Article 134 at Fort Bragg Before and After 2024
The median confinement in the 19 Article 134 (general article) cases at Fort Bragg in 2024–2026 was 1.4 years, longer than the 1 year across all Army Article 134 cases and the 7 months at Fort Bragg in 2021–2023. 32% of the cases were contested, compared with 14% across the Army.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Installation › Fort Bragg › Article 134
Short answer: The median confinement in the 19 Article 134 (general article) cases at Fort Bragg in 2024–2026 was 1.4 years, longer than the 1 year across all Army Article 134 cases and the 7 months at Fort Bragg in 2021–2023. 32% of the cases were contested, compared with 14% across the Army.
Longer Sentences Than in 2021–2023
17 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge, and 15 of those sentences included confinement (88%). The median was 1.4 years. Among the sentences with confinement, a quarter were 4 years or longer.
In 2021–2023, the median at Fort Bragg was 7 months. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and they cover every charge in the case.
Contested Cases and Acquittals
13 accused pleaded guilty and 6 contested at least one charge, a contested share of 32%. In all Army Article 134 cases the share was 14%, and at Fort Bragg in 2021–2023 it was 42%.
12 of the 13 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement, and 1 has no entry. Of the 6 contested cases that reached a verdict, 2 ended in a full acquittal.
Companion Charges
10 of the 19 cases charged at least one other article. Article 128 (assault) appeared in 4, Article 120 (sexual assault) and Article 128b (domestic violence) in 3 each, and Article 120b (child sexual abuse) and Article 80 (attempt) in 2 each. The sentences cover those charges too.
Punitive Discharges
Among 16 enlisted members convicted, 13 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (81%), less often than in all Army Article 134 cases (88%). 2 were dishonorable. 1 convicted officer or warrant officer appears here and was dismissed.
The 81% share was the same in 2021–2023.
Earlier Period
Fort Bragg had 38 Article 134 cases in 2021–2023, about 13 a year, and about 8 a year since (full years only). Convictions with confinement went from 83% to 88%. General courts-martial were 89% of cases in both periods. These are small groups, so the changes show direction only.
| 2021–2023 | 2024–2026 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 38 | 19 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | 42% | 32% |
| Full acquittals (decided contested) | 2 of 16 | 2 of 6 |
| Convictions with confinement | 83% | 88% |
| Median confinement | 7 months | 1.4 years |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 81% | 81% |
| General courts-martial | 89% | 94% |
Forum, Rank, and Court Level
A military judge alone decided 16 cases. Members heard 2, both enlisted panels, which is 11% of cases with the forum listed.
Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) were 58% of the accused, NCOs 32%, and officers 11%. Across all Army Article 134 cases, junior enlisted were 54%. General courts-martial tried 17 of the 18 cases with a court level listed (94%). The court level is not listed for 1 case.
Years and Limits
The trials ran from January 2024 through August 2026: 8 in 2024, 7 in 2025, and 4 in 2026, a partial year. They were 22% of the 85 courts-martial at Fort Bragg.
The records give trial dates, not offense dates, so they cannot show whether the sentencing rules for offenses after December 27, 2023 applied. They do not show the evidence, the plea terms, or conduct handled outside a court-martial.
For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 134 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Courts-martial tried at Fort Bragg that charged Article 134 (found guilty, not guilty, or both): 2021–2023 (38) and 2024–2026 (19). Comparisons use every Army case charging Article 134 in 2024–2026.
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 Bragg: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 134 (General Article): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Fort Bragg Courts-Martial, 2020–2023: What 143 Cases Show (the whole docket)
- What Was Tried at Fort Bragg, 2024–2026? 85 Courts-Martial (the whole docket)
- Article 134 at Fort Hood Before and After 2024 (same offense, another installation)
- Article 134 at Joint Base Lewis-McChord Before and After 2024 (same offense, another installation)
- Fewer or More? General Article Charges at Army Courts-Martial, 2021–2025
- S1 H6: Shady Sh*t Going Down at Fort Liberty (podcast, members)
- Article 134 explained on the law firm's website
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Article 134 Cases at Fort Bragg, 2024–2026
- Gregory B. Batdorff
- John H. Cook
- Tyler J. Heimann
- Benjamin W. Hillner
- Thomas P. Hynes
- Pamela L. Jones
- Michael E. Korte
- Corey J. Mackinnon
- Sasha N. Rutizer
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.
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.