Posted on Sep 21, 2018
more-than-500-sexual-assaults-happen-in-a-single-year-at-some-military-installations-report
2.76K
105
24
13
13
0
This should not be happening in the civilian world let alone our military where we depend upon one another. Ive always felt that if Commanders were relived of processional discretion, this would be drastically reduced. Send any cases to an independent authority to prosecute and punish those responsible.
LTC Stephen F. SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL LTC (Join to see) COL Mikel J. Burroughs SP5 Mark Kuzinski mark kuzinski SGT (Join to see) @mary beaver SPC Margaret Higgins
LTC Stephen F. SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL LTC (Join to see) COL Mikel J. Burroughs SP5 Mark Kuzinski mark kuzinski SGT (Join to see) @mary beaver SPC Margaret Higgins
more-than-500-sexual-assaults-happen-in-a-single-year-at-some-military-installations-report
Posted from time.comPosted in these groups: 
Sexual Assault
Military Sexual Trauma (MST)
Sexual Harassment
Crime
Punishment
Sexual Assault Military Sexual Trauma (MST) Sexual Harassment Crime Punishment
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 9
13
13
0
Do you remember M*A*S*H, the TV series? Do you remember an episode in which Hawkeye and Major Hoolahan are trapped in a Korea hut as the enemy passes? Do you remember how they relieved the tension? Two people, a man and a woman who hated each other's guts had sex. I think there was something instructive in that episode. Adrenalin rushes leave strange after affects. It's bad enough when men share such experiences. Throwing women into the mix is volatile. No, I'm not saying this excuses the behavior. It serves as a warning that commanders need better preparation to handle it. Once upon a time, armies allowed camp followers to serve the needs of troops. Strange as it may seem to say it, but appears to have been wise. No, I'm not saying that we should re-institute that custom. I am merely pointing out that this is nothing new. I just know that I am going to receive some wicked responses to this posting, but I'm taking a chance that the RP community is mature enough to recognize that this is an important issue and deserves some thinking outside the box. Just say no just isn't going to work...
(13)
(0)
SFC William Farrell
I do remember it CPT Jack Durish and as always thank you for your thoughtful insight
(6)
(0)
SGT Michael Thorin
Everything you said, while it may seem offensive, I believe can be backed up by fact. Just because something isn’t palatable does not mean it is wrong.
I believe your assessment is spot on, and the key to combatting it is in what you are saying about the commanders. If they are not sold out to knowing how to handle their troops and set up a command climate which no one feels safe enough to report these things, then that commander doesn’t simply allow this to happen, he or she encourages it to happen.
As always, more people need to be willing to say the hard things. Not everyone will agree with us on this, however, you are not supporting it, you are simply pointing out truths and intelligent reasoning behind your assessment. I’m not mad, I’m impressed.
I believe your assessment is spot on, and the key to combatting it is in what you are saying about the commanders. If they are not sold out to knowing how to handle their troops and set up a command climate which no one feels safe enough to report these things, then that commander doesn’t simply allow this to happen, he or she encourages it to happen.
As always, more people need to be willing to say the hard things. Not everyone will agree with us on this, however, you are not supporting it, you are simply pointing out truths and intelligent reasoning behind your assessment. I’m not mad, I’m impressed.
(5)
(0)
Maj Robert Thornton
CPT Jack Durish interesting that you brought up that MASH episode. It got me thinking about one of my old Air Force colleagues. I read about him in the Air Force Times a few years after we had both PCS'd.
He was also a nurse anesthetist, he had to come in one evening for an emergency C-section, one that was apparently quite stressful. After the case was finished apparently he and the scrub tech, a Sgt., relieved their tensions in each others arms, etc.
At 18 years of military service, he was convicted of Fraternization and Adultery, a felony conviction, reduced to Airman Basic and given a bad conduct discharge.
Yes, adrenaline can be a powerful thing, but you can't let it control you and ruin your life.
He was also a nurse anesthetist, he had to come in one evening for an emergency C-section, one that was apparently quite stressful. After the case was finished apparently he and the scrub tech, a Sgt., relieved their tensions in each others arms, etc.
At 18 years of military service, he was convicted of Fraternization and Adultery, a felony conviction, reduced to Airman Basic and given a bad conduct discharge.
