> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.bodiesburied.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Article 128 With Article 87a in the Army: What the Records Show
- URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-128-and-article-87a-charged-together/
- Published: 2026-10-30T05:28:09.000Z
- Updated: 2026-11-03T01:45:53.000Z
- Description: The Army tried 20 courts-martial from 2021 to 2026 that charged assault under Article 128 along with resisting apprehension under Article 87a. All 20 ended in a conviction, and 95% of the sentences included confinement.
- Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart
- Tags: Understanding Trends, Article 128, Article 87a, Army

[Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [By Offense](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/by-offense/) › [Article 128](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-128-courts-martial/) › Army, with Article 87a

**Short answer:** The Army tried 20 courts-martial from 2021 to 2026 that charged assault under Article 128 along with resisting apprehension under Article 87a. All 20 ended in a conviction, and 95% of the sentences included confinement. The median confinement was 6 months, the same as the Army-wide median for Article 128 cases.

Based on 20 cases · 2021–2026 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

## Confinement in Almost Every Sentence

Confinement was part of 95% of the 20 convictions. Only 1 conviction (5%) had no confinement, compared with 17% across Army-wide Article 128 cases from 2021 to 2026.

The median confinement was 6 months, matching the Army-wide median. A quarter of the terms were 1.7 years or longer. The figures are adjudged sentences, meaning what the court imposed at trial. Plea-agreement caps, clemency, and appeals can change a sentence later, and each sentence covers all the charges in the case.

## Where the Terms Fell

The most common band was under 6 months: 10 of 20 convictions (50%), compared with 42% Army-wide. Terms of 6 months to 1 year made up 20%, compared with 14%.

5 of the 20 convictions (25%) carried more than one year, about as often as the 27% Army-wide. Of those, 4 were in the band of more than 1 year but under 5 years, and 1 was 5 years or more.

| Adjudged confinement            | Convictions | Share here | Share, Army-wide Article 128 cases |
| ------------------------------- | ----------- | ---------- | ---------------------------------- |
| No confinement                  | 1           | 5%         | 17%                                |
| Under 6 months                  | 10          | 50%        | 42%                                |
| 6 months to 1 year              | 4           | 20%        | 14%                                |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 4           | 20%        | 18%                                |
| 5 years or more                 | 1           | 5%         | 9%                                 |

## Guilty Pleas in Most Cases

15 accused pleaded guilty and 5 contested at least one charge, meaning a not-guilty or mixed plea. That is 25% contested, against 37% Army-wide for Article 128 cases.

13 of the 15 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement, and 2 have no entry. Army records show whether there was an agreement but not its terms.

## Few Cases Went to Members

A military judge alone decided guilt in 17 of the 20 cases. Members heard 3, all enlisted panels, which is 15% of the cases with the forum listed. No officer panel heard a case.

In most cases the accused picks the forum. Guilty pleas usually go to a military judge alone, so this split mostly follows the number of contested cases.

## Discharges

Among 20 enlisted members convicted, 14 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (70%). That is the same as the Army-wide share for Article 128 cases (70%). 3 of the 14 were dishonorable discharges. Only a general court-martial can impose a dishonorable discharge. A bad-conduct discharge can come from either a general or a special court-martial.

No officers appear in this group. For enlisted members, a sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out an administrative separation later.

## A Junior Group

By rank, 14 accused were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) and 6 were NCOs (E-5 to E-9). None were officers or warrant officers. Army-wide, 56% of those charged under Article 128 were junior enlisted, so this group is more junior.

General courts-martial heard 14 of the 20 cases (70%); special courts-martial heard the other cases. A general court-martial can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial is limited to one year of confinement and a bad-conduct discharge.

## Charges That Came With These Cases

No case charged Article 128 by itself. Army-wide, 192 of 697 Article 128 cases had no other charge. Besides resisting apprehension, Article 90 (disobeying an officer) was charged in 9 of these cases, Article 134 (general article) in 7, Article 92 (orders violation) in 6, and Article 115 (communicating threats) in 5.

A case is counted under each article it included, so the counts overlap. Because the sentence is a single sentence for all charges, the records cannot show how much of it relates to Article 87a.

## Years and Installations

The 20 cases were tried between March 2021 and July 2026\. The counts by year were 7 in 2021, 2 in 2022, 2 in 2023, 7 in 2024, 1 in 2025, and 1 in 2026, which is a partial year.

Fort Bragg had 5 cases. Vilseck (Europe), Fort Irwin, Kaiserslautern (Europe), and Fort Bliss had 2 each. Together these five installations account for 65% of the cases. A large installation tries more cases of all kinds, so a high count alone does not show a problem at a base.

## Gaps in the Data

These trial records list trial dates only. Offense dates matter for the rule changes of December 2023: special trial counsel now decide whether covered offenses are prosecuted, and new sentencing parameters apply to cases in which every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023\. Trials from 2024 on can fall under either set of rules.

Nothing here describes the evidence or the plea terms, and nonjudicial punishment and administrative separations are left out. Army records in this data are sparse before 2021.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see [Article 128 on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-128/?ref=bodiesburied.com). Dates and sources for the law changes: [UCMJ change timeline](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/ucmj-change-timeline/).

### How We Counted

Army courts-martial with trial dates in 2021–2026 that charged both Article 128 and Article 87a (20 cases), compared with all 697 Army Article 128 cases in those years.

Source: public court-martial records (Article 140a, UCMJ) in [Military Trial Results](https://www.bodiesburied.com/military-trial-results/), data updated October 24, 2026\. Definitions, sources, and known gaps: [how this data was built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/how-the-military-trial-results-data-was-built/). Errors: content@bodiesburied.com.

## Related Analysis

- [Article 128 (Assault): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-128-courts-martial/) (hub)
- [Article 87a (Resisting Apprehension, Numbered Since 2019): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-87a-courts-martial/) (hub)
- [Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-courts-martial/) (hub)
- [Army Cases Charging Both Article 128 and Article 134](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-128-and-article-134-charged-together/)
- [Army Cases Charging Both Article 128 and Article 90](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-128-and-article-90-charged-together/)
- [Army Cases Charging Both Article 128 and Article 92](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-128-and-article-92-charged-together/)
- [Army Courts-Martial With Article 128 and Article 129, 2021–2026](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-128-and-article-129-charged-together/)
- [Army Courts-Martial With Article 128 and Article 80, 2021–2026](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-128-and-article-80-charged-together/)
- [Article 128 With Article 128b in the Army: What the Records Show](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-128-and-article-128b-charged-together/)
- [Article 128 With Article 131b in the Army: What the Records Show](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-128-and-article-131b-charged-together/)
- [Article 128 explained on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-128/?ref=bodiesburied.com)
- [Search every case in Military Trial Results](https://www.bodiesburied.com/military-trial-results/) (members)

**Compare: federal court.** [Aggravated Assault: Federal Sentences vs. Army Courts-Martial](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-aggravated-assault-vs-army/)

**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](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/?ref=bodiesburied.com). This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.