U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

25–834 2018

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–41] 

OVERVIEW OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE 

AT THE MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MAY 2, 2017 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio, Vice Chair 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

DON BACON, Nebraska 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

DAN SENNOTT, Professional Staff Member 

CRAIG GREENE, Professional Staff Member 

DANIELLE STEITZ, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Coffman, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Colorado, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel .................................................................................... 1 

Speier, Hon. Jackie, a Representative from California, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

Panel 1: 

Bullard, Ariana .................................................................................................... 4 

Craine, Midshipman Second Class Sheila, United States Naval Academy ..... 4 

Gross, Stephanie .................................................................................................. 7 

Kendzior, Annie .................................................................................................... 9 

Panel 2: 

Carter, VADM Walter E., Jr., USN, Superintendent, United States Naval 

Academy ............................................................................................................ 33 

Caslen, LTG Robert L., Jr., USA, Superintendent, United States Military 

Academy ............................................................................................................ 32 

Johnson, Lt Gen Michelle D., Superintendent, United States Air Force 

Academy ............................................................................................................ 34 

Van Winkle, Dr. Elizabeth P., Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for Readiness .................................................................................. 30 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Carter, VADM Walter E., Jr. ........................................................................... 85 

Caslen, LTG Robert L., Jr. .............................................................................. 72 

Coffman, Hon. Mike ......................................................................................... 61 

Johnson, Lt Gen Michelle D. ........................................................................... 96 

Kendzior, Annie ................................................................................................ 62 

Van Winkle, Dr. Elizabeth P. .......................................................................... 65 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Document from LTC Elizabeth A. Walker, Army Office of the Chief 

Legislative Liaison ........................................................................................ 115 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Coffman ...................................................................................................... 119 

Ms. Speier ......................................................................................................... 119 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Rosen .......................................................................................................... 123 

(1) 

OVERVIEW OF THE ANNUAL REPORT ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE AT THE MILITARY SERVICE 

ACADEMIES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, 

Washington, DC, Tuesday, May 2, 2017. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:34 p.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Coffman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE COFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. COFFMAN. This hearing is called to order. I want to welcome 

everyone to this afternoon’s Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing. The purpose of today’s hearing is to receive an overview of the 

annual report on sexual assessment. I am sorry, Annual Report on 

Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies, and to understand the ongoing efforts the academies have 

undertaken to prevent sexual assault. 

We will also have the privilege of hearing from survivors of sexual assault who were assaulted while attending a service academy, 

and we thank them for being here today. 

The Nation and the military continue to battle the scourge of 

sexual assault. These despicable crimes cause deep and enduring 

suffering to the victims and their families and violate our fundamental values. When these crimes occur in the military, the effects 

can be even more damaging. Service members must have absolute 

trust and confidence in their fellow service members in order to accomplish their difficult mission. 

Cadets and midshipmen at the military service academies are 

told from the beginning of their tenure that the only way to succeed at the Academy is to work as a team, and place their trust 

in each other. But when a cadet takes advantage of that trust in 

order to assault another, the sense of betrayal is profound, and the 

impact is often felt by the victim and the entire unit. These crimes 

have no place in our society, much less in our preeminent military 

service academies. 

Over the last several years, the military service academies have 

dedicated numerous resources and time to improving sexual assault prevention and response. The service academies have integrated sexual assault prevention and values-based training into 

nearly every aspect of their curriculum, ensuring that the mili-
2 

tary’s future officers internalize the military’s values before being 

commissioned. 

In addition, the service academies have worked hard to ensure 

that all allegations are thoroughly investigated and perpetrators 

are held accountable, while also ensuring survivors of sexual assault have access to vital resources. 

Despite all these efforts, there remains much work to be done. 

This year’s report shows that prevalence rates have increased at all 

service academies, while reports of sexual assaults have decreased 

at one of the service academies. In addition, the significant prevalence of sexual harassment, a data point that is new to the survey, 

shows that additional work is needed. 

We will hear from two panels this afternoon. In panel one, we 

are honored to have with us survivors of sexual assault. I want to 

thank the witnesses for their bravery in testifying today, and I appreciate how difficult it is to talk about this subject. Your testimony will give all of us important insights into how the service 

academies in the military can improve sexual assault prevention 

and response. 

In our second panel, we will hear from the Department of Defense and the superintendents of the military service academies. I 

look forward to hearing their views on the results of the sexual assault report, and I also look forward to hearing about the new and 

existing programs at the service academies designed to prevent 

sexual assault. 

Before I introduce our first panel, let me offer the ranking member, Ms. Speier, an opportunity to make her opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coffman can be found in the Appendix on page 61.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank all of you who 

will be participating in this hearing. I would like to ask unanimous 

consent that a document from Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth Walker, legislative counsel for the investigations and legislative division 

of the Army Office of Chief Legislative Liaison be admitted into the 

record. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Any objection? So ordered. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 115.] 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding 

this hearing. This is an issue that I care deeply about. Sexual assault in our military and military service academies is a scourge 

on our Nation. 

We depend on our academies to attract and develop our Nation’s 

future leaders. Even one sexual assault against these patriotic 

young individuals is too many, and we all know that the numbers 

of assault are far more than that. 

But women and men are victimized by sexual assault—both 

women and men are victimized by sexual assault and harassment 

at the service academies, creating a toxic culture that follows these 

students straight into military leadership. Survivors of sexual as-
3 

sault often leave the academies under their own volition, or are 

forced out, depriving our military of future leaders. Perpetrators of 

these heinous acts often go unpunished, graduate, reinforcing this 

criminal and abhorrent behavior. This also emboldens them to continue to assault their fellow service members as they ascend up the 

ranks. 

In order to break the cycle, we need strong reforms to make clear 

that this behavior is not tolerated. In fact, the only result in cases 

like this should be dismissal. 

Military leadership for literally decades has testified that they 

are of one mind, that they have zero tolerance for sexual assault. 

The tens of thousands of survivors of these heinous acts, subsequent retaliation, at times, ineptitude of their chain of command, 

makes a mockery of this stated policy. 

Words alone are just words. If we have any hope of stamping out 

the systemic issue of sexual assault in our ranks, the tone must be 

set at the academies. This isn’t just about right and wrong, but 

being able to attract the very best to serve, and the readiness and 

unit cohesion within our fighting force. Nothing short of the future 

of our military depends on us getting this right. 

The Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault 

and Harassment in the Service Academies for Academic Years 

2015–2016 show a complete failure in addressing this epidemic. 

Twelve percent of women in the academies experience sexual assault; 12 percent. And nearly one-half, one-half, face persistent sexual harassment. Simply put, this is disgusting. 

Since the last report in 2014, fewer students at the service academies have reported sexual assault and harassment, but the estimated rates of unwanted sexual conduct have increased. Both of 

these are trending in the wrong direction. 

One reason could be the ostracism of sexual assault victims. 

Forty-seven percent of those who reported the unwanted sexual 

contact experienced social isolation and maltreatment. We must 

foster an environment at the service academies in which students 

who have been sexually assaulted or harassed feel like they can 

come forward without fear of retaliation. 

I would like to hear from our second panel of witnesses today on 

steps they are taking to reverse these disturbing trends to ensure 

that young cadets and midshipmen enter the military ranks as 

leaders who bring a culture of respect and dignity to their service. 

But before we hear from the service academies and the Department of Defense, I want to welcome the courageous survivors who 

are testifying on our first panel. Annie Kendzior attended the 

United States Naval Academy from 2009 to 2011; Midshipman Second Class Sheila Craine currently attends the U.S. Naval Academy; 

and Stephanie Gross and Ariana Bullard are former cadets at the 

U.S. Military Academy at West Point. 

Some of the stories you will hear today are heartbreaking and revolting. These cadets and midshipmen did nothing wrong by reporting their assaults, and yet, their chain of command failed them, 

and the chain of command that was supposed to actually protect 

them, failed. 
4 

We cannot tolerate this lack of accountability in our country’s 

most prestigious military institutions. I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses today, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Speier. I ask unanimous consent 

that nonsubcommittee members be allowed to participate in today’s 

hearing after all subcommittee members have had an opportunity 

to ask questions. 

Is there objection? 

Without objection, nonsubcommittee members will be recognized 

at the appropriate time for 5 minutes. 

We will give each witness the opportunity to present his or her 

testimony, and each member an opportunity to question the witnesses for 5 minutes. We would also respectfully remind the witnesses to summarize, to the greatest extent possible, the high 

points of your written testimony in 5 minutes or less. 

Your written comments and statements will be made part of the 

hearing record. Let me welcome our first panel, Midshipman Second Class Sheila Craine, United States Naval Academy; Ms. 

Ariana Bullard—did I say it right? 

Ms. BULLARD. Bullard. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Bullard, former cadet at the United States Military Academy; Ms. Stephanie Gross, former cadet at the United 

States Military Academy; Ms. Annie Kendzior, former midshipman 

at the United States Naval Academy. 

With that, Midshipman Second Class Craine, you may now make 

your opening remarks. 

STATEMENT OF MIDSHIPMAN SECOND CLASS SHEILA CRAINE, 

UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY 

Ms. CRAINE. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak of my experiences through this 

process. 

I am here as an individual and do not represent the views or 

opinions of the United States Naval Academy. In the spring semester of my freshman year, I had experienced unwanted sexual contact. In the fall semester of my sophomore year, I filed an unrestricted report about the incident through the SAPR [Sexual Assault Prevention and Response] office, of course. 

I was overwhelmed by the support I received by the faculty and 

staff at the Naval Academy. The case concluded in the fall of 2016. 

The individual was dismissed and is no longer a midshipman at 

the United States Naval Academy. 

Though the whole process was difficult, I am confident in saying 

that the resources that were, and still are provided to me, helped 

me through the healing process to this day. Thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Bullard, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ARIANA BULLARD 

Ms. BULLARD. Hello. My name is Ariana Bullard. I am a former 

cadet of the United States Military Academy. I attended West 

Point from July 2013 until I was honorably discharged in 2015, 

when I went on to attend The Ohio State University. 
5 

First off, I would like to thank Congresswoman Speier and her 

staff for having me here. I left West Point the day I was discharged 

from the hospital suffering from stress-induced high blood pressure. I found that all my belongings had been packed without my 

knowledge. In the cold of January, I was only left with a pair of 

shorts, a jacket, and sandals for my return home to Indiana. I was 

only then escorted onto the plane by two MPs [military police] because my ID was shipped off with my belongings. 

As soon as I boarded the plane, I was escorted off by those MPs 

and was told that the captain who had been retaliating against me 

wanted to speak to me. He asked me if I wanted to return to the 

Thayer Hotel. I replied that I wanted to stay, but was confused at 

what he meant, as I had no money to pay for it or clothing. He 

hung up and took my answer as a no. 

After I landed, I received a call from Sue Fulton on the Board 

of Visitors from West Point asking why I said no to General Caslen 

asking me if I wanted to stay a cadet at the Academy. I realized 

only then why I received a convoluted call from the captain. If I 

had known, my answer would have been yes. 

Despite all that had happened to me, I would rather have stayed 

than been forced out of West Point. I was recruited to West Point 

to be on the swim team, where I consistently experienced racial 

and sexual harassment. 

My ex-boyfriend, who was Caucasian, was called Django, referring to the movie, ‘‘Django Unchained,’’ solely because he was in a 

relationship with me. I was told later by a captain on the men’s 

team and a colonel that nicknames were a tradition on the men’s 

team. 

In December, the team went to Puerto Rico, where members of 

the swim team made lewd remarks about my body, how my bathing suit fit, and talked openly about having sex with me. I protested this treatment to my coaches and faced escalating reprisal 

as a result. A team was supposed to be a group of individuals with 

a set of skills required to complete a task. If we are not simply able 

to swim together, how are we able to fight together to defend this 

country? 

The head coach further went on to punish me by forcing me to 

practice alone for 2 weeks before our biggest championship meet, 

the Patriot League. 

The assistant coach, as a result, decided to take it upon himself 

to make sure I was properly trained. Every day I practiced an hour 

before the rest of the team, only to have them ostracize me more 

because a few thought I was given special treatment. 

At the Patriot League, I broke multiple League and Army 

records, resulting in winning the Rookie of the Meet. That day, the 

Navy vice admiral shook my hand in congratulations and said to 

me: ‘‘Tell Caslen, Army won this time.’’ However, I no longer felt 

a part of the Army team, so I swam with anger just to prove a 

point that no one could bring me down, and that day they didn’t. 

We were taught in basic, and in the Army in general, to always 

protect your battle buddy, never leave them behind. Then how 

come I was left behind? 

In March 2014, the Equal Opportunity Office substantiated my 

case of racial discrimination. I also filed a complaint with the 
6 

SHARP [Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention] office, where in November 2014 the complaint was substantiated as 

harassment but not sexual harassment. 

I then became friends with Cadet Gross. During her second assault case, I was present when a drunk cadet burst into her room. 

As curfew rolled around, I had to return to my room expecting the 

cadet, taking accountability, would remove him. 

A short while later, Cadet Gross called me and was hysterical. 

I immediately went to her room and saw the distraught and battered state that she was in. With new bruises forming on her neck 

and chest, she told me repeatedly she would never report again, as 

no one would believe her, that she had no faith she would be taken 

care of. 

Still having trust in the system, I urged her to report. I told her 

that we needed to do this for others after us. Even though I was 

left behind, I refused to do the same to her. We needed to set an 

example. 

However, the system failed once again as my friend and I was 

retaliated against repeatedly. I was forbidden to accompany her to 

the hospital, and was prohibited from socializing with her and 

forced to sign a confidentiality form stating I would not discuss her 

case with anyone. I was subjected to arbitrary discipline and filed 

a whistleblower reprisal complaint. Excuse me. Eventually, in January 2015, I felt I had no option but to resign. 

Although the processing of resignation normally takes a month 

or so, mine was expedited to 1 day, and to my detriment. I collapsed in the barracks and was admitted to the hospital suffering 

from that high blood pressure by stress. 

When Stephanie tried to visit me in the hospital, she was confronted by her command and told that the only way she could remain in the hospital with me was if she admitted herself for a psychiatric evaluation. The command made clear that I was to be punished by being isolated during a time of great fear and uncertainty. 

I wrote a resignation letter in January 2015. This is the letter 

I submitted to General Caslen, which all levels of leadership must 

read and sign. In that letter, I write, ‘‘I don’t want to be in a place 

that allows perpetrators to remain in their ranks. I don’t believe 

in double standards. West Point’s honor code is abided by the cadets. However, a few officers themselves aren’t held to the same 

standard of the honor code or aren’t held at all. I resign because 

that is all I can do because that is what I am forced to do to protect 

my own well-being and goals considering all these issues.’’ 

General Caslen, I spoke with you before leaving West Point. In 

that 3-hour discussion, you told me you believed I would be a great 

leader and asset to the Army. Though you told me you did not 

want to sign my resignation, you handed me a resignation, and I 

asked you if there would be any change if I stayed. You remained 

silent. 

Instead, the numbers of reports have doubled since I have last 

been at West Point. Two years ago, Congress asked why we were 

here, and the answer was to help the Academy and to prevent 

what happened to us from other cadets. After 2 years, we are back 

here again, and our answer to that question hasn’t changed. I hope 

we can come up with a solution that will mend the system that 
7 

desperately needs fixed for the sake of our future cadets and officers. 

With the support of Congresswoman Speier, I would like to return to the Academy to complete what I started. I believe I can be 

an asset to other female cadets, and I take General Caslen at his 

word when he said to me that I could be a great leader and officer 

in the United States military. Thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Bullard. 

Ms. Gross, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE GROSS 

Ms. GROSS. Thank you, sir. Hello. My name is Stephanie Gross. 

I am a former cadet of the United States Military Academy as well. 

I would like to first thank Congresswoman Speier’s office and her 

staff for extending an invitation to testify before you today regarding my time as a cadet at West Point. 

In truth, I still have a great love for West Point, and I respect 

and admire the training program for our Nation’s future leaders. 

I entered West Point at 18 years old with the class of 2016 on July 

2, 2012. I was honorably discharged on February 13, 2015. 

Over the 2 years, 8 months of being at West Point, I was 

switched between companies a total of four times, compared to once 

for most cadets. Because of this, I had little stability and leadership during my time there, and this contributed greatly to my difficulties at West Point. 

My first sexual assault at West Point was reported by medical 

personnel in the spring of my freshman year at the Academy. I was 

in the hospital recovering from an emergency pelvic surgery that 

was found to be related to the assault. My surgeon advised me, 

when he walked in, that he was unsure, due to the inflammation 

and potential for scarring, if I would ever be able to bear children. 

I later broke down to a nurse, and thus, my restricted report was 

initiated. 

I felt reporting would only cause further damage emotionally, 

and I requested my report remain restricted without investigation. 

My case was later reported by my commander as he became aware 

of the incident, and legally had to report via the unrestricted route. 

The next day, the SARC [Sexual Assault Response Coordinator] 

office pressured me for a name, telling me that if I was a strong 

woman, with duty and honor, I would comply. I, again, resisted. 

At this time, in 2013, USMA [United States Military Academy] 

had not yet embraced special victims’ attorneys, and I was without 

legal counsel. If legal counsel had been present, I feel my case 

would have stayed restricted as I desired and my difficulties in reporting, such as 13-hour CID [Army Criminal Investigation Command] interrogations, would have been minimal. My report was determined to be unfounded. 

My second case was founded on the basis of assault, but the report concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find the 

higher charge of aggravated sexual contact. The investigators refused to take my clothing for testing and refused to take a blood 

alcohol level test of my assailant on the night of the incident, contributing to the decision of the case. 
8 

The addition of the newly implemented special victims’ attorney 

was increasingly helpful in this case, though. In the months prior 

to my resignation, I was subjected to many negative personnel actions with a pattern that indicated reprisal. Every time I would initiate a report, a few days later I would receive a new punishment. 

From drug testing that was negative, mental health evaluations 

that cleared me for duty, room inspections, and misconduct related 

to insubordination, were among the actions against me. 

As these actions increased, I became desperate, and this, not surprisingly, was very damaging to me academically after missing 

many courses for the investigation, and I began to feel as if I had 

no other option but to leave the Academy. 

I decided to begin asking for open-door policy meetings with my 

leaders, hoping that I could speak to them in smaller, lower-tension 

settings, to ask for their mentorship and determine why my situation became so distorted. My entire chain of command denied me. 

I then asked Lieutenant General Caslen. Lieutenant General 

Caslen, I emailed you in desperation to let me speak with you privately before you made decisions on the misconduct reported 

against me. You, too, denied my request. I desired the chance to 

add context to those grim black and white words that you chose to 

judge me by, prepared by somebody else like those papers you have 

today, that I found that one JAG [Judge Advocate General] captain 

had influence over almost every factor of my case. I wanted to tell 

you that I was sorry for the mistakes I did make and that I looked 

up to you as a leader. 

Even with those mistakes, I did not deserve to be treated the 

way that I was. I later found from a DOD [Department of Defense] 

agent that you stated you cared greatly for me as a cadet, and you 

instructed my chain of command to protect me and aid my success 

in any way they could. Unfortunately, I never heard these things. 

From my perspective, each time I reported an action, I received 

punishment, and in denying my open-door policy request, you confirmed my suspicions that I was not wanted at your institution. 

If I had felt my chain of command truly cared for me and wanted 

me to succeed, I would have felt differently about my situation. It 

was the idea that the chain of command had given up on me that 

ultimately sealed my actions to leave the institution, despite my 

desires to serve my country. 

I do not blame West Point as an institution for my situation. I 

blame the systematic failure of leadership who relied on blind loyalty to make judgments about an individual they had never spoken 

to. I believe that if the open-door policy had been a reality, and I 

had been allowed to tell my side of the story to the leadership, I 

may have been able to stay. 

A system of investigating and prosecuting complaints of assault 

that leaves great power in the hand of one individual, or single individuals, motivated by career and institutional goals, is not an effective mechanism for victims. After signing my oath, the first 

thing given to me was a small business card with the cadet honor 

code. Next written on the board was the Soldier’s Creed, ‘‘I am an 

American soldier. I am a warrior and member of a team. I serve 

the people of the United States and I live the Army values. I will 

always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will 
9 

never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade.’’ And later, ‘‘I am 

disciplined. I am a professional.’’ 

These are the words that inspired me to continue, even when I 

had nothing to gain and everything to lose, when I decided to report to help better the Academy instead of following advice to keep 

my head down and not say anything. 

These are the reasons that I would also like to return to the 

Academy and complete my time there, as I believe actions speak 

louder than words, and simply coming here and stating a problem 

does nothing to guarantee a solution with no action. 

With the support of Congresswoman Speier’s office, I have decided to reapply for admission to the United States Military Academy to finish the education and training I began in 2012. I truly 

believe that the military and West Point has made positive strides 

to fix this problem and understands that assaults occur on many 

college campuses, but the service academies specifically should be 

role models for the Nation and the world. 

Former Cadet Bullard and I were part of a group of four individuals who were friends who reported sexual assault and harassment 

at the Academy. Out of the four of us, none remain. West Point and 

all of the service academies are the functional units of change for 

the future of our Armed Forces. There is much more work to be 

done. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Gross. 

Ms. Kendzior, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANNIE KENDZIOR 

Ms. KENDZIOR. Good afternoon. In 2008, I was a recruited athlete 

who was inducted into the United States Naval Academy. Prior to 

acceptance, my parents were concerned for my safety, given the 

then sexual assault scandal which was unfolding at the Air Force 

Academy, and during a campus visit, my parents and I were told 

by the Naval Academy representatives, including my coaches and 

the athletic director, that the Naval Academy did not have a sexual 

assault problem and that I would be safe. 

Shortly after the academic year began, I experienced two horrible 

and traumatic events. I was raped not only once, but twice, both 

times by fellow classmates in my company who I had to face every 

single day. My emotional state began to deteriorate, and I went to 

the Naval Academy medical facility. 

During my intake evaluation, I told the treating physician that 

I had been raped, who did not ask when, did not ask where it had 

occurred, but simply checked a box on my intake form and prescribed me an antidepressant. These events set the tone for my remaining 2 years at the Naval Academy. 

The culture at the Academy is that of a ‘‘boys only’’ club, where 

men are considered superior to women, where women are frequently referred to as DUBs, which stands for ‘‘dumb ugly bitch,’’ 

or other derogatory terms which most women want to be accepted, 

say nothing, and quickly adapt to the culture. 

After 21⁄2 years of sheer emotional hell, I broke down mentally, 

and was sent by my chain of command to the psychiatric ward at 

Bethesda Hospital. I spent 3 days there and was diagnosed with 
10 

borderline personality disorder by a nurse practitioner, not a licensed medical doctor. 

I thought that if I could get a transfer out of my company that 

I would be okay, and I made a request every semester to my company command, who refused to transfer me every semester. 

I felt my life slipping away, and as a final effort, requested Mast 

with the then-Commandant of Midshipmen, Captain Robert Clarke. 

Upon discussing my situation with the commandant, he told me to 

grow up, and within days, began the separation process. 

In July of 2011, an academic review board was called, which I 

thought was unusual, given my overall good academic record. During my hearing, members of the board openly discussed my sensitive personal medical records, all of which without my consent, 

and in the end, used my past medical treatments as a basis for my 

separation. 

The Academy found it easier to label me as having a personality 

disorder than to treat me for the trauma of being raped. It seems 

the motto of the U.S. Marine Corps ‘‘leave no man behind’’ does not 

apply to the men and women who are raped. Instead, they are frequently and intentionally left behind to deal with the pain, anguish, and long-term emotional stress, while the rapist’s career 

continues without any consequence. 

The Navy continues to defend the ever-growing claims of military 

sexual assaults at the Naval Academy as small, and that those 

women who reported being raped were just mentally ill. How 

shameful. Military leaders then and now defend the growth rate as 

being good, claiming that they are glad to hear that women are 

coming forward to report their rapes. What they don’t seem to get 

is that more rapes are bad and that they continue due to their failure by military leaders to address the root cause, that there is a 

small but active group of rapists whose crimes are rarely investigated, let alone prosecuted, and the military finds it easier to destroy the life of the victims. 

The word is out. If you are a rapist, go into the military where 

you will be protected after you rape somebody. I was processed out 

of the Academy while my rapists are now serving as officers, potentially victimizing more people. Victims who see the treatment of 

those before them, such as myself, are not likely to come forward 

like I did, for they know what will be the consequences. 

Upon leaving the Naval Academy, all forms of medical treatment 

and counseling ended. I was on my own to fend for myself. Thanks 

to the support of my family, I was able to get the treatment I needed, which began with weaning me off the drugs prescribed to me 

by the military doctors, drugs that created the very personality disorders I was exhibiting. 

After more than 5 years of detox, I am now off of all prescribed 

medications, and I am in PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] 

treatment that was developed, in fact, by a former military Green 

Beret. I was denied the opportunity of completing my education at 

the Naval Academy, given I only had 1 year remaining. I will never 

forget the day that I had to return my class ring, which represented the 3 years of hell that I had to endure. 

All I wanted and asked for was to complete my education while 

getting proper treatment and serve my country as a naval officer, 
11 

all of which was denied to me by my Naval Academy leadership. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kendzior can be found in the Appendix on page 62.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Kendzior. 

I would like to ask each one of you—I am going to ask you the 

same question. What is the policy or procedure that you would 

most like to see changed in sexual assault cases? 

Midshipman Craine, let me start with you and then I will move 

to the right. 

Ms. CRAINE. As for a policy change that I would like to see, the 

policy and the way I reported was so easy for me. It was so effortless. I just had to walk down to the SAPR office and tell them my 

story, that I didn’t want to—I didn’t feel the need that there was 

anything that I would have wanted to change about it, about that 

process, about the reporting, about the whole, you know, the case 

itself. 

For me, it just worked out very well. It was a very positive experience in that manner, so I wouldn’t be able to provide an answer 

in that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Bullard. 

Ms. BULLARD. Sir, I have experienced sexual harassment, so if 

you don’t mind if I speak on a policy change that I would like to 

change on that. 

In the recent report about sexual harassment, sexual assault, I 

see the only change they have done for at least sports team, is 

what they call a ‘‘teal team,’’ where cadets will wear T-shirts, and 

when they go to this game, they get free concessions, and this is 

their awareness for sports for sexual harassment, sexual assault. 

And I don’t believe that an ‘‘It’s on Us’’ shirt is going to fix a problem for cadets. 

I think there is a deeper understanding that is missing there. So 

if there is a policy that I think needs to change, I think it has to 

start from the cadets, and I think that there needs to be some sort 

of understanding, again. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Ms. Gross, what is the policy or procedure that you would most like to see changed in sexual assault 

cases? 

Ms. GROSS. Yes, sir. So one of the reasons cited that General 

Caslen was unable to meet with me for the open-door policy is 

that—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Please move your microphone a little closer. 

Ms. GROSS. Oh, I am sorry, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. GROSS. Is that better? 

Mr. COFFMAN. Yes. 

Ms. GROSS. Okay. Thank you. One of the reasons cited that General Caslen was unable to meet with me through the open-door policy was that he was conflicted as I was under investigation for misconduct. And I understand that his position requires him to have 

that oversight and not be in conflict, but if the open-door policy is 

specifically for retaliation under sexual assault or harassment, 

maybe there is some provision that can be made so that these vic-
12 

tims can go to the superintendent if they need to, if that is the only 

person left that will talk to them. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Kendzior, what is the policy or procedure that 

you would most like to see changed in sexual assault cases? 

Ms. KENDZIOR. So for me, my first person to report to was a fellow midshipman. I believe he was a senior at the time, I was a junior, and that, in my opinion, was wrong. I don’t think I need to be 

telling what happened to me to a fellow classmate, or even a person who is a year older than me. 

If you guys don’t know, the Academy, at least the Naval Academy, is a huge rumor mill, rumors spread fast, and telling a peer 

just opens that door up to more rumors. 

As for another policy, I believe that, you know, they should not 

be just educating the midshipmen about these things. They should 

also educate the leadership and the staff of these academies to be 

able to help identify signs of those who are raped, maybe go to 

them and ask and talk to them about it. 

For right now, midshipmen are just trained by their peers, and 

that is what I went through, a training of, you know, midshipmen 

teaching midshipmen, and to be honest, nobody took it seriously, 

at least the classes I attended. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Midshipman Craine, I don’t know if 

you mentioned this, but some of the panelists have mentioned retaliation. If you experienced retaliation, was it through social 

media or in person? And also, if you experienced retaliation, did 

you report that? 

Ms. CRAINE. So in my case, the person who assaulted me was in 

the same company as me, which provides a very unique situation 

in which I have to see that person every single day. We have mutual friends. We were in the same class, the same company. 

In terms of retaliation, people found out very quickly that something was going on, and he was more liked than me, so what ended 

up happening is more people didn’t—people didn’t know which side 

to choose, became almost like a choose-a-side situation in which I 

was presented the opportunity to leave the company as to not experience retaliation. 

