Article 120 With Article 131b in the Army: What the Records Show

Trends › By Offense › Article 120 › Army, with Article 131b

Based on 26 cases · 2021–2026 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Nearly Every Case Was Contested

Guilty pleas: 3. Contested: 23. The contested share was 88%. In the rest of the Army, 71% of Article 120 cases were contested.

A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. With so few guilty pleas, the results in this group come mostly from trials on the merits.

Verdicts After a Contested Trial

Of 23 contested cases that reached a verdict, 8 ended in a full acquittal (35%). The full-acquittal rate in the Army as a whole was 45%.

Another 12 (52%) ended in a partial acquittal. That means the accused was found not guilty of at least one charge or specification but guilty of another. Army results list findings charge by charge, so partial acquittals are common in Army records.

Results by Who Decided Guilt

A military judge alone decided guilt in 13 of 24 cases with the forum listed (54%). Members heard 11: 8 enlisted panels and 3 officer panels. In contested cases, members heard 11 of 21 (52%).

Among the 21 decided contested cases with the forum listed, full acquittals came in 6 of 11 cases decided by members (55%). They came in 0 of 10 contested cases decided by a judge alone (0%). The accused usually chooses the forum, so the cases each one heard are not alike. These small counts do not show how a judge or panel would have decided the other group's cases.

Confinement for the 18 Convictions

18 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge, and 14 of those sentences included confinement (78%). The median was 2.3 years, longer than the 1.8-year median in all Army Article 120 cases in 2021–2026. A quarter of the sentences were 3.8 years or longer.

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

Punitive Discharges and Dismissals

11 of 15 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge: 5 bad-conduct discharges and 6 dishonorable discharges. In all Army Article 120 cases in 2021–2026, the share was 82%.

3 convicted officers or warrant officers appear here, and 3 were dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.

NCOs Were the Largest Group

13 of the accused were NCOs (E-5 to E-9), 10 were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), and 3 were officers or warrant officers. That mix is more senior than Army Article 120 cases overall, where 57% were junior enlisted.

There were 25 general courts-martial and 1 special court-martial. The general share, 96%, is the same as the 96% in the rest of the Army. A general court-martial can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge or dismissal. The single special court-martial was capped at 1 year of confinement and could not impose a dishonorable discharge.

Other Charges

Article 120 was never the only charge in these cases. Besides Article 131b, the most common were Article 128 (assault) in 9 of the 26 cases, Article 92 (orders violation) in 7, Article 134 (general article) in 6, and Article 107 (false official statement) in 5.

Years and Installations

The cases were tried from January 2021 through March 2026. There were 8 in 2021, 6 in 2022, 1 in 2023, 8 in 2024, 2 in 2025, and 1 in 2026, a partial year.

Fort Bragg had 4 cases. Fort Benning and Fort Carson had 3 each, and Joint Base Lewis-McChord and Fort Irwin had 2 each. These five installations account for 54% of the 26 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.

Rules in This Period and Record Limits

Special trial counsel have decided whether to prosecute covered offenses, Article 120 among them, since December 28, 2023. For offenses after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters when every guilty finding falls after that date. Offense dates are not in these records, so a trial from 2024 on may fall under either set of rules.

Missing from the records are the evidence, the plea terms, and any case handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation. 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 120 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.

Compare: federal court. Sexual Abuse of an Adult: Federal Sentences vs. Army Courts-Martial · Obstruction of Justice: Federal Sentences vs. Army Courts-Martial

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.