What Was Tried at JB Charleston, South Carolina, 2019–2023? 22 Courts-Martial
JB Charleston, South Carolina tried 22 Air Force courts-martial in 2019–2023. Drug charges under Article 112a were in 50% of cases with charges listed, compared with 41% across the Air Force. All 16 convictions included confinement.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › JB Charleston, South Carolina › 2019–2023
Short answer: JB Charleston, South Carolina tried 22 Air Force courts-martial in 2019–2023. Drug charges under Article 112a were in 50% of cases with charges listed, compared with 41% across the Air Force. All 16 convictions included confinement. 44% of convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge, compared with 56% across the Air Force.
Every Conviction Included Confinement
At JB Charleston, confinement was part of 100% of the 16 convictions. No convicted member here received only a reduction in rank, a fine, or a reprimand. The median confinement was 5 months, compared with 4 months across the Air Force. A quarter of the sentences were 8 months or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, meaning the terms announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence covers every charge in its case.
Sentences by Court Level
General courts-martial made up 45% of these cases (10 of 22), and special courts-martial the other 12. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
The median confinement was 10 months in the 10 general courts-martial and 3 months in the 12 special courts-martial. The records show the court level and the sentence, but not why a case was tried at one level or the other.
Fewer Punitive Discharges Than Across the Air Force
A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge for enlisted members; the officer equivalent is dismissal. Of 16 convicted enlisted members, 7 received one: 5 bad-conduct and 2 dishonorable. That share, 44%, is lower than the 56% across the Air Force.
A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation. The records end with the court-martial and do not show what happened afterward.
Which Articles Were Charged?
Charge lists exist for 16 of the 22 cases, and a single case can fall under several articles. Article 112a (wrongful use and possession of controlled substances) was the most common charge, in 8 cases (50%), compared with 41% across the Air Force. Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation) was charged in 4 cases (25%), and Article 107 (false official statements) in 3 (19%).
Article 128 (assault) and Article 134 (general article) were each charged in 2 cases (12%), both lower than their Air Force shares of 19% and 21%. Air Force records rarely list charges in full acquittals, so these shares mostly reflect cases that ended in a conviction.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the whole Air Force docket |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 8 | 50% | 41% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 4 | 25% | 16% |
| Art. 107 False official statements | 3 | 19% | 6% |
| Art. 128 Assault | 2 | 12% | 19% |
| Art. 113 Misbehavior of a sentinel before 2019, drunken or reckless driving since | 2 | 12% | 4% |
| Art. 86 AWOL | 2 | 12% | 5% |
| Art. 134 General article | 2 | 12% | 21% |
| Art. 83 Fraudulent enlistment before 2019, malingering since | 1 | 6% | 1% |
About Half the Cases Were Contested
A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. Of the 17 records that list a plea, 8 were not-guilty or mixed pleas and 9 were guilty pleas, a contested share of 47%. Across the Air Force the contested share was 50%, about the same.
Of all 22 cases, 6 ended in a full acquittal (27%), compared with 24% across the Air Force. This rate uses all cases as the base rather than contested cases alone, because Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 rarely list a guilty plea.
Judges and Panels
The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. A military judge alone decided 14 of the 22 cases with the forum listed (64%). Members heard 8: 2 enlisted panels and 6 officer panels.
Most judge-alone cases are guilty pleas, so the split between judges and panels mostly follows how many cases were contested.
A More Senior Group of Accused
The accused were 12 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 8 NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 2 officers or warrant officers. Across the Air Force, 64% were junior enlisted, so the Charleston group was more senior.
Counts by Year and Similar Bases
The 22 cases were tried from April 2019 through August 2023: 5 in 2019, 2 in 2020, 3 in 2021, 9 in 2022, and 3 in 2023. Together they are 2% of the 1,361 Air Force courts-martial in those years. With counts this small, a single case can change any percentage by a large amount.
Travis AFB, California (22 cases) and Barksdale AFB, Louisiana (23 cases) tried a similar number of cases. Their median confinement was 3 months and 2 months, compared with 5 months here. Their enlisted punitive discharge shares were 57% and 56%. Contested shares were 42% at Travis and 40% at Barksdale.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JB Charleston, South Carolina | 22 | 47% | 4 of 8 | 5 months | 44% |
| Travis AFB, California | 22 | 42% | 5 of 8 | 3 months | 57% |
| Barksdale AFB, Louisiana | 23 | 40% | 4 of 8 | 2 months | 56% |
Limits of the Trial Records
The records give trial dates rather than offense dates. They say nothing about the evidence or the plea terms, and Air Force records never report plea agreements at all. Cases handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation do not appear, so this page describes only the cases that reached a courtroom.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial in the data tried at JB Charleston, South Carolina with a trial date in 2019–2023 (22 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
- Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Inside 22 Courts-Martial at Travis AFB, California, 2019–2023 (same years, similar size)
- Inside 23 Courts-Martial at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, 2019–2023 (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
- Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona Courts-Martial, 2019–2023: What 29 Cases Show
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at JB Charleston, South Carolina, 2019–2023
- Wesley A. Braun
- Bryon T. Gleisner
- Jason M. Kellhofer
- Matthew N. McCall
- Mark W. Milam
- Tyler B. Musselman
- Julie L. Pitvorec
- Michael A. Schrama
- Shaun S. Speranza
- Pilar G. Wennrich
- 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.