When Article 92 and Article 93a Are Charged Together, How Do Cases End?
From 2021 to 2026, 25 Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial charged both an orders violation (Article 92) and prohibited activities with a recruit or trainee (Article 93a).
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 92 › With Article 93a
Short answer: From 2021 to 2026, 25 Army, Navy, and Marine Corps courts-martial charged both an orders violation (Article 92) and prohibited activities with a recruit or trainee (Article 93a). 23 of the accused were NCOs, and only 8% of cases were contested, compared with 33% in all cases charging Article 92. No conviction carried more than one year of confinement.
NCOs and Officers Only
By rank, the accused were 23 NCOs and 2 officers. No junior enlisted members appear. This group is more senior than the accused in all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 92.
2 convicted officers or warrant officers appear in these records, and both were dismissed. Dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge.
Fort Knox Had the Most Cases
Fort Knox had 9 of the 25 cases. Fort Jackson had 4. San Diego, California, Pensacola, Florida, and Fort Lee had 2 each. These five locations account for 76% of the cases.
Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so a high count does not by itself show that a location has more of this conduct.
Almost All Guilty Pleas
The plea is listed in 24 of the 25 records. 22 accused pleaded guilty, and 2 contested at least one charge. A contested case is one where the accused enters a not-guilty or mixed plea.
The contested share was 8%. In all cases charging Article 92, it was 33%. With 22 guilty pleas, most findings in this pairing came from the accused member's own plea and not from a contested trial. This data does not break out verdicts for the 2 contested cases.
Shorter Confinement Than Other Article 92 Cases
Of 24 convictions, 18 included confinement. The median confinement was 2 months, shorter than the 4 months in all cases charging Article 92. A quarter of the sentences that included confinement were 4 months or longer.
These are adjudged sentences. They are the terms announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and they cover every charge in the case.
No Sentence Longer Than One Year
Sentences longer than one year came in 0 of 24 convictions here. In all cases charging Article 92, the rate was 15%. Terms under 6 months made up 67% of convictions, compared with 42%.
Terms of 6 months to 1 year made up 8%, compared with 18%. Convictions with no confinement made up 25%, the same as in the wider group. Across all cases charging Article 92, 11% of convictions brought more than 1 year but under 5 years, and 4% brought 5 years or more. Neither band has any convictions here.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Army, Navy, and Marine Corps cases charging Article 92 |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 6 | 25% | 25% |
| Under 6 months | 16 | 67% | 42% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 2 | 8% | 18% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 0 | 0% | 11% |
| 5 years or more | 0 | 0% | 4% |
Punitive Discharges for Enlisted Members
Of 22 convicted enlisted members, 9 received a punitive discharge: 8 bad-conduct discharges and 1 dishonorable discharge. In all cases charging Article 92, the punitive discharge share was 54%.
A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. A sentence without one does not rule out a later administrative separation, which is handled outside the court-martial.
Court Level and Other Charges
8 of the 24 cases with a court level listed were general courts-martial (33%), compared with 38% in all cases charging Article 92. The court level is not listed for 1 case. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence. A special court-martial is capped at one year of confinement and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. Since 2019, a special court-martial can also be tried by a military judge alone, with a cap of six months of confinement and no punitive discharge.
None of the cases charged Article 92 alone. Across all cases charging Article 92, 201 of 1179 had no other charge. Besides Article 93a, the most common other charges were Article 134 (general article) in 6 cases, Article 107 (false official statement) in 3, Article 131b (obstruction) in 3, and Article 90 (disobeying an officer) in 2.
Years, Rule Changes, and Record Limits
The cases were tried from May 2021 to July 2026. There were 4 in 2021, 7 in 2022, 2 in 2023, 5 in 2024, 2 in 2025, and 5 in 2026, a partial year.
Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses, and new sentencing parameters apply when every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023. The records give trial dates, not offense dates, so trials from 2024 on include cases under both sets of rules.
The records also do not describe the evidence or the plea terms. Matters resolved by nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action are not included.
For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 92 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 92 and Article 93a (25 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 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 93a (Prohibited Activities with Recruit or Trainee, Numbered Since 2019): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Articles 92 and 93 in the Same Case: What the Records Show
- Fewer or More? Orders Violation Charges at Army Courts-Martial, 2021–2025
- Air Force Article 92 Cases by the Numbers, 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
- Article 92 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.