Article 121 With Article 92 in the Army: What the Records Show

Trends › By Offense › Article 121 › Army, with Article 92

Based on 27 cases · 2021–2026 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Mostly General Courts-Martial

Of the 27 cases, 19 were general courts-martial and 8 were special courts-martial. The general share, 70%, is higher than the 46% for all Army Article 121 cases from 2021 to 2026.

The court level sets the maximum sentence. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge or dismissal. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and can impose a bad-conduct discharge but not a dishonorable discharge.

Confinement and the Median Term

Every case in this group ended in a conviction, and confinement was part of 81% of the 27 convictions. The median term was 5 months. In all Army Article 121 cases, the median was 3 months. A quarter of the terms here were 10 months or longer, and 1 was a life sentence.

These are adjudged sentences, as announced at trial. They come before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and each covers every charge in the case, so a term reflects more than the larceny alone.

Sentence Bands Compared

4 of the 27 convictions (15%) carried more than one year of confinement, compared with 9% across all Army Article 121 cases. Terms of 5 years or more and terms of more than 1 year but under 5 years each made up 7%, compared with 4% each in the wider group.

Terms of 6 months to 1 year made up 22%, compared with 14%. Terms under 6 months were less common here: 44%, compared with 57%. Convictions with no confinement made up 19%, close to the 20% in the wider group.

Pleas and Plea Agreements

19 accused pleaded guilty and 8 contested the case. A contested case is one with a not-guilty plea or a mixed plea to at least one charge. The contested share, 30%, is higher than the 15% for all Army Article 121 cases.

18 of the 19 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement, and 1 has no entry. Army records show only whether an agreement existed, not what it contained.

Who Decided Guilt

A military judge alone decided guilt in 23 of the 27 cases (85%). Members heard 4, all enlisted panels. No officer panel heard a case in this group.

The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the split mostly follows how many cases were contested. The records list 8 contested cases and 4 cases heard by members.

Discharges and Dismissals

Among 24 enlisted members convicted, 15 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (62%). That is about as often as in all Army Article 121 cases (65%). Only 1 of the 15 was a dishonorable discharge.

3 convicted officers or warrant officers appear in these records, and 2 were dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out an administrative separation later.

Rank and Other Charges

By rank, 11 accused were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 13 were NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 3 were officers or warrant officers. This mix is similar to all Army Article 121 cases, where 41% were junior enlisted.

Article 112a (drug) appeared in 10 of the 27 cases. Article 128b (domestic violence) appeared in 7, Article 107 (false official statement) in 6, and Article 134 (general article) in 6. These counts overlap, since a case counts under each article it included.

Years and Installations

The cases were tried from March 2021 through May 2026. There were 9 in 2021, 5 in 2022, 2 in 2023, 5 in 2024, 4 in 2025, and 2 in 2026, a partial year.

Fort Bragg had 4 cases. Wheeler Army Airfield, Fort Bliss, Fort Riley, and Fort Polk had 2 each. These five installations account for 44% of the cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.

What the Records Cannot Show

The records give trial dates, not offense dates. That gap matters for the rule changes of December 2023. Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses. New sentencing parameters apply when every guilty finding in a case is for an offense after December 27, 2023. Trials from 2024 on therefore mix cases under old and new rules.

The evidence, the plea terms, nonjudicial punishment, and administrative separations are all outside these records. Army records in this data are sparse before 2021.

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.