Article 120 With Article 92 in the Army: What the Records Show

Trends › By Offense › Article 120 › Army, with Article 92

Based on 58 cases · 2021–2026 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Shorter Sentences Than Most Article 120 Cases

Confinement was part of 77% of the 47 convictions. Half of those terms were 1 year or less. In Army Article 120 cases overall, the median was 1.8 years. A quarter of the terms were 5 years or longer, and 1 was a life sentence.

Sentences of more than 1 year came in 17 of 47 convictions (36%), against 56% across Army Article 120 cases. These are adjudged sentences, set at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case.

The Spread of Sentence Lengths

Terms of more than 1 year but under 5 years made up 17% of convictions, compared with 38% in Army-wide Article 120 cases. Terms of 5 years or more made up 19% in both groups.

Short or no confinement was more common. 23% of convictions had no confinement, compared with 12%. Terms under 6 months made up 28%, compared with 17%. Terms of 6 months to 1 year made up 13%, compared with 14%.

Fewer Punitive Discharges Than Army-Wide

22 of 44 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge: 9 bad-conduct discharges and 13 dishonorable discharges. In the rest of the Army, the share for Article 120 cases was 82%.

3 convicted officers or warrant officers appear here, and 1 was dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.

NCOs Made Up the Largest Group

32 of the accused were NCOs (E-5 to E-9). 22 were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), and 4 were officers or warrant officers. That mix is more senior than the Army as a whole, where 57% of those charged under Article 120 were junior enlisted.

Article 93 (maltreatment) was charged in 10 of the 58 cases. Other common charges were Article 128 (assault) in 24, Article 134 (general article) in 14, and Article 131b (obstruction) in 7.

Pleas and Contested Verdicts

Contested cases numbered 46, against 12 guilty pleas, for a contested share of 79%. Army Article 120 cases overall had a contested share of 71%. A plea agreement is recorded for 7 of the 12 guilty pleas, and the other 5 have no entry. The records note only whether an agreement existed.

A full acquittal, meaning not guilty on every charge, came in 11 of the 46 contested cases that reached a verdict (24%). Across Army Article 120 cases overall, that rate was 45%. Partial acquittals, with guilty findings on some charges and not guilty on others, came in 29 (63%). The Army lists findings charge by charge, and partial acquittals are common in its records.

Who Decided Guilt

A military judge alone decided guilt in 30 of 58 cases with the forum listed (52%). Members heard 28: 23 enlisted panels and 5 officer panels. In contested cases, members heard 27 of 46 (59%).

Split by who decided guilt, full acquittals came in 7 of 27 contested cases heard by members (26%) and 4 of 19 contested cases heard by a judge alone (21%). The accused usually chooses the forum, so the cases heard by members and by judges are not alike.

Court Level

There were 54 general courts-martial and 4 special courts-martial. The general share, 93%, compares with 96% in the Army as a whole. Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than 1 year of confinement or a dishonorable discharge.

Years and Installations

There were 25 cases in 2021 and 17 in 2022. The count was 8 in 2023, 5 in 2024, 2 in 2025, and 1 in 2026, a partial year.

Fort Hood had the most cases (11), followed by Fort Bragg (8), Camp Humphreys (6), Joint Base Lewis-McChord (6), and Vilseck (Europe) (4). These five installations account for 60% of the 58 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.

What the Records Leave Out

Article 120 is a covered offense. Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel decide whether to prosecute it, and new sentencing parameters apply to offenses after December 27, 2023. The records give trial dates, not offense dates, so they cannot show which rules applied. They also 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.