JUDICIAL 

PROCEEDINGS 

PANEL

REPORT ON 

STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING 

MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF 

SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

April 2016

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL

CHAIR

The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman

MEMBERS

The Honorable Barbara S. Jones

Mr. Victor Stone

Professor Thomas W. Taylor

Vice Admiral Patricia A. Tracey, U.S. Navy, Retired

STAFF DIRECTOR

Colonel Kyle W. Green, U.S. Air Force

DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR

Lieutenant Colonel Kelly McGovern, U.S. Army

CHIEF OF STAFF

Mr. Dale L. Trexler

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

Ms. Maria Fried

Report of the Judicial Proceedings 

Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel

Statistical Data Regarding Military 

Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses

April 2016

5

REPORT ON RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF ADULT SEXUAL ASSAULT CRIMES

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL

 

One Liberty Center • Suite 150 • 875 North Randolph Street • Arlington, VA 22203

 

 

April 19, 2016 

The Honorable John McCain The Honorable Jack Reed 

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee 

on Armed Services on Armed Services 

United States Senate United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Mac Thornberry The Honorable Adam Smith 

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee 

on Armed Services on Armed Services 

United States House of United States House of 

Representatives Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Ashton B. Carter 

Secretary of Defense 

1000 Defense Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20301-1000 

Dear Chairs, Ranking Members, and Mr. Secretary: 

 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 requires the 

Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (JPP) “to conduct an 

independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice involving adult sexual assault and related offenses” since 2012, 

when Article 120 was amended, “for the purpose of developing recommendations for 

improvements to such proceedings.” We are pleased to submit this report of the JPP in 

connection with that requirement. This report provides and describes statistical data 

regarding the military’s adjudication of sexual assault offenses. It also contains two 

recommendations addressing the collection and analysis of adjudication information for 

sexual assault cases. 

To gather information for this report, the JPP researched publicly available 

information and reviewed information from the Department of Defense, the military 

Services, and victim advocacy organizations. The JPP obtained and analyzed 

adjudication information for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 from courts-martial 

documents, the Department of Defense’s annual reports to Congress, and appellate 

opinions issued by the Service Criminal Courts of Appeal and Court of Appeal for the 

Armed Forces. The JPP also held public meetings to hear from civilian and military 

experts and practitioners. The JPP expresses sincere appreciation to everyone who 

contributed to this report. 

Elizabeth Holtzman 

Chair 

Barbara Jones 

Victor Stone 

Tom Taylor 

Patricia Tracey 
6

REPORT ON RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF ADULT SEXUAL ASSAULT CRIMES REPORT ON RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF ADULT SEXUAL ASSAULT CRIMES

-2- 

The JPP looks forward to continuing its review of military judicial proceedings 

for sexual assault crimes and addressing other topics in future reports. 

Respectfully submitted, 

_______________________________ 

Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Chair 

____________________________ _____________________________ 

Honorable Barbara S. Jones Victor Stone

___________________________ ____________________________ 

Thomas W. Taylor Patricia A. Tracey
1

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................3

RECOMMENDATIONS ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY 

ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES ........................5

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................7

A. Congressional Tasks

B. The Military Justice System

II. OBTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING ADJUDICATION 

OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES ...................................9

A. Sources of Military Justice Information for Sexual Assault Cases

B. Obtaining Case Information

C. Analysis and Use of Adjudication Data 

D. JPP Assessment and Recommendations

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL . . . 19

A. The Court-Martial Process

B. Military Justice Data

C. JPP Assessment Regarding Appropriateness and Consistency of 

Case Dispositions and Punishments

IV. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH 

NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

A. Overview of Nonjudicial Punishment

B. Data on Nonjudicial Punishment for Sexual Assault Offenses

V. ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE 

DISCHARGES FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

A. Overview of Adverse Administrative Actions and Administrative Discharges

B. Data on Adverse Administrative Actions for Sexual Assault Offenses

C. Data on Administrative Discharges for Sexual Assault Offenses

Table of Contents
2

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

VI. APPELLATE REVIEW OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 45

A. Overview of the Military Appellate Process

B. Appellate Action on Court-Martial Convictions for Sexual Assault Offenses

VII. MILITARY, FEDERAL, AND STATE DATA ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT ADJUDICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