Yes, adrenaline can be a powerful thing, but you can't let it control you and ruin your life.
(3)
(0)
1stSgt Nelson Kerr
The diffidence was in tat scene it was consensual, and that id a difference of enormous magnitude
(2)
(0)
8
8
0
1SG (Join to see)
PO1 James McWilliams - I did. When I was a drill sergeant. Now you know...lol. And after my time as a drill sergeant I mentored young Soldiers as a senior NCO.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Thank you my friend SFC William Farrell for making us aware the Rand Corporation produced a 119-page study after they surveyed American service members to uncover where troops were most at risk of sexual assault and harassment.
Based on the overview is seems heterosexual and homosexual sexual assaults were uncovered unsurprisingly.
I am not surprised that the large bases Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Lewis, Fort Campbell, and Camp Lejeune were cited [UPDATE 9/26/2018 and highlighted as significant in the study results]. However the fact that Fort Bliss [which is not a very large base in terms of area or personnel] was cited was interesting to me. It is noteworthy that Fort Benning, Fort Drum, and Fort Stewart were not cited is hopeful.
Since the XVIII Airborne Corps which has responsibility for Fort Bragg and Fort Campbell; hopefully (1) they will exercise leadership to ensure sexual assaults are both reported with prejudice and will be investigated and (2) they will take steps to ensure safety of their personnel.
"The 119-page study, conducted by Rand Corporation, surveyed American service members to uncover where troops were most at risk of sexual assault and harassment. In many cases, installations with large populations of younger, single, and more-junior-ranking service members had a greater probability of these incidents occurring.
“Each service member’s estimated risk of being sexually assaulted in the next year depends, to a surprising extent, on his or her duty assignment to a particular unit, command, and installation,” the study said.
Navy sailors assigned to ships at sea, for instance, were among the most predatory installations for women to be sexually assaulted. “Ships dominate the highest-risk installations,” the study said. “Of the 15 highest-risk installations for Navy women, 13 are ships or clusters of ships, including eight of the ten aircraft carriers.”
Assaults most often occurred on training bases in the Army and Marine Corps. Both of the services were found to have installations where Rand estimated that in fiscal year 2014 there were more than 500 sexual assaults of men and women: Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Lewis, Fort Campbell, Fort Bliss, and Camp Lejeune.
The study found that sexual assault risk for women in the Air Force was lower than the average for women in other services, but the top three bases where it did most often occur were all focused on undergraduate pilot training.
Military installations in the Washington, D.C.-region, such as the Pentagon, were reportedly the safest places to work across all the branches.
The Pentagon commissioned the study, entitled Estimates for Installation- and Command-Level Risk of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment, with the aim of identifying risk factors and locations where sexual misconduct most often occurs. The Defense Department has spent years launching various initiatives aimed at combating rape and sexual assault within U.S. military services without reporting significant progress.
“By targeting prevention, training, and other interventions at the largest and highest-risk installations, the services might efficiently make important reductions in their sexual assault rates,” the study said.
Air Force Major Carla Gleason, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said the Defense Department requested the study in order to provide installation commanders with early warning signals to help prevent sexual misconduct. “Using advanced statistical modeling with 2014 data, RAND developed sexual assault risk estimates for large military installations, ships, and commands worldwide,” she said. “The results are a valuable first look at how the Department can approach estimating sexual assault risk at installations.”
Rand said more than 170,000 active duty service and Coast Guard members completed an online sexual assault and sexual harassment survey fielded in August and September 2014. More than 560,000 were invited to participate.
The findings, which are now four years old, did not provide direct information about where the assaults occurred. “They may have occurred in the local community, in off-base housing, during off-base training exercises, or on the installation,” the study said. “For example, when referring to rates of sexual assault for personnel assigned to the USS George Washington, we do not infer that all such assaults occurred while sailors were on that ship.”
The study is the latest document to detail the U.S. military’s long-running sexual assault problems. In April, an Pentagon’s annual report stated the number of alleged assaults spiked across all four military branches. The highest increase came from the Marines, which remains embroiled in a scandal in which nude photographs of female Marines were posted online without their knowledge.
