What Was Tried at Central Command (CENTCOM), 2020–2023? 13 Courts-Martial
Central Command (CENTCOM) tried 13 Army courts-martial from November 2020 through August 2023. 12 of the 13 accused pleaded guilty, and the median confinement was 30 days, compared with 6 months across the Army.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Installation › Central Command (CENTCOM) › 2020–2023
Short answer: Central Command (CENTCOM) tried 13 Army courts-martial from November 2020 through August 2023. 12 of the 13 accused pleaded guilty, and the median confinement was 30 days, compared with 6 months across the Army. A punitive discharge followed 20% of enlisted convictions, compared with 73% Army-wide.
Guilty Pleas in 12 of 13 Cases
Only 1 case was contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share was 8%, compared with 35% in the rest of the Army.
All 12 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement. Army records say whether there was an agreement, not what it said.
Short Confinement Terms
All 13 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge, and 11 of those sentences included confinement (85%). The median term was 30 days, shorter than the 6 months median across Army cases in those years. A quarter of the terms were 55 days or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case.
Few Punitive Discharges
A punitive discharge followed 20% of enlisted convictions: 1 bad-conduct discharge and 1 dishonorable discharge. In the rest of the Army, the share was 73%.
The records list 3 convicted officers or warrant officers, and 1 was dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Orders Violations and Conduct Unbecoming
Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation) appeared in 6 of the 13 cases (46%), compared with 15% across the Army. Article 128 (assault) appeared in 5 (38%), compared with 31%.
Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer) appeared in 3 cases (23%), compared with 2% Army-wide. Article 134 (general article) also appeared in 3, and Article 107 (false official statements) in 2. Article 121 (larceny), Article 80 (attempts), and Article 91 (insubordinate conduct toward an NCO) each appeared in 1.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, all Army cases in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 6 | 46% | 15% |
| Art. 128 Assault | 5 | 38% | 31% |
| Art. 134 General article | 3 | 23% | 22% |
| Art. 133 Conduct unbecoming an officer | 3 | 23% | 2% |
| Art. 107 False official statements | 2 | 15% | 8% |
| Art. 121 Larceny | 1 | 8% | 7% |
| Art. 80 Attempts | 1 | 8% | 8% |
| Art. 91 Insubordinate conduct toward NCO | 1 | 8% | 2% |
More Special Courts-Martial and a More Senior Group
CENTCOM held 5 general and 8 special courts-martial. The general share was 38%, compared with 75% across the Army. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
The accused were 5 junior enlisted members, 5 NCOs, and 3 officers. The group is more senior than Army-wide.
Forum
A military judge alone decided 12 of the cases with the forum listed. Members heard 1 case (8%), and it was an enlisted panel.
Fort McNair and Fort Sam Houston
Fort McNair (21 cases) and Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston (22 cases) tried a similar number of Army cases in these years. Their contested shares were 29% and 41%. Median confinement was 1 year at Fort McNair and 3 months at Fort Sam Houston, and their enlisted punitive discharge shares were 80% and 92%.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central Command (CENTCOM) | 13 | 8% | 0 of 1 | 30 days | 20% |
| Fort McNair | 21 | 29% | 1 of 4 | 1 year | 80% |
| Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston | 22 | 41% | 6 of 9 | 3 months | 92% |
Timing
There was 1 trial in 2020, 4 in 2021, 6 in 2022, and 2 in 2023. The 13 cases were 1% of the 1,581 Army courts-martial in those years. The services were required to begin publishing trial records under Article 140a by December 2020, and Army records in this data are sparse before 2021.
Missing From the Records
The records give trial dates, not offense dates. They do not describe the evidence or the plea terms, and they do not include nonjudicial punishment or administrative separations.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial in the data tried at Central Command (CENTCOM) with a trial date in 2020–2023 (13 cases), compared with all 1,581 Army 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
- Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- What Was Tried at Fort Leavenworth, 2020–2023? 14 Courts-Martial (same years, similar size)
- Inside 17 Courts-Martial at Fort Lee, 2020–2023 (same years, similar size)
- Camp Humphreys, 2020–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 69 Cases
- Fort Bliss, 2020–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 102 Cases
- Fort Bragg Courts-Martial, 2020–2023: What 143 Cases Show
- Fort Carson, 2024–2026: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 45 Cases
- Fort Drum, 2020–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 72 Cases
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at Central Command (CENTCOM), 2020–2023
Names and links only. Each judge's record of pleas, findings, and sentences is on their Know Your Judge page, part of the Court-Martial Characters membership.
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.