JB Andrews, Maryland, 2019–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 21 Cases
JB Andrews, Maryland tried 21 Air Force courts-martial from 2019 to 2023. Article 112a (drug offenses) was charged in 47% of cases with charge lists, compared with 41% across the Air Force.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › JB Andrews, Maryland › 2019–2023
Short answer: JB Andrews, Maryland tried 21 Air Force courts-martial from 2019 to 2023. Article 112a (drug offenses) was charged in 47% of cases with charge lists, compared with 41% across the Air Force. 50% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 56% in the rest of the Air Force.
A More Senior Group of Accused
The accused at JB Andrews were more senior than across the Air Force. Officers made up 24% of the accused. NCOs made up 43%, and junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 33%. Across all Air Force cases in those years, junior enlisted members made up 64%.
There were 12 general and 9 special courts-martial. General courts-martial were 57% of cases, compared with 53% across the Air Force. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including a dishonorable discharge or, for officers, a dismissal. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year.
Drug Charges and Other Articles
Only 15 of the 21 records list charges, and one case can fall under several articles. Within those 15, Article 112a (wrongful use or possession of controlled substances) was the most common charge, in 47% of cases, compared with 41% across the Air Force. Article 128 (assault) was next, in 27%, compared with 19%.
Several articles were charged in 2 cases each (13%), including Article 115 (communicating threats), Article 128b (domestic violence), Article 107 (false official statements), and Article 86 (absence without leave). With counts this small, each case changes the share by a large amount.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the whole Air Force docket |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 7 | 47% | 41% |
| Art. 128 Assault | 4 | 27% | 19% |
| Art. 115 Malingering before 2019, communicating threats since | 2 | 13% | 4% |
| Art. 128b Domestic violence | 2 | 13% | 5% |
| Art. 107 False official statements | 2 | 13% | 6% |
| Art. 134 General article | 2 | 13% | 21% |
| Art. 86 AWOL | 2 | 13% | 5% |
| Art. 109 Property other than military; waste, spoilage, destruction | 1 | 7% | 1% |
How Often Did a Case End in Full Acquittal?
6 of the 21 cases ended in a full acquittal, meaning not guilty of every charge (29%). Across the Air Force the rate was 24%. Because Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 rarely list the plea when the accused pleaded guilty, this rate is measured against all cases rather than contested cases only.
A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. Of the 14 records that list a plea, 7 were guilty pleas and 7 were contested. The contested share was 50%, the same as the 50% in the rest of the Air Force.
Sentences Were About the Same as Across the Service
Of 15 convictions, 12 included confinement. The median confinement was 4 months, the same as across the Air Force. A quarter of the sentences were 1.1 years or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, imposed at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each one covers every charge in the case.
Bad-Conduct Discharges Only
Of 14 convicted enlisted members, 7 received a punitive discharge. All 7 were bad-conduct discharges, and 0 were dishonorable. Across the Air Force, the share with a punitive discharge was 56%.
The 1 convicted officer or warrant officer 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.
Changes Since 2016–2018
JB Andrews had 18 cases in 2016–2018, about 6 a year. Since then it has had about 4 a year, counting full years. The median confinement went from 5 months to 4 months. Punitive discharges for convicted enlisted members went from 73% to 50%. The share of convictions with confinement went from 86% to 80%. General courts-martial went from 61% to 57% of cases.
In groups this small a few cases can change a percentage, so these changes show direction, not precision. Air Force records from before 2019 rarely list a guilty plea, so the earlier period has no contested share to compare.
| 2016–2018 | 2019–2023 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 18 | 21 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | — | 50% |
| Convictions with confinement | 86% | 80% |
| Median confinement | 5 months | 4 months |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 73% | 50% |
| General courts-martial | 61% | 57% |
Forum, Similar Installations, and Case Counts
The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. A judge alone decided 14 of 20 cases with the forum listed (70%), and members heard 6: 4 enlisted panels and 2 officer panels. Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas.
FE Warren AFB, Wyoming and JB Lewis-McChord, Washington each tried 21 cases in the same years, and all 3 installations had a median confinement of 4 months. JB Andrews had the lowest punitive discharge share of the 3: 50%, compared with 64% and 69%. JB Lewis-McChord contested 80% of its cases.
The 21 cases were tried from May 2019 to July 2023: 5 in 2019, 3 in 2020, 5 in 2021, 5 in 2022, and 3 in 2023. They make up 2% of the 1,361 Air Force courts-martial in those years.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JB Andrews, Maryland | 21 | 50% | 5 of 7 | 4 months | 50% |
| FE Warren AFB, Wyoming | 21 | 44% | 5 of 7 | 4 months | 64% |
| JB Lewis-McChord, Washington | 21 | 80% | 4 of 8 | 4 months | 69% |
The Limits of Trial Records
The records give trial dates, not offense dates, and they say nothing about the evidence or the terms of any plea agreement. Misconduct handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation does not appear. Air Force records also rarely list charges in full acquittals and never report plea agreements, so the charge shares above are based on incomplete lists.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial in the data tried at JB Andrews, Maryland with a trial date in 2019–2023 (21 cases), compared with all 1,361 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
- JB Andrews, Maryland: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Inside 18 Courts-Martial at JB Andrews, Maryland, 2016–2018 (another period)
- Inside 10 Courts-Martial at JB Andrews, Maryland, 2024–2026 (another period)
- What Was Tried at FE Warren AFB, Wyoming, 2019–2023? 21 Courts-Martial (same years, similar size)
- What Was Tried at JB Lewis-McChord, Washington, 2019–2023? 21 Courts-Martial (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
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at JB Andrews, Maryland, 2019–2023
- W. Shane Cohen
- Bryon T. Gleisner
- Christina M. Jimenez
- Brian C. Mason
- Matthew N. McCall
- Andrew R. Norton
- Dayle P. Percle
- Shaun S. Speranza
- Charles G. Warren
- Bryan D. Watson
- Charles E. Wiedie Jr.
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.