What Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Tried in 2022
The Army records list 13 courts-martial at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in 2022. Only 1 case was contested (8%), compared with 36% across the Army, and 12 of the 12 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Installation › Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson › 2022
Short answer: The Army records list 13 courts-martial at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in 2022. Only 1 case was contested (8%), compared with 36% across the Army, and 12 of the 12 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement. Article 128 (assault) was charged in 54% of cases, compared with 27% Army-wide.
Guilty Pleas in Almost Every Case
Of the 13 cases, 12 ended in a guilty plea and 1 was contested. A contested case has a not-guilty or mixed plea. The contested share of 8% was lower than the 36% across the Army in 2022.
All 12 guilty pleas are recorded with a plea agreement. Army records say whether there was an agreement, not what it said. The 1 contested case ended in a full acquittal.
Assault Was the Most Common Charge
All 13 records list charges, and a case with several articles counts under each one. Article 128 (assault) appeared in 7 cases (54%), compared with 27% across the Army. Article 107 (false official statements) appeared in 3 cases (23%), compared with 8%.
Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) also appeared in 3 cases (23%), and Article 112a (drug offenses) appeared in 2 (15%). Article 134, the general article, appeared in 1 case (8%), lower than the 21% Army-wide.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the Army as a whole |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 128 Assault | 7 | 54% | 27% |
| Art. 107 False official statements | 3 | 23% | 8% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 3 | 23% | 18% |
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 2 | 15% | 13% |
| Art. 121 Larceny | 1 | 8% | 8% |
| Art. 124 Frauds against the United States | 1 | 8% | 0% |
| Art. 134 General article | 1 | 8% | 21% |
| Art. 115 Communicating threats | 1 | 8% | 6% |
Confinement
Confinement was part of 92% of the 12 convictions. The median confinement was 5 months, compared with 6 months across the Army. A quarter of the sentences with confinement were 11 months or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case.
Punitive Discharges
A punitive discharge followed 80% of enlisted convictions, compared with 76% Army-wide. All 8 were bad-conduct discharges. The 2 convicted officers or warrant officers were not dismissed.
A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
No Panels of Members
The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. A military judge alone decided all 12 cases with the forum listed. Across the rest of the Army, members heard 20% of cases.
Rank and Court Level
The accused included 7 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 4 NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 2 officers or warrant officers. That mix is similar to the Army as a whole, where 57% were junior enlisted.
General courts-martial heard 8 of the 12 cases with a court level listed (67%). Special courts-martial heard the rest. The court level is not listed for 1 case.
Fort Stewart and Fort Carson
Fort Stewart tried 22 cases and Fort Carson tried 23 in the same year. Both had higher contested shares: 59% at Fort Stewart and 26% at Fort Carson. Both also had longer median confinement, 11 months at Fort Stewart and 1 year at Fort Carson.
Punitive discharges for convicted enlisted members were 80% at Fort Stewart, the same as here, and 90% at Fort Carson.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson | 13 | 8% | 1 of 1 | 5 months | 80% |
| Fort Stewart | 22 | 59% | 6 of 13 | 11 months | 80% |
| Fort Carson | 23 | 26% | 2 of 6 | 1 year | 90% |
What the Records Leave Out
The records show charges, pleas, findings, and sentences. They do not show the evidence, the plea terms, or conduct handled outside a court-martial.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial tried at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson with a trial date in 2022 (13 cases).
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
- Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Year (hub)
- Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson Courts-Martial, 2020–2023: What 32 Cases Show (the whole period)
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Camp Humphreys: 2024
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Camp Humphreys: 2025
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Fort Benning: 2022
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Fort Benning: 2023
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Fort Benning: 2025
- A Year of Courts-Martial at Fort Bliss: 2023
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, 2022
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.