Posted on Jan 17, 2016
Why do some sexual assault victims face criticism and doubt from leadership when an assault has been reported?
12K
149
83
8
8
0
I am only speaking from my experiences and encounters with other military sexual assault victims. The military preaches a zero tolerance for sexual assault and as a result of that many victims feel like if they report then justice will be served. Why is it that when some report they are treated like liars and questioned if their telling the truth (when medical history supports a trend of PTSD symptoms after the assault)?
Posted in these groups: 
Sexual Assault
SHARP
Sexual Assault SHARP
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 20
11
11
0
I am no expert and I hope that I'm not setting myself up for ridicule. Before anyone takes this personally or starts hitting the thumbs down button please remember that I at least waded in first. Here goes:
This is where the military tradition of holding leadership responsible for the actions of subordinates falls apart. It is also the point at which self preservation of those over the victim and the accused kicks in. The punishment doesn't end at the perpetrator, it spreads up the Chain of Command as the blame falls more and more on anything and everything that allowed a Soldier to become an assailant.
The end result is a reluctance for Leaders to believe the accusations ... because if the accusations are true then they can fully expect to be punished to some degree right along with the guilty party. Every leader in the Chain of Command winds up being investigated all the way up to the Battalion Commander ... How did they let this happen??? Concern for punishing the guilty becomes subordinate to the concern of protecting the innocence of those in the Chain of Command.
The Victim is left alone, abandoned, so to speak. But they are not just a Victim of their Assailant, they are a Victim of the twisted notion that a Rapist is a Rapist because all the Leaders above him somehow made him that way. Everyone knows about this twisted view of reality ... but somehow it remains a part of the Military Culture.
Here's the most twisted part of all: The Victim gets blamed in the end ... because the Victim started this latest iteration of insanity ... she shouted, "Let the Blood Letting Begin!," when she told her Squad Leader she'd been assaulted. She is a Victim, but now everyone up her Chain of Command becomes a Victim too ... the Assailant sits in the middle of it all; openly despised by the Victim and secretly despised by all those above him.
In the end the Victim stands alone ... unless there is a Senior NCO or Company Grade Officer who will fall on his/her sword for her. Because, believe me, their act of Honor and Justice will not go unpunished.
This is where the military tradition of holding leadership responsible for the actions of subordinates falls apart. It is also the point at which self preservation of those over the victim and the accused kicks in. The punishment doesn't end at the perpetrator, it spreads up the Chain of Command as the blame falls more and more on anything and everything that allowed a Soldier to become an assailant.
The end result is a reluctance for Leaders to believe the accusations ... because if the accusations are true then they can fully expect to be punished to some degree right along with the guilty party. Every leader in the Chain of Command winds up being investigated all the way up to the Battalion Commander ... How did they let this happen??? Concern for punishing the guilty becomes subordinate to the concern of protecting the innocence of those in the Chain of Command.
The Victim is left alone, abandoned, so to speak. But they are not just a Victim of their Assailant, they are a Victim of the twisted notion that a Rapist is a Rapist because all the Leaders above him somehow made him that way. Everyone knows about this twisted view of reality ... but somehow it remains a part of the Military Culture.
Here's the most twisted part of all: The Victim gets blamed in the end ... because the Victim started this latest iteration of insanity ... she shouted, "Let the Blood Letting Begin!," when she told her Squad Leader she'd been assaulted. She is a Victim, but now everyone up her Chain of Command becomes a Victim too ... the Assailant sits in the middle of it all; openly despised by the Victim and secretly despised by all those above him.
In the end the Victim stands alone ... unless there is a Senior NCO or Company Grade Officer who will fall on his/her sword for her. Because, believe me, their act of Honor and Justice will not go unpunished.
