Inside 20 Courts-Martial at Hill AFB, Utah, 2016–2018
Hill AFB, Utah tried 20 Air Force courts-martial from 2016 to 2018. Article 92 (orders violation) was charged in 38% of cases with charges listed, compared with 16% Air Force-wide. The median confinement was 6 months, compared with 4 months in the rest of the Air Force.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › Hill AFB, Utah › 2016–2018
Short answer: Hill AFB, Utah tried 20 Air Force courts-martial from 2016 to 2018. Article 92 (orders violation) was charged in 38% of cases with charges listed, compared with 16% Air Force-wide. The median confinement was 6 months, compared with 4 months in the rest of the Air Force. A quarter of sentences with confinement were 2.5 years or longer.
Median Confinement Higher Than the Air Force
81% of the 16 convictions at Hill included confinement. The median was 6 months, compared with an Air Force-wide median of 4 months. A quarter of those sentences were 2.5 years or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, the terms announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case, so a long term can reflect several charges together.
More Dishonorable Than Bad-Conduct Discharges
A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge for enlisted members. The dishonorable discharge is the more severe. Of 15 convicted enlisted members, 8 received one: 3 bad-conduct and 5 dishonorable. That is 53%, about the same as 55% across all Air Force cases.
The records list 1 convicted officer or warrant officer, and 1 was dismissed. Dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Orders Violations Charged More Often
Of the 20 records, 16 list the charges, and each article counts once per case. Article 112a (wrongful use or possession of controlled substances) was the most common charge, in 8 cases (50%), about the same as 48% Air Force-wide.
The larger difference was in Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation). It was charged in 6 cases (38%), compared with 16% across the Air Force. Article 134 (general article) was charged in 5 cases (31%), compared with 25%. 1 case each charged Article 120 (rape and sexual assault), Article 120b (child sexual abuse), Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer), and a few other articles. Air Force records seldom list charges in full acquittals, so these counts come mostly from cases with a conviction.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the Air Force as a whole |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 8 | 50% | 48% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 6 | 38% | 16% |
| Art. 134 General article | 5 | 31% | 25% |
| Art. 111 Drunken or reckless driving | 1 | 6% | 4% |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 1 | 6% | 9% |
| Art. 120b Rape and sexual assault of a child | 1 | 6% | 10% |
| Art. 133 Conduct unbecoming an officer | 1 | 6% | 2% |
| Art. 89 Disrespect toward superior officer; assault of superior officer | 1 | 6% | 0% |
Full Acquittals the Same as the Air Force Rate
Of the 20 cases, 4 ended in a full acquittal (20%), the same as the 20% across all Air Force cases. That rate uses all cases as its base. Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 seldom list the plea when the accused pleaded guilty. So the records cannot show how many cases were contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge.
Officer Panels Heard Most Cases
The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. At Hill, 55% of cases with the forum listed went to members: 10 officer panels and 1 enlisted panel. The other 9 were tried by a judge alone.
Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the split between judges and panels usually follows the contested share. The records for these years list too few guilty pleas to show that at Hill.
Court Level and the Rank of the Accused
Hill held 8 general and 12 special courts-martial. The general share was 40%, compared with 47% Air Force-wide. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge or dismissal. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
By rank, the accused were 11 junior enlisted members, 8 NCOs, and 1 officer. The group is more senior than Air Force-wide.
Hill Beside Similar Bases
Moody AFB, Georgia (20 cases) and Dyess AFB, Texas (21 cases) tried a similar number of Air Force cases in the same years. Their median confinement was 4 months and 3 months, both lower than 6 months at Hill. Their enlisted punitive discharge shares were 67% and 41%. Hill's was 53%.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hill AFB, Utah | 20 | — | — | 6 months | 53% |
| Moody AFB, Georgia | 20 | — | — | 4 months | 67% |
| Dyess AFB, Texas | 21 | — | — | 3 months | 41% |
When the Cases Were Tried
The 20 cases are from January 2016 through November 2018: 5 in 2016, 5 in 2017, and 10 in 2018. They are 2% of the 991 Air Force courts-martial in those years. With this few cases, a single result can change any percentage on this page.
All of these trials came before the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. That law set fixed panel sizes, created judge-alone special courts-martial capped at six months with no punitive discharge, and brought in written plea agreements. Cases with offenses from before 2019 kept the old rules.
What the Records Leave Out
Only cases that reached a courtroom appear here. Nonjudicial punishment, administrative separations, and cases with no action are not included. The records do not describe the evidence or the plea terms. They give trial dates, not offense dates, and Air Force records do not report plea agreements.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial in the data tried at Hill AFB, Utah with a trial date in 2016–2018 (20 cases), compared with all 991 Air Force 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
- Hill AFB, Utah: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Inside 25 Courts-Martial at Hill AFB, Utah, 2019–2023 (another period)
- What Was Tried at Moody AFB, Georgia, 2016–2018? 20 Courts-Martial (same years, similar size)
- Dyess AFB, Texas Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 21 Cases Show (same years, similar size)
- Andersen AFB, Guam Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 13 Cases Show
- Aviano AB, Italy Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 16 Cases Show
- Aviano AB, Italy, 2019–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 17 Cases
- Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, 2016–2018: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 27 Cases
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at Hill AFB, Utah, 2016–2018
- W. Shane Cohen
- John C. Degnan
- Joseph S. Imburgia
- Christina M. Jimenez
- Jennifer E. Powell
- Mark F. Rosenow
- Christopher M. Schumann
- Shaun S. Speranza
- Tiffany J. Williams
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.