Did Drug Cases at Dyess AFB, Texas Change After 2019?

Trends › By Installation › Dyess AFB, Texas › Article 112a

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

Drug Cases Were Most of the Base's Cases

Of the 36 courts-martial at Dyess AFB from 2019 through 2022, 21 charged Article 112a, a 58% share. The base tried 7 of these cases in 2019, 7 in 2020, 4 in 2021, and 3 in 2022.

Most of these cases charged only the drug article. Article 112a was the only charge in 14 of the 21 cases. When other articles were charged, they were Article 92 (orders violation), Article 107 (false official statement), and Article 86 (AWOL) in 3 cases each, Article 83 (fraudulent enlistment before 2019; malingering since) in 2, and Article 112 (drunk on duty before 2019; drunkenness on duty since) in 1.

Short Terms, No Long Ones

Confinement was part of 90% of the 21 convictions. The median confinement was 3 months, the same as in Article 112a cases across the Air Force. A quarter of terms were 4 months or more.

Terms under 6 months made up 81% of convictions, compared with 71% in the rest of 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%. No conviction here included more than one year, while 5% of Air Force Article 112a convictions did. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement limit, clemency, or appeal, and they cover every charge in the case.

More Punitive Discharges Than in 2016–2018

For enlisted members, a punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. For officers, it is a dismissal. Of 20 convicted enlisted members, 8 received one, and all were bad-conduct discharges. None was dishonorable, a discharge only a general court-martial can impose. The 40% share compares with 45% in the rest of the Air Force and with 23% at Dyess in 2016–2018.

The 1 convicted officer or warrant officer was not dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these records do not show.

The Earlier Period

The 2016–2018 records include 13 Article 112a cases over 3 years, about 4 a year, compared with about 5 a year since. The median confinement was 3 months in both periods. Convictions with confinement went from 92% to 90%.

General courts-martial went from 0% of cases to 10%. Contested shares cannot be compared, because Air Force records from those years rarely list a guilty plea. With so few cases, any single outcome can change these figures, so they show direction only.

Recorded Pleas Were Mostly Guilty Pleas

Only 12 of the 21 records list a plea. Of those, 11 were guilty pleas and 1 was contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share of 8% compares with 20% in Article 112a cases across the Air Force.

Air Force records never report plea agreements, so the records cannot show whether a plea agreement affected any sentence here.

Military Judges Decided Most Cases

The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. At Dyess, a judge alone heard 17 cases, an officer panel heard 3, and an enlisted panel heard 1. Members heard 19% of cases, about the same as the 21% in all Air Force Article 112a cases in 2019–2022.

Most judge-alone trials are guilty pleas, so the forum figures are consistent with the low number of contested cases.

Special Courts-Martial and Junior Airmen

Special courts-martial tried 19 of the 21 cases, and general courts-martial tried 2. The general court-martial share of 10% compares with 19% in the rest of the Air Force. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence.

All 20 enlisted accused were junior enlisted members, with no NCOs, and the records include 1 officer. The group was more junior than the Air Force as a whole.

What the Records Leave Out

Air Force records rarely list charges when an accused is fully acquitted, so these cases may not include acquitted drug cases, and this page gives no acquittal rate. The records also give trial dates instead of offense dates. They do not include the evidence, nonjudicial punishment, or administrative separations.

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.