When Article 133 and Article 92 Are Charged Together, How Do Cases End?
From 2015–2026, 23 Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial charged both Article 133 (conduct unbecoming) and Article 92 (orders violation). Confinement was part of only 32% of the 22 convictions, and 1 conviction brought more than 1 year.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 4 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 133 › With Article 92
Short answer: From 2015–2026, 23 Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial charged both Article 133 (conduct unbecoming) and Article 92 (orders violation). Confinement was part of only 32% of the 22 convictions, and 1 conviction brought more than 1 year. 50% of cases with a plea recorded were contested, against 44% in all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 133.
Most Convictions Brought No Confinement
15 of the 22 convictions (68%) included no confinement, compared with 56% in all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 133. Among the sentences that did include confinement, the median was 5 months. The comparison group median was 6 months.
Only 1 of 22 convictions (5%) brought more than 1 year, against 10% in the comparison group. No conviction brought 5 years or more. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and each covers every charge in the case.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 133 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 15 | 68% | 56% |
| Under 6 months | 4 | 18% | 20% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 2 | 9% | 14% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 1 | 5% | 4% |
| 5 years or more | 0 | 0% | 6% |
An Officer Offense
Among the accused with rank recorded, 18 were officers or warrant officers, 1 was an NCO (E-5 to E-9), and none were junior enlisted members. The comparison group also had 0% junior enlisted members.
For officers, the punitive separation is a dismissal rather than a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. This sheet does not give dismissal counts.
Pleas
18 of the 23 records list the plea. 9 accused pleaded guilty and 9 contested at least one charge, a contested share of 50%. In all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 133, the contested share was 44%. A contested case is one with a not-guilty or mixed plea.
The sheet does not give verdicts for the contested cases. 22 of the 23 cases ended in a conviction.
False Statements and Other Charges
No case charged Article 133 by itself. Besides Article 92 (orders violation) in all 23, the most common charges were Article 134 (general article) in 7 cases, Article 107 (false official statement) in 6, Article 128 (assault) in 3, and Article 86 (AWOL) in 3.
Court Level
14 of the 21 cases with a court level listed were general courts-martial (67%), and the rest were special courts-martial. Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than 1 year of confinement.
Installations and Years
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, had 4 cases and Norfolk, Virginia, had 3. Yokosuka, Japan, Fort Bragg, and Quantico, Virginia, had 2 each. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.
The trials ran from May 2015 to April 2026. 2021 had the most, with 5, followed by 4 in 2023. 2026 is a partial year.
Rules and Limits
The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019, and special trial counsel began deciding whether to prosecute covered offenses on December 28, 2023. The records list trial dates, not offense dates, so they cannot show which rules applied in a given case.
Nonjudicial punishment, administrative action, the evidence, and the plea terms are not in these records.
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 133 and Article 92 (23 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 133 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Conduct Unbecoming Plus General Article: Courts-Martial Charging Articles 133 and 134
- Army Article 133 Cases by the Numbers, 2021–2025
- Is Air Force Conduct Unbecoming Prosecution Rising or Falling? Article 133, 2016–2025
- AWOL Plus Disrespect: Courts-Martial Charging Articles 86 and 89
- Article 127 Plus General Article: Courts-Martial Charging Articles 127 and 134
- Articles 107 and 115 in the Same Case: What the Records Show
- 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.