A. Felony Sexual Assault Prosecutions in State and Federal Courts

B. Contrasting Approaches to Sentencing in the Military and Civilian Justice Systems 

C. JPP Assessment 

APPENDICES

A. Statistical Report on Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault

B. Methodology

C. Judicial Proceedings Panel Authorizing Statutes

D. Judicial Proceedings Panel Members

E. Staff Members and Designated Federal Officials

F. Judicial Proceedings Panel Public Meetings Addressing Statistical Data

G. Acronyms and Abbreviations

H. Sources Consulted
3

Executive Summary

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF 

SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Congress tasked the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP or the Panel) with reviewing trends in the 

adjudication of adult sexual assault crimes in the military. In the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense 

Authorization Act, Congress specifically directed the JPP to do the following:

(1) Review and evaluate current trends in response to sexual assault crimes whether by courtsmartial proceedings, nonjudicial punishment and administrative actions, including the number of 

punishments by type, and the consistency and appropriateness of the decisions, punishments, and 

administrative actions based on the facts of individual cases; 

(2) Identify any trends in punishments rendered by military courts, including general, special, and 

summary courts-martial, in response to sexual assault, including the number of punishments by 

type, and the consistency of the punishments, based on the facts of each case compared with the 

punishments in Federal and state criminal courts; and 

(3) Review and evaluate court-martial convictions for sexual assault in the year covered by the most 

recent report of the Judicial Proceedings Panel and the number and description of instances 

when punishments were reduced or set aside on appeal and the instances in which the defendant 

appealed following a plea agreement, if such information is available. 

To complete its assessment, the JPP heard from civilian and military experts; reviewed information 

received from the Department of Defense (DoD), the military Services, the Department of Justice 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the United States Sentencing Commission; and reviewed publicly 

available information.

To conduct its analysis, the JPP sought information from court records, case documents, and other 

publicly available resources. Members of the JPP staff reviewed court-martial documents from 

the military Services for sexual assault cases that were resolved in fiscal years 2012 through 2014. 

Information from 1,761 court-martial cases was entered into a JPP-developed database, and the 

JPP coordinated with a distinguished criminologist, Dr. Cassia Spohn, to analyze the data and 

provide descriptive statistics concerning court-martial case characteristics, case dispositions, and case 

outcomes. Dr. Spohn’s complete report can be found at Appendix A. To examine information about 

nonjudicial punishment and administrative actions, which are included in the private personnel records 

of individual Service members, the JPP staff reviewed information from the case synopses included in 

DoD’s annual reports to Congress. To review appellate relief in military sexual assault cases, the JPP 

consulted the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, 

and reviewed publicly available information on the respective courts’ websites. The fiscal year 2012 

to 2014 appellate data largely cover courts-martial tried under the 2007 Article 120, Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ), and earlier statute(s). The proportion of appellate data covering offenses 

adjudicated under the 2012 statute will likely increase in future JPP reports.

Executive Summary
4

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

The JPP analyzed the procedural outcomes of sexual assault adjudications from fiscal years 2012 

through 2014, which may provide baseline information for trend analysis when case data in future 

fiscal years are scrutinized. Statistical data obtained by the JPP effectively describe certain objective 

aspects of military cases in the aggregate, including the number of annual prosecutions, the procedural 

history of cases, and the punishments imposed. However, individual case outcomes are the result of 

unique combinations of facts and evidence, and the appropriateness or consistency of disposition 

decisions or punishments cannot be evaluated solely by considering procedural data. For these reasons, 

the JPP provides the information gathered without offering specific recommendations.

Congress tasked the JPP to compare punishments rendered in military courts with the same in federal 

and state courts. No comprehensive, national data exist on sexual assault adjudications, but the 

JPP reviewed statistical analysis from the U.S. Sentencing Commission and publicly available state 

court sentencing data. Limited national data and systemic differences between the military criminal 

justice system and other civilian systems make comparisons inappropriate, and the JPP provides the 

information gathered without offering specific recommendations.

Though doing so was not a specific statutory task, the JPP considered shortcomings in the data 

produced and reported annually by the Services and DoD, as those issues affected the JPP’s ability to 

gather data required to make its assessments. DoD maintains a comprehensive electronic database, 

called the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID), for recording information concerning 

unrestricted and restricted reports of sexual assault covered by DoD’s sexual assault prevention and 

response policy. DoD uses DSAID to aid it in providing victim services and in compiling reports about 

the DoD’s sexual assault prevention and response efforts. Limited data regarding the legal resolution 

of each reported incident are recorded in DSAID using information from the military Services’ separate 

court-martial case management systems, but DSAID does not include sufficient detail about judicial 

proceedings to address the JPP’s statutory tasks. 