So I chose—it was either him or me, but I decided to leave the 

company because I felt more comfortable in leaving the company 

than having to experience, in case I would have experienced retaliation if he had left and then I had stayed. So in terms of that, that 

is how I—dealt with that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. My own time is expiring, so if you 

could all go very quickly. 

Ms. Bullard, I think you mentioned experiencing retaliation. Was 

it through social media or in person, and did you report the retaliation in and of itself? 

Ms. BULLARD. Yes, sir, I did report the retaliation, which caused 

me to receive more misconduct on my part and—not on my part, 

but you know, people retaliating against me and I am having misconduct taken against me. 

And again, to your first question, I think there is too many 

hands in the pot for investigations. The investigating officers, most 

times, are not—have some sort of relations either to someone who 
13 

is in charge of me or someone in charge of someone—of my victim. 

It is—sorry. Sorry I am being really emotional right now. 

But I think there needs to be a third party checking on this is 

what I am trying to say. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Gross. 

Ms. GROSS. Sir, briefly, with my case, an app called Yik Yak was 

very prominent at the Academy during this time, and so, unfortunately, a lot of my retaliation on my peers occurred on the Yik Yak 

app. I walked around campus with very visible bruises on my neck 

that couldn’t be hidden by uniform, and so it was very public who 

I was given the name on the left side of my chest. And so—or the 

right side. 

And so from there, I couldn’t report it, because there was no way 

to determine who it was. It was just liked by 300 people. You know, 

secondarily to that, I was moved four times, and I was asked the 

first time to move, second time, I was not, and that is usually considered a problem at the Academy. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Kendzior, can you give me your view very 

quick. I am sorry, I am over time. 

Ms. KENDZIOR. Yes. For me, it was a lot of rumors. They were 

rampant, like I said earlier. I was labeled a slut who got around, 

but really, my process of separation happened really quickly. So 

most of the retaliation came after I was already separated, from 

peers contacting me and saying negative things towards me about 

what I did. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I am going to hold my questions till 

the end and allow my colleagues to my left to ask theirs. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Tsongas. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, I thank you all for being here. This is certainly an issue that this committee has spent a good time looking 

at, and you are providing additional insight that is much needed. 

It is so hard to tell your story, but I appreciate the determination 

and tenacity all of you are bringing to your presence here, and to 

your continued desire to serve your Nation. I thank you for that, 

despite all of this. 

We focused a bit on the assaults, but I am curious about the cultural issues, and I think much of the sexual harassment that you 

all experienced is rooted in a culture that has yet to fully embrace 

the diversity of the corps, the different corps that you are a part 

of. 

And what I would like to hear from each one of you is let’s just 

say from the day—day one, as you made your way into your particular academy, if you experienced things that you would like the 

academies to take note of as they begin to think more broadly, not 

just about the particular crimes, but how they create an inclusive 

culture. So we will start with you. 

Ms. CRAINE. Thank you. From day one, I would definitely say 

that it is important to note that the upper class play a huge role 

in setting the command climate of each company. I was a plebe 

when this happened, and I came into this and I thought this was 

okay, and that, to me, was scary. And I knew deep down inside it 

wasn’t okay, so I reported, but I had the support of my roommates 
14 

at the time and my very close friends, and it was good that they 

had supported me in reporting. 

But at the same time, I didn’t feel confident in relying in that 

chain of command of midshipmen at the time, so the culture does 

have an impact, especially the training and the awareness that the 

upper class have, especially on plebes, on underclass, in regards to 

sexual assault and harassment. 

Ms. BULLARD. Regarding mine, I would say kind of similar to 

what Ms. Kendzior said. There is a loyalty there. My time, especially on, like, the sports team, I know very well. I had to swim 

with a guy that I dealt with sexual harassment. Every single day 

I saw him, and I’d have to swim with him in that pool, and there 

was no overlay. He was a swimmer. I mean, there is—we were both 

swimming in the same place. There is no way that I could get away 

from him, especially in that atmosphere if I wanted to keep up 

with my sport. 

So I would say that that along with the fact that as soon as I 

opened up my case for sexual harassment, the whole team battled 

against me because you don’t tell on the team, you don’t get the 

team in trouble, you don’t give negative feedback about the team 

because you are drawing attention, and you are getting people in 

trouble. And so, eventually, that is what led to me swimming by 

myself for 2 weeks before my big championship meet. 

And I have to tell you, that was probably the hardest thing I had 

to do was see every single one of my teammates, no one said a 

thing. No one said a thing about me swimming by myself, and then 

they assume I had special treatment. So—and that is all I have to 

say. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. Go ahead. 

Ms. GROSS. I think this problem begins with the fact that we 

have different standards than men do, and that is really—it is 

needed in a lot of different ways because we are physiologically different than men, but because we have lower standards physically, 

the men do initially think that we are lesser than them because we 

can’t perform at the same level that they do. 

And so that starts in basic training from day one. And then in 

basic training, as we go out to the field and we are doing these operations and all these different things, now the women are segregated and we are sleeping by ourselves out to the side. So the 

men are participating in the shooting exercises at night, but the 

women are off to the side because they don’t want us sleeping next 

to the men at the Academy. So now we are further segregated, and 

that starts the issue there from day one that we are at the Academy when they take the women out to a different place. That segregation causes the issue. 

And like Midshipman Craine said, it starts at the lowest level. 

When the sophomore cadet teaches the freshman cadet about leadership and when the graduates of the Academy go out to, you 

know, their posts across the world from their first platoon, and you 

know, show leadership skills for the first time so—— 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. We don’t have much time, but I would 

love to hear from you, too. 

Ms. KENDZIOR. So I also second Midshipman Craine about how 

the upper class sets the tone. One of my first sexual harassment 
15 

prevention classes as a plebe, we were told a story about how a female had said that a star football player had raped her. He was 

separated, accordingly, and that in the end, she had actually lied 

about it, and they finished that story with ‘‘don’t be that girl.’’ That 

is what they tell us, told my class, at least, in that sexual assault 

prevention class. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you all. I appreciate your being here today. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Russell, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of you 

ladies for testifying today. 

Midshipman Craine, are you familiar with the Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response [SAPR] program? 

Ms. CRAINE. I am. 

Mr. RUSSELL. How effective would you say that it is in an effort 

to deal with these issues that you experienced? 

Ms. CRAINE. So I would say, in terms of training midshipmen, I 

kind have seen it evolve since I was a plebe. It has definitely come 

a long way. I definitely saw how there was a bit of cynicism as a 

plebe when I was going through these classes and how now, as I 

am becoming an upper class, I am getting closer to the fleet, the 

midshipmen are really taking a hold of it and making it more of 

a positive thing. 

People are really participating. Mainly, the guys in the class are 

the ones that participate. In terms of people getting the summer 

training that—so that they can become SHAPE [Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention and Education] representatives, like 

that is also really huge. I am seeing really positive people taking 

those positions, and I am really impressed as to how it has 

changed. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Do you, as a future leader in our Armed Forces, 

do you feel that this equips you with the tools to deal with cases 

like this as you counsel and work with your future sailors or marines, depending upon where you are going to be branched? 

Ms. CRAINE. I do think so, to some extent. I definitely have, like, 

some lessons where I am just like it is a little off topic or not— 

doesn’t really apply. I do see that if there were a way to incorporate actual midshipmen, actual victims, actual midshipmen victims into these classes, it would make a bigger impact. People 

would see them, be like that is my peer, that is my friend, and people would listen to those classes especially more. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, and I thank you for that, and, you know, I 

think all of us on the panel agree, or in the committee, that even 

one incident is unacceptable, certainly in our military. But as we 

see the responses and how to deal and improve this situation, it is 

important to get that kind of feedback from each of you. 

And now I would like to switch a little bit to the Army. Ms. 

Bullard, do you think that the SHARP training—are you familiar 

with the SHARP training? 

Ms. BULLARD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Do you think that is a useful tool and its content 

is helpful or not helpful for cadets? 

Ms. BULLARD. I believe it is helpful to an extent. Just like Midshipman Craine said, it has to come from the cadets. Just simply 
16 

having an upperclassman present a media file about sexual assault 

and sexual harassment isn’t good enough anymore. It has to come 

deeper from within. And so relating, and having a peer come up to 

another person saying, ‘‘hey, this is what happened to me. You 

guys have to understand that, you know, this happens.’’ 

And the funny thing is the culture, most cadets believe that almost every single report is a lie when actually almost 90 percent 

of it is true, and that is just the culture. Most cadets don’t believe 

in any woman that reports. I mean, most of them. That is—everyone jokes around about that, especially on Yik Yak that Ms. Gross 

explained. 

Mr. RUSSELL. And along the lines to address some of this, Ms. 

Gross, if I may, and I am not sure if it was in place when you were 

a cadet, but there is the Respect Program which targets those who 

demonstrate a lack of maturity or engage in acts inconsistent with 

the Army values. You mentioned the Army values, such as sexual 

behaviors or sexist behaviors. Was the Respect Program implemented while you were a cadet there? Do you remember that? 

Ms. GROSS. Yes, sir, the Respect Program was very active. Actually, Cadet Bullard had more experience with that. After her harassment complaint, the cadets were subjected to going through that 

program, so I am not completely familiar on that topic specifically. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Sure. 

Ms. GROSS. I would like to say, though, that the Air Force Academy—Cadet Bullard talked about having peers, and the Air Force 

Academy has a program called PEERS [Personal Ethics Education 

Representative] that acts within the companies and supports those 

ideas of respect mentorship. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Do you feel, based upon the three of you having, 

you know, the most recent experience—and Ms. Kendzior, I, very 

much, you know, was moved by your testimony, and thank you for 

that. But do you see these programs getting at the criticality of the 

issue—it is just a matter of massaging the implementation, including more feedback from the cadets or the midshipmen? Do you feel 

that the programs are viable, but it is a matter of execution? 

Ms. GROSS. Absolutely, sir, and it is very important. I know I am 

running out of time here. Cadet Craine’s point is great, and she 

said that when she got there, the programs were evolving. Two 

years ago is when she started at the Academy, and we were there 

2 years ago, and that is when we were leaving. So if that evolved 

now over the last 2 years and it seems like it is making good 

progress, it just—— 

Mr. RUSSELL. So I guess—and I really appreciate this feedback. 

It gives us a unique opportunity to query, but it appears that the 

leaders, in trying to address this very real concern, because we all 

believe, and being a former military leader with decades of service, 

one incident is unacceptable. But it becomes critically important to 

know are the programs being implemented, do they have value, 

and so I really thank you for those responses. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Russell. Mr. Gallego, you are now 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, first of all, for 

being so brave in coming forward and informing, educating us and 
17 

the public. This is not ever an easy—easy for anybody but especially in the limelight. 

I am concerned, from hearing your individual testimonies, that— 

and please correct me—that there wasn’t any education in the 

entry program, whether you are a plebe or a cadet. I am not too 

far removed from college, but I do remember my freshman orientation, we were specifically told what consent meant, what were the 

consequences of not having consent, and that there was a very defined—and I did not go to an academy, but there was a very defined process if you were accused of sexual assault and that you 

would be removed from the school, and also, if possible, turned over 

to the local prosecutor for prosecution. 

When you all were going—entering your school or your academies, is there a portion within that first week where cadets or 

plebes, or whatever, are explained to them that this is what is considered consent, what is not considered as consent, and do, you 

know, your classmates understand that? Let’s—we can start with 

Midshipman Craine. 

Ms. CRAINE. Most people agree that during that first month, 

when you get to the Academy, it is all quite a blur, but I do recall 

there being a brief about SAPR and SHAPE program, what is consent. There was a CMEO [Command Managed Equal Opportunity 

officer] there. But at the same time, like, you are also not focused 

on those things. You are so busy with other tasks at hand, but yes, 

there is that brief, that initial brief. 

Mr. GALLEGO. And that brief only occurs one time in the career 

of a cadet? 

Ms. CRAINE. No. No, that brief happens quite often. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Okay. 

Ms. CRAINE. It updates the midshipmen with the brief. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Ms. Bullard. 

Ms. BULLARD. I concur with Midshipman Craine. We do learn 

about that during our base training, and it is just about, I guess, 

implementation, just like Mr. Russell said. I mean, it is just—cadets, I don’t think, are necessarily understanding the severe rationality about what is actually occurring. And I mean, most cadets 

just don’t think it is real, and that is why I think we all mentioned 

that hearing from your peers and hearing, you know, real stories 

would be a lot of help. 

Ms. GROSS. I actually have a different experience, and my basic 

was in 2012—Ms. Bullard’s in 2013—but I don’t remember anything from my basic training about sexual assault training. I remember ruck marching for 12 miles. I remember sticking people 

with needles. I remember running. I remember a very impactful 

honor code speech that, you know, spoke with me. I remember respect, but I don’t actually remember a briefing on sexual assault, 

so obviously, it wasn’t impactful enough to carry with me through 

that period. 

Ms. KENDZIOR. And I pretty much concur with that as well. I am 

the oldest of the bunch. I entered in 2008. If there was a briefing, 

I don’t remember, and/or I just wasn’t really focused on it at the 

time. I had so many other things to deal with. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Follow-up question, again, for the panel. Do cadets 

actually understand the consequences of their actions? Do they 
18 

understand that they can be prosecuted under the UCMJ [Uniform 

Code of Military Justice] and that obviously they would be kicked 

out? 

I know that sounds like a very silly question, but you are dealing 

with young men that may not understand because their command 

has not told them that this is not—this is not acceptable, or for 

some reason they somehow think that they are not going to be 

prosecuted. Do you believe that the academies, your respective 

academies you attended, did not properly communicate to your fellow cadets and midshipmen the consequences of such heinous actions? 

We will start with Midshipman Craine. 

Ms. CRAINE. They were definitely told the consequences briefly, 

but like anyone, you can be told the consequences but not understand what it is to go through the consequences of committing an 

act as that. 

I do think there might need to be a little more focus on what 

would happen to you if you were to do that to someone, but yes. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Ms. Bullard. 

Ms. BULLARD. If you don’t mind if I am just being blunt. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Yeah. 

Ms. BULLARD. I mean, if it is prosecuted. I mean—— 

Mr. GALLEGO. Right. 

Ms. BULLARD. They understand, I guess, the consequences, and 

it is just words, but most times they are not. I mean, if it is prosecuted, if it is searched right, I mean, most—I mean, you hear all 

our stories, and it just—it wasn’t investigated right, and this seems 

to be a trend. 

So I mean, and most people, I mean, if you look at our investigations and some of the stuff that some of the men have gotten away 

with, I mean, it just lets alone, it causes a trend, and it shows people that that is okay; and that is not right. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you. Ms. Gross. 

Ms. GROSS. I concur with what Ms. Bullard said, and specifically 

for our academic year, where our assaults were reported for 2014/ 

2015 report. There was 14 reports made that year. Only eight were 

finished by the end of the report. There was only one cadet that 

was discharged for a sexual assault-related offense. My cadet, who 

was founded on assault, was discharged administratively for a nonrelated offense. I am not sure why. But at that point, you know, 

maybe they do know what the punishment is, but they see that the 

statistics of them actually getting discharged for that are very low. 

Ms. KENDZIOR. And I will end with, yeah, they did communicate 

the consequences, but obviously the consequences aren’t upheld. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Right. 

Ms. KENDZIOR. So they don’t feel threatened by it, in my opinion. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you. Yield back the time. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Gallego. Ms. McSally, you are now 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, ladies, for 

your courage to speak to us today and speak publicly. I went to the 

Air Force Academy. I was in the 9th class with women there, graduated in 1988. These dynamics were going on when I was there, 

and they are still going on now. And I think there is, at least, has 
19 

been a greater emphasis, or desire, by the leadership to truly address these issues. But from your stories, obviously, there is still 

a whole lot more and they are still falling short. 

I have spent—you talked a little bit about culture. I’ve spent a 

lot of time thinking about the ‘‘Lord of the Flies’’ sort of culture 

that we all experienced at the academies where you have—and I 

never thought I would be saying this on the Congressional Record, 

but I am just going to go for it. But you have got 19-year-olds in 

total control of 18-year-olds, you know, 20-year-olds, 21-year-olds. 

I thought about it later on when I was an officer, like we would 

never have airmen first class in total control 24/7 of an airman 

basic in the Air Force. I mean, you don’t do that. We bring them 

up. We—they get, you know, focused on their skill, and then we 

teach them how to supervise, and then ultimately, after several 

years, we then allow them to supervise individuals, and that is 

really in all the services. 

And the only difference between, you know, those 20-year-olds 

being responsible for directing 18-year-olds around is, you know, 

quite frankly, your SAT scores were higher, right. So you know, 

you are at the Academy, but where this dynamic of having 20- and 

21-year-olds responsible for 18- and 19-year-olds, and, you know, 

this leadership laboratory, I mean, we shouldn’t be experimenting 

with human beings. 

So my question is, how much when you—talking about the chain 

of command, the midshipman chain of command, how much of 

what you are dealing with is the upperclassmen making decisions, 

and how much are the real—the officers and the senior enlisted 

that are the ones that are in the Air Force that are actually the 

chain of command, who are ultimately responsible for this, right? 

So I just want to be clear to make sure I understand. Do you 

have 20- and 21-year-old midshipmen now deciding what to do 

here? Or, you know, do you have a commanding officer that is an 

actual officer? So just talk to me about the balance of decision making in this environment these days, Midshipman Craine. 

Ms. CRAINE. So it, once again, depends on the company. I find 

that I was in a very, like, very open company. The open-door policy 

with the company officer, it was great. 

Ms. MCSALLY. You are talking to the actual officer, right? 

Ms. CRAINE. Yes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. So you are not reporting to like a two degree or 

whatever you guys call them there. 

Ms. CRAINE. You can. So they have SHAPE representatives in 

the company that have stickers on their door that say you can 

come tell me anything about this case. They are trained to assist 

and give that person the resources, but at the end of the day, you 

have to report either through your company officer, through the 

SAPR office, through an actual figure. 

In my case, I reported to—I didn’t report, but I had discussed it 

with my academic advisor, an adult not in my chain of command, 

and she directed me to the right resources. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. 

Ms. CRAINE. So that is how I—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Just let me be clear. Nobody is reporting to another midshipman or cadet who is then deciding not to do some-
20 

thing with this. I just want to be clear as to who the decision makers are here. 

Ms. CRAINE. No. The midshipmen, at least from what I have experienced, they do not make the report. They do not report for you. 

You report. They give you the resources. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. 

Ms. CRAINE. They do not decide it. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Do any of the rest of you want to pipe in based 

on your experiences? 

Ms. GROSS. You mean, on sexual assault harassment specifically? 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yes. 

Ms. GROSS. Regarding the assault itself, at least at West Point, 

there is no peer reporting, but the peers have a lot of control over 

the conduct investigations that happen for you. So honor boards 

are reported by your peers and investigated completely by your 

peers. And then we also have command—my command directed 

mental health evaluation was initiated by a peer, by his report. My 

room inspections were by peers. My reprisal initially was by peers. 

My misconduct investigation was by peers. They do have a lot of 

control with your life. 

Ms. MCSALLY. So you are basically—the sexual assault process 

and all that is in the hands of the officers and others, but when 

you are dealing with all this other—the other dynamics, the culture, the potential retaliation, there is a whole lot of peer. I think 

that is really something that we need to be paying a little bit more 

attention to. 

And Ms. Gross, I want to follow up on this culture thing. And 

I spent a lot of time thinking about this. We show up as 18-yearolds having a full respect for men and women, and somehow there 

is this inculcation that happens where resentment builds. And I do 

want to follow up with you on your perspectives, and I know I am 

not going to have a lot of time here. 

Ms. GROSS. I understand. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Any double standards—— 

Ms. GROSS. Absolutely. 

Ms. MCSALLY. People make fun of me, but I talk about, hey, you 

need to have your hair cut, too, not just the guys having their head 

shaved. Like right away we shouldn’t have resentment building in 

the men towards the women. We need more integration, not more 

segregation, because that builds resentment. 

And this is all the cultural stuff that feeds into the ‘‘you are not 

my real teammate,’’ and that is, I think, ultimately what we have 

got to get to the bottom of here at all the academies and in the 

military. Would you guys agree? 

Ms. GROSS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BULLARD. Yes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thanks. I am out of time. Thank you, ladies. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Rosen, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ROSEN. Thank you. And I want to thank you for your bravery in coming forward and speaking so candidly about something 

so painful, and so very wrong. You went to the service to serve our 

country with honor and respect, and you certainly weren’t treated 

that way, and I am very sorry for that. 
21 

What I want to ask is, there is a lot of other women in the military, so in your experience at your school, were there women leaders? Were there focus groups? Were there support groups? What 

were the women officers able to do for you, and how can they help 

change this culture as we go forward? 

I mean, maybe they are the strongest advocates because they 

have been through this, like Representative McSally, and can focus 

on that. 

Ms. CRAINE. So from my experience at the Naval Academy, there 

are many, many good women role models. They are officers, senior 

enlisted, even midshipmen. Right now, our brigade commander is 

a woman. And it is fantastic. Like, I do not really—I have actually 

never experienced ever backlash for being a woman, never any double standards. There is always women breaking the barriers and 

improving themselves, and it is really fantastic. 

Ms. ROSEN. How can the older women support you younger 

women, I guess is my question, what can they do or we all do? 

Ms. CRAINE. Just by being great role models, really just interacting with the midshipmen from a day-to-day basis. Like, for female midshipmen, seeking out those roles, seeking out leadership 

roles, seeking out roles in which they interact with midshipmen on 

a larger scale. Like, those really make an impact. You get more 

face time with someone who is in a position of authority and then 

you respect them. 

Ms. ROSEN. Ms. Bullard. 

Ms. BULLARD. I actually had a mentor. She was a SARC and she 

was also a former IG [Inspector General]. And it got to a point 

where she supported us, supported us, and it got to a point where 

we had so much retaliation that she feared for her job. And she 

had us sneaking around, to sneak into her office, in order to see 

us. 

So I would say there is a support, but there is also retaliation 

against them as well. 

Ms. ROSEN. So throughout the ranks? 

Ms. BULLARD. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. ROSEN. Ms. Gross. 

Ms. GROSS. I think it is important to note that that SARC was 

also a USMA grad and was a colonel previously in the Army. So 

she was very confident in her acts with us initially, and then was 

told—told us that she was reprimanded by the chain of command 

for being too close to us in counseling us. And that was when she 

told us to sneak into her office so that upper leadership wouldn’t 

see her talking to us. And she later was transferred out of the 

Academy to a different position. 

In addition to that, we have many leaders like this that were 

women, and towards the end of our time at the Academy when the 

retaliation increased and Congress had begun to get involved in 

our cases we started to lose those successively where they were told 

not to speak with us. 

We also, Ariana and I, were very active in trying to start a support group at West Point, which is something that happens at the 

Air Force Academy, and West Point does not allow support groups. 

We were very active with this, pushing as high up the chain of 
22 

command as we could, to the SARCs. They told us that it wasn’t 

allowed and that we weren’t able to do it. 

We ended up forming our own informal support group, through 

the four cadets that I mentioned previously. And as I mentioned, 

all four of us have since left the Academy, either being pushed out 

or self-discharged after mental issues. 

Ms. KENDZIOR. So from my experience, I didn’t really have many 

female officer mentors. I was always surrounded by male officers, 

at least in my companies. But to note, a lot of the officers that are 

company officers went there themselves, so they kind of fell into 

the same culture that we are a part of in terms of, you know, trying to fit in with—I call it a frat, a big frat you are joining. In my 

year, 22 percent female. So you are joined into this boys club or 

fraternity and you try to fit in and be one of the guys. 

And on another note, the only female officer that I actually did 

sort of know, who was the company officer of a company nearby 

mine, was actually accused of inappropriate sexual conduct with a 

male midshipman. 

Ms. ROSEN. It looks like we have a long way to go to bring this 

out of the shadows, because that is where it has been hiding, and 

that is what allows perpetrators to victimize women like you and 

others like you, and we need to bring them out of the shadows. 

They should be here talking about why they did the things that 

they did and letting the world see them on television. 

Thank you for your time. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Rosen. 

Mr. Kelly, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for 

having this very important meeting. 

I want to, first of all, tell each of you I am sorry for what you 

had to endure. And I thank you for your bravery in being here 

today. And so I want to make sure that is the first and foremost. 

Secondly, I want to talk a little bit. To me, they are separate 

things, and we shouldn’t be having a hearing on separate things. 

Harassment and assault are two different things. Harassment is a 

cultural thing. It is bad, really bad. But assault, that is criminal, 

and people need to go to jail. And that, more than anything else, 

as a former district attorney, there is nothing I can stand than a 

criminal act which someone gets away with. 

And to put them in the same category—because what happens 

with leaders is they retract to the easy-to-defend position. So when 

you start talking about assaults and you start talking about harassment in the same voice, they always want to talk about harassment and not about the assault. And, again, assaults are a criminal 

act and nothing less. They are always a criminal act. 

Are you all aware of anything that tracks when an individual either has a sexual harassment, but more specifically, a sexual assault, when the perpetrator, not the victim, but when the perpetrator is put into the system, do we have an unmasked—I understand innocent until proven guilty, but you can mask DUIs [driving 

under the influence], and when someone is not adjudicated, so you 

have a public-private record and all those things. Are you all aware 

of anything that tracks these people who are accused? 
23 

Because if a guy has been accused three times or two times or 

five times, they are a predator. And so we need to know that even 

if it is not drawn to the conclusion that once that accusation is 

made it is not in his permanent 201 file, so to speak, but it is in 

an unmasked. Are any of you four aware of anything that privately 

masks that? 

Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. GROSS. So that was one of the main reasons that I was pressured to report my first case from unrestricted to—I am sorry—restricted to unrestricted, was that when I sat down with the SARC’s 

office, they told me that even if my case was unfounded, that that 

was my main concern. There wasn’t a lot of evidence to my case, 

it happened previously, that even if I report it, then at least it 

would be in his file so that if it happened again, that he would 

have a pattern. And that was what I was told, which what I am 

hearing from you, sir, is that it is not that case, that it is removed 

from the file later or that they can’t track that? 

Mr. KELLY. No. Mine is a question. I think that when it is reported that it ought to be private, in a private file, that every other 

commander for the rest of that person’s career sees. If that is the 

only one that ever happens, then I don’t think there should be any 

derogatory towards that soldier, sailor, airman, marine. But if 

there are three of them over a 5-year period from three different 

victims, then regardless of whether he is found guilty, I think the 

chain of command has a duty to know, because you probably have 

a predator, and I am not aware of anything that does that. Are you 

all? 

Ms. GROSS. There does seem to be a tracking system, at least on 

the reports that were just released and the previous reports, if you 

look at the case synopses, they have a section that asks if there 

had been a previous offense committed or reported against the 

cadet. 

Mr. KELLY. And I know that it is working better now than it has 

in the past. I was at the Air Force Academy last year for a graduate of two cadets from my district, and one from somewhere else— 

we are talking about the day of graduation, within the last 2 

days—was not allowed to graduate within 2 days of graduating because of a SARC’s complaint. That to me is progress. That is effects. That is where you can see that the person who perpetrated 

this on you is not graduating and not being that. 

That being said, just very briefly, and I will start with you, Ms. 

Kendzior, if you will say, if you could do any one thing to make this 

better, what would it be? 

Ms. KENDZIOR. As in had I been there in the past—when I was 

there in the past or now? 

Mr. KELLY. If you can fix anything, if you can do, if you are the 

person in charge of the entire DOD, you are Secretary of Defense, 

and you could do one thing that might impact that, then what 

would that be? 

Ms. KENDZIOR. I think creating an open environment, a safe environment to talk about this, to have a place to go and discuss it 

that you won’t be judged and it won’t get out to the rumor mill. 

To me, that is why I held it in for so long before I came forward. 

I did not feel like I had a safe place to talk about it. 
24 

Mr. KELLY. Ms. Gross. 

Ms. GROSS. I really that think we need to institute a standard 

of support groups across the Academy, something that the regular 

Army does but the academies don’t uphold. And I had the belief 

while I was there that it is because they didn’t want us to group 

together. But if they did group together and students were be able 

to talk about these problems and the leadership can then see systemically what is going on, I wouldn’t feel like I was the only one. 

Mr. KELLY. And very quickly, Ms. Bullard. And I am going to 

skip you, Ms. Craine. 

Ms. BULLARD. Interestingly enough, in 2014, almost all investigation findings were downgraded to find no sexual basis of charge. 

My point is, is that the leadership is not dinged by the assaults, 

because it is not recorded as sexual. 

Mr. KELLY. And that would go back to my point. I don’t think 

that it is being tracked unmasked so that the same perpetrator, because I guarantee you—and I am sorry, but, Mr. Chairman, if I can 

indulge Midshipman Craine. 

