Superior Officer): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-90-courts-martial/) (hub) - [Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-courts-martial/) (hub) - [Army Cases Charging Both Article 115 and Article 120](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-115-and-article-120-charged-together/) - [Army Cases Charging Both Article 115 and Article 128b](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-115-and-article-128b-charged-together/) - [Army Courts-Martial With Article 115 and Article 92, 2021–2026](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-115-and-article-92-charged-together/) - [Article 115 With Article 128 in the Army: What the Records Show](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-115-and-article-128-charged-together/) - [Article 115 With Article 134 in the Army: What the Records Show](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-115-and-article-134-charged-together/) - [Navy-Marine Corps Cases Charging Both Article 115 and Article 128](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/navy-marine-corps-article-115-and-article-128-charged-together/) - [Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 120](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-107-and-article-120-charged-together/) - [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.