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 

25–087 2018

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–21] 

SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES OF THE 

MILITARY SERVICES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 21, 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 

Brilakis, LtGen Mark A., USMC, Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, United States Marine Corps ........................................................ 5 

Burke, VADM Robert P., USN, Chief of Naval Personnel, United States 

Navy ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Evans, MG Jason T., USA, Director, Military Personnel Management, United 

States Army .......................................................................................................... 8 

Grosso, Lt Gen Gina M., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, United States Air Force ......................................................... 5 

Kurta, Anthony M., Performing the Duties of Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness, Office of the Secretary of Defense ..................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Brilakis, LtGen Mark A. .................................................................................. 37 

Burke, VADM Robert P. .................................................................................. 55 

Coffman, Hon. Mike ......................................................................................... 31 

Evans, MG Jason T. ......................................................................................... 60 

Grosso, Lt Gen Gina M. ................................................................................... 45 

Kurta, Anthony M. ........................................................................................... 32 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Ms. Speier ......................................................................................................... 73 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Bacon .......................................................................................................... 80 

Ms. Speier ......................................................................................................... 77 

(1) 

SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES OF THE MILITARY SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 21, 2017. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:32 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 now called to order. 

I want to welcome everyone here to this afternoon’s Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing. The purpose of today’s hearing is to 

receive an overview of the military services’ existing social media 

policies and to learn what changes are being considered to 

strengthen, disseminate, and enforce these policies in light of recent reports of extremely disturbing online behavior. 

The rapid emergence of social media as one of the dominant 

means of communication over the past few years has resulted in 

many positive and negative consequences. While social media has 

proven to be an effective and efficient means of instantly disseminating important information and views to millions of people, it can 

also serve as an all-too-effective platform for bullying and harassment. 

Although social media has the power to connect service members 

and veterans seeking support, these same tools can be used to demean and psychologically harm fellow service members. While 

these issues are not limited to the military—and, in fact, are rampant throughout civilian society—social media harassment and military—in a military setting can be particularly damaging because of 

its effect on service member morale and good order and discipline. 

In short, these actions can erode our military readiness. 

In recognition of these challenges, I am aware that each of the 

military services has a social media policy designed to govern service members’ conduct when using social media. However, it is clear 

from recent cases that these policies have not been effective and 

must be strengthened in order to prevent the abhorrent behavior 

recently reported in conjunction with the United States—with the 

Marines United case. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about the 

military services’ current social media policies and how these policies are communicated and trained to the force. I am also interested to hear what improvements each of the services are consid-
2 

ering in light of the recent cases, and how the services will ensure 

that every service member receives effective training on appropriate online behavior and bystander intervention. 

Finally, I would like to know what resources are available for 

victims of online harassment, including legal and behavioral health 

assistance. 

Before I introduce our 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 31.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have to say, I am disappointed in the topic of this hearing. Framing the issue as military social media policies, frankly, misses the point. No one has 

ever gone on Facebook, looked at nonconsensually posted intimate 

photos, typed a rape threat, and then stopped and said, Oh, I better not make rape threats, that is against the military’s social 

media policy. 

All of these services have had social media policies that state it 

is against good order and discipline to make disrespectful and derogatory posts. But here we are, exactly where we were 4 years 

ago, when I stood on the House floor and condemned the online 

bullying of U.S. Marine Corps service women on a public Facebook 

page. 

At the time, General Amos, who was then the Commandant of 

the Marines, responded by stating, quote, ‘‘We share your indignation,’’ unquote, then proceeded in his letter to address the online 

abuse of female marines as an IT [information technology] issue. 

Colleagues, it is time to get serious about this. General Neller 

told us just last week, that, quote, ‘‘This is not a social media problem, but we have a cultural problem,’’ unquote. So it is appalling 

that the committee is treating it as such in this hearing. 

Now, it is appalling that we are not hearing from any service 

members or veterans who have been victimized by nonconsensual 

pornography. If this was just about inappropriate social media use, 

well, I don’t want to have to be the one to have to tell Congress 

or military leadership about this, but it is not hard to find pornography on the internet. 

There is no inherent need to seek out photos of one’s colleagues 

to make puerile Facebook posts whether or not they are against official social media policy. No, this is about service members deliberately trying to degrade, humiliate, and threaten fellow service 

members. They encourage stalking, distributed stolen intimate 

photos, and have reduced their comrades to a collection of body 

parts. 

This cultural rot, which is clearly regressed even before, since 

2013, harms our troops and our readiness. It is abundantly clear 

that this is not a few bad actors but rather, a cancer that has continued to spread and thrive in both the enlisted ranks and the officer corps. 
3 

The collateral damage has been the countless women and men 

who have answered the call to serve their country and have been 

betrayed. 

I have requested a hearing with the service chiefs to discuss 

these issues, but here we are talking about IT again without a single survivor of nonconsensual pornography giving testimony. 

So, today, let’s have a discussion about the culture of the military 

and how to enforce these policies and address inappropriate and illegal behavior on social media. 

The services bring in almost 200,000 new enlistees every year 

that come from a wide variety of backgrounds. Increasingly, those 

recruits are female. For example, more than 25 percent of new 

Navy recruits are women. Female service members are not going 

away. They are here to stay. They have every right to serve their 

country. They have every right to have the opportunity to have an 

experience in the military that gives them benefits and the opportunity to extend their education. 

As General Neller said last week, the reality is that we can’t go 

to war without women anymore. So we need to deal with this. 

What I would like to learn from each of our witnesses today is how 

do you embed your policies into everyday training and military life. 

If it is not engrained into daily life and operations of the military, then I believe it is not taken seriously. And how do you assess 

and adopt those policies when it is clear they are not working? 

More importantly, how do you reinforce that the type of behavior 

we have seen recently is not okay? Do you need to re-evaluate how 

you are educating the force and what can Congress do to help? We 

don’t need to talk about social media policies. We need to talk 

about how to end this hatred and misogyny. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ms. Speier. 

I ask unanimous consent that non-subcommittee members be allowed to participate in today’s hearing after all subcommittee members have had an opportunity to ask questions. 

Is there an objection? Seeing none, so ordered. 

Without objection, non-subcommittee members will be recognized 

at the appropriate time for 5 minutes. 

We are joined today by an outstanding panel. 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 panel. Mr. Anthony Kurta, performing the 

duties of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 

Lieutenant General Mark Brilakis, Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Lieutenant General Gina Grosso, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and Services, United 

States Air Force; Vice Admiral William Burke, Chief of the Naval 

Personnel; and Major General Jason Evans, Director of Military 

Personnel Management, United States Army. 

Okay. With that, Mr. Kurta, you may make your opening statement. 
4 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY M. KURTA, PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL 

AND READINESS, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

Mr. KURTA. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Speier, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to 

testify today regarding DOD [Department of Defense] policies addressing sexual harassment, hazing, and bullying by service members through the use of electronic communications to include online 

social media sites. 

The Department is committing to providing and promoting an 

environment where all service members are treated with dignity 

and respect. 

We are focused on eradicating behaviors that undermine military 

readiness, including unlawful discrimination and harassment. Such 

misconduct is fundamentally at odds with our core values and the 

expectations of the American people. These behaviors jeopardize 

our military mission, weaken trust within our ranks, and erode 

unit cohesion. 

The U.S. military is an institution held in high regard by the 

American people, mostly because we embody high standards and 

values. However, we are not a perfect institution. 

Overwhelmingly, the vast majority of our brave men and women 

serving in uniform do so honorably and bravely. When these men 

and women volunteer to serve in our military, they do so knowing 

the risks involved. However, bullying and sexual harassment, cyber 

or otherwise, by fellow service members should never be one of 

those risks. 

We do our best to uphold our standards and values across the 

world every minute of every day. On occasion, service members fail 

to meet these standards. When that happens, we endeavor to the 

best of our ability to hold each and every one accountable for their 

actions. 

I can tell you that the Secretary of Defense is investing a significant amount of his personal time to this issue, providing his vision 

and direction directly to the service secretaries and the Department’s most senior uniformed leaders and listening to those most 

involved in setting and upholding our standards and our values. 

The Secretary believes that our most successful and ready warfighting units are those with the best discipline. On the battlefield, 

you must have full trust and confidence in your teammates. That 

is not possible when you do not treat them with dignity and respect. 

We have structures in place to address this issue with a combination of leadership, because we treat this as a leadership issue, 

education, and training, needed updates to our policies, and the 

flexibilities that the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] affords us. As we continue to address social media activities and review our policies, we will, of course, work with the Congress on any 

issues or challenges that we identify. 

Mr. Chairman, members of this subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to speak with you today. It is an honor to serve our 

military members, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kurta can be found in the Appendix on page 32.] 
5 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Kurta. 

Lieutenant General Brilakis, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LTGEN MARK A. BRILAKIS, USMC, DEPUTY 

COMMANDANT, MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, UNITED 

STATES MARINE CORPS 

General BRILAKIS. Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today to provide an 

overview of Marine Corps social media policies. As our Commandant testified to last week, we were all disturbed and hugely disappointed by recent online conduct by some of our marines toward 

their fellow marines. We take this online behavior as an attack on 

our Marine Corps ethos. 

You have my word that we will hold accountable any behavior 

that has a corrosive effect on the good order and discipline within 

our corps. We are all committed to using all of the means within 

our authority to address this unacceptable conduct. 

Our first priority is to take care of those harms by this recent 

online conduct. We continue to encourage individuals to come forward, and we stand ready to provide immediate support, information, and referral services to those needing assistance. 

Every marine who takes the oath to support and defend our Constitution, who puts on the uniform, and who puts their life on the 

line to defend our way of life here and at home is provided and has 

earned the trust and respect of the American people. So too should 

they be given that same trust and respect by those of us in uniform. 

Any breach of that trust and respect within the ranks cannot be 

tolerated and must be dealt with with affirmative steps to support 

those individuals harmed by these actions with clarity to ensure 

that all marines act with honor and with accountability for those 

who fail to live up to our standards of conduct. We will be immediate, decisive, unceasing in fixing this problem and defeating this 

attack on our core values. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present at today’s hearing. 

[The prepared statement of General Brilakis can be found in the 

Appendix on page 37.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you for your testimony. 

Lieutenant General Grosso, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LT GEN GINA M. GROSSO, USAF, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND SERVICES, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

General GROSSO. Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, 

and distinguished members of this subcommittee, thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss recent events effecting our airmen and their 

families. 

Let me be clear: cyber bullying, hazing, and sharing private images of our airmen is inconsistent with the Air Force’s core values 

and our culture of dignity and respect. 
6 

While the tools of modern warfare may change, the importance 

of trust never will. Trust is essential to victory on the battlefield, 

and when we violate trust on social media, we break down the fabric of what it means to be an airman. It also degrades the trust 

between the Air Force and the American people we serve. 

For a number of years, the Air Force has worked to improve how 

we build culture and instill an understanding of expected behaviors 

in our airmen. We started in 2012 by publishing Air Force Instruction 1–1, Air Force Standards. It was further updated in 2014 to 

clarify, among other things, the social media section of the instruction. We went one step further in 2015 and in a time of diminishing resources when we stood up the Profession of Arms Center 

of Excellence, affectionately known as PACE. PACE is dedicated to 

providing tools and training materials designed to help commanders, supervisors, and airmen understand and embrace our 

core values, our standards, and our expectations for all airmen. 

