Orders Violation Cases at San Diego, California: 2013–2018 vs. 2019–2023
Orders violation cases under Article 92 at San Diego, California were contested much more often after 2019. The contested share went from 7% in 2013–2018 to 32% in 2019–2023, about the same as the 35% across the Navy and Marine Corps.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › San Diego, California › Article 92
Short answer: Orders violation cases under Article 92 at San Diego, California were contested much more often after 2019. The contested share went from 7% in 2013–2018 to 32% in 2019–2023, about the same as the 35% across the Navy and Marine Corps. Sentences were still shorter than service-wide: the median confinement was 4 months, compared with 6 months. Of convicted enlisted members, 46% received a punitive discharge, compared with 58%.
More Cases Were Contested
A contested case is one where the accused pleads not guilty to at least one charge. In 2013–2018, almost all Article 92 cases at San Diego were guilty pleas, and only 7% were contested. In 2019–2023, 8 of 25 accused contested at least one charge and 17 pleaded guilty. The contested share was 32%.
That later figure is about the same as the 35% in all Navy and Marine Corps Article 92 cases for the same years. No contested case in either period ended in a full acquittal: 0 of 2 before, and 0 of 8 after.
More General Courts-Martial
The second large change was court level. General courts-martial, which can impose long confinement and a dishonorable discharge, tried 18% of these cases in 2013–2018 and 48% in 2019–2023, or 12 of 25. Special courts-martial, which cap confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge, tried the rest.
The table compares both periods. The earlier period had 34 cases across 6 years with cases on record, about 6 a year. The later period had about 5 a year. The groups are small, and a few cases can change any of these figures. The table shows direction, not exact size.
| 2013–2018 | 2019–2023 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 34 | 25 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | 7% | 32% |
| Full acquittals (decided contested) | 0 of 2 | 0 of 8 |
| Convictions with confinement | 82% | 64% |
| Median confinement | 3 months | 4 months |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 44% | 46% |
| General courts-martial | 18% | 48% |
Confinement Was Short or Not Imposed
All 25 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge, and 64% of those sentences included confinement. In 2013–2018, the figure was 82%. The median confinement was 4 months, up from 3 months but shorter than the 6 months service-wide. A quarter of confinement sentences were 7 months or longer.
9 convictions (36%) had no confinement, compared with 24% across the Navy and Marine Corps. Only 3 of 25 convictions carried more than one year (12%), compared with 16% service-wide. No sentence was 5 years or longer. All figures are adjudged sentences, set at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and each covers every charge in its case.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, Navy and Marine Corps-wide Article 92 cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 9 | 36% | 24% |
| Under 6 months | 11 | 44% | 38% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 2 | 8% | 22% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 3 | 12% | 13% |
| 5 years or more | 0 | 0% | 3% |
Sentences at Each Court Level
The 12 general courts-martial imposed confinement in 58% of convictions, with a median of 7 months. The 13 special courts-martial imposed confinement more often, in 69% of convictions, but with a median of only 2 months. Only a general court-martial can impose more than one year of confinement.
Court level was linked more to the length of confinement than to whether confinement was imposed. The share of general courts-martial and the median confinement were both higher after 2019. These records cannot show whether one caused the other.
Punitive Discharges
Of 24 enlisted members convicted, 11 received a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge (46%). Of those, 3 were dishonorable discharges. The service-wide rate for Article 92 was 58%. San Diego's own rate in the earlier period was 44%.
A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation, which these records do not include. The officer equivalent of a punitive discharge is a dismissal, but no officers were charged in this group.
Cases by Year and Rank
The 25 cases run from January 2019 to August 2023: 8 in 2019, 4 in 2020, 5 in 2021, 7 in 2022, and 1 in 2023. They were 14% of the 173 courts-martial at San Diego in that period.
Of the accused, 13 were junior enlisted (E-1 to E-4), 11 were NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 0 were officers or warrant officers. That mix is more senior than the Navy and Marine Corps as a whole, where 59% were junior enlisted.
Most Cases Charged Other Articles
An orders violation was usually charged with another offense. 20 of the 25 cases charged at least one other article. The most common were Article 112a (drug), in 7 cases, and Article 131b (obstruction), in 5. Article 128 (assault), Article 134 (general article), and Article 121 (larceny) were charged in 3 cases each. These other charges are part of the sentence too.
What the Records Cannot Show
These records cover courts-martial only. Orders violations resolved through nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, or no action are not included. The trial records do not show the evidence or plea terms. Navy and Marine Corps records before December 2020 often omit the plea, so plea counts use only the records that list one. The records cannot show whether any change in the law contributed to the changes above.
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.
How We Counted
Courts-martial tried at San Diego, California that charged Article 92 (found guilty, not guilty, or both): 2013–2018 (34) and 2019–2023 (25). Comparisons use every Navy and Marine Corps case charging Article 92 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 92 (Failure to Obey Order or Regulation): 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)
- Did Orders Violation Cases at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina Change After 2019? (same offense, another installation)
- Did Orders Violation Cases at Camp Pendleton, California Change After 2019? (same offense, another installation)
- Is Navy-Marine Corps Orders Violation Prosecution Rising or Falling? Article 92, 2017–2025
- Article 92 explained on the law firm's website
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Article 92 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.