Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, 2016–2018 vs. 2019–2023: A Side-by-Side Look
In 2019–2023, 58% of convicted enlisted members at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma received a punitive discharge, compared with 92% in 2016–2018. The base tried 26 courts-martial in the later period, and 65% of the cases with charges listed included Article 112a (drug).
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Installation › Tinker AFB, Oklahoma › Before and after 2019
Short answer: In 2019–2023, 58% of convicted enlisted members at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma received a punitive discharge, compared with 92% in 2016–2018. The base tried 26 courts-martial in the later period, and 65% of the cases with charges listed included Article 112a (drug). The median confinement was 4 months, the same as across the Air Force.
Punitive Discharges Before and After 2019
In 2019–2023, 11 of 19 convicted enlisted members left with a punitive discharge: 9 bad-conduct discharges and 2 dishonorable discharges. That is 58%, about the same as the 56% in all Air Force cases in those years. In 2016–2018, the share at Tinker was 92%.
A punitive discharge means a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge for enlisted members and a dismissal for officers. 2 convicted officers or warrant officers appear in the later records, and 1 was dismissed. A sentence with no punitive discharge can still be followed by an administrative separation.
Comparing 2016–2018 With 2019–2023
Tinker tried 18 cases in 2016–2018, over the 3 years with cases on record, and 26 in 2019–2023. Counting full years only, that is about 6 cases a year earlier and about 5 a year later. The yearly count after 2019 was 7 in 2019, 8 in 2020, 6 in 2021, 4 in 2022, and 1 in 2023.
The median confinement went from 5 months to 4 months. Convictions with confinement went from 100% to 95%. General courts-martial went from 78% of cases to 46%. With groups this small, a few cases can move a figure, so the changes show direction rather than precise size. The records do not show what caused them.
| 2016–2018 | 2019–2023 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 18 | 26 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | — | 18% |
| Convictions with confinement | 100% | 95% |
| Median confinement | 5 months | 4 months |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 92% | 58% |
| General courts-martial | 78% | 46% |
Drug Charges in Most Cases
20 of the 26 records list the charges. Article 112a (wrongful use, possession of controlled substances) appeared in 13 of them, or 65%, compared with 41% across the Air Force. Article 134 (general article) was charged in 20%, about the same as the 21% Air Force share.
Article 128b (domestic violence) appeared in 15% of cases, compared with 5% Air Force-wide. Article 87a (resistance, flight, breach of arrest) appeared in 10%, compared with 1%. A single case can carry several articles, so the shares overlap.
| UCMJ Article | Cases | Share here | Share, the Air Force as a whole |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 112a Wrongful use, possession of controlled substances | 13 | 65% | 41% |
| Art. 134 General article | 4 | 20% | 21% |
| Art. 128b Domestic violence | 3 | 15% | 5% |
| Art. 92 Failure to obey order or regulation | 2 | 10% | 16% |
| Art. 128 Assault | 2 | 10% | 19% |
| Art. 113 Misbehavior of a sentinel before 2019, drunken or reckless driving since | 2 | 10% | 4% |
| Art. 87a Resistance, flight, breach of arrest | 2 | 10% | 1% |
| Art. 120 Rape and sexual assault | 1 | 5% | 11% |
Pleas and Full Acquittals
17 of the 26 records list the plea. Of those, 14 accused pleaded guilty and 3 contested at least one charge, meaning a not-guilty or mixed plea. That is 18% contested, compared with 50% Air Force-wide.
5 of the 26 cases ended in a full acquittal (19%), compared with 24% Air Force-wide. Because Air Force records from 2016 to 2019 rarely list a guilty plea, this rate uses all cases as its base, not contested cases alone.
Sentence Lengths
Of 21 convictions, 20 included confinement. The median confinement was 4 months, the same as for the rest of the Air Force. Sentences under 6 months made up 71% of the convictions, compared with 50% across the Air Force.
Sentences longer than one year were less common: 2 of 21 convictions (10%), compared with 23%. None reached 5 years or more. These figures are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal, and each covers all charges in the case.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, Air Force-wide |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 1 | 5% | 12% |
| Under 6 months | 15 | 71% | 50% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 3 | 14% | 15% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 2 | 10% | 17% |
| 5 years or more | 0 | 0% | 6% |
General and Special Courts-Martial
Tinker held 12 general courts-martial and 14 special courts-martial in 2019–2023. A general court-martial can impose any lawful sentence, including a dishonorable discharge. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge. The median confinement was 5 months at general courts-martial and 3 months at special courts-martial.
Forum and Rank
A military judge alone decided guilt in 22 cases. Members heard 15% of cases with the forum listed: 3 enlisted panels and 1 officer panel. The accused usually chooses between a military judge alone and a panel of members.
By rank, the accused were 19 junior enlisted members, 4 NCOs, and 3 officers. The group is more junior than the Air Force as a whole.
Bases of a Similar Size
Scott AFB, Illinois tried 26 Air Force cases and Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota tried 27 in the same years. Both had a contested share of 38%, higher than the 18% at Tinker. The median confinement was 4 months at Scott and 3 months at Ellsworth. Punitive discharge shares were 60% at Scott and 45% at Ellsworth.
| Installation | Cases | Contested | Full acquittals (decided contested) | Median confinement | Punitive discharge (enlisted) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tinker AFB, Oklahoma | 26 | 18% | 1 of 3 | 4 months | 58% |
| Scott AFB, Illinois | 26 | 38% | 5 of 8 | 4 months | 60% |
| Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota | 27 | 38% | 4 of 5 | 3 months | 45% |
Limits of the Records
The records give trial dates, so some trials after 2019 may involve earlier conduct. They do not describe the evidence or plea terms. Nonjudicial punishment and administrative separations are not included. Air Force records rarely list charges in full acquittals and never report plea agreements.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every court-martial tried at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma in 2016–2018 (18) and 2019–2023 (26).
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
- Tinker AFB, Oklahoma: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Inside 26 Courts-Martial at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, 2019–2023
- Andersen AFB, Guam Before and After 2019: How Its Courts-Martial Changed
- Aviano AB, Italy, 2016–2018 vs. 2019–2023: A Side-by-Side Look
- Aviano AB, Italy, 2019–2023 vs. 2024–2026: A Side-by-Side Look
- Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, 2016–2018 vs. 2019–2023: A Side-by-Side Look
- Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona, 2019–2023 vs. 2024–2026: A Side-by-Side Look
- Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota Before and After 2019: How Its Courts-Martial Changed
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Cases at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, 2019–2023
- Thomas J. Alford
- Jefferson B. Brown
- James E. Key III
- Shad R. Kidd
- Charlton J. Meginley
- Sterling C. Pendleton
- Julie L. Pitvorec
- Mark F. Rosenow
- Thomas A. Smith
- Matthew D. Talcott
- Charles G. Warren
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.