The Department of Defense should collect and analyze case adjudication data using a standardized, 

document-based collection model similar to systems developed by the Judicial Proceedings Panel or 

U.S. Sentencing Commission. Information collected from legal documents regarding dispositions, 

charges, outcomes, and punishments imposed in adult sexual assault cases could improve Service-level 

analysis and could be incorporated into DoD’s reports to Congress. Because procedural data do not 

provide all relevant information about a case, they must be supplemented by potentially relevant case 

facts and evidentiary issues.

Finally, the JPP notes, as did the Response Systems Panel before it, that adjudication information for 

adult-victim sexual assault cases involving spouses, intimate partners, and family members of military 

members is not collected by the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. DoD policy 

places this category of cases within the purview of the DoD Family Advocacy Program, which provides 

victim services but does not monitor legal proceedings or collect case adjudication information. 

Therefore, judicial and disciplinary proceedings for an entire category of cases are not included in 

DoD’s case management system or in its annual reports to Congress. The JPP recommends that DoD 

include these cases in the overall number of unrestricted sexual assault cases reported annually by 

DoD.
5

Recommendations on Statistical Data Regarding 

Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses*

• Summary of JPP Recommendations on Military Justice Case Data for Sexual Assault Offenses*

Recommendation 37: The Department of Defense collect and analyze case adjudication data 

using a standardized, document-based collection model, similar to systems used by the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel or U.S. Sentencing Commission, that incorporates uniform definitions and 

categories across all of the military Services. 

• DoD does not collect sufficient adjudication data to fully assess how adult sexual assault cases are 

resolved through the military justice system. 

• Other than case information entered by Service legal officers into DoD’s database, DoD does 

not centrally collect and manage information about military justice processing in sexual assault 

cases. The military Services, however, have Service-specific systems, tailored to a decentralized, 

command-driven military justice system, to collect and manage information for cases that occur 

in their Service. 

• The JPP developed an electronic database, modeled on the database used by the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission, for collecting and analyzing information from court-martial case documents. This 

system was used to accumulate procedural information from court-martial documents for the 

data analysis in this report.

• Collecting standard information from court-martial documents regarding dispositions, charges, 

outcomes, and punishments imposed in adult sexual assault cases could improve Service-level 

analysis and could be incorporated into DoD’s reports to Congress. 

• Because the Judge Advocate General’s Corps administer military justice in each of the military 

Services, case adjudication data could be compiled and analyzed by the Services in a manner 

compatible with DoD’s electronic database and congressional reporting requirements.

• At a minimum, analysis of how adult sexual assault cases are resolved through the military justice 

system would be improved by the collection of the following case information: 

• all sexual assault charges that were preferred and the outcome of each charge, including 

whether the charge was referred to court-martial, dismissed, or resolved by alternate means; 

• type of court-martial held; 

* JPP Recommendations 1–11 are included in the JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL INITIAL REPORT 11 (Feb. 2015), available at

http://jpp.whs.mil/public/docs/08-Panel_Reports/JPP_InitialReport_Final_20150204.pdf. JPP Recommendations 12–17 are 

included in the JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION FOR MILITARY ADULT SEXUAL ASSAULT

CRIMES 5 (Feb. 2016), available at jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/08-Panel_Reports/JPP_Rest_Comp_Report_Final_20160201_

Web.pdf. JPP Recommendations 18–23 are included in the JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON ARTICLE 120 OF THE

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE 5–7 (Feb. 2016), available at jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/08-Panel_Reports/JPP_Art120_

Report_Final_20160204_Web.pdf. JPP Recommendations 24–36 are included in the JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT

ON RETALIATION RELATED TO SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 5–10 (Feb. 2016), available at jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/08-Panel_

Reports/04_JPP_Retaliation_Report_Final_20160211.pdf.

Recommendations on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses
6

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

• pleas of the accused;

• trial forum; 

• findings; 

• sentence; and

• convening authority action on the findings and sentence.

• Because procedural data do not provide complete information about a case, they must be 

supplemented by potentially relevant case facts and evidentiary issues. Such information may 

include characteristics of the victim, the relationship between the accused and victim, whether 

the victim made a prompt report, whether the victim was willing to cooperate, whether the 

victim engaged in any risk-taking behavior around the time of the incident, and the presence of 

eyewitnesses or physical evidence.

