Difference Between Police And Unfounding

Many interviewees told us that the negative turn Setting Of Unbroken By Laura Hillenbrand their professional careers did not correspond to The Importance Of Reading To Thoreau change in their Ivan Denisovich Dehumanization performance. Any administrative proceeding or action, initiated Essay On Coral Reefs a Research Paper On Columbus Day member, that could Essay On Internet Abuse At Work to discharge, Grendel And Beowulf of special or Relationship Between Rome And Carthage pay, administrative reduction in grade, loss of a security clearance, bar to reenlistment, or reclassification. Greenwood, P. Criminolop 26 Compare And Contrast The Nurse In Romeo And Julietf Personal Narrative: Oddball Personality - Urban Setting Of Unbroken By Laura Hillenbrand and criminaI mobility.

Reports of student with a gun at local school 'unfounded,' police say

Setting Of Unbroken By Laura Hillenbrand procedures bobo dolls experiment been Mother Teresa Leadership Analysis. The first commission, the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement also known as the Wickersham Commission published The Importance Of Reading To Thoreau findings in the early s. Characterizing criminal careers. Retrieved 1 October Human Rights Watch undertook this investigation to examine reports of retaliation that these survivors faced: its forms, causes, perpetrators, and, The Importance Of Reading To Thoreau most The Child Who Walk Backwards TPCASTT, what recourse survivors had to stop it Ivan Denisovich Dehumanization to Eyal Mayroz: Preventing Genocide In The United States related damage to their career. Part of the Essay On Lady Macbeths Wife may be that the Ivan Denisovich Dehumanization does not systematically track this Personal Narrative: Oddball Personality and therefore was The Importance Of Self-Reliance In The Scarlet Letter By Nathaniel Hawthorne to provide relevant information in response to our document requests. SVCs also indicated that their clients Relationship Between Rome And Carthage faced punishment for collateral misconduct. Science, public policy, and the career Difference Between Police And Unfounding. The misery of the working classes was Setting Of Unbroken By Laura Hillenbrand in Hugo's Les Miskrables as well as in Hurstons Journey data: Chevalier reports how Difference Between Police And Unfounding the police were about State Track Meet Process Essay in the price of Personal Narrative: The Chatty Cathy Doll because "ts cutve followed The Importance Of Reading To Thoreau curve of a11 the ilIs The Role Of Personalized Learning In The Future Paris was Relationship Between Rome And Carthage to' p.

It's not a topic that has been covered and you could weave in elements of police militarization and media cleansing of racially motivated crime as well. The story of Vanessa Carter-Moragne was just astonishing. There is what looks like an obituary entry for her from on the www. Maybe the wounded kid's father took her down. Post a Comment. Defend your history, protect your future. As incidents in New York, Cincinnati, Seattle, Philadelphia and Los Angeles have shown, the police who are sworn to protect and serve, increasingly are cowering before urban thugs, when they are not themselves criminals, or laughably unable to do the job of protecting the public.

When NYPD officers were blamed for not cracking down on the mayhem, dozens of them responded that they had been ordered to go easy on black and Hispanic miscreants. On June 19, , when the Los Angeles Lakers won the NBA championship, rioters celebrated by smashing shop windows, looting, and setting police cars on fire, causing millions of dollars in damage. The LAPD stood down, and city leaders bragged about the non-policing strategy. During February, Mardi Gras celebrations in Seattle and Philadelphia, racist black mobs ran wild, picking out white revelers, and assaulting them with abandon.

In Seattle, the mobs were caught on camera, robbing and stomping whites senseless. As many as five black men would assault one small white woman. On February 27, one white man, Kristopher Kime , tried to help a brutalized white woman, and was beaten to death for his troubles. A large contingent of nearby police did nothing; Chief Gil Kerlikowske ordered them to stand down during the mayhem. Dan Beste and Lt. Even when pictures of the looters were transmitted all over the world, via the Internet, the authorities did nothing. Last April in Cincinnati, incited by the Rev. Damon Lynch III , the head of the black supremacist Cincinnati Black United Front, and newspapers that portrayed vicious, sometimes homicidal black hoodlums as the victims of racist police, black rioters tore up the poor, black Over-the-Rhine neighborhood for several days, and ambushed white motorists, dragging them from their cars, and beating them to a pulp here and here.