A total of 6,769 men and women reported assaults in the year that ended Sept. 30, up from 6,172 a year earlier. The reports came in from uniformed service members and civilian workers. It was the highest number of reported assaults since at least 2006, the last year the Pentagon has available on the data."
FYI LTC Jeff ShearerSGT Philip Roncari Lt Col Jim CoeCWO3 Dennis M.SGT (Join to see)PO3 Bob McCordSGT Jim Arnold Sgt Albert Castro PO3 Phyllis Maynard Maj Robert Thornton 1SG Carl McAndrews SPC Douglas Bolton Cynthia Croft PO1 H Gene Lawrence SGT Brent Scott CW5 John M. CMSgt (Join to see) PO2 Kevin Parker SGT James Murphy
Based on the overview is seems heterosexual and homosexual sexual assaults were uncovered unsurprisingly.
I am not surprised that the large bases Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Lewis, Fort Campbell, and Camp Lejeune were cited [UPDATE 9/26/2018 and highlighted as significant in the study results]. However the fact that Fort Bliss [which is not a very large base in terms of area or personnel] was cited was interesting to me. It is noteworthy that Fort Benning, Fort Drum, and Fort Stewart were not cited is hopeful.
Since the XVIII Airborne Corps which has responsibility for Fort Bragg and Fort Campbell; hopefully (1) they will exercise leadership to ensure sexual assaults are both reported with prejudice and will be investigated and (2) they will take steps to ensure safety of their personnel.
"The 119-page study, conducted by Rand Corporation, surveyed American service members to uncover where troops were most at risk of sexual assault and harassment. In many cases, installations with large populations of younger, single, and more-junior-ranking service members had a greater probability of these incidents occurring.
“Each service member’s estimated risk of being sexually assaulted in the next year depends, to a surprising extent, on his or her duty assignment to a particular unit, command, and installation,” the study said.
Navy sailors assigned to ships at sea, for instance, were among the most predatory installations for women to be sexually assaulted. “Ships dominate the highest-risk installations,” the study said. “Of the 15 highest-risk installations for Navy women, 13 are ships or clusters of ships, including eight of the ten aircraft carriers.”
Assaults most often occurred on training bases in the Army and Marine Corps. Both of the services were found to have installations where Rand estimated that in fiscal year 2014 there were more than 500 sexual assaults of men and women: Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Lewis, Fort Campbell, Fort Bliss, and Camp Lejeune.
The study found that sexual assault risk for women in the Air Force was lower than the average for women in other services, but the top three bases where it did most often occur were all focused on undergraduate pilot training.
Military installations in the Washington, D.C.-region, such as the Pentagon, were reportedly the safest places to work across all the branches.
The Pentagon commissioned the study, entitled Estimates for Installation- and Command-Level Risk of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment, with the aim of identifying risk factors and locations where sexual misconduct most often occurs. The Defense Department has spent years launching various initiatives aimed at combating rape and sexual assault within U.S. military services without reporting significant progress.
“By targeting prevention, training, and other interventions at the largest and highest-risk installations, the services might efficiently make important reductions in their sexual assault rates,” the study said.
Air Force Major Carla Gleason, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said the Defense Department requested the study in order to provide installation commanders with early warning signals to help prevent sexual misconduct. “Using advanced statistical modeling with 2014 data, RAND developed sexual assault risk estimates for large military installations, ships, and commands worldwide,” she said. “The results are a valuable first look at how the Department can approach estimating sexual assault risk at installations.”
Rand said more than 170,000 active duty service and Coast Guard members completed an online sexual assault and sexual harassment survey fielded in August and September 2014. More than 560,000 were invited to participate.
The findings, which are now four years old, did not provide direct information about where the assaults occurred. “They may have occurred in the local community, in off-base housing, during off-base training exercises, or on the installation,” the study said. “For example, when referring to rates of sexual assault for personnel assigned to the USS George Washington, we do not infer that all such assaults occurred while sailors were on that ship.”
The study is the latest document to detail the U.S. military’s long-running sexual assault problems. In April, an Pentagon’s annual report stated the number of alleged assaults spiked across all four military branches. The highest increase came from the Marines, which remains embroiled in a scandal in which nude photographs of female Marines were posted online without their knowledge.