Recommendation 38: The Department of Defense include legal disposition information related 

to all adult sexual assault complaints in one annual DoD report, changing its policy that excludes 

adult-victim cases that are handled by the Family Advocacy Program from Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office reports. 

• DoD SAPRO annually provides Congress with a description of the resolution of each unrestricted 

report of sexual assault covered by DoD’s sexual assault prevention and response policy; however, 

that policy precludes reporting on adult sexual assault cases involving victims who are Service 

members’ spouses, intimate partners, or family members over the age of consent under the UCMJ 

(16 years of age), for whom the DoD Family Advocacy Program (FAP) provides victim advocacy 

services.

• FAP does not collect or report case adjudication data for the sexual assault reports it receives, 

even when FAP provides victim advocacy services through completion of a court-martial for a 

sexual assault crime. Because these cases are excluded from DoD’s reports on the legal resolution 

of sexual assault cases, it is not possible to accurately determine how many sexual assault cases 

are handled through the military justice system.

• Requiring sexual assault case disposition and adjudication data from FAP to be reported by DoD 

in its annual report to Congress would ensure a complete accounting of all adult sexual assault 

cases involving a military member.

• The Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel, in its June 2014 report to the 

Secretary of Defense, examined this issue and similarly recommended it be corrected.
7

Introduction I.

A. CONGRESSIONAL TASKS

In the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress directed the Judicial Proceedings 

Panel (JPP, or the Panel) “to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings 

conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault 

and related offenses” since 2012, when Article 120 was amended, “for the purpose of developing 

recommendations for improvements to such proceedings.” As part of this review and assessment, 

Congress tasked the JPP to examine how the military Services adjudicate sex offenses under the 

UCMJ and to compare punishments rendered in military courts with those in federal and state courts. 

Specifically, Congress tasked the JPP to:

• Review and evaluate current trends in response to sexual assault crimes whether by courtsmartial proceedings, nonjudicial punishments, or administrative actions, including the number 

of punishments by type and the consistency and appropriateness of the decisions, punishments, 

and administrative actions based on the facts of individual cases.

• Identify any trends in punishments rendered by military courts, including general, special, and 

summary courts-martial, in response to sexual assault, including the number of punishments 

by type, and the consistency of the punishments, based on the facts of each case compared with 

the punishments rendered by federal and state criminal courts.

• Review and evaluate court-martial convictions for sexual assault in the year covered by 

the most-recent report of the Judicial Proceedings Panel and the number and description of 

instances when punishments were reduced or set aside upon appeal and the instances when the 

defendant appealed following a plea agreement, if such information is available.

These issues were discussed at seven JPP public meetings from August 2015 to April 2016. The 

Panel heard testimony from 16 witnesses at these meetings and received information from JPP staff 

members on statistical data gathered in response to the congressional tasks. The JPP also requested 

and analyzed information from the DoD, the military Services and non-DoD governmental agencies. 

In addition, the JPP reviewed publicly available information and conducted legal research and analysis 

of relevant topics, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. The information 

received and considered by the JPP is available on its website (http://jpp.whs.mil). The JPP is grateful 

to all presenters and to others who provided information and assistance as part of this review and 

assessment.

B. THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM

Evaluating trends in the military’s judicial response to sexual assault crimes requires a basic 

understanding of the military justice system and its similarities to and differences from civilian court 

systems.

The military justice system is designed to hold offenders accountable for criminal acts, “to promote 

justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces, to promote efficiency 

and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to strengthen the national security of 

I. Introduction
8

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

the United States.”1 All Service members (including National Guard in federal service and Reserve 

Component members on inactive-duty training) are subject to the UCMJ, which sets forth both 

substantive military criminal law and procedures for disposing of criminal offenses.

Historically, the military commander has been at the center of the military justice system. In order to 

achieve good order and discipline, commanders have different military justice tools at their disposal, 

and they respond to misconduct with the advice and counsel of judge advocates. A salient difference 

between military and civilian judicial systems is the range of options available to each. Civilian 

prosecutors are often limited either to taking no action on a case or pursuing a conviction at trial; 

in contrast, if a military convening authority determines that court-martial is not the appropriate 

disposition in a case, he or she has other ways to address the misconduct, such as nonjudicial 

punishment, administrative discharge, or other adverse administrative action.2

Determinations regarding the appropriate disposition for an offense under the UCMJ may change 

in response to each case’s circumstances and evidence. A case that is initially considered appropriate 

for low-level disciplinary action may later be elevated to court-martial; conversely, a criminal charge 

preferred with a view toward court-martial may instead be resolved by alternate (i.e., nonjudicial or 

administrative) means.

