Rape in the military

[DC9]

Bump for an article re: an Air Force colonel/prosecutor who resigned after case he prosecuted was successful in convicting a sexual predator that was overturned by a convening authority (higher up who had those powers to overturn a conviction just because)

 

http://news.yahoo.com/former-chief-air-force-prosecutor--outraged--by-military-s-handling-of-sexual-assault-cases-001143572.html

 

 

I'm going to address some of the things for you and everyone else in here from the military justice perspective and my experiences.  I believe in your ability to hold a civil and educated discussion, but frankly I find a lot of your generalizations insulting and insufferable.  But I'm going to try and play nice and help educate/be a source of information.  I've done this for over a decade now and there isn't much I haven't seen.  I've been on the prosecution side my whole time but I'm what you would call "skeptical" or "defense minded" so I'd call myself reasonably object.

 

Not familiar with this case as I'm Army and not Air Force.  Definitely two things stand out to me though... the first being that it was a panel case and not a judge alone case.  Most 120 cases (sexual assault) go judge alone, not panel.  If you go judge alone you have a better chance of arguing the merits and not having to appeal to the sensibilities of individual panel members whom you don't know.

 

Secondly is the timeline of the dismissal of the charges.  Action must be taken by a convening authority within 14 of the sentence being adjudged in the military... if action is not taken in 14 days then the punishment automatically takes place.  So I'm curious what happened 3 full months into this pilot's confinement sentence to cause the charges to be dismissed.  I'd be surprised that something of a "good old boy" network would try something like that in the midst of the climate we were in back then.  However, during that time the JAG Corps was going through a complete overhaul in how sexual assaults are handled and even giving the victim their own independent counsel (a special victim advocate).

 

Unfortunately I haven't found anything on the case or why the decision was made to withdrawal.  As I said, something needed to have taken place to draw that out (ie: new evidence or a statements from the victim or a witness).  The fact that the victim wasn't charged with perjury or anything like that leads me to believe it was something else.  And that could mean this General was off his rocker and just did it because he felt like he needed to.  But that's literally all speculation on my part.  Do you have anything on the facts of the case outside of a yahoo article? 

 

Also interesting that they didn't find him guilty of a lesser included 120 (sexual assault - several sub charges under this article probably could've been charged, but as I said, I have no knowledge of this case) and they went the 134 (Adultery route).  I say that cause about this time a year ago the NDAA revision provided that every Soldier convicted of a 120 offense will be separated from the Military.  If they are retained at a separation board, the Secretary of the Army has invoked "Secretary Plenary" which means you will be separated regardless of what your command has to say.  So instead of going the Officer elimination route, which would likely lead to little benefits and no retirement, they went the Grade Determination route and let him retire at the last rank he served honorably (which is Major, as that comes before Lt. Colonel).

 

Definitely interested to read what came out of that.  But that yahoo piece was overwhelmingly one-sided on the opinion side and low on facts... as I still have no idea what happened but according to yahoo this Colonel got the shaft by getting promoted to appealate judge, which is a HIGHLY sought after position in my branch.

[DC9]

And this isn't just limited to men, or rape. Incidents of extra-marital affairs skyrocket in forward-deployed units. The stress of everyday life can be reduced by sex. And relieving that stress is paramount (hence the extreme measure to smuggle alcohol, extreme uptick in smoking/smokeless tobacco...). And both women and men are more likely to cheat when forward-deployed.

 

 

I've never cheated on my wife, but come on.  It's a little unfair to generalize the above as a "military problem".

 

You go from being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want in the United States of America (whithin the law, obviously) and then go spend 18 months away from alcohol and sex.  Cold turkey.  Just like that.

 

Not even in a war zone, just around a group of other folks away from free will (so to speak).  Try that and report back to me.

The Penalties in the Military are harsher then in Civilian life.  The ability to prosecute or administer justice in the Military are less constrictive.   The Military actually has more authority to prosecute.  The problem, IMO, is not trying to be more like Civilian Law. 

 

What do you mean here?  That's very ambiguous, and in the spirit of KD's mission statement thread in the stadium I'm feeling extra "detail-y" lately.

[DC9]

I understand the dynamics of it.  I am not saying that I am a medical professional on the subject but I do understand that the Soldiers are there because somebody put them in that situation.   It is not of choice.  I also do not believe that the average America Soldier is deviant but I do believe that some are or can develop that sort of mentality, over time.  Heck, you don't even have to be in the Military to develop that so who is to say that any given person would not adopt this sort of behavior in or out of the Military?

