JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 13 Cases Show
JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey had 13 Air Force courts-martial from September 2016 to August 2018, 1% of the 991 Air Force cases in those years. Drug charges (Article 112a) appear in only 1 of the 11 cases with charges listed (9%), compared with 48% across the Air Force.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Installation › JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey › 2016–2018
Short answer: JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey had 13 Air Force courts-martial from September 2016 to August 2018, 1% of the 991 Air Force cases in those years. Drug charges (Article 112a) appear in only 1 of the 11 cases with charges listed (9%), compared with 48% across the Air Force. Confinement was part of 5 of 11 convictions, with a median of 4 months.
Few Drug Cases
Charges are listed for 11 of the 13 cases. Article 112a (wrongful use or possession of controlled substances) was charged in 1 of them (9%). In the rest of the Air Force, it was charged in 48% of cases.
Article 134 (the general article) was the most common charge, in 4 cases (36%), compared with 25% elsewhere in the Air Force. Article 107 (false official statements), Article 121 (larceny), and Article 86 (AWOL) were each charged in 2 cases (18%). The Air Force shares for those 3 articles were 7%, 7%, and 4%. A case with several articles counts under each one.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the rest of the Air Force |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 134 General article | 4 | 36% | 25% |
| Art. 107 False official statements | 2 | 18% | 7% |
| Art. 121 Larceny | 2 | 18% | 7% |
| Art. 86 AWOL | 2 | 18% | 4% |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 1 | 9% | 9% |
| Art. 90 Willfully disobeying superior officer | 1 | 9% | 1% |
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 1 | 9% | 48% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 1 | 9% | 16% |
A More Senior Group
The accused included 7 NCOs, 4 junior enlisted members, and 2 officers. The group was more senior than the Air Force as a whole.
There were 4 general and 9 special courts-martial. The general court-martial share, 31%, was lower than the 47% across the Air Force. A special court-martial caps confinement at 1 year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
Sentences After Conviction
Of 11 convictions, 5 included confinement. The median confinement was 4 months, the same as for all Air Force cases in those years. These are adjudged sentences, set at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal.
A punitive discharge (a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge) followed 3 of 9 enlisted convictions.
Full Acquittals
Of the 13 cases, 2 ended in a full acquittal (15%), compared with 20% Air Force-wide. Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 rarely list guilty pleas, so this rate is measured against all cases rather than contested cases.
Who Decided Guilt?
A military judge alone decided 7 cases. Members decided the rest: 2 enlisted panels and 4 officer panels. Members heard 46% of the cases, about the same as the 45% across the Air Force. The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt.
Similar Installations
Hill AFB, Utah and Moody AFB, Georgia each tried 20 cases in the same years. The median confinement was 6 months at Hill and 4 months at Moody. A punitive discharge followed 53% of enlisted convictions at Hill and 67% at Moody.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey | 13 | — | — | 4 months | 3 of 9 |
| Hill AFB, Utah | 20 | — | — | 6 months | 53% |
| Moody AFB, Georgia | 20 | — | — | 4 months | 67% |
Years Covered and Limits
There were 3 cases in 2016, 4 in 2017, and 6 in 2018. All were tried before the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019, so its changes to panel sizes, judge-alone special courts-martial, and plea agreements did not apply.
The records give trial dates, not offense dates. They do not show nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation, and they do not describe the evidence or plea terms.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial in the data tried at JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey with a trial date in 2016–2018 (13 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
- JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Inside 39 Courts-Martial at JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, 2019–2023 (another period)
- Inside 14 Courts-Martial at JB McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, 2024–2026 (another period)
- Andersen AFB, Guam Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 13 Cases Show (same years, similar size)
- Eglin AFB, Florida Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 12 Cases Show (same years, similar size)
- 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 McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, 2016–2018
- Ryan A. Hendricks
- Christina M. Jimenez
- Andrew Kalavanos
- J. Wesley Moore
- Joe W. Moore
- Jennifer E. Powell
- Lyndell M. Powell
- Brian D. Teter
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.