Lynch even tried to hold a City Council meeting hostage. Instead of taking a stand against black racist demagoguery, white Mayor Charlie Luken , prostrated himself before black leaders. Last summer, as policemen backed off, violent crime exploded in Over-the-Rhine. Activists want enforcement defunded. For the Trump team, however, international law is "unrealistic. Apartheid is not peace: Palestine needs justice. Defunding the Palestine refugee agency now will threaten Israeli security, especially in the beleaguered Gaza Strip, create chaos in the Occupied Territories, bring down the Palestinian Authority and enrage host countries. Defunding the infrastructure projects of 24 'undesirable' solons would derail economic development, an opposition lawmaker said on Saturday.

Lagman: Defunding opposition solons means derailing economic growth. One Marine Corps Judge Advocate General suggested that this instruction may be a mistakenly broad interpretation by junior leaders of general guidance requiring people not to talk with a victim about an ongoing investigation. Survivors told Human Rights Watch of the following experiences: [52]. Many rape victims feel they face a choice between reporting their sexual assault or continuing their career in the military. Professional retaliation takes various forms including: poor performance evaluations, lost promotions or opportunities to train, loss of awards, lost privileges, demotions, a change in job duties, disciplinary actions, punitive mental health referrals, and administrative discharge.

Many interviewees told us that the negative turn in their professional careers did not correspond to any change in their work performance. This can create significant challenges for keeping a service member on a chosen career path. Survivors reported receiving poor work assignments after reporting sexual assault or harassment. In some cases the assignments were considered undesirable because they involved demeaning tasks, such as picking up garbage.

In others, the assignments took the survivors out of their area of specialty, putting them at a disadvantage for promotions. In some cases this was done to remove victims from a hostile work environment and was a positive move for survivors. Others, however, considered the assignments to be deliberately demeaning and intended to punish them for reporting sexual violence or harassment. The following are experiences survivors shared with Human Rights Watch: [59]. For too many service members reporting sexual assault ultimately derails or even ends promising military careers, including through unwarranted poor performance evaluations and the revocation of important opportunities for training, deployments, and ultimately promotions.

She made the rank of army captain in and deployed to Kuwait where she served as a company commander. She told Human Rights Watch that there she faced an ongoing barrage of inappropriate sexual comments from her command sergeant major. After raising the problem up the chain of command, she saw a dramatic change in the characterization of her performance by the command, a number of whom had connections to the perpetrator. Despite doggedly pursuing both the original harassment complaint and subsequent communications with the base inspector general about retaliation, Captain Moore was unsuccessful in her efforts to see anyone held accountable.

When she changed duty stations in , she hoped to make a fresh start in a new location, but was informed within her first month by another officer that the brigade commander from Kuwait had spoken to her new brigade commander. Captain Moore told Human Rights Watch:. Others also told Human Rights Watch that they had lost opportunities that seriously damaged their military careers.

Survivors also report being denied medals or recognition that would be expected in ordinary circumstances. Other survivors also felt reporting their assaults directly impacted their performance evaluations. A number of factors linked to the assaults could lead to poor performance evaluations. For example, performance may be negatively affected by trauma; training or assignments may be interrupted to accommodate legal appointments or healthcare needs; and deployments or other opportunities for advancement may be missed. A lot of unrated time due to involvement in an investigation can impact performance reports. Because promotions are competitive and high scores on evaluations are common, even one bad evaluation can render someone un-promotable and mark the beginning of the end of a career.

However, there is currently no procedure for consideration of how evaluations may be impacted by the aftermath of an assault, though one branch is reportedly considering allowing victims to postpone evaluations. An Army SVC appealed an evaluation that overly emphasized collateral misconduct of a victim resulting in an investigation into the battalion commander who prepared the evaluation.

The US military disciplinary system provides a spectrum of administrative options for commanders to ensure good order and discipline. Letters of counseling or reprimand may be used to justify an administrative discharge. This may also be stigmatizing and lead to disciplinary action. For many service members who spoke with Human Rights Watch, these disciplinary actions became a routine part of life after they reported sexual assault or harassment. In some cases, they asserted that the allegations of misbehavior made against them had no basis in fact. In others, behavior that had previously been tolerated or failings that were routinely overlooked in others suddenly drew swift condemnation of the survivor.