A total of 6,769 men and women reported assaults in the year that ended Sept. 30, up from 6,172 a year earlier. The reports came in from uniformed service members and civilian workers. It was the highest number of reported assaults since at least 2006, the last year the Pentagon has available on the data."
FYI LTC Jeff ShearerSGT Philip Roncari Lt Col Jim CoeCWO3 Dennis M.SGT (Join to see)PO3 Bob McCordSGT Jim Arnold Sgt Albert Castro PO3 Phyllis Maynard Maj Robert Thornton 1SG Carl McAndrews SPC Douglas Bolton Cynthia Croft PO1 H Gene Lawrence SGT Brent Scott CW5 John M. CMSgt (Join to see) PO2 Kevin Parker SGT James Murphy
(8)
(0)
SSgt Robert Marx
Sexual assault definitely should not be the problem it currently is for the military services, but ownership of past mistakes and a positive attitude to eradicate it in the present force should alleviate the occurrences of sexual assault. Because cases may come down to personal opinion on whether or not an assault happened, the total eradication of sexual assaults within the military probably could not occur. Service members require training on identifying and preventing sexual assaults which I recall receiving throughout my military career. Alcohol abuse is such a high intensifier for most men & women to put their own guards down means that the culture of celebrating with alcohol and holding frequent parties must change through out the forces.
(2)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
LTC Stephen F. - I am sorry but you did not state as 'top five' in your statement that I was referencing in my statement. You stated - "It is noteworthy that Fort Benning, Fort Drum, and Fort Stewart were not cited is hopeful."
And I beg to differ with you on that point and the other point that I stated. From your response, I would actually have to state that either you did not read the report or you ignored critical statements that it made. The only conclusion I can come to is that you did not read the report, but made your statements solely on what was in the 'news article' that this discussion is generated from, and your personally experienced issues with the military justice system. And it is irritating that you would utterly dismiss the note lifted directly from the report that I quoted AND then rant about training installations, specifically Fort Benning. I can understand your rant only partially since it is personal in nature, however what it does show the same proclivity as 'believe the accuser and not the factual evidence' that so prevalent in civil society at the present time.
I also do not believe that the 'cover-up' is really much different than in civilian society over the period between the 1970's and today; though it may appear that way.
Fort Drum is cited twelve (12) times in the report; it is cited four times in the text and eight times in figures and tables. First I will cover the information that is in the text of the report and then I will cover the figures and tables.
"Installations with the Lowest and Highest Installation-Specific Sexual Assault Risk In this section, we highlight the ten lowest and highest installation-specific risk estimates for women and men of each service. The complete set of installation-specific risk estimates is provided in Part A of the annex to this report. Figure 3.11 exhibits the lowest and highest installation-specific risk estimates for Army women. This figure illustrates the portion of each installation’s total sexual assault risk that cannot be explained by the demographic characteristics or other individual risk factors of personnel serving at the installation. At the extremes, this figure shows that those serving at the Presidio of Monterey have total risk scores more than 2 percentage points lower than would be expected based on the demographics of those serving there, and women at FORT DRUM have a risk of sexual assault that is approximately 2 percentage points higher than expected." [pg 39-40, Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: Volume 5; RAND_RR870z7.pdf]
"Table 3.3 describes the five bases with the greatest number of sexual assaults above or below the number that would be expected based on the individual characteristics of personnel assigned there. At the extremes, Table 3.3 shows that the installation-specific risk component of installations’ total risk accounts for as many as 76 additional sexual assaults per year (at FORT DRUM) or 67 fewer than would be expected (at Pensacola NAS)." [pg 45-47, Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: Volume 5; RAND_RR870z7.pdf]
"At Fort Drum, women’s risk of sexual harassment is higher than expected by an average of 3.9 percentage points. Total risk of sexual harassment for women at this installation is 32.3 percent, which means that assignment there is associated with a rate of sexual harassment that is 14 percent higher than expected based on the individual characteristics of the base’s personnel. The Presidio of Monterey is interesting because it has the lowest estimated installation-specific risk of sexual assault but has the eighth highest installation-specific risk of sexual harassment. This estimate is imprecise, however, as indicated by the wide credibility interval." [pg 59, Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: Volume 5; RAND_RR870z7.pdf]
"At large bases, installation-specific risk is sometimes associated with many more sexual assault victims than would be expected based on similar individuals with other duty assignments. Across Fort Drum, Fort Lewis, Fort Hood, and Fort Bragg, we estimate that more than 257 of the female assault victims in FY 2014, or about 17 percent of all women estimated to have been sexually assaulted at these bases, were associated with the installation-specific component of risk—that is, risk above what those women would have experienced at a typical Army duty assignment." [pg 76, Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: Volume 5; RAND_RR870z7.pdf]
Now for the figures and tables.
