Article 134 With Article 93a in the Army: What the Records Show

Trends › By Offense › Article 134 › Army, with Article 93a

Based on 10 cases · 2021–2026 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Every Accused Was an NCO

The records list 10 NCOs (E-5 to E-9) among the 10 accused, with 0 junior enlisted members and 0 officers or warrant officers. Across all Army Article 134 cases in 2021–2026, 54% of the accused were junior enlisted (E-1 to E-4). This group was more senior than the Army-wide comparison group.

Confinement Terms Were Short

All 10 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge, and 9 of the 10 sentences included confinement. The median confinement was 2 months, shorter than the 1 year median for all Army Article 134 cases in 2021–2026. Among the sentences with confinement, a quarter were 4 months or longer.

These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each one covers every charge in the case, not only the articles named in the title.

Bad-Conduct Discharges Only

5 of the 10 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge (50%). All 5 were bad-conduct discharges, and 0 were dishonorable. In Army Article 134 cases overall, the share with a punitive discharge was 80%.

A sentence with no punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.

General and Special Courts-Martial

The cases divided evenly by court level: 5 general courts-martial and 5 special courts-martial. The general share, 50%, is lower than the 84% across all Army Article 134 cases in 2021–2026.

A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.

Guilty Pleas and Who Decided Guilt

9 of the 10 accused pleaded guilty, and 1 contested at least one charge. The contested share was 10%, compared with 23% across Army Article 134 cases overall.

A military judge alone decided guilt in 9 of 10 cases (90%). Members heard 1 case, and it was an officer panel. No enlisted panel heard a case in this group.

The Other Charges

Article 93a appeared in all 10 cases, since that defines the group. Article 92 (orders violation) appeared in 5 cases, Article 107 (false official statement) in 3, Article 131b (obstruction) in 2, and Article 120 (sexual assault) in 1.

Trial Dates and Rule Changes

The trials ran from May 2021 to February 2026. There were 2 in 2021, 2 in 2022, 2 in 2023, 1 in 2024, 1 in 2025, and 2 in 2026, which is a partial year.

Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault. When every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters. The records give trial dates, not offense dates, so trials from 2024 on cannot be sorted into old-rule and new-rule cases.

What These Records Leave Out

Only cases that reached a court-martial are counted. Nonjudicial punishment, administrative separations, and cases with no action are not included. The records also do not describe the evidence or the plea terms.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 134 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.

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.