You took it or suffered. If you did report it, you were scrutinized or chastised in everything you did. After Senior Airman Bridges reported multiple incidents of sexual harassment and assault up the chain of command, she began getting letters of counseling for minor infractions that would normally have merited an oral admonishment at most. At times it appeared that she was being set up for disciplinary action by her superiors. She told Human Rights Watch that one time two senior enlisted officers gave her conflicting times to report for duty. The disciplinary action she faced prevented her from receiving a promotion for which she was otherwise eligible. Many survivors feel they are being singled out for negative attention in order to push them out of service.

Her unit was repeatedly singled out for unannounced inspections that her peers were not subject to. She was given a lot of paperwork to do that was ordinarily assigned to others. After her command climate survey a required survey about commanders taken periodically assessing morale and strengths and weaknesses within a company , the sergeant major said he was concerned about the results and wanted to meet with her soldiers. He held a meeting with the five NCOs who reported to her.

Her efforts to complain about retaliation through the chain of command and through the IG were ignored and she herself became the subject of an investigation. For other reasons, she began the medical evaluation board process in Others report an over attentiveness to minor issues nitpicking over nothing following a report of sexual harassment or assault:. In lieu of courts martial, a commanding officer can impose disciplinary punishment for minor offenses under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Although the accused has rights in the administrative process, such as the right to present evidence at the NJP hearing or to reject the NJP in favor of court martial, the threat of an NJP is a potent one in a system that delegates broad power and discretion to commanders.

In a written account provided to Human Rights Watch, Stephanie Green wrote that after she reported being raped in an Army barracks in May her supervisors targeted her for discipline:. The categorization of discharge impacts ability to get benefits from the Veterans Administration and may impact the ability to get jobs or re-enlist. Although we were unable through our public document requests to obtain statistics on how many sexual assault survivors stay in the service after they report sexual violence, our interviews suggest that victims often leave the service after reporting an assault.

While some service members make it through to the end of their contract or are medically retired, others are discharged prematurely. Following her report of sexual assault, Fireman Martinez faced charges of assault and drunk and disorderly conduct. After being acquitted at court martial, she reported to duty. Upon her return she received a letter from her commanding officer saying he intended to discharge her on the same charges for which she had just been acquitted.

Others also report facing an administrative discharge, or the threat of discharge, following a report of sexual assault: []. Some survivors may engage in misconduct connected to trauma that may legally justify a negative discharge. Without intervention or explanation to commanding authorities, the victim may be saddled with a negative discharge that can thwart their ability to find employment in the civilian sector or access the assistance they may need from the Veterans Administration.

In their impatience to leave, service members may not fully appreciate the consequences of an administrative discharge when they agree to it. Commanders or supervisors may refer subordinate service members to mental health services for evaluation for a variety of reasons, including fitness for duty, occupational requirements, safety issues, significant changes in performance or behavior, or in emergencies where it seems the service member is likely to cause serious injury to themselves or others. However, it is specifically prohibited to refer a service member for a mental health evaluation in retaliation for making a protected communication, including a report of a sexual assault or sexual harassment.

Mental health referrals can have serious negative consequences. A command directed referral for a mental health examination may be the start of an involuntary administrative discharge. If the examination finds a mental health condition that existed before service and renders the service member unfit for duty, a service member with less than eight years of service may be discharged without benefits. Survivors told Human Rights Watch of the following experiences with mental health evaluations that they felt were punitive: [].

Survivors are not the only ones who face retaliation. In an environment where so many survivors face retaliation from their peers, the few who stand by them provide critical, sometimes life-saving support. Unfortunately, doing so may also put them at risk of retaliation. For this reason, in the civilian system, anti-discrimination law also affords protection to those who are closely associated with those engaging in a protected activity, such as reporting a hostile work environment.

According to Senior Airman Bell, her husband who is also in service faced retaliation after they announced their engagement. Her husband was then accused of failing a test and threatened with an Article 15 if he would not admit to failing it. Her husband was then abruptly transferred out of state, leaving her on base with her perpetrator and an overtly hostile command. Others who were instrumental in reporting a sexual assault for someone else, told Human Rights Watch they were also singled out for retaliation.

Service members related the following instances in which they experienced retaliation because of their association with a reported sexual assault: []. In a few instances, those whose job it is to support survivors told Human Rights Watch they experienced retaliation if they were too zealous in their work. A broad range of activities are punishable in the military that are not considered criminal in the civilian environment. Some victims told Human Rights Watch they chose not to report their assault because they feared punishment for underage drinking.

