Theft and Fraud Convictions of Officers and Warrant Officers: Courts-Martial Compared With Federal Court
The court-martial records show 29 convictions of officers and warrant officers for larceny, theft, and fraud (Article 121) with trial dates from 2016 to 2025. Confinement was adjudged in 14 of them (48%), and the median was 1.4 months. In federal court, 73% of the 53,639 people sentenced under guide
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 9 min read
Trends › Federal Prosecution Analysis › Theft and Fraud by Dollar Loss › Theft and Fraud: Officers and Warrant Officers
In brief: The court-martial records show 29 convictions of officers and warrant officers for larceny, theft, and fraud (Article 121) with trial dates from 2016 to 2025. Confinement was adjudged in 14 of them (48%), and the median was 1.4 months. In federal court, 73% of the 53,639 people sentenced under guideline §2B1.1 received prison, with a median prison term of 21 months. The officer group is small, and its figures should be read with that in mind.
This post uses the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 53,639 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.
A Small Group With Few Confinement Sentences
The 29 convictions break down by service as 13 in the Army, 9 in the Air Force, 5 in the Navy, and 2 in the Marine Corps. Of the 29, 14 included confinement.
The median adjudged confinement was 1.4 months, and a quarter of the sentences were 2.5 months or more. That is a median from 14 sentences.
| Courts-martial: Officers and Warrant Officers | Federal court, FY2016–FY2025 | |
|---|---|---|
| Convictions or people sentenced | 29 | 53,639 |
| Sentenced to confinement or prison | 48% | 73% |
| Median confinement or prison | 1.4 months | 21 months |
| A quarter received this or more | 2.5 months | 40 months |
| Pleaded guilty | 20 of 26 with a plea recorded (77%) | 96% |
| Mandatory minimum applied | See the caveats | 11% |
Dismissal From the Service
For officers, the record lists dismissals in place of punitive discharges.
Of the 29 officers convicted, 12 were dismissed. A general court-martial decided 22 of the 29 convictions (76%).
Pleas and Contested Cases
A plea was recorded for 26 convictions, and 20 (77%) were guilty pleas. After a guilty plea, the median confinement was 2.2 months in 10 cases with confinement.
In contested cases that ended in conviction, the median was 0.5 months, based on 3 cases with confinement. That number is too small to compare with anything.
For trials in 2016 to 2019, the median was 0.9 months in 2 cases with confinement. For trials in 2020 to 2025, it was 1.7 months in 12 cases. A group of 2 cases cannot support a comparison between periods.
How Officers Compare With All Ranks
For all ranks together, the data has 626 convictions, a median confinement of 5 months, and confinement in 81%.
The officer confinement rate and median are both lower than the all-rank figures. The data cannot show why, and it does not separate the offenses or amounts at issue.
What Federal Sentencing Data Reports
The comparison group is the set of people sentenced in federal court under guideline §2B1.1 during fiscal years 2016 to 2025. Its 53,639 people include those sentenced for embezzlement and property damage as well as theft and fraud.
Prison was ordered for 39,373 of them, while 10,874 (20%) were placed on probation with no confinement. Among people sent to prison, a quarter received 40 months or more and a quarter received 7 months or less.
Almost all pleaded guilty: 51,323, or 96%. The median prison term was 20 months after a guilty plea and 48 months after a trial, and 5,908 people (11%) faced a mandatory minimum.
What Cannot Be Concluded
Rank does not appear in federal records. Criminal history is the closest federal measure, and the court-martial files have no such field, so no federal group matches the officers.
The court-martial sentences are those adjudged at trial, before any clemency or appeal, and the federal terms are the terms imposed rather than time served. With 29 convictions, the records cannot show how officers are sentenced in general.
How We Counted
Courts-martial with trial dates in 2016 to 2025 ending in a conviction for larceny, theft, and fraud (Article 121; federal guideline §2B1.1) where the accused was officers and warrant officers (29). Federal: 53,639 people sentenced under primary guideline §2B1.1 (theft, embezzlement, fraud, and property damage) (U.S. Sentencing Commission). Federal records have no rank; criminal history is the nearest federal measure of record, and courts-martial have no criminal history field.