The military justice system and its components are explained and discussed more thoroughly in 

Sections III through VI of this report, and a more detailed comparison between the military justice 

system and civilian criminal courts is provided in Section VII.

1 MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2012 ed.), Preamble ¶ 3 [hereinafter MCM].

2 MCM, supra note 1, Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 306(c) (Updated Rules for Courts-Martial, June 

2015, are available at http://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/RCMsJun15.pdf); National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. 113-66 [hereinafter FY14 NDAA], § 1705, 127 Stat. 672 (2013), limits court-martial 

jurisdiction over the offenses of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and attempts to commit these offenses to trial by 

general court-martial.
9

Obtaining Information Regarding 

Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses II.

A. SOURCES OF MILITARY JUSTICE INFORMATION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT 

CASES

1. DoD and Service Case Information Collection and Management

Section 563 of the FY09 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) required the Secretary of 

Defense to “implement a centralized, case-level database for the collection . . . and maintenance of 

information regarding sexual assaults involving a member of the Armed Forces, including information, 

if available, about the nature of the assault, the victim, the offender, and the outcome of any legal 

proceedings in connection with the assault.”3

 The Department of Defense was required by January 

14, 2010, to implement the database, which was to “be used to develop and implement congressional 

reports.”4

To meet this requirement, DoD developed the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID).5

DSAID contains data for each unrestricted and restricted report of sexual assault covered by DoD’s 

sexual assault prevention and response policy. DSAID therefore includes information about sexual 

assault reports involving Service members and adult dependents, but it does not contain data on sexual 

assault cases involving victims who are Service members’ spouses, intimate partners, or adult family 

members.6

DSAID is administered by the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, in coordination 

with sexual assault response coordinators and Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) 

program managers from the military Services. DSAID has three primary functions: (1) to serve 

as a case management system for the maintenance of data on sexual assault cases and to track 

support for victims in each case, (2) to facilitate program administration and management for SAPR 

programs, and (3) to develop congressional reports, respond to ad hoc queries, and assist in trend 

analysis. Information about a sexual assault case’s legal disposition and outcome that is required for 

congressional reporting is entered into DSAID by legal officers from the military Services.7

The intimate partner sexual assault cases that fall outside SAPR’s data collection policy are the 

responsibility of the DoD Family Advocacy Program (FAP).8

 FAP provides important social work 

3 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. 110-417 [hereinafter FY09 NDAA] § 563.

4 FY09 NDAA § 563(d).

5 See Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 106 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Ms. Darlene Sullivan, DSAID Program Manager, 

DoD SAPRO) (explaining that Service SAPR officials began using DSAID in fiscal year 2012). All transcripts of JPP public 

meetings are available on the JPP’s website at http://jpp.whs.mil/.

6 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 166 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Ms. Darlene Sullivan). Individuals 16 years of age and 

older are considered adult sexual assault victims pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 920b(d) (art. 120b, Rape and Sexual Assault of a 

Child).

7 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 108 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Ms. Darlene Sullivan).

8 U.S. DEP’T OF DEF. INSTR. [hereinafter DoDI] 6495.02, SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE (SAPR) PROGRAM

PROCEDURES ¶2.b (Mar. 28, 2013) (Incorporating Change 2, Effective July 7, 2015); Intimate Partner is defined as “a 

person with whom the victim shares a child in common, or a person with whom the victim shares or has shared a common 

domicile.” DEP’T OF DEF. MANUAL 6400.1-M-1, DOD MANUAL FOR CHILD MALTREATMENT AND DOMESTIC ABUSE INCIDENT

II. Obtaining Information Regarding Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses
10

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

services to military families and informs law enforcement of all unrestricted sexual assault allegations 

it receives against Service members.9 However, the FAP program does not collect case adjudication 

information, and FAP cases are not included in DSAID or reported by DoD in its annual or other 

reports.10 Thus the legal disposition of sexual assault allegations made by spouses or intimate partners 

and the number of such cases that are resolved through military judicial proceedings cannot be 

determined.11

Other than the case information entered by Service legal officers into DSAID, DoD does not centrally 

collect and manage information about military justice processing in sexual assault cases. The military 

Services, however, have Service-specific systems, tailored to a decentralized, command-driven military 

justice system, to collect and manage such information for all cases that occur in their Service.