In the specific area of social media, we have training modules in 

the curriculum of all of our accession sources, officer and enlisted, 

to include scenario-based training and basic military training that 

covers social media use. We also cover social media use in all our 

professional military education courses from Airman Leadership 

School through Air War College. We have incorporated social media 

policies into a variety of generic and functionally specific Air Force 

instructions that discuss professional and unprofessional relationships as well as the proper use of social media in Air Force communications. 

In parallel, our performance evaluations system includes a requirement to evaluate and comment on an airman’s adherence to 

treating other airmen with dignity and respect as well as an airman’s responsibility to positively contribute to a healthy organizational climate. 

While these various efforts have been ongoing, developing and 

improving our Air Force culture is a continuous journey whereby 

we monitor, adjust, and evolve. Unfortunately, these recent social 

media events provide us another lens to view areas where we can 

improve and better scaffold our training, education, and policy efforts. 

From an accountability perspective, we condemn these inappropriate acts. The Air Force Office of Special Investigations is investigating allegations regarding information and inappropriate photographs of airmen posted on websites without their prior consent. 

Airmen whose images were posted without consent have a number 

of resources available to them. 

Regardless if it is an airman who is deployed or at home station, 

they can seek help from their unit commanders, first sergeants, 

and supervisors. They are also encouraged to seek help directly 

from a variety of resources to include chaplains, military family life 

consultants, mental health professionals, airman and family readiness centers, master resiliency trainers, the Inspector General security forces, the local judge advocate, equal opportunity, our Office 

of Special Investigations, our victim advocates, special victims 

counsel, and sexual assault response coordinators, all who provide 

care and serve a bridge to other specialties. There are also online 
7 

resources available through Military OneSource and the Department of Defense. 

We are currently assessing all legal and administrative tools at 

our disposal to attack this problem and are considering additional 

authorities we need as a service. Once our review is complete, we 

will not hesitate to ask for your assistance in providing additional 

tools as necessary. 

If the past two decades have taught us anything, it is that the 

demand for airspace and cyber power is growing. In the words of 

our chief of staff, ‘‘From our newest airman basic to the chief of 

staff, we are all accountable for meeting ethical and performance 

standards in our actions.’’ 

We should live our core values every day on and off duty. We 

must continuously conduct ourselves in a manner that brings credit 

to our Nation and each other. Service in our Air Force is a higher 

calling, and we carry this legacy forward for future generations of 

airmen. 

Thank you for your time today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Grosso can be found in the 

Appendix on page 45.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Lieutenant General Grosso, thank you so much for 

your testimony. 

Vice Admiral Burke, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF VADM ROBERT P. BURKE, USN, CHIEF OF 

NAVAL PERSONNEL, UNITED STATES NAVY 

Admiral BURKE. Thank you Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, and distinguished members of this committee for this 

opportunity to discuss recent events. 

The military has felt the sting of disappointment from multiple 

reports of unprofessional and totally inappropriate behavior by 

some of our service members. 

Despite repeated efforts to end harassment and cyber bullying in 

our ranks, this intolerable behavior still exists. There is no room 

in our Navy for this toxic behavior, and we are aggressively going 

after it. It makes us weaker. It erodes trust within our team, and 

it cedes advantage to the enemy. We are committed to eradicating 

this behavior and this mindset from our force. The United States 

Navy is a professional force, and the American people expect us to 

maintain high standards. This type of behavior is not who we are. 

We expect better of ourselves. 

The bad actors we have discovered have found a new home, 

underground. We will not tolerate their cowardice and the dark 

shadows of the internet. We will be relentless in exposing these 

perceived sanctuaries and reinforcing our expectation of sailors’ 

conduct whether in uniform, at home, or online. 

To get after this, the Navy immediately stood up a senior leader 

working group to attack this from the top down. This is not a oneand-done review, but rather, a comprehensive strategy and plan 

that underpins our efforts. In addition to helping any sailor who 

may be impacted by this sort of behavior, we are going after this 

in several ways, but the main points are, first, to go after character. 
8 

This is not how we treat our team members. This is an issue of 

both leadership and courage. Our Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson, directed force-wide discussions on expectations for online conduct emphasizing that there are no bystanders, 

even in cyberspace. As sailors, our conduct at work, at home, or online must exemplify the Navy’s core values of honor, courage, and 

commitment at all times. And when we see something wrong, no 

team member should look the other way. These discussions are 

being led by our small team leaders, who are best positioned to influence both the workplace environment and off-duty conduct. 

We are emphasizing this element of character and the idea of no 

bystander into the Navy’s leader development framework and into 

our broader sexual harassment and sexual assault campaign plan. 

Next, the online content. The Navy Criminal Investigative Service continues to investigate misbehavior online and is working with 

social media companies to curb this activity. 

And then, accountability. We are reviewing the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice and Navy policy governing mandatory administrative separation to ensure that they are adequate. 

Sailors who are involved in inappropriate online behavior and 

lose the trust and confidence of the commanding officers will be 

held accountable by a full range of criminal and administrative actions. 

We have provided commanding officers and their teams the toolkit for this issue, which includes the UCMJ guidance, an updated 

online conduct guide, and a social media handbook. And we are encouraging anyone with direct knowledge of explicit photos taken 

without consent or knowledge to contact the Naval Criminal Investigative Service via multiple avenues. 

In closing, we cannot allow ourselves to be tainted by those who 

do not share our values. And while we have made progress, there 

is still much work to be done. 

Navy leaders, from the flag level down to the deck plates, own 

this problem. As a team, we will solve it. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Burke can be found in the 

Appendix on page 55.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Vice Admiral Burke. 

Major General Evans, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MG JASON T. EVANS, USA, DIRECTOR, 

MILITARY PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES ARMY 

General EVANS. Chairman Coffman, Ranking Member Speier, 

distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of America’s Army. 

The Army is a value-based organization comprised of a team of 

professionals—soldiers and Army civilians. Harassment, bullying, 

hazing, stalking, discrimination, retaliation, and any type of misconduct that undermines the dignity and respect will not be tolerated, and those found in violation will be held accountable. 

The Army has worked diligently to develop a holistic continuum 

for professional conduct in all aspects of soldiers’ and Army civilians’ lives. The Army has implemented our online conduct policies 

throughout every level of training and military education so that 
9 

every soldier understands how to treat others with dignity and respect. 

Army policy states that hazing, bullying, and other behaviors 

that undermine dignity and respect are punitive in nature. These 

actions are fundamentally in opposition to the Army values and are 

prohibited behaviors. Our Army-wide guidance published in 2015 

also makes clear that this prohibition applies at all times and extends to all forms of virtual and electronic media. Commanders and 

supervisors at all levels are responsible for enforcing this prohibition. They are required to conduct annual hazing and bullying 

training including online conduct, publish and post written command policy statements on the treatment of persons, and take appropriate actions in response to alleged violations. 

In 2015, then-Chief of Staff of the Army General Odierno established a special initiatives team to address online harassment via 

social media. And to address the dilemma of prevention and response to unprofessional behavior online, the special initiatives 

team coordinated across the Army outlined three lines of efforts to 

achieve the goal of curbing unprofessional online behavior by soldiers. 

First, by updating existing policies and regulations, updating 

training materials and infusing training base with the information 

and best practices, and sharing information regarding responsible 

online conduct. 

The Army developed online conduct discussion points and vignettes in October of 2015. These discussion points and vignettes 

have been incorporated into institutional, command, and unit training packages for equal opportunity, equal employment opportunity, 

treatment of persons, sexual harassment/assault response and prevention, and cyber awareness, among others. 

In addition to updated policy, Army Public Affairs developed a 

strategic messaging campaign to raise awareness of online conduct 

and the consequences of misconduct and published a social media 

handbook that includes an expanded discussion of online responsibilities and best practices section on protecting oneself from and 

reporting online misconduct. 

The Army developed methods to track and report online misconduct through sexual harassment assault response prevention reporting and law enforcement agencies. 

Finally, Not in My Squad program, developed by the Center for 

the Army Profession and Ethics, was designed to help soldiers assess the state of mutual trust and cohesion within their squads. 

The grassroots nature of the interactive program helps junior leaders to gain situational understanding and inspire ethical and professional behavior. The Not in My Squad campaign facilitates leader involvement and accountability and aids in the creation of a professional and ethical culture among members of the Army team. 

As our chief of staff, General Milley, recently remarked on this 

topic, we expect leaders and influencers, from squad level up, to 

talk about and demonstrate what respect looks like at work, at 

home, and online. 

In closing, the Army recognizes the potential dangers concerning 

social media and is proactively working to ensure our soldiers are 
10 

aware of the standards of conduct and policies, training, and programs. 

We will continue to enforce standards and imbue soldiers and 

Army civilians with Army values and emphasize professional behavior in all that we do. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Evans can be found in the 

Appendix on page 60.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. Major General Evans, thank you so much for your 

testimony. 

Mr. Kurta, each of the services has a social media policy, but 

they differ in substance and form. In addition, the proponent for 

the social media policy differs from service to service. Is there a 

benefit to standardizing across the services these policies as well 

as the proponent for the policies? 

Mr. KURTA. Sir, thank you for the question, and I would say very 

briefly, no. I don’t believe there is. 

And I say that, because the Secretary has been very clear that 

the cultures of the individual services are great warfighting readiness advantages. And when we make policy, it has to be broad 

enough that the services within their cultures can do what is right. 

And so what is right and best for, you know, an Army soldier in 

a brigade combat team in Italy is not the same for that sailor that 

is out on the aircraft carrier, you know, somewhere in the Middle 

East. 

So our policies have to be—give the intent of the Secretary to the 

service secretaries and the service chiefs and be broad enough, directive enough so that they know the intent of what is expected, 

and then within their cultures devise the best solution that works 

best for their service. 

Mr. COFFMAN. I am going to ask all of you the same question. 

I will start with Lieutenant General Brilakis, United States Marine 

Corps. How are you integrating social media policies into training 

on other topics such as sexual assault prevention or ethics training? 

General BRILAKIS. Sure. Thanks for the question. With respect to 

our social media policy, our first policy was written in 2010. It was 

the first of its kind. It was reinforced in a Marine administrative 

message in 2013, and last week, we reissued a new policy to cover 

the issues with social media to make marines mindful that they 

have responsibilities in the social space, to remind marines that 

they are our best messenger of the Marine Corps if they operate 

within the guidelines of the social media policy, and then to remind 

them that missed—not adhering to that policy has consequences 

through the various elements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Lastly, what it does is it talks to marines who may be the victims of misbehavior on social media, those remedies, those individuals they can reach out to, that support this throughout the Marine 

Corps, whether it is our sexual assault response coordinators, our 

unit victims advocates, the victims’ legal counsel, the equal opportunity representatives and units, the legal counsel of the NCIS 
11 

[Naval Criminal Investigative Service], et cetera, all wrapped up 

into that particular policy. 

What we are running right now, what the Commandant has done 

is directed us to form a task force, very high-level task force, that 

is chaired by the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps. It 

has been meeting for the last 2 weeks. I sat through a 21⁄2-hour 

meeting of the executive counsel of this task force today. There’s 

been a lot of discussion. There is some progress. There is some tangible actions that are going on. 

