Article 112a Cases at Dyess AFB, Texas, 2019–2022: 21 Courts-Martial

Trends › By Installation › Dyess AFB, Texas › Article 112a, 2019–2022

Based on 21 cases · 2019–2022 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026

Most of the Base's Cases Were Drug Cases

Between April 2019 and November 2022, the records show 21 courts-martial at Dyess AFB, Texas that charged Article 112a (drug). That is 58% of all 36 courts-martial at the base in 2019–2022.

The number of cases fell over time: 7 cases in 2019, 7 in 2020, 4 in 2021, and 3 in 2022.

Most Accused Pleaded Guilty

Pleas are listed in 12 of the 21 records. In 11 of them the accused pleaded guilty. In 1 the accused contested at least one charge. A case is contested when the plea is not guilty or mixed, and the government must prove at least one charge at trial.

The contested share of 8% was lower than the 20% for Article 112a cases in the rest of the Air Force. Many records have no plea listed, so the percentage is based on a small number of cases, and a single case changes it noticeably.

Who Decided the Cases

A military judge alone decided guilt in 17 of the 21 cases with a recorded forum (81%). Panels of members heard the other 4: 1 enlisted panel and 3 officer panels.

The accused usually chooses between a military judge alone and a panel of members. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the high judge-alone share is consistent with the low contested share.

Short Confinement in Most Cases

Of the 21 convictions, 19 included confinement. The median confinement was 3 months, the same as the 3 months for Article 112a cases across the Air Force. A quarter of the confinement sentences were 4 months or longer.

Sentences under 6 months made up 81% of convictions, compared with 71% across the Air Force. Terms of 6 months to 1 year made up 10%, compared with 15%. Convictions with no confinement made up 10%, compared with 9%. These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before any plea-agreement limit, clemency, or appeal, and they cover every charge in the case.

No Sentence Longer Than a Year

None of the 21 convictions included more than one year of confinement. Across the Air Force, 5% of Article 112a convictions in 2019–2022 did. Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than a year, and only 2 of the 21 cases (10%) were general courts-martial. The others were special courts-martial, which cap confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.

Punitive Discharges

Of 20 convicted enlisted members, 8 received a punitive discharge (40%). That was lower than the 45% in all Air Force Article 112a cases. All 8 were bad-conduct discharges, the less severe of the 2 punitive discharges for enlisted members. The 1 convicted officer was not dismissed.

A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation. Since 2019, a special court-martial tried by a military judge alone cannot impose a punitive discharge, and its confinement is capped at six months.

Drug Charges Were Usually the Only Charge

In 14 of the 21 cases, Article 112a was the only charge. The most common other charges were Article 92 (orders violation), Article 107 (false official statement), and Article 86 (AWOL), each in 3 cases. Article 83 (fraudulent enlistment before 2019; malingering since) was charged in 2, and Article 112 (drunk on duty before 2019; drunkenness on duty since) in 1.

When another article was charged, the sentence covers it too. The records do not separate confinement or discharge by charge. A sentence in a case that also charged an unauthorized absence or a false statement covers all of that conduct together.

All Enlisted Accused Were Junior Enlisted

Of the accused, 20 were junior enlisted (E-1 to E-4) and 1 was an officer or warrant officer. No NCOs were tried in these cases. In the rest of the Air Force, junior enlisted members made up 81% of those charged under Article 112a, so the Dyess group was more junior.

What These Records Leave Out

Air Force records rarely list the charges in a case that ends in a full acquittal, and they never report plea agreements. For those reasons this page gives no acquittal rate and no plea terms. The records also do not include drug cases handled through nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation. They give trial dates, not offense dates, and do not describe the evidence, such as the testing behind a charge.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 112a on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.

Compare: federal court. Federal Law Has No Crime of Drug Use: How Article 112a Cases Compare · Drug Distribution and Importation: Federal vs. Court-Martial Sentences, 2016–2025

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.