Army Courts-Martial With Article 120 and Article 134, 2021–2026

Trends › By Offense › Article 120 › Army, with Article 134

Based on 74 cases · 2021–2026 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Members and Military Judges Acquitted at Similar Rates

Among the 54 decided contested cases with the forum listed, members acquitted in full 29% of the time and military judges 32%. In this group, the two rates are close.

The accused chooses the forum in most cases, so the cases heard by members and by judges are not alike. These rates describe the cases each one heard, not how either would decide the same case.

Who Heard the Cases

A military judge alone heard 37 cases. Enlisted panels heard 27, and officer panels heard 9. Members heard 49% of the cases, compared with 47% in Army-wide Article 120 cases. In contested cases, members heard 35 of 54 (65%).

Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the split mostly follows how many cases were contested.

Pleas and Verdicts

19 accused pleaded guilty and 55 contested at least one charge. That is 74% contested, compared with 71% in Army Article 120 cases overall. Of the 19 guilty pleas, 16 are recorded with a plea agreement and 3 have no entry. Army records say whether there was an agreement, not what it said.

Of the 55 contested cases that reached a verdict, 17 ended in a full acquittal (31%) and 34 in a partial acquittal (62%). A partial acquittal means 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.

Sentences After a Conviction

57 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge. Of those, 44 sentences included confinement (77%). The median was 2 years, longer than the 1.8-year median in the rest of the Army. A quarter of the sentences were 3.4 years or longer.

Sentences of more than 1 year came in 32 of 57 convictions (56%), the same as the 56% for the rest of the Army. Convictions with no confinement made up 23%, compared with 12% in Army Article 120 cases overall. Terms of more than 1 year but under 5 years made up 42%, compared with 38%. Terms of 5 years or more made up 14%, compared with 19%.

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

Punitive Discharges

Among 50 enlisted members convicted, 38 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (76%). That is less often than in Army-wide Article 120 cases (82%). 25 of the 38 were dishonorable discharges.

7 convicted officers or warrant officers appear in this group, and 5 were dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.

Rank and Court Level

Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 44% of the accused, NCOs 44%, and officers 12%. Across the rest of the Army, junior enlisted members were 57% of those charged under Article 120.

General courts-martial made up 97% of these cases (72 of 74). A general court-martial can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Special courts-martial made up the rest.

Article 120 Alone and With Other Charges

Across the Army as a whole, 197 of 512 Article 120 cases charged Article 120 by itself. In this group, Article 134 was always present. Article 128 (assault) was charged in 40 of the 74 cases, Article 92 (orders violation) in 14, Article 107 (false official statement) in 11, and Article 128b (domestic violence) in 11.

Years and Installations

There were 26 cases in 2021, 17 in 2022, 16 in 2023, 9 in 2024, 4 in 2025, and 2 in 2026, a partial year. The cases run from January 2021 through March 2026.

Fort Bragg had 12 cases, Fort Hood 9, Fort Campbell 8, Joint Base Lewis-McChord 7, and Fort Stewart 5. These five installations account for 55% of the 74 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.

Limits of These Records

Article 120 is a covered offense, which special trial counsel have decided whether to prosecute since December 28, 2023. The records give trial dates, not offense dates, so trials from 2024 on mix old-rule and new-rule cases. The records do not describe the evidence or plea terms, and they leave out nonjudicial punishment and administrative separation.

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

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.