How Army Larceny Cases Ended in 2025

Trends › By Offense › Article 121 › Army, 2025

Based on 26 cases · 2025 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Most Sentences Were Under 6 Months

20 of the 25 convictions included confinement. The median confinement was 3 months, and a quarter of the sentences were 8 months or longer. 14 convictions (56%) were sentenced to under 6 months, compared with 36% across the Army in 2025.

The figures are adjudged sentences, meaning what was announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence covers every charge in a case, not the theft charge alone.

Sentences Longer Than One Year

3 of 25 convictions (12%) were sentenced to more than one year of confinement. For all Army cases in 2025, that share was 30%. 2 sentences were 5 years or more, and 1 was a life sentence.

5 convictions (20%) had no confinement, close to the 19% Army-wide.

General and Special Courts-Martial

A court-martial in these records is either general or special. A general court-martial may impose any lawful punishment, including a dishonorable discharge or long confinement. A special court-martial is capped at one year of confinement and can impose a bad-conduct discharge but not a dishonorable one.

In 2025, 12 of these larceny cases were general courts-martial and 14 were special courts-martial. The general share was 46%, lower than the 66% for all Army cases that year. At general courts-martial, 91% of convictions included confinement, and the median was 6 months. At special courts-martial, 71% did, and the median was 3 months.

Guilty Pleas and Contested Cases

20 of 26 cases were guilty pleas and 6 were contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share was 23%, close to the 20% for the Army as a whole.

19 of the 20 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement, and 1 has no entry. Army records say whether an agreement existed, not its terms. 1 of the 6 contested cases ended in a full acquittal.

Punitive Discharges

A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge for an enlisted member, or a dismissal for an officer. 16 of 24 convicted enlisted members received one (67%), and 2 of those were dishonorable discharges. Across the Army in 2025, the share was 73%.

1 officer or warrant officer was convicted and was dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge can still be followed by an administrative separation, which these records do not show.

What Changed Since 2024?

The records show 32 larceny cases in 2024 and 26 in 2025. The contested share was 3% in 2024, compared with 23% in 2025. The median confinement went from 2 months to 3 months. Punitive discharges for convicted enlisted members went from 59% to 67%.

The general court-martial share went from 34% to 46% of cases. In groups this small, a few cases can change these percentages, so the changes show direction, not precise size.

Rank and Other Charges

NCOs were 69% of the accused, junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) 23%, and officers 8%. For all Army cases in 2025, junior enlisted members were 50%.

Article 121 was the only charge in 9 of 26 cases. The most common other charge was Article 107 (false official statement), in 8 cases. Article 134 (general article), Article 92 (orders violation), and Article 80 (attempt) were each charged in 4, and Article 120 (sexual assault) in 3.

Panels, Judges, and Installations

The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. Here, 21 cases were judge alone, and 19% of cases with the forum listed went to members: 4 enlisted panels and 1 officer panel. Guilty pleas are usually heard by a military judge alone, so this split mostly follows the number of guilty pleas.

Fort Hood had the most cases, 4. Camp Henry had 3, and Fort Lee, Fort Stewart, and Vilseck (Europe) had 2 each. Those 5 locations account for 50% of the 26 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so these counts do not show a problem at any one installation.

Rule Changes and Gaps in the Record

Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses. When every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters. Both rules depend on the offense date, which the records do not give. The 2025 trials may therefore include cases under both the old and new rules.

The records also do not show the evidence, the plea terms, or any theft handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative action instead of a court-martial.

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.