Ms. CRAINE. About any changes that I would make? It would be 

to make sure that the squad leaders and the people that—the 

underclass and the people you see the most are trained. Because 

when I went through my case, I didn’t really think of the SHAPE 

advisers in my company first. I thought of the people that were 

closest to me that were in charge of me. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. Bacon, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BACON. Thank you very much. 

I want to thank each of you for sharing what happened in your 

life. And I just want to make it clear, actions described were disgraceful and unacceptable. I say that as a five-time commander, 

served nearly 30 years in the Air Force, but also as a husband, father of a daughter, granddaughter of three little girls. Actually 

want better. So we owed you better. 

My thought as an institution with the service but also with the 

academies, in any unit, we have got to do three things in leadership. One, make the policies clearer, what the standards are, and 

how to respond when an incident does occur. Two, I think we owe 

a way to support victims when these things occur, so we have to 

have a very clear support network there and a process. And three, 

we have got to hold people accountable. And so I had to look at all 

three of those things as a commander. 

So I have a question for you. As a commander, we have a little 

bit of leeway how do we prosecute when things occur. And some 

folks want a bar set a little higher, some set a little lower. When 

I had this situation in my commands and I felt like we needed to 

take more quick action, I decided to court-martial folks who the 

evidence was not as clear. Sometimes it was one person’s word 

against another person’s word. But I wanted the victim to have the 

opportunity to speak in front of a jury, make their case, and also 

then the person who is accused. And our convictions went way up 

when this happened. 

I would love to have your feedback. Would you have felt comfortable to go to a court-martial or is this a process that would 
25 

have worked for you if you had a commander that was a little more 

aggressive and said ‘‘let’s put this person in front of a jury’’? 

Let’s start with Ms. Kendzior. 

Ms. KENDZIOR. I guess I don’t understand your question fully. 

Can you please—— 

Mr. BACON. I think the commanders have some leeway who to 

court-martial. Sometimes they want very clear evidence of guilt, 

other times it is a little less clear. I took the tack as a commander 

that I would court-martial people more quickly and let the juries 

decide. What do you think of that principle? Should we be more aggressive in court-martialing and let the juries decide? 

Ms. KENDZIOR. I personally believe it should be taken out of the 

hands of the military to do this in general. Rape is not and sexual 

harassment is not exclusive to the military, so why should the military be handling this when it is an epidemic throughout our country in all colleges? So in my opinion, I don’t think it should have 

to go to a court-martial. I think it should have to go to civilian 

court to handle these cases appropriately. 

Mr. BACON. I will just say, though, for the record, in our case, 

we had a high conviction rate through the court-martial. We put 

people in Leavenworth. So accountability does occur. You just need 

commanders that lean forward and be aggressive at it. 

Ms. Gross, do you have a thought on this? 

Ms. GROSS. I do, sir. It is actually kind of an opposite thought. 

But I think that right now there is actually too much leeway within the institutions. The Academy, at least West Point, has many 

different sanctions that they can impose. As you saw with my case, 

they gave an administrative sanction instead of regular court action sanction. They have different misconduct hearings, Article 32s. 

They can do just regular judicial punishment at the Academy in 

the form of walking hours. And for that reason, they are able to 

lower their numbers of assaults. 

And so it is very interesting, if you look at the year that I left, 

2014 and 2015, there was only one case of substantiated sexual assault and no substantiated cases of sexual harassment. All they 

were substantiated on was harassment. My case was classified as 

sexual assault. I was only substantiated on assault. So maybe that 

leeway is actually a little too much. 

Mr. BACON. Okay. Thank you. And Ms. Bullard? 

Ms. BULLARD. This is a hard question. I say that because I 

think—I would agree with Ms. Kendzior. I think it needs to go outside the military. And the reason why is I think it means—in Mrs. 

Gross’ case, at any point the head of the command could have done 

something. So that is all I have to say. 

Mr. BACON. One comment, too, Ms. Bullard. I found in my experience, you are absolutely right, 90 percent of allegations are true. 

That has been my experience as a five-time commander. And I 

found out when you start court-martialing people, people are pleading guilty. And so I just wanted to substantiate, to back up your 

point. 

Ms. BULLARD. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BACON. Finally, I just would like to make one point for Ms. 

Kendzior, and I would love to have your feedback. 
26 

The fact that you were calling a DUB, quote, and in plural DUBs 

to the ladies is a sign of a bad cultural problem. Did you see any 

efforts from the higher level command or anywhere in the middle 

to try to correct that? 

Ms. KENDZIOR. No. 

Mr. BACON. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bacon. 

Ms. Speier, you are now recognized. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just tell you how extraordinary you all are and how 

grateful we are that you are here to testify. 

I am troubled by a number of things that happened. With you, 

Ms. Kendzior, you were raped twice at the Academy and then labeled as having a borderline personality disorder and taken out of 

the military. Is that correct? 

Ms. KENDZIOR. Correct. The rapes did not occur at the Academy 

or on the Academy grounds, but it occurred at a team house off 

campus on one occurrence, in a hotel on another occurrence, but 

both of them were by midshipmen. 

Ms. SPEIER. And both those midshipmen continued through their 

education and became ensigns? 

Ms. KENDZIOR. Correct. And actually there was an NCIS [Naval 

Criminal Investigative Service] investigation on the one, the first 

rape that happened, and he was still there when I reported, and 

he was allowed to graduate. 

Ms. SPEIER. Ms. Gross, you indicated that you were interrogated 

after the rape or after—— 

Ms. GROSS. The first assault, yes. The first rape. 

Ms. SPEIER. The first rape. And you were interrogated for 13 

hours? 

Ms. GROSS. Yes, ma’am, that is correct. 

Ms. SPEIER. And then what happened? 

Ms. GROSS. During that time, I think CID—CID had gotten better by my second assault, I will say that. There had been improvement. I am unique in the fact that I did not have a special victims’ 

attorney for the first, and then I did for the second, so I was able 

to see the change between the two. Having that special victims’ attorney played an integral role to making sure that didn’t happen 

the second time. He was very strict on making sure that I wasn’t 

overexerted. 

But the first time I had 13-hour interviews, I think twice, before 

my commander came in after 11:30 at night and said that I needed 

to go, because I had class in the morning, and I had missed class 

all day. 

Ms. SPEIER. So you had two 13-hour interrogations? 

Ms. GROSS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SPEIER. And we wonder why victims don’t want to report. 

If I remember correctly, Ms. Gross, you had, in the second rape 

or assault, you had bruises on your neck and in your upper torso 

area. Is that correct? 

Ms. GROSS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SPEIER. And there were photographs taken, correct? 

Ms. GROSS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SPEIER. And then were these photographs lost? 
27 

Ms. GROSS. I was told that there were certain photographs that 

were not documented properly or lost within the investigation, yes, 

ma’am, and also that they had refused to take my clothing and the 

blood alcohol level indication that was requested. 

Ms. SPEIER. So he was drunk. 

Ms. GROSS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SPEIER. And he sexually assaulted you. They were made 

aware of this, and then they chose not to get his blood alcohol or 

to take your clothing as evidence. 

Ms. GROSS. Yes, ma’am, at the directive of the trial counsel at 

West Point, a captain. 

Ms. SPEIER. And what was the rationale for not doing that? 

Ms. GROSS. I am not sure, ma’am. The military police officers 

told me that they received the call. As Ariana Bullard was with me 

and told them to take a blood alcohol level, because he was obviously drunk, and they said that the trial counsel captain told them 

not to take it, and I never found out why. My special victims’ attorney said that he wasn’t sure that the Academy had the right intentions with the second case and felt that because I had an unfounded case that I was no longer credible, and so he felt that that 

was going to be used against me. 

Ms. SPEIER. Now, both you and Ms. Bullard, even though you 

have gone through this injustice, frankly, you want to return to the 

Academy and complete your education there. Can you explain to us 

why? 

Ms. BULLARD. Ma’am, I think, first off, I think it should be noted 

that I didn’t want to leave in the first place. I wanted to stay if 

there was a change. And the fact that I received silence from General Caslen showed me just that there wasn’t anything to be done 

at that time. And so immediately I had to go. 

And, yeah, I would say that I would love to go back. And I think 

that Stephanie and I are probably the best people to help create 

and help support this cause. 

Ms. GROSS. I think that Ariana and I can agree, and we have 

talked extensively about this decision, that we admire General 

Caslen greatly. We both admired him as a cadet. We saw great 

leadership from him during our time there and in his briefings and 

believe that his intentions are true and the Academy’s intentions 

are true. They want to fix this problem. We do recognize that he 

made mistakes as well, and so did the institutions, just like we all 

do. 

And because of this, I feel like I can’t come to Congress and talk 

to you and tell you these problems and not take any action to fix 

them if I was truly passionate about the issue, that I can’t sit here 

and say that these things are wrong without trying to fix them myself or trying to do something that would do that where I can come 

back as a leader and make a change. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Dr. Wenstrup, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of you for your leadership and being willing 

to come here and educate us on problems that clearly exist and 
28 

help us try and be part of the solution as best that we can. And 

I admire your bravery through all this. 

Truthfully, the questions I would have asked have already been 

asked, so I won’t put you through it again. But thank you for stepping forward and being the true leaders that you are and brave 

souls. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mrs. Davis, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I 

certainly did have a lot of questions. 

Thank you so much to all of you for being here. I think if there 

is anything I take from this is that I am glad that you can point 

to a few areas in which there has been some change, but clearly 

not enough. And I think that we all have to be very cognizant of 

that. 

I am really more inclined to want to just go ahead and move on 

with the next panel, because I hope that you all can stay at least 

for a few minutes, because I am certainly interested in some of the 

reaction. 

But there are a few things that I was glad to hear. The special 

victims’ counsel, that I think, generally, I sense that that is a good 

thing. And we know that that is also a model that has been picked 

up at the universities, in some universities. We are pushing for 

more. But I am glad to hear that that is positive. I would be very 

interested in knowing how we can progress it even more to speed 

up any of the best parts and get rid of some of the problems that 

might have occurred. 

The unit climate is also very important, and we talk about retaliation. I think I would love to know more about how we have a 

zero-retaliation environment. And my sense has always been that 

it is on whoever is in leadership within that that sets that tone, 

and we have got to change that. 

The fact that you could be in a sports environment, Ms. Bullard, 

and not have anybody getting your back, you know, that, in addition to the service mentality, and that, you know, it is a family, the 

fact that you would not have your co-sports men and women helping you out, that they weren’t sensitive enough to that, tells me 

that leadership in that environment was such that that is where 

the changes have to be made. 

So then the question is, how do we make that happen? Is it the 

training that is going on, not among the people involved, but the 

leadership? So how should that change? So I will let you answer 

that. 

And also the whole idea that anybody who has been leading a 

group of people, recruits and cadets, and had a case under their 

leadership that was not handled well, the fact that they would advance in leadership has always been something that I just don’t 

understand. We have got to get at that. You know, people should 

have a fair hearing, but we also don’t want people to advance, 

number one, who have been a perpetrator, but, number two, who 

have been in leadership when that kind of crime has taken place. 

So I think that is sort of where I would hope that perhaps we 

can discuss a little bit more in the next panel. But, please, I have 

a minute and a half, could you respond? 
29 

Ms. CRAINE. In regards to the command climate, I have never 

been called a DUB. I have never experienced anything like that at 

my time at the Academy. And when I took hold of my case and had 

confidence and didn’t fear anything about it, I received the most 

support from the midshipmen at the brigade. 

Ms. BULLARD. I would have to agree with you that it comes from 

leadership. And in my resignation to General Caslen, I told him 

that there needed to be new leadership and a new culture and that 

was the problem. The head coach is a civilian, and he doesn’t necessarily—he understands the gist but doesn’t necessarily understand the military very much. And bringing that into an NCAA 

[National Collegiate Athletic Association] sport is hard. I mean, 

how do you establish a military environment but also have an 

NCAA sport? 

So I think it is a double-edged sword. And as Ms. Kendzior said, 

you know, it is kind of like the guys are better than the girls. And 

that is the thought on the team, that they are better than the girls 

and they are two separate teams, and I don’t understand how that 

is for an Army team. 

Ms. GROSS. I actually have an improvement for my piece, that 

with my special victims’ attorney, I think I might have been the 

only one, maybe Cadet Craine here, who brings very valuable to 

the current system. It may have changed since I have been there, 

but they had very limited power because they were subjected—at 

the time, my attorney was only 2 months new to the Academy, and 

he was subjected to my chain of command leadership. And so he 

was telling me that he was feeling very restricted because he can 

only do so much because he had to report that to his own leadership who was being investigated for my case. So that may be something to look into. I am not sure if that has changed. 

Ms. KENDZIOR. And I would just go back to what I said earlier, 

that I think it is important to train the leadership, the faculty, the 

coaches. I never received any conversation from my coaches reaching out to me about what had happened. So that would be a good 

start, in my opinion. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you all for your testimony today. It is very 

important. Thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Just one question. Simply, were you retaliated 

against? 

Midshipman Craine. 

Ms. CRAINE. No. 

Ms. BULLARD. Yes. 

Ms. GROSS. Yes. 

Ms. KENDZIOR. Yes. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Speier. 

I want to thank the panel, the members of the panel, for having 

the courage to step forward today. I think for some of you it is a 

question of bringing justice to your particular case. And I think by 

virtue of you being here, you will help countless others. And I think 

everybody in this committee—subcommittee—is committed to making sure that we do our utmost to make sure that the climate and 

the culture of our service academies changes to where we don’t experience a panel like this in the future. 
30 

So, again, I want to thank you so much for your testimony today. 

And you are now dismissed. 

We are going to recess until after the vote to hear the panelists, 

the superintendents for the various service academies. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. This hearing is now called back to order. 

I wish to now welcome our second panel. We would like to respectfully remind the second panel to summarize to the greatest 

extent possible the high points of your written testimony in 5 minutes or less. Your written comments and statements will be made 

part of the hearing record. 

Our second panelists consists of Dr. Elizabeth P. Van Winkle, 

Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness; Lieutenant General Robert L. Caslen, Jr., Superintendent, 

United States Military Academy; Vice Admiral Walter E, Carter, 

Jr., Superintendent, United States Naval Academy; Lieutenant 

General Michelle D. Johnson, Superintendent, United States Air 

Force Academy. 

With that, Dr. Van Winkle, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ELIZABETH P. VAN WINKLE, PERFORMING 

THE DUTIES OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR 

READINESS 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. Thank you. Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, and subcommittee members, thank you for having me 

here today to discuss the results of the DOD Annual Report on 

Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies. 

The Department is committed to promoting an environment 

where all service members, cadets, and midshipmen are treated 

with dignity and respect. Sexual assault and sexual harassment 

have no place in our Armed Forces and military academies. These 

problematic behaviors affect our people’s well-being and undermine 

the overall readiness of our military. Just one instance of sexual 

assault, harassment, or sexualized misconduct can impact the trust 

between military members, degrade unit cohesion, and takes focus 

off of the mission at hand. 

The strength of our force relies on the resiliency and discipline 

of our military members. These behaviors and tolerance of these 

behaviors weakens our force. Preventing criminal behavior and 

misconduct, providing care for service members, and holding offenders appropriately accountable continues to be a top priority. 

We also understand that each service and academy have unique 

environments, and we work to ensure they have the flexibility to 

implement change based on their composition and challenges. 

We are a learning institution, and we are continually striving to 

do better. In the force at large, we have seen advancement over the 

past several years at our key indicators of progress. Our report released yesterday indicates that sexual assault rates in the Active 

Duty are at their lowest and rates of reporting are at their highest. 

However, one of the things we have learned since creating the 

Sexual Assault Prevent and Response program in 2005 is that context and environment matters. Our approach must be tailored to 
31 

take into account unique combinations of mission, people, and environments. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to the problem of 

sexual assault. 

Unfortunately, the rates of unwanted sexual contact increased at 

all three academies during this academic program year, returning 

to levels commensurate with what we observed in 2010 and 2012. 

In addition, while the trend line in the Active Duty Force shows 

increases in the number of members making the difficult decision 

to report a sexual assault, rates of reporting at the academies have 

not followed the same trend. 

Finally, the experience of sexual harassment and retaliation is 

far too common at the academies. 

Going forward, we will continue to work with the academies to 

reinvigorate their approach to prevention. This means addressing 

how contributing factors, such as alcohol misuse, sexual harassment, hazing, bullying, and other disruptive behaviors, impact 

their unique environments. 

However, the absence of these kinds of negative behaviors is only 

part of the solution. There also needs to be the presence of strong 

leadership traits among the students in this space. Each student 

must be empowered to be role models in how they behave, how 

they treat each other, and how they expect other cadets and midshipmen to be treated. We owe them guidance on what right looks 

like. 

But this is not something that can be immediately achieved with 

a policy. It can only be achieved through a unified effort to help 

our cadets and midshipmen understand the duty they have to each 

other in all aspects of their behavior and at all times. The academies are already working to move the needle, and they can each 

talk to some of the initiatives they have begun to empower students to take on this charge. 

The environment at the academies is unique. As such, it is taking us longer to fine-tune our approach, and our efforts to improve 

prevention and reporting have not made the gains that we would 

all like to see. 

This is not for a lack of effort and attention. Our surveys indicate 

that the majority of cadets and midshipmen trust the academies to 

protect privacy, ensure safety, and treat all with dignity and respect. We are confident that we can do more to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment at the academies through an approach that considers the full spectrum of readiness-impacting behaviors. 

In closing, we will not stop until we get this right. We appreciate 

your concern and support as we work to protect the people who volunteer to keep our Nation safe. 

Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak with you today. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Van Winkle can be found in the 

Appendix on page 65.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Dr. Van Winkle. 

Lieutenant General Caslen, you are now recognized for your 

opening statement. 
32 

STATEMENT OF LTG ROBERT L. CASLEN, JR., USA, 

SUPERINTENDENT, UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY 

General CASLEN. Thank you very much, Chairman Coffman, 

Ranking Member Speier, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. It is an honor to be here today representing the United 

States Military Academy community. 

I know that today we are here to address the recent sexual assault and gender relations survey results and to provide the committee with details about the work we continue to do to improve 

the support we provide to victims of sexual violence, but also the 

very crucial aspect of creating a climate that does not allow these 

events to happen in the first place. 

As a start point, I want to say that the experiences that Ms. 

Bullard and Ms. Gross shared with you are things that we never 

want to happen to anyone at West Point. I admire both Ms. Bullard and Ms. Gross for their moral courage and their candor to 

come forward today to be able to talk about these situations. 

I share Ms. Gross’ concern about the open-door policy, and as 

much as she agonized not talking to me, I shared the same feelings 

that I was unable to talk to her because of pending action that I 

had to preside over, to include a DOD IG investigation for reprisal. 

But we learned a lot from both of them and from their experience. We learned about special victim counsel and the work that 

a special victim counsel does in these investigations. We learned a 

lot about interview techniques. We learned a lot about advocacy 

and advocacy methods that build trust as compared to what you 

heard from Ms. Gross and Ms. Bullard. 

We also learned a lot about the cycle that a victim feels as they 

go through isolation and ostracism and then misconduct and then 

further isolation until the point where they finally bottom out and 

are ejected. We learned about the commander’s responsibility to be 

able to identify where that cycle occurs and then to prevent that 

ejection from happening. 

Our strategy to build and maintain a solid response to sexual 

harassment and sexual assault addresses prevention, victim advocacy, investigation, assessment, and accountability. We believe we 

have made great strides in advocacy, investigation, accountability. 

This past year, our reporting has nearly doubled, a very positive 

sign that our work to improve the climate is beginning to take root. 

However, we must focus more on primary prevention, efforts that 

stop the crime from happening in the first place. As part of that 

effort, we hired an external organization to assess our programs 

and offer recommendations in how we can improve. 

We acknowledge that the only cause of sexual assault is the 

criminal committing a crime, and we accept that we must create 

a command climate where everybody is treated with dignity and respect, everybody feels that they are a valued member of the team, 

and everybody feels secure both physically and emotionally. 

Prevention education must integrate purposeful discussions 

about building and maintaining healthy relations and tough conversations about consent and sexual encounters. These issues are 

part of what makes collegiate environments so challenging in terms 

of sexual violence prevention. However, education and skill building, which are two keys to successful prevention programs, are also 
33 

part of the college experience, and we therefore continually explore 

ways to modify our programs to respond to these factors. 

For example, over the past few weeks our SHARP and our Cadets Against Sexual Harassment and Assault hosted a sexual assault awareness and prevention month of activities, which included 

Mr. Tony Porter, a screening of the movie ‘‘Audrey & Daisy,’’ 

Denim Day, Take Back the Night, Survivor Speak Out, Walk a 

Mile, and other events and other work with our local rape crisis 

center. These events were well attended by cadets and community 

members and raised awareness about sexual assault and reinforced 

how prevention is everyone’s responsibility. 

As a member of the NCAA Board of Governors, I was asked to 

co-chair the Commission to Combat Campus Sexual Violence because of the military academies’ recognized programs and initiatives and experience in dealing with these issues. There is much 

work to be done to shift the tide of sexual violence on college campuses, and it is an honor to be a part of the work at the national 

level, both through the NCAA and at West Point. 

Finally, we still have a lot of work to do to eliminate sexual assault and sexual harassment. We have not stopped working on this 

issue, and we won’t. I hope that as I have the opportunity to answer your questions today it will become clear that our mission at 

West Point is to develop leaders of character who are committed to 

the values of duty and honor and country and are prepared for a 

career of professional excellence in service to the Nation as an officer in the United States Army. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Caslen can be found in the 

Appendix on page 72.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Lieutenant General Caslen. 

Vice Admiral Carter, you are now recognized for your opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF VADM WALTER E. CARTER, JR., 

SUPERINTENDENT, UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY 

Admiral CARTER. Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, 

and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the Naval Academy’s sexual assault prevention 

and response efforts. At the Academy, we have a responsibility to 

ensure that every single member of the Brigade of Midshipmen is 

afforded an opportunity to develop professionally in an environment which fosters dignity and respect. 

Additionally, we produce one-third of our service’s unrestricted 

line officers every year. If we get it right, and we have every intention to do this every year, we can be the custodians of the core values of the Navy. We can set the standard for professionalism, for 

honor, for integrity. We can graduate and commission young junior 

officers that will inevitably influence the overall culture of the 

Navy and the Marine Corps. 

Despite dedicated efforts by the Naval Academy leadership and 

the Brigade of Midshipmen, we continue to experience incidents of 

unwanted sexual contact within our ranks. While the recently released Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the 

Military Service Academies shows the Naval Academy’s prevalence 

of unwanted sexual contact in 2016 was below of that 2010 and 
34 

2012, there was a significant increase in prevalence from the progress reported in 2014. We can and must do better. 

We have an extensive sexual assault prevention program at the 

Naval Academy. Each midshipman actively participates in over 30 

hours of education and training during their 4 years at the Academy, starting on the first day of Plebe Summer and culminating 

with the completion of a character capstone event during their senior year. 

The heart of our prevention effort is the Sexual Harassment and 

Assault Prevention Education, or SHAPE, S–H–A–P–E, program, a 

peer-led small group mentorship program. Our SHAPE program 

has evolved over the last several years, and based on evidencebased research in the field, data from these annual reports, student 

and facilitator feedback, and best practices of other institutions. 

Additionally, we have incorporated sexual harassment and sexual 

assault prevention into our formal education curricula. 

We recently evaluated our prevention program against the recommendations set forth by the Centers for Disease Control’s guidelines and found that our efforts incorporate all major facets of the 

CDC’s prevention education model with the exception of teaching 

healthy safe dating and intimate relation skills. 

Moving forward, we will being placing further emphasis in the 

following three areas: responsible use of alcohol, healthy behaviors 

in relationships, and understanding consent. 

With respect to our sexual assault response program, we continue to make steady positive progress. Sexual assault continues to 

be one of the most underreported crimes in our Nation. That said, 

reports of sexual assaults at the Naval Academy have more than 

doubled over the past 4 years. 

Furthermore, just this past year we had 11 previously restricted 

reports converted to unrestricted reports, providing not only an opportunity to provide care and support for our survivors, but also 

the chance to hold individuals accountable for their actions. I believe this continued positive trend reflects increased trust in our 

system. 

Despite our committed efforts and a very robust program, the recent report shows that we still have much work to do to further 

effect and sustain positive change. We are not where I want us to 

be, nor where the Navy needs us to be. There is no finish line in 

our sexual assault prevention and response endeavors, but I have 

full faith and confidence that my team will rise to the challenge. 

Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Carter can be found in the 

Appendix on page 85.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Vice Admiral Carter. 

Lieutenant General Johnson, you are now recognized for your 

opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN MICHELLE D. JOHNSON, 

SUPERINTENDENT, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY 

General JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Coffman and Ranking 

Member Speier and other distinguished members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf 
35 

of the future leaders of our Air Force, the cadets of the United 

States Air Force Academy, as well as the faculty and staff that support our mission to educate, train, and inspire these young men 

and women to become leaders of character in service to our Nation. 

Thank you also for allowing us to attend the first panel today in 

the hearing. And thank you for your steadfast attention to the critically important issues of sexual harassment and assault, issues 

that are corrosive to our ability to successfully carry out our mission and, by extension, are impediments to military readiness. 

I would like to briefly discuss some of our work in sexual assault 

prevention and our efforts in positive culture change at the Air 

Force Academy. 

As has been said before today, one sexual assault is too many. 

We expect more of ourselves, and rightfully so, because more is expected of our graduates when they leave our campus and operate 

in increasingly complex, interconnected, and unpredictable battle 

spaces. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Our bottom 

line is that we cannot tolerate any incidents of sexual harassment 

or sexual assault. 

The results of the 2016 Service Academy Gender Relations Survey and Sexual Harassment and Violence reports indicate that as 

an academy we are not yet where we want to be. We want reporting to go up, prevalence to go down, and ultimately for these incidents to go to zero. We have work to do, but based on the initiatives we have begun, we believe we are moving in the right direction. 

The 2016 Service Academy Gender Relations Survey estimates 

indicate the number of USAFA [United States Air Force Academy] 

cadets experiencing unwanted sexual contact in the past year actually increased from 126 in 2014 to 150 in 2016. Both of these estimates are less than the 162 cadets estimated for 2012. 

We are working toward greater clarity in these numbers to 

understand them better and to provide additional context, and so 

we also utilize the Military Service Academy Defense Equal Opportunity Climate Survey to help us better understand cadets’ attitudes about reporting, prevention, and leadership’s approach to addressing these crimes. 

We have seen some positive trends in these areas. The 2016 Military Service Academy Equal Opportunity Climate Survey showed 

that significantly more cadets are willing to seek help from their 

chain of command compared to 2014 and showed an increase in 

trust at all levels of leadership at the Academy, an average increase of 3 percent across enlisted and officer leadership, academic 

faculty and staff, and the athletic department. 

The Air Force Academy’s sexual assault prevention strategy is 

dedicated to fostering a climate of dignity and respect with a holistic approach. To keep pace with swift changes in culture and the 

development of new dimensions of victimization in anonymous environments and on social media, our current and future initiatives 

reflect a paradigm shift in training, focusing more on peer-to-peer 

approaches, grassroots efforts, and implementing evidence-based 

programs that use meaningful metrics to measure impact over 

time. And this focus is transitioning from quantity to quality and 

from response to prevention. 
36 

Among our prevention initiatives is the Cadet Healthy Personal 

Skills program for fourth class or freshmen cadets, an evidencebased program that focuses on prevention of multiple problem behaviors, including substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, and aggressive behavior. 

In addition, Green Dot Bystander Intervention training has been 

implemented with our permanent party as part of the first phase 

of a 5-year Air Force-wide violence prevention strategy. Cadets will 

receive this highly interactive, discussion-based, and realistic training starting this summer. 

And we have made significant strides in the athletic department, 

where each of our intercollegiate athletic teams participate in small 

group healthy relationships training, a judgment-free environment 

in which everyone is allowed to speak freely and the focus is positive. 

Victim care is a fundamental priority for our SAPR program, and 

we have built a robust safety net for victims to ensure their emotional and physical well-being regardless of when or where sexual 

misconduct took place, even if it was before they came to the Air 

Force Academy. Thirty-eight percent of reports in 2016 were of incidents that occurred prior to military service. 

Our approach to victim care includes medical care, counselors, 

chaplains, peer support, law enforcement investigation, and a special victims’ counsel. When a victim chooses to ask for help, a victims’ advocate is there to offer support and ensure all resources are 

available for their recovery. 

We want all victims to get the help and care that they need so 

that they are able to continue on the selfless, ambitious path that 

brought them to our Academy and reach their fullest potential as 

leaders of character in our Air Force. 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Johnson can be found in the 

Appendix on page 96.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Lieutenant General Johnson. 

Dr. Van Winkle, I understand that the overall Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response report was released 

yesterday. How do the results of the DOD-wide survey compare to 

the service academy report? 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. Thank you for the question. 