You mentioned education and training on the social media policy, 

and that is important. It is critical. Part of what is being looked 

at at this task force are not only current actions that can be taken. 

And you are well aware of Commandant Neller immediately getting out and publishing a video message to the entire force, telling 

them that this behavior is unacceptable, this behavior is antithetical to the ethos of marines. Those actions that have updated this 

policy are all products of that task force. 

The task force is also looking in terms of long-range future operations, if you will, with respect to the social media task force. 

Training and education is fundamental to that. A review of the programs and instructions and all of our formal courses will be part 

of that process to ensure that the training that we do is consistent, 

repetitive, and runs through the marine life service. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. So my time is limited, so I will just leave 

it with the Marine Corps right now, since the problem seems to be 

centered on the Marine Corps, and that is that right now, though, 

is—I realize you are reviewing all of this, but right now, is there 

a social media training requirement in terms of this particular 

issue at boot camp and then on an annual training requirement for 

every marine? 

General BRILAKIS. I will be honest with you, sir, I can’t tell you 

whether there is a training requirement as it existed prior to 2 

weeks ago. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

General BRILAKIS. What I will tell you, what I will say is the 

Commandant has already been on a trip down to Camp Lejeune to 

pass a message that was put out in his video message and also in 

the MARADMIN [Marine administrative message]. He just signed 

off on a white letter that has gone out to all commanders. Every 

marine, to include myself, will sign a formal counseling on the tenets of that policy and our expectations that they adhere to that 

policy. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Ranking Member Speier, you are now 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Kurta, I was somewhat astonished by your comment, frankly. To think that we need separate social media policies 

from one service to another makes no sense. 

It would seem to me that if you take a picture without the consent of someone, and then post it on the internet with their name, 

rank, and serial number, whether you are a marine, or a sailor, or 

any one of the other services, you are violating the law. So why 

wouldn’t we have a social media policy that was clear throughout 

all of the services? 
12 

Mr. KURTA. Well, ma’am, I hope I didn’t leave the impression 

that we think there should be no OSD [Office of the Secretary of 

Defense] policy on social media. 

Ms. SPEIER. No. You know what, you don’t even need to answer 

it. I think that you are wrong. I think that this goes to just fundamental values. It goes to fundamental culture. 

Mr. KURTA. Yes. 

Ms. SPEIER. And I just want to make that statement. I just don’t 

think it makes sense. 

I just want to share with you a couple of, what I received back 

in 2013. ‘‘Don’t wrap it and tap it, tape her and rape her.’’ This is 

the Marines, now. 

Here is another one: ‘‘Listen up, bitches. I am your worst nightmare. You piss us off, I won’t give an F who you are, and we will 

rape your world. And I am not talking about the come-here-andsmell-this kind of rape.’’ I won’t read the rest of this. 

Are you getting the message? 

‘‘I raped pregnant women once. Best threesome forever.’’ 

I just don’t even want to look at any more of these. 

It was bad in 2013. It is bad in 2017. Nothing has changed. Of 

the 30,000 persons that are on that Marines United website, 730 

of them are Active Duty, and 150 of them are Reserves. So we have 

a problem here that just talking about the policy is just not going 

to cut it. 

I guess I want to ask the other services. Let’s start with you, 

General Grosso. Have you gone now and—since the Marines 

United dust-up, have you gone and looked to see if there were sites 

with Air Force members represented? 

General GROSSO. Yes, ma’am. Our Office of Air Force and Special 

Investigations—— 

Ms. SPEIER. Can you turn it on, please. 

General GROSSO. Yes, ma’am. 

Our Office of Air Force and Special Investigations has looked, 

and they have looked at over 30 different sites, and we, to date, 

have not found a site specifically dedicated to denigrating airmen, 

female airmen. 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. How about you Admiral Burke? 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, ma’am. We worked with our Naval Criminal Investigative Service. There are no similar websites that are directly affiliated with the Navy that have been identified to date. 

There are, literally, millions of websites affiliated and that are dotcom, for-profit websites that have, you know, words like ‘‘topless 

sailor’’ and things like that in their title, with all sorts of postings 

and things of that nature on them. Many of them not official photographs. So those are the sorts of stuff that we are pouring through 

right now. 

Ms. SPEIER. General Evans. 

General EVANS. Ma’am, I am aware of an effort, a multiservice 

investigation level to look at a site that was potentially linked to 

the Marines United site. 

Ms. SPEIER. That was an Army site? 

General EVANS. No, ma’am, that had multiple service members 

on the site. A site called Tumblr, and I am aware of an ongoing 

multiservice investigation with that. 
13 

Ms. SPEIER. But the rest of you weren’t aware of that? 

Okay. See, I hate—I think you should all be aware of it. You 

should all be looking at it. 

Let me ask you this: UCMJ article 120 only applies to those who 

take pictures, intimate pictures, of someone without their consent. 

There is nothing that refers to it being distributed without consent, 

because many pictures are sometimes taken and offered for in consent because your intimate partner is deployed, and you are sending them a picture. You then break up, and then your former intimate partner posts it. 

We have introduced legislation last week that would amend 

UCMJ to include the prohibition of nonconsensual sharing of explicit photographs. I would like to ask each of the services if you 

support the legislation? 

Mr. KURTA. Ma’am, if I could take that one. We cannot comment 

on pending legislation; however, I would say as we all look at this 

problem and decide how best to respond to it, both at a department 

level and the individual service level, we are open to all good ideas 

and partnering with the Congress for anything that gives us better 

tools for both awareness and accountability, but we cannot comment on pending legislation. 

Ms. SPEIER. How about the services? Can they comment independent of you? 

Mr. KURTA. No, ma’am, that is—I am sorry. That is a department policy. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. I yield back. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member Speier. 

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

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I associate 

with many of the comments that Ms. Speier has made. And I have 

been on this committee for 22 years and served with you and others for a long period of time, and I can’t help but think the pressure that is on our society because of the new technology, the 

threat to our world because of cyberspace issues that we all deal 

with, particularly on this committee, classified briefings and everything. 

And here we are dealing with the societal problems of the internet and how it impacts our young people, many who go into the 

military, all branches—thank you all, again, for your service and 

being here today. 

You know, I represent the Third District of North Carolina, 

which is the home of Camp Lejeune Marine Base and Cherry Point 

Marine Air Station, and obviously, this has been a huge issue for 

our Nation, but also for the district I represent—not just those in 

uniform, the Marine Corps primarily, but for the citizens who really know that this problem is actually an issue that has grown and 

festered in our society. 

And, you know, when you see children that are 5, 6, and 7 getting iPhones for Christmas, I think you all have an impossible responsibility to get to the genesis of what has happened in the different services. Not just one, even though this is primarily the Marine Corps, but this, I think—I am afraid I am wrong—I hope I am 

wrong, but I am afraid I might be right, this is going to be a battle, 

if I can put it that way, for the different services—and, again, we 
14 

talk primarily about the Marine Corps today—that we have not 

seen before. And it is not going to change. It is going to be with 

us when I am dead and gone and many of you young people sitting 

out there being old men like I am today. 

But I want to ask you, with all you are trying to do—and I know 

that General Mattis, now Secretary of Defense, and also General 

Neller the Commandant, who I have great respect for, this is a 

task that is going to be a difficult one because of the darkness of 

the world of the internet, so to speak. 

Do you feel at this beginning stage of this investigation that you 

have all the resources that you need to try to get to the genesis 

of this problem? 

Mr. KURTA. Sir, first, thank you for the question. And while we, 

you know, acknowledge that this is a problem that is also in society, we don’t hide behind that. 

Mr. JONES. I understand. 

Mr. KURTA. We hold ourselves to higher values and standards 

than is in society. You know, I am also a little bit hopeful, because 

the Department has taken on great cultural issues in the past and 

been successful, whether it is integration of the races, whether it 

is the rampant drug abuse we used to see in the 1970s and 1980s, 

whether it is the alcohol problems that we saw, again, in the 1970s 

and 1980s, we have taken on some of those large issues and had 

cultural issues and had great success over time when we applied 

leadership and the element of time. 

Now, some of those things took, you know, many decades to solve 

and to change the culture in an organization of 2 million-plus people, it does take time and we realize it is limited in this case. So 

I am hopeful. And I think as all of us here and the rest of the leadership in the Department get further into this, we will find out further tools that will be helpful to us. We don’t have a list of those 

today, but we certainly will be talking further with you and the 

rest of the Congress and whoever else we need for access to certain 

tools. 

General BRILAKIS. Thank you, Tony. 

Congressman Jones, thank you. There’s a lot of work to do. This 

task force that the Commandant has stood up is working across 

what is happening today, what we need to do for the future, current policies, a review of all the policies that affect this. 

Most importantly, dealing with those individuals who have been 

harmed by this activity, this abhorrent activity. And so we are 

learning as we are going. 

The commitment of the Commandant has been clear. It has been 

strong. He wants action soon, and we are working to give him a 

series of executable recommendations upon which he can act. 

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

Mr. Brady, you are now recognized for 5 minutes, and then we 

are going to have to recess for a vote. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t really have any 

questions. I probably have an observation. 

Lieutenant General Brilakis, online humiliation, denigration, 

posting of images you have on your statement. 
15 

Lieutenant Grosso, vile—I mean, private images you have sharing posted on your statement, inappropriate behavior, humility, 

harassment, and bullying. 

Mr. Kurta, you have sexual harassment, hazing, and bullying, 

but I don’t see any images. 

And Vice Admiral Burke, you have inappropriate behavior, harassment, bullying but no images. 

And the same with General Evans, harassment, bullying, hazing, 

stalking, retaliation but no images. I really was under the impression and am really kind of concerned about images, because that 

is the new thing now with the internet and people posting images, 

and God knows how far it goes or where it goes. I was wondering 

why the three of you don’t have images? 

Mr. KURTA. Well, Congressman Brady, I would just say this: 

Whether it is the use of images, whether it is the use of social online media, those are tools by which people are denigrating their 

fellow service members, through hazing, bullying, sexual harassment. There’s a number of different ways to characterize it. 

So we were trying to represent the fundamental behavior, which 

is bullying, sexual harassment, hazing, in this case. There’s a variety of tools that people use to perpetrate that type of behavior, but 

we have to get to the fundamental behavior. 

Mr. BRADY. Well, I just wanted to hear you say images. 

Mr. KURTA. Images, yes, sir. Absolutely, that is definitely one of 

the tools that is being used. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BRADY. Vice Admiral Burke. 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir. The images and the social media and 

the internet are just the new—the environment we had not been 

thinking about as much as we should have been. 

Mr. BRADY. Major General. 

General EVANS. Yes, sir. Images in terms of what we defined in 

the online additional guidance and online conduct would include 

any harm to do to anybody via virtual electronic, which would include images, sir. 

Mr. BRADY. Well, I’m glad to hear that, because all of these other 

things aren’t really, like, online: Any inappropriate behavior, bullying, you know, harassment, that is not necessarily online. But the 

images are what we are talking about, which are online and which 

is what everybody, kind of, like, looks at. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. RUSSELL. Thank you. 

I would, just for clarification—and I think we are all in very 

much agreement on this, not just with the panel but also here on 

the committee on these issues. 