 

 

I think the expression you are looking for is "desensitized".  Soldier get wound tight and because of situations and in order to get that "rush" that most people get from going for a run or driving fast in a car... the Soldier who has been wound tight needs to go a little harder and a little further?  Am I close?

 

Rape is not on the list that would give most folks a rush.  You've got something deeply and inherently wrong with you if you think you can blame your rape problems on the Military and deployed life.  I've been in all-male Special Operations units for years and never had a sexual assault case.  Then I work at Walter Reed for a couple of years and come across 15 to 20.  Then I go to a regular FORSCOM unit and I see about 25 in a calendar year.  A lot depends on the sample size of people, the backgrounds of those people, and what those people's ideas of their job are.  As an Army Ranger, you are a professional Soldier.  You are the example of what everyone strives to be.  So you don't "embrace" the suck cause there is no suck.  You are fully prepared for it.  Soldiers in conventional units might feel that they've bitten off more than they can chew in some deployed environments and that's understandable.  Doctors may have a high opinion of themselves and feel entitled to touch any Soldier they please.  It's deeper than "deployed vs stateside or civilian life".  Far deeper.

 

I'm not a medical expert either, but I don't think your argument is going to hold any weight.  It sounds like a cop out.

I live around the corner from the young woman, Hannah Graham, who was murdered at UVA this fall.  And mcsluggo is right that rape is alive and well and practiced on college campuses.  Women are encouraged to report through the university police departments.  One reason is to discourage actual reporting to local police authorities so that crime statistics are kept low so that parents of potential students won't know the real story of sexual assault and rape at a particular school.

 

 

Want to really lose your mind, go read the New York Times piece on the Jameis Winston investigation and how it was handled by the Tallahassee PD.  Want to talk about a hostile environment for a victim... I would never let my daughter go to school there.

Now the same argument is coming up with women.   Military men can't control themselves enough not to commit rape against women soldiers, so for the sake of military effectiveness, we can't let women in (or if we do, they have to be in segregated non-combat units).

 

 

I've not heard this at all.  You guys have a lot of free time in Frisco

 

It's more - can a woman carry a full combat load and keep up with a man and still be combat effective on an objective.  If the answer is yes, absolutely sign her up.  I know several female Soldiers who I've gotten into Special Ops assignments because they've got the goods.

 

Where are you hearing this other nonsense?

[Predicto]

 

 

I've not heard this at all.  You guys have a lot of free time in Frisco

 

It's more - can a woman carry a full combat load and keep up with a man and still be combat effective on an objective.  If the answer is yes, absolutely sign her up.  I know several female Soldiers who I've gotten into Special Ops assignments because they've got the goods.

 

Where are you hearing this other nonsense?

 

 

Ummm....  in this thread?   I was responding to what ABQCowboy was arguing.

 

I was not trying to suggest that the US Military takes that position.   To its credit, it does not.  

[ABQCOWBOY]

 

What do you mean here?  That's very ambiguous, and in the spirit of KD's mission statement thread in the stadium I'm feeling extra "detail-y" lately.

 

I mean that the Military has a lot more latitude in what they bring forward.  The rules in a Civilian Legal system, as opposed to the Military Justice System are very different.  So too, are the penalties associated.  I don't believe that the problem, with regards to addressing rape in the Military is rooted in the fact that they are not prosecuting enough or are not as strict in their pursuit of justice.   In fact, it may be just the opposite.  They may actually be trying to bring too many cases forward without good solid basis for prosecution. 

 

That's not what anybody wants to hear or even believe but it might be closer to the truth.  That's why statistics say that the Military is not getting enough convictions.   A lot of these cases, if tried in a Civilian Legal System, might not even be brought forward because of the lack of proof. 

 

That is what I was trying to say.  Sorry if it was not clear.

[DC9]

I mean that the Military has a lot more latitude in what they bring forward.  The rules in a Civilian Legal system, as opposed to the Military Justice System are very different.  So too, are the penalties associated.  I don't believe that the problem, with regards to addressing rape in the Military is rooted in the fact that they are not prosecuting enough or are not as strict in their pursuit of justice.   In fact, it may be just the opposite.  They may actually be trying to bring too many cases forward without good solid basis for prosecution. 

 

That's not what anybody wants to hear or even believe but it might be closer to the truth.  That's why statistics say that the Military is not getting enough convictions.   A lot of these cases, if tried in a Civilian Legal System, might not even be brought forward because of the lack of proof. 

 

That is what I was trying to say.  Sorry if it was not clear.

