Drug Use: Courts-Martial at Joint Base Andrews vs. Federal Court in the District of Maryland
Every one of the 13 court-martial convictions for wrongful drug use at Joint Base Andrews (100%) included confinement, with a median of 2.9 months. In the District of Maryland, 10 of 53 people sentenced for simple possession (19%) received a prison term, and 38 (72%) received probation only. The Mar
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 8 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › Federal Law Has No Crime of Drug Use › Drug Use: Joint Base Andrews
In brief: Every one of the 13 court-martial convictions for wrongful drug use at Joint Base Andrews (100%) included confinement, with a median of 2.9 months. In the District of Maryland, 10 of 53 people sentenced for simple possession (19%) received a prison term, and 38 (72%) received probation only. The Maryland figures cover the whole district, and most of those cases did not involve service members.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 53 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.
Confinement at Andrews, Probation in Maryland
At Joint Base Andrews, all 13 Air Force convictions under Article 112a with a sentence recorded included confinement. In Maryland federal court, simple possession under 21 U.S.C. 844, the nearest federal charge, led to probation only for 38 of the 53 people sentenced (72%).
The 10 Maryland defendants sent to prison had a median term of 2.7 months. A quarter received 12 months or more, and a quarter received 1.1 months or less. The Andrews median adjudged confinement was 2.9 months, and a quarter of convictions carried 5.9 months or more.
| Courts-martial at Joint Base Andrews | Federal court, District of Maryland | |
|---|---|---|
| Convictions or people sentenced | 13 | 53 |
| Sentenced to confinement or prison | 100% | 19% |
| Median confinement or prison | 2.9 months | 2.7 months |
| A quarter received this or more | 5.9 months | 12 months |
| Pleaded guilty | 3 of 3 with a plea recorded (3 of 3) | 98% |
| Mandatory minimum applied | See the caveats | 0 of 15 with the information (0%) |
Why the District Is the Unit of Comparison
Joint Base Andrews is located in the federal District of Maryland. The base was assigned to that district by county, and the 53 federal sentences come from anywhere in it. None is a case from the base.
Courts-martial are tried in military courts, apart from the district court. The comparison does not imply that any Andrews case would have been charged federally. The court-martial records list the trial location as "JB Andrews, Maryland".
Punitive Discharges and Court Level
12 of the people convicted at Andrews were enlisted members, and 8 of them (67%) received a punitive discharge. All 8 were bad-conduct discharges, with 0 dishonorable discharges.
The records also include 1 officer convicted, who was dismissed. A dismissal is the officer form of a punitive discharge.
4 of the 13 convictions (31%) were at a general court-martial. The other convictions came from lower levels of court-martial.
Guilty Pleas in Both Groups
Only 3 Andrews convictions had a plea recorded, and all 3 were guilty pleas. That is too few to describe how Andrews cases are usually resolved.
In Maryland, 52 of 53 people (98%) pleaded guilty, and 1 was convicted after a trial. Of the guilty pleas, 29% had a written plea agreement and 58% were straight pleas with no agreement.
Other Parts of the Maryland Sentences
A fine was ordered for 29 people (55%), and restitution for 0. 5 people (9%) were ordered to serve supervised release after prison, with a median term of 24 months. No mandatory minimum prison term applied to anyone in this group.
Guideline information was available for only 13 of the Maryland sentences. Of those, 10 (77%) were within the range, and 1 (8%) each fell below at the government's request, below without a government request, and above the range.
54% of the Maryland group were in criminal history category I, the lowest, and 0% were in category VI. Courts-martial keep no criminal history field.
National Totals and Trial Periods
Both local medians were lower than the wider totals. All federal districts sentenced 6,268 people on this charge, with a median prison term of 6 months. All courts-martial for this offense produced 1,071 convictions, with a median confinement of 3 months.
Andrews trials from 2016 to 2019 had a median confinement of 1.5 months across 8 cases. Trials from 2020 to 2025 had a median of 3.9 months across 5 cases. With so few cases, this is not a trend. The recorded Andrews trial dates run from 2017 to 2024.
Limits of the Comparison
Court-martial years follow the trial date, and federal years are fiscal years from October 1 to September 30. Court-martial sentences are as adjudged, before clemency or appeal, and federal prison terms are imposed terms, not time served.
The records do not name the drug or describe the conduct. They cannot show whether the Andrews and Maryland groups involved similar facts.
How We Counted
Courts-martial with trial dates in 2016 to 2025 whose recorded trial location is Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, ending in a conviction for wrongful drug use (Article 112a), compared with federal simple possession, the nearest federal charge (13). Federal: people sentenced in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 in the District of Maryland (U.S. Sentencing Commission district label "Maryland") under a conviction under 21 U.S.C. 844 (simple possession), the nearest federal charge (53). 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 Maryland, 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.