An Army sergeant accused of opening fire on five co-workers at a southeast Georgia military installation is seeking to plead guilty to attempted murder and other charges in a military court, prosecutors announced Thursday.

Sgt. Quornelius Radford, 28, allegedly used a personal handgun to shoot and wound five fellow soldiers at the base last summer. Army prosecutors confirmed that Radford has indicated he wants to enter a guilty plea to attempted murder along with additional charges connected to the attack.

The case is proceeding through the military justice system, which operates under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and follows procedures distinct from civilian criminal courts. A guilty plea in a military court-martial still requires a judge to accept the plea and confirm that the accused understands the charges and the consequences of admitting guilt.

The shooting marked a troubling instance of intra-unit violence at a time when the Army has faced scrutiny over command climate, soldier welfare, and incidents of violence at domestic installations. Fort Stewart, located in Liberty County near Savannah, is home to the 3rd Infantry Division and houses thousands of active-duty soldiers and their families.

The five victims were all co-workers of Radford’s, according to authorities, though the specific unit and the circumstances that preceded the shooting have not been fully detailed in public filings. The nature of any workplace conflict or underlying motive has not been disclosed by prosecutors.

Incidents of this kind place significant pressure on military leadership to examine how warning signs are identified and addressed before violence occurs. The Army, like other branches, has invested resources in mental health support and behavioral threat assessment programs in recent years, though critics argue implementation at the unit level remains inconsistent.

A guilty plea, if accepted by a military judge, would spare the five victims from having to testify at trial. It would also move the case toward a sentencing phase, where the military court would weigh the severity of the charges against factors including Radford’s service record and any mitigating circumstances his defense counsel presents.

Attempted murder under the UCMJ carries severe penalties, potentially including a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a lengthy prison sentence at a military correctional facility. Radford faces those consequences across five counts if each shooting victim is charged separately, which is standard practice in military prosecutions involving multiple victims.

The announcement came from Army prosecutors, who did not provide additional detail about a timeline for the court-martial proceedings or when a plea hearing might be scheduled. Military trials at installations like Fort Stewart are overseen by a convening authority, typically a senior commander, who holds significant power over how cases proceed.

Public access to military court proceedings is more limited than in civilian courts. Under the UCMJ, proceedings are technically open, but practical access for journalists and the public depends heavily on the installation and the command’s approach to media relations. The Charleston Sentinel is continuing to monitor the case and has submitted records requests related to the incident.

The victims’ conditions and their current duty status have not been made public by Army officials. None of the five have been publicly identified, which is consistent with military practice in cases involving ongoing proceedings.

What makes this case notable beyond the raw facts is how rarely these kinds of charges reach a guilty plea stage in military courts. Most contested cases at this severity level proceed to full court-martial, where the government must present its evidence before a panel of officers or, at the accused’s election, a military judge sitting alone.

Radford’s decision to seek a guilty plea suggests his defense team may be pursuing a negotiated resolution that offers some measure of certainty over outcome, rather than risking a panel verdict with potentially harsher sentencing. That calculation is common in civilian courts and increasingly familiar in military proceedings as well.

The Army has not issued a public statement beyond what prosecutors provided Thursday. Fort Stewart’s public affairs office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.