 

Okay, I didn't get that from what you said earlier.  I think a lot of the problem also stems from the generalization of sexual assault.  Sexual assault is not just rape.  Sexual assault includes language, groping, the whole gambit.  All of the offensive fall under article 120.  And thus all fall under the stats of 120.  So you could "cook" the stats if you say there were 5,000 sexual assault investigations in the Army last year, and only 400 of them went to trial and out of that 400 there were 100 convictions. 

 

That doesn't seem to account for that a Soldier who groped another Soldier (male or female) and received an Article 15 and was separated with an Other Than Honorable Discharge.  Would you take that sexual assault to a court-martial?  I'd say it would depend on the aggravating factors, but not necessarily.  But at the same time, what that statement SOUNDS like, though true, is that 5,000 Soldiers were raped and the Army did nothing about 4,900 of them.

 

That's why I asked LSF for some facts on Wilkenson, cause there are none in that yahoo piece.

 

And yes, as I stated a couple of years ago in this thread, MANY of our cases are from civilian jurisdictions who refused to prosecute due to lack of evidence.

Ummm....  in this thread?   I was responding to what ABQCowboy was arguing.

 

I was not trying to suggest that the US Military takes that position.   To its credit, it does not.  

 

My apologies, it's difficult to follow some of this stuff and as you can tell I may be a bit too passionate to participate.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think the expression you are looking for is "desensitized".  Soldier get wound tight and because of situations and in order to get that "rush" that most people get from going for a run or driving fast in a car... the Soldier who has been wound tight needs to go a little harder and a little further?  Am I close?

 

Rape is not on the list that would give most folks a rush.  You've got something deeply and inherently wrong with you if you think you can blame your rape problems on the Military and deployed life.  I've been in all-male Special Operations units for years and never had a sexual assault case.  Then I work at Walter Reed for a couple of years and come across 15 to 20.  Then I go to a regular FORSCOM unit and I see about 25 in a calendar year.  A lot depends on the sample size of people, the backgrounds of those people, and what those people's ideas of their job are.  As an Army Ranger, you are a professional Soldier.  You are the example of what everyone strives to be.  So you don't "embrace" the suck cause there is no suck.  You are fully prepared for it.  Soldiers in conventional units might feel that they've bitten off more than they can chew in some deployed environments and that's understandable.  Doctors may have a high opinion of themselves and feel entitled to touch any Soldier they please.  It's deeper than "deployed vs stateside or civilian life".  Far deeper.

 

I'm not a medical expert either, but I don't think your argument is going to hold any weight.  It sounds like a cop out.

 

 

 

I don't think that anybody said it was OK or even normal.  In fact, I specifically said that it is not representative of the Military, on the whole.   In fact, I specifically stated that this type of behavior can happen anywhere so there is no reason to believe that the same sort of behavior would not happen, by those who commit such acts, in or out of the Military. 

 

I don't know that I would say that it equates to the "Rush" of driving a fast car or the release of Endorphins after having run.  I don't know enough about the science to specifically say that there is a link so I would not make that comparison.   However, I do think that the term "Desensitized" is apt.   I think that when you bring young men and women into a situation where you have a combination of factors that don't necessarily support civilized behavior, and lets face it, War is not civilized in many cases, the possibility of creating a false sense of right and wrong does exist.  It is possible.  You allow yourself to deviate from the standard behavioral patterns that govern accepted societal behaviors and I can see how things like Rape can happen.  This is not to say that it only happens to troops who are deployed but since that is what was being discussed, I do believe that it plays a role.  It can happen and it has happened. 

 

With regards to SFs, I think that we can agree that this type of unit is different then what you might consider standard operational units in any part of the Service.  I am not surprised that the behavior patterns of these units might be superior, with regards to things like Rape incidents, in comparison to other types of Military Units.  They are SFs for a reason.  You step away from that setting and you see a different level of professionalism.   Either way, it doesn't excuse the behavior but what we were discussing is the Military's efforts to curb this sort of behavior.   I personally believe that the Military is trying to address this but the problem, and that's what we are discussing here, is that they are struggling to find a way to solve it.  

[ABQCOWBOY]

Okay, I didn't get that from what you said earlier.  I think a lot of the problem also stems from the generalization of sexual assault.  Sexual assault is not just rape.  Sexual assault includes language, groping, the whole gambit.  All of the offensive fall under article 120.  And thus all fall under the stats of 120.  So you could "cook" the stats if you say there were 5,000 sexual assault investigations in the Army last year, and only 400 of them went to trial and out of that 400 there were 100 convictions. 

