Article 92 Cases at Norfolk, Virginia, 2013–2018: 38 Courts-Martial

Trends › By Installation › Norfolk, Virginia › Article 92, 2013–2018

Based on 38 cases · 2013–2018 · Navy and Marine Corps records · data updated October 24, 2026

Fewer Punitive Discharges and Shorter Confinement

For enlisted members, a punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. Of 32 enlisted members convicted at Norfolk, 15 received one (47%). In Navy and Marine Corps Article 92 cases overall, the share was 60%. None (0) of those discharges were dishonorable.

Confinement was part of 76% of the 34 convictions. Half of those sentences were 4 months or less, compared with a service-wide median of 5 months. A quarter were 6 months or longer. The 2 convicted officers or warrant officers were not dismissed. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.

Few Long Sentences

Long confinement was uncommon. Sentences longer than one year were adjudged in 1 of 34 convictions (3%), compared with 17% across the Navy and Marine Corps. None were 5 years or more (0%), compared with 6%. The largest group, 17 convictions (50%), had sentences under 6 months, compared with 42% elsewhere. Another 8 (24%) had no confinement, compared with 19%.

These are adjudged sentences: the sentence announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. They cover every charge in the case.

Mostly Special Courts-Martial

Only 8 of the 38 cases were tried at a general court-martial (21%), compared with 28% in the rest of the Navy and Marine Corps. 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. Those limits applied to most of these cases.

The records cannot show whether court level affected the sentences. They show only that both appear in the same set of cases.

Pleas and Contested Verdicts

A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. Of the 36 records that list a plea, 25 accused pleaded guilty and 11 contested. The contested share was 31%. Across all Navy and Marine Corps Article 92 cases in 2013–2018, the share was 23%. Cases here were contested more often.

Of the 11 contested cases with a verdict, 4 ended in a full acquittal (36%), about the same as the 34% for Article 92 cases across the service. Another 1 (9%) ended in a partial acquittal: not guilty of at least one charge or specification but guilty of another. With so few contested cases, a single verdict changes these rates noticeably.

Other Charges in the Same Cases

Article 92 was the only charge in 9 of the 38 cases. Across the Navy and Marine Corps, it was the only charge in 53 of 291 Article 92 cases. At Norfolk, the other cases included other articles. The most common were Article 128 assault and Article 121 larceny, each in 7 cases. Next were Article 107 false official statements in 6, and Article 112a drug offenses and Article 120 sexual assault, each in 4.

A sentence covers every finding. In cases with other charges, the outcome reflects all the convictions, not only the orders violation.

Rank of the Accused

By rank, the accused were 19 junior enlisted members, 17 NCOs, and 2 officers. That mix is similar to the Navy and Marine Corps as a whole. Navy and Marine Corps records before December 2020 often omit the plea, so the plea counts cover only the records that list one.

Fewer Cases in Later Years

The data holds these 38 cases from January 2013 to November 2018: 12 in 2013, 5 in 2014, 13 in 2015, 4 in 2016, 1 in 2017, and 3 in 2018. The later years had fewer cases than the earlier years. The records cannot show why.

Orders violation cases made up 12% of the 308 courts-martial at Norfolk in 2013–2018. The records give trial dates, not offense dates. The yearly counts show when cases were tried, not when the conduct took place.

The 2019 Rules and What the Records Do Not Show

Every case here was tried 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. None of those rules applied in this period.

The records show only cases that reached a courtroom. They do not describe the evidence or the plea terms. They do not include conduct handled through nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action.

For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 92 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.