Judge advocates from each of the military Services explained that legal offices in the field use different 

systems for drafting routine documents, accounting for the number of military justice actions initiated 

in a given jurisdiction, and monitoring the progress of a court-martial.12 Presenters and information 

provided by the Services highlighted the similar intents and different approaches among the Services:

• Most case management systems are used for all types of criminal cases, but the Army has 

added a program devoted to following sexual assault and intimate partner violence cases.13

• The Army also has an automated system, used by military judges and the Army’s appellate 

court to monitor all cases from arraignment through appellate review, that is able to “answer 

most questions that might arise about any court-martial.”14

• The Navy and Marine Corps plan to build on their shared military justice management 

system, in use since 2009, by linking their legal database with the Naval Criminal Investigative 

Service’s case information when they begin a sexual assault investigation. 

• The Air Force has long employed a comprehensive, automated system to record the legal 

disposition of every criminal investigation involving an Air Force subject, including trial details 

such as court-martial participants and specific punishments rendered in each case.15

REPORTING SYSTEM [hereinafter DoD FAP MANUAL], C2.1.15.2.5 (Jul. 2005, Incorp. Change 1, Sept. 20, 2011).

9 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 117 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Ms. Katherine Robertson, Family Advocacy Program 

Manager, DoD Office of Family Readiness Policy).

10 This was noted by the Response Systems Panel in its report and was the subject of RSP’s recommendation 66. REPORT OF

THE RESPONSE SYSTEMS TO ADULT SEXUAL ASSAULT CRIMES PANEL 33 (June 2014) [hereinafter RSP REPORT], available at http://

responsesystemspanel.whs.mil/Public/docs/Reports/00_Final/RSP_Report_Final_20140627.pdf.

11 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 118 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Ms. Katherine Robertson).

12 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 125–49 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Col Walter Hudson, U.S. Army, Chief, Criminal 

Law Division, Office of The Judge Advocate General; Lt Col Julie Rutherford, U.S. Air Force, Air Staff Counsel, Air Force 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office; Lt Col Angela Wissman, U.S. Marine Corps, Judge Advocate Division; 

Mr. Stephen McCleary, U.S. Coast Guard, Senior Military Justice Counsel and Chief Prosecutor; LCDR Stuart Kirkby, U.S. 

Navy, Staff Attorney, Navy Marine Corps Appellate Review Activity).

13 Army’s Response to JPP Request for Information 89a (Sept. 11, 2015). (“Special Victim Prosecutors (SVP) use an internal 

application on the JAG Corps website, JAGCNET (www.jagcnet.army.mil) to track pending special victim investigations 

and adverse actions within their jurisdictions. This assists the Chief of the Trial Counsel Assistance Program (TCAP) with 

managing the workload of SVPs in the field, among many other uses.”).

14 Id.

15 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 131–35 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Lt Col Julie Rutherford, U.S. Air Force, Air Staff 
11

II. OBTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

• The Coast Guard requires prosecutors to record the progress of all courts-martial in a single 

database that follows the case through appellate review. 

• In all of the military Services, the attorneys and paralegals assigned to a case are primarily 

responsible for entering and updating the information in each system contemporaneously with 

the action being recorded.16

• Presenters before the JPP testified that commanders and Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps 

leaders periodically query these systems for aggregate figures on sexual assault cases.17

• None of the military Services has the infrastructure necessary to centrally manage, store, or 

retrieve court-martial documents.18

Because DSAID and DoD SAPRO Reports exclude spouse and intimate partner sexual assaults that 

are the responsibility of FAP, DoD’s annual reports do not fully account for all sexual assault cases 

in the military. DSAID should include sexual assault case adjudication and disposition data for cases 

involving adult victims seen through the FAP, and this information should be included in DoD’s annual 

report to Congress.

2. DoD and Military Service Reporting on Judicial Proceedings for Sexual Assault Cases

At the close of each fiscal year, the military Services publish general military justice statistics in two 

public reports on criminal case management in the military: the annual report to the American Bar 

Association and the report of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which is 

provided to the U.S. Congress, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and the 

Service Secretaries. These reports generally describe how many courts-martial, appeals, and disciplinary 

actions the Service JAG Corps administer each fiscal year. However, they provide relatively little data 

specific to the adjudication of sexual assault crimes.

