What Was Tried at FE Warren AFB, Wyoming, 2019–2023? 21 Courts-Martial
FE Warren AFB, Wyoming tried 21 courts-martial from 2019 to 2023. Article 134, the general article, was charged in 33% of cases with listed charges, compared with 21% in the rest of the Air Force.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › FE Warren AFB, Wyoming › 2019–2023
Short answer: FE Warren AFB, Wyoming tried 21 courts-martial from 2019 to 2023. Article 134, the general article, was charged in 33% of cases with listed charges, compared with 21% in the rest of the Air Force. 64% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 56% across the Air Force.
Fewer Cases and More Punitive Discharges Than Before
FE Warren tried 23 courts-martial in 2016–2018, about 8 a year, and 21 in 2019–2023, about 4 a year, counting full years only. In the same period, punitive discharges for convicted enlisted members went from 44% to 64%.
Other figures also changed. Convictions with confinement went from 72% to 93%. The median confinement went from 5 months to 4 months. The general court-martial share went from 74% to 57%. In groups this small a few cases can change these figures, so they show direction, not precise change.
| 2016–2018 | 2019–2023 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 23 | 21 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | — | 44% |
| Convictions with confinement | 72% | 93% |
| Median confinement | 5 months | 4 months |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 44% | 64% |
| General courts-martial | 74% | 57% |
More Dishonorable Than Bad-Conduct Discharges
64% of convicted enlisted members in 2019–2023 received a punitive discharge: 6 dishonorable discharges and 3 bad-conduct discharges. Across the Air Force, the share was 56%. A dishonorable discharge is the more severe discharge, and only a general court-martial can impose it.
The 1 convicted officer or warrant officer in these records was dismissed. Dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
The General Article and Orders Violations
The charge lists cover 15 of the 21 cases. Article 134, the general article, was charged in 5 of them (33%), compared with 21% elsewhere in the Air Force. Article 92, failure to obey an order or regulation, was charged in 27%, compared with 16%.
Drug charges were less common. Article 112a was charged in 20% of cases, compared with 41% across the Air Force. Article 113 (misbehavior of a sentinel before 2019 and drunken or reckless driving since) was charged in 13%, compared with 4%. Article 120, sexual assault, was charged in 13%, compared with 11%. Assault under Article 128 was charged in 13%, lower than the Air Force rate of 19%. One case can include several articles, so these shares overlap.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, Air Force-wide |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 134 General article | 5 | 33% | 21% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 4 | 27% | 16% |
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 3 | 20% | 41% |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 2 | 13% | 11% |
| Art. 113 Misbehavior of a sentinel before 2019, drunken or reckless driving since | 2 | 13% | 4% |
| Art. 128 Assault | 2 | 13% | 19% |
| Art. 109 Property other than military; waste, spoilage, destruction | 1 | 7% | 1% |
| Art. 128b Domestic violence | 1 | 7% | 5% |
Sentence Lengths
Of 15 convictions, 14 included confinement. The median confinement was 4 months, the same as the 4 months across the Air Force. A quarter of the sentences were 2 years or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, the terms announced at trial before any plea-agreement limit, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case, so a long term can cover several offenses.
Acquittals and Contested Cases
6 of the 21 cases ended in a full acquittal (29%), compared with 24% across the Air Force. Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 rarely list the plea when the accused pleaded guilty, so this rate uses all cases, not only contested cases.
Of the 16 records that list a plea, 9 were guilty pleas and 7 were contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. That 44% contested share compares with 50% across the Air Force.
Judges and Panels
The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. A judge alone decided 13 of 21 cases (62%). Panels of members heard 8: 7 enlisted panels and 1 officer panel.
Guilty pleas are usually heard by a judge alone, so the forum figures generally follow the number of contested cases.
Rank and Court Level
The accused included 13 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 7 NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 1 officer or warrant officer. That mix is similar to the rest of the Air Force, where 64% were junior enlisted.
General courts-martial made up 57% of the cases (12 of 21). A general court-martial can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
Compared With JB Andrews and JB Lewis-McChord
JB Andrews, Maryland and JB Lewis-McChord, Washington each tried 21 Air Force cases in the same years. All 3 bases had a median confinement of 4 months. The punitive discharge rate for enlisted members was 50% at JB Andrews and 69% at JB Lewis-McChord, compared with 64% here.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FE Warren AFB, Wyoming | 21 | 44% | 5 of 7 | 4 months | 64% |
| JB Andrews, Maryland | 21 | 50% | 5 of 7 | 4 months | 50% |
| JB Lewis-McChord, Washington | 21 | 80% | 4 of 8 | 4 months | 69% |
Timing and What the Records Leave Out
The 2019–2023 cases were tried from January 2019 to January 2023: 5 in 2019, 4 in 2020, 6 in 2021, 3 in 2022, and 3 in 2023. They are 2% of the 1,361 Air Force courts-martial in those years.
Trial records show charges, pleas, findings, and sentences. They do not show the evidence, plea terms, or conduct handled outside a court-martial. Air Force records rarely list charges in full acquittals and never report plea agreements, and they give trial dates, not offense dates.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial in the data tried at FE Warren AFB, Wyoming with a trial date in 2019–2023 (21 cases), compared with all 1,361 Air Force 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
- FE Warren AFB, Wyoming: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- FE Warren AFB, Wyoming Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 23 Cases Show (another period)
- What Was Tried at FE Warren AFB, Wyoming, 2024–2026? 10 Courts-Martial (another period)
- JB Andrews, Maryland, 2019–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 21 Cases (same years, similar size)
- What Was Tried at JB Lewis-McChord, Washington, 2019–2023? 21 Courts-Martial (same years, similar size)
- Andersen AFB, Guam Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 13 Cases Show
- Aviano AB, Italy Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 16 Cases Show
- Aviano AB, Italy, 2019–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 17 Cases
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at FE Warren AFB, Wyoming, 2019–2023
- Elijah F. Brown
- Colin P. Eichenberger
- Tobin C. Griffeth
- Christina M. Jimenez
- John C. Johnson
- James E. Key III
- Brett A. Landry
- Bradley A. Morris
- Christopher M. Schumann
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.