NewKnow Your Judge: the court-martial record of 294 military judges → NewLearn Your Lawyer: the court-martial record of 335 military lawyers →
Where All The Bodies Are Buried
Understanding Trends

Articles 109 and 128b in the Same Case: What the Records Show

From 2020 to 2026, 33 Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial charged Article 109 (property damage) together with Article 128b (domestic violence).

Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read

Trends › By Offense › Article 109 › With Article 128b

Short answer: From 2020 to 2026, 33 Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial charged Article 109 (property damage) together with Article 128b (domestic violence). Only 1 of 11 contested cases that reached a verdict ended in a full acquittal (9%), compared with 21% for all Article 109 cases in those services. The median confinement was 9 months, compared with 6 months.

Based on 33 cases · 2020–2026 · Army, Navy, and Marine Corps records · data updated October 24, 2026

Most Contested Cases Ended in a Partial Acquittal

Few contested cases ended in a full acquittal: 1 of 11 (9%). That rate was lower than the 21% across all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 109.

Partial acquittals were much more common. In 9 cases (82%), the accused was found not guilty of at least one charge or specification and guilty of another. Most contested trials in this pairing ended with at least one conviction and at least one not-guilty finding.

How Many Pleaded Guilty?

A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge, either to every charge or through a mixed plea. The plea appears in 32 of the 33 records. In 21, the accused pleaded guilty. In 11, the accused contested at least one charge. The contested share was 34%, compared with 31% in all Article 109 cases from the same services. Cases with both charges went to trial on the merits slightly more often.

Longer Confinement Than the Broader Group

Of 31 convictions, 84% included confinement. The median confinement was 9 months. In all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 109, it was 6 months. A quarter of the terms here were 1.1 years or longer.

Terms over one year were given in 9 of 31 convictions (29%), compared with 25% in the comparison group. These are adjudged sentences, as announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case, not only the property damage and domestic violence charges.

Adjudged confinementConvictionsShare hereShare, all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 109
No confinement516%13%
Under 6 months1135%40%
6 months to 1 year619%22%
More than 1 year, under 5 years826%18%
5 years or more13%7%

General and Special Courts-Martial

A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence. A special court-martial is limited to one year of confinement and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. Here, 19 of the 32 cases with a court level listed were general courts-martial (59%), compared with 47% in the broader Article 109 group. There were 13 special courts-martial, and 1 case has no level listed.

Results differed by level. At general courts-martial, the median confinement was 1 year, and 42% of cases were contested. At special courts-martial, the median was 2 months, and 23% were contested.

Bad-Conduct and Dishonorable Discharges

Of enlisted convictions, 61% included a punitive discharge: 16 bad-conduct discharges and 3 dishonorable discharges. The rate across all Article 109 cases in these services was 57%.

A member who does not receive a punitive discharge at trial can still be separated administratively. Administrative separations do not appear in court-martial records.

Rank and Other Charges

Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 69% of the accused, and NCOs made up 31%. No officers were among the accused. In all Article 109 cases from the 3 services, junior enlisted members were 73%.

Besides the 2 articles in the title, Article 128 (assault) was charged in 13 cases, Article 92 (orders violation) in 11, Article 90 (disobeying an officer) in 8, and Article 115 (malingering before 2019; communicating threats since) in 5. Sentences cover all of these charges together.

Years and Installations

The earliest trial in this set was in November 2020, and the latest was in June 2026. By year, there was 1 case in 2020, 4 in 2021, 10 in 2022, 7 in 2023, 4 in 2024, 2 in 2025, and 5 in 2026. The 2026 count is a partial year.

Joint Base Lewis-McChord had the most cases, 6. Fort Bliss and Vilseck (Europe) had 3 each, and Fort Stewart and Fort Irwin had 2 each. These 5 installations account for 48% of the 33 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.

Rule Changes and What the Records Do Not Show

Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses. Domestic violence is a covered offense. For offenses after December 27, 2023, judges also sentence within new parameters. Both rules depend on the offense date, and the records do not give it. Trials from 2024 on include cases under old and new rules, and the data cannot show whether the change affected outcomes.

The records do not include matters handled outside a courtroom, such as nonjudicial punishment and administrative separations. They also do not describe the evidence presented or the terms of any plea agreement.

Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.

How We Counted

Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial that charged both Article 109 and Article 128b (33 cases). Air Force cases are left out because Air Force records rarely list the charges in acquittals.

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.

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.

↑ Top