The DoD SAPR Office’s Annual Report to Congress (SAPRO Report) provides the most comprehensive 

data on the adjudication of sexual assault crimes in the military.19 The SAPRO Report aggregates 

annual information concerning crime incidence, sexual assault response coordinator (SARC) caseloads, 

Counsel, Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office).

16 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 129–30 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Col Walter Hudson, U.S. Army, Criminal Law 

Division). The Army Courts-Martial Information System (ACMIS) is not used by prosecutors; instead, military judges and 

appellate court judges and staff are responsible for entering court-martial data into the system. See Army’s Response to JPP 

Request for Information 89(a) (Sept. 11, 2015).

17 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 125–49 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Col Walter Hudson, U.S. Army; Lt Col Julie 

Rutherford, U.S. Air Force; Lt Col Angela Wissman, U.S. Marine Corps; Mr. Stephen McCleary, U.S. Coast Guard; and 

LCDR Stuart Kirkby, U.S. Navy). See Services’ Responses to Request for Information 89 (Sept. 11, 2015).

18 See generally Services’ Responses to JPP Request for Information 89(c) (Sept. 11, 2015).

19 DOD SAPRO, ANNUAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: FISCAL YEAR 2012 [hereinafter FY12 SAPRO Report] 

(May 3, 2013), available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY12_DoD_SAPRO_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_

Assault-VOLUME_ONE.pdf; DOD SAPRO, ANNUAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: FISCAL YEAR 2013

[hereinafter FY13 SAPRO Report] (Apr. 15, 2014), available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY13_DoD_

SAPRO_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault.pdf; DOD SAPRO, ANNUAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: FISCAL

YEAR 2014 [hereinafter FY14 SAPRO Report] (Apr. 29, 2015), available at http://sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY14_

Annual/FY14_DoD_SAPRO_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault.pdf. The U.S. Coast Guard, one of the military Services, 

is situated within the Dept. of Homeland Security and is not part of DoD. Thus the Coast Guard’s sexual assault statistics 

are not included in DoD SAPRO Reports.
12

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

the military’s investigative response to criminal allegations, and disciplinary actions taken against 

Service members accused of sexual assault offenses.20

Each annual SAPRO Report includes case synopsis charts that provide limited information regarding 

case disposition and adjudication for every unrestricted report of sexual assault made in that year. Prior 

to fiscal year 2014, these case synopses in SAPRO Reports were developed and aggregated manually by 

Service representatives using data and information from their Service’s case management systems.21 In 

January 2014, a case synopsis feature was added to DSAID, and legal officers at Service headquarters 

began entering that information about each case into the program. The annual report for fiscal year 

2014 was the first SAPRO Report to include case synopses based on case information in DSAID.22

SAPRO Report information regarding case disposition and adjudication is limited, and it is not 

especially useful for assessing how sexual assault crimes are resolved through the military judicial 

system. Among the many important case characteristics not included in the SAPRO Report and case 

synopses are the following: 

• The SAPRO Report lists only the most serious offense charged and the most serious offense 

convicted for each case. It does not provide information about every sexual assault offense that 

was preferred or tried. It does not provide information about all offenses for which an accused 

was convicted that resulted in the sentence that was imposed.

• The SAPRO Report lists only the type of sentence in each case (i.e., whether confinement or 

some other punishment was imposed), and it does not indicate whether the sentence was the 

adjudged or approved sentence. Distinguishing between the sentence adjudged at trial by the 

military judge or court-martial panel and the sentence approved after the trial by the convening 

authority is important in assessing the clemency process.

• Case synopses do not consistently indicate the type of court-martial involved, a factor that 

affects how the case was processed and the maximum allowable sentence.

• Case synopses do not consistently indicate if a case involved a guilty plea or if the case was 

decided by a military judge or panel.

• Case synopses do not consistently indicate if a case involved a pretrial agreement, nor does it 

specify any terms of an agreement.

In sum, annual reports published by DoD and the Services do not provide sufficient information or 

detail to assess how sexual assault crimes are resolved in the military justice system.

B. OBTAINING CASE INFORMATION

DoD case management systems were not designed specifically to address the JPP’s statutory tasks. 

To conduct the analysis necessary to fulfill the tasks assigned by Congress, more complete case 

information regarding the military’s judicial processing of sexual assault prosecutions was required. 

