Scott AFB, Illinois Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 19 Cases Show
Scott AFB, Illinois held 19 courts-martial from 2016 to 2018, and none of the accused were officers. The median confinement was 4 months, the same as across the Air Force. A punitive discharge followed 53% of enlisted convictions, compared with 55% Air Force-wide.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Installation › Scott AFB, Illinois › 2016–2018
Short answer: Scott AFB, Illinois held 19 courts-martial from 2016 to 2018, and none of the accused were officers. The median confinement was 4 months, the same as across the Air Force. A punitive discharge followed 53% of enlisted convictions, compared with 55% Air Force-wide.
Every Accused Was Enlisted
9 accused were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4) and 10 were NCOs (E-5 to E-9). No officers or warrant officers were tried. Across the Air Force, 63% of the accused were junior enlisted, so this group was more senior.
10 of the 19 cases were general courts-martial (53%), compared with 47% Air Force-wide. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
Sentences Matched the Air Force Median
15 cases ended in a conviction, and 80% of those sentences included confinement. The median confinement was 4 months at Scott AFB and 4 months Air Force-wide. A quarter of the terms were 2.5 years or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, as announced at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each one covers every charge in the case.
Punitive Discharges
A punitive discharge followed 53% of enlisted convictions: 4 bad-conduct discharges and 4 dishonorable discharges. The Air Force share was 55%. A sentence without a punitive discharge does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Fewer Drug Cases Than the Air Force as a Whole
Charge lists exist for 15 of the 19 cases. Article 112a (drug offenses) appeared in 27% of them, lower than the Air Force share of 48%.
Article 120b (rape and sexual assault of a child) also appeared in 27%, compared with 10% Air Force-wide. Article 120 (rape and sexual assault) appeared in 20%, compared with 9%. Each article counts once per case.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, all Air Force cases in those years |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 120b Rape and sexual assault of a child | 4 | 27% | 10% |
| Art. 134 General article | 4 | 27% | 25% |
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 4 | 27% | 48% |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 3 | 20% | 9% |
| Art. 121 Larceny | 2 | 13% | 7% |
| Art. 86 AWOL | 1 | 7% | 4% |
| Art. 120c Other sexual misconduct | 1 | 7% | 2% |
| Art. 108 Military property; loss, damage, destruction | 1 | 7% | 1% |
Acquittals and Who Decided Guilt
4 of the 19 cases ended in a full acquittal (21%), about the same as the Air Force rate of 20%. Air Force records from these years seldom list a guilty plea, so this rate uses all cases as its base.
A military judge alone decided 13 cases, and enlisted panels heard 6. No officer panel sat. Members heard 32% of cases, lower than the 45% in the whole Air Force.
Hill AFB and Moody AFB
Hill AFB, Utah and Moody AFB, Georgia each tried 20 cases in the same years. Median confinement was 6 months at Hill AFB and 4 months at Moody AFB. The punitive discharge share was 53% at Hill AFB and 67% at Moody AFB.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scott AFB, Illinois | 19 | — | — | 4 months | 53% |
| Hill AFB, Utah | 20 | — | — | 6 months | 53% |
| Moody AFB, Georgia | 20 | — | — | 4 months | 67% |
Timing, Rule Changes, and Gaps
Trials ran from April 2016 through November 2018: 5 in 2016, 8 in 2017, and 6 in 2018. They were 2% of the 991 Air Force courts-martial in those years. All came before the Military Justice Act of 2016 took effect on January 1, 2019.
The records do not show offense dates, evidence, or plea terms, and they leave out cases handled outside a court-martial. Air Force records rarely list charges in full acquittals.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial in the data tried at Scott AFB, Illinois with a trial date in 2016–2018 (19 cases), compared with all 991 Air Force 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
- Scott AFB, Illinois: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Scott AFB, Illinois, 2019–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 26 Cases (another period)
- What Was Tried at JBSA - Lackland, Texas, 2016–2018? 19 Courts-Martial (same years, similar size)
- Kadena AB, Japan, 2016–2018: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 19 Cases (same years, similar size)
- Andersen AFB, Guam Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 13 Cases Show
- Aviano AB, Italy Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 16 Cases Show
- Aviano AB, Italy, 2019–2023: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 17 Cases
- Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, 2016–2018: Charges, Verdicts, and Sentences in 27 Cases
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at Scott AFB, Illinois, 2016–2018
- Jefferson B. Brown
- Donald R. Eller Jr.
- Joseph S. Imburgia
- Christina M. Jimenez
- John C. Johnson
- James E. Key III
- Michael A. Lewis
- Mark W. Milam
- Bradley A. Morris
- Lyndell M. Powell
- Michael D. Schag
- Shelly W. Schools
- Matthew D. Talcott
- Brian D. Teter
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.