As mentioned in my opening statement, within the Active Duty 

we are seeing indications of progress. We saw the prevalence 

rates—so that is the occurrences of the crime—the estimates of 

prevalence decreased in the Active Duty significantly between 2014 

and 2016. So we are seeing a trend line down, 2014, 2016, and also 

2012 is a trend line down across all of those years. 

In addition, we have proportionately more people reporting than 

ever before within the Active Duty. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Are you speaking to the—— 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. The Active Duty. 

Mr. COFFMAN [continuing]. DOD-wide? 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. And DOD-wide includes the academies? 
37 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. No. The Active Duty report that was released 

yesterday is only the Active Duty. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. So the reports we saw, about 32 percent of Active Duty members are reporting when they are experiencing a sexual assault, that is what we estimate. 

As opposed to those trends that we are seeing in the Active Duty, 

in the academies we did not see the same progress, where we saw 

sexual assault or unwanted sexual contact rates go up between 

2014 and 2016. We didn’t see the same progress in reporting either. So it is a different picture. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Do you have a breakdown, though, in that survey 

in the same, I guess, age cohort or the same—so if you compare on 

the Active Duty side those between, say, 18 and 22 years old with 

the academies, is there a breakdown in the report that reflects the 

difference in age, apples to apples in terms of ages? 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. We can provide that breakdown. I can take 

that for the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 119.] 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. To your point, the 18- to 24-year-old age group 

tends to be the highest risk group for these behaviors, and we can 

provide you that. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you very much. 

We have just heard the compelling stories of survivors of sexual 

assault. Many mentioned that they were hesitant to report their 

assailants and that when they did they experienced retaliation. 

Could each of you discuss the programs in place to address these 

problems? 

Lieutenant General Caslen, start with you, please. 

General CASLEN. Yes. Thank you very much. Let me first talk 

about—address the reprisal and retaliation, because I think that is 

a significant issue. 

Based on the report that we just had, our reprisal facts were that 

13 percent of those that had unwanted sexual contact reported professional reprisal, which means it was unfavorable personnel action 

or some type of personnel action was threatened to be withheld. 

Here is the key part: 47 percent felt ostracism and isolation. 

So we are really trying to understand the depth of the issue. It 

is one way to understand it from the professional standpoint, but 

it is also important that we understand the isolation and the ostracism that occurs, because whether you see it or somebody else sees 

it, the victim and the survivor will see it and they will feel it. And 

then how do you protect them, how do you create a command climate that does not allow that to happen? 

Social media and the anonymity of social media also allows reprisal to occur. We talk to our cadets all the time about having a 

private life that you would display on social media that is consistent with the values that you would have in public. If you have 

a private life that is not consistent with your public life, that is not 

the type of values that America expects of leaders who will lead 

their sons and daughters. So that comes into effect as well. 
38 

We put into place a policy that really denies and does not allow 

reprisal to occur, and we are taking action against that as well. 

And then we continue to support the Army regulation. 

Mr. COFFMAN. I beginning to run out of time. 

Vice Admiral Carter, could you respond, please? 

Admiral CARTER. Yes, sir. 

First of all, I want to respond to the members that were up here 

earlier. For former Midshipman Kendzior, who was at the Naval 

Academy many, many years ago, the resources that are at the 

Naval Academy and the situation that we have at the Naval Academy is, unfortunately, in a much, much different place and a more 

positive place. And as you heard from Midshipman Craine, she did 

not talk about reprisal and she felt compelled and comfortable reporting. 

One of the things that we have done is we have moved, first of 

all, where you can report to our Sexual Assault Response Coordinators so that it is not collocated where they live. It is slightly outside 

of their living spaces but close enough that they feel comfortable 

going there. 

The second thing I would tell you is our Midshipmen Development Center is a mental health facility that midshipmen feel very 

comfortable, with no stigma going to. We have sexual assault trauma counselors there, so they feel very comfortable going to them. 

We also talk to the midshipmen about the responsible use of 

using social media and how they need to look out and protect each 

other. And we have seen good behavior actually occur on, you 

know, social sites like Yik Yak, which are now starting to close 

down. 

So although this is still a challenge with reprisals, we feel that 

is—we have seen with our unrestricted reports going up, 11 have 

transitioned this year, as I mentioned. There are good indicators. 

And even in our survey, midshipmen showed a propensity to want 

to report more than they have in the past. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Lieutenant General Johnson, briefly, 

please, I am over my own time limit, please. 

General JOHNSON. Sir, just very briefly. We try not, likewise, try 

not to let the anonymous environment, let the negative stand and 

talk about people of character, to shut it down online. They have 

gone from Yik Yak to Yodel, so there is always another site for 

them to find, but we don’t let that stand. 

We do check on them every month and case management groups 

for our victims to cross-check across entities at the Academy to 

make sure there is not an action of reprisal taking place. 

The special victims’ counsels help very, very much, and we think 

as a result, we are benefiting from more unrestricted reports. If 

people are willing to make an unrestricted report, that means they 

have confidence that they won’t be retaliated against. We hope that 

is the case. And over the last 3 years our restricted and unrestricted reports have been within five, so we think we are making 

progress in confidence. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
39 

Thank you to all of you for your leadership. I know that you 

want to do the right thing. I truly believe that. The numbers, as 

Dr. Van Winkle has pointed out, just don’t support the kind of 

growth we would like to see. 

General Johnson, I truly enjoyed being at the Academy with you 

last month. And I see Dr. Dickman is here, who I observed for close 

to an hour as she presented before all of the coaches from around 

the country, and it was a very compelling presentation. 

Let me start by asking this, just yes or no. Do you believe that 

90 percent of the reports of sexual assault are true? 

Dr. Van Winkle. 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. According to the data, in terms of what falls 

under an unfounded case, that would align, where we typically see 

about 2 percent in the Active Duty being unfounded, meaning that 

there was evidence that didn’t support that the crime occurred. 

Ms. SPEIER. General Caslen. 

General CASLEN. I think it is true that the victim had experienced something, and it was significant and it was emotional to 

that person, and it created a crisis of confidence, a crisis of security, emotional and physical security. 

When you do the investigation and to determine whether there 

is sufficient evidence to continue for further prosecution, the facts, 

at least for us, is just under 50 percent will be founded, that there 

was enough evidence to continue. 

Ms. SPEIER. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It just means 

there wasn’t sufficient evidence. 

General CASLEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SPEIER. So I think that is really important. 

Okay, Admiral Carter? 

Admiral CARTER. Yes. 

General JOHNSON. Yes. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. So one of the statements that was made 

earlier by the first group of witnesses was a recommendation by 

someone who was counseling them that, basically, don’t be that 

girl. And it was about the reference to a football player who was 

administratively removed, and it was found out that the victim was 

not telling the truth. 

So that message has to change. I mean, I think part of what we 

need to train everyone is that most of those who file reports are 

telling the truth. So I just wanted to make that point. 

Admiral Carter mentioned that sexual assault survivors at the 

Naval Academy now can take sabbaticals, which I think is really 

healthy. Do each of you offer that opportunity? 

General Caslen. 

General CASLEN. Yes, we do. We do it under the consultation of 

all the mental health support and the chain of command. 

Ms. SPEIER. General Johnson. 

General JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am. Administrative turnbacks, and 

they may go for one or two semesters to make sure that they are 

ready to come back upon consultation with the experts, as General 

Caslen said. 

Ms. SPEIER. So it is not necessarily just at their request, it has 

to be in consultation with medical personnel? We may want to look 

at that. 
40 

Ms. Gross mentioned that she was interrogated for 13 hours one 

day and then 13 hours another day. 

General Caslen, is that still going on at the Military Academy? 

General CASLEN. No. Ma’am, if you remember from my opening 

statement, we learned a lot from what Ms. Gross and Ms. Bullard 

had experienced. And one of the things we did learn was about the 

interrogation and interrogation techniques. And God forbid if we 

ever do something like that again. 

Ms. SPEIER. So this report, Dr. Van Winkle made note of it, 

shows that 47 percent of those who were polled said that they were 

sexually harassed at the military academies. It is an astonishing 

number. And we all know, I think, that oftentimes sexual harassment can lead to sexual assault. 

What are we going to do about the fact that almost half of the 

cadets feel they are sexually harassed? 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. I think whether we are talking about the academies or the Active Duty, the number of cadets, midshipmen, Active Duty service members that are experiencing sexual harassment is too high. 

What we know from the data is there is—we learn from it, and 

there is a range of behaviors that fall under sexual harassment, 

ranging from sexual quid pro quo to those behaviors, inappropriate 

comments, gestures, jokes. We know from our data that that latter 

point, which is persistent and severe, is what most of our members, 

cadets, and midshipmen are experiencing. 

And I think the Department is really focusing on beginning to 

mobilize and empower the cadets and midshipmen themselves. And 

as I mentioned in my opening statement is to really empower them 

to start to be more invested in this area and to start to step in if 

they see something and to be more engaged in this so we can—we 

can start to address some of these issues. 

Ms. SPEIER. Any other comments? General Caslen. 

General CASLEN. Yes, ma’am. We do recognize and acknowledge 

that people talk to each other disrespectfully, and we upgraded 

training programs so that you can talk about the values of our institution—duty, honor, country—and the values of our Army, which 

include respect. And then we have also organized so that we now 

have grassroot Respect officers within the companies that when 

incidences like this occur, they will take action. 

I think you heard Mr. Russell ask the question about the Respect 

mentorship program that some cadets go through, that if a cadet 

is found to have disrespectful in one capacity or another, whether 

it is sexual harassment or another category, it would go through 

a mentorship program, and they must successfully complete it. It 

is a 6-month-or-so program. 

Ms. SPEIER. General, excuse me, but my time is expired, and I 

just want to get the last two answers, if I could. Thank you. 

General CASLEN. Sorry. 

Admiral CARTER. Yes, ma’am. The number is too high, it is unacceptable. We have more work to do there. I will say there are some 

glimmers of hope, and some of that is based on us improving the 

education that goes with this. Our midshipmen indicated, even in 

the survey, that 73 percent of the men would intervene and correct 
41 

somebody that makes an inappropriate joke. And our women said 

78 percent of them would also intervene. 

We’ve held midshipmen accountable for sexual harassment. 

We’ve separated some of them, even though the reports don’t 

match the number that indicate that’s out there. I mean, we have 

held four midshipmen accountable through either remediation or 

separation, but we have to do better. 

General JOHNSON. And ma’am, if I could add. I think the culture 

and climate are very much a part of this, so that is why we are 

really encouraged about what is happening in the athletic department with the healthy relationships sessions they have had to really talk through some of these things. 

And it goes beyond sexual harassment and just relationships. We 

pick it up from the culture and from my minority cadets of what 

they—what they worry about back home. They are from some 

place. They are from Ferguson. They are from Jewish communities. 

They are from other communities where there is concern that they 

need to come in and make sure they all feel safe with us, and we 

are focused on that. 

We just hired a chief diversity officer with college experience to 

help build bridges across our programs at the Academy as well, so 

that if we can have this culture of respect and dignity, we can 

touch all these things. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSSELL [presiding]. And the chairman will return. He had 

to take an important call, but I will now recognize myself, who was 

next in the order, for 5 minutes. 

Thank you, Dr. Van Winkle. It is good to see you again, and 

thank all of you for the important work you do building future 

leaders. While it is a sensitive topic, and it is one that is unacceptable, and we would all be in agreement of that, we can’t lose sight 

of the fact that our Nation relies upon the product that you produce for its very defense, and that is still very, very sound, in my 

estimation. 

One incident is too many, but the trend is down over the last 7 

years, and we can take a snapshot at 2014. However, what we do 

see is a bit of decline since these new programs and incidents have 

been implemented. 

Lieutenant General Johnson, you made mention that a third of 

the victim support is from incidents prior to military service, so 

would the statistics include that reporting, or is that something altogether separate? 

General JOHNSON. Sir, there are various documents, but the one 

when we say have 32 reports less 30, it included—— 

Mr. RUSSELL. So that—— 

General JOHNSON [continuing]. It included everything that was 

happening that they reported, because the reports are registered 

when they are reported, not when the incident happened. 

Mr. RUSSELL. I see. 

General JOHNSON. So in these case management groups we have 

every month, we may have victims without subjects because the 

subject was someplace in a hometown or in another base. 
42 

Mr. RUSSELL. So based on that comment, it is possible that the 

actual incidents in the academies would be lower than the statistical reporting. Is that correct? 

General JOHNSON. They could be sometimes. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you. 

General JOHNSON. But we are glad the victims come to us for 

care. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Sure. No, I understand. And that was an important insight that I didn’t realize before. 

What we have heard in the previous panel, and even in some of 

your comments, is that the programs are sound, but the implementation still needs a lot of attention, and I think we see that attention being done. 

But I also want to point out, as I look at the dates that these 

programs have been implemented and I look at your tenures at the 

academies, they seem to coincide with the implementation of these 

programs, and I think it is important that we get that on the 

record. 

University statistics are far worse by comparison. It doesn’t 

make any of the behaviors acceptable, but it is worth noting, and 

I think it speaks not to the failure of the military in addressing 

this problem, but actually that it has a 36 percent better performance rate over our universities and colleges nationwide. 

And while every incident is unacceptable, I think that our colleges and institutions can learn from our service academies, particularly in the NCAA field with—and you spoke to that, General 

Johnson, about the teams as they are out competing, and yet their 

performance and behavior is almost without flaw when compared 

to other NCAA teams, and I think that that is also worth noting. 

And so while the military has a culture of identifying problems, 

and it has a culture of bringing these to light because that is the 

culture, we can’t lose sight of the fact that we see at our colleges 

and universities a much greater degree of a problem. 

Effectiveness of academies is unique and steeped in tradition, 

151 Medal of Honor recipients from the service academies. All the 

iconic leaders that we have seen in our Nation’s history come from 

the Academy. That is why it important that we get this right. 

But I am satisfied, as I look at some of this, that we need to 

learn from those that have experienced this, we need to take this, 

but I am not ready, as some of my colleagues may be, to say that 

the military is completely broken and that those that are in uniform as leaders have no compassion, no understanding, have no 

clue about what harassment is or that it is some culture that is 

going to innocently target civilians, it is going to have absurd rules 

of engagement or it is going to have an environment where our 

men and women in uniform are not respected. That is not the values that I experienced in uniform, and I think that it is important 

that we bring these facts to bear. 

And with that, I will now recognize the lady from Arizona. Oh, 

I am sorry. I got out of sequence because of the sitting in the chair, 

and I apologize to Ms. Tsongas. Please, 5 minutes. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. And thank you to all of you here today 

and for all the very challenging work you have to do in preparing 

leaders for the future. I think what makes what you do so unique 
43 

is you are preparing people for a particular profession, which is 

why we bring, I think, such increased scrutiny to some of these 

issues, and I do believe it is only appropriate 

And I, like Ranking Member Speier and others on this committee, do remain concerned about the high number of female cadets and midshipmen who reported experiencing sexual harassment. It is a broader issue, but it was 48 percent of female cadets 

who reported that and 29 percent of those females who reported experiencing gender discrimination. And for male cadets and midshipmen, the percentages were 12 percent for sexual assault and 

5 percent for gender discrimination. And of all those who reported, 

89 percent indicated that the sexual harassment, or just gender 

discrimination, was committed by another Academy student. 

So given that we had these remarkable women here today who 

were willing to tell their stories, and I felt it was important to ask 

them what they experienced in the culture that they felt made 

these numbers possible, and I thought it was really interesting 

what we heard from them. 

So one referenced a code of silence, that you inculcate a sense of 

loyalty among these young people. It is part of what they have to 

be in order to do their job well, but it comes with a downside, and 

that is the code of silence, so that you are seen to be disloyal if you 

come forward to report a crime or to report a harassment. 

Another one mentioned that there was a sense from the outset 

that women were unequal, that the physical standards for women 

were different, that women were segregated. So rather than—so 

much of what you are talking about is dealing with the one-on-one 

issues and how to stop some of the worse behavior and give cadets, 

or midshipmen, the tools to deal with it. I would like to ask how 

you are digging down deeper so that you think about the upside 

and downside at the same time, and you deal with it at that level 

rather than as it permeates the culture and makes it so much 

harder to deal with. 

I know this is not simple. These are institutions that have been 

primarily home to men for generations. We all are part of institutions in which change does not come easy. But I would really like 

to hear how each of you are thinking. As ever more women are 

coming into your academies, how you are thinking about getting it 

right from the outset so some of these numbers just don’t rise to 

the level. 

I know the survey covered a lot of different behaviors, none of 

which are appropriate in a professional environment. That is the 

bottom line, none of which are appropriate. And how to think about 

making sure that you don’t have to deal with them as they happen. 

They just don’t happen. 

So I will start with you, General Caslen. And I haven’t left you 

with very much time, so you each get a brief little opportunity to 

comment. 

General CASLEN. I will go quick, ma’am. There is a lot there. 

First of all, I will just say thank you very much for your question. 

I think we are making progress on the code of silence because our 

reporting this year nearly doubled, and that means that there is 

a command climate where people feel that they are trusting the 
44 

system better as compared to what you heard from our victims 

from previous years. 

If you are going to change a culture, you have to change behavior, and if you change behavior, it really is through—the way we 

look at that is through our learning program, our educational program, and I think in the entire process that we have learned from 

this particular survey, that is the area that needs most of the attention. 

What we fail to do, and I think you have asked what I have— 

we have thought a lot about this, is we failed to address the root 

causes, the root causes of sexual assault in our education programs. And this is—and we are now redoing our education program to address the root causes of sexual assault and to have better conversations about them. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Admiral Carter, I am sorry. You don’t have a lot 

of time, but—— 

Admiral CARTER. I have some similar answers, so I won’t go over 

the same things that General Caslen mentioned, but part of this 

is understanding who you are. I mean, the demographics of who is 

at the Naval Academy has changed over even this time period 

where we heard from some of the victims. Almost 26 percent of the 

brigade and midshipmen are women today, so they are no longer 

isolated anymore. Three of the last four brigade commanders were 

women. It is a meritocracy, and there is no issue with that across 

the brigade. 

Women are graduating at a much higher percentage than the 

men. Last year’s graduation rate for women was 90.5 percent, and 

the men graduated 89 percent. So those speak to the actions, not 

the say, and I think that is part of it. 

Now, of course, the education is important. Getting down to the, 

as General Caslen mentioned, the root causes, we still do have 

some work to do, and that is where we have to get after the gender 

bias that shows up at the beginning of induction day. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Quickly, General Johnson. 

General JOHNSON. In light of your time, ma’am, I will be very 

brief. But in two ways, one, gender forms in the discussion, sometimes with women to be able to level with each other, they also, 

at the cadet level, have asked that they make sure it is not always 

one gender because it is not just one gender’s challenge. They want 

to have the men in the room so we can discuss it. So those kinds 

of things are maturing and bearing fruit. 

And just in a practical level, to something Congresswoman 

McSally mentioned early, boxing had always been a requirement in 

physical education in all the academies for the men until last year. 

Well, Navy was ahead of us in the 1990s, but now women box. It 

is the confidence you get that—the equilibrium between the programs, between the men and women are invaluable, so there is 

some little things that we can do that is symbolic to say we are all 

equals and can all be warriors. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, and I thank you for your service, because I was fortunate to work with you, and I appreciated those 

years that I was able to, thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN [presiding]. Ms. McSally, you are now recognized 

5 minutes. 
45 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

your leadership and your service. I want to continue on that line. 

I think most of you were at the last panel, and we have had long 

discussions about this issue and a little bit today, Admiral, about 

that culture and the root cause issues. 

And again, I have experienced it. I have lived through it. I have 

witnessed it. And I don’t have a Ph.D. in sociology, but I still believe, to this day, that somehow we are inculcating a culture of 

gender bias from the very beginning when we are training, and we 

have got to take a hard look at that. 

And it is counterintuitive, because if you try and address these 

issues, you have got a lot of people putting heat on you, the last 

thing you want to do is maybe look at a double standard and say, 

you know what, we need to make it a little bit harder on women 

in order to get to this. I get that. I am advocating that you take 

a hard look and to see where we have any double standards, because, again, I have seen this throughout my career. 

Anything that was well-intended, but, in fact, then breeds resentment, right, anything that makes it look like women are getting a 

break or getting easy then breeds resentment. So then you form 

this resentment, and then you let it cook in this environment, and 

then the adults go home at night and then you are wondering what 

is going on. And all this stuff we are talking about today about how 

we respond and how—and that is all great, but it is that underlying culture issue of how is it that somehow we are inculcating 

this potential gender bias, this potential resentment that are root 

causes of these issues? 

I want to really encourage you and I want to partner with you 

because I know those are potentially hard conversations, right? But 

I want to be a part of that. I just want to hear your perspectives 

on anything that you are thinking in that area. 

Again, you know, sometimes we are doing knee jerk additional 

training, but then what you do is you have the guys rolling their 

eyes saying what a waste of our time. We should be learning how 

to fight and kill the enemy, and now we are having to talk more 

about how to deal with women, and then it pisses them off more, 

and then that adds to more resentment and that creates more environment. 

Again, I have lived through it, so I feel pretty passionate about 

it. What are your thoughts, General Johnson, and go down the line. 

General JOHNSON. Ma’am, I will take a different angle on it. I 

think what we are seeing in these, the effective training that we 

are getting at for culture and climate are these small group discussions where people start leveling about how to interact with each 

other, and there is a lot of survey fatigue because of all the different measurements. 

That is why I would like to be able to have a step back, look at 

it holistically and see what it is actually telling us about it. What 

is encouraging in some of the measures is that the confidence people have that they can go tell someone who is an officer, enlisted, 

or another cadet, even the cadet leaders are more confident. And 

those kinds of things aren’t just from surveys, but instead of making more surveys, how we are pulling those together and then get-
46 

ting in small groups and just leveling with them and just being 

frank. 

And I think that is what we have been afraid to do, because you 

are right, they are hard conversations and they are kind of taboo 

sometimes, but I think that is most effective, especially with this 

generation. They just want us to level with them and then they respond. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Admiral Carter. 

Admiral CARTER. Sometimes the answer is complicated as we 

have been talking about. You have to find where pockets of success 

exist and be able to know what volume of education, what type of 

program you want to drive to change the behavior. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yeah, I am not talking about training here. I am 

just asking you to take a fresh look at the culture and what we are 

inculcating from day one? 

Admiral CARTER. That is where I was going, ma’am. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yeah. 

Admiral CARTER. We did this across our cadre of athletes across 

the whole spectrum, which is a third of the brigade, and we took 

a measured approach to go after that cadre because we knew that 

was a cohort that we needed to pay close attention to. 

We issued them a code of conduct, or behavior, that was no different than what was already in midshipmen regulations, but made 

them read that and understand. We also made it happen at the 

coach level. And then we took the team captains, who we specifically picked, not the best athletes but the best leaders, and we take 

all of those athletes with the brigade senior leadership, men and 

women together, to Gettysburg for a two-days in-depth leadership 

experience, case studies, and we talk about these issues that is 

what is fair and equal for everybody. 

We have seen, in this survey, changing behavior in our Division 

1 athletes, and we have other schools approaching us as to how we 

are getting after that. So I haven’t been able to put that across the 

whole brigade, but we do have a pocket of success there. 

Ms. MCSALLY. General Caslen. 

General CASLEN. Congresswoman, I think you have a great concept, a great thought there, the culture of gender bias. As we were 

talking about root causes, one of the ones I think that is related 

to that is what we call toxic masculinity, and it is an issue that 

our prevention education programs will begin to address in greater 

detail. 

Toxic masculinity is the locker room talk. It is the person who 

talks about his experience, and then it creates an expectation that 

everybody has got to replicate an experience like that when it is 

really not necessarily the case. 

And then coupled with that is force and coercion. So that if a couple has set boundaries and force and coercion says, keeps pressing 

for sex, for sex, and no, no, and then when no stops and there is 

no consent, and then a rape occurs. And then coupled with this 

other root cause is pornography, because pornography is prevalent 

in the—at least at West Point among the Corps of Cadets. And 

what pornography does is it creates objectivity of the other gender 

and creates an expectation of what the sex act ought to be like, and 
47 

that is what has to be addressed in our root causes and education 

programs. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. Thanks. I am out of time, but I do also 

want to follow up with you a theme from the first panel, which is 

some of this peer-to-peer stuff that is going on when it comes to 

disciplinary potential retaliation. Again, from my view, 19-year-olds 

and 20-year-olds being in charge of 18-year-olds, I think we need 

to take a fresh look at it. Just because we have always done it that 

way, doesn’t mean it is the way to do it, especially because we continue to have challenges in that area. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. McSally, we will do a second round if you 

have any additional questions. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Thanks. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Shea-Porter, you are now recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you, and thank you all for being here 

and to the first panel as well. It is very enlightening. I dated a boy 

years and years and years ago at the Academy at West Point, and 

I have to say that I am disappointed and shocked at where we have 

gone and where our culture has gone for this, that it is just so visible and so prevalent, and that there is like witnesses without commenting or coming forward and telling their stories. 

And I recognize, I have heard the military say this before, that 

you are reflecting the culture at large, and I have sympathy for 

that, but I also recognize, just from my college days, that that is 

a different culture where you have a lot more authority. And I can 

remember when this boy I was dating was so excited about getting 

out that he took the elevator, and I guess in those days you 

couldn’t take the elevator, and we lost the day together. And I remember thinking: Wow, that is really amazing. 

And so you have that power and authority, and they know that. 

They know that. And so I am wondering how you are using that. 

Is that you don’t always want to be in the discipline mode, I understand that, but it is a core issue here about discipline. 

So I am going to ask you to tell me just two things: First of all, 

when somebody is applying for these schools, what conversation do 

you have about what happens if they sexually harass or assault? 

The second question I have is: What happens when there is a 

case at the school? Does everybody get called in? Is this something 

where it is still like a group understanding that this guy is out or 

this woman is out, and you will be out next and reinforcing that 

kind of discipline of what will happen to them, because we are still 

not seeming to be able to scare them enough. And sometimes, you 

know, that fright part—I went to Catholic school as a kid. I think 

there is an element to that as well. 

But we are missing something still, and I see you all struggling 

to figure out exactly, you know, when you talk about all the corps 

stuff, but what about that part of it? What are you saying to them 

when they first enter, when they apply, do they have a statement 

they have to sign saying you will be out and you will—all that hard 

work you did will be for nothing, and your family and your community will know that you lost everything because you did this? And 

I would like each one of you to address that, please. 
48 

General CASLEN. Okay. I will go first. First of all, in the cadet’s— 

or the candidate’s application, there is no question in the application that says did you commit a sexual assault or were you found 

for sexual harassment. There is not a question in that. Of course, 

all of our candidates are nominated by Congress. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Right. 

General CASLEN. And I know Congress, in their nomination process, goes through the same sort of thing to try to assess the character of the individual that is going to be nominated to the military 

academies, and we look at that. 

We do require them to write an essay, and the essay is on character. And if in the essay we get a sense that there is an issue, 

then we will go back and explore it in detail, and that is our best 

way to gain an assessment on their character. 

On the crimes, when a crime occurs, or if there is an allegation 

of a crime, we then begin an investigation. The investigation is 

with our CID, and they do a very thorough investigation, and that 

is assuming that you have a victim that is willing to cooperate. If 

you have a victim that wants to report, and then, as you know, report restricted instead of unrestricted, it is a different thing altogether, because there is no investigation at that particular point. 

But we don’t bring everybody in and talk to them. We do the investigation as you would for any other criminal that—— 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Well, I understand that. If you didn’t understand, let me change the way I asked that. If they are removed, 

if it turns out, you know, not—they have the same right to privacy 

until they figure out what exactly happened, but if it is determined 

that this happened and you remove them, do you tell the school? 

Because I know that happens in lots of places. As you know, we 

just lost our CEO, and here is why. We just lost a Member of Congress, and here is why. Do you do that? 

I just—I think like writing an essay maybe on what they consider to be sexual harassment and sexual assault before they come 

in, just so you get a sense of it—and you know, education is important. I am not saying education is not important, and awareness, 

and you know, understanding culture. And I absolutely agree with 

my colleague who made the statements about, you know, being 

careful about what we breed in terms of resentment. All that matters. 

But ultimately, can’t we go to the front of it and say, you know, 

write us something about what you think constitutes sexual harassment, and tell us, you know, what you think would be crossing 

the line, and here is what we think so that they know when they 

come in. 

I just think we are not driving it hard enough when they show 

up. And then ultimately, if they are removed, why. So I welcome 

the Vice Admiral. 

Admiral CARTER. We do a character assessment before they come 

in. We don’t ask for an essay on sexual assault or harassment. If 

we have indication, and we have in the past, that somebody has 

been involved, then that is further investigated and that becomes 

an issue. 

They get education from day one on what the rules are, what the 

penalties are from day one, so they hear that within the first day 
49 

of arrival. In terms of what education they get, we do training and 

present cases to the midshipmen. We call them, ‘‘XYZ cases.’’ They 

are historical cases. 

