> ## 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.

# Army Cases Charging Both Article 86 and Article 90
- URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-86-and-article-90-charged-together/
- Published: 2026-10-30T05:27:59.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-30T08:17:42.000Z
- Description: From 2021–2025, 24 Army courts-martial charged both Article 86 (AWOL) and Article 90 (disobeying an officer). The median confinement was 4 months, the same as in all Army Article 86 cases.
- Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart
- Tags: Understanding Trends, Article 86, Article 90, Army

[Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [By Offense](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/by-offense/) › [Article 86](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-86-courts-martial/) › Army, with Article 90

**Short answer:** From 2021–2025, 24 Army courts-martial charged both Article 86 (AWOL) and Article 90 (disobeying an officer). The median confinement was 4 months, the same as in all Army Article 86 cases. Punitive discharges were less common: 57% of convicted enlisted members received one, compared with 65% for Army Article 86 cases.

Based on 24 cases · 2021–2025 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

## Confinement Matched Other AWOL Cases

All 24 cases ended in a conviction, and confinement was part of 79% of the sentences. Half of the confinement terms were 4 months or less. The median for all Army Article 86 cases in 2021–2025 was also 4 months. A quarter of the terms here were 8 months or longer.

Confinement of more than one year was rare. It appears in 2 of the 24 convictions (8%), the same share as in all Army Article 86 cases. Half of the convictions (50%) carried confinement under 6 months, and 5 (21%) carried none. Terms from 6 months to 1 year were somewhat more common here: 21% of convictions, compared with 15% for all Army Article 86 cases.

| Adjudged confinement            | Convictions | Share here | Share, Army-wide Article 86 cases |
| ------------------------------- | ----------- | ---------- | --------------------------------- |
| No confinement                  | 5           | 21%        | 23%                               |
| Under 6 months                  | 12          | 50%        | 54%                               |
| 6 months to 1 year              | 5           | 21%        | 15%                               |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 1           | 4%         | 4%                                |
| 5 years or more                 | 1           | 4%         | 4%                                |

## General and Special Courts-Martial Split Evenly

There were 12 general courts-martial and 12 special courts-martial. A general court-martial can adjudge any lawful sentence, including a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial is limited to one year of confinement and cannot adjudge a dishonorable discharge.

Median confinement was 7 months at the general courts-martial and 3 months at the special courts-martial. The general courts-martial were also contested more often: 33% compared with 17%.

Since 2019, a special court-martial can also be tried by a military judge alone. In that form, confinement is capped at six months and no punitive discharge is allowed. These figures do not give a separate count for that form.

## Discharges and Dismissals

Of 21 convicted enlisted members, 12 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (57%). In all Army Article 86 cases, the share was 65%. Only 2 of the 12 were dishonorable discharges.

The records include 3 convicted officers or warrant officers, and 1 of them was dismissed, which is the officer form of a punitive discharge. A sentence with no punitive discharge can still be followed by an administrative separation.

## Pleas and Plea Agreements

Of the 24 accused, 18 pleaded guilty and 6 contested at least one charge with a not-guilty or mixed plea. The contested share was 25%, the same as in all Army Article 86 cases.

The records show a plea agreement for 16 of the 18 guilty pleas, and 2 have no entry. Army records say whether an agreement was in place, but not what it said.

## Who Decided Guilt

A military judge alone decided guilt in 19 of the 24 cases (79%). Members heard 5 cases: 4 enlisted panels and 1 officer panel. The accused usually chooses between a military judge and members. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the forum numbers mostly follow how many cases were contested.

## Who Was Charged and What Else

By rank, the accused were 9 junior enlisted members, 12 NCOs, and 3 officers. That group is more senior than the Army as a whole.

Every case had at least one other charge besides Article 86\. Besides Article 90, the most frequent were Article 89 (disrespect) in 7 cases, Article 134 (general article) in 6, Article 128 (assault) in 6, and Article 107 (false official statement) in 5\. Each sentence covers all the charges in the case.

## Years and Installations

The cases were tried from February 2021 through July 2025\. By year, there were 6 in 2021, 5 in 2022, 5 in 2023, 7 in 2024, and 1 in 2025\. Army records in this data are sparse before 2021.

Joint Base Lewis-McChord and Fort Bragg each tried 4 cases. Fort Riley tried 3, and Kaiserslautern (Europe) and Wheeler Army Airfield tried 2 each. These five installations account for 62% of the 24 cases. Larger installations try more cases overall.

## Limits of the Data

The sentences here are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel decide whether to prosecute covered offenses, and when every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence under new sentencing parameters. The records list trial dates, not offense dates, so they cannot show which rules applied.

The records cover courts-martial only. The services were required to begin publishing trial records under Article 140a by December 2020, and Army records in this data are sparse before 2021\. The records do not show nonjudicial punishment, administrative separations, the evidence, or the terms of plea agreements.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see [Article 86 on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-86/?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 2021–2025 that charged both Article 86 and Article 90 (24 cases), compared with all 103 Army Article 86 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 86 (AWOL): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-86-courts-martial/) (hub)
- [Article 90 (Willfully Disobeying Superior Officer): Court-Martial Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/article-90-courts-martial/) (hub)
- [Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-courts-martial/) (hub)
- [Navy-Marine Corps Cases Charging Both Article 86 and Article 90](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/navy-marine-corps-article-86-and-article-90-charged-together/)
- [Navy-Marine Corps Courts-Martial With Article 86 and Article 92, 2021–2026](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/navy-marine-corps-article-86-and-article-92-charged-together/)
- [Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 120](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-107-and-article-120-charged-together/)
- [Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 121](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-107-and-article-121-charged-together/)
- [Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 131b](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-107-and-article-131b-charged-together/)
- [Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 80](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-107-and-article-80-charged-together/)
- [Army Cases Charging Both Article 107 and Article 81](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/army-article-107-and-article-81-charged-together/)
- [Article 86 explained on the law firm's website](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/practice-areas/court-martial/article-86/?ref=bodiesburied.com)
- [Search every case in Military Trial Results](https://www.bodiesburied.com/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](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.