16 Sexual Assault Courts-Martial at Fort Bliss, 2021–2023: What the Records Show
Fort Bliss tried 16 courts-martial charging Article 120 (sexual assault) from 2021 to 2023, and 13 were contested (81%). 5 of the 13 contested cases that reached a verdict ended in a full acquittal (38%), compared with 42% across Army Article 120 cases.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Installation › Fort Bliss › Article 120, 2021–2023
Short answer: Fort Bliss tried 16 courts-martial charging Article 120 (sexual assault) from 2021 to 2023, and 13 were contested (81%). 5 of the 13 contested cases that reached a verdict ended in a full acquittal (38%), compared with 42% across Army Article 120 cases. The median confinement was 1.3 years, shorter than the 1.8 years Army-wide, and 90% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge.
Most Accused Contested the Charges
13 accused contested at least one charge, and 3 pleaded guilty. The contested share was 81%, higher than the 71% across Army Article 120 cases.
A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. That includes a mixed plea, where the accused pleads guilty to some charges and not guilty to others.
How Contested Cases Ended
Of the 13 contested cases that reached a verdict, 5 ended in a full acquittal: not guilty of every charge. The full-acquittal rate was 38%, lower than the 42% across all Army Article 120 cases in 2021–2023.
4 other contested cases ended in a partial acquittal. A partial acquittal means not guilty of at least one charge or specification but guilty of another. Army results list findings charge by charge, so partial acquittals are common in Army records.
Panels Heard 8 Cases
A military judge alone decided guilt in 8 of the 16 cases (50%). Members heard the other 8: 7 enlisted panels and 1 officer panel. Among the contested cases, members heard 8 of 13 (62%).
The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt.
Confinement After Conviction
11 cases ended in a conviction, and all 11 sentences included confinement. The median confinement was 1.3 years. Across Army Article 120 cases in 2021–2023, the median was 1.8 years. A quarter of the sentences were 5 years or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence covers every charge on which the accused was convicted, not only Article 120.
Discharges and Dismissals
9 of the 10 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge (90%): 7 dishonorable discharges and 2 bad-conduct discharges. Across Army Article 120 cases, the share was 80%.
1 convicted officer or warrant officer appears here and was dismissed. A dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Charges Filed With Article 120
Article 120 was the only charge in 6 of the 16 cases. Article 128 (assault) also appeared in 6. Article 107 (false official statement) appeared in 3, and Article 120b (child sexual abuse), Article 112a (drug), and Article 90 (disobeying an officer) appeared in 2 each.
Rank and Court Level
Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 69% of the accused, NCOs 12%, and officers 19%. Across Army Article 120 cases, junior enlisted members were 62% of the accused.
15 of the 16 cases were general courts-martial (94%), about the same as the 95% across Army Article 120 cases. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
Cases by Year
The trials ran from January 2021 to March 2023: 6 in 2021, 8 in 2022, and 2 in 2023. The 16 cases were 17% of the 96 courts-martial at Fort Bliss in 2021–2023. The services had to begin publishing trial records under Article 140a by December 2020, and Army records in this data are sparse before 2021.
What the Records Do Not Show
The records show charges, pleas, findings, and sentences. They do not show the evidence, the plea terms, or the offense dates. Conduct handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation is not included.
For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 120 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Courts-martial tried at Fort Bliss in 2021–2023 that charged Article 120 (16 cases), compared with every Army case charging Article 120 in those years.
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
- Fort Bliss: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 120 (Rape and Sexual Assault): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Fort Bliss, 2020–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 102 Cases
- What Was Tried at Fort Bliss, 2024–2026? 84 Courts-Martial
- Fewer or More? Sexual Assault Charges at Army Courts-Martial, 2021–2025
- 24 Sexual Assault Courts-Martial at Fort Campbell, 2021–2023: What the Records Show
- 28 Sexual Assault Courts-Martial at Camp Humphreys, 2021–2023: What the Records Show
- 38 Sexual Assault Courts-Martial at Fort Bragg, 2021–2023: What the Records Show
- How Fort Stewart Handled Sexual Assault Cases (Article 120), 2021–2023
- S2 E1: Article 120 Dismissal & the Aftermath (podcast, members)
- Article 120 explained on the law firm's website
Military Judges Who Presided Over Article 120 Cases at Fort Bliss, 2021–2023
- Joseph R. Distaso
- Jacqueline L. Emanuel
- Matthew S. Fitzgerald
- Joseph T. Marcee
- Robert L. Shuck
- Clay M. West
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.
Compare: federal court. Sexual Abuse of an Adult: Federal Cases vs. Article 120 Courts-Martial
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.