15 Orders Violation Courts-Martial at Fort Knox, 2024–2026: What the Records Show

Trends › By Installation › Fort Knox › Article 92, 2024–2026

Based on 15 cases · 2024–2026 · Army records · data updated October 24, 2026

Every Accused Was an NCO

NCOs made up 100% of the accused in these 15 cases. No junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) and no officers were charged. Across all Army Article 92 cases in 2024–2026, junior enlisted members made up 46% of the accused.

The most common other charge was Article 93a (prohibited activities with recruit or trainee), which appeared in 6 of the 15 cases.

Other Charges in the Same Cases

Article 92 was the only charge in 5 of the 15 cases. Army-wide, it stood alone in 24 of 124 Article 92 cases. Besides Article 93a, the companion charges were Article 107 (false official statement) in 2 cases, Article 131b (obstruction) in 2, Article 128 (assault) in 1, and Article 112a (drug) in 1.

Guilty Pleas and Plea Agreements

Only 1 of the 15 cases was contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. The other 14 were guilty pleas. The contested share was 7%, compared with 19% in all Army Article 92 cases in 2024–2026.

Each of the 14 guilty pleas is recorded with a plea agreement. Army records show whether an agreement existed, not what it said.

How Much Confinement Was Adjudged?

Confinement was part of 79% of the 14 convictions. The median confinement was 2 months. In all Army Article 92 cases in 2024–2026, the median was 4 months.

Each figure is the sentence announced at trial. It covers every charge in the case, not only the orders violation, and it comes before any limit from a plea agreement, clemency, or appeal.

Few Punitive Discharges

Of the 14 enlisted members convicted, 1 received a bad-conduct discharge (7%), and none received a dishonorable discharge. Across all Army Article 92 cases in 2024–2026, 51% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge.

A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. A sentence without one does not rule out a later administrative separation.

Forum and Court Level

A military judge alone decided 14 cases, and an enlisted panel heard 1. Members heard 7% of the cases, compared with 10% in Army Article 92 cases overall.

General courts-martial heard 2 of the 14 cases with a court level listed (14%), and special courts-martial heard the rest. The court level is not listed for 1 case. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.

Trial Years and the December 2023 Changes

By year, 7 cases were tried in 2024, 2 in 2025, and 6 in 2026, a partial year. These cases were 29% of the 52 courts-martial at Fort Knox in 2024–2026.

Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. Military judges also sentence under new sentencing parameters when every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023. Both rules depend on the offense date, so trials from 2024 on include cases under both the old and the new rules.

What the Records Do Not Show

The records list trial dates but not offense dates. They do not describe the evidence or the plea terms, and they leave out nonjudicial punishment and administrative separations.

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.