(11)
(0)
(5)
(0)
Capt Tom Brown
Have to admit what you say was oh-so-true even from my experience where everyone in a troop's chain of command suffers when the troop screws up, smokes dope, gets crazy drunk on liberty in the vil, gets into a fight on liberty, etc. As leaders we are responsible for everything our unit does or doesn't do, so there is no escaping repercussions when one or more screws up due to your leadership or lack of it. It is a royal catch-22 hallmark military responsibility which can be more risky than facing an avowed enemy in up front combat.
(1)
(0)
SGM Robin Johnson
Very well put. I used to put remarks on NCOERs about NCOs dealing appropriately with miscreants and rehabilitating those with potential. At first they didn't get it, but they came to see that I recognized and rewarded them for recognizing and dealing with 'problem children' rather than blaming them for them. Now if they failed to recognize and minimized their subordinates failures, leading to a lack of discipline. ... The military needs to reward the behavior it seeks from leaders. When trends in a unit arise, it is time to CHECK if (not ASSUME that) there are leadership issues contributing. But dealing with the Soldiers who do wrong is doing the job, and we should reward command teams for it.
(2)
(0)
8
8
0
It really does depend on the circumstances of the allegations. I retired from the Army, after 25 years in CID and can tell you that I have seen it all. Case in point: (1) Female soldier spends weekend with five male counterparts and later files report that, while three of her encounters were consensual, two were not. All of them spent the weekend in the same hotel room. (2) female soldier talks drill sergeant into swapping a cigarette for sex and then claims rape (granted, this one has other issues). (3) Female soldier has consensual sex, later on ties herself with fishing string, and then claims she was raped. Granted, there were much less false claims than real claims, but it really does depend on the allegations and circumstances. I do not know how "things" are done now, as I retired in 2003. In 1995, while assigned to Fort Jackson, SC, I headed part of a task force in which the Army established a 1.800 number for anyone to call and file a report on past sexual assaults. We opened up, if I recall, over 380 complaints that went back to December 5, 1942. There were many lessons learned, with one of which being that these allegations should not be investigated by the chain of command and should automatically be reported to law enforcement. It was determined that commanders had way too many reasons to determine allegations were "false" and not worthy of being reported to authorities.
(8)
(0)
CW4 Ray Montano
One other note: This really became difficult, when the definition of rape was changed to include a spouse. Prior to this, rape included the language "with a woman not his spouse< (or something like that). With the new definition, traditional evidence showed nothing, as the male could claim consensual and a normal aspect of a marriage. There was great opportunity to abuse this, which I saw done several times. This is among the many reasons why commanders should not get involved beyond calling the MPs.
Real world example: Male soldier and civilian female spouse. She wants a divorce and full custody. She agrees to engage in consensual acts of sodomy. Morning after, she goes to spouse's commander and provides a statement that both committed the act. As a civilian, she is not subject to the UCMJ; however, her military spouse is. He is subsequently apprehended, investigated, and changed with sodomy (which does not require force only participation) . He is discharged from the military and she gets full custody.
Real world example: Male soldier and civilian female spouse. She wants a divorce and full custody. She agrees to engage in consensual acts of sodomy. Morning after, she goes to spouse's commander and provides a statement that both committed the act. As a civilian, she is not subject to the UCMJ; however, her military spouse is. He is subsequently apprehended, investigated, and changed with sodomy (which does not require force only participation) . He is discharged from the military and she gets full custody.
(1)
(0)
SGT S Sharpless
CW4 Ray Montano - as a former CID agent, when an investigator what does founded/unfounded mean coming from an investigator?
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
CW4 Ray Montano, sure, "No" does absolutely mean "No." If there's a witness who says, "yeah, she was tipsy, but she said, "No." He offered her a ride home and that's the last I saw of them, I'd be tempted to believe force (if only verbal) was used.
I get it that people's stories morph (a sure sign of lying) or that how they react is a tell as to how truthful they are being. Nevertheless, in the above situation, Guy says, "Yes, she did say no, but then in the car she was all over me like a glove. I figured she changed her mind."