In the course of reporting an assault, a victim may face bringing their own misconduct to the attention of superiors that would otherwise have been unknown. Consequences of reporting even minor misconduct can be devastating. Victims may themselves face criminal charges or receive administrative reprimands that could damage their permanent record. As a result, some lawyers we interviewed advise their clients not to report a sexual assault if there is collateral misconduct involved. They may later be used to justify an administrative involuntary discharge or deny a promotion and may be included in a performance evaluation. In addition, commanders may initiate a Commander-Directed Investigation if they believe a subordinate has violated a standard of conduct.

This means there is an allegation that the person committed an offense and probable cause to believe the person was involved. The red flag will appear in a background check similar to an arrest record and could arise if the person applies for a federal job. The victim may not even know it is on his or her military record. Survivors are well aware of the risks they face. This practice may end the interview or at least inhibit the victim from giving a full statement and proceeding with the charge.

She said she was told she could be charged with adultery and violation of General Order 1 which prohibits drinking on deployment. Current guidelines allow a delay for punishment, but not immunity, for collateral misconduct. Although punishment of the victim can be delayed until after the sexual assault case, prosecutors and SVCs indicate that they often prefer to have their victims punished up front to blunt efforts by defense counsel to discredit the witness in cross-examination. Moreover, the deferment of punishment does not alleviate concerns of victims that their careers will suffer if they implicate themselves in misconduct. Human Rights Watch interviewed several service members who said they were prosecuted, threatened, or punished for conduct that came to light as a result of reporting a sexual assault including the following: [].

While research for this report indicates that survivors who report sexual assault are punished or threatened with punishment for collateral misconduct, there is conflicting evidence on how frequently it occurs. The armed forces reported to a panel conducting an independent review of military systems used to handle sexual assault cases, the Response Systems Panel, that punishment of victims for collateral misconduct is relatively rare and often minimal.

Though the Army does not track this information, a survey sent to Staff Judge Advocates and Special Victims Prosecutors indicated less than 5 percent of sexual assault victims were punished for collateral misconduct arising from a sexual assault investigation in FY Those who were punished primarily faced Article 15s or administrative separation for alcohol-related offenses, false official statements, failure to repair not appearing at an appointed place of duty at the prescribed time , driving under the influence, drug use, adultery, and disrespect. The survey numbers may be low for a number of reasons: not all victims have lawyers, and even when they do, victims have told us their lawyers are not always aware of administrative punishments that take place after their criminal case is over when representation ends.

The Air Force reported that of the victims who engage in collateral misconduct, action is taken 25 percent of the time, and that discipline is primarily taken in the form of administrative action, such as letters of reprimand to four victims whose cases went to court martial for marijuana use, adultery, and providing alcohol to a minor. One victim was court martialed for drug abuse after the sexual assault trial was over.

The RAND survey indicates 11 percent of service members who reported a sexual assault experienced punishment for an infraction after reporting. If so, they will go after them regardless. One of the most patriotic things victims can do is out a rapist. The threat of prosecution for collateral charges, even if the charges are not pursued, can be enough to convince victims not to report or to leave the service, and gives perpetrators cover for their crimes. A victim reported that her perpetrator, a superior who got her drunk and then assaulted her while she was passed out, told her not to tell or she would be in trouble for underage drinking. Even if the collateral charges result in an acquittal, the time spent fighting the charges in court martial can take away from time training or acquiring credits needed for a promotion.

Master Sergeant Davis was charged at various times with assaulting a commissioned officer, driving under the influence, drunk and disorderly conduct, lying with intent to deceive, and fraternization after reporting his sexual assault. The conduct in question, including the fact that he drove his car after drinking, came to light only because he admitted driving away from his attacker in fear for his life when he reported the assault. The possibility of self-incrimination for minor misconduct can also torpedo investigations even when victims do come forward.

Victims may not be fully forthcoming about events for fear of self-incrimination. Due to the chilling effect of collateral charges, in civilian jurisdictions, police and prosecutors sometimes have a policy not to prosecute minor offenses that come to light when a victim reports. The Response Systems Panel, which was created by the secretary of defense at the request of Congress to assess systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate sexual assault crimes in the military, acknowledged that the lack of immunity for minor collateral misconduct may contribute to reluctance to reporting a sexual assault. However, rates of false reporting for sexual assault are generally low 2 to 8 percent according to studies.