But I would like to point out that in section 920 of article 120c, 

that images and privacy and many of these things are addressed 

in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There is a little bit of confusion about what is in the code. 

Section 2: ‘‘knowingly photographs, videotapes, films, or records 

by any means the private area of another person, without that 

other person’s consent and under circumstances in which that 

other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy’’. 
16 

And then it defines this, reasonable expectation means under 

‘‘circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he 

or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an 

image of a private area of a person was being captured’’. 

Broadcast means—the term to broadcast means ‘‘to electronically 

transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.’’ 

So the uniform code very much does address these issues. And 

what I would like to point out, this is really something that demands accountability rather than additional policy or code. I would 

be interested in your thoughts on that, Mr. Kurta, and whoever 

else would like to comment. 

Do you see this as an accountability issue, or do you see that the 

uniform code doesn’t adequately address it when it appears that in 

the language it already does? Sir? 

Ms. SPEIER. Would the gentleman yield before asking the question? The problem is, sometimes pictures are taken with consent, 

and then subsequently—— 

Mr. RUSSELL. And if I may, to the ranking member, it does address on the privacy: Without being concerned that an image in 

terms of that. So it specifically addresses that it was not with consent. That they are actually assuming that they were in complete 

privacy. 

And so I point that out, because in section 920, article 120c, the 

language seems to be pretty well defined to address a lot of the 

electronic digital imagery aspects of privacy. 

I would be curious to know, is this an accountability issue, or is 

this something that the uniform code does not adequately cover? 

Mr. KURTA. Well, sir, thank you for the question. I am just saying, you know, the back and forth kind of illustrates how complex 

this problem is. 

Absolutely, it is accountability. We have standards. We have values, as I mentioned, you know, in my opening statement, and 

sometimes we find that people don’t live up to those values and 

standards. When they don’t, we hold them accountable. 

Again, as—we can’t talk about an ongoing investigation, but as 

it proceeds, I think we will have a better idea of our tools. 

We have policies. I think they’re, actually, in many respects very 

clear on hazing, bullying, sexual harassment, the use of online 

media to perpetrate those. So the policy is there, and we will see 

what our tools available for accountability—— 

Mr. RUSSELL. And if I may point out, sir, it is the uniform code. 

This is something that can put people in prison, that can give them 

a felony conviction. This is something that would result in courtsmartial, the loss of rank and privileges and honorable discharge, 

any number of things. So it is not just policy, it is the legal standard by which everything good order and discipline is governed. 

And that is why before we got too confused on what is there and 

what is not, I wanted to point out my understanding under the 

UCMJ is that the language is in there. 

Is it your understanding that it is not, because there’s been some 

of that in the questioning today? My understanding is that it is 

there. So now it is a matter of accountability. Is that true, or not? 
17 

General BRILAKIS. No, sir. This is all about accountability. This 

is all about having individuals who have betrayed the trust of their 

fellow service members, holding them accountable. 

The Uniform Code of Military Justice has a number of articles 

under which, in certain cases, we can bring these things to a prosecution. You have mentioned 120c; 120c is a relatively new article, 

and there is not a lot of experience behind it. 

Right now, the NCIS, this is their number one priority. They 

have formed a task force with the other services’ investigative bodies, and they are working cooperatively to determine the facts and 

uncover the investigatory material that we can then turn over to 

commanders to take out the Uniform Code of Military Justice—— 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure who I ask this. 

If I could just interject one second because of what my colleague 

just said, which is so relevant? 

Mr. COFFMAN. Why don’t we—— 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I won’t be able to return, unfortunately. It is 

going to be very quick. 

I am actually holding your enlistment document, and it says 

right here, subject to separation at the end of my enlistment: If my 

behavior fails to meet acceptable military standards I may be discharged and given a certificate for less than honorable service. 

I don’t know why we have to wait. If you tell them at the very 

beginning, and they sign off saying that their behavior is not acceptable, they understand what the parameters of acceptable is, 

and I hope they do, I don’t understand why we have to, then, pursue many various avenues. 

Do you still have the power to throw them out if it is very clear 

that they can’t do this when they sign up and they signed on to 

this document? 

General BRILAKIS. Yes, ma’am, absolutely, we have the authority. 

But everybody—everybody deserves due process, and the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice requires due process. Whether it be 

through an administrative procedure or military justice procedure, 

there are processes. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I understand—— 

General BRILAKIS. So the fact—— 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. I am sorry—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. We are in recess for a vote. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. At the very beginning. They need to know and 

they will be thrown out. Thank you. And I yield back. Thank you, 

Chairman. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. COFFMAN. This hearing is called back to order. 

I had started a question about training, and so I started in with 

the Marine Corps, and now I want to go to the other services, and 

the question is this: How are you integrating social media policies 

into training on other topics such as sexual assault prevention or 

ethics training? Lieutenant General Grosso, I wonder if you could 

answer this question, please. 

General GROSSO. Yes, sir. As I indicated, we have training across 

our continuum of learning, but as we do, we stood up a task force 

as well to do a complete review of our policies and our training and 

our accountability, and that is one of the things that we are taking 
18 

a hard look at. Is the training synchronized, is it properly scaffolded, is there other places we should put it, and some of the other 

places we are looking at, we do resiliency training, and we thought 

maybe putting some real scenarios in our resiliency training. 

We also do new spouse training, and we start talking to our 

spouses about it through that program and through our key spouse 

program and in some of our predeployment training as well. We do 

social media training, but it is really around OPSEC [operational 

security], and there is probably other opportunities as we look at 

our training, our cradle-to-grave training where we can put that in. 

And we also have a commander’s call of the week, and we have 

already put that module out for the commander’s call of the week, 

but there are, I am sure, other places that we will be able to embed 

this training in. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Just real quick. In terms of your sexual—in terms 

of—let’s say you are going to integrate this in with your sexual assault training, it would probably fit there, sexual harassment, sexual assault training. Tell me what you do in—so I assume you have 

training requirements in your basic training? 

General GROSSO. Yes, sir, we do. 

Mr. COFFMAN. And then do you have them on an annual basis 

that are in fact required, that are noted in the personnel file? 

General GROSSO. They are there. We don’t necessarily put them 

in the personnel file. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. 

General GROSSO. But we track them, and there is annual training requirements for sexual assault and sexual harassment. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. Vice Admiral Burke. 

Admiral BURKE. Yes, sir, we have a full spectrum of training that 

is aimed at sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention that 

includes a focus on social media. So at Recruit Training Command 

for our enlisted folks, we have a course that is called ‘‘Life Skills,’’ 

and it is a full-spectrum course that teaches our sailors how to 

intervene when they see other sailors heading down paths of destructive behaviors. 

You know, by this point in Recruit Training Command, they 

should have had Navy core values instilled in them, so it focuses 

on how to help other people that are heading down the wrong path. 

But then it focuses on healthy relationships, stress management, 

responsible alcohol use, hazing and fraternization, and then a 

heavy emphasis on sexual assault prevention. And this is where we 

teach folks that it is okay to stand up and say—in fact, they have 

a responsibility to stand up and say: That is wrong. I don’t accept 

that type of behavior. 

And we also emphasize what right looks like. We take that approach on it. And in that core module, we talk a lot about social 

media and acceptable behavior on social media, and we also cover 

OPSEC concerns there, but a lot of social media behavior discussion there. 

We have a similar approach at the Naval Academy. There the 

course is called, SHAPE, Sexual Harassment and Assault Prevention Education, similar type of coverage there. And then when folks 

get out into the fleet, there is a refresher recurring training, that 

has morphed over the years. Last year’s version was called, ‘‘Chart 
19 

the Course,’’ and there were 16 different modules. They were facilitated DVD [digital video disc] course modules, and one of—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Are there annual training requirements? 

Admiral BURKE. There are. There is an annual training requirement that is on the requirements, and then there is an additional 

facilitated vignette, and the vignette specifically was on, you know, 

a sailor videotaping someone against—without their knowledge, 

and then the decision point and—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Sure. 

Admiral BURKE [continuing]. The discussion point was should he 

email it off or not, and it went from there. So there are—there are 

those types of requirements throughout our curriculum, yes, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Major Evans, United States Army. 

General EVANS. Yes, sir. All training plans and programs of instructions at all level of the Army, to include the initial military 

entry of training, to include precommand courses, and all professional military education, incorporate online conduct training as 

part of equal opportunity training, sexual harassment, assault and 

response prevention training. Thereafter, that training is required 

on an annual basis to conduct the equal opportunity training, the 

sexual harassment, assault and response training, and part of that 

is online conduct is a component of both of those annual trainings. 

In addition to that, commanders are required to publish policy 

letters on both of those and make sure that soldiers know how they 

are supposed to conduct themselves and where they can report this 

kind of training, and the Army Public Affairs has published a social media handbook that provides examples of policy letters for social media conduct. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you. Ms. Speier, you are now recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go back to what 

our good colleague from Oklahoma talked about before we recessed, 

because you have to read this very carefully. He is wrong, and I 

want to state it for the record. 

First of all, article 120c has been around since 2012. So you have 

had 5 years to use it, and my first question is going to be have any 

of you used 120—article 120c in actually enforcing the social media 

misuse of photographs? 

General GROSSO. Ranking Member, yes, ma’am, we have used article 120 in holding airmen accountable for this offense. 

Ms. SPEIER. For these specific—for use of social media with consent or without consent? 

General GROSSO. It was revenge porn, and it was charged along 

with other things, but it was part of the charge under 120c. 

Ms. SPEIER. So revenge porn is normally where it is—it is a photograph, an image that is taken of someone with consent and then 

subsequently distributed without consent. 

General GROSSO. I can get you more details. 

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

page 73.] 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. So my only point here is how about any of you 

others? 

General BRILAKIS. Ma’am, I will have to take it for the record. 

I don’t have it—— 
20 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. Would you, and then come back to us? 

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

page 73.] 

Admiral BURKE. Ma’am, we had one case of videotaping on a submarine and six individuals were court-martialed under 120c. 

Ms. SPEIER. Without consent? 

Admiral BURKE. The video was without consent and it was distributed locally without consent. 

Ms. SPEIER. That is clearly under 120c. General Evans. 

General EVANS. Ma’am, I would have to take it for the record, 

but the lawyers have advised me under—for social media misconduct, article 92, 120c for nonconsent, consensual sending of 

photos; 133, conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman; 134, 

clause 1, conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline; and 

clause 2, conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed 

Forces. 

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

page 74.] 

Ms. SPEIER. I don’t want to beat this horse, but it is very clear 

under 120c that it has to be taken without legal justification or 

lawful authorization. It is taken without consent or it is distributed 

without the other person’s consent and other circumstances in 

which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

So you have to—knowingly broadcasting it or distributing such 

a recording of that person knew or reasonably should have known 

was made under the circumstances listed in paragraphs 1 or 2, in 

both cases you have to show that it was originally without consent, 

and in many of these cases, with revenge porn, the first image is 

taken with consent or it is shared with consent. It is just the subsequent distribution, so I just wanted to make that clear, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me ask you this: How many of you have Facebook pages? Mr. 

Kurta. 

Mr. KURTA. Ma’am, I do not. 

Ms. SPEIER. General. 

General BRILAKIS. No, ma’am, I do not. 

General GROSSO. Ma’am, I do not. 

