Posted on Sep 7, 2014
Leaders what do you say? Does the punishment fit the crime?
2.09K
7
12
0
0
0
WASHINGTON — The Air Force has decided to punish a former sexual assault prevention officer accused of groping a woman outside a Washington-area restaurant last year by issuing him a letter of reprimand rather than pursue a court-martial, according to an Air Force document obtained by Stars and Stripes.
The disposition decision by Col. Bill Knight, the commander of the 11th Wing, “was based primarily on the fact that [Lt. Col. Jeffrey] Krusinski had already been acquitted during his civilian trial,” according to the document, which is being reviewed.
A letter of reprimand “is designed to improve, correct and instruct those who depart from standards of performance, conduct, bearing and integrity and whose actions degrade the individual and the unit’s mission,” according to the Air Force.
In keeping with service policy, the letter to be issued to Krusinski will be filed in an unfavorable information file. The officer’s senior rater also would put the letter in Krusinski’s officer selection record, which could affect his ability to rise further through the ranks.
“This means he probably will not [be promoted],” an Air Force official said on condition of anonymity.
In the meantime, Krusinski remains on active duty and is supervising other airmen.
Allowing him to serve in a supervisory role “is being done with great oversight and is a conscious reflection of both his rank and performance since the incident. He has performed well and contributed in a positive manner that is within our expectations and requirements for a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force,” according to the document.
Krusinski will not be discharged, according to the document, and he will remain eligible to apply for retirement benefits after completing 20 years of service. However, he could be forced to retire at a lower grade if service officials decide that the unfavorable information in his personnel records merits such a reduction.
Krusinski was arrested by Arlington County, Va., police in May 2013. He was initially charged with sexual battery in the incident, but Virginia prosecutors revised the charge to regular assault and battery, saying the sexual crime requires additional proof of sexual intent.
During a civilian trial in Arlington Country Circuit Court in November 2013, a 23-year-old woman testified that Krusinski drunkenly groped her outside a bar, then verbally harassed her.
“I feel someone come up behind me — their chest is to my back, and they firmly grab my rear end as they’re walking by, and they ask me if I like it,” said the accuser, who broke down in tears during her testimony.
Another woman testified that she saw Krusinski grope the accuser. She also said he propositioned and groped her as well before she rebuffed him.
A civilian jury reached a verdict of not guilty following two days of testimony.
Forewoman Alison Kutchma said the jury had sympathy for the woman, but felt the evidence did not prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Krusinski’s case drew considerable attention because at the time, he was the head of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention and response office. The allegations came at a period when U.S. military leaders were under fire from lawmakers, advocacy groups and others for what critics charged were insufficient efforts to prosecute sexual assault cases.
Stars and Stripes reporter Chris Carroll contributed to this report.
The disposition decision by Col. Bill Knight, the commander of the 11th Wing, “was based primarily on the fact that [Lt. Col. Jeffrey] Krusinski had already been acquitted during his civilian trial,” according to the document, which is being reviewed.
A letter of reprimand “is designed to improve, correct and instruct those who depart from standards of performance, conduct, bearing and integrity and whose actions degrade the individual and the unit’s mission,” according to the Air Force.
In keeping with service policy, the letter to be issued to Krusinski will be filed in an unfavorable information file. The officer’s senior rater also would put the letter in Krusinski’s officer selection record, which could affect his ability to rise further through the ranks.
“This means he probably will not [be promoted],” an Air Force official said on condition of anonymity.
In the meantime, Krusinski remains on active duty and is supervising other airmen.
Allowing him to serve in a supervisory role “is being done with great oversight and is a conscious reflection of both his rank and performance since the incident. He has performed well and contributed in a positive manner that is within our expectations and requirements for a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force,” according to the document.
Krusinski will not be discharged, according to the document, and he will remain eligible to apply for retirement benefits after completing 20 years of service. However, he could be forced to retire at a lower grade if service officials decide that the unfavorable information in his personnel records merits such a reduction.
Krusinski was arrested by Arlington County, Va., police in May 2013. He was initially charged with sexual battery in the incident, but Virginia prosecutors revised the charge to regular assault and battery, saying the sexual crime requires additional proof of sexual intent.
During a civilian trial in Arlington Country Circuit Court in November 2013, a 23-year-old woman testified that Krusinski drunkenly groped her outside a bar, then verbally harassed her.
