Kadena AB, Japan, 2016–2018: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 19 Cases
Kadena AB, Japan had 19 Air Force courts-martial from April 2016 to October 2018, 2% of the 991 Air Force cases in those years. Article 120b (rape and sexual assault of a child) was charged in 53% of the cases with charges listed, compared with 10% across the Air Force.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Installation › Kadena AB, Japan › 2016–2018
Short answer: Kadena AB, Japan had 19 Air Force courts-martial from April 2016 to October 2018, 2% of the 991 Air Force cases in those years. Article 120b (rape and sexual assault of a child) was charged in 53% of the cases with charges listed, compared with 10% across the Air Force. The median confinement was 2 years, compared with 4 months Air Force-wide.
Child Sexual Offense Charges
Charges are listed for 17 of the 19 cases. Article 120b (rape and sexual assault of a child) was charged in 9 of them (53%). Across the Air Force in those years, the share was 10%. Article 134 (the general article) was charged in 10 cases (59%), compared with 25%.
Article 120 (rape and sexual assault) and Article 92 (failure to obey an order or regulation) were each charged in 3 cases (18%). Article 112a (drug offenses) appears in only 1 case (6%), compared with 48% across the Air Force. A case with several articles is counted under each one.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, all Air Force cases in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 134 General article | 10 | 59% | 25% |
| Art. 120b Rape and sexual assault of a child | 9 | 53% | 10% |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 3 | 18% | 9% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 3 | 18% | 16% |
| Art. 107 False official statements | 1 | 6% | 7% |
| Art. 121 Larceny | 1 | 6% | 7% |
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 1 | 6% | 48% |
Long Confinement Terms
Confinement was part of 88% of the 17 convictions. The median confinement was 2 years. In the Air Force as a whole, the median was 4 months. A quarter of the sentences with confinement were 7 years or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, set at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence covers every charge in the case.
Mostly General Courts-Martial
There were 15 general and 4 special courts-martial. The general court-martial share, 79%, was higher than the 47% across the Air Force. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial caps confinement at 1 year.
Punitive Discharges
A punitive discharge followed 88% of enlisted convictions: 4 bad-conduct discharges and 11 dishonorable discharges. Across the Air Force, 55% of enlisted convictions included one. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Acquittals and Forum
Of the 19 cases, 2 ended in a full acquittal (11%), compared with 20% in all Air Force cases in those years. Because Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 rarely list guilty pleas, this rate is measured against all cases.
A military judge alone decided 14 cases. Officer panels decided 5, and no case went to an enlisted panel. Members heard 26% of the cases, compared with 45% across the Air Force.
Who Was Tried
Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 79% of the accused and NCOs 21%. No officers were tried. Across the Air Force, 63% of the accused were junior enlisted.
Installations With a Similar Number of Cases
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. The punitive discharge rate was 53% at Hill and 67% at Moody.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kadena AB, Japan | 19 | — | — | 2 years | 88% |
| Hill AFB, Utah | 20 | — | — | 6 months | 53% |
| Moody AFB, Georgia | 20 | — | — | 4 months | 67% |
Years and Limits
There were 6 cases in 2016, 5 in 2017, and 8 in 2018, all before the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. The records cover only cases that reached a courtroom, not nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation. 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 Kadena AB, Japan with a trial date in 2016–2018 (19 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
- Kadena AB, Japan: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Kadena AB, Japan Courts-Martial, 2019–2023: What 23 Cases Show (another period)
- What Was Tried at JBSA - Lackland, Texas, 2016–2018? 19 Courts-Martial (same years, similar size)
- Scott AFB, Illinois Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 19 Cases Show (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
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at Kadena AB, Japan, 2016–2018
- Patricia A. Gruen
- Joseph S. Imburgia
- Michael A. Lewis
- Christopher M. Schumann
- Vance H. Spath
- 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.