When Article 134 and Article 89 Are Charged Together, How Do Cases End?

Trends › By Offense › Article 134 › With Article 89

Based on 16 cases · 2015–2025 · Army, Navy, and Marine Corps records · data updated October 24, 2026

Fewer Punitive Discharges

6 of 14 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge: 4 bad-conduct discharges and 2 dishonorable discharges. In all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 134, the share was 78%.

1 convicted officer or warrant officer appears here and was not dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.

Short Confinement Terms

12 of the 15 sentences after conviction included confinement. The median term was 4 months. Across all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 134, the median was 1.3 years.

At the long end, a quarter of the terms were 10 months or longer. The figures are sentences as adjudged at trial, so a plea-agreement cap, clemency, or an appeal could have changed them later. One sentence applies to all of the charges in a case.

Mostly Special Courts-Martial

5 of the 15 cases with a court level listed were general courts-martial (33%), and the rest were special courts-martial. The court level is not listed for 1 case. A special court-martial is limited to 1 year of confinement and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence.

A More Senior Group

9 accused were NCOs (E-5 to E-9), 6 were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), and 1 was an officer or warrant officer. That mix was more senior than all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 134, where 55% were junior enlisted.

Pleas

The plea is listed in 15 of the 16 records. Guilty pleas numbered 11, and 4 accused contested at least one charge. That contested share, 27%, was about the same as the 26% across all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 134.

Disobedience and Other Charges

Article 89 (disrespect) appears in all 16 cases. Article 90 (disobeying an officer) was charged in 7 of them, Article 92 (orders violation) in 6, Article 86 (AWOL) in 4, and Article 115 (malingering before 2019; communicating threats since) in 4. No case charged Article 134 alone.

Years, Rules, and Limits

2 cases were tried in 2015. None appear again until 1 in 2020. After that came 4 in 2021, 2 in 2022, 3 in 2023, 1 in 2024, and 3 in 2025, the last in June 2025.

The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019, and the shift to special trial counsel for covered offenses came on December 28, 2023. Both fall inside this period. Whether a case falls under the older or newer rules depends on the offense date, which the records do not give. Evidence, plea terms, and misconduct handled without a court-martial are also missing.

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.