36 General Article Courts-Martial at Norfolk, Virginia, 2013–2018: What the Records Show

Trends › By Installation › Norfolk, Virginia › Article 134, 2013–2018

Based on 36 cases · 2013–2018 · Navy and Marine Corps records · data updated October 24, 2026

Shorter Sentences Than Service-Wide

Article 134 is the general article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It covers conduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline or service-discrediting, along with a long list of specific offenses. At Norfolk, the 36 cases that charged it in 2013–2018 had shorter sentences than the same charge elsewhere in the Navy and Marine Corps.

Confinement was part of 82% of the 33 convictions. Half of those sentences were 1 year or less. The service-wide median was 1.7 years. A quarter of the Norfolk sentences were 1.8 years or longer.

Sentences longer than one year were less common here: 12 of 33 convictions (36%), compared with 56% in all Navy and Marine Corps Article 134 cases. Sentences of 5 years or more made up 9% of convictions here, compared with 19% service-wide. Sentences of 6 months to 1 year were more common here: 21%, compared with 17%. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and they cover every charge in the case.

Sentences by Court Level

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.

At Norfolk, 21 of the 36 cases (58%) were general courts-martial, with a median confinement of 1.5 years. The 15 special courts-martial had a median of 3 months. Special courts-martial were also contested more often: 43%, compared with 24% at general courts-martial.

A More Senior Group of Accused

NCOs (E-5 to E-9) were the largest group: 21 of the accused. There were 12 junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) and 3 officers or warrant officers. That mix is more senior than the Navy and Marine Corps as a whole, where 42% of the accused in these cases were junior enlisted.

Other Charges in the Same Cases

Only 16 of the 36 cases charged Article 134 alone. In all Navy and Marine Corps Article 134 cases in those years, 101 of 266 charged it alone.

The most common other charges were Article 107 (false official statement) in 7 cases, Article 120c (indecent recording and exposure) in 7, Article 128 (assault) in 6, Article 80 (attempt) in 5, and Article 120 (sexual assault) in 5. A sentence covers every charge, so these other charges affect the outcomes as much as Article 134 does.

More Contested Cases, a Similar Full-Acquittal Rate

A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. The plea is listed in 35 of the 36 Norfolk records, and 31% of those were contested: 11 not-guilty or mixed pleas and 24 guilty pleas. Service-wide, the contested share in Article 134 cases was 24%.

Of the 11 contested cases with a verdict, 3 ended in a full acquittal (27%) and 1 in a partial acquittal (9%), meaning not guilty of at least one charge or specification but guilty of another. The full-acquittal rate is about the same as the 28% for Navy and Marine Corps Article 134 cases overall.

Punitive Discharges and Dismissals

Of enlisted members convicted here, 67% received a punitive discharge: 16 bad-conduct discharges and 4 dishonorable discharges. That is lower than the 78% in all Navy and Marine Corps Article 134 cases in 2013–2018.

The records show 3 convicted officers or warrant officers, and 2 were dismissed. Dismissal is the officer form of a punitive discharge. A sentence without one does not rule out a later administrative separation.

Cases by Year

Navy and Marine Corps records before December 2020 often omit the plea, so the plea counts above use only the records that list one.

The 36 cases were tried from January 2013 through November 2018: 9 in 2013, 4 in 2014, 5 in 2015, 4 in 2016, 6 in 2017, and 8 in 2018. Together they were 12% of the 308 courts-martial at Norfolk in those years.

The 2019 Rule Change

All of these trials were before the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. That law set fixed panel sizes, created judge-alone special courts-martial capped at six months with no punitive discharge, and introduced written plea agreements. Cases with offenses from before 2019 stayed under the old rules.

What the Records Do Not Show

This data covers only cases that reached a court-martial. Article 134 misconduct handled by nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action is not included. The records do not describe the evidence or the terms of any plea agreement.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 134 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.

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.