Figure 3.2 Estimated Sexual Assault Risk for the 15 Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Women [pg 28] - Fort Drum is number three (3).
Figure 3.3 Estimated Sexual Assault Risk for the 15 Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Men [pg 29] - Fort Drum is number three (3).
Figure 3.11 Estimated Installation-Specific Sexual Assault Risk for the Ten Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Women [pg 39] - Fort Drum is number one (1).
Figure 3.12 Estimated Installation-Specific Sexual Assault Risk for the Ten Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Men [pg 40] - Fort Drum is number two (2).
Figure 4.2 Estimated Installation-Specific Sexual Harassment Risk for the Ten Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Women [pg 60] - Fort Drum is number one (1).
Figure 4.3 Estimated Installation-Specific Sexual Harassment Risk for the Ten Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Men [pg 60] - Fort Drum is number two (2).
Table 3.2 Ten Installations with the Highest Estimated Number of Women and Men Sexually Assaulted During FY 2014, by Service Branch [pg 35] - Fort Drum is number seven (7).
Table 3.3 Installations with the Five Lowest and Highest Numbers of Sexual Assaults Estimated to Be Associated with the Installation-Specific Risk Portion of Total Installation Risk [pg 46] - Fort Drum is number one (1). This is the scariest one when you get right down on a proper analysis.
When taking the information in the text and combining it with the referenced charts (figures and tables), the only conclusion and statement that could be made is that Fort Drum is either the number one (1) or number two (2) on the list of problem installations (outside of training installations).
LTC Stephen F. sad to note that I could also do the same thing with information in the report (not the news article) about training installations and the data collected and analyzed, and noted throughout the report both in the body and in the notes associated with the figures and tables.
This is a heinous subject, however basing your judgement and conclusions on faulty or incomplete (delibrate (?)) information and data is almost as bad. Unfortunately, the only conclusion that I can come to, is that the news article is more propaganda than actual news reporting.
SSgt Robert Marx, COL Mikel J. Burroughs, PO1 H Gene Lawrence, Maj Robert Thornton,
And I beg to differ with you on that point and the other point that I stated. From your response, I would actually have to state that either you did not read the report or you ignored critical statements that it made. The only conclusion I can come to is that you did not read the report, but made your statements solely on what was in the 'news article' that this discussion is generated from, and your personally experienced issues with the military justice system. And it is irritating that you would utterly dismiss the note lifted directly from the report that I quoted AND then rant about training installations, specifically Fort Benning. I can understand your rant only partially since it is personal in nature, however what it does show the same proclivity as 'believe the accuser and not the factual evidence' that so prevalent in civil society at the present time.
I also do not believe that the 'cover-up' is really much different than in civilian society over the period between the 1970's and today; though it may appear that way.
Fort Drum is cited twelve (12) times in the report; it is cited four times in the text and eight times in figures and tables. First I will cover the information that is in the text of the report and then I will cover the figures and tables.
