When Article 114 and Article 92 Are Charged Together, How Do Cases End?
In the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, 21 courts-martial from 2021–2026 charged both Article 114 (dueling before 2019; endangerment since) and Article 92 (orders violation).
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 114 › With Article 92
Short answer: In the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, 21 courts-martial from 2021–2026 charged both Article 114 (dueling before 2019; endangerment since) and Article 92 (orders violation). The median confinement was 10 months, compared with 6 months in all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 114. 68% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 60% for Article 114 cases overall.
Median Confinement of 10 Months
The records show 20 convictions, and 18 of them carried confinement. The median term was 10 months, longer than the 6 months median for all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 114. Among the sentences that included confinement, a quarter were 1.3 years or longer.
These are adjudged sentences. They are the terms announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and each covers every charge in the case.
Sentence Bands
The most common band was 6 months to 1 year, with 8 convictions (40%). In the comparison group, that band held 31% of convictions. Sentences under 6 months were less common here: 25%, compared with 36%.
Sentences of more than one year came about as often as in all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 114: 5 of 20 convictions (25%), compared with 23%. No conviction in this group carried 5 years or more, while 8% did in the comparison group. At the other end, 2 convictions (10%) carried no confinement, close to the 9% in the comparison group. Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than one year of confinement.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 114 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 2 | 10% | 9% |
| Under 6 months | 5 | 25% | 36% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 8 | 40% | 31% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 5 | 25% | 15% |
| 5 years or more | 0 | 0% | 8% |
Punitive Discharges for Enlisted Members
Of 19 convicted enlisted members, 13 received a punitive discharge: 12 bad-conduct discharges and 1 dishonorable discharge. That is 68%, compared with 60% in all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 114.
The group also includes 1 convicted officer or warrant officer, and that officer 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 Were the Usual Result
Guilty pleas resolved 15 of the 21 cases. The other 6 were contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge, either through a full not-guilty plea or a mixed plea. The contested share was 29%, compared with 33% in all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 114.
Other Charges in the Same Cases
Every case charged at least one article besides Article 114. Article 92 is in all 21 by definition. Article 134 (general article) appeared in 7 cases, and Article 128 (assault), Article 107 (false official statement), and Article 81 (conspiracy) appeared in 4 each.
Each sentence above covers the full set of charges in its case.
Who Was Charged, and Which Courts Heard the Cases
Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 62% of the accused, NCOs 33%, and officers 5%. In all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 114, junior enlisted members made up 56%.
General courts-martial heard 12 of the 21 cases (57%), compared with 54% in the comparison group. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
Where and When the Cases Were Tried
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina had the most of these cases, with 4. Camp Pendleton, California had 3, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay and Fort Hood had 2 each, and Norfolk, Virginia had 1. These five installations account for 57% of the 21 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a higher count alone does not show that an installation has more of this offense.
The trials ran from September 2021 through October 2026. By year: 2021: 4, 2022: 2, 2023: 4, 2024: 4, 2025: 3, and 2026: 4. The 2026 count is for a partial year.
Law Changes and Limits of This Data
Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. When every guilty finding in a case is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters. Both depend on the offense date, which the records do not give, so trials from 2024 on include cases under the old and the new rules.
The records include only cases that reached a courtroom. Nonjudicial punishment, administrative separations, and cases with no action are absent. The records also do not describe the evidence 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 114 and Article 92 (21 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.
Related Analysis
- Article 114 (Dueling Before 2019, Endangerment Since): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Articles 114 and 134 in the Same Case: What the Records Show
- Articles 114 and 128 in the Same Case: What the Records Show
- Is Army Endangerment Prosecution Rising or Falling? Article 114, 2021–2025
- How Has Article 114 Changed in Air Force Courts-Martial Since 2021?
- AWOL Plus Disrespect: Courts-Martial Charging Articles 86 and 89
- 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.