Sexual Assault Scenario: What would you do?

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Jul 2014 21:28:07 -0400

SCENARIO:
SPC Snuffy and SPC Highspeed work in the same platoon (different sections) and have been dating for the last five months. SPC Highspeed is a well-respected Soldier within the platoon while SPC Snuffy has had their own problems getting along with their peers in the same platoon. One day there is a phone call to the Sexual Assault hotline from SPC Highspeed informing the SHARP on duty that they have been sexually assaulted by their significant other. The SHARP meets with SPC Highspeed and after talking with them they decide to file a restricted report on SPC Snuffy and conduct a sexual assault forensic exam (S.A.F.E.). A couple of weeks go by and SPC Highspeed attempts to function in the platoon but is unable to knowing that their perpetrator is running free without prosecution. They decide to make the report unrestricted and an investigation is conducted.

During the investigation SPC Snuffy admits to having sex with SPC Highspeed, but insists that it was consensual. They both admit to drinking on the night in question, but both say that they were not intoxicated and fully aware of what occurred. It does not take long before the platoon and the rest of the company knows what is going on. The CDR has already issued a no contact order for the two Soldiers (which they both oblige) while this is still an open investigation. You are the platoon sergeant and one day one of your section sergeants approach you to inform you that SPC Snuffy has been getting threatening phone calls, text messages, notes on their barracks door, and notes on their car that they will be ‘handled’ for what they did to SPC Highspeed. All of these threats are anonymous but SPC Snuffy is pretty sure it is from Soldiers within the platoon. SPC Snuffy believes that all of this is idle threats, but they are occurring more frequently and they are starting to get afraid. As the PSG, what would you do?

This scenario can have doctrinal and/or critical thinking answers to it. Disclaimer: This post is for mentoring and training purposes. The scenario has the potential to get a bit out of hand. Please be respectful and professional with your answers. Keep in mind that we have sexual assault victims within this forum and your answers can have quite the impact.

~This Scenario was borrowed from another soldier~

Response by SPC Randy Torgerson made Aug 11 at 2014 3:37 AM

SPC Randy Torgerson — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 03:37:20 -0400

First off, since this is military and not civilian in nature, how it is handled is vastly different. Having said that, we all know that our brothers and sisters like to protect each other and will take sides oblivious to whether or not a crime has actually taken place. As an investigator I know that there are always 2+ sides to a story. When its two strangers and there is a sexual assault it is more cut and dry. When 2 people are dating it gets much more complicated.

But going back to our brothers and sisters wanting to protect their own, these threats need to be taken very seriously. One thing I would do is to have a trained investigative interviewer speak to each member of each platoon that the 2 persons involved are in. Much will be learned from these interviews. The next action should be developed after these interviews.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 11 at 2014 11:05 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 23:05:54 -0400

Give me a thumbs up if you think this was a good scenario!!

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Aug 13 at 2014 9:54 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 21:54:50 -0400

Thank the Lord that I was an Infantryman in the old Army, before Don't Ask, Don't Tell when this was not even a possible problem.

I know that was not the answer you were looking for but it is making me wonder if maybe we do not need to reconsider the roles of men and women in the military?

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Aug 13 at 2014 10:10 PM

SGT Kristin Wiley — Wed, 13 Aug 2014 22:10:25 -0400

There are many variables to this scenario so it is hard to say what the exact right answer is. I would answer it from personal experience with issues that provide some relation, as well as trying to view the perspective of both individuals for both statements. I'd start by talking with the 'victim' and ask how SPC Highspeed is holding up with the rumors and being in the same platoon as SPC Snuffy. If any reasonable accommodations can be made I would try to arrange them until the investigation is complete. Then I would ask SPC Snuffy if he/she(?) understands the charges against him/her (?), and whether the rumors or the accuser is harming his/her mental state. If either individual is bothered by the other I would arrange for BOTH individuals to at least be temporary reassigned or tasked in the unit so they are not working with/or near their formal platoon members until the investigation is complete. Reassigning one individual could be seen as a reward/punishment, and until the investigation is complete neither party is 'guilty'. Especially, if the platoon members are aggravating either of these individuals. Depending on proximity of the living arrangements of these individuals I would also recommend reassignment of barracks rooms. Commands should have additional barracks rooms available for soldiers in case of suicide watch, domestic disputes, etc. I would try to be fair and impartial in all my actions.

I would also talk with my platoon (no details concerning the investigation) about issues such as sexual assault, harassment (hazing), and suicide prevention. I will ensure they know that threatening/harassing a follow soldier is never permissible and if caught they will be negatively counseled and appropriate UCMJ action will be taken. Additional measures can continued to be taken based on how the scenario plays out. A lot of actions that can be taken need command approval, so a lot stems on their willingness to take the PSG recommendations.

