Orders Violation Charges at Fort Hood, 2021–2023: Pleas, Verdicts, and Sentences

Trends › By Installation › Fort Hood › Article 92, 2021–2023

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

Article 92 Was Never the Only Charge

Article 92 reaches violations of lawful general orders and regulations, failures to obey other lawful orders, and dereliction of duty. At Fort Hood in these years, it was never the only charge in a case.

All 22 cases charged at least one other article with Article 92. Article 120 (sexual assault) was the most common other charge, in 9 cases, followed by Article 134 (general article) in 7, Article 128 (assault) in 4, and Article 128b (domestic violence) and Article 90 (disobeying an officer) in 3 each.

This affects every sentence figure below. A court-martial sentence covers all the charges in the case. The records do not split it by charge, so confinement here reflects sexual assault, assault, and domestic violence charges as well as the orders violation.

Longer Confinement Than the Army Median

In all, 18 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge, and 12 of those sentences included confinement (67%). The median confinement was 1 year, longer than the 4 months median in the rest of the Army. A quarter of the confinement sentences were 1.5 years or longer.

These are adjudged sentences, set at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal.

Acquittals in Contested Cases

Of the 10 contested cases that reached a verdict, 40% ended in a full acquittal, higher than the 26% in Army Article 92 cases overall. Another 6 were partial acquittals, in which the accused was found not guilty of something but guilty of something else.

Army results list findings charge by charge, so partial acquittals are common in Army data. With only 10 contested cases that reached a verdict, each one changes the rate noticeably. The comparison with the Army figure is based on a small number of cases.

Pleas and Plea Agreements

Of the 22 accused, 12 pleaded guilty and 10 contested at least one charge. The contested share of 45% is higher than the 36% in the rest of the Army.

Plea agreements are recorded for 8 of the 12 guilty pleas, and 4 have no entry. Army records show whether an agreement existed but not its terms.

Mostly Judge-Alone Trials

A military judge alone decided 19 cases, and enlisted panels decided 3. No officer panel appears. Members heard 14% of the cases, compared with 18% in the Army as a whole, and 3 of the 10 contested cases (30%).

The accused usually chooses between a judge alone and a panel of members. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, but here most contested cases also went to a judge alone.

NCOs Made Up Most of the Accused

NCOs made up 68% of the accused. Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 27%, and officers 5%. Across the rest of the Army, junior enlisted members were 38% of those charged under Article 92.

General courts-martial made up 64% of these cases (14 of 22). A general court-martial can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Special courts-martial made up the rest, and they cap confinement at one year.

Discharge Outcomes

Of convicted enlisted members, 65% received a punitive discharge: 8 bad-conduct and 3 dishonorable. In the Army as a whole, the share for Article 92 convictions was 56%. The 1 convicted officer or warrant officer was not dismissed.

A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these records do not track.

Caseload by Year

From January 2021 to December 2023, the data holds 22 cases: 9 in 2021, 9 in 2022, and 4 in 2023. Article 92 was charged in 15% of the 142 courts-martial at Fort Hood in those years.

The count was the same in 2021 and 2022 and lower in 2023. The records do not explain that change. With so few cases, small changes affect the totals noticeably.

Outside the Data

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. The records give trial dates rather than offense dates. They do not describe the evidence or the plea terms, and they leave out cases handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 92 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.