Ms. SPEIER. Admiral Burke. 

Admiral BURKE. No, I do not. 

Ms. SPEIER. General Evans. 

General EVANS. Yes, ma’am, I do. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. Of all of you, just one of you has a Facebook page. I think it would be edifying to you if you all had Facebook pages because it might help you understand how it is being 

used and misused. 

General Evans, can you tell me a little bit about your experience 

using Facebook? 

General EVANS. Yes, ma’am. I exclusively use it for family and 

close friends, and my experience with it is, you know, I have had 

my Facebook duplicated 12 times with public photos, people establishing a Facebook account in my image. I have had that happen. 

But I use mine primarily for family and close friends. 

Ms. SPEIER. Okay. One of the people that testified at the briefing 

suggested that of those who were identified as being Active Duty, 
21 

when they actually went and interviewed them, their picture was 

not the same picture, but they did have their name. So there is 

many ways that you can abuse the system, and that is why having 

the kind of social media hygiene, I think is a good way of looking 

at it, is really very important. 

I know my time has expired, but I would like to ask one more 

question of each of the services. 

I am very troubled that this has not been addressed. I think you 

can understand my frustration. This was first identified 4 years 

ago in the Marines and nothing seems to have taken place. If you 

have 750—if you have 100 Active Duty service members who are 

using social media in a way that is degrading and dehumanizing, 

they shouldn’t be in the military. 

So what I would like for you to do for the committee, and Mr. 

Chairman, with your approval, I would like to have each of the 

services report back to the committee in 4 months with the specific 

actions that you have taken in making sure that the appropriate 

education and training is provided to your service members that is 

above and beyond what you have done so far, because I think we 

know that that appears to be insufficient at this point in time. 

And then if you would, on a monthly basis, in the Marines, in 

particular, report to us on the disciplinary action that is being 

taken against those who you identify on Marines United. 

Mr. COFFMAN. We will take those—we will take that question for 

the record. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, can I have clarification? Are we going 

to—is there any objection to having them report back to us? 

Mr. COFFMAN. We may have to put it in the National Defense 

Authorization Act. 

Ms. SPEIER. Why would we have to do that? They are here right 

now. If they are willing to do it. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Oh, if you are willing to answer the question now, 

if you have the information now, sure, certainly. You want them to 

answer now? 

Ms. SPEIER. I want to have them answer whether or not they will 

report back to me. 

Mr. COFFMAN. If I can do this, since we are over, if I can go to 

Representative McSally, and then I will go back to you. Ms. 

McSally, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks everybody. 

Sorry I missed the first part of the hearing. I apologize for that. 

Mr. Kurta, good to see you again. Gina, good to see you again. 

Sorry, General Grosso. Thanks for your time and your thoughtfulness in trying to grapple with this 21st century challenge that we 

have in social media. But some of the discussions we have already 

had with General Neller both in our discussions here and in oneon-one conversations is culture, right? And I know you are here to 

talk about policies, but there is also an element of culture in addressing—you know, we got to make sure we have the right policies 

to address bad behavior and that we can take administrative or 

criminal action if we need to, and that is important. 

But we also got to make sure—we are not going to be able to police 24/7, from my view, what is going on in somebody’s heart and 

what they are going to try and choose to do anonymously, and try-
22 

ing to use all our resources in the military to chase them down and 

their activity off duty is not the best use of our resources, from my 

view, so we have got to inculcate in our troops the desire to have 

integrity and excellence in character and respect and honor 24/7, 

which I know we strive to do and many of us are infuriated and 

disturbed that we are finding individuals are not doing that, right? 

My concern, as it relates to scandals like this, is that we don’t 

have knee jerk reactions in addressing the culture, with new policies and training and PowerPoint briefings and everything that we 

have got to do in order to make sure that we are responding to 

Congress and the media and others, that actually in the end inculcates more resentment towards women, right? Now we are having 

to sit through another 5-hour training, another PowerPoint. I 

mean, I have seen this, and those of you who have been around 

awhile, you probably know what I am talking about. 

And my concern is, you know, we inculcate this culture from the 

very beginning when we take civilians and we turn them into military in basic training, and I still think there is things that we all 

need to be addressing, that we are not inculcating any sort of subtle resentment, you know, towards the other gender, and from my 

view, that includes things like integration of basic training and 

women should be cutting their hair, and you know, not having any 

obvious double standards of a different experience. 

So I just wanted to sort of share that as a statement that as you 

all are dealing with this current situation and you are reviewing 

training and policies, please keep in mind, when we are addressing 

these deeper cultural issues in training, that we don’t overdo it in 

a knee jerk way that actually has the exact opposite effect of what 

we are trying to do. 

If we are inculcating resentment towards our female troops from 

the beginning, then that actually sows the seeds for people then 

having the types of behavior that could come out in a variety of different ways, if that makes sense. 

I did want to ask, I know the Marines is setting up a task force 

on this that has been reported. General Brilakis, you are on that 

task force? 

General BRILAKIS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Are the other personnel chiefs represented 

here, are there similar efforts going on in the other services, whatever you want to call them, task force reviews, whatever, and are 

each of you represented on those? 

General GROSSO. Yes, ma’am, there is one in the Air Force that 

are represented. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yeah. 

Admiral BURKE. Same for the Navy. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Same with all of you? 

General EVANS. Ma’am, not at this time. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Not at this time. Okay. Are there any reports of 

Army—I think there are. Army individuals—— 

General EVANS. Yes, ma’am. I mentioned earlier—— 

Ms. MCSALLY. Yeah. 

General EVANS [continuing]. There was a—was made aware of a 

Tumblr website where there is a multiservice investigative task 
23 

force looking into that, but I am not serving on that particular task 

force. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Great. And it is a fair question of are there 

millennials on your task force who actually are experts at this type 

of behavior and the use of social media. You may have seen The 

New York Times article talking about, you know, former marines 

that are actually chasing some of these guys down and doing it in 

a very swift way that is, you know, able do that at the speed of 

social media versus sometimes we work at the speed of bureaucracy; so are you reaching out to make sure we have millennials on 

these teams and people who kind of can understand the social 

media environment? 

General BRILAKIS. Ma’am, yes. Men, women, young, old, and to 

your earlier point, one of the discussions we had, we had a 21⁄2- hour meeting with the executive committee today. One of the discussions in there was about not pointing this back at our women, 

at our marines who could typically be blamed for the reaction of 

the organization. So we are very mindful of that, and we want to 

ensure that we don’t—we don’t create that. 

Because quite frankly, if you talk about respect and dignity, then 

we are talking about diversity and we are talking about religion 

and sexual preference, et cetera, so this was brought to the forefront based on the behavior of individuals in treating women. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Right. 

General BRILAKIS. But it goes—if you are talking about respect 

and dignity, it is going to go broader than that, and we work with 

this. 

Ms. MCSALLY. And as you know, even when we are talking about 

that, that is a warfighting feature, though, as you know that. It is 

not diversity for the sake of it, it is not social experimentation. It 

is we become a stronger fighting force. I know you all know this, 

but I think it is important because we sometimes—sometimes people think it is warfighting or diversity, and that gets characterized 

as a negative thing. It is about warfighting capability and having 

the best team. That comes with trust and respect and honor and 

all those things that you all know well. Any other comments from 

the other witnesses? 

General GROSSO. Ma’am, I am not aware that we have 

millennials because you can imagine it was an Air Staff effort, but 

we do—as we do this review, we will certainly include them as we 

try to accomplish solutions to gaps we find. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Is there also—and I have to choose my words 

wisely in this. If there is any training that is being considered related to policies, to make sure that your soldiers, sailors, airmen, 

and marines are also aware of when they post things of themselves 

in this environment, again, this is not blaming the victim, but this 

is when you post something of yourself that it can be used in ways 

that are harmful to you and to the unit and to provide that sort 

of increased, you know, situational awareness and just that awareness for some of this younger generation that maybe doesn’t think 

about that at the time and they come to us with those habits. 

General GROSSO. Ma’am, you have identified a gap that we have 

found that we need to help people understand. You give consent up 

when you post these, meaning it or not, so it is really what—we 
24 

are calling it literacy, you know, social media literacy, just how do 

you know what happens with things that you put in the ethernet. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. Thanks. Anybody else? 

Admiral BURKE. Ma’am, for the Navy, it is—you know, this is 

just one new environment for harassment, bullying, all those 

things that have been going on in—frankly, in the past and in 

broad daylight. Now they are going on in, you know, more hidden 

places, so we are attacking it as an individual’s character, so it is 

a leadership and courage issue for us, and we are attacking it from 

that angle. 

Teammates don’t treat teammates like that, no bystanders, you 

have an obligation to take action when you see shipmates in need, 

and we are going after those elements of it. We do have a very diverse team working this and have taken a multi-aspect approach 

going forward. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Great. 

Admiral BURKE. And the products that we have made really do 

emphasize the—you know, when you post something, one, don’t assume that because you posted it while you were in your civilian, 

you know, role that it—people won’t assume you are in your military role and so on and so forth and it won’t get forwarded. 

General EVANS. And one of the things we have woven and integrated into the training at every level, to include a recent trisigned letter sent out by the acting Secretary of the Army, Chief 

of Staff of the Army, and the Sergeant Major of the Army, and he 

also did a video last week of this is to think, type, post. Think 

about the communication you are about to send and who is going 

to review it; type a communication that conforms with Army values; and post a communication that demonstrates dignity and respect for both self and others. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Okay. Thanks. I know I am well over my time but 

just to go back. Admiral Burke, on the bystander issue, I think it 

is critical. Just like the sexual assault, sexual harassment, you do 

have the perpetrators, but the vast majority of people are bystanders. They get that sheep mentality. Nobody wants to speak out, nobody wants to be looking different and taking on the wrath of others. That is where it is really going to be—result is going to be. 

Sorry. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Just a couple of points of clarification. There is a 

very different expectation when you post something on your Facebook page. That means that many people are going to see it. But 

when you text an intimate photograph, an image of yourself to your 

lover as a private conversation that subsequently after you break 

up is then used in a form of revenge porn, that is different, and 

there is an expectation when you post and there is an expectation 

when you text, and I think that is very important to distinguish. 

General Brilakis, don’t take offense at this. It is very important 

for you to hear this and for some of your colleagues who came and 

spoke to us at a briefing last week. I didn’t mention it last week, 

but they used the same term, and it is inappropriate. The term you 

just used was ‘‘sexual preference.’’ It is not a sexual preference. It 

is a sexual orientation, and it would behoove all of us to use the 
25 

term that really is reflective of what is a sexual orientation. It is 

not a preference that they are. 

General BRILAKIS. Very well, ma’am, I stand corrected, and you 

are correct. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you. 

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

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. MCSALLY. Sorry. I wouldn’t have gone so far over if I was 

going to get another round. I am actually good, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. I was following up on the bystander, which you guys 

all know. I think that is really critical. Thank you. 

Mr. COFFMAN. And just to inform the committee that we will be 

asking for briefing from all the services present, to include the Department of Defense, in 4 months to receive an update in terms of 

what actions you have taken between this hearing and 4 months. 

I wish to thank the witnesses for their testimony this afternoon. 

