Article 134 Cases at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, 2017–2018: 22 Courts-Martial

Trends › By Installation › Camp Lejeune, North Carolina › Article 134, 2017–2018

Based on 22 cases · 2017–2018 · Navy and Marine Corps records · data updated October 24, 2026

Most Sentences Were Longer Than One Year

Confinement was part of 20 of the 22 convictions (91%). Sentences of more than one year but under 5 years made up 55% of convictions here, compared with 38% across the service. Another 3 convictions (14%) included 5 years or more.

The median confinement was 1.6 years, shorter than the 2 years in all Navy and Marine Corps Article 134 cases for 2017–2018. A quarter of the sentences were 3 years or longer. Sentences of 5 years or more were 24% across the service, higher than the 14% here. These are adjudged sentences, as announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case.

Short Sentences Were Uncommon

Few sentences were short. Sentences under 6 months made up 14% of convictions, the same as across the service. Sentences of 6 months to 1 year made up 9%, compared with 12%. Only 2 convictions had no confinement (9%), compared with 12% across the Navy and Marine Corps.

In these years at Camp Lejeune, most Article 134 convictions included more than one year of confinement. Those sentences cover the full set of charges in each case, not Article 134 alone.

Dishonorable Discharges Were Common

Among 22 convicted enlisted members, 18 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (82%), against 78% in Navy and Marine Corps Article 134 cases overall. Of those 18, 14 were dishonorable. A dishonorable discharge is the more severe form, and only a general court-martial can impose it.

A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation. Those separations do not appear in court-martial records.

The Charges Behind the General Article

Article 134 is a general provision that covers many kinds of conduct. The charges filed with it show more about what these cases involved. 18 of the 22 cases charged at least one other article.

Article 80 (attempt) appeared in 8 cases and Article 120b (child sexual abuse) in 6. Article 120 (sexual assault) and Article 112a (drug) appeared in 4 each, and Article 128 (assault) in 3. Every sentence covers all of a case's charges, so these companion offenses are part of the confinement and discharge figures.

General Courts-Martial Heard Most Cases

17 of the 22 cases (77%) were tried at general courts-martial, the level that can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The rest went to special courts-martial, which cap confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.

Only a general court-martial can impose more than one year of confinement or a dishonorable discharge. Most cases in this group were general courts-martial, and most sentences were longer than one year.

Rank of the Accused

The accused were 14 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 8 NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 0 officers. That group is more junior than Article 134 cases across the Navy and Marine Corps as a whole. With no officers among the accused, the discharge figures above concern enlisted members only.

Cases by Year

The records show 22 cases from February 2017 to December 2018: 7 in 2017 and 15 in 2018. Article 134 charges were part of 16% of the 140 courts-martial at Camp Lejeune in those years. 2018 had more cases than 2017, but numbers this small can change with only a few cases.

These are trial dates. The records do not give offense dates, so a case tried in 2018 may involve conduct from well before.

Law Changes Just After This Period

The Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019, after these trials. It set fixed panel sizes, created judge-alone special courts-martial capped at six months with no punitive discharge, and brought in written plea agreements. Cases with offenses from before 2019 kept the old rules even if tried later.

What This Data Cannot Show

Navy and Marine Corps records before December 2020 often omit the plea. This group has no plea breakdown, so it cannot show how many accused contested the charges. The records also leave out the evidence, the plea terms, and any conduct resolved through nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action.

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.