The caveat to that is if there is a victim in which the cases involved is still at the Naval Academy, we wait till that person has 

graduated or left before we bring those cases forward, but we do 

review those to include fleet cases, so that they can see examples 

of, you know, what happens to those that go through the full legal 

process. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

General JOHNSON. Just very quickly. We also have them write 

character essays, but they may not know. In fact, so we hit it, you 

know, right away in basic training with them and said: Look, we 

don’t know how things were where you came from, but this is how 

we expect to treat each other. And that is what actually generates 

a lot of these reports of things that happened before they came to 

the Academy, and then we follow up. 

And because we do hit it from day one, and then all the way 

through the—every year, it is a 4-year developmental program to 

try and reinforce the consequences. And then in addition to the 

challenges of privacy, there is just understanding the judicial system. Sometimes, with cadets, they don’t understand that if someone is acquitted, that means there is not a preponderance of the 

evidence. It doesn’t mean the victim wasn’t truthful; it is just that 

we didn’t have the evidence. But we do have other tools that we 

can discipline the people with. 

And what our lawyers have helped do is sit down with our commanders and try to talk to the squadrons to say here is what happened, because they don’t always understand it, because of privacy 

things may seem as though it has been not answered, but, in fact, 

it wasn’t communicated well enough, and our lawyers have helped 

us find a way to do that to avoid violating privacy but explaining 

to their cohorts what just happened, just as you said. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Well, I know that most of them are tremendous men and women ready to serve their country working very 

hard, but I think we need to think a little outside the box, and you 

know, put a little bit more into that mix there. And I thank you 

all for your service and your work trying to eradicate this. I yield 

back 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Mr. Bacon, you are now recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BACON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being 

here. Sorry for being a little late. I was on the House floor speaking 

on this very subject for that. And I know this is a bipartisan effort. 

I know you share in the effort as well. We want safe academies. 

We want the world’s best military. We want a respectful environment. I know we are working together on that. 

I wanted to ask you, is there—and this may have been asked already, but I just want to make sure for the record I understand. 

Is there any legislation that we can pass through the HASC [House 

Armed Services Committee] and through Congress that would support your efforts to combat this? 

I will just go down the line. Dr. Van Winkle, thank you. 
50 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. I think we are looking at all of these issues 

carefully, particularly focusing on prevention efforts as well as the 

issues around retaliation, sexual harassment. We learned a great 

deal from this report, including the emphasis that leadership has 

had, and the cadets and midshipmen have indicated that they see 

their leaders as role models. But we also see some indications of 

where we can move the needle a bit more within the cadets and 

midshipmen themselves, as well as the cadet and midshipmen 

leadership chain. 

So we are really working to understand this issue better and how 

to combat it, and I think you are our partners in this, and we 

would like to continue to discuss with you how we can move this 

needle and appreciate your support on it. 

Mr. BACON. General Caslen. 

General CASLEN. I defer to Dr. Van Winkle and support her comments. The two areas that I get frustrated with quite often is the 

elements of reprisal, and the elements of sexual harassment, and 

some inconsistency between different various regulations and legislation, and I think if we just—we have had this conversation. We 

just collectively need to make sure that we define it properly for 

what is actually occurring and that we take the—you know, has 

the appropriate accountability. 

Mr. BACON. Admiral Carter. 

Admiral CARTER. I actually feel like I am resourced and have the 

right policies and tools to be able to adjudicate where necessary, 

and also drive the culture where it needs to be. 

Mr. BACON. Thank you. General Johnson. 

General JOHNSON. Sir, likewise. I think we are resourced and we 

have the tools. I think as we look at holistically at the data we 

have, we can do a better job of understanding what it is really saying about where we are rather than chasing just the numbers, but 

to look at the trends and understand what is really effective in 

these programs rather than adding to them. 

Mr. BACON. We want to be your wingmen in this effort, so as you 

see things that we can pass that will support your efforts in doing 

this, let us know. And I thought an example was last month we 

heard there was some ambiguity in the sharing of intimate pictures 

where the pictures were taken in a consensual manner, but then 

shared in a nonconsensual way, so we want to take away that ambiguity. 

So I am a cosponsor with the PRIVATE [Protecting the Rights 

of IndiViduals Against Technological Exploitation] Act. And so as 

we see things like that, let us know, and we will try to support it 

because we want to give you the right tools to be successful. 

Do you have any metrics of recent metrics to show that we are 

having some positive results? We will just go in the reverse order. 

We will start off with General Johnson. 

General JOHNSON. Well, sir, I think what we are encouraged 

about are these measures of trust in organizations. So at the Air 

Force Academy, our trust in the athletic department was really low 

when I arrived, and because of this healthy relationships program, 

this holding the athletes to the standards, similar to what my colleague pointed out at Navy, our athletic department has become 

really the champions in terms of confidence and them doing the 
51 

right thing. And then not just the cadets, but the coaches, that 

they are leaders of character, and the leadership of our athletic director has really helped with that along the way. 

So, I think also the measures of culture and climate, again, trust 

in the mid to 90s—mid 90s of percentages. And in part, to do the 

right thing in case of a sexual assault and for the other cadets, 

those kinds of trends of trust are encouraging that we are in the 

right direction. Obviously, we have still got to stay after it. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BACON. Thank you, General Johnson. Admiral Carter. 

Admiral CARTER. The increase in our reporting and the significant jump over eleven reports in 2015 and 2016 that were restricted, turned in unrestricted reports, and our focus on our Division 1 and club sport athletes showed a significant change in their 

propensity to be in the perpetrator’s side, and that was a distinct 

effort that we made. 

Mr. BACON. Thank you. General Caslen. 

General CASLEN. Well, like the Naval Academy, our reporting 

has almost doubled. That is really a strong metric, and we are very 

pleased to see that because it shows confidence within the programs and the systems and that climate. 

Our substantiation rate of investigations is one of the highest in 

the Army, and we are very proud of that. One metric that I am 

very concerned about is cases that fall in the U.S. magistrate. I just 

can’t get them to take a case to save my life, you know. I think 

in 4 years they have taken only one case, so I am very glad to be 

able to have the tools that we have as a commander. 

Mr. BACON. Thank you. Dr. Van Winkle. 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. Yes, briefly. The infrastructure that we have 

right now within the academies is sound and very good. We continue to get good feedback on that in terms of the support systems 

we offer, the special victims’ counsel and victims’ legal counsel, the 

victim advocates, the training and education process, the infrastructure we have is very sound, and the data that we get back 

supports that, as well as trust in the leadership and willingness to 

intervene if they see something. 

Mr. BACON. Okay. Thank you. I will just close my portion by saying I know it takes leadership at every level to make this successful. Continue communications, you can’t just say it once. I have 

learned that as a five-time commander. It has got to be repeated 

communications, and I know you are doing that, and it has to be 

at every level. But also holding people accountable as you found 

them guilty and let people know, hey, this is what happens when 

you—this guy is going to jail and don’t let it happen to you. Thank 

you. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Speier, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of quick 

questions. I am going to try and get this all in. 

Alcohol is a component of sexual assault in 50 to 60 percent of 

the cases. Half the Academy student body is underage. There have 

been lots of examples where there is a reluctance to report for fear 

that you will—reluctance to report a sexual assault for fear that 

you will get hit for underage drinking. Have we done anything to 
52 

address that at the three academies? If you could be very brief in 

your responses. 

General JOHNSON. I will jump in. Ma’am, just what we try to 

take into account is the egregiousness of the offense and then balance that with the trauma that it might cause to the victim and 

just sort it out. 

So, in fact, a case of a cadet you talked to when you visited us, 

I think, had a letter of counseling so that she had been underage 

drinking. We have to uphold standards, but we have to take into 

account their trauma. A letter of counseling is different than if we 

had adjudicated in a different way, so that it goes away when they 

graduate but it still says you need to uphold standards, but it is 

not as severe as it might have been on its own. 

We also would consider—there are times you consider immunity 

entirely, but we try to balance it out with, again, the welfare of the 

victim, but also upholding standards in good order and discipline, 

so I think that is what all of us try to consider. 

Admiral CARTER. We won’t adjudicate a lower level conduct issue 

against a victim until their case is completed. We don’t often look 

at an immunity unless it makes sense. We will come back and look 

at that afterwards for whatever level we have to deal on the victim’s side. 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. 

General CASLEN. We are very sensitive to cases of collateral misconduct because we know that is an impediment to reporting and 

an impediment to coming forward for—to support the investigation. 

So we take—like the Air Force and both Navy said—it is significant extenuation and mitigation, and we take it all in balance. Our 

education program addresses that in a big way, and that is one of 

the root causes that we also address in that way. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. Dr. Van Winkle, I am not going to ask 

you to speak now, but if you could give me your thoughts at some 

later point in time, I would appreciate it. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 119.] 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. There have been cases where victims of sexual 

assault at the military academy were then given antidepressants 

or other drugs to help them deal with the PTSD, and then because 

they were on drugs, were not commissioned. What are we doing 

about that? 

Admiral CARTER. I will answer first. First of all, one of the reasons we have a sabbatical program is to allow somebody to heal so 

they can come back and be healthy, so they can go through and go 

forward in a commission. So we have already had two midshipmen 

depart. One has come back, and that is proceeding successfully. 

In some cases where somebody has had to go to drugs, we have 

actually had the opportunity to either hold them or waive them so 

they can go through a commission. So we do take that into account. 

Ms. SPEIER. Similar with the other academies? 

General JOHNSON. Yes, ma’am. There has to be review, and it is 

a medical review before they are discharged. And this also helps 

balance against retaliation to make sure that there is another look, 

unless someone has departed. 
53 

General CASLEN. I am not familiar with a case at West Point. 

That doesn’t mean it did not occur, but I will take it for the record 

and get back to you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 119.] 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. Thank you. Midshipman Craine referenced 

that in her situation, I think, she was moved. It appears more often 

than not when there is sexual assault or sexual harassment, that 

it is the victim that is moved, not the perpetrator. Are we looking 

at whether or not that is the appropriate action? 

Admiral CARTER. Yeah, I would like to take that one since it was 

my active midshipman. We leave that, first of all, up to the victim 

first. As she pointed out it, it was her choice to move. Our first reaction is if the perpetrator is in the same company, we want to 

move the perpetrator while that person is either going through a 

legal review or some other process, but oftentimes the victim says, 

No, I would like to move, or I would like to take the sabbatical. So 

we make that an offer, and that is their choice. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. 

Admiral CARTER. The other point, just to finish off with Midshipman Craine. In her case, there was an opportunity for that to 

go all the way to court-martial. The victims actually had the choice 

to say, No, we will accept that perpetrator’s dismissal from the 

Naval Academy, and that ended in a very positive way for the survivors. 

Ms. SPEIER. One of the data points in the report showed a prevalence of unwanted sexual conduct among women with higher in the 

upper classes than the freshmen. So there is something going on 

where upper classmen believe that they can sexually assault lower 

classmen, and there was some talk earlier about this role that 

upper classmen play in managing the plebes and freshmen. 

Dr. Van Winkle, can you comment on that in 3 seconds? 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. I can try. That is a data point we are looking 

at because over the years, what we traditionally see is that sophomores are the class year that have the highest rates, particularly 

as they go from freshman year where they are fairly locked down. 

So we have this sophomore year effect. 

This year was different with the juniors and seniors, so we really 

are taking a closer look at that to understand it better. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. 

General CASLEN. We think there is two reasons why that is. That 

has got my attention, and I am very concerned about it. It is—reason number one is now you are of age to drink alcohol, and because 

alcohol is such a high prevalence to potential sexual assault, at 50 

to 60 percent as you mentioned, you are—21 years of age occurs 

when you are normally a junior or senior, so that that has something do with it. 

The second thing it indicates is that those who have been in the 

program, or have higher prevalence indicates that our prevention 

programs are not producing what we want them to produce, which 

causes a reflection to see what we are doing and what we need to 

change, and that is where we need to address the root causes and 

address these root causes with the upper class. 

Ms. SPEIER. I yield back. Thank you. 
54 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Russell, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Each of you, in your 

testimonies, have spoken about substantiation rates and the validity of those. General Caslen, you had even mentioned about the 

magistrate not taking cases. This seems to convey a confidence in 

the justice of the military system. 

Could each of you please explain, the service academy chiefs, 

could each of you please explain the importance of a commander’s 

query, 15–6, IG, CID investigations, you know, as a body of work, 

and if you believe that the UCMJ provides the best tool as opposed 

to civilian courts that we see in our universities, and yet the academies have the better performance rate. 

Every time these cases come up, immediately, the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice comes under some type of fire, and yet what we 

have heard in the testimony here today is that the substantiation 

rates are actually pretty solid. And so if each of you could comment 

on these commander’s tools and the UCMJ. General Caslen. 

General CASLEN. Well, the commander’s—if an incident occurs 

and it is in the chain of command and the chain of command is 

going to do the initial investigation, that is a commander’s inquiry 

to see if something is there. 

If it is a potential crime, we are going to turn it over to the CID, 

and the CID will begin the investigation. If it is not a criminal act 

but misconduct, we will probably do the 15–6. But I will give you 

some statistics here of, you know, our jurisdiction and some our 

substantiation rates. 

So looking at our CID cases over the last 4 years, to include this 

year, we have had—where I have had jurisdiction, we’ve had 47 

cases. Of the 47, 21 were founded, and charges were preferred for 

7 of the 21. And the other—and 8 of the 21 had misconduct administrative investigations with administrative action that include separation. 

If I look at the cases where I did not have jurisdiction, there 

were 24, and although our CID still may have done the investigation, 8 of the 24 were founded, but since it was outside our jurisdiction, only one charge—once was charges preferred. So it is a significant difference from a case that I have jurisdiction for as compared 

to—— 

Mr. RUSSELL. So the actual results and substantiation and even 

punishments were higher under the UCMJ. 

General CASLEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Admiral Carter. 

Admiral CARTER. The first thing I would say is our Naval Criminal Investigative Service increased the number of agents for not 

only the Navy but to also help at a place like the Naval Academy. 

So their timeline to get through investigations has improved just 

during the time I have been superintendent as an independent investigative body, and then they turn those results over to us. 

Over the last 2 years, 32 unrestricted reports; 19 of which were 

under my jurisdiction; 10 were advised by outside judge advocate 

generals through my lawyers to move forward for preliminary hearings; and of those, 7 either went through general court-martial or 
55 

left the Naval Academy. So four of those actually went to general 

court-martial. 

So again, I think those statistics are significant and shows that 

we are resourced properly with the right authorities. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you. General Johnson. 

General JOHNSON. So thank you. Thank you. Likewise, we have 

2 of the 24 worldwide Air Force special victim investigation and 

prosecution capabilities at the Academy. So when our OSI [Office 

of Special Investigations] agents talk to our victims, they know how 

to do it in a way that when someone is traumatized, that they 

know how to discuss with them, so that it would help it be easier 

for them to report. 

And we have 9 of the 11 agents are graduates of the Air Force’s 

sex crimes investigator training program, so we have the specialized training to do these investigations. 

And what we have seen is, is our accountability has increased. 

So in 2012 and 2013, we had 19 completed investigations, 3 courtmartials, and 6 cadets were disenrolled, so that is only about a 50 

percent accountability rate, and the next year’s likewise. 

But in the last 2 years, we had 16 completed investigations, 5 resulted in criminal charges, 7 were disenrolled, and 4 adverse administrative actions, so 87 percent. So—and then this last year was 

86 percent. So because of the different tools we have, we can try 

to take it to court, and then we can also use other disciplinary tools 

to follow through, based on the investigations. 

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, thank you for that. And Mr. Chairman, it 

seems to convey that the UCMJ is sound in these cases, and with 

that, I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. I wish to thank all the witnesses for their testimony this afternoon. This has been a very informative hearing. 

There being no further business, this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 7:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MAY 2, 2017 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MAY 2, 2017 

(61) 

Opening Remarks- Chairman Coffman 

Military Personnel Subcommittee Hearing 

Overview of the Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence 

at the Military Service Academies 

May 2,2017 

I want to welcome everyone to this afternoon's Military Personnel Subcommittee 

hearing. The purpose oftoday's hearing is to receive an overview of the annual report on 

sexual harassment and violence at the military service academies and to understand the 

ongoing efforts the academies have undertaken to prevent sexual assault. We will also 

have the privilege ofhearing from survivors of sexual assault who were assaulted while 

attending a military service academy, and we thank them for being here today. 

The Nation and the military continue to battle the scourge of sexual assault. These 

despicable crimes cause deep and enduring suffering to the victims and their families, and 

violate our fundamental values. 

When these crimes occur in the military, the effects can be even more damaging. 

Service members must have absolute trust and confidence in their fellow service members 

in order to accomplish their difficult mission. Cadets and midshipmen at the military 

service academies are told from the beginning of their tenure that the only way to succeed 

at the academy is to work as a team, and place their trust in each other. But when a cadet 

takes advantage of that tmst in order to assault another, the sense of betrayal is profound, 

and the impact is often felt by the victim and the entire unit. These crimes have no place in 

our society, much less in our preeminent military service academies. 

Over the last several years, the military service academies have dedicated numerous 

resources and time to improving sexual assault prevention and response. The service 

academies have integrated sexual assault prevention and values-based training into nearly 

every aspect of their curriculum, ensuring that the military's future officers internalize the 

military's values before being commissioned. In addition, the service academies have 

worked hard to ensure that all allegations are thoroughly investigated and perpetrators are 

held accountable, while also ensuring survivors of sexual assault have access to vital 

resources. 

Despite all of these efforts, there remains much work to be done. This year's report 

shows that prevalence rates have increased at all service academies, while reports of sexual 

assault have decreased at one of the Service Academies. In addition, the significant 

prevalence of sexual harassment, a data point that is new to the survey, shows that 

additional work is needed. 

We will hear from two panels this afternoon. In panel one, we are honored to have 

with us survivors of sexual assault. I want to thank the witnesses for their bravery in 

testifying today, and I appreciate how difficult it is to talk about this subject. Your 

testimony will give all of us important insights into how the service academies and the 

military can improve sexual assault prevention and response. 

In our second panel, we will hear from the Department of Defense and the 

Superintendents of the military service academies. I look forward to hearing their views 

on the results of the sexual assault report, and I also look forward to hearing about the new 

and existing programs at the service academies designed to prevent sexual assault. 
62 

Statement of Ms. Annie Kendzior 

On July 2, 2008 I took an oath to join the US Navy as a Plebe on Induction Day. I said 

goodbye to my family and friends for the opportunity to attend the United States Naval 

Academy.! entered the Navy full of optimism. I truly believed the Naval Academy stood 

on higher ethical grounds than a civilian school. My family believed the USNA 

representatives that told us I would be safe--that there wasn't a sexual assault problem 

at USNA. We were all excited and proud of what I was going to be a part of. 

Shortly after the academic year began I experienced two horrible and traumatic events. I 

was raped not only once, but twice--both times by fellow classmates. These events set 

the tone for my time at the Naval Academy. A time where I experienced a culture at the 

Academy that resembles a "boys only" club where men are considered superior to 

women--where women are frequently referred to as DUBs (Dumb Ugly Bitch) or other 

derogatory terms. Sadly, most women want to be accepted, say nothing and quickly 

adapt to the culture. 

I tried to stay strong and pretend the events didn't happen or at least pretend they 

didn't affect me, but I could only lead on so long that I was OK. Upon seeking medical 

help from the USNA medical facility during my plebe year, I disclosed being raped when 

asked by the Naval Academy medical doctors, but they never inquired any further as to 

when and how my rapes had occurred. In 20111 finally broke and my mental breakdown 

led to the sequence of events where my case was severely mishandled by USNA 

administration. 

My mental breakdown happened in March 2011just days before spring break, for 

which I was not permitted to leave the yard. I was told that because the USNA didn't 

have personnel to monitor or "baby-sit" me, I was sent under orders of the 

Commandant Robert Clark to Bethesda Medical where I was admitted to the psychiatric 

ward and diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). I contacted my father 

who came up the following day and convinced my company commander to have me 

released. I had to spend three days in a psych ward with men who had recently came 

back from combat. 

After Spring Break I came back to the Academy in a fragile mental state, living in such 

close quarters to someone who had raped me was not something I could handle 

anymore. I requested to transfer to a different company, but was denied by my 

immediate Chain of Command (I requested to move companies multiple times after 

plebe year.) So this time, I called Mast with the Commandant Robert Clarke on the 

subject. He did not allow me to move companies either and told me to "grow up." 

None of the leadership ever dug into why I felt so strongly about moving companies 

and I was scared to tell them about the rapes. No one ever asked if something had 

happened to me. I thought if I could just get into a different environment, maybe I 

would be able to get through the remaining time. It wasn't until my Congressman 

Kenny Marchant stepped in and inquired about my situation that the USNA officials 

allowed me to move to a different company. I am grateful that Congressman 

Marchant took a stand for me and realized something was wrong based on his 

knowledge of me and my character. 

Shortly thereafter it became clear that the Academy was going to try and use the 

diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder as a reason to kick me out. I decided to 
63 

come out about the rapes at this point publicly because I felt my character was being 

attacked unfairly. I was a damaged person, but not because my personality and 

character was inherently flawed. I thought it would help the Academy officials to 

understand there was more to the story behind my breakdown. Unfortunately the fact 

I was a rape victim was largely ignored during my separation and merely was used as a 

side note. Somehow members of an Academic board were allowed to make judgments 

on me based on an inaccurate diagnosis. 

On July 20, 2011, an Academic Review Board convened consisting of seven naval 

officers and one civilian academic dean. Other military officers were present as 

observers, but were not identified to me. During the hearing, my sensitive personal 

medical records were openly discussed by the panel without my consent and were 

ultimately used as a basis for my separation. 

There were many discrepancies in the handling of my situation. For example, 

separation documents provided to me in advance of the hearing contained false and 

misleading information and was clearly written to present me in the worst light to 

the panel who in just days would determine my fate. 

Also, these decisions about my health and mental condition where based on a diagnosis 

of Borderline Personality Disorder that was made by a nurse practitioner and not a 

licensed medical doctor specialized in Psychiatry. After thorough evaluation by Veterans 

Affairs it has been verified I suffered from PTSD due to being raped. BPD was the 

convenient catch-all phrase used in my case to cover up my real condition, PTSD from 

being raped by upperclassmen as a plebe. 

Moreover, during my Academic separation hearing, not a single board member had 

asked if I had consented to the release of my medical records and upon reading my 

written statement outlining my previous rapes, not one felt compelled to delay the 

hearing and call for an immediate investigation. The leadership had no issues allowing 

rapists to continue their time in the Navy while I needed to be rushed out. Instead of 

wondering why my performance and behavior took a turn for the worse, the 

administration turned their back on me and never took me seriously about the rapes. 

They didn't care about me. 

The military found it easier to label me as having a personality disorder than to treat me 

for the trauma of being raped. In fact, according to the written transcript from my 

separation hearing, the military claims that: "there are no medications approved for 

treating this condition. And, as supported by her years of counseling, attempts to treat 

this condition through counseling are rarely successful and not available in the 

military." 

As a rape survivor, I have a suggestion that there actually is an approved treatmentit's called investigate and prosecute. But it seems the motto of the U.S. Marine Corp of 

"leave no man behind" does not apply to the men and women who, when raped, are 

frequently and intentionally left behind to deal with the pain, anguish and long term 

emotional stress. 

Also to note, it's ironic that the Superintendent, Vice Admiral Miller, who recommended 

I be separated and questioned my character was later relieved of his command and 

demoted due to his involvement in the Fat Leonard scandal. 

Based on my experiences, rather than providing more rape prevention training for the 
64 

Midshipmen, I believe the USNA needs to train their faculty and leaders to identifying 

signs and symptoms of sexual assault. I sat through the Sexual Assault Prevention 

training required on campus and believe it was not taken seriously by the young men I 

served with. Often jokes of a sexual nature would happen in training sessions about 

Sexual Assault prevention. 

My experience and the stories of others display the template for addressing rape victims 

in our military. When they begin exhibiting unusual emotional behavior, get them to 

medical where they can be diagnosed as having a personality disorder, which then is 

treated with antidepressants and anxiety medications. When that doesn't work, note 

how their behavior is affecting their life and the lives of their fellow midshipmen and up 

the dosages. When they are on the brink of suicide, from being prescribed huge dosages 

of mind altering medications, move to have them separated. 

I was repeatedly encouraged to resign by USNA officials (wishing for me to just go 

away) but I chose not to because I had done nothing wrong and had no reason to 

resign. I was denied the opportunity of completing my education at the USNA. I was in 

a dark place and was unable to tell the board that I could commit to serving at that 

moment, but wished to pursue the opportunity to heal further by the time I would 

have graduated (1 year later) and then be evaluated for my ability to be 

commissioned. Instead, they determined that I was not fit to serve based on my 

"condition." I will never forget the day that I had to return my USNA class ring which 

represented the 3 years of hell that I had to endure. 

The Navy continues to defend the ever-growing claims of military sexual assaults at the 

USNA as small and that those women who reported being raped were just mentally ill. 

How shameful! Military leaders then and now defend the growth rate as being good, 

claiming that they are glad to hear that women are coming forward to report their rapes. 

What they don't seem to get is that more rapes are bad and that they continue due to 

the failure by military leaders to address the root cause--that there is a small but active 

group of rapists whose crimes are rarely investigated let alone prosecuted and the 

military finds it easier to destroy the life ofthe victim. 

The word is out! If you are a rapist, go into the military where you will be protected 

after you rape someone.! was processed out of the USNA while my rapists are now 

serving as officers potentially victimizing more people. Victims who see the treatment 

of those before them, such as myself, are not likely to come forward like I did, for they 

know what will be the consequences. Upon leaving the USNA, all forms of medical 

treatment and counseling ended. I was on my own to fend for myself. I was never 

contacted by anyone including my classmates, staff, faculty or even my coaches. I was 

and am shunned by the USNA. That is but a part of the price I paid. 
65 

STATEMENT 

OF 

DR. VAN WINKLE 

PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

READINESS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

HEARING ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PROGRAMS 

AT THE MILITARY SERVICE ACADEMIES 

MAY 2, 2017 
66 

Introduction 

Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, and military personnel 

subcommittee members -Thank you very much for having us here today to discuss the 

results of the DoD Annual Report on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military 

Service Academies for Academic Program Year 2015-2016. 

The Department is committed to promoting an environment where all Service 

members are treated with dignity and respect Sexual assault and sexual harassment 

have no place in our Armed Forces. These repugnant behaviors affect our people's 

well-being, and they undermine the overall readiness of the military. These behaviors 

are inconsistent with our core values and the expectations of the American people. 

They are issues that continue to receive a great deal of attention from senior leadership 

in the Department and they are front and center with me in my current role. 

I began performing the duties of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Readiness in January. Prior to this role, I spent the last five years leading our 

workplace and gender relations survey and focus group efforts, both at the Academies 

and in the military force at large. 

I mention this for two reasons. 

First, from this experience, I am intimately familiar with the methodology used to 

gather data, the results, and the implications of the findings in the report we are here to 

talk about today. 

Second, as I just mentioned, I understand the impact sexual assault has on our 

people, force readiness, and the Services' ability to carry out our national military 

2 
67 

strategy. Just one instance of sexual assault, harassment, or sexualized misconduct 

can send ripples through a unit and distract its people from their mission. 

Preventing criminal behavior and misconduct, providing care for Service 

members, and holding offenders appropriately accountable continues to be a top priority 

among our Department leaders. In the force at large, we have seen some significant 

progress over the past several years on our key indicators of progress. Sexual assault 

is occurring less often and the crime is being reported more frequently. All military 

installations - including the Academies - have a host of support services and restorative 

care options. However, one of the things we have learned since creating the Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response program in 2005 is that context and environment 

matter. The right combination of mission, people, and environment can produce a great 

deal of progress in combatting these problems. Sometimes, however, our approach 

must be tailored to take into account unique subcultures and environments. There is no 

"one size fits all" solution to the problem of sexual assault. This is not just our 

observation, but one also acknowledged by the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, in their recommendations on preventing sexual violence. 

Our Military Service Academies are held in high regard by the American people 

and by other colleges and universities, not just because of the quality of education they 

provide, but also because of their attention to leadership and character development. 

Each of you have nominated young women and men to the Academies, knowing that in 

doing so your nominee has the opportunity for a great education, personal growth, and 

service to our country as a leader. This indeed is the experience for the vast majority of 

students at the Military Service Academies. 

3 
68 

The Department's assessment of the Military Service Academies for this past 

academic year affirms this. We found substantive evidence of the Academy 

leaderships' continued efforts in promoting a safe environment for all cadets and 

midshipmen and providing first-class support services for victims. We are encouraged 

by the continued engagement we see from leaders on this issue and the involvement at 

the student-level. In fact, the Military Service Academies' efforts to prevent and respond 

to sexual assault reflect much of the Department's progress in this mission space. 