OK, we aren't really in this to try and split hairs or determine truth in a hypothetical case. And I'm glad this was your job and not mine. There's an E-6 in Leavenworth (assuming he hasn't been paroled) for doing exactly what Slick Willie did at approximately the same time. And there's no question in my mind that it is RAPE, when the difference in power is between an E-6 and an E-3, or the President and an intern.
I wasn't in the chain at the time, but I remember a real world, "She wanted to do it", versus, "He got me drunk and took advantage." And without witnesses, (and assuming an investigator without your keen senses) I don't see how this can be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.
I get it that people's stories morph (a sure sign of lying) or that how they react is a tell as to how truthful they are being. Nevertheless, in the above situation, Guy says, "Yes, she did say no, but then in the car she was all over me like a glove. I figured she changed her mind."
OK, we aren't really in this to try and split hairs or determine truth in a hypothetical case. And I'm glad this was your job and not mine. There's an E-6 in Leavenworth (assuming he hasn't been paroled) for doing exactly what Slick Willie did at approximately the same time. And there's no question in my mind that it is RAPE, when the difference in power is between an E-6 and an E-3, or the President and an intern.
I wasn't in the chain at the time, but I remember a real world, "She wanted to do it", versus, "He got me drunk and took advantage." And without witnesses, (and assuming an investigator without your keen senses) I don't see how this can be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.
(0)
(0)
CW4 Ray Montano
The military is always held to a higher standard, but do agree that, as the Commander-in-Chief, a President should be held to the same standard as the men and women who serve in the military. If the President Clinton/Monika L incident had involved an officer and one of his subordinates, there would have been charges like Mistreatment of Subordinates, etc.
As for the other incidents, we do have tools. We have the possibility of a polygraph, post incident conduct, and possible before/after witnesses. One can always say that we expect our soldiers to conduct themselves with a certain level of common sense that would cause them to walk away from something that might eventually come back and bite them.
Personally, I believe that sex, between consenting adults, never results in a "rape;" even if one of the parties is senior to the other. It, like everything else on this planted, always depends on the circumstances; however, I can see how some of these relationships could be considered inappropriate. When I was an E4, I was dating an E3. When I pinned E5, I ended the relationship and that really pissed me off, as it was a good relationship. I did not like the idea, but I knew I was making the military a career. Anything involving human interaction tends to get complicated real fast.
As for the other incidents, we do have tools. We have the possibility of a polygraph, post incident conduct, and possible before/after witnesses. One can always say that we expect our soldiers to conduct themselves with a certain level of common sense that would cause them to walk away from something that might eventually come back and bite them.
Personally, I believe that sex, between consenting adults, never results in a "rape;" even if one of the parties is senior to the other. It, like everything else on this planted, always depends on the circumstances; however, I can see how some of these relationships could be considered inappropriate. When I was an E4, I was dating an E3. When I pinned E5, I ended the relationship and that really pissed me off, as it was a good relationship. I did not like the idea, but I knew I was making the military a career. Anything involving human interaction tends to get complicated real fast.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
Commanders want to believe they have good Soldiers and have created a command climate where that would not happen. They are being faced with having that shown to be false confidence. Most rapists (or abusers) don't act that way in other realms of their lives, hence the 'he/she would never do that! ' response. Even when proven categorically, I would hear that. Well, no, he never acted like that around, or to, YOU, because he wasn't trying to have SEX with you - regardless of your desires. Rapists are even different with women they date or marry than those they rape. We see this in civilian life and just shake our heads about how someone could be a married Sunday School teacher and still be a serial rapist. But commanders cannot comprehend that they may have been similarly led to believe someone is a 'good Soldier' and been wrong. Because let's stop saying 'but he's such a good Soldier! ' if we find out someone commit sexual assault. GOOD Soldiers don't rape anyone, least of all fellow Soldiers.
