Drug Use: Courts-Martial at Ellsworth AFB vs. Federal Court in the District of South Dakota
At Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, 15 of the 16 wrongful drug use convictions with a sentence recorded (94%) included confinement, and the median was 3 months. In the District of South Dakota, 10 of the 22 people sentenced in federal court for simple possession (45%) received a prison term, with a medi
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 9 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › Federal Law Has No Crime of Drug Use › Drug Use: Ellsworth AFB
In brief: At Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, 15 of the 16 wrongful drug use convictions with a sentence recorded (94%) included confinement, and the median was 3 months. In the District of South Dakota, 10 of the 22 people sentenced in federal court for simple possession (45%) received a prison term, with a median of 2 months. The federal group covers the whole district rather than the base, and most of those people were not service members.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 22 people sentenced in federal court in fiscal years 2016 to 2025, compared with court-martial results from this site's Military Trial Results data (updated November 2, 2026). Acquittals and dismissals come from a second source, the Federal Judicial Center's records of 753,808 federal defendants whose cases ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025. It is part of the Federal Prosecution Analysis series, which builds on Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System. How the numbers were built: How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built.
Base Convictions and District Sentences
Ellsworth AFB is located in the District of South Dakota. The federal cases counted here are all people sentenced in that district under 21 U.S.C. 844, simple possession, in fiscal years 2016 to 2022. None of them is counted because of a link to the base.
There is no federal crime of drug use that matches Article 112a. Simple possession is the nearest federal charge, so it is the one compared.
The 16 court-martial convictions are those where the records list the trial location as "Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota". All were Air Force cases, tried from 2016 to 2022. Court-martial years follow the trial date. A federal fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30.
Prison and Probation in South Dakota
Of the 22 people in the federal group, 11 (50%) received probation only, with no prison or other confinement. A prison term went to 10 (45%).
For those sent to prison, the median term was 2 months. A quarter received 6.6 months or more, and a quarter received 0.2 months or less.
Supervised release after prison was ordered for 8 people (36%), with a median term of 12 months. A fine was ordered for 16 (73%). No one was ordered to pay restitution. A mandatory minimum prison term applied to 2 people (9%).
Did Anyone Go to Trial?
In the district, 20 of the 22 people (91%) pleaded guilty, and 2 were convicted after a trial. Every guilty plea in this group (100%) came with a written plea agreement.
The median prison term after a guilty plea was 3 months. After a trial it was 1 month, but that figure is based on 1 person convicted at trial and sent to prison.
Plea information at Ellsworth is thin. A plea was recorded for only 4 convictions, and 2 of the 4 were guilty pleas. The median confinement after a guilty plea was 1.6 months (2 cases with confinement), and the 1 contested case with confinement had 3 months.
Ellsworth Sentences in More Detail
A quarter of the Ellsworth convictions carried 3.8 months of confinement or more. All 16 people convicted were enlisted members, and 6 of them received a punitive discharge (38%). Each of those 6 was a bad-conduct discharge.
2 of the 16 convictions (13%) were at a general court-martial.
Most Ellsworth convictions with confinement were from 2016 to 2019, when the median was 3 months across 12 cases. For 2020 to 2025, the median was 2 months across 3 cases.
| Courts-martial at Ellsworth AFB | Federal court, District of South Dakota | |
|---|---|---|
| Convictions or people sentenced | 16 | 22 |
| Sentenced to confinement or prison | 94% | 45% |
| Median confinement or prison | 3 months | 2 months |
| A quarter received this or more | 3.8 months | 6.6 months |
| Pleaded guilty | 2 of 4 with a plea recorded (2 of 4) | 91% |
| Mandatory minimum applied | See the caveats | 2 of 22 with the information (9%) |
Guideline Range and Criminal History
All 22 federal sentences had a recorded position against the guideline range. Of those, 91% (20) were within the range and 9% (2) were above it. None was below the range.
In this group, 68% were in criminal history category I, the lowest, and 0% were in category VI, the highest. Court-martial records have no criminal history field to compare.
Military and Federal Totals
For all courts-martial for this offense in the data, there were 1,071 convictions, with a median confinement of 3 months, matching Ellsworth. For all federal districts, 6,268 people were sentenced for simple possession, with a median prison term of 6 months. The South Dakota median of 2 months was lower.
What the Data Cannot Answer
Court-martial sentences are as adjudged, before any clemency or appeal. Federal prison terms are as imposed, not as served. Neither source shows the drug or the facts of a case. The records cannot show what sentence an Ellsworth case would have received in federal court, and with 16 and 22 cases, small changes can move each figure.
How We Counted
Courts-martial with trial dates in 2016 to 2025 whose recorded trial location is Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota, ending in a conviction for wrongful drug use (Article 112a), compared with federal simple possession, the nearest federal charge (16). Federal: people sentenced in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 in the District of South Dakota (U.S. Sentencing Commission district label "South Dakota") under a conviction under 21 U.S.C. 844 (simple possession), the nearest federal charge (22). The installation is matched to the federal district for the county where it sits.
