22 General Article Courts-Martial at Fort Hood, 2021–2023: What the Records Show

Trends › By Installation › Fort Hood › Article 134, 2021–2023

Based on 22 cases · 2021–2023 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Punitive Discharges for 16 of 17 Convicted Enlisted Members

Of 17 convicted enlisted members, 16 received a punitive discharge: 12 bad-conduct discharges and 4 dishonorable discharges. In Army-wide Article 134 cases from the same years, the share was 74%.

For an enlisted member, a punitive discharge is either a bad-conduct discharge or the more severe dishonorable discharge, which only a general court-martial can impose. The cases also include 2 convicted officers or warrant officers, and 1 was dismissed, the officer equivalent. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.

Confinement in 18 of 19 Convictions

Of 19 convictions, 18 carried confinement. The median confinement was 11 months, shorter than the 1 year median for all Army Article 134 cases in 2021–2023. A quarter of the confinement sentences were 1.3 years or longer.

Punitive discharges here were more common than Army-wide, but the median confinement was not longer. These are adjudged sentences, announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case.

Guilty Pleas and Agreements

Of the 22 accused, 14 pleaded guilty and 8 contested at least one charge. A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge, either outright or as part of a mixed plea. The contested share was 36%, compared with 31% in all Army Article 134 cases in 2021–2023.

Plea agreements are recorded for 12 of the 14 guilty pleas, and 2 have no entry. Army records state whether an agreement existed, not what it said, so they cannot show whether an agreement limited any of the sentences above.

Most Cases Were Judge-Alone Trials

Members heard only 2 cases, 9% of those with the forum listed, both with enlisted panels. A military judge alone decided the other 20.

The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the forum split mostly follows how many cases were contested. Here, several contested cases also went to a judge alone.

What Came With the General Article

Article 134 was the only charge in 7 of the 22 cases. Most cases also charged other articles: Article 92 (orders violation) in 7, Article 120 (sexual assault) in 6, Article 128 (assault) in 6, Article 90 (disobeying an officer) in 5, and Article 86 (AWOL) in 2.

Article 134 is a catch-all article. It covers conduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting, along with a list of specific offenses. Sentences cover the whole case, and the records do not divide them by charge. The discharge and confinement figures here also reflect the sexual assault, assault, and orders charges filed with it.

Rank and Court Level

By rank, the accused were 13 junior enlisted members, 7 NCOs, and 2 officers, a group more junior than the rest of the Army.

General courts-martial made up 82% of these cases (18 of 22). A general court-martial can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The rest were special courts-martial, which cap confinement at one year and can impose a bad-conduct discharge but not a dishonorable one.

Since 2019, a special court-martial can also be tried by a military judge alone, with confinement capped at six months and no punitive discharge available. Most cases here were general courts-martial, where the full range of sentences was available.

Cases Year by Year

From January 2021 to August 2023, the data holds 22 cases: 7 in 2021, 10 in 2022, and 5 in 2023. Article 134 was charged in 15% of the 142 courts-martial at Fort Hood in those years.

The count increased in 2022 and fell in 2023. The records give no reason for either change. With numbers this small, a few cases account for the change.

Limits on What Can Be Said

The services were required to begin publishing trial records under Article 140a by December 2020, and Army records in this data are sparse before 2021. With 22 cases, a single outcome moves any percentage here noticeably.

These records cover what reached a courtroom. Cases resolved by nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action are absent. The records also do not describe the evidence, the plea terms, or the dates of the offenses.

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.

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.