A Year of Courts-Martial at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina: 2018
Of 71 enlisted members convicted at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina in 2018, 62 received a punitive discharge (87%), compared with 66% across the Navy and Marine Corps. The base tried 73 cases that year. Article 121 (larceny) was charged in 24% of them, compared with 11% service-wide.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › Camp Lejeune, North Carolina › 2018
Short answer: Of 71 enlisted members convicted at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina in 2018, 62 received a punitive discharge (87%), compared with 66% across the Navy and Marine Corps. The base tried 73 cases that year. Article 121 (larceny) was charged in 24% of them, compared with 11% service-wide.
Most Enlisted Convictions Included a Punitive Discharge
A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge ordered by a court-martial for an enlisted member. 62 of 71 enlisted convictions included one. That 87% rate was higher than the 77% at Camp Lejeune in 2017. It was also higher than the 66% for the rest of the Navy and Marine Corps.
Of those 62 discharges, 22 were dishonorable, the most severe form. Only a general court-martial can impose a dishonorable discharge. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Larceny and Conspiracy Were Charged More Often
71 of the 73 records list charges, and a case counts under every article it includes. Article 112a (drug use or possession) was the most common charge, at 30%, compared with 26% service-wide. Article 128 (assault) was next, at 28%, compared with 34%.
Article 121 (larceny) appeared in 24% of cases, compared with 11% across the Navy and Marine Corps. Article 81 (conspiracy) appeared in 20%, compared with 9%. Article 134, the general article, appeared in 21%, compared with 15%. Article 120 (sexual assault) was charged less often than elsewhere, at 10% compared with 16%. Article 92 (orders violations) appeared in 17% of cases, compared with 13%. Article 107 (false official statements) appeared in 15%, compared with 11%.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the Navy and Marine Corps as a whole |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 21 | 30% | 26% |
| Art. 128 Assault | 20 | 28% | 34% |
| Art. 121 Larceny | 17 | 24% | 11% |
| Art. 134 General article | 15 | 21% | 15% |
| Art. 81 Conspiracy | 14 | 20% | 9% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 12 | 17% | 13% |
| Art. 107 False official statements | 11 | 15% | 11% |
| Art. 80 Attempts | 8 | 11% | 12% |
Convictions by Charge
Every case charging Article 112a, Article 121, or Article 134 ended in a conviction on that article: 21 of 21, 17 of 17, and 15 of 15. Article 128 cases did in 19 of 20 (95%).
The median confinement was 6 months when the conviction included a drug charge. It was 10 months with assault or larceny. Cases with an Article 134 conviction had a median of 1.3 years. Each median covers the full sentence. The rows overlap because one case can include several articles.
| Article | Cases charging it | Convicted of it (share) | Median confinement when convicted of it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 21 | 21 (100%) | 6 months |
| Art. 128 Assault | 20 | 19 (95%) | 10 months |
| Art. 121 Larceny | 17 | 17 (100%) | 10 months |
| Art. 134 General article | 15 | 15 (100%) | 1.3 years |
How Much Confinement?
Of 71 convictions, 66 carried confinement. The median confinement was 7 months, the same as the 7 months for the rest of the Navy and Marine Corps. A quarter of terms were 2 years or longer. All figures are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal.
Sentences longer than one year came in 24 of 71 convictions (34%), compared with 30% service-wide. Terms of more than 1 year and under 5 years made up 28% of convictions here, compared with 20%. 4 convictions carried 5 years or more. Only 5 convictions (7%) carried no confinement, compared with 15% across the service.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Navy and Marine Corps cases in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 5 | 7% | 15% |
| Under 6 months | 22 | 31% | 32% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 20 | 28% | 23% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 20 | 28% | 20% |
| 5 years or more | 4 | 6% | 9% |
General and Special Courts-Martial
General courts-martial can adjudge any lawful sentence. They were 41% of the cases (30 of 73). At that level, 97% of convictions carried confinement, with a median of 2.1 years.
Special courts-martial are capped at one year of confinement and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. They heard the other 43 cases. At that level, 90% of convictions carried confinement, with a median of 5 months.
Rank of the Accused
The accused were 56 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 15 NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 0 officers or warrant officers. Across the rest of the Navy and Marine Corps, 61% of the accused were junior enlisted.
Changes Since 2017
Camp Lejeune tried 67 cases in 2017 and 73 in 2018. The median confinement was 9 months in 2017 and 7 months in 2018. Enlisted punitive discharges were 77% and then 87%. Convictions with confinement were about the same, at 94% and 93%. The general court-martial share was 43% and then 41%.
A single year has few cases, and a few cases can change the figures. These changes show a direction, not a precise measurement. Only 1 of the 2018 records lists a plea, so the data cannot show how often cases were contested.
| 2017 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 67 | 73 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | 0 of 3 | 0 of 1 |
| Convictions with confinement | 94% | 93% |
| Median confinement | 9 months | 7 months |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 77% | 87% |
| General courts-martial | 43% | 41% |
Compared with Camp Pendleton and Norfolk
Camp Pendleton, California (78 cases) and Norfolk, Virginia (55 cases) tried similar numbers of cases in 2018. Camp Pendleton had a longer median confinement, 1 year, and a 70% enlisted punitive discharge rate. Norfolk had the same 7-month median as Camp Lejeune. Norfolk gave punitive discharges to 49% of convicted enlisted members. 7 of its 16 contested cases that reached a verdict ended in a full acquittal.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camp Lejeune, North Carolina | 73 | 0 of 1 | — | 7 months | 87% |
| Camp Pendleton, California | 78 | — | — | 1 year | 70% |
| Norfolk, Virginia | 55 | 29% | 7 of 16 | 7 months | 49% |
What the Records Do Not Show
These trials took place the year before the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. The records give trial dates, not offense dates. They do not include the evidence, plea terms, nonjudicial punishment, or administrative separations.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial tried at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina with a trial date in 2018 (73 cases).
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)
- By Year (hub)
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina: 2017 (previous / next)
- What Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Tried in 2019 (previous / next)
- Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, 2017–2018: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 140 Cases (the whole period)
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Bremerton, Washington: 2015
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Bremerton, Washington: 2017
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Bremerton, Washington: 2018
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Bremerton, Washington: 2020
- 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.