In all honesty, I think the real Army would make SPC Snuffy suffer probably until he/she was on suicide watch or the investigation was complete. Even if it was found in his/her favor, I don't foresee him/her forgiving the command for the mistreatment and the environment would be perceived as hostile. SPC Highspeed will either need continuous counseling or will be processed under UCMJ for making false statements.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 14 at 2014 7:07 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:07:34 -0400

The issue of the "threats" really sticks out to me for a couple of reasons.
1. It means that one of the Soldiers in my charge may be in physical danger beyond the already alleged SHARP violation. The safety of the Soldier is paramount here, so a reassignment elsewhere or perhaps an attachment to a sister unit would mitigate the risk that the threats are not "idle" In any event, the threats do create fear and intimidation, no doubt the intended result, and impacts the prospects of a fair investigation.

2. The threats also indicate a larger problem within the platoon, a break down in good order and discipline. This is commander business, and needs to be addressed directly and forcefully in order to ensure that the whole unit understands the commander's stance on both the SHARP and working environment in his/her unit. Then empower NCOs to crush this little rebellion before threats turn into action. This scenario presents a situation in which the commander, if he/she fails to act swiftly and decisively, may well be relieved if those threats turn into action or possibly even a suicide attempt. If the commander doesn't have the gear in his/her rucksack, he/she will want to bring in other resources from around the base to combat this problem.
No time for half-measures here; the commander must get involved immediately.

Response by CW2 Kenneth-Maxwell Nance made Sep 6 at 2014 2:29 PM

CW2 Kenneth-Maxwell Nance — Sat, 06 Sep 2014 14:29:24 -0400

The investigation will need to take its course. The unprofessional conduct needs to stop. The PSG should get with the platoon leader, and put an end to it. If they can't do it, document the events and get command assistance.

FM 22-MAX

Response by LTC Hillary Luton made Oct 13 at 2014 9:36 PM

LTC Hillary Luton — Mon, 13 Oct 2014 21:36:38 -0400

I would pull all of the soldiers in and have a session with all to discuss the situation and the ramifications of threatening a fellow soldier. I would discuss the fact the situation was under investigation and acting as a vigilanti would not benefit anyone. That we must allow the investigation to work its course and that we cannot take things into our own hands. I would let the soldier know they could speak with myself or the 1SG one-on-one in complete confidence if they wanted to but it was not required. And let them know that if they took things into their own hands, they could be doing more harm than good. I would hope I could get through to whomever was making the threats.

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Oct 29 at 2014 11:09 AM

SSG Tim Everett — Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:09:13 -0400

This is a great scenario for people who haven't had to face this issue (or aren't tired of it, as indicated by one NCO already). I see this entire situation as somewhat of a leadership failure. The proper answer is, you protect the victim. In this case it looks like two separate victims: one an alleged rape victim, and the other (as alleged perpetrator) a victim of threats of violence.

I guess my first question would be, is it possible to transfer both soldiers to separate platoons or even separate companies? If only temporarily? If so, execute. If not, the CoC needs to treat the entire thing carefully and seriously. And they NEED to be involved.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Dec 15 at 2014 12:21 PM

SGT Michael Glenn — Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:21:36 -0500

This is a tough one because I was on the receiving end of false allegations of sexual misconduct with a soldier. I would want to defuse the situation fast to prevent the spread of rumors and to avoid further escalation of the threats. Since its obvious that the two will not work well together I would be inclined to either place one on a special duty assignment or both, removing them from the situation all together as it seems that Highspeed may be instigating things a bit and until I knew for sure this would seem to me the best course of action.I think that trying to keep them working together is just gonna bring more bad blood and drama that I dont care for.Both would be counseled on the issue and told that any and all discussions with fellow soldiers are to stop immediately about this situation and that if word got to me about one of them running their mouths there would be consequences. I would also be questioning BOTH of them several times to see how their statements vary from previous statements as well as other peoples statements.

Response by MAJ Ronnie Reams made Feb 28 at 2015 5:58 PM

MAJ Ronnie Reams — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:58:59 -0500

This seems really complicated. Much simpler in my day. If a WAC or ANC got raped it was reported to CID and we were guided by the SAC and the Trial Counsel on what to do. Since they are both still around, why not let them handle it, rather than have a bunch of "amateurs" involved that could ruin a case?

Response by PFC Pamala (Hall) Foster made Apr 25 at 2016 1:28 AM

PFC Pamala (Hall) Foster — Mon, 25 Apr 2016 01:28:49 -0400

Hate to say it, as Platoon SGT, I would make the call to CIS (Criminal Investigative Services), alert then to the SM's fears and keep vigilant.maybe even involve MP's cause the threat appears too real to me-SURVIVOR here (Child abuse, Domestic Violence). I am OK, but man does this have me thinking-need to think more about this and come up with a better plan (think like a cop).