“I feel someone come up behind me — their chest is to my back, and they firmly grab my rear end as they’re walking by, and they ask me if I like it,” said the accuser, who broke down in tears during her testimony.
Another woman testified that she saw Krusinski grope the accuser. She also said he propositioned and groped her as well before she rebuffed him.
A civilian jury reached a verdict of not guilty following two days of testimony.
Forewoman Alison Kutchma said the jury had sympathy for the woman, but felt the evidence did not prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Krusinski’s case drew considerable attention because at the time, he was the head of the Air Force’s sexual assault prevention and response office. The allegations came at a period when U.S. military leaders were under fire from lawmakers, advocacy groups and others for what critics charged were insufficient efforts to prosecute sexual assault cases.
Stars and Stripes reporter Chris Carroll contributed to this report.
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
Good Question SFC A.M. Drake. There are some questions that we don't have that could easily influence the decision process here. Was the LTC intoxicated? Was he given a BAT test? Results? What was the LTC's side of the story! Even without that info, I would give support to the Commander's Letter of Reprimand. Given this LTC's position and duties, he should have conducted himself in a manner that would not hint to even the perception of doing aything like he was accused; he knew better than to be in public appearing to be intoxicated (since we don't know if he was or not). A military court martial may have found him guilty, but the Commander most likely did not want to take the chance of him being found not-guilty a second time nor the continued publicity over the incident that a court martial would bring to all concerned, the unit and the Air Force in general. The commander may have been advised by his higher of what actions to take. The DA should have left the charge as Assault and Battery, instead of making it a sexually related offense. He may likely have been found guilty of that. The LTC's conduct warranted punishment and/or corrective action no matter what he was charged with in civilan court. Something official needed to be done, other than a "come in, close the door, verbal counseling. The LTC put himself in this situation, he knew better, especially with his being a former sexual assault and prevention officer. I support the Commander's action.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Well a civilian jury found him not guilty so I am not sure that he even deserves a letter of reprimand to be honest.
(2)
(0)
SFC A.M. Drake
you do bring up a good point! I was if that would be considered double jeopardy, can he request a court
martial? hmmm I'll let RP members decide this as it is a legal matter at best.
martial? hmmm I'll let RP members decide this as it is a legal matter at best.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Gregory Guina
SFC A.M. Drake there are was to charge and try offenses under the UCMJ without double jeopardy. IE get charged and punished with a DUI out in town command will then charge you with failure to obey an order.
(0)
(0)
SFC A.M. Drake
SSGT Guinea, he was not charged with a crime he was aquitted, so your explanation is incorrect for this situation, however I do know what you were trying to convey
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
It is not considered double jeapordy to be convicted of a crime in civilian court and then face a court martial. Two totally seperate laws/rules have been violated ( i.e. DUI, assault and battery, sexual assault). The civilian court punishes for the civilian offense and the court martial would be for violation of UCMJ offense. I do have to lean toward SFC Chris Smith about doubts of conviction due to civilian acquital. But it wouldn't be double jeapordy.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Then elements of proof for judicial versus administrative action are very different. In addition, the criminal charges were in a civilian jurisdiction, whereas the administrative action was a military response to the incident. I have seen (and taken) similar action on many occasions with breaches of discipline that occurred off-post/off-duty (DUIs, domestic violence, drunk and disorderly, etc.).
I think this case clearly warrants administrative action on the part of the military, particularly given the position the individual held. It clearly resulted in a loss of confidence of his superiors in his ability to perform his assigned duties.
Having a Letter of Reprimand in his official file will effectively end his career. He may be able to stay until retirement before an administrative board or promotion pass-overs get him, but, regardless his career is over. As I used to tell personnel assigned to my units, who had unfavorable administrative actions in their files, there is a "grenade in their rucksacks" that is going to go off in the future. Might as well go ahead and get started on their new careers now.
I think this case clearly warrants administrative action on the part of the military, particularly given the position the individual held. It clearly resulted in a loss of confidence of his superiors in his ability to perform his assigned duties.
Having a Letter of Reprimand in his official file will effectively end his career. He may be able to stay until retirement before an administrative board or promotion pass-overs get him, but, regardless his career is over. As I used to tell personnel assigned to my units, who had unfavorable administrative actions in their files, there is a "grenade in their rucksacks" that is going to go off in the future. Might as well go ahead and get started on their new careers now.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google