Federal fiscal years run from October 1 to September 30. No person, judge, or lawyer is identified in any of these records.
What to Keep in Mind
Who is in each set of numbers. The federal sentencing numbers come from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. They count only people who were convicted and sentenced in federal district court. People whose cases were dismissed or who were acquitted are not in them. The military numbers come from court-martial results, which include acquittals. To compare acquittal or dismissal rates, the federal side uses a different source: the Federal Judicial Center's case data, which counts every defendant whose case ended.
Different cases reach each system. Federal prosecutors bring a narrow set of cases. In fiscal year 2024, immigration and drug trafficking cases were 59% of everyone sentenced in federal court (36,664 of 61,678). Many crimes that the military prosecutes, such as most assaults, most sexual assaults between adults, and drug use, are usually state crimes for civilians and reach federal court only in special situations, such as on federal land or in Indian Country. A federal case and a court-martial for the same crime can involve different kinds of facts.
No parole in federal prison; credit for good conduct. Federal prison has no parole for crimes committed on or after November 1, 1987. A federal prisoner can earn up to 54 days of good conduct credit for each year of the sentence the judge imposed, which is about 15%. Some federal prisoners can also earn First Step Act time credits, but many offenses make a person ineligible. The numbers in this post are the sentences judges imposed, not the time people actually served.
Military confinement credit and parole. For military sentences adjudged after 2004, good conduct time is 5 days for each month of confinement, about 16%. Military prisoners can also earn up to 8 more days a month for work and programs and up to 2 days a month for special acts, with a limit of 15 days a month in total. Military prisoners can be considered for parole by their service's clemency and parole board. The military numbers in this post are the confinement adjudged at trial, not the time served.
Military sentences include punishments federal sentences do not. A court-martial sentence can include a punitive discharge (bad-conduct discharge, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal for officers), reduction in rank, and forfeiture of pay. These have no federal counterpart. A comparison of months of confinement leaves them out. A short confinement term combined with a dishonorable discharge is a heavier sentence than the months alone show.
Time periods. Federal numbers are by federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30), based on the sentencing date. The military numbers are by trial date. Neither source has the date of the offense, so a change in law shows up in either data set gradually.
Offense categories do not line up exactly. Each comparison uses a federal offense group chosen to match the military article as closely as possible (see the crosswalk). Some matches are close; others are partial. The post says which federal guideline or statute was used and why it is not an exact match.
Drug use has no federal counterpart. Federal law does not make drug use a crime. A positive drug test is not a federal offense; a civilian can be charged only with possessing the drug. Bringing drugs onto a military installation is also a military-only offense. For these, the nearest federal charge is simple possession, and the post says that the match is not exact.
Related Analysis
- Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System (the background article)
- Federal Prosecution Analysis (all federal posts)
- How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built (sources and method)
- Federal Law Has No Crime of Drug Use: How Article 112a Cases Compare (overview)
- Federal Sentences in the District of South Dakota, FY2016–2025 (the federal district)
- Drug Use: Courts-Martial at Barksdale AFB vs. Federal Court in the Western District of Louisiana (other installations)
- Drug Use: Courts-Martial at Beale AFB vs. Federal Court in the Eastern District of California (other installations)
- Drug Use: Courts-Martial at Bremerton vs. Federal Court in the Western District of Washington (other installations)
- Drug Use: Courts-Martial at Camp Lejeune vs. Federal Court in the Eastern District of North Carolina (other installations)
- Drug Use: Federal Sentences vs. Air Force Courts-Martial, 2016–2025
- Drug Use: Federal Sentences vs. Army Courts-Martial
- Drug Use: Federal Sentences vs. Marine Corps Courts-Martial
- Army Article 112a Cases by the Numbers, 2021–2025 (court-martial data)
- What Sentence Follows an Army Drug Conviction? (court-martial data)
- How Often Are Contested Army Article 112a Cases Acquitted? (court-martial data)
- Guilty Pleas in Army Drug Cases: How Often, and What Came Next (court-martial data)
- Are Air Force Drug Courts-Martial Disappearing? Article 112a, 2016–2025 (court-martial data)
- How Much Confinement for an Article 112a Conviction in the Air Force? (court-martial data)
- Pleading Guilty to Article 112a in the Air Force: What Sentences Followed? (court-martial data)
- Is Navy-Marine Corps Drug Prosecution Rising or Falling? Article 112a, 2017–2025 (court-martial data)
- How Much Confinement for an Article 112a Conviction in the Navy-Marine Corps? (court-martial data)
- Fighting a Navy-Marine Corps Drug Charge: How Contested Cases Ended (court-martial data)
- When Navy-Marine Corps Accused Plead Guilty to Drug (court-martial data)
- Article 112a (Wrongful Use, Possession of Controlled Substances): Court-Martial Data and Trends (court-martial data)
- Article 112a UCMJ Drug Offenses and Positive Urinalysis (law firm reference page)
- U.S. Sentencing Commission, Individual Offender Datafiles (source)
- Federal Judicial Center, Integrated Database (criminal defendants) (source)
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.