Drug Cases at Travis AFB, California: 2016–2018 vs. 2019–2022
Travis AFB, California had 10 courts-martial charging Article 112a (drug) in 2019–2022, which was 59% of all courts-martial at the base in those years.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › By Installation › Travis AFB, California › Article 112a
Short answer: Travis AFB, California had 10 courts-martial charging Article 112a (drug) in 2019–2022, which was 59% of all courts-martial at the base in those years. Confinement was part of 100% of the 10 convictions, and the median confinement was 55 days, compared with 3 months in all Air Force Article 112a cases.
Drug Cases Were Most of the Base's Courts-Martial
The 10 drug cases were 59% of the 17 courts-martial at Travis AFB in 2019–2022. They were tried from May 2019 to February 2022: 1 in 2019, 5 in 2020, 2 in 2021, and 2 in 2022.
In 2016–2018, the base had 11 Article 112a cases over 3 years, about 4 a year. Since 2019 there have been about 2 a year, counting full years only.
Short Confinement Terms
Confinement was part of 100% of the 10 convictions. The median confinement was 55 days. In all Air Force Article 112a cases in 2019–2022, the median was 3 months. Among the Travis sentences, a quarter were 3 months or longer.
These are adjudged sentences, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. Each covers every charge in the case.
Who Decided Guilt
The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt. At Travis, a military judge alone heard 9 cases, an officer panel heard 1, and an enlisted panel heard 0. Members heard 10% of the cases, compared with 21% in all Air Force Article 112a cases in 2019–2022.
Drug Charges Mostly Alone
Article 112a was the only charge in 6 of the 10 cases. The other cases added Article 105 (misconduct as a prisoner before 2019; forgery since), Article 120 (sexual assault), Article 121 (larceny), Article 127 (extortion), and Article 128 (assault), each in 1 case.
Rank and Court Level
Of the 10 accused, 6 were junior enlisted members (E-1 to E-4), 3 were NCOs (E-5 to E-9), and 1 was an officer or warrant officer. In all Air Force Article 112a cases in 2019–2022, junior enlisted members were 81% of the accused, so this group was more senior.
General courts-martial heard 2 of the 10 cases (20%), about the same as the 19% Air Force-wide. A special court-martial caps confinement at one year and cannot impose a dishonorable discharge.
2016–2018 Compared With 2019–2022
The median confinement was 42 days in 2016–2018 and 55 days in 2019–2022. Convictions with confinement went from 91% to 100%. A punitive discharge followed 27% of enlisted convictions in the earlier period and 4 of 9 in the later one. With about 10 cases in each period, the changes show a direction only.
In 2019–2022, 1 of 8 cases with a plea recorded was contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge.
| 2016–2018 | 2019–2022 | |
|---|---|---|
| Cases | 11 | 10 |
| Contested (of pleas recorded) | — | 1 of 8 |
| Convictions with confinement | 91% | 100% |
| Median confinement | 42 days | 55 days |
| Punitive discharge (enlisted) | 27% | 4 of 9 |
| General courts-martial | 18% | 20% |
What the Records Cannot Show
The records cover courts-martial only. Drug cases handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation are not included. The records also do not show the evidence, the plea terms, or offense dates.
For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 112a on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Courts-martial tried at Travis AFB, California that charged Article 112a (found guilty, not guilty, or both): 2016–2018 (11) and 2019–2022 (10). Comparisons use every Air Force case charging Article 112a in 2019–2022.
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
- Travis AFB, California: Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Article 112a (Wrongful Use, Possession of Controlled Substances): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- By Installation (hub)
- Travis AFB, California Courts-Martial, 2016–2018: What 21 Cases Show (the whole docket)
- Inside 22 Courts-Martial at Travis AFB, California, 2019–2023 (the whole docket)
- Did Drug Cases at Nellis AFB, Nevada Change After 2019? (same offense, another installation)
- Did Drug Cases at Dyess AFB, Texas Change After 2019? (same offense, another installation)
- Are Air Force Drug Courts-Martial Disappearing? Article 112a, 2016–2025
- S3 E52: What You Need to Know About Positive UAs in the Military (podcast, members)
- Article 112a explained on the law firm's website
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Military Judges Who Presided Over Article 112a Cases at Travis AFB, California, 2019–2022
- Elijah F. Brown
- Colin P. Eichenberger
- Christina M. Jimenez
- James E. Key III
- Brett A. Landry
- Andrew R. Norton
- Jennifer E. Powell
- Rebecca E. Schmidt
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.
Compare: federal court. Federal Law Has No Crime of Drug Use: How Article 112a Cases Compare · Drug Distribution and Importation: Federal vs. Court-Martial Sentences, 2016–2025
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.