Army Cases Charging Both Article 131b and Article 92
From 2021 to 2026, 28 Army courts-martial charged obstruction of justice under Article 131b together with an orders violation under Article 92. The median confinement was 3 months, shorter than the 7 months across Army Article 131b cases overall.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 131b › Army, with Article 92
Short answer: From 2021 to 2026, 28 Army courts-martial charged obstruction of justice under Article 131b together with an orders violation under Article 92. The median confinement was 3 months, shorter than the 7 months across Army Article 131b cases overall. 13 of 26 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 66% in the wider group.
A Short Median Term
26 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge, and 22 of those sentences included confinement (85%). The median confinement was 3 months. In Army Article 131b cases overall from 2021 to 2026, it was 7 months.
Terms under 6 months made up 50% of convictions, compared with 35% in the wider group. Convictions with no confinement made up 15% in both groups. These are adjudged sentences, given at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and each covers every charge in the case.
Fewer Sentences Over 1 Year
6 of the 26 convictions (23%) carried more than one year of confinement, compared with 35% in Army Article 131b cases overall. Terms of more than 1 year but under 5 years made up 19%, compared with 23%. Only 1 conviction (4%) was 5 years or more, compared with 12%.
Terms of 6 months to 1 year made up 12%, compared with 15%. Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than one year of confinement; a special court-martial is capped at one year.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Army Article 131b cases in 2021–2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 4 | 15% | 15% |
| Under 6 months | 13 | 50% | 35% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 3 | 12% | 15% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 5 | 19% | 23% |
| 5 years or more | 1 | 4% | 12% |
Punitive Discharges
Of 26 convicted enlisted members, 13 received a punitive discharge: 10 bad-conduct and 3 dishonorable. In Army Article 131b cases overall, 66% of convicted enlisted members received one.
No officers appear in this group, so there are no dismissals. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these records do not cover.
More NCOs Than Junior Enlisted
18 of the accused were NCOs (E-5 to E-9) and 10 were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4). No officers or warrant officers were charged in these cases. In Army Article 131b cases overall, 44% of the accused were junior enlisted, so this group is more senior.
General courts-martial heard 22 of the 28 cases (79%), compared with 75% in Army Article 131b cases overall. A special court-martial cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
Pleas and Verdicts
Contested cases made up 36% of those with a plea recorded: 10 not-guilty or mixed pleas and 18 guilty pleas. In Army Article 131b cases overall, the contested share was 41%. 15 of the 18 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement, and 3 have no entry. The records do not show the agreement terms.
Of the 10 contested cases that reached a verdict, 2 ended in a full acquittal. That 20% rate is lower than the 35% in Army Article 131b cases overall. 6 ended in a partial acquittal, a finding of not guilty on at least one charge or specification and guilty on another. Army results list findings charge by charge.
Members Heard 3 Cases
Members heard 11% of the cases with the forum listed: 3 enlisted panels and no officer panels. A military judge alone decided the other 25. Among the 10 contested cases, members heard 3 (30%).
The accused usually chooses the forum. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the split mostly follows how many cases were contested.
Other Charges
Obstruction was never the only charge in these cases. Across the rest of the Army, 3 of 128 Article 131b cases had no other charge. Besides Article 92, the most common other charges were Article 120 (sexual assault) in 7, Article 128 (assault) in 6, Article 107 (false official statement) in 6, and Article 134 (general article) in 6.
Years and Installations
The 28 cases were tried from January 2021 through September 2026: 7 in 2021, 9 in 2022, 3 in 2023, 6 in 2024, 1 in 2025, and 2 in 2026, a partial year.
Fort Knox had 5 cases and Fort Bragg had 4. Fort Lee and Fort Carson had 3 each, and Fort Hood had 2. These five installations account for 61% of the cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a high count alone does not point to a problem at a base.
Limits of This Data
The records give trial dates, not offense dates. Special trial counsel have decided since December 28, 2023, whether to prosecute covered offenses, and new sentencing parameters apply when every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023. Trials from 2024 on therefore include cases under both old and new rules.
The evidence, the plea terms, and conduct handled through nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation are not in the records. Army records in this data are sparse before 2021.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Army courts-martial with trial dates in 2021–2026 that charged both Article 131b and Article 92 (28 cases), compared with all 128 Army Article 131b cases 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 131b (Obstruction, Numbered Since 2019): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- Army Courts-Martial With Article 131b and Article 134, 2021–2026
- Article 131b With Article 92 in the Navy and Marine Corps: What the Records Show
- Navy-Marine Corps Cases Charging Both Article 131b and Article 134
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 120
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 121
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 131b
- Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 80
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Compare: federal court. Obstruction of Justice: 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.