This has been a very—this has been very informative. There being 

no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:29 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 21, 2017 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 21, 2017 

(31) 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 21, 2017 

(73) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER 

General BRILAKIS. As has been the case, I expect each of the commanders involved 

in these cases to exercise their independent and unfettered disciplinary disposition 

authority in reaching their decisions. Authorities for the various disciplinary actions 

have involved, among others: violations of the UCMJ Article 92, (pursuant to Article 

1168, U.S. Navy Regulations, and Marine Corps Order 1000.9A (Sexual Harassment)); Article 120c; Article 134; and, 18 U.S.C. 2261A (Stalking). 

In United States v. Quick, 74 M.J. 517, decided October 31, 2014, the Navy and 

Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals held that the specification under the 

charge for indecent viewing did not state an offense under Art. 120c, UCMJ, because the express proscription of the making or broadcasting of indecent visual recordings implied that the viewing of indecent visual recordings was not proscribed 

and that the specification did not allege that the appellant viewed the victim’s private area but alleged that he viewed a visual recording of her private area. 

NDAA updates, year over year, continue impact the area of military justice, to include both substantive and procedural changes. For example, Article 120c, UCMJ— 

other sexual misconduct—is amended to correct mistaken indications that it applies 

to the nonconsensual broadcasting of an image of a private area where the image 

was initially created with the subject’s consent. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 has created a new 

punitive Article 117a, UCMJ, that expressly prohibits non-consensual distribution 

of intimate images. Additionally, the U.S. Navy Regulations of 1990 were modified 

on April 18, 2017 to include Article 1168 which prohibits the non-consensual distribution of intimate images by Marines and Sailors and is punishable under Art. 

92, UCMJ. On May 9, 2017, the MARCORSEPMAN was amended to include processing for separation is mandatory following the first substantiated incident of sexual harassment involving a ‘‘[v]iolation of Article 1168 of the U.S. Navy Regulations 

including, but not limited to, the distribution or broadcasting of an intimate image, 

without consent, if done for personal gain; or with the intent to humiliate, harm, 

harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the depicted person; or with reckless disregard as to whether the depicted person would be humiliated, harmed, intimidated, 

threatened, or coerced.’’ 

In general, Art. 134, UCMJ, makes punishable acts in three categories of offenses 

not specifically covered in any other article of the code—such offenses to include ‘‘all 

disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed 

forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes 

and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty.’’ 

Art. 133, UCMJ, applicable to officers, criminalizes an act or omission that, under 

the circumstances, constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman—i.e., 

‘‘action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the 

person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman, 

or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or 

disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the person’s standing as an 

officer.’’ Art. 133 includes acts made punishable by any other Article. Whether or 

not the conduct described in the question above may be prosecuted under Arts. 133 

and/or 134 depends on the facts or circumstances of each case. [See page 20.] 

General GROSSO. Air Force commanders can and do use the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to hold Airmen accountable for failing to meet Air Force standards, including the standards for conduct on social media. In addition to holding Airmen accountable for misconduct committed on social media using Air Force Instruction 1–1 and Article 92 of the UCMJ, Air Force commanders consider the facts and 

circumstances of the particular case, which may implicate other articles of the 

UCMJ and can result in punishing the underlying misconduct, regardless of the 

means or method used to commit it. This includes charging a violation of Article 

120c of the UCMJ for the sexual misconduct of indecent viewing, visual recording, 

or broadcasting. In one such case, an Airman was convicted at a trial by general 

court-martial of sexually assaulting an individual, recording the naked victim, and 

distributing the recording. The accused was convicted of sexual assault under Article 120(b) and other sexual misconduct under Article 120c and sentenced to a dis-
74 

honorable discharge, reduction to Airman Basic, seven years of confinement, and 

forfeiture of all pay and allowances. Demonstrating that Air Force commanders can 

and do use multiple tools to hold Airmen accountable, another case involved a male 

Staff Sergeant dancing with a female Airman First Class while she was topless. 

With the female Airman’s knowledge, the male Airman video-recorded her dancing 

topless. The male Airman distributed the recording to her and her boyfriend. Without the female Airman’s consent, the male Airman also distributed the recording to 

a third person. The male Airman was found to have been derelict in his duties for 

failing to adhere to Air Force Instruction 1–1 by dancing with the female Airman 

while she was topless and lying about the distribution of the recording to a third 

person. He was also found guilty of conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline 

for creating the recording and then disseminating it to a third person without the 

female Airman’s consent. He received nonjudicial punishment of reduction from 

Staff Sergeant to Senior Airman, extra duty, and a reprimand. [See page 19.] 

General EVANS. The Army has used Article 120c, UCMJ, in punishing the social 

media misuse of photographs and video recordings both through courts-martial and 

nonjudicial punishment. In FY 2015, for example, the Army court-martialed a Soldier at Fort Hood under Article 120c, UCMJ for indecent broadcasting of sexual images without the consent of the subject. The Soldier, who was also convicted of offenses under Articles 92 and 120, UCMJ, was sentenced to 30 months confinement 

and a BCD. In FY 2016, the Army court-martialed a Soldier at Fort Benning under 

Article 120c for taking pictures of another’s private area without consent and broadcasting those photographs online without consent. The Soldier, who was also convicted of offenses under Articles 120 and 128, UCMJ, was sentenced to reduction 

to E–1, confinement for 9 months, and a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Another Soldier who faced charges for indecent photographing and indecent broadcasting without consent was given an other-than-honorable discharge pursuant to Army Regulation (AR) 635–200, Chapter 10 in FY 2016. In addition to these courts-martial, the 

Army has imposed nonjudicial punishment for the online misuse of photographs and 

visual recordings in violation of Article 120c, UCMJ. In FY 2015, three Soldiers received nonjudicial punishment for broadcasting online indecent photographs or visual recordings without the consent of the subject in violation of Article 120c. In FY 

2016, eight Soldiers received nonjudicial punishment for broadcasting online indecent photographs or visual recordings without the consent of the subject in violation 

of Article 120c. [See page 20.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 21, 2017 

(77) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER 

Ms. SPEIER. In your service branch, how many people have been punished for violating the social media policies? What were the nature of the violations, and to what 

extent were the perpetrators punished? 

Mr. KURTA. This question is best answered by the Military Services. 

Ms. SPEIER. What measures of effectiveness or metric have been established with 

respect to your social media policies? 

Mr. KURTA. This question is best answered by the Military Services. 

Ms. SPEIER. In your service branch, how many people have been punished for violating the social media policies? What were the nature of the violations, and to what 

extent were the perpetrators punished? 

General BRILAKIS. To date (since the report of misconduct involving members the 

Marines United Facebook group), there have been at least 116 subjects, suspects, 

or persons of interest (hereinafter, collectively, ‘‘subjects’’) reported for alleged online 

social media misconduct involving 22 non-DOD civilians and 94 Marines as subjects. 

Of the 94 cases in which the Marine Corps maintained at least administrative jurisdiction, 68 cases have reached disposition and 26 remain in a pending status. In 

terms of severity of action, there have been guilty findings at 5 special courts-martial and 1 summary court-martial; 10 cases adjudicated via non-judicial punishment; 

5 administrative separations; 25 formal adverse administrative actions; and, in 22 

cases, no formal administrative action. In each of these cases commanders have exercised their independent and unfettered disciplinary disposition authority in reaching their decisions. Authorities for the various disciplinary actions have involved, 

among others: violations of the UCMJ Article 92, (pursuant to Article 1168, U.S. 

Navy Regulations, and Marine Corps Order 1000.9A (Sexual Harassment)); Article 

120c; Article 134; and, 18 U.S.C. 2261A (Stalking). [The investigation into the Marines United Facebook Group involved a review of more than 120,000 images from 

over 170 other websites. Investigators determined that while there were more than 

22,000 images with persons depicted who had a possible Department of Defense affiliation, there were approximately 7,867 images with persons depicted who had a 

possible Marine Corps affiliation. Employing technology to include facial recognition 

software, investigators determined that only 68 potential victims were identifiable 

of the 7,867 images. Further, investigators confirmed 31 of the 68 potential victims, 

and only 8 confirmed victims were able to identify a subject. These subjects are 

factored into the 116 subjects reported for investigation and disposition. 

Ms. SPEIER. What measures of effectiveness or metric have been established with 

respect to your social media policies? 

General BRILAKIS. The CMC Task Force was established to address, in part, online social media misconduct includes and is assisted by the Social Media Awareness 

and Response Team (SMART) Cell. The SMART Cell is comprised of representatives 

from NCIS, Marine Corps CID, among other offices to coordinate the reporting of 

allegations of online social media misconduct from law enforcement to the proper 

disciplinary disposition authority and investigation agency for disposition. It is an 

enduring function that is expected to be incorporated into the Office of Personnel 

Studies and Oversight within M&RA. 

To date (since the report of misconduct involving members the Marines United 

Facebook group), there have been at least 116 subjects, suspects, or persons of interest (hereinafter, collectively, ‘‘subjects’’) reported for alleged online social media misconduct involving 22 non-DOD civilians and 94 Marines as subjects. Of the 94 cases 

in which the Marine Corps maintained at least administrative jurisdiction, 68 cases 

have reached disposition and 26 remain in a pending status. In terms of severity 

of action, there have been guilty findings at 5 special courts-martial and 1 summary 

court-martial; 10 cases adjudicated via non-judicial punishment; 5 administrative 

separations; 25 formal adverse administrative actions; and, in 22 cases, no formal 

administrative action. In each of these cases commanders have exercised their independent and unfettered disciplinary disposition authority in reaching their decisions. 
78 

Ms. SPEIER. In your service branch, how many people have been punished for violating the social media policies? What were the nature of the violations, and to what 

extent were the perpetrators punished? 

General GROSSO. Air Force commanders have a variety of different tools at their 

disposal to hold Airmen accountable for failing to meet Air Force standards, including the standards for conduct on social media; Airman can also be held accountable 

for using social media in violation of Air Force Instruction 1–1 as well as their commission of the underlying misconduct. As a result, the Air Force cannot provide a 

definitive number of all Airmen who have been held accountable for failing to meet 

the standards for conduct on social media. However, the Air Force can provide specific examples of cases that demonstrate Air Force commanders can and do hold Airmen accountable for failing to meet these standards. In one such case, an Airman 

sent a derogatory comment using Facebook messenger that was subsequently associated with the Airman’s Facebook page. The Airman was found to have been derelict 

in his duties for failing to adhere to Air Force Instruction 1–1 on Facebook and lying 

about it. He received nonjudicial punishment of reduction from the grade of Staff 

Sergeant to the grade of Senior Airman, suspended forfeiture of pay, and a reprimand. Air Force standards for conduct on social media are encapsulated in Air 

Force Instruction 1–1, Air Force Standards. Issued in 2012 and updated in 2014, 

Air Force Instruction 1–1 states Airmen ‘‘must avoid offensive and/or inappropriate 

behavior on social networking platforms and through other forms of communication 

that could bring discredit upon the Air Force or you as a member of the Air Force, 

or that would be otherwise harmful to good order and discipline, respect for authority, unit cohesion, morale, mission accomplishment, or the trust and confidence the 

public has in the United States Air Force.’’ Airmen are ‘‘personally responsible for 

what you say and post on social networking services and any other medium. Regardless of the method of communication used, Air Force standards must be observed 

at all times, both on and off-duty.’’ Airmen who violate Air Force Instruction 1–1 

can be held accountable for willful or negligent dereliction of duty under Article 92 

of the UCMJ. In addition to holding Airmen accountable for misconduct committed 

on social media under Article 92 of the UCMJ, Air Force commanders consider the 

facts and circumstances of the particular case; this may implicate other articles of 

the UCMJ and can result in punishment for the underlying misconduct, regardless 

of the means or method used to commit it. For example, pictures of a subordinate 

posted on Facebook by a superior may constitute cruelty and maltreatment under 

Article 93 of the UCMJ. Comments made via Twitter from one Airman to other Airmen may amount to indecent language under Article 134 of the UCMJ. 