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.
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.
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.
Federal supervised release. Most federal prison sentences are followed by a term of supervised release that the judge sets as part of the sentence. A person who violates it can be sent back to prison. A court-martial cannot sentence anyone to supervision after release. Military parole and mandatory supervised release are decided later by a board, not by the judge at trial.
Who decides the sentence, and under what rules. Federal judges sentence every federal case. They must calculate the Sentencing Guidelines range, which is advisory, and must impose any mandatory minimum the statute requires unless an exception applies. In courts-martial, the accused could choose sentencing by members until the rules changed. For cases in which every guilty finding is for an offense committed after December 27, 2023, a military judge sentences alone, within sentencing parameters. Courts-martial tried in 2024 and later include both old-rule and new-rule cases, and the data cannot tell them apart.
How life sentences and "time served" are counted. In the federal numbers, a life sentence is counted as 470 months, and any other sentence longer than 470 months is counted as just under 470 months. A sentence of "time served" is counted as one day (0.03 months). Averages are affected by these rules; medians much less.
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)
- Theft and Fraud by Dollar Loss: Federal Sentences vs. Article 121 Courts-Martial (overview)
- Theft and Fraud Convictions of Junior Enlisted (E-1 to E-4): Courts-Martial Compared With Federal Court
- Theft and Fraud Convictions of NCOs (E-5 to E-9): Courts-Martial Compared With Federal Court
- Theft and Fraud Sentences Since the 2023 Military Sentencing Reform: What the Data Shows So Far
- Theft and Fraud Charges: Federal Trial Acquittals vs. Contested Army Courts-Martial
- Theft and Fraud Charges: How Often Federal Trials and Courts-Martial End in Acquittal
- Theft and Fraud Charges: Federal Trial Acquittals vs. Contested Marine Corps Courts-Martial
- Are Courts-Martial More Likely to End in Acquittal Than Federal Trials? (related comparison)
- Guilty Pleas in Federal Court vs. Courts-Martial, Year by Year (related comparison)
- Child Pornography Sentences: Federal Court vs. Courts-Martial, 2016–2025 (related comparison)
- Federal Law Has No Crime of Drug Use: How Article 112a Cases Compare (related comparison)
- Drug Distribution and Importation: Federal vs. Court-Martial Sentences, 2016–2025 (related comparison)
- Sexual Abuse of an Adult: Federal Cases vs. Article 120 Courts-Martial (related comparison)
- Child Sexual Abuse and Enticement: Federal Cases vs. Article 120b Courts-Martial (related comparison)
- Army Article 121 Cases by the Numbers, 2021–2025 (court-martial data)
- Article 121 Sentences in the Army: Confinement and Discharges, 2021–2025 (court-martial data)
- Fighting an Army Larceny Charge: How Contested Cases Ended (court-martial data)
- Guilty Pleas in Army Larceny Cases: How Often, and What Came Next (court-martial data)
- Air Force Article 121 Cases by the Numbers, 2016–2025 (court-martial data)
- What Sentence Follows an Air Force Larceny Conviction? (court-martial data)
- Pleading Guilty to Article 121 in the Air Force: What Sentences Followed? (court-martial data)
- How Has Article 121 Changed in Navy-Marine Corps Courts-Martial Since 2017? (court-martial data)
- Article 121 Sentences in the Navy-Marine Corps: Confinement and Discharges, 2017–2025 (court-martial data)
- Not Guilty Pleas in Navy-Marine Corps Article 121 Cases: What Happened at Trial (court-martial data)
- Guilty Pleas in Navy-Marine Corps Larceny Cases: How Often, and What Came Next (court-martial data)
- Article 121 (Larceny): Court-Martial Data and Trends (court-martial data)
- Article 121 UCMJ: Larceny and Wrongful Appropriation (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.