 

That doesn't seem to account for that a Soldier who groped another Soldier (male or female) and received an Article 15 and was separated with an Other Than Honorable Discharge.  Would you take that sexual assault to a court-martial?  I'd say it would depend on the aggravating factors, but not necessarily.  But at the same time, what that statement SOUNDS like, though true, is that 5,000 Soldiers were raped and the Army did nothing about 4,900 of them.

 

That's why I asked LSF for some facts on Wilkenson, cause there are none in that yahoo piece.

 

And yes, as I stated a couple of years ago in this thread, MANY of our cases are from civilian jurisdictions who refused to prosecute due to lack of evidence.

 

 

 

I agree.  The standard for Sexual Assault in the Military is fairly broad.   It can mean a lot of things and this is part of what I am trying to say, in that, the Military has a greater ability to bring charges, in comparison to what you would see in a Civilian Court of Law. 

 

Your point about 5000 cases and 4900 were unsuccessful is salient.  I believe that this is exactly the argument that many are trying to bring forward, against the Military's efforts on the issue of Rape.   The problem is that the Military doesn't look at it as just Rape.  They look at it in much more broader terms.  It can be anything from actual Rape to Infidelity, which is also against regulations and can be prosecuted.  The thought being, better to discipline behavior that is against regulations then not prosecuting at all.  At least, I imagine that this is the line of thought there.

 

I understand why the Military follows this course of action but it also servers as a very convenient  argument against the Military in the court of popular opinion or in political circles. 

[DC9]

I personally believe that the Military is trying to address this but the problem, and that's what we are discussing here, is that they are struggling to find a way to solve it.  

 

Well, like I said earlier in the thread... you're never going to have a 100% solution when it comes to modifying behaviors.  You're just not.  For anything.  You wouldn't need rules or laws in place if you were able to.

 

Like I also said, I've never seen a cover up in my entire career.  I've never heard of one, either.  I've seen some media reports that alleged inpropriety of something I had intimate knowledge of, but they weren't even close and were all grasping.  But one thing I've noticed a dramatic change of over the past two to three years is the almost paranoia of my commanders when there is a sexual assault or sexual harassment allegation in their units.  Their are so many new requirements and reports that need to be made and the oversight is so massive that the Army has created it's own program to track it and the JAG Corps has created it's own wing to prosecute AND provide representation for the victim.  Not representation in the form of a prosecutor to get justice for a victim, but representation for him/her.  One of the things that that Special Victims Counsel (representative for the victim) does is they ensure that a case does not get disposed of out of court unless the victim approves of it.  So any nonjudicial punishment followed by a separation action can't even take place unless the victim says it's okay.  It's been that way for over a year now.

 

But nothing is getting swept under the rug and with such massive oversight (and again, in my experience) there is just zero chance that something falls through the cracks now a days.

[DC9]

I agree.  The standard for Sexual Assault in the Military is fairly broad.   It can mean a lot of things and this is part of what I am trying to say, in that, the Military has a greater ability to bring charges, in comparison to what you would see in a Civilian Court of Law. 

 

Your point about 5000 cases and 4900 were unsuccessful is salient.  I believe that this is exactly the argument that many are trying to bring forward, against the Military's efforts on the issue of Rape.   The problem is that the Military doesn't look at it as just Rape.  They look at it in much more broader terms.  It can be anything from actual Rape to Infidelity, which is also against regulations and can be prosecuted.  The thought being, better to discipline behavior that is against regulations then not prosecuting at all.  At least, I imagine that this is the line of thought there.

 

Adultery is it's own Article and it doesn't fall under 120.

 

And it's not that the "standard" is more broad, it's that the similar misconduct falls under the same Article of the UCMJ.  But they've gone into more indepth sub Articles in 120.

 

Civilian courts have the same burden of proof and similar elements (not always the same but relatively close).  Why they don't try more of the cases is beyond me. 

 

I look at that Jameis Winston investigation and how it was handled by FSU and TPD and the DA's office and I'm totally floored.  If Florida State University was an Army unit their entire command would've been relieved for that.  If you want to talk about an environment that is not condusive to a victim coming forward - it's today's FSU.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, like I said earlier in the thread... you're never going to have a 100% solution when it comes to modifying behaviors.  You're just not.  For anything.  You wouldn't need rules or laws in place if you were able to.

