A Year of Courts-Martial at Fort Campbell: 2023
Article 128 (assault) was charged in 50% of Fort Campbell's 26 courts-martial in 2023, compared with 26% in the rest of the Army. Of convicted enlisted members, 91% received a punitive discharge, compared with 74% Army-wide.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › Fort Campbell › 2023
Short answer: Article 128 (assault) was charged in 50% of Fort Campbell's 26 courts-martial in 2023, compared with 26% in the rest of the Army. Of convicted enlisted members, 91% received a punitive discharge, compared with 74% Army-wide. The median confinement was 4 months, shorter than the Army's 6 months.
Assault Charged in 50% of Cases
Charges appear in all 26 records, and a case listing several articles is counted under each. Article 128 (assault) was charged in 13 cases, a share of 50% compared with 26% for assault across the rest of the Army. Article 120 (sexual assault) was second, in 23% of cases, close to the 21% in the rest of the Army.
Article 85 (desertion) was charged in 12% of cases, compared with 3% in the rest of the Army. Article 128b (domestic violence) was less common, at 8% compared with 21%. Article 112a (drug offenses) and Article 92 (orders violations) were each charged in 12%. Smaller groups of cases charged Article 107 (false official statements), 8% compared with 4%, and Article 121 (larceny), 8% compared with 5%. These counts are small, so a single case changes the share.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the rest of the Army |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 128 Assault | 13 | 50% | 26% |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 6 | 23% | 21% |
| Art. 85 Desertion | 3 | 12% | 3% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 3 | 12% | 11% |
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 3 | 12% | 8% |
| Art. 121 Larceny | 2 | 8% | 5% |
| Art. 107 False official statements | 2 | 8% | 4% |
| Art. 128b Domestic violence | 2 | 8% | 21% |
Punitive Discharges for Most Convicted Enlisted Members
Of convicted enlisted members, 91% received a punitive discharge: 16 bad-conduct and 4 dishonorable. Across the Army, the share was 74%.
The 2 convicted officers or warrant officers in the records were not dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation. Those separations are decided outside the court-martial process and are not counted here.
Many Convictions With No Confinement
Of the 24 convictions, 71% included confinement. The other 7 convictions (29%) carried none, compared with 16% across the Army.
Among sentences that included confinement, the median was 4 months, compared with a 6-month median across the Army. A quarter were 10 months or longer, and 1 was a life sentence. More than one year of confinement was imposed in 4 of 24 convictions (17%), compared with 28% Army-wide. These are adjudged sentences, set before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers all charges in the case. Only a general court-martial can impose more than one year.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, the whole Army docket |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 7 | 29% | 16% |
| Under 6 months | 11 | 46% | 39% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 2 | 8% | 16% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 2 | 8% | 21% |
| 5 years or more | 2 | 8% | 8% |
Most Cases Ended in Guilty Pleas
A contested case is one where the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. Here, 21 cases ended in guilty pleas and 5 were contested, a contested share of 19%, compared with 31% in all Army cases that year. Of the 5 contested cases that reached a verdict, 2 ended in a full acquittal.
Plea agreements are recorded for 20 of the 21 guilty pleas, and 1 has no entry. Army records indicate only whether an agreement existed.
Judge or Panel
The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. A judge alone heard 22 cases, enlisted panels 3, and an officer panel 1. Members heard 15% of cases, compared with 19% in the rest of the Army. Fort Campbell also had few contested cases.
Changes From 2022
The number of cases was about the same, with 27 in 2022 and 26 in 2023. The median confinement increased from 41 days to 4 months. The share of convictions with confinement fell from 80% to 71%.
The enlisted punitive discharge share increased from 83% to 91%. The contested share increased from 15% to 19%. There were 2 full acquittals in each year, out of 4 and then 5 contested cases that reached a verdict. The general court-martial share fell from 78% to 73%. With so few cases, a single case can change these figures.
| 2022 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 27 | 26 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | 15% | 19% |
| Full acquittals (decided contested) | 2 of 4 | 2 of 5 |
| Convictions with confinement | 80% | 71% |
| Median confinement | 41 days | 4 months |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 83% | 91% |
| General courts-martial | 78% | 73% |
Rank and Court Level
The accused were 19 junior enlisted soldiers, 5 NCOs, and 2 officers, a more junior group than in all Army cases that year.
General courts-martial made up 73% of cases (19 of 26). That level can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Special courts-martial, which made up the rest, cap confinement at one year and cannot adjudge a dishonorable discharge.
Fort Stewart and Wheeler Army Airfield
Both installations tried 24 cases. At Fort Stewart, 38% were contested, and 6 of 9 contested cases that reached a verdict ended in a full acquittal. Its median confinement was 4 months, the same as Fort Campbell, and 71% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge. At Wheeler Army Airfield, 50% were contested, and 5 of 12 ended in a full acquittal. Its median was 8 months, and its punitive discharge share was 84%.
Of these installations, Fort Campbell had the lowest contested share and the highest rate of punitive discharges. The records cannot show why the installations differed, only that they did.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fort Campbell | 26 | 19% | 2 of 5 | 4 months | 91% |
| Fort Stewart | 24 | 38% | 6 of 9 | 4 months | 71% |
| Wheeler Army Airfield | 24 | 50% | 5 of 12 | 8 months | 84% |
Where the Data Ends
The records give trial dates, not offense dates. They do not describe evidence or plea terms, and they exclude matters handled through nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial tried at Fort Campbell with a trial date in 2023 (26 cases).
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 Campbell: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Year (hub)
- Fort Campbell in 2022: 27 Courts-Martial, Year in Review (previous / next)
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Fort Campbell: 2024 (previous / next)
- What Was Tried at Fort Campbell, 2020–2023? 99 Courts-Martial (the whole period)
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Camp Humphreys: 2024
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Camp Humphreys: 2025
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Fort Benning: 2022
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Fort Benning: 2023
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at Fort Campbell, 2023
- Gregory R. Bockin
- Robert A. Cohen
- John H. Cook
- Michael C. Farkas
- Adam S. Kazin
- John R. Maloney
- Daniel L. Mazzone
- Sean S. Park
- Travis Rogers
- 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.