Articles 134 and 92 in the Same Case: What the Records Show
When the general article (Article 134) was charged together with an orders violation (Article 92), punitive discharges and long confinement were less common than in general article cases overall.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 134 › With Article 92
Short answer: When the general article (Article 134) was charged together with an orders violation (Article 92), punitive discharges and long confinement were less common than in general article cases overall. Across 178 Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial from 2013–2026, 54% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 78% for all Article 134 cases. The median confinement was 6 months, compared with 1.3 years.
Fewer Punitive Discharges Than in All General Article Cases
A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge for an enlisted member. A punitive discharge followed 54% of enlisted convictions in this group: 56 bad-conduct discharges and 26 dishonorable discharges. Across all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 134, the share was 78%.
The records list 13 convicted officers or warrant officers, and 5 of them were dismissed. Dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge. A member without a punitive discharge can still be separated administratively later. These records do not include administrative separations.
Many Convictions Included Little or No Confinement
Of the 178 cases, 169 ended in a conviction on at least one charge. Confinement was part of 128 of those sentences (76%). The median confinement was 6 months, compared with 1.3 years for all general article cases. A quarter of the terms were 1.5 years or longer.
No confinement was part of 41 convictions (24%), compared with 13% in the comparison group. Terms under 6 months followed 62 convictions (37%), compared with 21%. Terms of more than 1 year followed 42 of 169 convictions (25%), compared with 48%. Terms of 5 years or more followed 8 convictions (5%), compared with 13%. Terms from 6 months to 1 year followed 24 (14%), compared with 18%. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 134 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 41 | 24% | 13% |
| Under 6 months | 62 | 37% | 21% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 24 | 14% | 18% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 34 | 20% | 35% |
| 5 years or more | 8 | 5% | 13% |
Special Courts-Martial Heard More of These Cases
General courts-martial heard 61% of the 177 cases with a court level listed (108 of 177), and special courts-martial heard 69. The court level is not listed for 1 case. A special court-martial caps confinement at 1 year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
At general courts-martial, confinement followed 87% of convictions, and the median confinement was 1 year. At special courts-martial, confinement followed 58% of convictions, and the median was 3 months.
A More Senior Group of Accused
NCOs (E-5 to E-9) were the largest rank group, with 96 of the accused. There were 61 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) and 15 officers or warrant officers. This group is more senior than all general article cases, where 55% of the accused were junior enlisted. The records cannot show whether rank had any connection to the shorter sentences.
Contested More Often, Fewer Full Acquittals
The plea is recorded for 142 of the 178 cases: 93 guilty pleas and 49 contested cases. A contested case is one where the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share, 35%, is higher than the 26% for all Article 134 cases.
Of the 49 contested cases that reached a verdict, 12% ended in a full acquittal. That is lower than the 18% for all general article cases. Another 25 ended in a partial acquittal, with a not-guilty finding on at least one charge or specification and a guilty finding on another.
Other Charges in These Cases
Article 128 (assault) was charged in 46 of the 178 cases and Article 107 (false official statement) in 30. Article 120 (sexual assault) was charged in 23 cases and Article 131b (obstruction, numbered since 2019) in 20. Across all Article 134 cases in these services, 542 of 1413 charged the general article alone.
Trial Years and Locations
The 178 cases were tried from February 2013 to June 2026. Each year through 2018 had fewer than 10 cases. There were 13 cases in 2019 and 47 in 2021, the highest count. There were 29 cases in 2022 and 15 in 2025. The 2026 count of 4 covers only part of the year.
Camp Pendleton, California and Camp Lejeune, North Carolina had 17 of these cases each. Joint Base Lewis-McChord had 11, Norfolk, Virginia had 9, and Quantico, Virginia had 8. These five installations account for 35% of the total. Larger installations try more cases of every kind.
What These Records Cannot Show
The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. On December 28, 2023, special trial counsel began deciding whether to prosecute covered offenses. The records give trial dates, not offense dates. So they cannot separate cases under the old and new rules or link any change in the numbers to a law change.
Orders violations and general article misconduct handled by nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action are not included. The records also do not describe the evidence or the terms of any plea agreement.
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.
How We Counted
Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial that charged both Article 134 and Article 92 (178 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 134 (General Article): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- General Article Plus Attempt: Courts-Martial Charging Articles 134 and 80
- General Article Plus Solicitation: Courts-Martial Charging Articles 134 and 82
- When Article 134 and Article 90 Are Charged Together, How Do Cases End?
- Fewer or More? General Article Charges at Army Courts-Martial, 2021–2025
- Air Force Article 134 Cases by the Numbers, 2016–2025
- Article 134 explained on the law firm's website
- 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.