Article 134 Cases at Fort Hood, 2024–2026: 37 Courts-Martial

Trends › By Installation › Fort Hood › Article 134, 2024–2026

Based on 37 cases · 2024–2026 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

A Punitive Discharge for 100% of Enlisted Convictions

All convicted enlisted members here received a punitive discharge: 16 bad-conduct and 16 dishonorable discharges. In Army-wide Article 134 cases over the same years, the share was 88%. The 1 convicted officer or warrant officer was dismissed.

A dishonorable discharge, the more severe kind, can come only from a general court-martial. Nearly all of these cases were tried at that level, so both kinds of discharge were available.

More Long Sentences Than Army-Wide

Of 33 convictions, 29 carried confinement. The median confinement was 1.5 years, longer than the 1 year median for the Army as a whole. A quarter of the confinement sentences were 3.5 years or longer.

Sentences of 5 years or more made up 21% of convictions at Fort Hood, compared with 11% Army-wide. Sentences longer than one year were imposed in 17 of 33 convictions (52%), compared with 45%. Short sentences were less common: only 9% of convictions carried under 6 months, compared with 22%. Sentences of 6 months to 1 year made up 27% of convictions, compared with 23%. Sentences of more than 1 year but under 5 years made up 30%, compared with 34%. Convictions with no confinement were 12%, compared with 10%. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. They cover every charge in the case.

Other Charges Filed With Article 134

Article 134 was the only charge in most cases. Of the 37 cases, 14 charged at least one other article. The most common other charge was Article 120b (child sexual abuse), in 6 cases, followed by Article 80 (attempt) in 4, and Article 82 (solicitation), Article 120 (sexual assault), and Article 128 (assault) in 3 each.

The general article covers conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting, plus a set of specific listed offenses. Where it was charged with child sexual abuse, attempt, or solicitation, the sentence reflects the whole case, and the records do not divide it by charge.

Guilty Pleas, Each With an Agreement

Of the 37 cases, 31 ended in guilty pleas and 6 were contested through a not-guilty or mixed plea. The contested share of 16% is close to the Army's 14%.

All 31 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement. Army records say whether an agreement existed but not its terms, so they cannot show whether an agreement capped any of the sentences above.

These cases combined a high guilty-plea rate with long adjudged terms, and every convicted enlisted member received a punitive discharge. The records cannot show what the agreements provided or what conduct was behind the charges.

Members Heard 3 of 37 Cases

A military judge alone decided guilt in 34 of 37 cases with the forum listed (92%). Members heard 3, all with enlisted panels. The accused usually chooses the forum, and most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so this split reflects the high guilty-plea rate.

Rank and Court Level

Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 59% of the accused, NCOs 38%, and officers 3%. Across the rest of the Army, junior enlisted were 54%.

General courts-martial heard 35 of the 37 cases (95%), compared with 85% in Army Article 134 cases overall. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.

Cases by Year

From January 2024 to September 2026, the data holds 37 cases: 15 in 2024, 10 in 2025, and 12 in 2026, a partial year. Article 134 was charged in 27% of the 138 courts-martial at Fort Hood across that span.

The partial count for 2026, 12 cases, was already higher than the 10 cases in 2025.

The New Rules and This Period

Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel rather than commanders decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. When every guilty finding in a case is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters.

Both changes depend on the offense date, which the records do not give. Trials from 2024 on therefore include cases under both the old and the new rules. The data cannot show whether either change affected the outcomes here.

What the Records Omit

The records give trial dates, not offense dates. They do not describe the evidence or plea terms. Cases handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation are not included.

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.