Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, 2017–2018: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 140 Cases
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina tried 140 courts-martial in 2017 and 2018. 82% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 67% across the Navy and Marine Corps.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › Camp Lejeune, North Carolina › 2017–2018
Short answer: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina tried 140 courts-martial in 2017 and 2018. 82% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 67% across the Navy and Marine Corps. Article 121 (larceny) was charged in 22% of cases, compared with 10% in all Navy and Marine Corps cases.
Most Convictions Included a Punitive Discharge
Of 136 enlisted members convicted at Camp Lejeune, 112 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. That 82% rate compares with 67% for the Navy and Marine Corps as a whole. 38 of the 112 were dishonorable discharges, the more severe form.
A punitive discharge is part of the sentence the court-martial imposes. The officer equivalent is a dismissal. The 1 convicted officer or warrant officer in this group was dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation, and these records do not cover those separations.
Larceny and Conspiracy Were Charged More Often
Charges are listed for 138 of the 140 cases. One case can count under several articles. Article 121 (larceny) was charged in 30 cases, or 22%, compared with 10% service-wide. Article 81 (conspiracy) was charged in 24 cases, or 17%, compared with 8%.
Article 120 (sexual assault) was charged less often: in 9% of cases here, compared with 18% across the Navy and Marine Corps. The most common charges were about the same as the service shares. Article 128 (assault) appeared in 32%, compared with 35%. Article 112a (wrongful use, possession of controlled substances) appeared in 29%, compared with 29%.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the Navy and Marine Corps as a whole |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 128 Assault | 44 | 32% | 35% |
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 40 | 29% | 29% |
| Art. 121 Larceny | 30 | 22% | 10% |
| Art. 81 Conspiracy | 24 | 17% | 8% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 22 | 16% | 15% |
| Art. 134 General article | 22 | 16% | 14% |
| Art. 107 False official statements | 19 | 14% | 11% |
| Art. 80 Attempts | 17 | 12% | 11% |
Convictions on the Top Charges
For the top charges, nearly every case ended in a conviction on the charged article. All 24 cases charging Article 81 and all 40 charging Article 112a did. Assault cases ended in a conviction on that article in 43 of 44 (98%), and larceny cases in 29 of 30 (97%).
The median confinement for a conviction was 6 months for drug charges, 10 months for assault, and 11 months for both larceny and conspiracy. One case can include a conviction on one article and an acquittal on another, and a sentence covers the whole case. These rows therefore overlap.
| Article | Cases charging it | Convicted of it (share) | Median confinement when convicted of it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 128 Assault | 44 | 43 (98%) | 10 months |
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 40 | 40 (100%) | 6 months |
| Art. 121 Larceny | 30 | 29 (97%) | 11 months |
| Art. 81 Conspiracy | 24 | 24 (100%) | 11 months |
How Much Confinement?
Of 137 convictions, 128 included confinement. The median confinement was 8 months, about the same as the 7 months across all Navy and Marine Corps cases in those years. A quarter of the sentences were 1.7 years or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, the terms announced at trial. They do not reflect any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case.
More Sentences Longer Than One Year
Sentences longer than one year came in 46 of 137 convictions (34%), compared with 30% service-wide. Terms of 6 months to 1 year were also more common: 31% of convictions here, compared with 23% across the Navy and Marine Corps.
Convictions with no confinement were less common, at 7% compared with 12%. Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than one year of confinement. A special court-martial is capped at one year.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Navy and Marine Corps cases in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 9 | 7% | 12% |
| Under 6 months | 40 | 29% | 34% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 42 | 31% | 23% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 36 | 26% | 20% |
| 5 years or more | 10 | 7% | 10% |
General and Special Courts-Martial
General courts-martial, which can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge, were 42% of the cases (59 of 140). The other 81 were special courts-martial. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
The median confinement was 2 years at general courts-martial and 5 months at special courts-martial.
Rank of the Accused
Most of the accused were junior enlisted. 110 were junior enlisted, 26 were NCOs, and 1 was an officer. That group is more junior than in all Navy and Marine Corps cases in the same years.
Compared with Camp Pendleton and Norfolk
Camp Pendleton, California tried 149 cases in the same years, and Norfolk, Virginia tried 94. Camp Pendleton had the same median confinement as Camp Lejeune, 8 months, and a lower punitive discharge share, 71%. Norfolk had a median of 9 months and a punitive discharge share of 53%.
The comparison table lists plea results for only a few Camp Lejeune and Camp Pendleton cases. Navy and Marine Corps records before December 2020 often omit the plea. Contested shares and acquittal rates therefore cannot be compared here.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camp Lejeune, North Carolina | 140 | 0 of 4 | — | 8 months | 82% |
| Camp Pendleton, California | 149 | 0 of 1 | — | 8 months | 71% |
| Norfolk, Virginia | 94 | 30% | 12 of 28 | 9 months | 53% |
Cases by Year, the 2019 Law Change, and What the Records Do Not Show
The cases were tried from January 2017 through December 2018: 67 in 2017 and 73 in 2018. Camp Lejeune had 14% of the 1,002 Navy and Marine Corps courts-martial in those years. All of them came before the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. That law brought fixed panel sizes, judge-alone special courts-martial, and written plea agreements.
Trial records show charges, findings, and sentences. They do not show the evidence, the plea terms, or conduct handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial in the data tried at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina with a trial date in 2017–2018 (140 cases), compared with all 1,002 Navy and Marine Corps trials in those years. Dates are trial dates.
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
- Camp Lejeune, North Carolina: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Navy-Marine Corps Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Courts-Martial, 2019–2023: What 283 Cases Show (another period)
- What Was Tried at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, 2024–2026? 119 Courts-Martial (another period)
- Camp Pendleton, California, 2017–2018: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 149 Cases (same years, similar size)
- Inside 70 Courts-Martial at Okinawa, Japan, 2017–2018 (same years, similar size)
- Drug Cases at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina: 2017–2018 vs. 2019–2023
- Did Orders Violation Cases at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Change After 2019?
- 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.