Army Courts-Martial With Article 120b and Article 92, 2021–2025
10 Army courts-martial from 2021–2025 charged both child sexual abuse under Article 120b and an orders violation under Article 92. Every case ended in a conviction with confinement, and the median confinement was 2.6 years, shorter than the 4.1 years for all Army Article 120b cases.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 4 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 120b › Army, with Article 92
Short answer: 10 Army courts-martial from 2021–2025 charged both child sexual abuse under Article 120b and an orders violation under Article 92. Every case ended in a conviction with confinement, and the median confinement was 2.6 years, shorter than the 4.1 years for all Army Article 120b cases.
Shorter Median Confinement Than Other Article 120b Cases
Confinement was part of 100% of the 10 convictions. The median confinement was 2.6 years. Across Army-wide Article 120b cases, the median was 4.1 years. A quarter of the sentences in this group were 6 years or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence covers every charge in the case.
NCOs Were 60% of the Accused
NCOs made up 60% of the accused and junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 40%. No officers appear. Across all Army Article 120b cases in 2021–2025, junior enlisted members were 63%, so this group was more senior.
Contested Cases
Among the 10 accused, 6 contested the charges and 4 pleaded guilty. Contesting here means a not-guilty plea to at least one charge, either alone or mixed with guilty pleas to others. The contested share of 60% was higher than the 37% for Army-wide Article 120b cases.
Dishonorable Discharges Were the Usual Result
9 of 10 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge: 8 dishonorable and 1 bad-conduct. In Army-wide Article 120b cases, the share was 96%.
A dishonorable discharge can be adjudged only at a general court-martial. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Military Judge or Members
Enlisted panels decided 2 cases, and a military judge sitting alone decided 8. There were no officer panels. At 20%, the members share was about the same as the 22% for Army-wide Article 120b cases. In most cases the choice of forum belongs to the accused.
Other Charges
All 10 cases charged at least 1 other article besides Article 120b. Article 134, the general article, appeared in 4. Article 128, assault, and Article 120, sexual assault, each appeared in 3. Article 87a, resisting apprehension, appeared in 2.
Trial Years
The records show trials from March 2021 to December 2025: 4 in 2021, 2 in 2022, 2 in 2023, 1 in 2024, and 1 in 2025. Army records in this data are sparse before 2021.
What the Records Cannot Tell
The trials in 2024 and 2025 took place after the December 2023 rule changes. Under those changes, special trial counsel rather than commanders make prosecution decisions for covered offenses, including sexual assault, starting December 28, 2023. The judge sets the sentence under new parameters when all guilty findings involve offenses after December 27, 2023. Because the records list trial dates and not offense dates, they cannot show which set of rules governed those later trials.
The records also do not show the evidence, the plea terms, or conduct handled outside a court-martial, and they do not report the court level for this group.
For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 120b on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Army courts-martial with trial dates in 2021–2025 that charged both Article 120b and Article 92 (10 cases), compared with all 222 Army Article 120b cases in those years.
Source: public court-martial records (Article 140a, UCMJ) in Military Trial Results, data updated October 24, 2026. Definitions, sources, and known gaps: how this data was built. Errors: content@bodiesburied.com.
Related Analysis
- Article 120b (Rape and Sexual Assault of a Child): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 120b and Article 128
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 120b and Article 128b
- Army Courts-Martial With Article 120b and Article 134, 2021–2026
- Article 120b With Article 131b in the Army: What the Records Show
- Article 120b With Article 80 in the Army: What the Records Show
- Article 120b With Article 82 in the Army: What the Records Show
- Navy-Marine Corps Courts-Martial With Article 120b and Article 134, 2021–2026
- Article 120b explained on the law firm's website
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Compare: federal court. Child Sexual Abuse and Enticement: 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.