Army Article 92 Cases in 2025
The Army tried 34 courts-martial that charged Article 92 (orders violation) in 2025. The median confinement was 4 months, compared with 8 months across all Army cases that year. A punitive discharge was adjudged for 53% of convicted enlisted members, compared with 73% Army-wide.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 92 › Army, 2025
Short answer: The Army tried 34 courts-martial that charged Article 92 (orders violation) in 2025. The median confinement was 4 months, compared with 8 months across all Army cases that year. A punitive discharge was adjudged for 53% of convicted enlisted members, compared with 73% Army-wide.
More Special Than General Courts-Martial
Of the 34 cases, 19 were special courts-martial and 14 were general courts-martial. The level is not listed for 1. The general share was 42%, lower than the 66% across all Army cases in 2025 and lower than the 68% for these cases in 2024.
Court level sets the maximum sentence. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence. Here, the median confinement was 9 months at general courts-martial and 3 months at special courts-martial. The contested share was 36% at general courts-martial and 11% at special courts-martial.
Mostly Short Terms, and 2 Life Sentences
Of 31 convictions, 26 included confinement. The median confinement was 4 months, shorter than the 8 months for all Army cases in 2025. A quarter of sentences were 8 months or longer.
Terms under 6 months were the most common, with 17 convictions (55%), compared with 36% across the Army. Only 2 convictions were between 1 and 5 years (6%), compared with 18%.
In 3 convictions (10%), the sentence was 5 years or more, about the same as the 11% Army-wide. Of the sentences in this group, 2 were life sentences. In total, 5 of 31 convictions (16%) included more than one year, compared with 30% across the Army.
These are adjudged sentences, 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 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 5 | 16% | 19% |
| Under 6 months | 17 | 55% | 36% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 4 | 13% | 15% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 2 | 6% | 18% |
| 5 years or more | 3 | 10% | 11% |
Discharges
Of 30 convicted enlisted members, 16 received a punitive discharge: 14 bad-conduct and 2 dishonorable. The share was 53%, lower than the 73% across all Army cases in 2025.
The 1 convicted officer or warrant officer in the group was dismissed. Dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Guilty Pleas and Contested Cases
There were 27 guilty pleas and 7 contested cases. A contested case is one where the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share was 21%, about the same as the 20% across the Army.
Of the 27 guilty pleas, 26 are recorded with a plea agreement and 1 has no entry. Army records show whether an agreement existed but not what it provided.
Of the 7 decided contested cases, 3 ended in a full acquittal. In 2024, the count was 2 of 13. Counts this small can change with 1 case.
Comparing 2025 With 2024
There were 59 cases in 2024 and 34 in 2025. The contested share was 22% and then 21%. Enlisted punitive discharges were 54% and then 53%. The median confinement was 6 months in 2024 and 4 months in 2025. Convictions with confinement were 79% and then 84%.
The largest difference was in court level. General courts-martial were 68% of these cases in 2024 and 42% in 2025. These groups are small, and the records do not show how individual cases were referred. The difference shows direction, not a settled pattern.
| 2024 | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 59 | 34 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | 22% | 21% |
| Full acquittals (decided contested) | 2 of 13 | 3 of 7 |
| Convictions with confinement | 79% | 84% |
| Median confinement | 6 months | 4 months |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 54% | 53% |
| General courts-martial | 68% | 42% |
Rank, Other Charges, and Forum
The accused were 15 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 18 NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 1 officer or warrant officer. Across all Army cases in 2025, 50% were junior enlisted. This group was more senior.
Article 92 was the only charge in 4 of the 34 cases. Article 128 (assault) appeared in 10 cases, Article 128b (domestic violence) in 6, Article 112a (drug) in 5, and Article 134 (general article) and Article 121 (larceny) in 4 each.
A judge alone decided 29 cases, and enlisted panels decided 4. No case went to an officer panel. Members heard 12% of the cases with a forum listed. The accused usually chooses the forum, and most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas.
New Prosecution and Sentencing Rules
Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. The military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters when every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023. These records do not include offense dates, so 2025 trials include cases under both sets of rules. The records cannot show whether the rules changed any outcome here.
Installations and What the Records Do Not Show
Vilseck (Europe) tried 4 of these cases. Fort Riley, Fort Sill, and Fort Stewart tried 3 each, and Fort Benning tried 2. Those five installations had 44% of the 34 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind. The records do not show the evidence, the plea terms, or orders violations handled outside a court-martial.
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 2025 that charged Article 92 (34 cases), compared with all Army cases that year and with 2024.
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 2024 (previous / next)
- Fewer or More? Orders Violation Charges at Army Courts-Martial, 2021–2025 (the full trend)
- Army Article 92 Cases in 2021
- Army Article 92 Cases in 2022
- Army Article 92 Cases in 2023
- Air Force Article 92 Cases in 2021
- 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.