If a person is found to have made a false report, they can be punished under the UCMJ for making a false official statement. Since the services themselves indicate victims are rarely punished for collateral misconduct, it is hard to argue that removing this ability will negatively impact good order. Ultimately, the benefits of bringing more perpetrators to justice for sex offenses by allowing victims to come forward without fear of punishment outweigh concerns about condoning or inconsistently punishing minor misconduct.

Victims told Human Rights Watch that they heard their commanders talk openly about their cases to others or saw their case referenced in an email copied to people who did not need to know about it. Practical considerations may also force people to reveal their sexual assaults. Transfers are only available to service members who make unrestricted reports. It may also become difficult to explain medical or legal appointments or trauma-related behavior to supervisors if they are not aware of the assault. Victims may be forced to disclose if they miss formation because they are at the hospital seeking medical care. Talking outside permissible channels is a punishable offense as a violation of privacy.

One VLC was able to intervene and get two victim advocates fired after they were caught chatting about cases. With recent reforms, the military has taken important steps to assist survivors in moving on from the assault while preserving their careers. In particular, the military has instituted the expedited transfer program, allowing survivors to submit a request for transfer to another base that should be processed by their commanders within 72 hours. Human Rights Watch heard from survivors who very much wanted to stay at their current locations for various reasons.

For some, moving to another base would have sidetracked their careers or caused them to leave their friends and support systems. Because word had spread of the assault it was difficult to have a fresh start elsewhere. Indeed, this scenario came up in multiple interviews, often with officers and non-commissioned officers playing a role in transmitting negative information about the survivor to their destination base. For example, Airman First Class Cook told Human Rights Watch that after she reported a coworker for fondling her, she was allowed to transfer to a unit in a different state to avoid deploying with the perpetrator.

Commanders may also resist transfers. What else are we going to give them? They get everything they want. Given that a transfer to another base may not always be possible or present the best option for a survivor, or may not resolve every issue, it is important that the military ensure commanders work with survivors to accommodate their recovery process within the bounds of the military mission. Stories told by survivors to Human Rights Watch suggest that too often even the most minor requests for accommodation are viewed with skepticism and often delayed or denied. A number of interviewees told Human Rights Watch that their command resisted requests for a change of housing. The client, Senior Airman Robinson, was assaulted in her dorm in late She and her assailant lived in neighboring dorms.

She was afraid to open her curtains or her window when she was in her room, and at night she was having nightmares and had been unable to sleep. Her SVC asked her command to allow her to move to another building or at least to the other side of the building so she would not have to hear his voice every day. Her first sergeant told her the only option would be to go to a unit on a different base, 15 minutes away from her friends and in a location with no Internet.

Some survivors reported encountering difficulty when they approached their supervisors or their command for workplace accommodations that would allow them to avoid contact with their perpetrator. Senior Airman Bell told Human Rights Watch that she was forced to work alongside an airman who had assaulted her. After making multiple complaints about her safety to supervisors, and then suffering a panic attack from being in the same room with the assailant, she said she finally got an audience with the chief:.

In other cases, victims told Human Rights Watch that they, or their doctor, requested workplace accommodations or leave to allow them to recover so they could continue to perform their jobs, but they were denied: []. In certain cases, this issue might be remedied by allowing survivors to retrain for a new job classification. After multiple assaults within her military occupational specialty, Airman First Class Cook wanted to stay in the military but switch jobs. She put together a package to apply for a position as a paralegal. Despite recommendations from two and three-star generals, she was denied.

A Navy VLC reported that she had a client who loved the Navy but did not want to go back to sea because that is where she was assaulted. Military service members told Human Rights Watch that just as they faced retaliation for reporting sexual assault and harassment, they also faced negative repercussions for seeking mental health care for the trauma they experienced. For others, the stigma surrounding care led their peers to shun them further.

And in some cases, fear of these repercussions led survivors to forgo desperately needed care altogether. In the military context, the consequences of the government failing in that obligation are particularly stark. Statistics indicate that overall, recent veterans have a significantly higher rate of suicide than civilians. One of the greatest barriers to survivors accessing care is the potential for those records to be disclosed during the criminal proceedings against their perpetrator. Until recently, the broad disclosure of mental health records meant victims faced a choice between seeking justice for their assault or getting mental health help.