Ms. SPEIER. What measures of effectiveness or metric have been established with 

respect to your social media policies? 

General GROSSO. The Air Force has worked very diligently to build and strengthen Air Force values and our culture of dignity and respect. That said, Airmen are 

held to Air Force Standards, as established in Air Force Instruction 1–1. It states 

Airmen ‘‘must avoid offensive and/or inappropriate behavior on social networking 

platforms and through other forms of communication that could bring discredit upon 

the Air Force or you as a member of the Air Force, or that would be otherwise 

harmful to good order and discipline, respect for authority, unit cohesion, morale, 

mission accomplishment, or the trust and confidence the public has in the United 

States Air Force.’’ Air Force commanders have a variety of tools at their disposal 

to hold Airmen accountable for failing to meet Air Force standards, including misconduct on social media. The Air Force does not track whether a failure to meet 

standards occurred on social media, in-person, or in some other forum. As we conduct our review of current policies and educational curriculum, we will also examine 

the use of metrics. 

Ms. SPEIER. In your service branch, how many people have been punished for violating the social media policies? What were the nature of the violations, and to what 

extent were the perpetrators punished? 

Admiral BURKE. There is no centralized system of records or database that captures all allegations of misconduct of this nature, nor is there any system that captures the full range of judicial, non-judicial and administrative actions that may 

have been exercised by individual commanders, commanding officers and officers in 

charge. 

Even for offenses that rise to the level of judicial actions, i.e., special and general 

courts-martial, our Case Management System is arranged by accused and article 

violated, and does not lend itself well to this question since social media policy violations may be adjudicated under different articles based on the nature of the offense. 

Information captured on individual offenses may simply be attributed to violation 

of a specific article, or articles, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 

without capturing the level of detail or data necessary to relate the punishment to 
79 

social media misconduct, particularly given the number of UCMJ articles that could 

be deemed applicable on a case-by-case basis. 

Navy is currently conducting a review of the Case Management System for offenses related to social media policy violation under UCMJ Articles 133 (Conduct 

Unbecoming an Officer), 134 (General Article), 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation), and 93 (Cruelty and maltreatment). We expect the analysis to be complete in 

the next several weeks. 

Ms. SPEIER. What measures of effectiveness or metric have been established with 

respect to your social media policies? 

Admiral BURKE. Social media is one forum by which individuals haze, discriminate or sexually harass others. These elements of misconduct are detractors from 

our positive Navy culture which we routinely measure. Thus, metrics about our social media policy are incorporated in general measures of effectiveness of culture or 

‘‘Health of the Force.’’ These metrics include: 

• sexual harassment reports 

• discrimination reports 

• sexual assault reports 

• hazing reports 

• alcohol abuse incident reports 

• drug abuse incident reports 

• domestic abuse and violence reports 

• suicide and suicide related behavior reports 

• command climate surveys 

• Sailor financial readiness metrics 

For fiscal year 2016, Navy measured those incidences of sexual harassment, discrimination, hazing, and bullying that involved social media or electronic devices. 

FY16 Incidents Social Media or Electronic Device 

Incident Reports Substantiated Unsubstantiated Pending Other 

Misconduct 

Hazing 5 2 2 0 1 

Discrimination 2 0 2 0 0 

Sexual Harassment 11 5 2 4 0 

Bullying 0 0 0 0 0 

Ms. SPEIER. In your service branch, how many people have been punished for violating the social media policies? What were the nature of the violations, and to what 

extent were the perpetrators punished? 

General EVANS. The Army has punished Soldiers for the misuse of social media 

to include the misuse of intimate photographs and video recordings. In FY 2015, for 

example, a Soldier was court-martialed for an indecent broadcasting violation of Article 120c, UCMJ (Article 120c, UCMJ encompasses multiple offenses, including: (1) 

indecent viewing, visual recording, or broadcasting; (2) forcible pandering; and (3) 

indecent exposure). He was convicted of indecent broadcasting, as well as disobeying 

a lawful order and sexual assault. He was sentenced to be confined for 30 months 

and discharged with a bad conduct discharge (BCD). Another Soldier was courtmartialed under Article 133, UCMJ (conduct unbecoming an officer) for online misconduct including sending electronic messages of a sexual nature, posting comments 

of a sexual nature to a website, and posting photographs to a website. He was sentenced to be confined for 2 months and to be dismissed. Additionally, in FY 15 three 

Soldiers received nonjudicial punishment for Article 120c, UCMJ indecent broadcasting offenses. Their punishments included reductions in grade, forfeitures, extra 

duty, and restrictions. In FY 2016, a Soldier was court-martialed for indecent broadcasting in violation of Article 120c. He was convicted of the indecent broadcasting 

offense, as well as indecent visual recording, abusive sexual contact, assault, and 

assault consummated by battery. He was sentenced to be reduced to the grade of 

E–1, to be confined for 9 months, and to be discharged with a BCD. A second Soldier 

charged with an Article 120c indecent broadcasting offense was given an other-thanhonorable discharge in lieu of a court-martial pursuant to AR 635–200, Chapter 10. 

Eight Soldiers received nonjudicial punishment for Article 120c indecent broad-
80 

casting offenses. Their punishments included reductions in grade, forfeitures, extra 

duty, restrictions, and reprimands. 

Ms. SPEIER. What measures of effectiveness or metric have been established with 

respect to your social media policies? 

General EVANS. This is an emergent issue but the Army has directed the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs); Deputy Chief of Staff, 

G–1; Inspector General; The Judge Advocate General; and the Provost Marshal General to initiate updates to existing systems to track online-related incidents. These 

systems currently track misconduct related to equal opportunity, equal employment 

opportunity, SHARP, Inspector General Investigations, UCMJ disposition, and law 

enforcement investigations without capturing the manner in which the misconduct 

is perpetrated. We also believe that recent updates to Department of Defense surveys to query participants about misuse of social media will provide us additional 

insight. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BACON 

Mr. BACON. Do you believe that the UCMJ today gives commanders the necessary 

legal authority to identify and hold members accountable for social media misconduct, both on and off duty, to include the non-consensual sharing of photos with 

third parties which may had previously been shared consensually (i.e. revenge porn 

cases)? 

Mr. KURTA. In consultation with DOD Office of General Counsel, I believe the 

UCMJ currently gives commanders sufficient legal authority to identify and hold offenders accountable. However, as the Navy/USMC investigations go forward and we 

find that we require additional authorities, we will immediately consult with this 

and all appropriate Committees. 

Mr. BACON. What service policies, procedures, programs and resources exist to 

identify, protect and support victims of social media misconduct? 

Mr. KURTA. This question is best answered by the Military Services. 

Mr. BACON. Do you believe that the UCMJ today gives commanders the necessary 

legal authority to identify and hold members accountable for social media misconduct, both on and off duty, to include the non-consensual sharing of photos with 

third parties which may had previously been shared consensually (i.e. revenge porn 

cases)? 

General BRILAKIS. The Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) takes seriously 

and understands the intolerable and corrosive effects that online social media misconduct has on our institution. He is committed to doing what is necessary to 

change the negative elements of within the organization that have failed to appreciate the core values of dignity and respect and have ultimately facilitated this problem. 

On 14 March, CMC released ALMAR 008/17 which provides guidance for personnel who, in their personal capacity, desire to make unofficial posts on the internet regarding Marine Corps-related topics and guidance for Marines concerning unofficial online activity that has an adverse effect on good order and discipline within, 

or brings discredit upon, the armed forces. Additionally, CMC published a White 

Letter on 21 March, ‘‘Social Media Guidance-Mandatory Counseling Requirement,’’ 

which mandated, within 30 days, every active duty and reserve Marine, officer and 

enlisted, receive a formal counseling confirming that they read and understand the 

updated social media guidance outlined in a message released to all Marines on 14 

March. Per Article 1137 of the U.S. Navy Regulations, ‘‘[p]ersons in the naval service shall report as soon as possible to superior authority all offenses under the 

[UCMJ] which come under their observation, except when such persons are themselves already criminally involved in such offenses at the time such offenses first 

come under their observation.’’ 

The Acting Secretary of the Navy signed ALNAV 021–17 on 18 April, which 

changed the U.S. Navy Regulations to include Article 1168, prohibiting the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. This Article makes punishable under the 

UCMJ conduct that might not otherwise be criminalized under other portions of the 

Code. In addition, on 9 May, CMC issued MARADMIN 223/17, modifying the Marine Corps Separations and Retirement Manual to make administrative separation 

processing mandatory in the cases of Marines determined to have wrongfully distributed an intimate image of another person. These substantial changes are being 

undertaken in addition to the many other legal tools available to implement discipline under the UCMJ in such cases. Furthermore, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 has created a new punitive Article 117a, UCMJ, 

that expressly prohibits non-consensual distribution of intimate images. 
81 

Additionally, authorities for the various disciplinary actions may involve, among 

others: violations of the UCMJ Article 92, (pursuant to Marine Corps Order 1000.9A 

(Sexual Harassment)); Article 120c; Article 133, Article 134; and, 18 U.S.C. 2261A 

(Stalking). Whether or not the conduct described in the question above may be prosecuted under one or more of the above-cited authorities depends on the facts or circumstances of each case. 

As has been the case, I expect each of the commanders involved in these cases 

to exercise their independent and unfettered disciplinary disposition authority in 

reaching their decisions. 

Mr. BACON. What service policies, procedures, programs and resources exist to 

identify, protect and support victims of social media misconduct? 

General BRILAKIS. The Marine Corps is actively addressing online misconduct 

through an Interim Task Force. The purpose of the Task Force is to examine conditions that enable discrimination, harassment, and disrespect while seeking innovative and holistic approaches to address destructive behavior. In addition, the Personnel Studies and Oversight Office has been established to address and implement 

long term solutions to online misconduct and related cultural behaviors. This year 

the Marine Corps published an update to their social media conduct policy, specifically addressing unofficial online activity. The policy outlines how inappropriate behavior impacts morale and core values, as well as how misconduct may be punishable under the UCMJ. Further, the Commandant of the Marine Corps mandated all 

Marines sign a Page 11 entry for their individual record, acknowledging they will 

adhere to this guidance. A Leader’s Handbook was released, providing tools for leaders to educate Marines on how to discuss and combat social media misconduct. In 

addition, a Social Media Complaint Process for reporting and tracking was established, to include routing reports to NCIS. Victims are afforded reporting options 

and access to supportive services, to include receiving support from the Victims’ 

Legal Counsel, Victims’ Advocates, and Chaplains. A White Letter was issued directing immediate action from leaders to support Marines, ensuring all remain 

ready to provide immediate crisis intervention, information and referrals as needed. 

