Article 92 Cases at Norfolk, Virginia, 2019–2023: 23 Courts-Martial

Trends › By Installation › Norfolk, Virginia › Article 92, 2019–2023

Based on 23 cases · 2019–2023 · Navy and Marine Corps records · data updated October 24, 2026

Most of the Accused Were NCOs

Across the Navy and Marine Corps, most of the accused in orders violation cases are junior enlisted members: 59% service-wide. Norfolk was different. Among the accused, 14 were NCOs (E-5 to E-9) and 8 were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4). None (0) were officers or warrant officers.

This senior mix is the main difference between these cases and the service-wide figures. The records do not show the orders involved, the duties of the accused, or how long each had served.

Unusual Other Charges

Article 92 was the only charge in 3 of the 23 cases. The most common other charges were Article 107 (false official statement) and Article 134 (general article), with 6 cases each. Article 128 (assault), Article 119 (manslaughter), and Article 129 (burglary before 2019; burglary and unlawful entry since) were each charged in 4.

Manslaughter is not a common charge alongside an orders violation, and those 4 cases are part of a group of only 23. A sentence covers every charge in the case. The sentences below describe whole cases, not the orders violation alone.

Most Accused Pleaded Guilty

Of the 23 accused, 17 pleaded guilty and 6 contested at least one charge with a not-guilty or mixed plea. The contested share of 26% was lower than the 35% across Navy and Marine Corps Article 92 cases overall.

The records do not include plea terms, so they cannot show whether any guilty plea came with a limit on the sentence. All 23 records list a plea, so these figures cover every case.

Confinement Similar to Service-Wide, With Some Differences

There were 22 convictions, and 17 included confinement. The median confinement was 6 months, the same as the 6 months across all Navy and Marine Corps Article 92 cases in 2019–2023. A quarter of sentences were 1 year or longer.

Sentences longer than one year were adjudged in 3 of 22 convictions (14%), about as often as the 16% service-wide. Of those 3, 2 were 5 years or more (9%). Elsewhere, sentences of 5 years or more made up 3% of convictions. Sentences of 6 months to 1 year were also more common here: 32%, compared with 22%. These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal.

Punitive Discharges After a Conviction

Of 21 convicted enlisted members, 13 received a punitive discharge: 10 bad-conduct and 3 dishonorable. That 62% share compares with 58% in Navy and Marine Corps Article 92 cases overall.

A bad-conduct discharge can be imposed by a special or general court-martial. A dishonorable discharge requires a general court-martial. A sentence without either can still be followed by an administrative separation, which is not part of these records.

Court Levels

General courts-martial tried 8 of the 23 cases (35%), about the same as the 33% in the rest of the Navy and Marine Corps. Special courts-martial tried the rest. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. The longest sentences in these cases therefore came from general courts-martial, which can impose any lawful sentence.

Since 2019, a special court-martial can also be tried by a military judge alone, with confinement capped at six months and no punitive discharge. This post does not report how many of the special courts-martial here were tried that way.

Cases by Year

The trials took place from April 2019 to August 2023. There were 4 cases in 2019, 2 in 2020, 8 in 2021, 7 in 2022, and 2 in 2023. Together they made up 11% of the 205 courts-martial at Norfolk, Virginia in those years.

With so few cases each year, the yearly figures show little about trends. A few more or fewer trials in any year would change the pattern.

What the Records Do Not Show

Courts-martial are only one way the military handles orders violations. Nonjudicial punishment and administrative separation are not in this data. The evidence, plea terms, and offense dates are not included either. Navy and Marine Corps records before December 2020 often omit the plea and forum, so who decided guilt is not reported.

The data is a record of outcomes: what was charged, how the accused pleaded, what the findings were, and what sentence followed. It cannot show whether those outcomes were fair or typical of cases that never reached a courtroom.

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.