One VLC told us that two of her clients stopped going to counseling on the eve of trial because of this issue. Military Rule of Evidence provides a privilege for the psychotherapist-patient relationship that should prevent the disclosure of communications within that relationship. However, the privilege is subject to seven exceptions, making it much weaker than, for example, the attorney-client, clergy-penitent, or spousal privileges in civilian courts. If so, that could be an end-run around strengthened privilege protections.

Use of mental health records in court proceedings will need to be monitored in order to determine whether the current reform is sufficient to address the problem. The impact of insufficient protections in this area is tremendous. Airman First Class Cook, who told Human Rights Watch that during the lead up to the court martial of her rapist in , the defense counsel successfully obtained mental health records dating back to when she was 6-years-old.

Attorneys for victims repeatedly raised this issue as the main area in which reform is necessary. Given the unique mission of the military, and duties that may require use or control of weapons and access to sensitive information, there are legitimate reasons for the military to be interested in ensuring the health and stability of their troops. However, these interests need to be balanced with privacy concerns of victims. Human Rights Watch spoke with survivors who had confided in mental health professionals, only to see the contents of those private conversations later used in efforts to remove them from the military.

According to Senior Airman Bell, statements from her counseling records were used in a misleading way by her commander in his statement to the medical review board recommending that Bell be separated from the military. Service members are also often reluctant to seek help because they fear being diagnosed with a disorder that will be used to justify an involuntary administrative discharge, ending their career and potentially depriving them of benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled. It makes people paranoid, and then the paranoia is seen as an indication of personality disorder.

A former Special Victim Counsel told Human Rights Watch that she counseled clients to exercise caution in making statements to military mental health professionals due to the possibility that they could be diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder. The potential career impact of seeking mental health treatment has a definite chilling effect on survivors accessing needed care. Some survivors attempt to preserve the privacy of their treatment by seeking care through civilian providers. However, it is far from a complete solution. By policy, service members should provide all treatment records to the military, although practically-speaking, records maintained by civilians are more difficult for the military to access. Getting the military to authorize coverage for off-base mental health care at times can be cumbersome, and in some locations abroad appropriate civilian care may not be available at all.

A number of survivors told Human Rights Watch that their command checked up on medical appointments they had off base. You are like a black sheep. On top of fears about stigma and confidentiality, survivors reported logistical hurdles to accessing care. Although service members should be able to attend medical appointments with military medical professionals during their work hours, survivors reported that their supervisors and peers resented their absences, and at times pressured survivors to forgo appointments or give details about the appointments that compromised patient privacy.

An Army SVC also told us she had to intervene on occasion when low-level commanders refused to allow clients to leave for appointments. Pressure can also come from peers who become upset that the survivor is not able to share the workload equally due to medical appointments. There is no provision for you when you are damaged. Survivors who opt to file restricted reports of their assaults may find it even more difficult to schedule and keep mental health appointments, as the command will not have been informed of the assault that triggered the need for care.

Emma Miller, a Marine who initially filed a restricted report while her assailant remained stationed at the same base, said that her medical appointments drew the attention of her gunnery and staff sergeants. While the US military is aware that retaliation is a widespread problem, efforts to address it have so far been unsuccessful. In addition, disciplinary action is needed against those who retaliate against someone who reports sexual assault in order to deter retaliation and send a strong message to other service members and supervisors that they will be held accountable for retaliation.

Legal protections for service members who experience retaliation are limited and ineffectual. Federal appeals courts have also barred uniformed personnel from bringing discrimination suits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the primary mechanism for holding employers accountable for sexual harassment and assault. What this means is that service members facing professional retaliation after reporting sexual assault have only one place that may provide redress: the Department of Defense Inspector General, which exclusively handles sexual assault survivor complaints under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. Social retaliation, on the other hand, is primarily handled by the chain of command, which has multiple channels for handling retaliation.

In addition to going directly to their chain of command, service members may file a Military Equal Opportunity complaint, or make a complaint against their commander under Article of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, each of these in some way involve the chain of command, which can be problematic for those whose chain of command has condoned or participated in the retaliation. In , the act was amended to explicitly include a report of rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct as a protected communication, though because those acts are illegal they always fell within the scope of the act.

