Fort Riley Courts-Martial, 2020–2023: What 50 Cases Show
Assault (Article 128) was charged in 40% of Fort Riley's 50 courts-martial from 2020 through 2023 that list charges, compared with 31% Army-wide. Only 18% of cases were contested, compared with 35% across the Army.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › Fort Riley › 2020–2023
Short answer: Assault (Article 128) was charged in 40% of Fort Riley's 50 courts-martial from 2020 through 2023 that list charges, compared with 31% Army-wide. Only 18% of cases were contested, compared with 35% across the Army. The median confinement was 8 months, compared with an Army median of 6 months.
Assault Was the Most Common Charge
Of the 48 records that list charges, 19 included Article 128 (assault). That is 40%, compared with 31% across the Army. Article 86 (AWOL) was charged in 12% of cases, compared with 5% Army-wide. Article 90 (willfully disobeying a superior officer) was charged in 15%, compared with 7%.
Article 120 (rape and sexual assault) was charged less often: 21% of cases, compared with 25% across the Army. Each article counts once per case, so a case with several charges appears under each.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, all Army cases in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 128 Assault | 19 | 40% | 31% |
| Art. 134 General article | 12 | 25% | 22% |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 10 | 21% | 25% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 8 | 17% | 15% |
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 8 | 17% | 11% |
| Art. 90 Willfully disobeying superior officer | 7 | 15% | 7% |
| Art. 86 AWOL | 6 | 12% | 5% |
| Art. 128b Domestic violence | 4 | 8% | 13% |
Longer Confinement Than the Army Median
89% of the 45 convictions included confinement. The median was 8 months, compared with an Army median of 6 months. A quarter of those sentences were 1.7 years or longer.
40% of convictions here included 1 year to under 5 years, compared with 22% across the Army. 11% included no confinement, compared with 17%. Sentences of 5 years or more were less common: 2% compared with 8%.
These are adjudged sentences, set at trial and before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. They cover every charge in the case.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Army cases in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 5 | 11% | 17% |
| Under 6 months | 18 | 40% | 39% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 4 | 9% | 17% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 17 | 38% | 19% |
| 5 years or more | 1 | 2% | 8% |
Mostly General Courts-Martial
Of the cases, 38 were general courts-martial and 11 were special courts-martial. The general share was 78%, compared with 75% across the Army. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
General courts-martial here had a median confinement of 1.3 years, and 21% were contested. Special courts-martial had a median of 4 months, and 9% were contested.
Pleas, Agreements, and Contested Verdicts
Of 50 accused, 41 pleaded guilty and 9 contested at least one charge. A contested case is one where the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share was 18%, compared with 35% Army-wide.
Of the 41 guilty pleas, 35 are recorded with a plea agreement and 6 have no entry. Army records say whether an agreement existed, not what it said. 3 of 8 contested cases that reached a verdict ended in a full acquittal.
Guilty pleas differed by charge. 92% of cases charging Article 134 ended in a guilty plea (11 of 12). 70% of cases charging Article 120 did (7 of 10). The records do not say why an accused pleaded guilty or contested the case.
Results by Article
The case ended in a conviction on the charged article in 15 of 19 Article 128 cases, 9 of 12 Article 134 cases, 7 of 8 Article 92 cases, and 5 of 10 Article 120 cases. A conviction on one article and an acquittal on another can happen in the same case.
Median confinement when convicted was 1.6 years for Article 134, 1.4 years for Article 128, 1.3 years for Article 120, and 4 months for Article 92.
| Article | Cases charging it | Convicted of it (share) | Median confinement when convicted of it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 128 Assault | 19 | 15 (79%) | 1.4 years |
| Art. 134 General article | 12 | 9 (75%) | 1.6 years |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 10 | 5 (50%) | 1.3 years |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 8 | 7 (7 of 8) | 4 months |
Punitive Discharges Higher Than the Army Rate
Among 43 enlisted members convicted, 35 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (81%), compared with 73% across the Army. Of those 35, 16 were dishonorable.
Both convicted officers or warrant officers were dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out an administrative separation later.
Fort Riley Next to Fort Benning and Fort Wainwright
Fort Benning tried 50 cases and Fort Wainwright 45 in the same years. Fort Riley had the highest median confinement of the 3: 8 months, compared with 5 months at Fort Benning and 6 months at Fort Wainwright. It also had the highest punitive discharge share, 81%.
Full acquittals in contested cases that reached a verdict were 3 of 8 at Fort Riley, 0 of 9 at Fort Benning, and 5 of 10 at Fort Wainwright.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fort Riley | 50 | 18% | 3 of 8 | 8 months | 81% |
| Fort Benning | 50 | 18% | 0 of 9 | 5 months | 77% |
| Fort Wainwright | 45 | 26% | 5 of 10 | 6 months | 50% |
Who Was Accused, and Who Decided
Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 62% of the accused, NCOs 32%, and officers 6%. Across the Army, junior enlisted members were 57%.
Members heard 12% of cases with the forum listed: 5 enlisted panels and 1 officer panel. The other 44 were judge alone. The accused usually chooses the forum, and most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas.
Dates and Data Limits
The 50 cases are from June 2020 through October 2023: 2 in 2020, 18 in 2021, 11 in 2022, and 19 in 2023. They were 3% of the 1,581 Army courts-martial in those years. Army data starts with public trial records under Article 140a in December 2020, so the 2020 count is small.
The records give trial dates, not offense dates, and they do not describe the evidence or the plea terms. Cases handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation are not included.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial in the data tried at Fort Riley with a trial date in 2020–2023 (50 cases), compared with all 1,581 Army trials in those years. Dates are trial dates.
Source: public court-martial records (Article 140a, UCMJ) in Military Trial Results, data updated October 24, 2026. Definitions, sources, and known gaps: how this data was built. Errors: content@bodiesburied.com.
Related Analysis
- Fort Riley: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- What Was Tried at Fort Riley, 2024–2026? 35 Courts-Martial (another period)
- What Was Tried at Fort Wainwright, 2020–2023? 45 Courts-Martial (same years, similar size)
- What Was Tried at Vilseck (Europe), 2020–2023? 43 Courts-Martial (same years, similar size)
- Camp Humphreys, 2020–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 69 Cases
- Fort Bliss, 2020–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 102 Cases
- Fort Bragg Courts-Martial, 2020–2023: What 143 Cases Show
- Fort Carson, 2024–2026: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 45 Cases
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at Fort Riley, 2020–2023
Names and links only. Each judge's record of pleas, findings, and sentences is on their Know Your Judge page, part of the Court-Martial Characters membership.
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.