 

Like I also said, I've never seen a cover up in my entire career.  I've never heard of one, either.  I've seen some media reports that alleged inpropriety of something I had intimate knowledge of, but they weren't even close and were all grasping.  But one thing I've noticed a dramatic change of over the past two to three years is the almost paranoia of my commanders when there is a sexual assault or sexual harassment allegation in their units.  Their are so many new requirements and reports that need to be made and the oversight is so massive that the Army has created it's own program to track it and the JAG Corps has created it's own wing to prosecute AND provide representation for the victim.  Not representation in the form of a prosecutor to get justice for a victim, but representation for him/her.  One of the things that that Special Victims Counsel (representative for the victim) does is they ensure that a case does not get disposed of out of court unless the victim approves of it.  So any nonjudicial punishment followed by a separation action can't even take place unless the victim says it's okay.  It's been that way for over a year now.

 

But nothing is getting swept under the rug and with such massive oversight (and again, in my experience) there is just zero chance that something falls through the cracks now a days.

 

I have been away from active duty for a long time now so the environment has changed considerably, I would imagine.  I do not doubt that the trend leans towards bringing everything forward.  The risk of career associated with not doing so is prohibitive, especially now.  The Military is downsizing.   If you want to continue to advance up the chain is harder now then anytime in recent memory.  The penalties associated with looking the other way are much more sever.   Nobody wants to lose benefits from years of service, based on the perception of an unwillingness to take action.  Service means a lot of things but it doesn't mean stupid.  I believe that Congress provides oversite on things like Rape in the Military.  Congress is the same body who oversees Promotions.  You don't think that the Military understands this?  Of course they do.  Officers are not going to risk one for the other.  That's just not a reasonable assumption IMO. 

 

I agree with your statement.  I don't think the Military is trying to sweep things under the rug.  

[ABQCOWBOY]

Adultery is it's own Article and it doesn't fall under 120.

 

And it's not that the "standard" is more broad, it's that the similar misconduct falls under the same Article of the UCMJ.  But they've gone into more indepth sub Articles in 120.

 

Civilian courts have the same burden of proof and similar elements (not always the same but relatively close).  Why they don't try more of the cases is beyond me. 

 

I look at that Jameis Winston investigation and how it was handled by FSU and TPD and the DA's office and I'm totally floored.  If Florida State University was an Army unit their entire command would've been relieved for that.  If you want to talk about an environment that is not condusive to a victim coming forward - it's today's FSU.

 

I didn't realize that but it sounds reasonable.  Still in all, the Military will take action on Adultery, if they can't prove Rape.  That has happened before but I understand what you are saying.  The main point would be that in a civilian Court of Law, if you were not convicted of Rape, you would never be convicted of Adultery.   This servers as proof that the Military does have a broader ability to prosecute IMO.  I mean, they are trying, I just don't think they have a real effective method for combating the problem, at this point in time. 

 

I am not sure how JAG grades prosecutors but in Civilian life, they are graded on convictions.  Prosecutors are driven by conviction rates and high profile cases.  Many have political aspirations.  I think that is why you don't see as many cases brought forward in Civilian Life but on the other hand, Rape is a very serious issue.  It obviously causes a great deal of damage to the victims and that should not be overlooked but the flip side is that it causes, in many cases, irreparable damage to the accused.  If the accused is innocent, that creates it's own set of issues and that too should be considered.  It's a tough balancing act and I don't envy the Military in it's plight.

[DC9]

I didn't realize that but it sounds reasonable.  Still in all, the Military will take action on Adultery, if they can't prove Rape.  That has happened before but I understand what you are saying.  The main point would be that in a civilian Court of Law, if you were not convicted of Rape, you would never be convicted of Adultery.   This servers as proof that the Military does have a broader ability to prosecute IMO.  I mean, they are trying, I just don't think they have a real effective method for combating the problem, at this point in time. 

 

 

The only time I've seen Adultery replace an unproven rape charge is if there is other misconduct that was charged that was also proven.  A charge at a court martial, no matter what, is a felony offense.  So if you have one charge of rape and it gets a not guilty finding... are you REALLY going to give someone a felony conviction for Adultery?  Which has no civilian equivalent?

 

I mean, it could've been that way 15 years ago but I've never seen it unless there was additional misconduct.

[LadySkinsFan]

Since Yahoo isn't good enough, here are some other reports on Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, from a Google search.  Google is your friend.

 

http://archive.airforcetimes.com/article/20131018/NEWS/310180012/Wilkerson-Demotion-ouster-politically-motivated

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/rape-case-going-to-trial-despite-earlier-dismissal-1.272192

 

 

 

Here's another case involving Gen. Franklin, who overturned Wilkerson's conviction.

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/do-over-of-rape-investigation-shows-complexities-of-military-sexual-assault-problem-1.262515

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-general-at-center-of-sexual-assault-controversy-to-retire-1.261037

[Predicto]

 

 

Like I also said, I've never seen a cover up in my entire career.  I've never heard of one, either.  