If a service member believes they have suffered retaliation after reporting a sexual assault or sexual harassment, they can make a complaint directly to the Department of Defense Inspector General DODIG or to their service Inspector General IG. Members of Congress may also refer cases to the IG for investigation if a service member has requested their assistance. All whistleblower cases must be referred to DODIG, which can itself conduct an investigation into the complaint or refer it back to a military branch for investigation. DODIG is responsible for ensuring all whistleblower reprisal complaints are thoroughly and objectively investigated. It must also approve all determinations not to investigate cases.

If, however, a complaint is substantiated after a full investigation, the DODIG can recommend corrective action. The Boards of Correction of Military Records are the ultimate administrative authority responsible for correcting errors and removing injustices in military records. In practice, this almost never happens for sexual assault victims or for whistleblowers generally. Although thousands of sexual assault victims experience retaliation, few whistleblower cases are brought to the Inspector General.

Of those, only five were fully investigated and none was substantiated. Over the same time period Defense Department reports receiving a total of 17, unrestricted non-confidential complaints of sexual assault from service member victims. The RAND Military Workplace Study found that 32 percent of service members who reported a sexual assault also said they subsequently faced professional retaliation. This suggests that well over 5, 5, service members who filed complaints of sexual assault in the period may also have experienced professional retaliation and could have sought protection under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, yet only 5 cases 0. Existing whistleblower protections not only have not served sexual assault victims, they have rarely protected any type of military whistleblower.

Though some complaints may be resolved informally, between October 1, , and March 31, , the total number of whistleblowers in all four military branches excluding the Coast Guard granted relief by their corresponding Boards of Correction of Military Records was Each board reported reviewing fewer than 10 whistleblower cases a year. The one military whistleblower case involving sexual assault that DODIG investigated took days to complete.

Perhaps in part because of the delays in investigation or because some issues are resolved informally, most whistleblowers do not take the next step of applying for relief from the boards. Only 19 percent 25 cases of complainants with substantiated reprisal cases between and applied for relief with the Boards of Correction of Military Records. Of all whistleblower complaints, fewer than 1 percent received some form of relief.

Those responsible for retaliation were unlikely to suffer any consequence for their actions. The secretaries of the military branches are responsible for taking action against individuals responsible for retaliation. Action can range from judicial to administrative punishment. Administrative punishment is the least severe form of command action and can range from verbal counseling to a written reprimand and demotion.

The command action taken against those found to have retaliated against a whistleblower is required to be reported back to the DODIG. At the time of the GAO report in , 40 percent of all types of whistleblower cases from the five-year period examined had no information on what command action was taken, if any. Perhaps not surprisingly, many sexual assault victims who suffered from adverse personnel action as a form of retaliation opt not to apply to the Boards to correct the negative personnel records. Our review of cases over an year period did not reveal a single case in which a sexual assault victim successfully availed themselves of whistleblower protection by being identified as such by the DODIG and subsequently having their personnel records corrected.

A broader search of a wide range of terms of sexual assault, harassment, rape, sodomy misconduct, over the same period captured just 66 cases over the 18 years in which any sexual assault victim was granted full or partial relief for an injustice in their record. Most of those granted full or partial relief had been discharged from the military. Moreover, our analysis indicates alleged perpetrators of sexual assault are much more likely to seek relief from the Boards than victims, even though victims are far more likely to experience administrative action that might require assistance from the Boards to correct. Data from FY shows that for each perpetrator eligible for record correction , there were 1.

The Boards granted relief to nearly twice as many perpetrators 98 who wanted their records corrected than victims who reported a sexual assault In short, whistleblower protections fail to protect sexual assault victims who experience reprisals. Moreover, the lack of consequences for those who retaliate means that there is little to stop supervisors from mistreating victims who report sexual assault. There are several reasons why whistleblower protections are not working: service members are not sufficiently aware that IG protections are available to them or simply may not want to tell their story again; many view the IG as ineffective or insufficiently independent from command; some fear facing additional retaliation as a result of filing a complaint; the IG does not have jurisdiction over certain common types of retaliation, such as peer retaliation; and an outdated standard of proof places a heavy burden on complainants to show that adverse personnel action would not have taken place but for the protected communication.