Guilty Pleas in Army Child Endangerment Cases: How Often, and What Came Next

Trends › By Offense › Article 119b › Guilty Pleas in Army Child Endangerment

Based on 30 cases · 2021–2025 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

A Guilty Plea, Then a Longer Sentence

Every case in this group was a guilty plea, so this page covers sentences, not verdicts. In all 30 cases the accused was convicted of at least one charge, and 27 of those sentences included confinement (90%).

The median confinement was 10 months. Across all Army guilty pleas in the same years, the median was 5 months. A quarter of the child endangerment sentences were 1.5 years or longer.

These are adjudged sentences, the punishment announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each one covers every charge in the case, not the Article 119b charge alone.

Sentence Lengths by Band

These sentences were longer than across all Army guilty pleas. Only 3 convictions (10%) included no confinement, compared with 14% service-wide. Terms under 6 months were given in 9 (30%), compared with 44%.

Terms of 6 months to 1 year were given in 8 sentences (27%), compared with 18%. Terms of more than 1 year but under 5 years were given in 9 (30%), compared with 17%. Overall, terms longer than one year were given in 10 of 30 convictions (33%), compared with 24% in all Army guilty pleas. Only 1 sentence (3%) was 5 years or more, a smaller share than the 6% across Army guilty pleas.

Domestic Violence Was the Most Common Other Charge

In 23 of the 30 cases, at least one other article was charged. The most common was Article 128b (domestic violence), in 16 cases, followed by Article 128 (assault) in 8, Article 92 (orders violation) in 6, Article 134 (general article) in 4, and Article 115 (communicating threats) in 3.

This affects the sentence figures. When a case includes child endangerment and domestic violence or assault, the adjudged sentence covers all the convictions. The records do not divide it by charge.

General or Special Court-Martial?

Sentences were different at general and special courts-martial. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial is limited to one year of confinement and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.

Of the 30 cases, 17 went to a general court-martial, with a median confinement of 1.3 years. The other 13 went to a special court-martial, with a median of 4 months. The general share here, 57%, was lower than the 68% across all Army guilty pleas in those years.

Punitive Discharges

For enlisted members, a punitive discharge means a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. Among 29 enlisted members convicted, 23 received one (79%), compared with 75% across all Army guilty pleas. Of those 23, 4 were dishonorable discharges.

The group includes 1 convicted officer or warrant officer, who was not dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation, which is outside these records.

Plea Agreements and the Forum

Army records note whether a guilty plea came with a plea agreement, though not its terms. Here 27 of the 30 guilty pleas are recorded with an agreement, and 3 have no entry. The records do not show the agreed limits, so they cannot show whether any agreement affected the final sentence.

A military judge alone decided guilt in all 30 cases (100%), and no panel of members heard any of them. The accused usually chooses between a judge alone and a panel, and most judge-alone cases in this data are guilty pleas.

Who Pleaded Guilty, and Where

Junior enlisted members, ranks E-1 to E-4, made up 70% of the accused, NCOs 27%, and officers 3%. Across all Army guilty pleas in those years, junior enlisted were 60%, so this group was more junior.

Cases came from many installations. The five with the most were Fort Bliss (5), Fort Leonard Wood (3), Fort Polk (3), Fort Knox (2), and Fort Stewart (2). Together they had 50% of the cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a higher count is not by itself a sign of a local problem with this offense.

Year by Year

The records show these cases between March 2021 and December 2025. The yearly count was 6 in 2021, 6 in 2022, 5 in 2023, 4 in 2024, and 9 in 2025. With numbers this small, a few cases can change any percentage on this page.

The services were required to begin publishing trial records under Article 140a by December 2020. Army records in this data are sparse before 2021.

Rule Changes and What the Records Leave Out

Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel rather than commanders decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as domestic violence. For cases where every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters. Both rules depend on the offense date, which the records do not give. Trials from 2024 on include cases under old and new rules. The data cannot show whether either change affected these sentences.

Only cases tried by court-martial appear here. Matters closed through nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action are not included. The records do not describe the evidence or what any plea agreement said.

Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: 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.