When Article 134 and Article 86 Are Charged Together, How Do Cases End?

Trends › By Offense › Article 134 › With Article 86

Based on 31 cases · 2013–2026 · Army, Navy, and Marine Corps records · data updated October 24, 2026

Shorter Confinement Than in All General Article Cases

Every case in this group ended in a conviction on at least one charge. Confinement was part of 27 of the 31 convictions. The median confinement was 8 months, compared with 1.3 years for all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 134. A quarter of the terms were 1.8 years or longer.

These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case, including the absence offense and any other charge.

Sentences by Length

Sentences of more than 1 year followed 11 of 31 convictions (35%). That is less often than the 48% for all general article cases. Terms of more than 1 year but under 5 years followed 6 convictions (19%), compared with 35% in the comparison group.

Terms under 6 months followed 9 convictions (29%), compared with 21%. Terms from 6 months to 1 year followed 7 convictions (23%), compared with 18%. Terms of 5 years or more followed 5 convictions (16%), compared with 13%. No confinement was part of 4 convictions (13%), the same as the 13% in the comparison group.

Special Courts-Martial Heard More of These Cases

General courts-martial heard 16 of the 31 cases (52%), compared with 76% for all Article 134 cases. A special court-martial caps confinement at 1 year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence.

The median confinement was 1.8 years at the 16 general courts-martial and 3 months at the 15 special courts-martial. The contested share was 29% at general courts-martial and 8% at special courts-martial.

Most of the Accused Pleaded Guilty

The plea is recorded in 26 of the 31 cases. Of those, 21 accused pleaded guilty and 5 contested at least one charge with a not-guilty or mixed plea. The contested share, 19%, is lower than the 26% for all general article cases.

There are only 5 contested cases. That is too few to say anything useful about how contested cases ended. Most sentences here followed a guilty plea, so the adjudged terms above mostly describe guilty-plea cases. The records do not show whether a plea agreement later capped any of them.

Discharges at About the Usual Rate

Of 28 convicted enlisted members, 22 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (79%). That is about the same as the 78% for all Article 134 cases. Of those discharges, 8 were dishonorable.

The records list 3 convicted officers or warrant officers, and 1 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.

A More Junior Group

The accused included 19 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 9 NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 3 officers or warrant officers. This group is more junior than all general article cases, where 55% of the accused were junior enlisted.

Besides the absence charge, the most common other charges were Article 90 (disobeying an officer), in 9 cases, and Article 128 (assault), in 6. Article 120b (child sexual abuse) and Article 112a (drug) were charged in 5 each.

Years and Installations

The 31 cases were tried between November 2013 and April 2026. The records show no cases in 2014, 2015, or 2016. From 2021 through 2024, each year had 5 or 6 cases. The 2026 count covers only part of the year.

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina had 7 of the cases and Camp Pendleton, California had 3. Wheeler Army Airfield, Pensacola, Florida, and Fort Hood had 2 each. These five installations account for 52% of the total. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.

What the Records Do Not Show

The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. Further changes for covered offenses began on December 28, 2023. The records list only trial dates, so they cannot show which rules applied to each case or whether a rule change affected these results.

Absences and other misconduct handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation are not included. The records also do not describe the evidence or the plea terms.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 134 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.

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.