"Installations with the Lowest and Highest Installation-Specific Sexual Assault Risk In this section, we highlight the ten lowest and highest installation-specific risk estimates for women and men of each service. The complete set of installation-specific risk estimates is provided in Part A of the annex to this report. Figure 3.11 exhibits the lowest and highest installation-specific risk estimates for Army women. This figure illustrates the portion of each installation’s total sexual assault risk that cannot be explained by the demographic characteristics or other individual risk factors of personnel serving at the installation. At the extremes, this figure shows that those serving at the Presidio of Monterey have total risk scores more than 2 percentage points lower than would be expected based on the demographics of those serving there, and women at FORT DRUM have a risk of sexual assault that is approximately 2 percentage points higher than expected." [pg 39-40, Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: Volume 5; RAND_RR870z7.pdf]
"Table 3.3 describes the five bases with the greatest number of sexual assaults above or below the number that would be expected based on the individual characteristics of personnel assigned there. At the extremes, Table 3.3 shows that the installation-specific risk component of installations’ total risk accounts for as many as 76 additional sexual assaults per year (at FORT DRUM) or 67 fewer than would be expected (at Pensacola NAS)." [pg 45-47, Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: Volume 5; RAND_RR870z7.pdf]
"At Fort Drum, women’s risk of sexual harassment is higher than expected by an average of 3.9 percentage points. Total risk of sexual harassment for women at this installation is 32.3 percent, which means that assignment there is associated with a rate of sexual harassment that is 14 percent higher than expected based on the individual characteristics of the base’s personnel. The Presidio of Monterey is interesting because it has the lowest estimated installation-specific risk of sexual assault but has the eighth highest installation-specific risk of sexual harassment. This estimate is imprecise, however, as indicated by the wide credibility interval." [pg 59, Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: Volume 5; RAND_RR870z7.pdf]
"At large bases, installation-specific risk is sometimes associated with many more sexual assault victims than would be expected based on similar individuals with other duty assignments. Across Fort Drum, Fort Lewis, Fort Hood, and Fort Bragg, we estimate that more than 257 of the female assault victims in FY 2014, or about 17 percent of all women estimated to have been sexually assaulted at these bases, were associated with the installation-specific component of risk—that is, risk above what those women would have experienced at a typical Army duty assignment." [pg 76, Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military: Volume 5; RAND_RR870z7.pdf]
Now for the figures and tables.
Figure 3.2 Estimated Sexual Assault Risk for the 15 Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Women [pg 28] - Fort Drum is number three (3).
Figure 3.3 Estimated Sexual Assault Risk for the 15 Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Men [pg 29] - Fort Drum is number three (3).
Figure 3.11 Estimated Installation-Specific Sexual Assault Risk for the Ten Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Women [pg 39] - Fort Drum is number one (1).
Figure 3.12 Estimated Installation-Specific Sexual Assault Risk for the Ten Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Men [pg 40] - Fort Drum is number two (2).
Figure 4.2 Estimated Installation-Specific Sexual Harassment Risk for the Ten Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Women [pg 60] - Fort Drum is number one (1).
Figure 4.3 Estimated Installation-Specific Sexual Harassment Risk for the Ten Lowest- and Highest-Risk Installations, Army Men [pg 60] - Fort Drum is number two (2).
Table 3.2 Ten Installations with the Highest Estimated Number of Women and Men Sexually Assaulted During FY 2014, by Service Branch [pg 35] - Fort Drum is number seven (7).
Table 3.3 Installations with the Five Lowest and Highest Numbers of Sexual Assaults Estimated to Be Associated with the Installation-Specific Risk Portion of Total Installation Risk [pg 46] - Fort Drum is number one (1). This is the scariest one when you get right down on a proper analysis.
When taking the information in the text and combining it with the referenced charts (figures and tables), the only conclusion and statement that could be made is that Fort Drum is either the number one (1) or number two (2) on the list of problem installations (outside of training installations).
LTC Stephen F. sad to note that I could also do the same thing with information in the report (not the news article) about training installations and the data collected and analyzed, and noted throughout the report both in the body and in the notes associated with the figures and tables.
This is a heinous subject, however basing your judgement and conclusions on faulty or incomplete (delibrate (?)) information and data is almost as bad. Unfortunately, the only conclusion that I can come to, is that the news article is more propaganda than actual news reporting.
SSgt Robert Marx, COL Mikel J. Burroughs, PO1 H Gene Lawrence, Maj Robert Thornton,
(2)
(0)
SSgt Robert Marx
SSG Robert Webster - These "news" stories tend to belittle low hanging fruit or people with an inability to defend themselves to fill the space for a low news day. I am sure training bases have high sexual harassment/assaults due to the numbers of young male & female service members plus these people have not had a weeding out of low performers, those incompatible with military life, and members with a criminal tendency who nevertheless got around "diligent" recruiters. It also is indicative of young adults to have high sexual harassment/assault cases and that population makes up the majority of military recruits. It after all is a fact that war is a young man's game.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google