Pleading Guilty to Article 133 in the Army: What Sentences Followed?
Army records hold 25 guilty-plea courts-martial from 2021–2025 that included Article 133 (conduct unbecoming), and every accused was an officer. Only 7 of the 25 convictions included confinement, and the median was 2 months.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 133 › Pleading Guilty to Article 133 in the Ar
Short answer: Army records hold 25 guilty-plea courts-martial from 2021–2025 that included Article 133 (conduct unbecoming), and every accused was an officer. Only 7 of the 25 convictions included confinement, and the median was 2 months. 18 convictions (72%) had no confinement, compared with 14% across all Army guilty pleas.
Every Accused Was an Officer
Article 133 makes conduct unbecoming an officer a crime. By rank, the accused were 0 junior enlisted members, 0 NCOs, and 25 officers. The group is entirely officers, so it is more senior than all Army guilty pleas in those years.
This affects every comparison on this page. The comparison group, all Army guilty pleas in those years, includes enlisted members of every grade. The differences below compare officers who pleaded guilty with a group that is mostly enlisted.
Most Convictions Had No Confinement
Of 25 convictions, 18 (72%) had no confinement. Across all Army guilty pleas in those years, 14% had no confinement.
7 sentences included confinement. Their median was 2 months, compared with 5 months for Army guilty pleas. Of those 7, 5 were under 6 months and 2 were 6 months to 1 year.
0 of the 25 convictions were sentenced to more than one year, compared with 24% across Army guilty pleas. These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Army guilty pleas in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 18 | 72% | 14% |
| Under 6 months | 5 | 20% | 44% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 2 | 8% | 18% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 0 | 0% | 17% |
| 5 years or more | 0 | 0% | 6% |
Most Cases Were General Courts-Martial
General courts-martial decided 22 of the 24 cases with a court level listed (92%). The court level is not listed for 1 case. A general court-martial can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge or dismissal. Special courts-martial decided the other cases. A special court-martial can impose no more than one year of confinement and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence. Even so, no sentence here was longer than one year, and most had no confinement. The records do not show why a case went to one court level or the other.
For officers, the punitive separation is a dismissal, not a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. The figures for this page do not include a count of dismissals, so this page cannot describe that result.
Other Charges in the Same Cases
In 16 of the 25 cases, at least 1 other article was charged with Article 133. Article 128 (assault) and Article 134 (the general article) were each charged in 8 cases. Article 92 (orders violation) was charged in 4, Article 93 (maltreatment) in 3, and Article 107 (false official statement) in 2.
A sentence covers every charge, so the results above describe the full case. The records do not divide a sentence among the articles.
Plea Agreements and Forum
All 25 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement. Army records show that an agreement existed, not its terms. Any limits an agreement placed on the sentence are not shown in the adjudged figures.
A military judge alone decided all 25 cases. There were 0 enlisted panels and 0 officer panels. That is the usual pattern for guilty pleas. The accused usually chooses a judge to accept the plea and set the sentence. Every case in this group is a guilty plea, so none was contested.
Years and Installations
Trials took place from February 2021 through June 2025. There were 5 in 2021, 1 in 2022, 9 in 2023, 6 in 2024, and 4 in 2025. With numbers this small, a change of a few cases changes the yearly totals a great deal.
Fort Bragg had 4 cases and Fort Knox had 3. Fort Hood, Fort Polk, and Wheeler Army Airfield had 2 each. Together these five installations account for 52% of the 25 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.
Rule Changes During the Period
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 in a case 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 these records do not include. Trials from 2024 on therefore include cases under the old rules and the new rules. The records cannot show whether either change affected these results. The services were required to begin publishing trial records under Article 140a by December 2020, and Army records are sparse before 2021.
What the Records Do Not Show
The records do not show the evidence or the plea terms. They do not include officer misconduct handled through nonjudicial punishment or administrative action.
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 133 (conduct unbecoming) (25 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 133 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Sentences (hub)
- Army Article 133 Cases by the Numbers, 2021–2025
- How Much Confinement for an Article 133 Conviction in the Army?
- When Navy-Marine Corps Accused Plead Guilty to Conduct Unbecoming (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.