Inside 70 Courts-Martial at Okinawa, Japan, 2017–2018
Okinawa, Japan had 70 courts-martial in 2017 and 2018. The median confinement was 2 years, compared with 7 months across the Navy and Marine Corps. Article 120b (child sexual abuse) appeared in 28% of cases, compared with 10% service-wide.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › Okinawa, Japan › 2017–2018
Short answer: Okinawa, Japan had 70 courts-martial in 2017 and 2018. The median confinement was 2 years, compared with 7 months across the Navy and Marine Corps. Article 120b (child sexual abuse) appeared in 28% of cases, compared with 10% service-wide.
Sentences Much Longer Than the Service Median
Of 69 convictions, 62 included confinement. The median confinement was 2 years. A quarter of the sentences were 5 years or more. Across the Navy and Marine Corps in the same years, the median was 7 months.
These are adjudged sentences: the sentence announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence covers all the charges in the case, so a long sentence can reflect several convictions together.
How Long the Sentences Were
38 of 69 convictions (55%) carried more than one year of confinement, compared with 30% elsewhere in the service. Sentences of 5 years or more were 25% of convictions here and 10% service-wide. Sentences under 6 months were less common: 14% here compared with 34%.
Only a general court-martial can impose more than one year of confinement. A special court-martial is limited to one year.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, Navy and Marine Corps-wide |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 7 | 10% | 12% |
| Under 6 months | 10 | 14% | 34% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 14 | 20% | 23% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 21 | 30% | 20% |
| 5 years or more | 17 | 25% | 10% |
Sex Offense Charges Were Common
Charges are listed for 69 of the 70 cases, and each article counts once per case. Article 128 (assault) was the most common charge, in 42% of cases, compared with 35% service-wide. Article 120 (rape and sexual assault) appeared in 30%, compared with 18%. Article 120b (child sexual abuse) appeared in 28%, compared with 10%.
Article 80 (attempt) appeared in 26% of cases, compared with 11%. Article 82 (soliciting) appeared in 13%, compared with 4%. Article 92 orders violations and Article 134 general-article charges each appeared in 20% of cases, compared with 15% and 14% across the service. Drug charges were less common: Article 112a appeared in 17% of cases here and 29% across the service.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the rest of the Navy and Marine Corps |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 128 Assault | 29 | 42% | 35% |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 21 | 30% | 18% |
| Art. 120b Rape and sexual assault of a child | 19 | 28% | 10% |
| Art. 80 Attempts | 18 | 26% | 11% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 14 | 20% | 15% |
| Art. 134 General article | 14 | 20% | 14% |
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 12 | 17% | 29% |
| Art. 82 Soliciting | 9 | 13% | 4% |
Convictions on the Most Common Charges
Almost every case charging one of the top articles ended in a conviction on that article. Article 128 had 29 convictions in 29 cases. Article 120b had 19 of 19, and Article 80 had 18 of 18. Article 120 had 20 of 21.
The median confinement after a conviction was 3.5 years for Article 120, 2.5 years for Article 120b and for Article 80, and 2 years for Article 128. Many cases charged several of these articles, so the rows overlap.
| Article | Cases charging it | Convicted of it (share) | Median confinement when convicted of it |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 128 Assault | 29 | 29 (100%) | 2 years |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 21 | 20 (95%) | 3.5 years |
| Art. 120b Rape and sexual assault of a child | 19 | 19 (100%) | 2.5 years |
| Art. 80 Attempts | 18 | 18 (100%) | 2.5 years |
Punitive Discharges
85% of enlisted convictions included a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge, compared with 67% across the Navy and Marine Corps. There were 31 dishonorable discharges and 26 bad-conduct discharges. Only a general court-martial can impose a dishonorable discharge.
2 officers or warrant officers were convicted, and 1 was dismissed. Dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Mostly General Courts-Martial
General courts-martial were 46 of the 70 cases (66%), compared with 45% across the service. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. The median confinement in those 46 cases was 3 years.
The 24 special courts-martial had a median confinement of 6 months. A special court-martial is capped at one year of confinement and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
Who Was Accused
Junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) made up 65% of the accused, NCOs 32%, and officers 3%. Service-wide, junior enlisted members made up 64%. The rank mix at Okinawa was about the same as in the rest of the Navy and Marine Corps, while the charges and sentences were not.
Compared With Bremerton and San Diego
Bremerton, Washington (78 cases) and San Diego, California (81) tried a similar number of cases in these years. Their median confinement was lower: 5 months at Bremerton and 7 months at San Diego. Their punitive discharge rates were also lower, 46% and 59%.
Bremerton had 13% of cases contested and San Diego had 27%. Only 4 Okinawa records list a plea, and 0 of those 4 were contested, so Okinawa's plea figures cannot be compared.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Okinawa, Japan | 70 | 0 of 4 | — | 2 years | 85% |
| Bremerton, Washington | 78 | 13% | 3 of 10 | 5 months | 46% |
| San Diego, California | 81 | 27% | 15 of 20 | 7 months | 59% |
Rules of the Period and What the Records Cannot Show
Okinawa had 30 cases in 2017 and 40 in 2018, or 7% of the 1,002 Navy and Marine Corps cases. All were tried before the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019. That law later set fixed panel sizes, created judge-alone special courts-martial capped at six months, and introduced written plea agreements. None of those changes applied to these cases.
Navy and Marine Corps records before December 2020 often omit the plea. For that reason, this page cannot report how many cases were contested or how contested cases ended. The records also give trial dates, not offense dates, and do not show evidence, plea terms, nonjudicial punishment, or administrative separations.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial in the data tried at Okinawa, Japan with a trial date in 2017–2018 (70 cases), compared with all 1,002 Navy and Marine Corps 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
- Okinawa, Japan: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Navy-Marine Corps Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Okinawa, Japan, 2019–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 100 Cases (another period)
- Inside 50 Courts-Martial at Okinawa, Japan, 2024–2026 (another period)
- What Was Tried at Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay, 2017–2018? 31 Courts-Martial (same years, similar size)
- Twentynine Palms, California Courts-Martial, 2017–2018: What 30 Cases Show (same years, similar size)
- Did Assault Cases at Okinawa, Japan Change After 2019?
- Sexual Assault Cases at Okinawa, Japan: 2017–2018 vs. 2019–2023
- 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.