Army Courts-Martial With Article 115 and Article 92, 2021–2026

Trends › By Offense › Article 115 › Army, with Article 92

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

Guilty Pleas Were the Norm

Of the cases with a plea recorded, 19 were guilty pleas and 5 were not-guilty or mixed pleas. The contested share was 21%. In Army-wide Article 115 cases, it was 45%.

Plea agreements are recorded for 15 of the 19 guilty pleas, and 4 have no entry. Army records say whether there was an agreement, not what it said. A contested case is one where the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge.

Mostly Junior Enlisted Accused

18 of the accused were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4). 5 were NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 1 was an officer or warrant officer. That mix is more junior than Army-wide Article 115 cases, where 54% were junior enlisted.

The 1 convicted officer or warrant officer in this group was not dismissed. Dismissal is the officer form of a punitive discharge.

How Guilt Was Decided

A military judge alone decided guilt in 19 of 24 cases with the forum listed (79%). Members heard 5 cases: 4 enlisted panels and 1 officer panel.

The accused usually chooses whether a judge alone or a panel decides guilt. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the split mostly follows how many cases were contested.

Confinement and Sentence Bands

Confinement was part of 91% of the 23 convictions. Half of those terms were 6 months or less, and the median in the Army as a whole was also 6 months. A quarter of the terms were 11 months or longer.

Sentences of more than 1 year came less often than in Army-wide Article 115 cases: 5 of 23 convictions (22%), compared with 27%. Terms under 6 months made up 43% of convictions, compared with 39%. Terms of 6 months to 1 year made up 26%, compared with 25%. Terms of 5 years or more made up 4%, compared with 5%. Terms of more than 1 year but under 5 years made up 17%, compared with 22%. Convictions with no confinement made up 9%, compared with 8%.

These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case.

Punitive Discharges

Among 22 enlisted members convicted, 16 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (73%). That is more often than in the rest of the Army (69%). Only 2 of the 16 were dishonorable discharges.

A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation. These records do not include administrative separations.

General and Special Courts-Martial

There were 18 general courts-martial and 6 special courts-martial. The general share was 75%, compared with 73% in all Army Article 115 cases in 2021–2026.

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 can impose a bad-conduct 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.

Charges Besides Article 115 and Article 92

The most common other charges were Article 128b (domestic violence) in 9 of the 24 cases, Article 128 (assault) in 7, Article 90 (disobeying an officer) in 5, and Article 134 (general article) in 5. Across Army Article 115 cases overall, only 1 of 112 charged Article 115 by itself.

When and Where

There were 5 cases in 2021, 8 in 2022, 3 in 2023, 6 in 2024, 1 in 2025, and 1 in 2026, a partial year.

Fort Bragg tried 4 of the cases. Joint Base Lewis-McChord and Fort Bliss tried 3 each, Fort Polk tried 2, and Fort Irwin tried 1. These five installations account for 54% of the 24 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a high count alone says little about a base.

Rules and Gaps in the Records

Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as domestic violence. When every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters. The records give trial dates, not offense dates, so they cannot show which rules applied.

The records also do not describe the evidence or the plea terms, and they do not show nonjudicial punishment.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 115 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.

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.