Hill AFB, Utah Before and After 2019: How Its Courts-Martial Changed
Hill AFB, Utah tried 25 courts-martial in 2019–2023. The median confinement was 8 months, compared with 4 months across the Air Force. 83% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 56%.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › Hill AFB, Utah › Before and after 2019
Short answer: Hill AFB, Utah tried 25 courts-martial in 2019–2023. The median confinement was 8 months, compared with 4 months across the Air Force. 83% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 56%. Article 128 (assault) was charged in 39% of cases with charges listed, compared with 19% across the Air Force.
More Punitive Discharges Than in 2016–2018
Between 2016–2018 and 2019–2023, the share of convicted enlisted members at Hill AFB who received a punitive discharge went from 53% to 83%. In the later years, 19 of 23 enlisted members convicted received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge, and 11 of those were dishonorable. Across the Air Force, the share was 56%.
A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge that a court-martial can adjudge for an enlisted member. A sentence without one does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these records do not show.
Earlier and Later Years Compared
The 2016–2018 period had 20 cases over 3 years, about 7 a year. Since then there have been about 6 a year, counting full years only. Median confinement went from 6 months to 8 months. Convictions with confinement went from 81% to 87%. General courts-martial made up 40% of cases earlier and 68% later.
There is no contested share for the earlier years, because Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 seldom list a guilty plea. With groups this small, a few cases can change any of these figures, so they show direction only.
| 2016–2018 | 2019–2023 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 20 | 25 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | — | 47% |
| Convictions with confinement | 81% | 87% |
| Median confinement | 6 months | 8 months |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 53% | 83% |
| General courts-martial | 40% | 68% |
Assault and Sexual Assault Charges
Charge lists cover 23 of the 25 cases, with each article counted once per case. Article 128 (assault) was charged in 9 cases (39%), compared with 19% across the Air Force. Article 120 (rape and sexual assault) was charged in 26%, compared with 11%.
Drug charges were less common. Article 112a (wrongful use or possession of controlled substances) was charged in 13% of cases at Hill AFB, compared with 41% in the rest of the Air Force. Article 134, the general article, was charged in 22%, about the same as the Air Force share of 21%.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the rest of the Air Force |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 128 Assault | 9 | 39% | 19% |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 6 | 26% | 11% |
| Art. 134 General article | 5 | 22% | 21% |
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 3 | 13% | 41% |
| Art. 128b Domestic violence | 2 | 9% | 5% |
| Art. 115 Malingering before 2019, communicating threats since | 1 | 4% | 4% |
| Art. 131b Obstructing justice | 1 | 4% | 3% |
| Art. 120b Rape and sexual assault of a child | 1 | 4% | 7% |
Longer Confinement Than Air Force-Wide
Of 23 convictions, 20 included confinement. The median was 8 months, compared with 4 months for the Air Force as a whole. A quarter of those sentences were 3 years or longer.
8 of 23 convictions (35%) included more than one year, compared with 23% Air Force-wide. 3 (13%) included 5 years or more, compared with 6%. Only 30% of convictions included under 6 months, compared with 50% across the service. These are adjudged sentences, set at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. They cover all charges in the case.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all Air Force cases in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 3 | 13% | 12% |
| Under 6 months | 7 | 30% | 50% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 5 | 22% | 15% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 5 | 22% | 17% |
| 5 years or more | 3 | 13% | 6% |
Pleas and Acquittals
Plea records exist for 19 of the 25 cases: 10 guilty pleas and 9 contested, meaning a not-guilty or mixed plea to at least one charge. The contested share was 47%, about the same as 50% across the Air Force.
Across all 25 cases, 2 ended in a full acquittal (8%), compared with 24% for all Air Force cases. Air Force records from this time often omit guilty pleas, so this measure uses every case, not contested cases alone. Air Force records also seldom list the charges in a full acquittal.
Who Decided Guilt
The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. Members heard 42% of cases with the forum listed: 6 enlisted panels and 4 officer panels. A judge alone heard the other 14. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the split mostly follows the contested share.
Rank and Court Level
The accused included 11 junior enlisted members, 14 NCOs, and 0 officers. The group is more senior than all Air Force cases.
A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial is capped at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. General courts-martial made up 68% of Hill AFB's cases (17 of 25).
Measured Against Lackland and McConnell
JBSA - Lackland, Texas (25 cases) and McConnell AFB, Kansas (24 cases) tried a similar number in these years. Hill AFB had the highest median confinement of the 3: 8 months, compared with 4 months at both others. It had the highest punitive discharge share: 83%, compared with 60% and 65%. Its contested share was the lowest: 47%, compared with 56% and 57%.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hill AFB, Utah | 25 | 47% | 1 of 9 | 8 months | 83% |
| JBSA - Lackland, Texas | 25 | 56% | 8 of 10 | 4 months | 60% |
| McConnell AFB, Kansas | 24 | 57% | 3 of 7 | 4 months | 65% |
Yearly Pattern and Data Limits
The cases are from February 2019 through September 2023: 6 in 2019, 0 in 2020, 6 in 2021, 8 in 2022, and 5 in 2023. The records give trial dates, not offense dates. They do not report plea agreements. They do not include the evidence, nonjudicial punishment, or administrative separations.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial tried at Hill AFB, Utah in 2016–2018 (20) and 2019–2023 (25).
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
- Hill AFB, Utah: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Inside 25 Courts-Martial at Hill AFB, Utah, 2019–2023
- Inside 20 Courts-Martial at Hill AFB, Utah, 2016–2018
- Andersen AFB, Guam Before and After 2019: How Its Courts-Martial Changed
- Aviano AB, Italy, 2016–2018 vs. 2019–2023: A Side-by-Side Look
- Aviano AB, Italy, 2019–2023 vs. 2024–2026: A Side-by-Side Look
- Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, 2016–2018 vs. 2019–2023: A Side-by-Side Look
- Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, 2019–2023 vs. 2024–2026: A Side-by-Side Look
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at Hill AFB, Utah, 2019–2023
- Elijah F. Brown
- Colin P. Eichenberger
- Christina M. Jimenez
- James E. Key III
- Brett A. Landry
- Andrew R. Norton
- Jennifer E. Powell
- Rebecca E. Schmidt
- Christopher M. Schumann
- Shaun S. Speranza
- Matthew P. Stoffel
- Charles G. Warren
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.