Pleading Guilty to Article 129 in the Army: What Sentences Followed?
In 27 Army courts-martial from 2021–2025, the accused pleaded guilty to charges that included Article 129 (burglary and unlawful entry). The median adjudged confinement was 8 months, compared with 5 months in all Army guilty pleas in those years.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 129 › Pleading Guilty to Article 129 in the Ar
Short answer: In 27 Army courts-martial from 2021–2025, the accused pleaded guilty to charges that included Article 129 (burglary and unlawful entry). The median adjudged confinement was 8 months, compared with 5 months in all Army guilty pleas in those years. A punitive discharge followed 92% of the enlisted convictions, compared with 75% across Army guilty pleas.
Longer Confinement Than Other Army Guilty Pleas
This page covers guilty pleas only. In each of the 27 cases, the accused pleaded guilty to charges that included Article 129, the article for burglary and unlawful entry. Each case ended in a conviction. The comparison group is therefore all Army guilty pleas, not all Army cases.
Confinement was part of 24 of the 27 sentences (89%). The median confinement was 8 months, compared with 5 months in all Army guilty pleas in those years. A quarter of these sentences were 2.2 years or longer.
These are adjudged sentences: the sentence announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case, not only the Article 129 charge.
Confinement by Length
Sentences under 6 months were less common here: 26%, compared with 44% in Army guilty pleas overall. Sentences of 6 months to 1 year were more common: 37%, compared with 18%. Sentences of 5 years or more were 19% of these convictions, compared with 6% across all Army guilty pleas.
Sentences longer than one year were about as common as in the comparison group: 7 of 27 convictions (26%), compared with 24%. Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than one year of confinement. A special court-martial is limited to one year.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Army guilty pleas in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 3 | 11% | 14% |
| Under 6 months | 7 | 26% | 44% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 10 | 37% | 18% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 2 | 7% | 17% |
| 5 years or more | 5 | 19% | 6% |
Other Charges in Every Case
All 27 of the 27 cases charged at least 1 other article with Article 129. No case charged burglary alone. The sentence in each case covers all of its charges.
The most common other charges were Article 121 (larceny) in 9 cases, Article 80 (attempt) in 8, Article 128 (assault) in 8, Article 134 (the general article) in 6, and Article 92 (orders violation) in 5.
Discharges and Dismissals
For enlisted members, a punitive discharge is a bad-conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge. For officers, the equivalent is a dismissal.
A punitive discharge followed 92% of the enlisted convictions: 18 bad-conduct discharges and 4 dishonorable discharges. Across all Army guilty pleas in those years, the share was 75%.
The group includes 3 convicted officers or warrant officers, and all 3 were sentenced to dismissal. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation. These records do not cover administrative separations.
Court Level and Rank
The court level sets the maximum punishment. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge or dismissal. A special court-martial can impose no more than one year of confinement and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
Of these 27 cases, 22 were general courts-martial and 5 were special courts-martial. The general court-martial share was 81%, compared with 68% in all Army guilty pleas in those years.
By rank, junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) were 67% of the accused, NCOs were 22%, and officers were 11%. Across all Army guilty pleas, junior enlisted members were 60%.
Pleas and Who Decided
A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. This group is defined by a guilty plea, so none of the 27 cases was contested.
Army records show whether a plea agreement existed. They do not show its terms, so the records cannot show whether a sentence cap applied.
A military judge alone decided all 27 cases. No enlisted or officer panel decided any of them. Members decided 0% of cases in all Army guilty pleas as well. The accused usually chooses the forum, and guilty pleas are usually heard by a judge alone.
Years and Installations
The cases were tried from January 2021 through April 2025. There were 6 in 2021, 9 in 2022, 6 in 2023, 4 in 2024, and 2 in 2025. The 2025 count covers part of the year.
Fort Campbell (3), Fort Riley (3), Fort Wainwright (2), Joint Base Lewis-McChord (2), and Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (2) had the most cases. Together they account for 44% of the 27. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so these counts do not show a problem at any one installation.
Rule Changes in the Same Years
Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. When every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters.
Both changes depend on the offense date, which the records do not give. Trials from 2024 on therefore include cases under the old rules and the new rules. The services were required to begin publishing trial records under Article 140a by December 2020. Army records in this data are sparse before 2021.
What the Records Do Not Show
These figures cover only cases that went to a court-martial. Cases handled by nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action are not included. The records also do not describe the evidence, the facts of each case, or the terms of the plea agreements.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Army courts-martial tried 2021–2025: where the accused pleaded guilty to charges including Article 129 (burglary and unlawful entry) (27 cases), compared with all Army guilty pleas 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 129 (Burglary Before 2019, Burglary and Unlawful Entry Since): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Sentences (hub)
- How Has Article 129 Changed in Army Courts-Martial Since 2021?
- What Sentence Follows an Army Burglary and Unlawful Entry Conviction?
- Pleading Guilty to Article 129 in the Navy-Marine Corps: What Sentences Followed? (another service)
- Guilty Pleas in Army Child Endangerment Cases: How Often, and What Came Next
- Guilty Pleas in Army Communicating Threats Cases: How Often, and What Came Next
- Guilty Pleas in Army Conspiracy Cases: How Often, and What Came Next
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
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.