What Sentence Follows an Army Resisting Apprehension Conviction?
In 24 Army courts-martial from 2021–2025 that ended in a conviction including Article 87a (resisting apprehension), the median adjudged confinement was 6 months, the same as in all Army convictions.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 87a › What Sentence Follows a Army resisting a
Short answer: In 24 Army courts-martial from 2021–2025 that ended in a conviction including Article 87a (resisting apprehension), the median adjudged confinement was 6 months, the same as in all Army convictions. A punitive discharge was adjudged for 67% of convicted enlisted members, compared with 73% across all Army convictions.
Almost Never the Only Charge
In 23 of these 24 convictions, the case charged at least one other article with Article 87a. The most common was Article 128 (assault) in 16 cases. Article 90 (disobeying an officer) appeared in 10, Article 92 (orders violation) in 8, Article 134 (the general article) in 5, and Article 115 (communicating threats) in 4.
A court-martial sentence covers every charge in the case. The results in this post describe the whole case, not the resisting charge alone. This post covers convictions only, so acquittals are not part of the group.
Confinement
Confinement was part of 23 of the 24 sentences (96%). The median confinement was 6 months, the same as the 6-month median for all Army convictions in those years. A quarter of these sentences were 1 year or longer, and 1 was a life sentence.
Terms under 6 months made up 54% of these convictions, compared with 39% across Army convictions. Only 4% had no confinement, compared with 17%. Terms of more than 1 year and under 5 years made up 12%, compared with 20%. Terms of 5 years or more were 8% in both groups. Sentences longer than one year were less common: 5 of 24 convictions (21%), compared with 28%.
These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Army convictions in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 1 | 4% | 17% |
| Under 6 months | 13 | 54% | 39% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 5 | 21% | 16% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 3 | 12% | 20% |
| 5 years or more | 2 | 8% | 8% |
Discharges
A punitive discharge was adjudged in 67% of the enlisted convictions here: 13 bad-conduct discharges and 3 dishonorable discharges. Across all Army convictions in those years, the share was 73%.
A bad-conduct discharge can be adjudged by a special or general court-martial. A dishonorable discharge can be adjudged only by a general court-martial. A sentence without either does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these records do not track.
Pleas and Plea Agreements
Of the 24 convictions, 19 were guilty pleas and 5 were contested. A contested case is one where the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share was 21%, the same as across all Army convictions.
Plea agreements are recorded for 18 of the 19 guilty pleas, and 1 has no entry. Army records show whether an agreement existed, not what it contained. Most of the convictions here came from guilty pleas, not from verdicts after a contested trial.
Members Decided More Often
A military judge alone decided 20 cases, and an enlisted panel decided 4. No case went to an officer panel. Members heard 17% of these cases, compared with 12% in all Army convictions. The accused usually chooses whether a judge or a panel decides guilt.
Rank and Court Level
The accused were 18 junior enlisted members and 6 NCOs. There were 0 officers. The group was more junior than all Army convictions in those years.
Of the 24 cases, 16 were general courts-martial (67%), compared with 72% in all Army convictions. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence.
Years and Installations
The 24 cases were tried from March 2021 through November 2025. There were 8 in 2021, 3 in 2022, 2 in 2023, 8 in 2024, and 3 in 2025.
Fort Benning and Fort Bragg had 3 cases each. Vilseck (Europe), Fort Irwin, and Kaiserslautern (Europe) had 2 each. Those five installations had 50% of the 24 cases. The counts are small, and larger installations try more cases of every kind, so these numbers do not show a problem at any one base.
Recent Changes to the Rules
Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel 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. The records give trial dates but not offense dates, so trials from 2024 on include cases under both sets of rules. Army data starts in December 2020, when public trial records under Article 140a began.
What the Records Do Not Show
Only cases that reached a court-martial are counted. Resisting apprehension handled through nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action is not included. The records do not describe the encounter, the evidence, or any plea terms.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Army courts-martial tried 2021–2025: ending in a conviction under Article 87a (resisting apprehension) (24 cases), compared with all Army convictions 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 87a (Resisting Apprehension, Numbered Since 2019): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Sentences (hub)
- Fewer or More? Resisting Apprehension Charges at Army Courts-Martial, 2021–2025
- When Army Accused Plead Guilty to Resisting Apprehension
- What Sentence Follows an Air Force Resisting Apprehension Conviction? (another service)
- What Sentence Follows a Navy-Marine Corps Resisting Apprehension Conviction? (another service)
- Article 107 Sentences in the Army: Confinement and Discharges, 2021–2025
- 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.