Army Article 92 Cases in 2022
The Army tried 89 courts-martial that charged Article 92 (orders violation) in 2022. The median confinement was 4 months, compared with 6 months Army-wide. A punitive discharge was adjudged for 59% of convicted enlisted members, compared with 76% across all Army cases.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 92 › Army, 2022
Short answer: The Army tried 89 courts-martial that charged Article 92 (orders violation) in 2022. The median confinement was 4 months, compared with 6 months Army-wide. A punitive discharge was adjudged for 59% of convicted enlisted members, compared with 76% across all Army cases.
Members Acquitted More Often Than Judges
Among the 27 decided contested cases with the forum listed, panels of members acquitted in full 45% of the time. Military judges acquitted in full 12% of the time. The accused usually chooses whether a judge alone or members decide guilt, so the two groups of cases are not alike. The difference does not show that one is more lenient than the other.
Members heard 11 of those 27 contested cases (41%). Across all cases, 76 were decided by a judge alone and 12 by enlisted panels. No case went to an officer panel. Members heard 14% of the cases with a forum listed.
Results in All Contested Cases
Of 28 contested cases with a verdict, 8 ended in a full acquittal (29%) and 17 in a partial acquittal (61%). A partial acquittal means not guilty of at least one charge or specification but guilty of another. Partial acquittals are common in Army records because findings are listed charge by charge.
The full-acquittal rate was 29%, lower than the 38% for all Army cases in 2022.
Pleas and Changes From 2021
A plea is recorded in 88 of the 89 cases: 60 guilty pleas and 28 not-guilty or mixed pleas. A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share was 32%, compared with 36% Army-wide.
In 2021, 45% of these cases were contested. The number of cases was about the same: 87 in 2021 and 89 in 2022. Full acquittals were 10 of 39 in 2021 and 8 of 28 in 2022. The median confinement was 6 months in 2021 and 4 months in 2022. Enlisted punitive discharges were 51% in 2021 and 59% in 2022.
Of the 60 guilty pleas, 47 are recorded with a plea agreement and 13 have no entry. Army records show only whether an agreement existed.
| 2021 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 87 | 89 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | 45% | 32% |
| Full acquittals (decided contested) | 10 of 39 | 8 of 28 |
| Convictions with confinement | 73% | 79% |
| Median confinement | 6 months | 4 months |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 51% | 59% |
| General courts-martial | 72% | 69% |
Shorter Confinement Than the Army Overall
Of the 89 cases, 81 ended in a conviction on at least one charge, and 64 of those sentences included confinement (79%). The median confinement was 4 months, shorter than the 6 months across all Army cases in 2022.
Terms under 6 months were the largest group, with 38 convictions (47%), compared with 41% Army-wide. No confinement was adjudged in 17 convictions (21%), compared with 16%. More than one year was adjudged in 16 of 81 convictions (20%), compared with 27% across the Army. Of those, 3 were 5 years or more.
These are adjudged sentences, set 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 cases in 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 17 | 21% | 16% |
| Under 6 months | 38 | 47% | 41% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 10 | 12% | 16% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 13 | 16% | 20% |
| 5 years or more | 3 | 4% | 7% |
General and Special Courts-Martial
Of the 89 cases, 61 were general courts-martial and 28 were special courts-martial. The general share was 69%, compared with 75% across the Army. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
The median confinement was 6 months at general courts-martial and 2 months at special courts-martial. The contested share was 38% at general courts-martial and 18% at special courts-martial.
Discharges and Rank
Of 75 convicted enlisted members, 44 received a punitive discharge: 38 bad-conduct and 6 dishonorable. The share was 59%, lower than the 76% across all Army cases in 2022.
There were 6 convicted officers or warrant officers, and 2 were dismissed. Dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
By rank, the accused were 32 junior enlisted members, 51 NCOs, and 6 officers. This group was more senior than all Army cases in 2022.
Other Charges and Installations
Of the 89 cases, 78 charged at least one other article. Article 134 (general article) and Article 128 (assault) each appeared in 21 cases, Article 120 (sexual assault) in 17, Article 112a (drug) in 15, and Article 128b (domestic violence) in 10. A single sentence covers all of these charges. The confinement and discharge figures describe the whole case, not the orders violation alone.
Fort Bragg tried 13 of these cases, Fort Hood 9, Fort Bliss 7, Joint Base Lewis-McChord 6, and Fort Campbell 5. Those five installations had 45% of the total. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.
What the Records Do Not Show
These records show charges, pleas, findings, and sentences. They do not describe the evidence or the terms of any plea agreement. They do not include orders violations handled through nonjudicial punishment, administrative action, or no action.
For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 92 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Army courts-martial with a trial date in 2022 that charged Article 92 (89 cases), compared with all Army cases that year and with 2021.
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 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Year (hub)
- Army Article 92 Cases in 2021 (previous / next)
- Army Article 92 Cases in 2023 (previous / next)
- Fewer or More? Orders Violation Charges at Army Courts-Martial, 2021–2025 (the full trend)
- Army Article 92 Cases in 2024
- Army Article 92 Cases in 2025
- Article 92 Sentences in the Army: Confinement and Discharges, 2021–2025
- Article 92 explained on the law firm's website
- 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.