However, effective prevention practices continue to be a challenging goal for the 

Academies and the Military Services alike. Unfortunately, rates of unwanted sexual 

contact increased at all three Academies during this academic program year, returning 

to levels commensurate with what we observed in 2010 and 2012. In addition, while the 

trend line over the past several years indicates that reporting of sexual assault has 

increased, reporting at the Academies has not echoed the large increases we have 

seen throughout the active force since 2013. Finally, the experience of sexual 

harassment is far too common at the Academies - with nearly half of women and over 

ten percent of men surveyed indicating they have experienced behaviors inconsistent 

with the dignity and respect we require from our future leaders. 

As I stated before, approaches to address sexual assault and sexual harassment 

must be tailored to the specific needs of the environment in which they are to be 

employed. Academies differ from the active force because they are educational 

institutions. They are an officer accession source, admitting people new to each Military 

Service and teaching them to be leaders. In addition, there is a completely new mix of 

cadets and midshipmen every four years, and the men and women joining our 

4 
69 

Academies are at a critical point in their development, with regard to maturity, judgment, 

and individuation. This is perhaps our greatest opportunity for growth. 

While there have been improvements at the Academies over the past ten years, 

our efforts to improve prevention and reporting have not made the gains we'd all like to 

see. That is not for lack of effort and attention. All three Superintendents and their 

leadership teams speak regularly on this topic to their cadets and midshipmen. In fact, 

our surveys indicate that the majority of cadets and midshipmen trust the Academies to 

protect victim privacy, ensure victim safety, and treat victims with dignity and respect. In 

addition, the vast majority of cadets and midshipmen indicate that commissioned 

officers and senior enlisted leaders at the Academies set good examples in their own 

behavior and talk. 

Each of the Academies has developed some benchmark practices. For example, 

the US Military Academy has incorporated sexual harassment and assault prevention 

and response into their Character Development Curriculum, known as their Gold Book. 

They have placed emphasis on their peer leadership program to deliver many of the 

lessons in this curriculum. At the US Naval Academy, they invested in a program to 

enhance the skills and abilities of peer leaders in Sexual Harassment and Assault 

Prevention Education- or SHAPE. Midshipmen in SHAPE must audition and learn how 

to lead small group discussions on topics such as prevention, consent, and healthy 

relationships. At the US Air Force Academy, the Athletic Director initiated a program to 

employ athletes as positive role models. Representatives from his staff and the Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response program hold small group discussions with sports 

teams' members, emphasizing the importance of respect in relationships and how to 

5 
70 

actively intervene to prevent sexual assault. Each of the Superintendents here today 

will go into greater detail about their efforts. 

Going forward, we must place greater emphasis on these and other evidencebased prevention programs that are designed to make a lasting impact. We are 

confident that we can do more to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment at the 

Academies, through an approach that considers the full spectrum of readinessimpacting behaviors. Many of the readiness impacting behaviors can be prevented by 

encouraging Service members to be more involved in each other's lives and the cadets 

and midshipman can benefit particularly at the student leadership level. We must help 

them recognize warning signs with their peers, and empower them to take steps to 

protect and help each other when they notice something that isn't right. However, this is 

not something that can be immediately achieved with policies. It can only be achieved 

through a unified effort to help our cadets and midshipmen understand the duty they 

have to each other in all aspects of their behavior. Our society emphasizes the freedom 

of the individual. Our fighting force depends upon the strength of the military unit. 

Ultimately, this change in putting service before self, is the culture change we require of 

everyone wishing to join our ranks. We must become more involved in each other's 

lives if we are to learn how to treat each other with dignity and respect - and have a 

military culture free from sexual assault and harassment. 

In closing, I and other senior leaders throughout the Department are committed 

to creating the safest and most supportive learning environment possible at the Military 

Service Academies. We will not stop until we get this right. We appreciate your 

concern and support as we work to protect the people who volunteer to keep our nation 

safe. 

6 
71 

Dr. Elizabeth (Elise) P. Van Winkle 

Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Readiness 

Dr. Elizabeth P. Van Winkle is performing the duties of Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Readiness. 

Dr. Elizabeth P. Van Winkle served as the Principal Director for Force Resiliency under 

the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness in the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness. In this role, Dr. Van Winkle acted as the principal 

staff advisor to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness, the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and the Secretary of Defense for developing 

policies, providing oversight, and integrating activities in the areas of sexual assault 

prevention and response, suicide prevention, diversity management, equal opportunity, 

drug demand reduction and other personnel risk reduction efforts, and for Department of 

Defense collaborative efforts with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. 

Dr. Van Winkle works with counterparts from across the entire Department of Defense, 

including the Office of the Secretary of Defense; the Military Departments (to include the 

Chiefs/Directors of Service Reserve Components); the Joint Staff; the Chief, National 

Guard Bureau; the Defense Agencies; the Combatant Commands; staff members from 

other Executive Branch Departments, and Members of Congress. 

Prior to her appointment as Principal Director, Dr. Van Winkle was the Director ofthe 

Health and Resilience Research and Surveys program within the Office of People 

Analytics (OPA). In this position, Dr. Van Winkle oversaw survey and research efforts on 

topics of health, well-being, morale, and resilience in support of the Undersecretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness. She served as the Principal Investigator (PI) for the 

Workplace and Gender Relations surveys (WGRs), Military Justice Experience surveys 

(MIJES), Service Academy Gender Relations surveys (SAGR), Workplace and Equal 

Opportunity surveys (WEOs), and related focus group studies. 

Prior to her work at the Department of Defense, Dr. Van Winkle was a senior clinician on 

a specialized trauma services team in Washington, D.C .. In this position she provided 

direct and group services to individuals with co-occurring psychiatric disorders and PTSD 

as a result of psychological, physical, and sexual trauma. 

Dr. Van Winkle holds a Ph.D. in Applied Experimental Psychology from The Catholic 

University of America, an M.A. in Sociology from Boston University, and B.A. in 

Psychology and English from Kenyon College. She is a published author on the impact of 

combat stress on symptoms of PTSD, the impact of deployments on military spouse 

well-being, and numerous technical reports on sexual assault and harassment in military 

populations. She resides in Alexandria, VA with her husband and two children. 
72 

RECORD VERSION 

STATEMENT BY 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT L. CASLEN, JR., USA 

SUPERINTENDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

FIRST SESSION, 115TH CONGRESS 

ON SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PROGRAMS AT THE 

MILITARY SERVICES ACADEMIES 

MAY 2, 2017 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

1 
73 

Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, it is an honor to be here today, representing the United States Military 

Academy community. 

West Point's mission is to educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that 

each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, 

Honor, Country and prepared for a career of professional excellence and service to the 

Nation as an officer in the United States Army. I have always maintained that you can 

be a competent leader, but if you fail in character, then you have failed at leadership. 

Therefore, character development is the most important thing we do at West Point. 

To that end, one of my top priorities as Superintendent is the elimination of 

sexual harassment and sexual assault. I am committed to creating a command climate 

where everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, faith or no faith, is 

treated with dignity and respect, feels like they are a valued member of the team and 

feels secure both physically and emotionally. Just as importantly, I am also committed 

to developing leaders who will do the same with the platoons and companies they will 

command once they leave West Point. 

Our work to eliminate sexual harassment and sexual violence at West Point is an 

ongoing and dynamic program. We see constant changes, with a myriad of factors that 

influence this generation's culture. Some of these factors we can control, while others 

we absorb anew each year when we welcome each new class of cadets. As an 

example, we know that we need to integrate purposeful discussions about building and 

maintaining healthy relationships and have tough conversations about consent in sexual 

encounters. These issues are part of what makes collegiate environments so 

challenging in the area of sexual violence prevention. The flip side of this challenge is 

that college prevention programs also hold a lot of promise, in that education and skill 

building, two keys to successful sexual assault prevention programs, are part of the 

college experience. As a result, our team continually explores ways to modify our 

programs to respond to these factors. 

The recent Service Academy Gender Relations Survey (SAGR) results are very 

helpful as we understand the men and women entering West Point. While the 2016 

survey results for unwanted sexual contact are consistent with the results we saw in 

2 
74 

2010 and 2012, the increase between 2014 and 2016 is concerning. All three military 

service academies (MSAs) saw a decrease in the 2014 survey, and then again all 

MSA's saw an increase in prevalence in the 2016 survey. West Point had the lowest 

prevalence for men and women among the three MSAs, but the truth is, one assault is 

one too many and the work we have to do is far from over. Some of the measures on 

the surveys have changed over the years, but we see the results as one of the best 

tools we currently have to understand the culture within the Corps of Cadets. Despite 

all the work we've done to create an effective program to reduce sexual assault and 

sexual harassment, the increase in prevalence we have seen only solidifies the growing 

concern I have had over the past year whether we are implementing the correct strategy 

that changes behavior at West Point. We know we must be more intentional and 

targeted in the solutions we apply to ensure a more safe and wholesome environment in 

our community. In that regard, I would like to share with you some of recent 

accomplishments related to policy and changes in the command climate, as well as 

provide a way ahead to bolster our comprehensive SHARP strategy. 

I would also like to mention that I am a member of the National Collegiate Athletic 

Association (NCAA) Board of Governors, and in that capacity I co-chair the NCAA 

Commission on the Elimination of Sexual Violence on College Campuses in America. 

The commission includes university and college presidents, athletic directors, coaches, 

advocates, victims, and legal experts in the Title IX field and in the area of sexual 

violence on college campuses. The NCAA asked me to co-chair this commission 

because of the military academies' recognized programs and initiatives, and experience 

in dealing with these issues. Co-chairing this commission allows me to engage with the 

latest proven methods, programs and experts in this field, and to bring some of these 

models of success to our programs at West Point. 

First, I would like to share the perspective we have embraced related to the 

comprehensive nature of our program. We have worked within Department of Defense 

(DOD) guidance to create a program that aligns with the five lines of effort outlined in 

the DOD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program: Prevention, 

Investigation, Accountability, Advocacy and Assessment. This strategy has been the 

guiding paradigm for our work since its inception in 2013. This approach allowed us to 

3 
75 

build strong, supportive, victim-centered processes and systems to respond to reported 

incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment. 

We understand, through recent work to better shape a comprehensive Sexual 

Harassment and Assault Response & Prevention (SHARP) Strategy, that these 

elements (response and support to victims of sexual assault immediately upon report 

and in the long term as well as strong investigation/adjudication processes for every 

reported incident) are key to creating a comprehensive and successful Sexual Assault 

Prevention Program. We have implemented several strong initiatives to further 

strengthen our efforts to support victims of assault and harassment, as well as our 

ability to effectively investigate reported incidents, working within the wide array of 

options available through the UCMJ and administrative measures to build confidence in 

the system across the entire community. I'll address each initiative and what we think 

its impact has been to the increase we have seen in the number of victims who have 

trusted the system to make a report, as well as those who have made the decision to 

change restricted reports to unrestricted. 

I want to make a point specifically to the distinction between prevalence and 

reporting of sexual violence, because I feel there has been a lot of confusion about this 

distinction after the survey results were released. The SAGR survey results show that 

all three MSAs saw an increase in the prevalence of unwanted sexual contact from 

2014. Specifically at USMA, we also showed an increase in reporting. Prevalence 

estimates are based on the number of victims who indicated on the Service Academy 

Gender Relations Survey that they experienced unwanted sexual contact in a given 

academic year. Reporting is just that - the number of victims of sexual violence who 

trusted our system enough to report the incident with a Restricted or Unrestricted 

Report. Research conducted by the Department of Justice has found that only about 

one out of four or five incidents of sexual violence are ever reported in the civilian 

sector. We understand that some victims may never want to report and we must 

respect that very personal choice. Ultimately, we would like every victim to feel 

confident enough to report an incident. I personally believe that any increase in 

reporting, regardless of whether it is restricted or unrestricted, is a good thing. It is a 

strong signal that our program is taking root and that our cadets trust the system and 

4 
76 

their leadership enough to make the report. I expect that we will continue to see an 

increase in reports for the foreseeable future. 

I'd like to spend a few moments sharing with you some of the progress we've 

seen in several key areas of our program. 

So far this academic year, we have seen a 50 percent increase in reports as 

compared to the last three years. We believe this is the result of several key initiatives 

designed to create more trust and confidence in the victim support, reporting and 

investigative processes. 

POLICY CHANGE- EFFORTS TO IMPROVE REPORTING: 

One of our key changes in the area of improving our Secondary Prevention 

efforts was a revision of our SHARP Policy, which brought USMA into compliance with 

DOD Instruction (DeDI) 6495.02. The change allows what is known as "Third Party 

Disclosures." USMA defines Third Party as anyone who interacts with a victimized 

cadet and does not hold command authority, such as instructors, coaches, sponsors 

and cadet peers. These disclosures are not considered confidential reports, and can be 

subject to investigative discovery as the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) deems 

necessary. We have seen a marked increase in calls to our SHARP team from 

personnel in these Third Party groups with knowledge of a situation they believe to be a 

sexual assault. Our professional SHARP staff members are then able to provide advice 

and expertise to the concerned individual about how to support the victim, and the 

options available for reporting. Nearly every case of a phone call like this has resulted 

in the cadet ultimately making a report. Many are restricted, and again, we believe this 

is a necessary and safe first step for many survivors of sexual violence. We never want 

a victim to feel like their hand is being forced. We work very hard to keep our support 

and response system victim-focused. 

Another major policy change this past year is removing cadets in the chain of 

command from a mandatory reporter status. In many cases, we saw cadets who did 

not want to come forward, and even some who eventually did make a report. In the 

past, when cadets had information about an assault, it was very difficult to keep that 

information private and confidential. There have been cases where victims' identities 

5 
77 

and the details of their assault became publically known. The impact of that lack of 

privacy was very traumatic to the victim, and created a lot of internal turmoil within the 

cadet companies. All cadets can now provide support and advice to their friends who 

have been assaulted, without feeling that they have to betray a confidence and report 

the allegation against the wishes of the victim. We have seen a huge surge of cadets 

bringing friends they are concerned about to the SHARP Resource Center to connect in 

person with the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) or the Victim Advocate 

(VA) to get immediate assistance. 

Another major initiative we implemented this past year is establishing a SHARP 

Resource Center (SRC). The previous set-up had the VA and SARC in separate but 

highly-visible locations on campus, in buildings either connected to senior leadership or 

in areas where cadets who are in some sort of trouble go for Respect or Honor violation 

investigative procedures. These locations were not conducive to key elements of the 

SHARP program's reporting structure, which emphasizes privacy, confidentiality, safety 

and anonymity. This new center, centrally located in the cadet area, brings the SARC 

and VA under one roof, so to speak, and provides all of the support and services for 

victims and anyone looking for SHARP-related information. It is currently in a temporary 

location as we continue our barracks renovation program, but we have seen such a 

significant positive impact in our reporting and victim assistance posture, that we've 

programmed the SRC into the overall barracks renovation program. Ultimately, the 

SRC will provide a one-stop location for victims to get assistance from advocates, as 

well as legal and investigative resources. 

We are cautiously optimistic that this upward trend in reporting will continue due 

to our deliberate efforts to create a strong Secondary Prevention environment where 

victim needs are paramount. While we truly want each report to be investigated, we 

understand that for many victims, justice comes only after they have regained a 

personal level of confidence in the system and have developed the power and strength 

to begin the difficult process of going through an investigation. Our main objective is to 

create a program that is fully committed to supporting victims throughout the process. 

We are aware that the primary factor that gets victims to this place is support, and time 

6 
78 

to process the experience, whatever that may look like for them. 

ACCOUNTABILITY: 

In the area of our investigative and adjudication efforts, we continue to see more 

than 50 percent of offenders held accountable each year, which is one of the highest 

substantiation rates in the Army. By substantiated, we mean evidence existed to take 

some kind of action against the accused, such as preferral of court-martial charges, 

non-judicial punishment, adverse administrative actions, and discharges/disenrollments. 

This is a double-edged sword: we hold offenders accountable to the fullest extent 

allowed by the evidence and judicial options available to commanders, but this also 

creates a strong hesitation among victims who allege they have experienced 

aggravated or abusive sexual contact (e.g., "touching" assaults- which continue to be 

the most common type of reported sexual assault), to report the incident. Many decide 

to report because they realize the impact that event had on their well-being, but usually 

do so as a restricted report. Victims tell us that their primary hesitation to change to an 

unrestricted report has a lot to do with their own assessment of the behavior as not 

"worthy" of the harsh sanctions that can be levied against cadets who "only" touch them. 

Victims see the behavior as extremely degrading and devastating, but they struggle with 

the reality that they were not a victim of a penetration or attempted penetration and 

these victims tend to categorize their assault as less egregious, or not worthy of having 

the perpetrator get kicked out of the Academy. Their loyalty to their peers, one of the 

key coping mechanisms many cadets rely on to get through the daily grind they 

experience as West Point cadets, creates this sense that reporting their assault and 

ruining the career of the offender is a tough sell. Loyalty to the Corps in these cases 

subsumes personal agency and personal safety. This is an area we need to integrate 

into our work to create more impactful and relevant Primary Prevention. 

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT: 

Despite all the progress we have made, the most important (and up to this point 

the least understood) element at USMA of an effective sexual violence prevention 

program has to do with our Primary Prevention efforts. Primary prevention focuses on 

7 
79 

efforts that stop the crime from occurring in the first place. We have approached this 

element of our program with a behavior change model of reflection and introspection 

that takes place through open, candid dialogue in small group, peer-facilitated 

discussions. We have come to realize through our own internal assessments over the 

past year is that this model might be causing more cynicism than reflection, because the 

peer facilitator is also usually the least experienced and mature in the group and 

therefore inexperienced to facilitate these sensitive and reflective discussions. 

Additionally, we hired an external assessment organization called EverFi, whose 

mission is to support campuses in making transformative impact on critical issues that 

impact their institutions and the lives of their students. They conducted their 

assessment in February and we expect to receive their final report in the very near 

future. In the meantime, we are posturing ourselves as an organization to immediately 

begin integrating their feedback into our SHARP Program Improvement Plan. 

PRIMARY PREVENTION: 

Up to this point, our main emphasis in educating our community about sexual 

violence has been very mechanical, focused on process and procedures. It has also 

been very negative, focusing on what Cadets should NOT do. This emphasis has 

placed us into our current situation where survey results tell us that while cadets 

understand the reporting process and, in many cases are becoming more confident and 

trusting of the system, it has not resulted in the change in culture we expected. It is 

clear that part of what we need to do is to change the narrative in our education 

program to focus more on creating a better understanding of how to create and maintain 

healthy relationships, which includes discussions and skill building around establishing 

and sustaining consent during sexual encounters. We continue to see unwanted sexual 

contact (1 0.2 percent for women and 1.8 percentfor men in the latest 2016 survey). 

The past 10 years of surveys show little change over time in the prevalence of 

unwanted sexual contact, with one exception in 2014 when rates decreased significantly 

for both women and men, to 6.5 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively. 

What we feel we are missing is programming that is research informed, data 

driven and presented in a manner that will generate the type of cultural change we want 

8 
80 

to see. We realize that our conversations need to be targeted to our population, to 

what they have been socialized to believe about themselves in relationships. 

Essentially, we need to get back to basics and talk about YlLbY sexual violence happens. 

We need to create meaningful and relevant educational interactions with cadets that are 

aimed at changing attitudes and behaviors that lead to sexual violence. Successful 

primary prevention programs generate change among the college population when 

there is an infusion of education focused on changing attitudes and beliefs through new 

knowledge about sexual violence. We see this as a new direction for our program 

where we begin to address some of the most common attitudes and beliefs -that can 

be particularly challenging in a college setting. 

1. Impersonal Sexual Encounters (Hook-Up Culture): This behavior, referred 

to by some in the scientific literature1 as "hook-up culture," describes the generational 

ambivalence towards deep personal connections. It is a function of a generation of 

young people who communicate and socialize through social media, texting and other 

methods that do not require face-to-face conversation and often lack the intent to carry 

a relationship beyond a sexual encounter. Most hook-up situations lack empathy or 

emotional connection, face-to-face conversational skills are minimized and there is a 

decreased capacity to be present in-real-time with other people. I am told that offenders 

often use the ambiguities of such situations to disguise their coercive behaviors and true 

intentions from their targets. 

2. Alcohol: Survey data indicates that alcohol is involved in 50 to 60 percent of 

our incidents. Responsible alcohol use emphasizes understanding one's own limits, as 

well as the impact alcohol has on potential assailants (lowered inhibitions to pursue 

someone sexually, more aggressive behavior if the other person doesn't consent), as 

well as their potential targets (inability to willingly and knowingly give consent or act on 

their own behalf if the situation becomes inappropriate, etc.). This creates a scenario 

where force and coercion are involved and ultimately, results in a crime being 

1 Garcia, J.R., Reiber, C., Massey, S.G., and Merriwether, A.M. Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 

Jun 2012. 161-176. 

9 
81 

committed. It's not about the risk one may experience when drinking. It's about a 

perpetrator taking advantage of someone's trust and leveraging a substance to commit 

an offense. 

3. Force/Coercion: This factor comes into play all too often, as a perpetrator 

meets resistance from a sexual partner. The process can take on many forms, and, 

depending on what the relationship between the two people was prior to the sexual 

encounter, could range from blackmail-type statements (e.g., "You're drunk, and 

underage ... ") to challenging the "feelings" of the other person towards the perpetrator 

(e.g., "I thought you loved me"), to outright physical force used to disable the victim's 

ability to prevent the sexual act being committed by the perpetrator. Fundamentally, the 

inability to accept "No," "Not that," "Not now," "Stop," "Please don't," is based in a sense 

of entitlement, power, and belief that one deserves sex, or a very toxic sense of one's 

masculinity. 

4. Toxic Masculinity and Inaccurate Social Norms: Some men have been 

socialized from the time they were young boys that sex is about pushing until the girl 

stops them, about what they deserve for what they put out (pay for dinner- get sex at 

the end), or that sex is always on the table and if someone they are with isn't into it, 

then it's a game to be won. Talk between men that objectifies women typically 

perpetuates what is usually a false narrative of having lots of sex and always getting 

what they want. This creates a false expectation where other men in the situation 

believe that they need to "produce" this same sort of story to remain connected to their 

social circle. Men who don't agree with such behavior, but are in the peer group, are 

forced to either be silent or risk becoming a target themselves: silence is part of the 

unsigned contract that allows men to maintain their status in their peer group. Research 

indicates that most men disagree with this kind of disrespectful behavior. Efforts that 

focus on improving social norms allow us to correct these mistaken assumptions about 

healthy masculine behavior. 

5. Pornography: The proliferation of pornography into the digital arena as well 

as the objectification of women in straight pornography can for some create false 

expectations about sex. When those expectations aren't met, the combination alcohol, 

10 
82 

force, and toxic masculinity can sometimes produce very bad outcomes. As a result, 

what may have started as a consensual encounter becomes an incident of sexual 

assault, because the perpetrator is unable to separate their imaginary life in porn from 

their real life with another human being that deserves their respect. 

We must find ways to bring these uncomfortable topics into our conversations 

with cadets. We need to educate our cadets and the wider USMA community on the 

negative impacts these and other root causes have in creating and maintaining healthy 

relationships - friendships and intimate relationships. We need to integrate more 

conversations about what healthy relationships look like, how to be healthy as 

individuals and how that translates to healthy relationships. 

SUMMARY: 

We have only just begun to understand that these issues are the deep seated 

nature of the "why" of sexual violence. If we really expect to change our culture, we 

have to embrace the reality about these issues. Our programs are not addressing these 

issues, or root causes, as we need them to. We have numerous programs in place -

SHARP Program, Character Education, Cadets Against Sexual Harassment and 

Assault, and others. Through these various vehicles, we provide more than 30 hours of 

character-based education content, in what I described above (small group, peerfacilitated discussions). These interactions with cadets are tailored to their class year 

and content that is relevant to their leadership positions in the Corps, but as I've already 

mentioned, the content and cadet delivery is a key issue. I have directed our 

Commandant of Cadets to examine what we are delivering and how we are delivering it, 

and make recommendations on how we can improve this very crucial aspect of our 

program. We believe these programs are the building blocks to implement the type of 

cultural change we have tried to make for the past 10 years. We also expect that the 

EverFi consultation feedback will address this particular issue as well and are looking 

forward to seeing their suggestions and best practices that are being leveraged across 

the country in other higher education institutions. 

Systemically, we have seen that we can impact our unwanted sexual contact 

prevalence rates, as demonstrated in the drastic drop all the MSAs experienced in 

11 
83 

2014. This drop was likely due to the combined impact of strongly framed education 2! 

the problem. There was a massive injection of high-level training events and massive 

stand-downs, where leaders from across DOD attacked it head on. Unfortunately, the 

result of this was, in my opinion, gender avoidance, where men and women stayed 

away from each other, in order to avoid any possibility of getting into trouble. While the 

training exposed cadets to the issues, it scared them away from each other. A new 

verb was coined: SHARP'ed. Rather than hang out in mixed-gender groups and trust 

themselves to do the right thing and behave respectfully with their peers, cadets would 

avoid socializing with the opposite gender, for fear of being reported, or "SHARP'ed." 

This is totally counterproductive in an environment like the MSAs, and was not 

sustainable in the long run. While gender avoidance accomplished the goal of lowering 

incidents of sexual assaults, it had the opposite effect on building teams, a critical part 

of the leader development process. 

As we began to make other program improvements, we saw very little emphasis 

on the behavioral aspects that lead to sexual violence, while efforts became very 

process and punishment oriented. These were necessary steps in building a new social 

norm, but now we must focus on Primary Prevention, which is where our main effort will 

be in the coming months. 

As I mentioned previously, our report from EverFi is expected to provide us with 

some very pragmatic and actionable steps to create a robust and comprehensive 

SHARP Prevention Program. We are anxious to integrate this feedback into the 

normal reset process we go through at the end of each academic year to evaluate what 

we did, assess the impact of our programming, and develop the actions we need to take 

to improve. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to address these concerns with you today 

and I am prepared to answer any questions you have regarding our program and our 

way ahead. 

12 
84 

Lieutenant General Robert L. Casten, Jr. 

59th Superintendent 

U.S. Military Academy, West Point 

Lieutenant General Robert L. Caslen, Jr. became the 59th Superintendent of the U.S. 

Military Academy at West Point on July 17,2013. 

Lieutenant General Caslen graduated from the U.S. Military Academy in 1975. He earned 

master's degrees from Long Island University and Kansas State University. 

Previous to this assignment, Lt. Gen. Cas len served as the Chief of the Office of Security 

Cooperation-Iraq. 

Lieutenant General Cas len's prior deployments and assignments include serving as the 

commander of the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, KS., the command that 

oversees the Command and General Staff College and 17 other schools, centers, and 

training programs located throughout the United States; commanding general of the 25th 

Infantry Division (Light) and commanding general of the Multi-National Division-North 

during Operation Iraqi Freedom; Commandant of Cadets for the U.S. Military Academy; 

Deputy Director for the War on Terrorism, J-5, The Joint Staff; Assistant Division 

Commander (maneuver), 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized); Chief of Staff, I Oth 

Mountain Division (Light); Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force Mountain during 

Operation Enduring Freedom; Commander, 2nd Brigade, I 01 st Airborne Division (Air 

Assault); Chief of Staff, 101 st Airborne Division (Air Assault); Senior Brigade C2 

Observer/Controller, Operations Group, Joint Readiness Training Center; Commander, 1st 

Battalion, 14th Infantry, 25th Infantry Division (Light); Executive Officer to the Deputy 

Commander in Haiti during Operation Uphold Democracy; J-3 in Honduras for Joint Task 

Force Bravo; Brigade Operations Officer, 3rd Brigade, I Olst Airborne Division (Air 

Assault); Executive Officer, 2nd Battalion, !87th Infantry, I 0 lst Airborne Division (Air 

Assault) during Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. 

Lieutenant General Caslen's awards and decorations include the Defense Distinguished 

Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Defense Superior 

Service Medal with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Legion of Merit with four Oak Leaf Clusters, the 

Bronze Star Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, 

and the Meritorious Service Medal with five Oak Leaf Clusters. He has earned the Combat 

Infantryman Badge, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge, and is Airborne, Air 

Assault, and Ranger qualified. 

