Pleading Guilty to Article 87 in the Navy-Marine Corps: What Sentences Followed?
In 16 Navy and Marine Corps courts-martial from 2017–2025 where the accused pleaded guilty to charges including Article 87 (missing movement), the median confinement was 3 months, compared with 6 months for all Navy and Marine Corps guilty pleas in those years.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 4 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 87 › Pleading Guilty to Article 87 in the Nav
Short answer: In 16 Navy and Marine Corps courts-martial from 2017–2025 where the accused pleaded guilty to charges including Article 87 (missing movement), the median confinement was 3 months, compared with 6 months for all Navy and Marine Corps guilty pleas in those years. A punitive discharge followed for 9 of 15 convicted enlisted members (60%), the same rate as service-wide.
Absence Charges Came With Article 87
Article 87 was the only charge in just 1 of the 16 cases. Article 86 (AWOL) appeared in 9 cases and Article 112a (drug) in 8. Article 85 (desertion) appeared in 6, Article 107 (false official statement) in 3, and Article 122a (receiving stolen property, numbered since 2019) in 1.
Short Confinement Terms
Of the 16 convictions, 15 included confinement. The median confinement was 3 months, compared with 6 months for all Navy and Marine Corps guilty pleas in those years. A quarter of the confinement terms were 4 months or longer.
Each figure is an adjudged sentence: the sentence announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. It covers all charges in the case, including the absence and drug charges listed above.
Punitive Discharges at the Service Rate
Among 15 enlisted members convicted, 9 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (60%). That is about as often as in all Navy and Marine Corps guilty pleas in those years (60%). 1 of the 9 was a dishonorable discharge.
1 convicted officer or warrant officer appears here, and 1 was dismissed, which is the officer form of a punitive discharge. A sentence with no punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Mostly Junior Enlisted, Mostly Special Courts-Martial
14 of the accused were junior enlisted (E-1 to E-4), 1 was an NCO (E-5 to E-9), and 1 was an officer or warrant officer. That mix was more junior than all Navy and Marine Corps guilty pleas in those years, where 65% were junior enlisted.
Only 2 of the 16 cases were general courts-martial (12%), compared with 37% service-wide. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
Most Trials Came Before 2022
The trials ran from August 2017 to December 2025. The records show 1 in 2017, 3 in 2018, 3 in 2019, 4 in 2020, 4 in 2021, 0 in 2022, 0 in 2023, 0 in 2024, and 1 in 2025. Navy and Marine Corps records before December 2020 often omit the plea, and these counts use only records that list one.
Rules Before and After 2019
Some of these trials took place before January 1, 2019, the date the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect, and some after. The act brought written plea agreements, fixed panel sizes, and a judge-alone special court-martial capped at six months with no punitive discharge. Offenses from before 2019 kept the old rules even when tried later. Changes from December 2023, covering special trial counsel and judge sentencing parameters, could apply only to the single 2025 trial, and the records do not give its offense date.
What the Records Omit
The records do not give offense dates, describe the evidence, or show the plea terms. Cases handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation are not included.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Navy and Marine Corps courts-martial tried 2017–2025: where the accused pleaded guilty to charges including Article 87 (missing movement) (16 cases), compared with all Navy and Marine Corps guilty pleas in those years.
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
- Article 87 (Missing Movement): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Sentences (hub)
- Navy-Marine Corps Article 87 Cases by the Numbers, 2017–2025
- Article 87 Sentences in the Navy-Marine Corps: Confinement and Discharges, 2017–2025
- Guilty Pleas in Navy-Marine Corps AWOL Cases: How Often, and What Came Next
- Guilty Pleas in Navy-Marine Corps Assault Cases: How Often, and What Came Next
- Guilty Pleas in Navy-Marine Corps Child Endangerment Cases: How Often, and What Came Next
- Guilty Pleas in Navy-Marine Corps Child Sexual Abuse Cases: How Often, and What Came Next
- Guilty Pleas in Navy-Marine Corps Disobeying An Officer Cases: How Often, and What Came Next
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
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.