 

 

That may be because you are Army.  From everything I have read, the Air Force has much bigger problems with covering things up, cliques, tacit religious requirements, etc.  It seems to be run much more like an old boys club than the Army is.  

[Popeman38]

That may be because you are Army.  From everything I have read, the Air Force has much bigger problems with covering things up, cliques, tacit religious requirements, etc.  It seems to be run much more like an old boys club than the Army is.  

To be fair, the thread is Rape in the Military. And there has been no separation of the services made in this thread. 

[DC9]

Since Yahoo isn't good enough, here are some other reports on Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, from a Google search.  Google is your friend.

 

http://archive.airforcetimes.com/article/20131018/NEWS/310180012/Wilkerson-Demotion-ouster-politically-motivated

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/rape-case-going-to-trial-despite-earlier-dismissal-1.272192

 

 

 

Here's another case involving Gen. Franklin, who overturned Wilkerson's conviction.

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/do-over-of-rape-investigation-shows-complexities-of-military-sexual-assault-problem-1.262515

 

http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-general-at-center-of-sexual-assault-controversy-to-retire-1.261037

 

Well, the one link on Wilkerson wasn't much help.  It was actually less informative than the yahoo article.  But, when I googled last night I found much of the same... which is why I asked you what had you for help.  I was hoping you would share what had you so convinced to be on one side vice the other (other than your preconceived generalizations).

 

Now, what I can explain about the Airmen First Class case, that's essentially a non-story to me.  An Article 32 investigation is the same thing as a civilian grand jury investigation.  They've made some recent changes to it that will take effect on 26 December this year, but the processes are very similar.

 

Maybe Predicto can help me out here cause I'm not 100% sure, but in the Army the Article 32 Investigating Officer will have a trial-ish hearing and investigate all of the facts and evidence and determine whether there are REASONABLE GROUNDS to believe that the charges were committed as supported by the evidence/testimony.  If the IO believes that there are reasonable grounds he recommends that the charges go forward to court-martial and then he'll recommend which level court-martial (Special or General).  Then it continues to go up through the chain of command for their recommendation until it gets to the convening authority for his/her direction.  Typically Article 32s are ordered by the Summary Court Martial Convening Authority, so recommendations will be made through the Special - to the General CMCA.  If the IO recommends that the charges not go forward, then it still goes through the chain of command and may still be referred to a court-martial.

 

I'm not sure if the civilian Grand Jury system is similar or if a Grand Jury fails to indict, does a DA still have an opportunity to bring charges?

 

And again, I think you posted something earlier about that Airmen - I don't remember... but there is just no reason for a 3 Star General with over 30 years in service to go out of his way to "hook up" a brand new Airmen.  But maybe Predicto was right... maybe the Air Force is just full of bad dudes.  I don't know.  I would just be surprised.

 

The way that would work in the Army - you'd have the entire transcription of the Article 32 precedings and several different levels of legal reviews and advice as well as an executive summary.  There is a paper trail for everyone who touches that case or has anything to do with it.  There is zero chance a General Officer goes out on the limb like that (if the Air Force General even did) for some 19 year old kid.  He/she may approve the findings of the Article 32 and direct that the charges not go forward.

 

I don't know.  Not much of that was very helpful with my questions, though.  Do you have any reasons that you can share with us?

That may be because you are Army.  From everything I have read, the Air Force has much bigger problems with covering things up, cliques, tacit religious requirements, etc.  It seems to be run much more like an old boys club than the Army is.  

 

Could be.  I know their OSI isn't very good based on my experience (Office of Special Investigations - the AF version of NCIS/CID).  One group I've worked with routinely screwed up controlled buys.  Maybe it speaks to the ineptitude of the entire service, I don't know.  I'm not one who likes to generalize.

[Predicto]

To be fair, the thread is Rape in the Military. And there has been no separation of the services made in this thread. 

 

True.  I was just commenting DC9's statement that he has never seen a coverup or other funny business in his job.  I believe him.  I'm not sure an Air Force investigator could say the same thing.  There are multiple journalistic stories suggesting that the Air Force is run more like a fraternity than the other service branches. 

 

Maybe Predicto can help me out here cause I'm not 100% sure, 

 

 

 

Not really.  To be honest, this is completely outside of my area of expertise.

[LadySkinsFan]

A new incident of sexual harassment, this time on a Navy sub.  It's about seeing women as human beings and not objects to to defile and take for one's own.  Women belong to themselves, not to men.  They are their own person.

 

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2014/12/03/submarine-wyoming-women-camera-shower/19827247/

 

First few paragraphs of the story.

