Fort Hood Before and After 2024: How Its Courts-Martial Changed

Trends › By Installation › Fort Hood › Before and after 2024

Based on 138 cases · 2024–2026 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

More Cases, Fewer Contested

Fort Hood's number of courts-martial increased after 2023. The 2020–2023 period had 147 cases over 4 years, about 37 a year. Since 2024, the rate is about 52 a year, counting full years only. In the same period, contested cases fell from 46% of pleas recorded to 21%. A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge.

That 21% is the same as the Army-wide rate. Of the 2024–2026 cases, 109 accused pleaded guilty and 29 contested at least one charge. Plea agreements are recorded in 107 of the 109 guilty pleas, and 2 have no entry. Army records note that an agreement existed, not what it said.

More Long Sentences

Of 121 convictions, 93 included confinement. The median confinement was 1 year, compared with 6 months across the Army. A quarter of terms were 3.5 years or longer, and 1 sentence was confinement for life.

Sentences of 5 years or more were imposed in 21 convictions (17%), compared with 9% Army-wide. Sentences of more than one year were imposed in 44 of 121 (36%), compared with 30%. At the same time, 28 convictions (23%) carried no confinement, higher than the 15% for the Army. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers all charges in the case.

Attempt Charges and the General Article

Charge lists exist for 131 of the 138 cases, and each article is counted once per case. Article 134 (general article) was the most common charge, in 28% of cases, compared with 21% Army-wide. Article 80 (attempts) was charged in 13% of cases, compared with 8%.

Other charges were close to Army rates: Article 128b (domestic violence) at 24% compared with 25%, Article 128 (assault) at 18% compared with 20%, and Article 120 (rape and sexual assault) at 9% compared with 11%.

Conviction Rates and Sentences by Article

Article 80 cases ended in a conviction on that article 16 of 17 times (94%). The median confinement for those convictions was 12 years. Article 134 had the lowest rate among the leading charges, 33 of 37 (89%), with a median of 1.5 years. Article 128b led to a conviction in 28 of 31 cases, with a median of 5 months. Article 128 led to a conviction in 21 of 23, with a median of 6 months.

Cases charging Article 128b ended in a guilty plea 84% of the time (26 of 31), the most among the top charges. Cases charging Article 80 did so 76% of the time (13 of 17). The records do not say why an accused pleaded guilty or contested the charges. Rows overlap, since one case can bring a conviction on one article and an acquittal on another.

Acquittals and Who Heard the Case

Of 24 contested cases that reached a verdict, 10 ended in a full acquittal (42%), close to the 40% Army-wide. In 2020–2023, the figure was 22 of 65. Another 8 were partial acquittals, meaning not guilty of at least one charge or specification and guilty of another. Army results list findings charge by charge, so these appear often.

The accused usually decides whether a military judge alone or a panel of members determines guilt. A judge alone decided 121 of 138 cases (88%), and members heard 17: 14 enlisted panels and 3 officer panels. In contested cases, members heard 17 of 29 (59%). Full acquittals were 6 of 12 contested cases decided by members (50%) and 4 of 12 contested judge-alone cases (33%).

Discharges and Dismissals

Among 106 enlisted members convicted, 88 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (83%), higher than the 73% Army-wide and close to the 82% at Fort Hood in 2020–2023. Of those, 31 were dishonorable. The records also list 15 convicted officers or warrant officers, of whom 9 were dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge can still be followed by an administrative separation.

Mostly General Courts-Martial

A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial cannot exceed one year of confinement or impose a dishonorable discharge. Of the 137 cases with a court level listed, 113 (82%) were general courts-martial, compared with 69% Army-wide and 73% at Fort Hood in the earlier period. At that level, 81% of convictions included confinement, with a median of 1.5 years. At the 24 special courts-martial, 60% did, with a median of 51 days. The court level is missing for 1 case.

By rank, 73 accused were junior enlisted (E-1 to E-4), 48 were NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 17 were officers or warrant officers, a group similar to the Army, where 53% were junior enlisted.

Fort Campbell and Fort Bragg for Comparison

Fort Campbell (87 cases) and Fort Bragg (85 cases) are the closest Army installations by number of cases, though Fort Hood tried more. Fort Hood's 1-year median confinement was the same as Fort Campbell's and longer than Fort Bragg's 8 months. Its contested share, 21%, was between Fort Campbell's 14% and Fort Bragg's 25%. Its enlisted punitive discharge share, 83%, was between Fort Campbell's 88% and Fort Bragg's 74%.

Dates, New Rules, and Gaps

The records show 56 cases in 2024, 48 in 2025, and 34 in 2026 through October, a partial year. Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel instead of commanders decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. A military judge sentences within new parameters when every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023. Offense dates are not recorded, so the data includes cases under both the old and the new rules. It cannot show whether the changes affected these figures.

Nonjudicial punishment, administrative separations, the evidence, and plea terms all fall outside the records.

Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: 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.