Article 112a Cases at Holloman AFB, New Mexico, 2017–2018: 26 Courts-Martial

Trends › By Installation › Holloman AFB, New Mexico › Article 112a, 2017–2018

Based on 26 cases · 2017–2018 · Air Force records · data updated October 24, 2026

Drug Charges in 84% of Cases

Between February 2017 and October 2018, the records show 26 courts-martial at Holloman AFB, New Mexico that charged Article 112a (drug). They made up 84% of the 31 courts-martial at the base in those years.

There were more cases in the first year: 18 in 2017 and 8 in 2018.

Drug Use Charged by Itself

In 23 of the 26 cases, Article 112a was the only charge. Across Air Force Article 112a cases in the same years, 216 of 287 charged it alone. The other charges at Holloman were Article 86 (AWOL) in 2 cases and Article 107 (false official statement), Article 92 (orders violation), and Article 80 (attempt) in 1 each. The share of cases charging Article 112a alone was higher here than service-wide.

Few cases had other charges, so the sentences here are mostly for the drug offense alone.

Short Confinement or None

Of 26 convictions, 19 included confinement. The median was 2 months, about the same as 3 months for the rest of the Air Force. A quarter of those sentences were 4 months or longer.

27% of convictions included no confinement, compared with 18% in Air Force Article 112a cases overall. 62% included under 6 months, compared with 67%. 8% included 6 months to 1 year, compared with 11%. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal.

1 Sentence Over a Year

Only 1 of 26 convictions (4%) included more than one year of confinement, about the same as 5% for all Air Force Article 112a cases in 2017–2018. None included 5 years or more.

Only a general court-martial can adjudge confinement beyond one year, and only 2 of the 26 cases (8%) were tried at that level. The rest were special courts-martial, which cap confinement at one year and can impose a bad-conduct discharge but not a dishonorable one.

Punitive Discharges Lower Than the Air Force Rate

42% of enlisted convictions here included a punitive discharge: 10 bad-conduct discharges and 1 dishonorable discharge. In the Air Force as a whole, the share for drug convictions was 46%.

A special court-martial cannot impose a dishonorable discharge, so the 1 dishonorable discharge came from 1 of the 2 general courts-martial. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these records do not include.

Officer Panels and Military Judges

A military judge alone decided 18 cases. Members decided 8, all officer panels. No enlisted panel appears. Members heard 31% of the cases, about the same as 34% in Air Force Article 112a cases overall.

The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. Under the rules of the time, an enlisted accused who chose members could also ask for enlisted members to sit on the panel. Otherwise the panel was made up of officers. No case here had an enlisted panel. The records list a forum for every case but a plea for very few, so they cannot show how many members cases were contested.

Most of the Accused Were Junior Airmen

By rank, the accused were 22 junior enlisted members and 4 NCOs, with no officers. The group is more junior than all Air Force Article 112a cases in 2017–2018.

With only 4 NCOs and no officers in the group, the discharge and confinement figures on this page are almost all for junior airmen.

Rules of the Period

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 introduced written plea agreements. Cases with offenses from before 2019 kept the old rules.

Why Some Figures Are Missing

Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 seldom list a guilty plea, so this page does not report a contested share. They do not report plea agreements. They also seldom list the charges in a case that ends in a full acquittal, so this page gives no acquittal rate. The records also leave out drug cases handled by nonjudicial punishment and do not describe the evidence or offense dates.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 112a on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.

Compare: federal court. Federal Law Has No Crime of Drug Use: How Article 112a Cases Compare · Drug Distribution and Importation: Federal vs. Court-Martial Sentences, 2016–2025

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.