 

Some of the first female sailors to serve on Navy submarines were secretly recorded while they undressed.

 

The women were recorded aboard the ballistic missile submarine Wyoming, Gold crew, which is home ported in Kings Bay, Georgia.

 

Navy officials are investigating an unidentified 24-year-old male who is accused of making and distributing the videos, according to a Nov. 14 incident report circulated among the service's most senior leaders. The sailor was identified only by his rank: second class petty officer.

 

 

The videos are believed to show at least three female officers while showering or undressed that were recorded over more than a year, according to a source who has spoken to one of the alleged victims.

But wait, there's more!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/military-sex-assaults_n_6265492.html

 

AP Report, first few paragraphs

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of sexual assaults reported by military service members increased 8 percent in 2014, but details set for release Thursday and a new anonymous survey suggest victims are becoming far more willing to come forward and seek help or file complaints than in years past, officials told The Associated Press.

 

The officials said there were nearly 6,000 victims of reported assaults in 2014, compared with just over 5,500 last year. The Pentagon changed its method of accounting for the assaults this year, and now each victim counts for one report.

 

Using last year's accounting methods, there were roughly 5,400 sexual assaults reported as of the end of the 2014 fiscal year on Sept. 30, compared with a little more than 5,000 last year. That increase comes on the heels of an unprecedented 50 percent spike in reporting in the previous year.

[sacase]

I mean that the Military has a lot more latitude in what they bring forward.  The rules in a Civilian Legal system, as opposed to the Military Justice System are very different.  So too, are the penalties associated.  I don't believe that the problem, with regards to addressing rape in the Military is rooted in the fact that they are not prosecuting enough or are not as strict in their pursuit of justice.   In fact, it may be just the opposite.  They may actually be trying to bring too many cases forward without good solid basis for prosecution. 

 

That's not what anybody wants to hear or even believe but it might be closer to the truth.  That's why statistics say that the Military is not getting enough convictions.   A lot of these cases, if tried in a Civilian Legal System, might not even be brought forward because of the lack of proof. 

 

That is what I was trying to say.  Sorry if it was not clear.

I will agree with this whole heartedly. I work closely with a lot of NCIS agents and we are having trouble working joint investigations with them as they are all tied up with "butt grab" cases. There is a zero tolerance policy in the military going on right now and they are overwhelming the systems with stupid stuff. My buddy was telling me about a case where two friends were joking around and one did the look at my shoulder thing and popped the other dude in the nuts. Third part saw it and reported it to the command. NCIS had to get involve and the guy who popped his buddy in the nuts is most likely going to get convicted and chaptered out. This is how stupid its getting in the military. We are tieing up law enforcement assets with this stupid crap. Touch a girls butt...sexual assault. drop someone's shorts in public, sexual assault. There is a reason sexual assault is up in the military and its because they are going after anything that involves genitalia regardless of intent. 

 

We really need to get a handle on this sexual assault thing. No one wants anyone to be raped but  you have to be responsible for your actions. Man and Woman gets drunk, woman is fat and ugly. Guy wakes up in her bed. Tries to leave with no fuss and never want to speak to her again. Hopes his buddies don't find out, but if they do, he will take the jokes and live it down eventually. Hot chic and guy get drunk and have sex. Hot chick wakes up embarrassed and screams rape.  Girl has threesome with 2 or more guys. Guys talk, girl gets embarrassed. Girl screams rape. True sexual assault should be dealt with harshly, no one denies that but you have to be realistic about things instead of just blaming men. I am so tired of hearing the culture of rape or culture of violence BS. 

[Popeman38]

A new incident of sexual harassment, this time on a Navy sub.  It's about seeing women as human beings and not objects to to defile and take for one's own.  Women belong to themselves, not to men.  They are their own person.

 

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2014/12/03/submarine-wyoming-women-camera-shower/19827247/

 

First few paragraphs of the story.

 

Some of the first female sailors to serve on Navy submarines were secretly recorded while they undressed.

 

The women were recorded aboard the ballistic missile submarine Wyoming, Gold crew, which is home ported in Kings Bay, Georgia.

 

Navy officials are investigating an unidentified 24-year-old male who is accused of making and distributing the videos, according to a Nov. 14 incident report circulated among the service's most senior leaders. The sailor was identified only by his rank: second class petty officer.

 

 

The videos are believed to show at least three female officers while showering or undressed that were recorded over more than a year, according to a source who has spoken to one of the alleged victims.

