Larceny at Army Courts-Martial, 2021: The Year in Numbers

Trends › By Offense › Article 121 › Army, 2021

Based on 41 cases · 2021 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Most Larceny Cases Ended in a Guilty Plea

Of 41 accused, 35 pleaded guilty and 6 contested at least one charge. A case counts as contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share was 15%, lower than the 36% for all Army cases in 2021.

34 of the 35 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement, and 1 has no entry. Army records show whether an agreement existed, not its terms. Any cap on confinement in an agreement does not appear here.

In 2021, most larceny cases ended in a guilty plea with a plea agreement. The records show 41 convictions in the 41 cases.

How Much Confinement?

71% of the 41 convictions included confinement. The median confinement was 5 months. A quarter of the sentences were 7 months or longer. For all Army cases in 2021, the median was 6 months.

12 convictions (29%) had no confinement, compared with 19% for the Army. The most common sentence length was under 6 months, in 18 convictions (44%). 10 convictions (24%) were sentenced to 6 months to 1 year. 1 conviction (2%) was sentenced to more than one year, compared with 26% for the Army, and that sentence was 5 years or more.

The sentences shown are adjudged sentences. They were set at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and each covers every charge in the case.

Bad-Conduct Discharges Only

64% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 70% for all Army cases in 2021. All 25 were bad-conduct discharges. No dishonorable discharge appears in this group.

A bad-conduct discharge is the less severe form of punitive discharge for enlisted members, and a special court-martial can adjudge it. 1 of 2 convicted officers or warrant officers was dismissed, which is the officer equivalent. A member whose sentence has no punitive discharge can still face administrative separation later.

Court Level

General courts-martial, the level that can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge, made up 49% of these cases (20 of 41). The other 21 cases were special courts-martial, which are capped at one year of confinement.

At general courts-martial, 85% of convictions included confinement, and the median was 5 months. At special courts-martial, 57% did, and the median was 4 months. The medians were close. The share of convictions with any confinement was higher at general courts-martial.

Other Charges in the Same Cases

3 of the 41 cases charged Article 121 by itself. Article 107 (false official statement) was the most common other charge, in 13 cases. Article 92 (orders violation) was charged in 9, Article 134 (general article) in 8, and Article 108 (military property) and Article 112a (drug) in 6 each.

Each sentence covers every finding in a case. The sentences above include these other charges as well as the larceny.

Rank of the Accused

By rank, 20 accused were NCOs, 19 were junior enlisted, and 2 were officers. That makes this group more senior than all Army cases in 2021.

Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) and NCOs (E-5 to E-9) appear in nearly equal numbers. The records list rank at trial. They do not show duty position or access to the property involved.

Forum and Installations

The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. A military judge alone decided 38 of 41 cases (93%), and members heard 3, all enlisted panels. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the split mostly follows the number of guilty pleas.

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson tried 5 of these cases. Fort Benning and Camp Humphreys tried 4 each, and Fort Hood and Fort Bliss 3 each. Together they account for 46% of the 41 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a count alone does not single out a base.

The First Year of Records

The services were required to begin publishing trial records under Article 140a by December 2020, and Army records in this data are sparse before 2021. This post therefore has no earlier year for comparison.

These records cover only what reached a courtroom. Thefts resolved by nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action do not appear. The records do not describe the evidence or the plea terms.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 121 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.

Compare: federal court. Theft and Fraud: 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.