Lieutenant General Cas! en is married with three children. 
85 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE 

STATEMENT OF 

VICE ADMIRAL WALTER E. CARTER JR, USN, 

SUPERINTENDENT OF THE UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY 

NOT FOR PUBLICA TTON 

UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

MAY2,2017 
86 

Summary 

As directed by Congress, DoD assessed the Military Service Academies (MSA) to 

determine the effectiveness of policies, training, and procedures with respect to Sexual 

Harassment (SH) and Sexual Assault (SA) involving Academy personnel. DoD accomplished 

this assessment by reviewing Academy selt~assessments and through the administration of the 

2016 Service Academy Gender Relations (SAGR) Survey (June 1, 2015- May 31, 2016), which 

focused on four specific areas: SA prevention, SA response, efforts to address retaliatory 

behavior, and SH prevention and response. Results of this survey are informing modifications to 

our current prevention etTorts. Specifically, our future tbcus will concentrate more on the 

appropriate use of alcohol and the effects that misuse and binge drinking have on the ability of 

midshipmen (MIDN) to make sound decisions. The second change in emphasis will address the 

importance of healthy relationships as MlDN and as they transition from college students to 

commissioned officers in the Navy and Marine Corps. The final focus will be to more 

effectively convey what consent entails between two adults and its importance in treating each 

other with dignity and respect. The Naval Academy will continue to be forthright and honest 

about our Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program. Although we have 

invested significant time and effort in educating the Brigade of Midshipmen, faculty, and start: 

results of the Survey indicate that we still have much work to do. Our program uses evidencebased training and we continually evaluate feedback from our MIDN, faculty and staff on ways 

to improve the program to eliminate SA and SH; behavior which is toxic to military readiness in 

our Navy and Marine Corps. 

2 
87 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today on behalf of the United States Naval Academy (USNA). Our mission is 

to develop midshipmen morally, mentally and physically and to imbue them with the highest 

ideals of duty, honor and loyalty in order to graduate leaders who are dedicated to a career of 

naval service. A central theme to the moral development aspect of this mission is treating others 

with dignity and respect. Despite dedicated efforts by USNA leadership and the Brigade of 

Midshipmen, we continue to experience incidents of unwanted sexual contact (USC) within our 

ranks. The 2016 SAGR survey, taken by the Brigade in April of 2016 and released earlier this 

year, showed that USC increased compared to rates measured in 2014. While the prevalence of 

USC in 2016 was below that in 2010 and 2012, and despite our continued investment in 

activities expected to prevent SA, we did not sustain the noticeable decrease we experienced in 

2014. Specifically, the percentage ofthe Brigade experiencing USC increased from 2.8% to 

5.2%. For females, the increase went from 8.1 to 14.5%, while male prevalence increased from 

1.3% to 2.1 %. We can and must do better. We are responsible to not only ensure that every 

member of the Brigade of Midshipmen is afforded an opportunity to develop in an environment 

of dignity and respect, but to prepare them to better lead Sailors and Marines in the Fleet. 

Our Program Must Holistically Address all Influences on Midshipmen 

USNA remains committed to maintaining a consistent and effective SAPR program 

which seeks to sustain a professional environment oftrust and mutual respect ti'ce of retaliation 

to victims and those who report sexual assault. Our approach addresses the diverse cultural and 

3 
88 

societal int1ucnces on our midshipmen by executing DoD, Navy, and USNA directives and by 

collaborating with national, state, and local resources. Leadership engagement at all levels, 

combined with a focus on individual accountability, are the keys to successfully achieving our 

goal ofsignit1cantly reducing incidences of USC. Our MIDN are not immune to societal 

influences and we must continue to address the risks of engaging in activities involving the 

internet, including online dating apps. These technologies risk negatively distorting norms on 

healthy relationships, privacy, and consent. We must continue teaching midshipmen that they 

are accountable 24/7-whether in uniform or not-as ambassadors of the Naval Academy, the 

Navy, and the United States writ large. Inculcating that culture now better prepares them for 

success in the Fleet. 

A successful prevention eiTort requires a comprehensive approach. Our cwTent sexual 

harassment and assault prevention program was initially developed in 2006 with assistance of 

experts in the field, and has continued to evolve based on current research and student feedback. 

Our current efforts start on day one- Induction Day- and continue through a senior year 

capstone event. !n all, more than 30 hours of education and training are dedicated to every 

midshipman. Our multi-faceted prevention program includes: 

• Plebe Summer SAPR Indoctrination Program. SAPR Staff representatives 

personally welcome each new candidate of the incoming class of almost 1200 

students, and identify the resources available to them while at USNA. Within two 

weeks, each midshipman is administered a baseline survey on attitudes and beliefs 

and receives initial training on SAPR program specific procedures such as iiling 

Restricted and Unrestricted Reports. The final summer training session includes 

an interactive discussion with their Company Officer and Senior Enlisted Leader 

4 
89 

where case studies are reviewed and leadership lays out clear expectations of 

acceptable behavior and actions. 

• SHAPE Program. The strength of our prevention program lies in the MJDN-led 

Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Education (SHAPE) program (see 

Figure l ). We believe, and research shows, that peer-to-peer mentorship with 

sufficient leadership oversight is the most effective way to instill MlDN 

ownership in sustaining an environment of dignity and respect throughout the 

Brigade. This 14 hour program is conducted across each midshipman's 47-month 

experience at USNA. 

Figure (1) 
90 

• Incorporation into Formal Education Curriculum. In addition to the First Class 

Capstone Course, other fom1al curricula that address SAPR topics are the Second 

Class Advanced Leadership Theory and Application, Third Class Moral 

Reasoning for the Naval Officer, and Fourth Class lntro to Naval Leadership. 

USNA's prevention program continues to evolve as we update lessons to include 

increased emphasis on male victims and move to incorporate more scenario-driven case studies 

dealing with the impacts of social media and other relevant topics that emerge. Midshipmen are 

challenged to make decisions that promote healthy relationships, recognize professional and 

responsible behavior, and be inspired to work and live in accordance wilh the Navy Core Values 

and Navy Ethos. 

Strong guidance starts with me, the Superintendent. lam fully dedicated to serving as a 

positive example, building and maintaining a team whose core values include promoting dignity 

and respect. I expect the same from all of the leaders at the Naval Academy - to be visible and 

positive leaders of action. Fleet Mentors, academic faculty, staff, company ot11cers, and 

company senior enlisted leadership all play key roles in shaping MIDN into the leaders of the 

future. All levels remain critical to ensuring that SAPR program efforts resonate and translate to 

producing the best junior o!Ticers for the Navy and Marine Corps. 

A Strong Response Program is Essential 

We've made significant progress with our response efforts over the years. We are 

prepared to respond 24 hours a day and 7 days a week should midshipmen need help and 

6 
91 

support. The response eiTorts demand a coordinated effort across many departments influencing 

all aspects of midshipman life. 

• Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARCs). USNA is unique in that we 

have two tully qualified SARCs. The lead SARC is responsible for overseeing 

the entire response program, including coordinating Restricted and Unrestricted 

Reports. The assistant SARC leads education and watch bill coordination. The 

response oftice is conveniently located in close proximity to, but not in, Bancroft 

Hall (USNA's dormitory complex) in order to afford privacy to victims as 

appropriate a recent move that has garnered positive feedback. 

• Victim Advocates (VA). In addition to the full-time civilian VA on the SAPR 

start~ the Naval Academy has a cadre of volunteer active duty officers and 

enlisted men and women who are tully certified, accredited and on call 24/7 via 

cell phone. 

• Victim Legal Counsel (VLC). In 2013, USNA became the first naval installation 

in the country to have a VLC assigned. The VLC reports directly to the Navy 

Judge Advocate General's staff (vice any USNA leadership) and solely advocates 

for the victim of a sexual assault while working closely with the SARCs, VAs, 

NCJS, and chain-of-command in all investigations and legal proceedings. 

• Brigade Medical Unit. Works closely with the rest of the response team for care 

of victims residing in Bancroft Hall. Rape kits are performed at Mercy Medical 

Center in Baltimore pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

Mercy is one ofthc top three facilities in the country in forensics capabilities. 

7 
92 

• Chaplains. Fully trained SAPR responders who work closely with SARCs, 

Medical, VLC, and chain-of-command to provide support and guidance to the 

victim throughout the process. Chaplain services arc always available to MIDN, 

whether they make a repoti of sexual assault or not. 

• Midshipman Development Center (MDC). A full-time civilian sexual trauma 

specialist conducts individual counseling sessions as well as voluntary support 

groups for both female and male survivors of sexual assault. Like the chaplain 

services, MDC's services remain available to all midshipman regardless if they 

choose to report or not. 

• Our new Leave of Absence policy now offers victims the chance to concentrate 

on healing and then return to the Brigade a year later to resume the curriculum 

where they left off. While this program is new, we have seen early success in its 

implementation. 

We must continue to gain and maintain the trust of our Sailors, Marines, and 

midshipmen. Results trom the 2016 SAGR Survey indicate that we are making positive strides 

in cultivating this trust We will continue to refine our response efforts moving forward as we 

focus on preventing incidences of USC. 

Holding Perpetrators Appropriately Accountable Contributes to Prevention 

USNA remains dedicated to promptly investigating repotis of sexual harassment and 

sexual assault by utilizing all available resources to yield timely and accurate results. Early 

vigilance on incidents of sexual harassment helps prevent future sexual assaults. All complaints 

of sexual harassment are investigated and handled at the appropriate level including informal and 

8 
93 

formal counseling, letters of instruction (LO!), developing and giving sexual harassment training, 

adjudication through the midshipman conduct system, and Dignity and Respect Remediation (a 

multi-month intensive one-on-one remediation with a Senior Officer). 

Every Unrestricted Report of USC is referred to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service 

(NClS). NC!S provides exemplary support in sexual assault cases and is committed to 

completing all investigations within 90 days of initiation. Coordination between NC!S, legal 

staff: and SAPR VAs has been critical to ensuring prompt and just results in each case, and we 

remain committed to improving the process wherever possible. Investigative findings are 

reported to me, the convening authority, for determination of disposition. I remain committed to 

upholding the military justice process to ensure due process for the accused and judicial closure 

for the victim. 

The Way Forward 

The results from the 2016 SAGR Survey indicated that the majority of USC incidents 

occurred between classmates of the opposite sex, off campus, and with alcohol involved. 

lnfonned by the results of this most recent survey, we arc directing more attention in three areas: 

responsible use of alcohol, understanding what healthy relationships should look like, and a 

better understanding of consent. J have directed the Commandant of Midshipmen to form a task 

force consisting of officer, enlisted, and midshipmen leadership to address solutions to the 

epidemic problem ofthe misuse of alcohol and binge drinking among college students. The task 

force is considering efforts to promote the appropriate use of alcohol, the importance of 

moderation, and the understanding of the effects of misuse. In conjunction with the 

Commandant and the Academic Dean, I have also directed the establishment of a Life Skills 

9 
94 

working group. Academic professors, military leaders, SAPR program experts, medical 

professionals, and midshipmen are seeking ways to better instill life skills in our midshipmen as 

they navigate tough waters like healthy relationships, online activity, and effective 

communication. Finally, our prevention training will continue to focus on better defining 

consent. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members ofthis committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

appear befbre you today. We have developed a very robust program over the years, but we still 

have a lot ofvvork to do to further affect and sustain positive change. There is no finish line in 

this endeavor. I am prepared to address any questions you may have regarding my testimony. 

10 
95 

Vice Admiral Walter E. "Ted" Carter, Jr. 

Superintendent 

U.S. Naval Academy 

Vice Adm. Walter E. "Ted" Carter became the 62nd superintendent of the U.S. Naval 

Academy July 23, 2014. He is a native ofBurrillville, Rhode Island. He graduated from the 

U.S. Naval Academy in 1981, was designated a naval flight officer in 1982, and graduated 

from the Navy Fighter Weapons School (NFWS) Top Gun in 1985. He completed the Air 

Command and Staff College course and the Armed Forces Staff College. In 2001, he 

completed the Navy's Nuclear Power Program. 

Carter's career as an aviator includes extensive time at sea, deploying around the globe in 

the F-4 Phantom ll and the F-14 Tomcat. He has landed on 19 different aircraft carriers, to 

include all I 0 of the Nimitz Class carriers. Carter commanded the Fighter Squadron (VF) 

14 "Tophatters," served as executive officer of USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and 

commanded both USS Camden (AOE 2) and USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70). His most recent 

fleet command assignment was commander, Enterprise Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 12 

during Big E's final combat deployment as a 51-year-old aircraft carrier in 2012. 

Ashore, Carter served as chief of staff for Fighter Wing Pacific and executive assistant to 

the deputy commander, U.S. Central Command. He served as commander, Joint Enabling 

Capabilities Command and subsequently as lead for the Transition Planning Team during 

the disestablishment of U.S. Joint Forces Command in 2011. After leading Task Force 

RESILIENT (a study in suicide related behaviors), he established the 21st Century Sailor 

Office (OPNAV N17) as its first director in 2013. Most recently, Carter served as the 54th 

president of the U.S. Naval War College. During his tenure, he established the Naval 

Leadership and Ethics Center in Newport, Rhode Island, May I, 2014. 

Carter flew 125 combat missions in support of joint operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, 

Iraq and Afghanistan. He accumulated 6, !50 flight hours in F-4, F-14, and F-18 aircraft 

during his career and safely completed 2,016 carrier-arrested landings, the record among 

all active and retired U.S. Naval Aviation designators. 

Carter is the recipient of various personal awards, including the Distinguished Service 

Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal (two awards), Legion of Merit (three awards), 

Distinguished Flying Cross with Combat V, Bronze Star, Air Medal (two with Combat V 

and five strike/flight), and Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal (two with 

Combat V). He was awarded the Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale Leadership Award 

and the U.S. Navy League's John Paul Jones Award for Inspirational Leadership. Carter 

was also appointed an honorary master chief by the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy 

in 2008. ln April2015, Carter was inducted into the prestigious Rhode Island Heritage 

Hall of Fame. 
96 

STATEMENT OF 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL MICHELLE D. JOHNSON, USAF 

SUPERINTENDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBJECT: SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PROGRAMS AT THE 

MILITARY SERVICES ACADEMIES 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY2,2017 
97 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Speier, distinguished members of the committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the future leaders of our Air 

Force- the cadets of the United States Air Force Academy as well as the faculty and staff that 

support our mission to educate, train, and inspire these young men and women to become leaders 

of character in service to our nation. And, thank you for your steadfast attention to the critically 

important issues of sexual harassment and sexual assault, issues that are corrosive to our ability 

to successfully carry out our mission, and by extension arc impediments to military readiness. 

As a service academy we occupy a unique space not only within the military but also in 

higher education. We are a standard bearer for character and leadership education and set a 

precedent of moral conduct for the entire Air Force in our training of future generations of values 

driven officers. We expect more of ourselves, and rightfully so, because more is expected of our 

graduates when they leave our campus and operate in increasingly complex, interconnected and 

unpredictable battlespaces. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Our bottom line is that 

we cannot tolerate any incidents of sexual harassment or sexual assault. 

One sexual assault is too many. The results of the 2016 Service Academy Gender 

Relations (SAGR) survey and Sexual Harassment and Violence (SH&V) reports indicate that we 

are not yet where we want to be. We want reporting to go up, prevalence to go down, and 

ultimately for these incidents to go to zero. As an Academy we are not there yet, so we have 

work to do- but based on the initiatives we have begun, we believe we are moving in the right 

direction. 
98 

The 2016 SAGR survey estimates indicate the number of USAF A cadets experiencing 

unwanted sexual contact in the past year increased, from 126 in 2014 to 150 in 2016. Both of 

these estimates are less than the 162 cadets estimated for 2012. We are working toward greater 

clarity in these numbers, and to provide additional context we also utilize the Military Service 

Academy (MSA) Defense Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (DEOCS) to help us better 

understand cadets' attitudes about reporting, prevention, and leadership's approach to addressing 

these crimes. It is our responsibility as leaders to own the findings outlined by these survey 

results and reports, to use the data to inform and educate the implementation of our programs and 

initiatives, and to adjust our efforts accordingly, so that we continue to foster an environment of 

discovery, learning and growth. That goal can only be accomplished in an inclusive climate of 

respect that values the worth and dignity of every person. 

Culture Change, Prevention Initiatives 

The prevalence of sexual assault is a symptom of broader issues in culture, climate, and 

leadership, and we have seen some positive trends in these areas: 

Significantly more cadets are willing to seek help from their chain of command 

compared to 2014. The 2016 MSA DEOCS showed an increase in trust at all levels of 

leadership at the Academy, with an average increase of 3 percent across enlisted and 

officer leadership, academic faculty and staff, and the athletic department. 

Trust in leadership for cadets' wellbeing, leadership development, and academic 

success is approximately 95%. Increases in numbers ofrepmts, while troubling 

because they reveal more incidents of sexual assault, can also indicate an increase in 

trust of leadership and the military justice process. 

2 
99 

Trust and support between cadets is also receiving high marks. Results show strong 

rates of support among cadet leaders, with 94% of cadets agreeing that cadet leaders 

support each other to address the problem. 

And, our training has improved. Cadets rate training as more effective than in 2014. 

Permanent party staff and leaders are setting the right tone in their organizations. 

From the 2016 USAFA DEOCS, 98% of staff reported they feel safe from sexual 

assault where they work, 91% reported that the chain of command encourages victims 

to report, and 90% feel they create an environment where victims feel comfortable 

reporting. 

The Air Force Academy's sexual assault prevention strategy is embedded in a 

transfmmative culture that is committed to fostering a climate of dignity and respect. This is a 

multifaceted issue that requires a holistic approach. It is crucial that senior leaders, faculty, staff, 

commanders, coaches, and cadets all have a role, and we have implemented a number of 

evidence-based initiatives in support of this strategy: 

All faculty, staff, and the cadets have annual training requirements that address sexual 

assault prevention and awareness. Faculty and staff received Green Dot bystander 

intervention training this year as required by AF SAPR. Cadets receive 2.5 hours of 

training each year that is developmentally specific to their year and roles at the Academy, 

and attend presentations by subject matter experts from the field of sexual assault 

prevention. Throughout their four years at the Academy, our cadets receive this regular, 

periodic developmental training, which utilizes innovative approaches, for a total of 

roughly 12 hours. 

3 
100 

• Establishing positive culture starts when our cadets arrive for basic training. We start 

with conversations with our newest cadets about "what right looks like," and we 

emphasize the importance of respect in healthy relationships. From the very beginning, 

this helps them build a foundation for success in their classes, on their teams, and as 

leaders across our campus, as well as in our surrounding community. New cadets receive 

training on the second day they are here to set the standards of what is expected on our 

campus. On day 10 of basic training, cadets participate in an interactive, three hour 

training that covers specific definitions and responsibilities about sexual harassment and 

sexual assault. 

Our active engagement as leaders in improving our culture and climate means that we set, 

model, and enforce clear expectations for respectful interactions. Leadership sets the tone and 

determines our success or failure in the initiatives we undertake. To that end, we established a 

Directorate for Culture, Climate and Diversity to serve as our strategic leader and principle 

advisor on these issues, integrating oversight and support for all of our programs across the 

Academy, including sexual assault prevention and response "sensors." This alignment 

streamlines reporting, leverages resources, documenting and assessing efforts, and 

institutionalizes outcomes. 

Prioritizing leadership buy-in and involvement across campus has enabled us to take a 

broad range of approaches to prevention and awareness, some of which have been uncommon: 

We've held forums ranging fl·om poetry readings to conducting a mock sexual assault 

trial. Gender focused forums address issues with gender, hyper-masculinity, and 

4 
101 

diversity. All of these events are designed to help students better understand 

themselves, other people, and to recognize boundaries. 

A "Finding Our Voices" workshop focused on empowering individuals impacted by 

sexual violence through art. 

We have employed "Social Impact Theater," which utilizes the latest evidence-based 

research in theater arts and behavioral science to teach sexual assault bystander 

intervention techniques and ways to deal with male victimization- tackling questions 

such as "How do we eliminate sexual assault in our military?" We have been 

encouraged by callbacks from graduates who've successfully used these techniques. 

One element of the Academy where we have made significant strides is in the Athletic 

Department. Initially, some of our coaches did not understand that their roles encompassed more 

than simply coaching a sport that we also expect them to help us develop leaders of character. 

Central to these efforts has been our work with athletes in conducting healthy relationships 

training: 

Every intercollegiate athletic team participates in this in small-group training, which 

establishes mutual respect and effective communication as a foundation for healthy 

relationships. It focuses on all interpersonal relationships, and utilizes a 

multidisciplinary approach that includes instructors from SAPR, the Athletic 

Department, judge advocates, mental health providers, and military family life 

consultants. 

This training takes place in a judgement-free environment, where the focus is positive 

and everyone is allowed to speak freely using whatever language they are comfortable 

5 
102 

with. And, you have to be a good listener and not attack anyone for their thoughts or 

beliefs. 

The training reinforces that everyone is in a different place with regard to relationships 

It doesn't matter where you arc, you just need to be comfortable with where you are. 

We train about l ,000 cadet athletes every year in small groups within their teams, and 

it has been very well received by the cadets themselves. 79% rated it worthwhile or 

very worthwhile, 21% said somewhat worthwhile, and no one said "not 

worthwhile." 67% said the training changed their behavior. 

In the early round of discussions with our female student athletes, at the conclusion of 

the workshops, we had at least one person come to us and seek help from 4 of the 5 

teams. 

In one instance, the captain of the baseball team remarked that the conversation 

continued in the dormitories some two plus hours past the conclusion of one workshop. 

And in another instance, a football player requested a second round of conversations to 

improve his communications skills and build a more meaningful relationship with his 

girlfriend. 

To reinforce this commitment and ensure consistency and leadership continuity, our 

athletic director, Mr. Jim Knowlton, established a Director for Culture and Climate who is 

responsible for the overall health and climate in the athletic department. I'm proud of the 

direction our Athletic Department is headed in their tangible commitment to confronting sexual 

assault. They have leveraged the abilities some of our most efTective and natural leaders ~our 

student athletes~ to affect culture change across campus. And, improvements to our climate and 

culture haven't been detrimental to our athletic success: 12 conference coach of the year awards 

6 
103 

last year, along with a record year in terms of All American status and participation in 

conference and national championships. To make our institution better, we must not only take 

stock of our student athletes' accomplishments on the field, but also off the field, in their impact 

in the community and their positive influence on their fellow cadets. 

Other schools have taken notice of these efforts. This past summer I spoke at the annual 

convention of the National Association of College Directors of Athletics (NACDA) in Dallas, 

Texas, about some of our initiatives and outcomes, and found an audience hungry for ideas to 

bring back to their own institutions to help confront this societal issue. The event spawned so 

many productive conversations that this past month at the Air rorce Academy we hosted the 

inaugural NACDA Spring Symposium, which focused on innovative approaches to leadership 

and wellbeing, including sexual assault. Dr. Kimberly Dickman, our Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Analyst, presented the day's general session to athletic directors from all across 

the U.S., which focused on a holistic approach to sexual assault prevention. Any holistic 

approach to this issue must include a sober assessment ofthe environment in which cadets 

operate. 

Issues with conduct on social media and in anonymous environments present new 

questions regarding how leaders of character conduct themselves. To keep pace with swift 

changes in culture and the development of new dimensions of victimization, our current and 

future initiatives reflect a paradigm shift in training, focusing more on peer-to-peer approaches 

and grass roots efforts, and implementing evidence-based programs that use meaningful metrics 

to measure impact over time. This focus is transitioning !rom quantity to quality, and trom 

response to prevention. Our initiatives include: 

7 
104 

Cadet Healthy Personal Skills (CHiPs) for fourth class (freshman) cadets. This 

evidence-based program is focused on prevention of multiple problem behaviors, 

including substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, and aggressive behavior. It has 

three goals: 1) increase personal competence skills in self-management and decision 

making, 2) increase social competence skills in communication and assertiveness, and 

3) improve cognition and attitudes toward sexual consent and pro-health norms. 

Green Dot bystander intervention training has been implemented with our permanent 

party staff as part of the first phase of a 5-year Air Force-wide violence prevention 

strategy. Cadets will receive this training starting this summer. The training covers 

personal and professional relationships, along with discussions on the factors that 

contribute to higher rates of sexual assault among sophomores than other class years. 

It is highly interactive and discussion-based and uses realistic scenarios, and cadets 

are encouraged to speak up whenever they hear disparaging or disrespectful 

comments, as well as whenever a fellow cadet is in a risky situation. 

In addition, as part of the five-year prevention strategy, we have implemented or will 

implement initiatives dedicated to: changing attitudes, nmms, and environments; 

addressing risk factors such as substance abuse, emotional maturity, and peer 

pressure; and addressing relationship risks such as casual sex, relationship conflicts, 

and gender based attitudes. 

Victim Care and Response Initiatives 

Victim care is a central priority for our SAPR program, and we have built a robust safety 

net for victims to ensure their emotional and physical wellbeing. Our programs are meant to help 

victims regardless of when or where sexual misconduct took place, even if it was before they 

8 
105 

came to the Air Force Academy. 38% of reports in 2016 were of incidents that occurred prior to 

military service. The reports of prior assaults are a sign of trust in the system and in leadership. 

We want all victims to get the help and care that they need so that they are able to continue on 

the selfless, ambitious paths that brought them to our Academy, and reach their fullest potential 

as leaders of character in our Air Force. 

Our approach to victim care includes medical care, counselors, chaplains, peer support, 

law enforcement investigation, and a special victims' counsel- a legal expert who represents 

victims every step of the way, throughout an undeniably difficult process. When a victim 

chooses to ask for help, a victims' advocate is there to offer suppmi and ensure all resources are 

available for their recovery. Whether a report is restricted or unrestricted, a safety net of support 

is immediately in place until the victim says he or she no longer needs it. In addition, our civilian 

employees are eligible to use the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program. 

Accountabilitv 

All incidents across the spectrum of harm from unwanted touching to forced penetration -

arc reported and taken seriously. We arc committed to conducting professional, responsive, 

accurate investigations into every sexual assault allegation. 

At the Air Force Academy we employ 2 of24 worldwide Air Force Special Victim 

Investigation and Prosecution (SVIP) investigators (SAPR agents). Both of these investigators, 

our Office of Special Investigations (OS!) Detachment commander, and 9 of our II agents are 

graduates of the Air Force's sex crimes investigator training program (SCITP), while our other 

agents are awaiting training. The Air Force Academy collaborated with AFOSI to create an 

Academy orientation program in order to familiarize agents with our mission and the unique 

9 
106 

facets of cadet life. It is an expectation that all agents assigned to the Academy will attend the 

training program, and AFOSl has established a Joint Sexual Assault Team (JSAT) trained to 

investigate specific UCMJ Article 120 cases, including those across the entire spectrum of harm, 

not only cases involving penetration or evident physical violence. Our Judge Advocates (JA) 

and OS! team together so that a prosecutor is present for every victim and subject interview. In 

addition, victims are offered Special Victims Counsel (SVC) representation, with an SVC 

located in our cadet area to provide victims ease of access. 

In the academic year from 2015 to 2016, USAFA had 14 completed investigations. Four 

resulted in criminal charges (one civilian conviction, one acquittal, one Resignation in Lieu of 

court Martial (RILO), one pending RILO), six resulted in disenrollment, three resulted in 

administrative action, one resulted in no action due to the victim denying the allegation, for an 

overall rate of consequence of 86% (12 out of 14). In the cases that did not result in criminal 

charges, two victims preferred administrative action, four victims declined to participate, and 

three cases had evidentiary or legal issues that did not support court martial. 

With the inception of the SVC program, we have developed greater insight into the needs and 

desires of victims regarding the outcomes of sexual assault investigations and cases. In 

determining the appropriate course of action, our commanders, with input from victims and 

SVCs, consultation from our judge advocates, and review by myself, consider outcomes 

including administrative actions, prohation, disenrollment, and court-martial. This outcome is 

determined based on the nature of the offense, strength of evidence, input from the victim, and 

the interests of good order and discipline. These multiple levels of review help ensure we reach a 

just outcome while also ensuring that the Constitutional rights of the accused are protected. 

10 
107 

Upward trajectory, Keeping the conversation going 

In 2015, our yearly "Take Back the Night" event was attended by the Secretmy of the Air 

Force, and was entitled "Shattering the Silence." The moniker for the event was appropriate, as 

one key aspect of our approach to these issues has been the encouragement - and indeed 

facilitation of- frank and open conversations about sexual assault, an issue that has been called a 

"silent, violent epidemic" in our society. As we strive to increase our enrollment of women at 

USAF A, and as more women join the military to serve in roles previously closed to them, the 

importance of these open and frank conversations only becomes more vital to providing a safe 

environment in which to live, work, and learn, and for the morale and welfm·e of our entire force. 

Two months ago I had the privilege of being invited to discuss the role ofleadership in 

combatting sexual assault in a session at the South by Southwest conference in Austin, TX, 

where I discussed the need for active and engaged leadership, open and unembarrassed dialogue, 

and some of the more successful initiatives we've implemented at the Air Force Academy. After 

speaking I was approached by a concerned mother who thanked me for the simple act of 

speaking publicly about sexual assault. And, this past month I was interviewed by the Chronicle 

of Higher Education for an article focused on initiating conversations about sexual assault at the 

Academy. Throughout these speaking engagements and interviews, I expressed that taking 

ownership and having compassion as leaders, and facilitating frank and effective communication 

are key to ending this problem, and that while I don't enjoy talking about sexual assault, we must 

overcome any reluctance we have to talk openly about this damaging issue. 