But wait, there's more!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/military-sex-assaults_n_6265492.html

 

AP Report, first few paragraphs

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of sexual assaults reported by military service members increased 8 percent in 2014, but details set for release Thursday and a new anonymous survey suggest victims are becoming far more willing to come forward and seek help or file complaints than in years past, officials told The Associated Press.

 

The officials said there were nearly 6,000 victims of reported assaults in 2014, compared with just over 5,500 last year. The Pentagon changed its method of accounting for the assaults this year, and now each victim counts for one report.

 

Using last year's accounting methods, there were roughly 5,400 sexual assaults reported as of the end of the 2014 fiscal year on Sept. 30, compared with a little more than 5,000 last year. That increase comes on the heels of an unprecedented 50 percent spike in reporting in the previous year.

Just picking nits here, but those numbers are sexual assaults, not rape. Sexual assault, as documented by DC9, includes many different forms of contact. Not saying that excuses it, but not all of those reports of sexual assault are rape.

[DC9]

AP Report, first few paragraphs

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of sexual assaults reported by military service members increased 8 percent in 2014, but details set for release Thursday and a new anonymous survey suggest victims are becoming far more willing to come forward and seek help or file complaints than in years past, officials told The Associated Press.

 

The officials said there were nearly 6,000 victims of reported assaults in 2014, compared with just over 5,500 last year. The Pentagon changed its method of accounting for the assaults this year, and now each victim counts for one report.

 

Using last year's accounting methods, there were roughly 5,400 sexual assaults reported as of the end of the 2014 fiscal year on Sept. 30, compared with a little more than 5,000 last year. That increase comes on the heels of an unprecedented 50 percent spike in reporting in the previous year.

 

I'm obviously not saying that it's good news that their were so many cases reported across the four branches of the military, but I am saying that it's good news that, as the article says, "a new anonymous survey suggest victims are becoming far more willing to come forward and seek help or file complaints than in years past".

 

That's a massive step in the right direction.  We obviously can't investigate a case or take one to trial that we do not know about. 

[DC9]

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/26/former-82nd-airborne-chief-justice-erik-burris-convicted/22363549/
 

More at the link above.

 

 

An officer who previously served as the chief of military justice for the 82nd Airborne Division was convicted Sunday of rape, forcible sodomy, assault and disobeying an order from a superior officer.

 

Maj. Erik Burris was sentenced to 20 years confinement, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and dismissal from the service, the XVIII Airborne Corps said in a statement.

 

After six days of proceedings, the court-martial panel, or jury, found Burris guilty of two counts of rape, forcible sodomy, four counts of assault, and disobeying an order from a superior commissioned officer.

 

The panel also found Burris not guilty of four specifications of assault, two specifications of sexual assault, two specifications of forcible sodomy, and two specifications of communicating a threat.

 

[DC9]

This one is a bit old, but also interesting.  Kind of hammers home my point:

 

http://abc11.com/news/fort-bragg-soldier-faces-trial-for-alleged-abuse-against-fellow-soldier/104094/

 

 

Captain Richard Camacho is assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division's 82nd Combat Brigade. His estranged wife -- who will remain unidentified as an alleged sexual assault victim -- also served in the 82nd Airborne Division at the time of the alleged assault.

The case against Captain Richard Camacho is unique for several factors. The alleged 2012 incidents happened in the couple's Harnett County home, where the district attorney's office opted against prosecuting the case, citing insufficient evidence.

The incident also happened following the discovery of Camacho's estranged wife's 10-month affair, during a deployment to Afghanistan between 2011 and 2012. The incident is on record with the military because she was deemed "unfit for command," and in the process of being dismissed from service before coming forward about the alleged abuse, at the encouragement of fellow soldiers.

 

 

More at the link above.  But just days later...

 

http://www.fayobserver.com/news/local/army-capt-richard-camacho-found-guilty-of-of-allegations-of/article_5a1e8f29-9f9b-5489-bb97-baa109f52554.html

 

An eight-member panel of Army officers found an 82nd Airborne Division captain guilty on 11 of 18 allegations of wrongdoing, violating three military laws, on Thursday night.

 

Capt. Richard Camacho was convicted of abusive sexual contact, aggravated sexual contact, seven counts of assault consummated by battery, kidnapping and indecent language. He faces life in prison.

 

Relatives of Camacho, who were seated in the front row, clasped their hands over their faces as the guilty verdicts were announced.

 

 

More to this one at the above link as well.

[LadySkinsFan]

Thanks for posting, DC9, the news of some convictions.  Maybe the spotlight turned on this problem from Congressional women is starting to gain traction.  I hope so.  There is no need for our military personnel to prey on other military personnel.