Also, command teams have remarks entered on their QTBs and OERs/NCOER about this. Manny don't want to have it on record that their unit had X number of assaults, especially if measured against their peers openly. We should fare better to reward them for resolving allegations fairly and punishing perpetrators appropriately.
Also, command teams have remarks entered on their QTBs and OERs/NCOER about this. Manny don't want to have it on record that their unit had X number of assaults, especially if measured against their peers openly. We should fare better to reward them for resolving allegations fairly and punishing perpetrators appropriately.
(6)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
"Command teams have remarks entered on their QTBs and OERs/NCOER about this. Manny don't want to have it on record that their unit had X number of assaults, especially if measured against their peers openly. WE SHOULD FARE BETTER TO REWARD THEM FOR RESOLVING ALLEGATIONS FAIRLY AND PUNISHING PERPETRATORS APPROPRIATELY." Emphasis added.
When the regs command a "SHARP/EO compliance" comment on EVERY evaluation, the SHARP and EO rules and their compliance become meaningless bloat in an already bloated system. Or is the DoD more interested in having the status quo queued up for another round than in having justice done?
When the regs command a "SHARP/EO compliance" comment on EVERY evaluation, the SHARP and EO rules and their compliance become meaningless bloat in an already bloated system. Or is the DoD more interested in having the status quo queued up for another round than in having justice done?
(2)
(0)
CW4 Ray Montano
Ok, two points that are important: (1) A CID report, otherwise known as an ROI, does not have to meet the same legal standards as a courts martial. So, it is possible for someone to be "titled" in the report, yet found not guilty in a trial. (2) CID conclusions, as reported via an ROI, can be one of three: founded, unfounded, and inconclusive. Founded means that there is credible evidence to "believe" that the crime occurred, as alleged. Unfounded means that no evidence was developed to "believe" that a crime took place, as alleged. Inconclusive means that the investigation failed to show that a crime took place, or that it did not. With the latter, you have to be careful, as some inexperienced SJAs might want to render an inconclusive legal opinion, in cases where the right call is unfounded; or an unfounded opinion, where inconclusive is the right call. Lastly, even if someone is found non-guilty in a courts martial, if does not change the fact that he/she were titled in a founded ROI. This is due to the fact that, as I noted at the start, the evidence needed to found an allegation is not the same as that needed to convict someone.
(0)
(0)
SGM Robin Johnson
CW4 Ray Montano Understanding what you stated, it does not change the fact that, based on what command teams may know of the character and credibility of the Soldiers involved, they may very well believe the incident took place as described by the victim. However, there may not be enough EVIDENCE developed to support this belief, so the commander quite correctly will not take further action on the allegation. My issues come with those commanders who do not consider some of the evidence that is allowed to be considered, other than eyewitness accounts or physical evidence. Contemporaneous declarations and complaints to others, behavior of both the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator at the time and after the alleged assault, medical conditions (including psychological) and changes in behavior and personality following the alleged assault, patterns of similar behavior by the alleged perpetrator, etc. As I said, some commanders have a standard that basically equates to "do it in plain sight on my desk or I don't believe it is evidence".
(0)
(0)
SGM Robin Johnson
MAJ (Join to see) The intent was that 'what is inspected/measured is done'. So now at least leaders are held to SOME standard, in that those who fail to maintain an EO/SHARP program, or have a substantiated complaint, can't easily have it left off their evaluation as being 'overlooked' or 'not enough room'. However, as I stated, and you added in emphasis, those who actually rate, senior rate, or review evaluations can do much by making sure the remarks are meaningful, and that they reward what they want done. If someone has people who do wrong, but they hold them accountable, praise them and reward them. If someone ignores problems, hides them, and won't take action or minimizes the problem, hold them accountable and let them know they need improvement. If we stop giving people with that attitude good evaluations, they don't get promoted ahead of the ones who do right, and maybe we get some leaders who exemplify Army values in all aspects.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google