Conclnsion 

11 
108 

Mr. Chairman and members ofthe committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before you today to speak about a topic so vital to the wellbeing of our cadets and service 

members, and for the opportunity to keep this conversation going. Thank you for your concern 

about the future leaders of our Air Force. We owe it to them to get this right, and we are 

committed to fueling an upward trajectory in positive culture change. This effort will require a 

united front in consistent reinforcement, fairness, and continuity, going beyond adherence to the 

bedrock honor codes our MSAs have built education and leadership foundations upon. We must 

ensure that across our organizations, from top to bottom, we are living and leading honorably, 

and with impeccable character, in all that we do. At the United States Air Force Academy we are 

making strides, but there is more work to be done. 

I am now prepared to answer any questions you might have. 

12 
109 

Lieutenant General Michelle D. Johnson 

Lt. Gen. Michelle D. Johnson is Superintendent, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado 

Springs, Colorado. She directs a four-year regimen of military training, academics, athletic 

and character development programs leading to a Bachelor of Science degree and a 

commission as a second lieutenant. 

A distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1981, General Johnson 

completed graduate studies as a Rhodes Scholar before earning her pilot wings in 1984. 

She has served in various assignments in air mobility, airlift and tanker flying operations 

and training, academic instruction and personnel. She has commanded the 9th Air 

Refueling Squadron, the 97th Operations Group and the 22nd Air Refueling Wing. The 

general commanded a deployed air refueling squadron in Operation Southern Watch and 

an air refueling wing in support ofopcrations Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi 

Freedom. She has served as the Air Force aide to the President, an Assistant Professor of 

Political Science, and Associate Air Officer Commanding at the U.S. Air Force Academy. 

She was also the Director of Personnel for Air Mobility Command and Director of Air 

Force Public Affairs. General Johnson served as the Deputy Director for Information and 

Cyberspace Policy on the Joint Staff and as the Director, Strategy, Policy, Programs and 

Logistics, U.S. Transportation Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. 

Prior to assuming her current position, she was the Deputy Chief of Staff: Operations and 

Intelligence, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization, Casteau, Belgium. General Johnson is a command pilot with more than 

3,600 flying hours in C-141, T-41, KC-10, C-17, C-5 and KC-135 aircraft. 

EDUCATION 

1981 Distinguished graduate, Bachelor of Science degree in operations research, U.S. Air Force 

Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo. 

1983 Rhodes Scholar, Master of Arts degree in politics and economics, Brasenose College, Oxford 

University, England 

1987 Squadron Officer SchooL Maxwell AFB, Ala, 

1991 Air Command and Staff College, by correspondence 

1996 Air War College, by correspondence 

1999 Master of Science degree in national security strategy, National War College, Fort Lesley J. 

McNair, Washington, D.C. 

2002 National Security Management Fellow, Syracuse University. N.Y. 

2005 Senior Executive Fellows Program, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 

2007 Fellow, Seminar XXI- Foreign Politics, International Relations and the National Interest, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. 

2011 Joint Flag Officer Warfighting Course, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

2013 The Harvard Seminar for New Presidents, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 

Cambridge, Mass. 

ASSIGNMENTS 

L October 1981 -May 1983, graduate student, Brasenose College, Oxford University, England 

2. May 1983 -July 1984, student, undergraduate pilot training, Williams AFB, Ariz. 

3. July 1984 - October 1984, C-141 initial qualification training, Altus AFB, Okla. 

4. October 1984 -July 1989, C-141 instructor aircraft commander, wing plans officer, command 

post duty officer and squadron executive officer, 41st Military Airlift Squadron, Charleston AFB, 

S.C. 

5. July 1989 - May 1992, Assistant Professor of Political Science, T -41 instructor pilot and 

Associate Air Otlicer Commanding, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo. 

6. May 1992- June 1994, Air Force aide to the President, White House, Washington, D.C. 
110 

7. June 1994- July 1998, KC-10 instructor pilot, flight commander, operations of!lcer and 

Commander, 9th Air Refueling Squadron, Travis AFB, Calif. 

8. July 1998- June 1999, student, National War College, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 

9. June 1999- March 2000, Deputy Commander, 97th Operations Group, Altus AFB, Okla. 

10. March 2000- March 2002, Commander, 97th Operations Group, Altus AFB. Okla. 

II. March 2002- June 2002, National Security Management Fellow, Syracuse University, N.Y. 

12. June 2002- June 2004, Commander, 22nd Air Refueling Wing, McConnell AFB, Kan. 

13. June 2004- November 2005, Director of Personnel, Headquarters Air Mobility Command, 

Scott AFB, Ill. 

14. November 2005- March 2007, Director of Public Affairs and Deputy Director of 

Communications, Office of the Secretary ofthe Air Force, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

15. March 2007- November 2007, Director of Public Affairs, Office of the Secretary of the Air 

Force, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

16. December 2007- June 2009, Deputy Director for Information and Cyberspace Policy, Strategic 

Plans and Policy Directorate (J5), Joint Staff~ the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

17. July 2009- July 2011, Director, Strategy, Policy, Programs and Logistics, U.S. Transportation 

Command, Scott AFB, Ill. 

18. July 2011 -July 2013, Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations and Intelligence, Supreme 

Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Casteau, Belgium. 

19. August 2013- present, Superintendent, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colo. 

SUMMARY OF .JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

I. May 1992- June 1994, Air Force aide to the President, White House, Washington, D.C., as a 

major 

2. December 2007- June 2009, Deputy Director for Information and Cyberspace Policy, 

Directorate for Strategic Plans and Policy (.15), Joint Staff; the Pentagon. Washington, D.C., as a 

brigadier general 

3. July 2009- July 2011, Director, Strategy, Policy, Programs and Logistics, U.S. Transportation 

Command, Scott AFB, Ill., as a brigadier general and major general 

4. July 2011 -July 2013, Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations and Intelligence, Supreme 

Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Casteau, Belgium, as 

major general 

FLIGHT INFORMATION 

Rating: command pilot 

Flight hours: more than 3,600 

Aircraft flown: C-141B, T-4IC, KC-lOA, KC-135R, C-5A, C-17A, T-37 and T-38 

MAJOR A WARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Defense Superior Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters 

Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters 

Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster 

Aerial Achievement Medal 

Air Force Commendation Medal 

Air Force Achievement Medal 

Combat Readiness Medal with oak leaf cluster 

National Defense Service Medal with bronze star 

Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal 

Southwest Asia Service Medal with bronze star 

Global War on Tenorism Service Medal 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant May 27, 1981 

First Lieutenant May 27, 1983 

Captain May 27, 1985 

Major Oct. I, 1991 
111 

Lieutenant Colonel Feb. l, 1995 

Colonel May 1, 1999 

Brigadier General Jan. 2, 2007 

Major General July 16,2010 

Lieutenant General Aug. 12, 2013 

(Current as of July 201 5) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MAY 2, 2017 

(115) 

Connolly, Josh 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED 

Josh, 

Walker, Elizabeth A (Annie) LTC USARMY HQDA OCLL (US) 

<elizabeth.a.walker100.mil@mail.mil> 

Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:31 AM 

Connolly, Josh; Goldstein, Miriam 

Schroeder, Shawn R MAJ USARMY HQDA OCLL (US) 

RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Hearing tomorrow: request for West Point assurance 

(UNCLASSIFIED) 

As discussed telephonically, the Army does not believe that Ms. Gross nor Ms. Bullard require assurances that the Army 

will not enforce para. 3 (b) of Cadet Gross' Settlement Agreement because Congressional testimony at a Congressional 

committee hearing is not a npublic information entity" within the terms of paragraph 3{b) even if the hearing is open to 

the public and/or televised. Additionally, paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement specifically addresses 

communications with Congress and states that, notwithstanding a prohibition against either party making public 

disparaging comments about the other, "either party may communicate with members of Congress without 

restriction." As a result, the Army does not believe that a waiver or an agreement not to enforce the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement is necessary for Ms. Gross' or Ms. Bullard's testimony. 

Please understand that the Army's position on this issue only applies to Ms. Gross and Ms. Bullard's testimony during 

the Congressional hearing this afternoon. 

Thank you. 

Respectfully, 

LTC Elizabeth A. Walker 

Legislative Counsel 

Investigations and legislative Division 

Army Office of the Chief, legislative liaison (OClL) Pentagon, Room 1E433 

Office: (703)697-0275 

BB: (571}224-3946 

elizabeth.a.walkerlOO.mil@mail.mil 

-----Original Message----

From: Connolly, Josh [mailto:Josh.Connolly@mail.house.gov] 

Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 7:07 PM 

To: Walker, Elizabeth A (Annie) LTC USARMY HQDA OCLL (US) <elizabeth.a.walker100.mil@mail.mil>; Goldstein, Miriam 

<Miriam.Goldstein@mail.house.gov> 

Cc: Schroeder, Shawn R MAJ USARMY HQDA OCLL (US) <shawn.r.schroeder,mil@mail.mil> 

Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source) RE: Hearing tomorrow: request for West Point assurance (UNCLASSIFIED) 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MAY 2, 2017 

(119) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. Overall estimated rates of unwanted sexual contact measured 

in the 2016 Service Academy Gender Relations (SAGR) found that 12.2 percent of 

Academy women and 1.7 percent of Academy men experienced some form of sexual 

assault in the year prior to being surveyed. The Active Duty measure of sexual assault in the 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of the Active Duty 

(WGRA) is different, but produces statistically similar results as the estimated 

measure of unwanted sexual contact used at the Academies. The 2016 WGRA found 

that 7.7 percent of Active Duty women 18 to 22 years old and 1.0 percent of Active 

Duty men 18 to 22 years old were estimated to have experienced some kind of sexual assault in the past year. [See page 37.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. Each of the Military Service Academies have policies in place 

for addressing underage drinking and collateral misconduct when sexual assault is 

involved. Each individual Academy is best positioned to provide you with their exact 

policies and practices regarding underage drinking and sexual assault. However, 

most of them observe the flexible response provided by DOD Instruction 6495.02 

‘‘Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures,’’ which indicates that commanders may wait to administer accountability actions for alcohol infractions once the sexual assault has been fully investigated. The Instruction also 

encourages commanders to weigh all available evidence in determining appropriate 

accountability for collateral misconduct. [See page 52.] 

General CASLEN. To provide some context to the commissioning standard and 

USMA’s approach to granting waivers; AR 40–501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), 

Ch 2, para 2–27–K, having a history of post-traumatic stress disorder is a medically 

disqualifying condition for commissioning. In situations where the condition is not 

significantly impairing and is under good control a waiver can be granted. The decision to grant a waiver for commissioning is made during a Cadet’s Firstie year. The 

fact that an individual is on medication does not determine whether or not they will 

receive a waiver. In the past 5 years there have not been any Cadets with PTSD 

secondary to a sexual assault who were not allowed to commission at the end of 

their Firstie year because of treatment they were receiving. Given our standard of 

granting waivers if this situation were to occur, the fact that they were receiving 

treatment with or without medication would not be the determinant factor. [See 

page 53.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MAY 2, 2017 

(123) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. ROSEN 

MS. ROSEN. Why do you assess there to be a discrepancy between the increased 

incidents identified in the anonymous survey and the decrease in reported cases of 

sexual assault and harassment? Do you believe this to be a sign that victims have 

a severe distrust in the system to investigate and pursue justice, and/or a fear of 

retaliation? 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. The 2016 Service Academy Gender Relations Survey (SAGR) 

was administered to Military Service Academy students in March and April of 2016. 

The SAGR asks students questions related to personal experiences of unwanted sexual contact between June 2015 and the time they took the survey, which represents 

the past academic program year. In 2016, the SAGR found that 12.2 percent of female cadets/midshipmen and 1.7 percent of male cadets/midshipmen indicated experiencing unwanted sexual contact in the past academic program year (unwanted 

sexual contact is the survey term for the range of penetrating and contact sexual 

crimes). 

The survey rates allow us to estimate that about 507 cadets/midshipmen experienced some kind of unwanted sexual contact in the year prior to the survey. During 

the same period, 64 cadets and midshipmen made a report of sexual assault for an 

incident that occurred during their military service. 

Based on these statistics, we estimate that about 13 percent of victimized cadets/ 

midshipmen chose to report their incident of sexual assault. This is down from the 

16 percent estimated in 2014. While the share of cadets/midshipmen who reported 

their incident decreased overall, figures varied by Academy. At USMA, we estimate 

that about 16 percent of cadets/midshipmen who indicated they experienced unwanted sexual contact chose to report the incident, which is a small increase from 

14 percent in 2014. Comparable figures for the Naval and Air Force Academies both 

show downward trends. The share of Navy midshipmen choosing to report their incident decreased from 17 percent in 2014 to 11 percent in 2016, while the share of 

Air Force cadets choosing to report decreased from 17 percent to 12 percent during 

the same period. The survey data collected by the Department does not lead us to 

conclude that cadets/midshipmen have a severe distrust in the system to investigate 

and pursue justice. Rather, cadet/midshipmen responses to the survey indicated that 

the top reasons for not reporting a sexual assault allegation were they: 

• Thought the incident was not serious enough to report. 

• Took care of the incident themselves by avoiding the person who did it, forgetting about it and moving on, or confronting the person who did it. 

• Did not want more people to know about the incident. 

Cadets and midshipmen who do decide to report endorse reasons that imply some 

confidence in the military justice system. For example, one commonly endorsed reason for reporting for female cadets and midshipman was to stop the person(s) (i.e., 

the accused) from hurting others. (Men’s reasons for reporting were not reportable 

due to the small numbers of cadets/midshipmen in this survey category). In sum, 

the Military Service Academies are unique environments that present a number of 

challenges. 

Leadership at all levels of the Department is committed to better understanding 

these unique factors and spurring greater reporting of the crime. 

MS. ROSEN. What do you believe are the best measures to increase victims’ confidence in the value of reporting, better protect them from retaliation, and foster a 

command climate where unwanted sexual contact is not committed against our 

brothers and sisters in arms? 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. The number of Active Duty Service members who report a sexual assault has increased over the last few years following senior leadership emphasis on the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program, enhanced victim support services and protections, legal representation for victims, and changes 

to the military justice system. These changes have also occurred, over time, at the 

Military Service Academies (MSA). However, the unique demographic and environmental factors at the MSAs require an approach directed at young adults in a collegiate setting. 
124 

Evidence suggests that greater cadet/midshipman involvement with the SAPR 

program may be essential to increased reporting and command climate improvements. The 2016 Service Academy and Gender Relations Survey asked why cadets 

and midshipmen who reported their sexual assault did so, and the survey allowed 

them to choose more than one reason. The survey found that nearly 70 percent of 

female cadets and midshipmen indicated that they reported the situation because 

someone they told about the sexual assault encouraged them to report. More than 

one-third indicated that they officially reported the situation in order to stop the alleged offender(s) from hurting others. In addition, about a quarter indicated that 

they reported to raise awareness that [sexual assault] occurs at the Academy. These 

findings suggest that those who made a report did so because they experienced some 

kind of external motivation. While each of the MSAs has a peer-led program that 

promotes the SAPR program, greater acceptance of the tenets of the SAPR program—dignity and respect—throughout the student body may encourage greater reporting, an improved climate, and ultimately, fewer sexual assaults. 

MS. ROSEN. Why do you assess Air Force Academy reporting to be significantly 

down while Annapolis and West Point have greater reports of unwanted sexual contact? Why are reports of sexual harassment down for all three? 

Dr. VAN WINKLE. Sexual assault reporting: We respectfully defer to the Military 

Service Academies to explain their year-to-year changes in the number of reports. 

Historically, United States Air Force Academy receives the largest number of sexual 

assault reports, but the totals have also fluctuated from year to year. Overall reports at United States Military Academy and United States Naval Academy show 

a small but steady increase over the past several years. 

In addition, the Department estimates the rate of reporting using data from official reports and comparing it to prevalence estimates from the Service Academy 

Gender Relations (SAGR). About 16 percent of cadets at USMA who indicated that 

they experienced unwanted sexual contact on the 2016 SAGR subsequently made an 

official report. This is an increase from 14 percent in 2014. Comparative reporting 

rates for USNA show a decrease from 17 percent in 2014 to 11 percent in 2016, 

while figures for USAFA show a decrease in the reporting rate from 17 percent in 

2014 to 12 percent in 2016. 

Sexual harassment reporting: The behaviors that constitute sexual harassment do 

not always rise to the level of criminal misconduct, and therefore these behaviors 

require a different response than sexual assault behaviors. Department policy encourages resolution of sexual harassment allegations at the lowest interpersonal 

level, meaning that cadets and midshipmen can address sexually harassing behaviors themselves, or by involving leadership. The formal and informal complaint processes in place at the Academies provide additional support and resources to address 

these problem behaviors. 

This statement is supported by results from the 2016 SAGR. Forty-three percent 

indicated they took care of the problem themselves by confronting the person who 

harassed them. 

MS. ROSEN. Why do you assess there to be a discrepancy between the increased 

incidents identified in the anonymous survey and the decrease in reported cases of 

sexual assault and harassment? Do you believe this to be a sign that victims have 

a severe distrust in the system to investigate and pursue justice, and/or a fear of 

retaliation? 

General CASLEN. The national average of case incidents to reports is roughly 1:6. 

USMA’s average is generally 1:4. We believe that the increase in reporting we have 

seen this year is a key indicator that our Cadets are becoming more confident and 

trusting of the reporting process. We’ve seen an increase of over 50% from last 

year’s reporting numbers. The issue of whether victims don’t report as frequently 

as we’d like has much to do with what victims want and when. Justice and accountability are not usually immediate priorities for most victims, especially if the incident is not recent. The important thing we have focused on this year is key changes 

we made to our policy allowing third party disclosures without triggering an investigation and the establishment of a private, easily accessible SHARP Resource Center. We believe these changes have contributed directly to the significant increase 

in reports for AY16–17. 

MS. ROSEN. What do you believe are the best measures to increase victims’ confidence in the value of reporting, better protect them from retaliation, and foster a 

command climate where unwanted sexual contact is not committed against our 

brothers and sisters in arms? 

General CASLEN. Providing victims with support and assistance as they navigate 

the aftermath of a sexual assault incident is our primary effort within the Advocacy 

Program. Victims’ needs are our first priority and while we prefer that every incident that occurs is reported and investigated, we know that in dealing with the 
125 

crime of sexual violence that is not a reasonable expectation. These crimes cut to 

the core of the victims, and our key message is that Advocacy is done at the victims’ 

cadence. When they are ready to move forward with an investigation, we make that 

transition in our assistance to them through the investigative and legal process. A 

key element to addressing retaliation and building a healthy command climate to 

protect victims who have reported an assault, are around increasing empathy and 

respect for any parties involved in a sexual assault incident. Many times behaviors 

that a victim experiences that feel like isolation and retaliation are a function of 

the fact that as they withdraw from their social circles due to being wary of who 

they can trust, which makes their social network uncertain about how to interact 

with them. It is a fundamental human reaction to withdraw in response to someone 

withdrawing. This natural human experience on both sides of a situation like a sexual assault will certainly create a sense of isolation that the victim will experience. 

The challenge for us in education is to highlight that while this may be natural, 

it is important for those who know anyone involved in an incident of sexual assault 

to be cognizant of how much peer support means in the overall experience of recovering one’s sense of self-worth and dignity following this sort of personal trauma. 

We need to explore these issues in a healthy and productive manner within our education program and provide Cadets with strategies to manage the social discomfort 

that occurs in a small cohesive groups where an incident has occurred. 

MS. ROSEN. Why do you assess Air Force Academy reporting to be significantly 

down while Annapolis and West Point have greater reports of unwanted sexual contact? Why are reports of sexual harassment down for all three? 

General CASLEN. We look at the increase in our reported incidents as a strong 

indicator that Cadets believe they will receive the support they need and want, regardless of whether they report restricted or unrestricted. We look at this over time 

as a key indicator that our Advocacy, Investigation and Accountability processes are 

effective and we continue to build on these successes. This is what we know about 

USMA’s reporting. We do not have enough information about the issues at the other 

MSAs to make an assessment as to why these reporting differences exist. Sexual 

harassment reports are likely down because in our education program we discuss 

three ways to deal with harassment, one being directly confronting the harasser. 

This may be one reason the reports are decreasing because Cadets are handling the 

matter themselves and the behavior stops. 

MS. ROSEN. Why do you assess there to be a discrepancy between the increased 

incidents identified in the anonymous survey and the decrease in reported cases of 

sexual assault and harassment? Do you believe this to be a sign that victims have 

a severe distrust in the system to investigate and pursue justice, and/or a fear of 

retaliation? 

Admiral CARTER. There are many reasons why victims or survivors choose not to 

report an incident of unwanted sexual contact. Incidents of unwanted sexual contact 

can range from unwanted touching to penetration. The Annual Report on Sexual 

Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies (MSA) for Academic 

Program Year 2015–2016 identified an increase in overall prevalence from the 2014 

levels but an overall downward trend since 2010. This suggests general progress but 

with a lot more work to do. 

For the Naval Academy, reporting rates continued to increase; we think this indicates that we are gaining the trust of the midshipmen. Notably, there were 11 conversions from Restricted Reports to Unrestricted Reports where the previous four 

years saw 4 total conversions. MSA Report Data suggests that the midshipmen are 

trusting of their chain of command. Midshipmen willing to seek help from the chain 

of command increased to 88%. 

MS. ROSEN. What do you believe are the best measures to increase victims’ confidence in the value of reporting, better protect them from retaliation, and foster a 

command climate where unwanted sexual contact is not committed against our 

brothers and sisters in arms? 

Admiral CARTER. The Annual Report and Violence at the Military Service Academies (MSA) for Program Year 2015–2016 indicated that our response efforts continue to improve. Reports by victims continue to rise at the U.S. Naval Academy 

(USNA), which we believe is an indication of increased trust in our system. Some 

probable reasons for this improvement can be attributed to the continued efforts of 

our dedicated and caring response personnel. USNA has two Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, a dedicated team of Victim Advocates, and a recently added 

(2013) Victims’ Legal Counsel. We also have a recently added Sexual Assault Trauma Counselor at our Midshipman Development Center to complement our continued 

support from Chaplains, and medical personnel, all of whom put the survivors’ care 

as priority #1. We have relocated the Response Office out of the dormitory where 

all could see victims seeking assistance, to a nearby, but private location. The lead-
126 

ership continues to emphasize confidentiality to those that need to know, and where 

evidence supports, holding perpetrators accountable. 

With regard to retaliation, the MSA reported extremely low incidents of retaliation. The USNA complies with the DOD Quarterly Reporting requirements of retaliation and have no reported incidences this Academic Program Year. The report did 

find there was evidence of peer-to-peer retaliation happening on social media. We 

are addressing those challenges in both our Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) efforts and our leadership training. 

MS. ROSEN. Why do you assess Air Force Academy reporting to be significantly 

down while Annapolis and West Point have greater reports of unwanted sexual contact? Why are reports of sexual harassment down for all three? 

Admiral CARTER. We do not know what the reasons are for the decline at the Air 

Force Academy, however, our increase in reports is viewed as a sign that we are 

successfully increasing the trust of our midshipmen and active duty Sailors to come 

forward and seek help. The success of our response efforts must now be complemented by positive efforts in our prevention program. 

Our midshipmen tell us that the reason that sexual harassment reports are decreasing is that they want to handle those situations on their own. Our prevention 

education gives them tools to address attitudes and beliefs and confront harassment 

situations at their level. Those skills are important as we prepare Junior Officers 

to lead in the Fleet and Marine Corps. 

MS. ROSEN. Why do you assess there to be a discrepancy between the increased 

incidents identified in the anonymous survey and the decrease in reported cases of 

sexual assault and harassment? Do you believe this to be a sign that victims have 

a severe distrust in the system to investigate and pursue justice, and/or a fear of 

retaliation? 

General JOHNSON. Though the prevalence of sexual assault for Academic Program 

Year (APY) 15–16 went up and the reports went down, the overall trend for both 

has been relatively stable over the last 10 years, with prevalence trending down and 

reports trending upwards. This indicates a trust in leadership and the military justice process, and most cadets who formally report a sexual assault indicate that they 

would do the same again. The Service Academy Gender Relations (SAGR) anonymous survey also reports that cadet have confidence in their leadership to take reports seriously, protect their confidentiality, and ensure their safety. At the military 

service academies, as with society as a whole, most survivors of sexual assault never 

tell anyone about their assault. Reasons vary from not wanting others to know 

about the incident to feeling it was not serious enough to report. Unwanted sexual 

contact, as defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as well as the 

SAGR survey, includes behaviors along a continuum of harm, from unwanted sexual 

touching to rape. Some individuals may not report instances that fall along the 

touching end of the spectrum, and in fact the SAGR showed that 40% of cadets addressed the unwanted behaviors themselves when it occurred. Further, 38% of reports in 2016 were of incidents that occurred prior to military service, and we support victims with our programs regardless of when or where sexual misconduct took 

place. The reports of prior assaults are also a sign of trust in the system and in 

leadership. At USAFA, we follow every court case with a statement from leadership 

that includes guidance from Judge Advocate (JA) to ensure cadets understand the 

process and support those who come forward to report these crimes. When a victim 

chooses to ask for help, whether through a restricted or unrestricted report, we immediately offer support and ensure that all resources are available for their recovery. All incidents across the spectrum of harm are reported and taken seriously. Our 

multifaceted approach that incudes education, accountability, and a robust victim 

support system is central to our effort to foster a positive climate of trust that is 

free from the fear of retaliation. 

MS. ROSEN. What do you believe are the best measures to increase victims’ confidence in the value of reporting, better protect them from retaliation, and foster a 

command climate where unwanted sexual contact is not committed against our 

brothers and sisters in arms? 

General JOHNSON. One way in which we are looking to increase victim confidence 

is enhancing our communication to cadets about outcomes of cases that did not go 

to court-martial. We have a strong process in place to advertise and educate about 

court-martial outcomes, but given that most cases are resolved outside of the courtmartial process (unbeknownst to most cadets), we are exploring ways to communicate those administrative outcomes, while also protecting privacy, so that cadets 

understand that accountability can take many forms. Many of those forms of accountability, even though not courts-martial, are based on the input and desires of 

the victims, and not all victims view a court-martial conviction/jail as the optimal 

outcome. This also helps to educate cadets about due process, and shows that no 
127 

matter what the outcome there is a process in place to balance the rights of the victim and the accused. When individuals truly understand the dynamics of offending, 

and victimization and reporting is seen and valued as courageous, victims may have 

more confidence to report. When victims trust that they will be believed and supported they are more likely to tell others, formally through reports or informally for 

support. When sexual assault is no longer seen only as a female issue we may see 

more men reporting and less women being ostracized for being a victim of a crime. 

When victims see that justice, however they define it for themselves, whether 

through the legal process, being heard, or being supported to heal, does come from 

reporting, others will see the value in reporting. When all, and not just victims, see 

the value in reporting, we will reduce retaliation. Until then, we ensure victim privacy and provide support emotionally, psychologically, legally, and academically, 

and we will actively address issues of retaliation if they should occur. 

At USAFA, we are building the proper foundation for a climate where sexual assault is not committed or tolerated, and it starts with education and leadership and 

character development. Leaders at all levels are charged to foster a climate that 

eliminates sexual assault and develops a force that shows respect for all human dignity—owning the problem across every mission element, from top to bottom. 

MS. ROSEN. Why do you assess Air Force Academy reporting to be significantly 

down while Annapolis and West Point have greater reports of unwanted sexual contact? Why are reports of sexual harassment down for all three? 

General JOHNSON. USAFA’s reports have fluctuated more than the other two 

academies, which have a steadier incline, yet USAFA consistently has the most reports of sexual assault, to include in APY 15–16. We all have the goal of increasing 

reports and supporting victims as they make the decision to report. The 2016 Military Service Academy Defense Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (MSA DEOCS) 

shows that 61.8% (57.3) of the people who experience sexual harassment did not report the incident to anyone. Of those people who experienced sexual harassment at 

USAFA and did not report, 66.7% (72) of men, and 71.4% (71) of women did not 

report because they did not think it was important enough. 33.3% (12) of men and 

25% (29) of women listed fear of reprisal. The MSA DEOCS does not give a clear 

indication of where that reprisal might come from regarding specifically sexual harassment; however, Table 28 did show 45.3% (39.4) of men 58.9% (58.1) of women 

selected negative social outcomes for reporting fellow cadets for misconduct. Although, not specific to sexual harassment, these numbers lead Equal Opportunity 

(EO) to believe there is a fear of reprisal from the cadets’ peers, creating an environment where men and women do not believe the issue was important enough, considering the social ramifications. Culture change in cadets measuring professionalism 

versus social pressures is essential, as well as creating trust in leadership, the EO 

office, and other helping agencies is a critical challenge. The measures we have 

taken thus far were to move the EO office closer to cadet area, and implementing 

an increase of EO training for leadership and cadets. 

Æ