The Marine Corps has also published a webpage tailored specifically to support victims of social media misconduct. The webpage provides various resource opportunities available and answers frequently asked questions for those seeking information. 

(http://www.usmc-mccs.org/socialmediaFAQs/). 

Mr. BACON. Do you believe that the UCMJ today gives commanders the necessary 

legal authority to identify and hold members accountable for social media misconduct, both on and off duty, to include the non-consensual sharing of photos with 

third parties which may had previously been shared consensually (i.e. revenge porn 

cases)? 

General GROSSO. Air Force standards for conduct on social media are encapsulated in Air Force Instruction 1–1, Air Force Standards. Issued in 2012 and updated in 2014, Air Force Instruction 1–1 states Airmen ‘‘must avoid offensive and/ 

or inappropriate behavior on social networking platforms and through other forms 

of communication that could bring discredit upon the Air Force or you as a member 

of the Air Force, or that would be otherwise harmful to good order and discipline, 

respect for authority, unit cohesion, morale, mission accomplishment, or the trust 

and confidence the public has in the United States Air Force.’’ Airmen are ‘‘personally responsible for what you say and post on social networking services and any 

other medium. Regardless of the method of communication used, Air Force standards must be observed at all times, both on and off-duty.’’ Airmen who violate Air 

Force Instruction 1–1 can be held accountable for willful or negligent dereliction of 

duty under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In addition to holding 

Airmen accountable for misconduct committed on social media under Article 92 of 

the UCMJ, Air Force commanders consider the facts and circumstances of the particular case, which may implicate other articles of the UCMJ. For example, pictures 

of a subordinate posted on social media by a superior may constitute cruelty and 

maltreatment under Article 93 of the UCMJ. Comments made on social media from 

one Airman to another Airman may amount to indecent language under Article 134 

of the UCMJ. In addition, misconduct on social media may be conduct unbecoming 

an officer and gentleman under Article 133 of the UCMJ or conduct that is prejudicial to good order and discipline or is of a nature to bring discredit upon the 

armed forces under Article 134 of the UCMJ. Our judge advocates are working in 

conjunction with the other Services and the Department of Defense to review the 

UCMJ and develop potential modifications thereto that would allow commanders to 

more effectively hold Airmen accountable for misconduct on social media, including 

the nonconsensual distribution of certain images. 

Mr. BACON. What service policies, procedures, programs and resources exist to 

identify, protect and support victims of social media misconduct? 
82 

General GROSSO. The Air Force provides a multitude of resources to assist victims 

of crimes. First, Special Victims’ Counsel representation is available for victims of 

a 120c offense. Air Force Special Victims’ Counsel provide comprehensive representational legal assistance to assist victims through myriad issues including assertion 

of privacy rights, requests for protective orders, and representation throughout the 

military justice process, including when cases are disposed of through an administrative process. Requests by victims of other social media misconduct would be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as whether the conduct was meant to retaliate, ostracize or humiliate the victim and whether the accused was subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Chapter 7 of Air Force 

Instruction 51–201, Administration of Military Justice, outlines support given to victims and witnesses of all crime, including victims and witnesses of social media misconduct, through the Victim and Witness Assistance Program (VWAP). This instruction implements the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. §§ 10601– 

10605), the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771), DOD Directive 1030.01, 

Victim and Witness Assistance, and DOD Instruction 1030.2, Victim and Witness 

Assistance Procedures. The goal of the VWAP is (1) to mitigate the physical, psychological, and financial hardships suffered by victims and witnesses of offenses investigated by US Air Force authorities, (2) foster cooperation of victims and witnesses 

within the military criminal justice system, and (3) ensure best efforts are made to 

accord to victims of crime certain enumerated rights. Once an investigation is initiated, a VWAP victim liaison is assigned to assist the victim with navigating the 

military justice system, provide the victim case information, help the victim utilize 

military and civilian community resources, and facilitate eligible victims’ access to 

legal assistance, or attorney consultation for personal legal issues at no cost to the 

client. Finally, chaplains and medical and mental health providers are also available 

to assist victims with their spiritual, medical or psychological needs. 

Mr. BACON. Do you believe that the UCMJ today gives commanders the necessary 

legal authority to identify and hold members accountable for social media misconduct, both on and off duty, to include the non-consensual sharing of photos with 

third parties which may had previously been shared consensually (i.e. revenge porn 

cases)? 

Admiral BURKE. We assess that the UCMJ provides commanders the necessary 

legal authorities to identify offenders and hold them appropriately accountable for 

social media and cyber misconduct. Each case is unique and fact-specific, thus analysis requires consideration of the behavior, the intent, and its effect. The UCMJ provides a robust framework for addressing a wide-range of these issues, and in some 

cases, authorities beyond those available to civilian authorities. Below are some examples of articles of the UCMJ which could be used to address misconduct based 

on its intent or effect, regardless of the location or medium used. Such examples 

include: 

Article 92 prohibits a violation of an order or regulation. A service member could 

be found in violation of Article 92 and disciplined for violation of policies on hazing, 

retaliation, ostracism, maltreatment, sexual harassment, fraternization, and misuse 

of government resources. The article also prohibits dereliction of duty, which could 

apply in the absence of a direct order if the behavior falls below the standards of 

service customs of naval personnel. 

Article 93 prohibits the cruelty and maltreatment of another service member. This 

article could be used to hold service members accountable in alleged cased of stalking. 

Article 133 prohibits conduct unbecoming for officers or midshipmen. This could 

afford broad authority to allow application for such violations as communicating a 

threat, obstructing justice, indecent language, as well as other conduct prejudicial 

to good order and discipline or that would bring discredit upon the United States 

Navy, such as nonconsensual publishing of private/intimate images. This article 

could also potentially allow for assimilating state or federal statutes that prohibit 

bullying or cyber-bullying. 

Although we do not perceive gaps in our authorities, we are continuing to assess 

all legal and administrative tools at our disposal to address this problem. Where we 

determine internal changes are necessary, we are committed to making them. If legislative change is needed, we will come forward and work with Congress to enhance 

our ability to prevent and respond to this type of misconduct. 

Mr. BACON. What service policies, procedures, programs and resources exist to 

identify, protect and support victims of social media misconduct? 

Admiral BURKE. Navy provides support via a 24-hour, 7-days per week response 

capability ensuring victim support, worldwide reporting procedures, and appropriate 

accountability. Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, Victim Advocates, Mental 

Health Providers, Medical Forensic Examiners, Legal and Chaplain Services all pro-
83 

vide a comprehensive response of professionalism and respect while preserving Navy 

mission readiness. 

More than responding to a specific instance of misconduct, the recent ‘‘Marines 

United’’ incident revealed the need to use multiple methods in a campaign with our 

service members to ensure our service policies about appropriate behavior, character, and culture are understood. Navy’s social media policies mirror our general 

policy, in that any form of harassment, discrimination, or hazing, on-line or otherwise, is not tolerated, and is inconsistent with our core values of Honor, Courage, 

and Commitment. Our policy provides commanders with mechanisms to administer 

judicial or non-judicial punishment as appropriate. Behaviors that rise to the level 

of sexual harassment, whether conducted person-to-person, online, or by any other 

method, are covered under this policy. Following the discovery of the ‘‘Marines 

United’’ website, Navy stood up a Senior Leader Working Group to attack this issue 

and get to the root. The Chief of Naval Operations charged all commanders to talk 

to their people about what respect for teammates looks like—at work, at home and 

online. He instructed commanders to make it absolutely clear that individuals who 

do not and cannot live up to our professional standards in competence and character 

are not welcome in our Navy. We are talking about this issue and future character 

development in multiple forums—online, via press release, on social media—to 

reach our people on every level. We developed several training products to include 

Social Media/On-line Conduct Guides for Sailors, Command Triads, Public Affairs 

Officers, and Ombudsmen that plainly explain our policy and expectations of Sailors. Two key examples of face-to-face training we are giving all Sailors include: • Chart the Course launched in 2016 continued our efforts to combat destructive 

behaviors across the fleet while reinforcing and building upon our Navy Core 

Values and Navy Ethos. It blends scenario-based videos with facilitator-led discussion addressing the idea that all hands must take ownership of enhancing 

a positive and professional climate within their commands and work environment. • Full Speed Ahead blends scenario-based videos with facilitator-led discussions 

with a unique emphasis on the critical role of mid-level leaders in addressing 

and preventing destructive behaviors and their associated effects on individuals, 

work centers (micro-climates), and commands. 

We are implementing our Leader Development Framework, part of Navy’s Design 

for Maintaining Maritime Superiority, which outlines how Navy will develop leaders 

who demonstrate both operational excellence and strong character. Further, we are 

reviewing our online policies, guides and training for Sailors to determine how we 

might improve upon them. We want to continuously refine our Sailors’ tool kits for 

the ever-changing online environment. 

Mr. BACON. Do you believe that the UCMJ today gives commanders the necessary 

legal authority to identify and hold members accountable for social media misconduct, both on and off duty, to include the non-consensual sharing of photos with 

third parties which may had previously been shared consensually (i.e. revenge porn 

cases)? 

General EVANS. There are a wide variety of tools available to commanders to combat social media/online misconduct, whether the Soldier is on or off duty. While 

there are administrative options, when it comes to punitive disciplinary options, 

charging decisions depend upon many factors. Currently Army Regulation (AR) 600– 

20, para. 4–19a. has specific language that addresses and criminalizes, through Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), ‘‘hazing, bullying, and 

other behaviors that undermine dignity and respect.’’ These provisions reference ‘‘social media’’ (for hazing) and ‘‘electronic media’’ for bullying. So use of that punitive 

provision is possible. Furthermore, transmitting over social media an image made 

without the consent of the victim is an offense under Article 120(c)(3), UCMJ. Additionally, transmitting, receiving, or possessing such images made either consensually or not, could be criminal under Article 133, UCMJ (conduct unbecoming an 

officer and a gentleman) for officers, or under Article 134, UCMJ (conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting) for Soldiers and 

servicemembers generally. There are additional federal laws that could be charged 

as well, through assimilation under article 134, depending upon the crime. The federal crime of cyberstalking, for example, prohibits a person with an intent to harass 

or intimidate someone from using a computer that could reasonably be expected to 

cause emotional distress. Other federal laws prohibit accessing a computer without 

one’s consent, or the transmission of obscene matters. Of course, the Army is prepared and willing to assist in providing technical advice regarding social media legislation if requested. 

Mr. BACON. What service policies, procedures, programs and resources exist to 

identify, protect and support victims of social media misconduct? 
84 

General EVANS. Army policy prohibits online misconduct and the mistreatment of 

persons. Army policy, which is punitive, makes it clear that such misconduct is prohibited at all times and places, including when perpetrated through virtual or electronic media. Members of the Army team experiencing or witnessing online misconduct should promptly report matters to their chain of command or supervisor. 

Alternative avenues for reporting and acquiring information or support include: 

family support services, Equal Opportunity professionals, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) offices, the Inspector General (IG), law enforcement, and the Army 

SHARP professionals. As appropriate, those agencies refer complaints to the Commander, the IG, and law enforcement. Victims of sexually related online misconduct 

may be eligible for advocacy services from SHARP/EO professionals, including referral to mental health services or legal assistance. 

Æ