Drug Use: Courts-Martial at Holloman AFB vs. Federal Court in the District of New Mexico
In the District of New Mexico, 14 of the 23 people sentenced for simple possession (61%) received probation only, with no prison. At Holloman AFB, 26 of 34 court-martial convictions for wrongful drug use (76%) included confinement, with a median of 2 months. New Mexico defendants who were sent to pr
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 8 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › Federal Law Has No Crime of Drug Use › Drug Use: Holloman AFB
In brief: In the District of New Mexico, 14 of the 23 people sentenced for simple possession (61%) received probation only, with no prison. At Holloman AFB, 26 of 34 court-martial convictions for wrongful drug use (76%) included confinement, with a median of 2 months. New Mexico defendants who were sent to prison had a median term of 3.6 months.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 23 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.
Probation Was More Common in the District
Federal courts in New Mexico sent 9 of 23 people (39%) to prison for simple possession under 21 U.S.C. 844, the nearest federal charge to wrongful drug use. The remaining 14 (61%) received probation only.
Holloman courts-martial, tried under Article 112a, included confinement more often: in 26 of the 34 convictions with a sentence recorded (76%).
| Courts-martial at Holloman AFB | Federal court, District of New Mexico | |
|---|---|---|
| Convictions or people sentenced | 34 | 23 |
| Sentenced to confinement or prison | 76% | 39% |
| Median confinement or prison | 2 months | 3.6 months |
| A quarter received this or more | 3 months | 17.1 months |
| Pleaded guilty | 7 of 15 with a plea recorded (47%) | 100% |
| Mandatory minimum applied | See the caveats | 3 of 23 with the information (13%) |
These Federal Cases Did Not Come From Holloman
Holloman AFB is in the federal District of New Mexico, and the base was linked to the district through its county. The 23 federal sentences come from the full district. They are not Holloman cases, and most of those defendants were not service members.
Courts-martial are tried in military courts, not in the district court. Nothing here suggests that a Holloman case would have been brought in federal court instead. The court-martial records list the trial location as "Holloman AFB, New Mexico".
Sentence Length on Each Side
The median adjudged confinement at Holloman was 2 months, and a quarter of convictions carried 3 months or more. That median was lower than the 3-month median for all 1,071 court-martial convictions for this offense.
For New Mexico defendants sent to prison, the median was 3.6 months. A quarter received 17.1 months or more, and a quarter received 0.6 months or less. All federal districts combined had a median prison term of 6 months across 6,268 people.
Court-martial sentences are as adjudged, before clemency or appeal. Federal prison terms are as imposed, not as served.
Discharge and Court Level for Holloman Airmen
All 34 people convicted were enlisted members. 12 (35%) received a punitive discharge: 2 dishonorable discharges and 10 bad-conduct discharges.
3 of the 34 convictions (9%) were at a general court-martial, which handles the most serious cases.
Pleas at Holloman and in New Mexico
A plea was recorded for 15 Holloman convictions, and 7 of them (47%) were guilty pleas. Median confinement after a guilty plea was 1.2 months, from 6 cases with confinement. Contested cases ending in conviction had a median of 1.1 months, from 2 cases.
In New Mexico federal court, 23 of 23 (100%) pleaded guilty, and none went to trial. 96% of those guilty pleas included a written plea agreement, and 4% were straight pleas.
Guidelines and Other Federal Sentence Terms
Guideline information covered 22 of the New Mexico sentences. 15 (68%) were within the guideline range. 4 (18%) were below the range at the government's request, 1 (5%) was below it without a government request, and 2 (9%) were above it.
A mandatory minimum prison term applied to 3 people (13%). 8 (35%) were ordered to serve supervised release after prison, with a median of 24 months. A fine was ordered for 7 (30%), and restitution for 1 (4%).
65% were in criminal history category I, the lowest, and 4% were in category VI, the highest. Court-martial records include no criminal history field.
Trial Years and What Is Not Known
Holloman trial dates in this data run from 2017 to 2023, counted by calendar date. The federal figures cover fiscal years 2016 to 2025, each running from October 1 to September 30.
Holloman trials from 2016 to 2019 had a median confinement of 2 months across 20 cases with confinement. Trials from 2020 to 2025 had a median of 1.2 months across 6 cases. The later group is small.
The records do not identify the drug, the amount, or the circumstances of any case. They cannot show whether the sentencing differences come from the cases themselves or from the systems.
How We Counted
Courts-martial with trial dates in 2016 to 2025 whose recorded trial location is Holloman AFB, New Mexico, ending in a conviction for wrongful drug use (Article 112a), compared with federal simple possession, the nearest federal charge (34). Federal: people sentenced in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 in the District of New Mexico (U.S. Sentencing Commission district label "New Mexico") under a conviction under 21 U.S.C. 844 (simple possession), the nearest federal charge (23). 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 New Mexico, 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.