How San Diego, California Handled Orders Violation Cases (Article 92), 2013–2018

Trends › By Installation › San Diego, California › Article 92, 2013–2018

Based on 34 cases · 2013–2018 · Navy and Marine Corps records · data updated October 24, 2026

Median Confinement Was Shorter

The 34 cases produced 33 convictions, and 27 of those sentences included confinement. The median confinement was 3 months. For Navy and Marine Corps Article 92 cases as a whole, it was 5 months.

A quarter of San Diego confinement sentences were 8 months or longer. Every figure here is an adjudged sentence: the sentence announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each sentence also covers every charge in the case. Most cases in this group charged more than one article.

Few Sentences Were Longer Than One Year

Only 3 of 33 convictions carried more than one year of confinement, a share of 9%. Across all Navy and Marine Corps Article 92 cases in 2013–2018, the share was 17%.

Most San Diego sentences were under 6 months: 17 convictions, or 52%, compared with 42% in the rest of the service. Another 6 convictions (18%) had no confinement, about the same as the 19% elsewhere. Only 1 sentence was 5 years or more.

Most Cases Were Special Courts-Martial

Court level sets the maximum sentence. 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. It can impose a bad-conduct discharge but not a dishonorable discharge.

At San Diego, general courts-martial were only 18% of these cases (6 of 34). Special courts-martial tried the rest.

Punitive Discharges

Of 32 convicted enlisted members, 14 received a punitive discharge: 12 bad-conduct discharges and 2 dishonorable discharges. In Navy and Marine Corps-wide Article 92 cases, the rate was 60%.

1 convicted officer or warrant officer appears in the records, and the sentence did not include a dismissal. Dismissal is the officer form of a punitive discharge. A service member without a punitive discharge can still face an administrative separation later, which these records do not include.

The Accused Were More Senior

There were more NCOs (grades E-5 to E-9) than junior enlisted members here: 22 NCOs and 10 junior enlisted accused, plus 1 officer or warrant officer. Across Navy and Marine Corps Article 92 cases overall, 51% of the accused were junior enlisted. The San Diego group was more senior. The records do not show how long any accused had served or what duties each one held.

Most Orders Violation Cases Charged Other Articles

Article 92 was the only charge in 8 of the 34 cases. The other cases charged at least one more article.

Article 112a (drug) was charged in 8 cases and Article 121 (larceny) in 7. Article 107 (false official statement) was charged in 6, Article 80 (attempt) in 5, and Article 86 (AWOL) in 4. An orders violation charge can cover many kinds of conduct. The records do not say which order or regulation was involved.

Pleas and Contested Cases

A case is contested when the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge, with a full not-guilty plea or a mixed plea. Of the 29 records that list a plea, 27 were guilty pleas and 2 were contested. The contested share was 7%.

Across Navy and Marine Corps Article 92 cases overall, 23% were contested. Cases here were contested less often. Navy and Marine Corps records from before December 2020 often omit the plea, and these counts use only the records that list it.

Cases by Year

The cases run from January 2013 through August 2018: 7 in 2013, 8 in 2014, 4 in 2015, 6 in 2016, 7 in 2017, and 2 in 2018. Together they were 12% of the 285 courts-martial at San Diego, California in those years. The records give trial dates, not offense dates.

All of these trials came 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 changes applied to these cases.

What the Records Cannot Show

These records include only cases that reached a court-martial. Orders violations resolved by nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action are 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 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.