Article 80 at San Diego, California Before and After 2019
San Diego, California had more attempt cases under Article 80 after 2019: 22 cases in 2019–2023, about 6 a year, compared with 20 cases and about 3 a year in 2013–2018. Only 18% of the later cases were contested, compared with 30% across the Navy and Marine Corps.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › San Diego, California › Article 80
Short answer: San Diego, California had more attempt cases under Article 80 after 2019: 22 cases in 2019–2023, about 6 a year, compared with 20 cases and about 3 a year in 2013–2018. Only 18% of the later cases were contested, compared with 30% across the Navy and Marine Corps. Of convicted enlisted members, 67% received a punitive discharge, compared with 82% service-wide.
More Attempt Cases Each Year
Article 80 covers attempts to commit other offenses, so it is usually charged with another offense. Counting full years only, San Diego had about 3 of these cases a year in 2013–2018 and about 6 a year in 2019–2023. The earlier period had 20 cases over 6 years with cases on record. The later period runs from March 2019 through December 2023, with 7 cases in 2019, 4 in 2020, 7 in 2021, 0 in 2022, and 4 in 2023.
Attempt charges were in 13% of the 173 courts-martial at San Diego in those years. The records give trial dates, not the dates of the alleged conduct.
Most of the Accused Pleaded Guilty
Of the 22 cases, 18 were guilty pleas and 4 were contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. The contested share of 18% was lower than the 30% across Navy and Marine Corps Article 80 cases. It was also lower than San Diego's own 25% in 2013–2018.
None of the 4 contested cases ended in a full acquittal. All 22 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge.
2013–2018 Compared With 2019–2023
The comparison table shows both periods. Convictions with confinement went from 74% to 82%. The median confinement went from 10 months to 1 year. Punitive discharges for convicted enlisted members went from 62% to 67%. General courts-martial went from 55% to 50% of cases.
Each period has only 20 or 22 cases. A few cases can change these percentages a great deal, so they show the direction of change, not its precise size.
| 2013–2018 | 2019–2023 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 20 | 22 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | 25% | 18% |
| Full acquittals (decided contested) | 1 of 5 | 0 of 4 |
| Convictions with confinement | 74% | 82% |
| Median confinement | 10 months | 1 year |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 62% | 67% |
| General courts-martial | 55% | 50% |
Confinement Was Shorter Than in the Service as a Whole
Confinement was part of 18 of the 22 convictions (82%). The median confinement was 1 year, shorter than the 1.2 years median across the Navy and Marine Corps. A quarter of San Diego confinement sentences were 3 years or longer.
The largest difference is in long sentences. Sentences longer than one year were 6 of 22 convictions here (27%), compared with 51% service-wide. Confinement of 6 months to 1 year was the most common length here, at 36%. Sentences are as adjudged at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and they cover every charge in the case.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, Navy and Marine Corps Article 80 cases overall |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 4 | 18% | 9% |
| Under 6 months | 4 | 18% | 15% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 8 | 36% | 25% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 4 | 18% | 38% |
| 5 years or more | 2 | 9% | 13% |
General and Special Courts-Martial
San Diego tried 11 of these cases at general courts-martial and 11 at special courts-martial. A general court-martial can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
At general courts-martial, 91% of convictions included confinement, with a median of 2.5 years. At special courts-martial, 73% did, with a median of 7 months. Only a general court-martial can impose more than one year of confinement, so the long sentences here came from general courts-martial. The overall median of 1 year is between the 2 court-level medians.
Punitive Discharges and Dismissal
A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge. Of 21 convicted enlisted members, 14 received one: 9 bad-conduct discharges and 5 dishonorable discharges. Across the Navy and Marine Corps, the rate was 82%. The 1 convicted officer or warrant officer in this group was dismissed. Dismissal is the officer equivalent of a punitive discharge.
Enlisted members without a punitive discharge may still face an administrative separation later, which these records do not show.
The Accused Were More Senior
The accused were 10 junior enlisted members, 11 NCOs, and 1 officer. That mix is more senior than in Article 80 cases across the Navy and Marine Corps. NCOs (E-5 to E-9) were slightly more numerous than junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) here. Only 1 officer was charged.
Other Charges in Attempt Cases
Only 4 of the 22 cases charged Article 80 alone. Article 128 (assault) was the most common other charge, in 5 cases. Article 134 (general article), Article 86 (AWOL), and Article 121 (larceny) were charged in 4 each, and Article 120 (sexual assault) in 3. Sentences cover every charge in a case, including these.
What the Records Cannot Show
Trial records list charges, pleas, findings, and sentences. They do not show the evidence, the terms of any plea agreement, or anything handled outside a court-martial. Navy and Marine Corps records before December 2020 often omit the plea, so plea figures use only the records that list it.
For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 80 on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Courts-martial tried at San Diego, California that charged Article 80 (found guilty, not guilty, or both): 2013–2018 (20) and 2019–2023 (22). Comparisons use every Navy and Marine Corps case charging Article 80 in 2019–2023.
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
- San Diego, California: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 80 (Attempts): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- San Diego, California Courts-Martial, 2013–2018: What 285 Cases Show (the whole docket)
- Inside 173 Courts-Martial at San Diego, California, 2019–2023 (the whole docket)
- San Diego, California Courts-Martial, 2024–2026: What 126 Cases Show (the whole docket)
- Article 80 at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Before and After 2019 (same offense, another installation)
- Attempt Cases at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii: 2013–2018 vs. 2019–2023 (same offense, another installation)
- Fewer or More? Attempt Charges at Navy-Marine Corps Courts-Martial, 2017–2025
- Article 80 explained on the law firm's website
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Article 80 Cases at San Diego, California, 2019–2023
Names and links only. Each judge's record of pleas, findings, and sentences is on their Know Your Judge page, part of the Court-Martial Characters membership.
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.