20 As explained above, DoD SAPRO’s statistics do not routinely capture reports made by spouses or intimate partners of 

Service Members who are eligible for assistance under the Family Advocacy Program.

21 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 108 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Ms. Darlene Sullivan).

22 Id.
13

II. OBTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

The JPP therefore had to seek information from individual court records and case documents that 

existing electronic management systems do not contain.23

As one model, the JPP considered the work of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (hereinafter 

“Sentencing Commission”), which conducts large-scale case document data collection, entry, and 

analysis for federal criminal convictions. The Sentencing Commission, which is an independent agency 

of the judicial branch, is responsible for establishing sentencing policies and practices for the federal 

courts, advising Congress about the impact of federal criminal laws and policies, and collecting 

information on, analyzing, and researching a wide array of federal crime and sentencing issues.24 A 

senior official of the Sentencing Commission explained to the JPP that:

[T]o facilitate the Commission’s work, Congress has required by statute that the 

courts provide to the Commission documents within 30 days of the entry of judgment 

in a case. Those documents are the indictment or other charging document, the 

plea agreement, if there is one, the pre-sentence investigation report, . . . the judge’s 

judgment and commit order and a written Statement of Reasons form, a document 

that’s unique in the federal system where judges are required to explain the sentences 

they impose.25

From the court documents it receives in every case, the Sentencing Commission extracts information 

about sentences imposed on felony defendants. Statisticians record the data in a sophisticated database 

that is controlled, managed, and operated by the Sentencing Commission, and they perform the 

analysis necessary for the Commission’s work.26

Case-based data collection enables the Sentencing Commission to accurately analyze federal criminal 

convictions and sentences. For the JPP to examine the adjudication of sexual assault crimes in the 

military, the Panel determined that a similar approach to obtain information directly from military 

justice case records was necessary. 

Using information and individual case synopses provided in the SAPRO Reports for fiscal years 2012, 

2013, and 2014, the JPP identified reports of sexual assault that were adjudicated through the military 

justice system or resolved by administrative disciplinary processes. The JPP then requested access to 

case documents from the military Services for all reported cases.27 A summary of case documents and 

information requested and received by the JPP follows.

23 See Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 212 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Howard Snyder, Deputy Director, Bureau 

of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice) (“So, we talked about collecting data by hand, it’s great if you have the 

money. We talked about harvesting data, it’s great except when you harvest data, you have to extract what they have on 

their systems already and it may not be just what you need.”). See Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 262 (Sept. 18, 2015) 

(testimony of Mr. Glenn Schmitt, Director of the Office of Research and Data, U.S. Sentencing Commission) (“The issue 

is when you take data from a system that isn’t designed to be a statistical system, then there are miscodes and things that 

are missing, and people just make mistakes because they’re not using it for your purpose. They’re using for their other 

purpose—managing the flow of people in the office and whatever that might be. And so when you do that, then sometimes 

things are wrong or missing, and then that affects the reliability of your data.”).

24 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 184–85 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Mr. Glenn Schmitt). See also information 

available at http://www.ussc.gov/about.

25 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 186 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Mr. Glenn Schmitt).

26 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 187 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Mr. Glenn Schmitt).

27 As explained previously, the SAPRO Reports do not include cases of sexual assault between spouses or intimate partners 

that are within the purview of FAP, and these cases are not individually reported or identified elsewhere. The JPP therefore 

could not review or assess the judicial resolution of FAP cases that were adjudicated through the military justice system or 
14

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

1. Courts-Martial

The case synopses included in the annual SAPRO Reports indicate when a sexual assault charge was 

preferred against an accused.28 For every case listed in the SAPRO Report, the JPP requested access to 

specified court documents in order to obtain information about the judicial processing and resolution 

of the case. In total, the JPP requested from the Services information about 2,353 cases that were 

reported in fiscal years 2012–14. The JPP received access to case documents in 2,175, or 92%, of the 

requested cases.29 The JPP then screened case records provided by the Services to identify duplicate 

cases, cases with incomplete documentation, cases of sexual assault that did not involve an adult 

victim, cases that did not involve a sex offense, and cases whose reported year of case completion was 

not correct.

After screening, the JPP staff extracted information from court documents for 1,761 of the cases. Case 

information was entered into an electronic database that an independent criminologist, Dr. Cassia 

Spohn, Foundation Professor and Director, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State 

University, then analyzed. Dr. Spohn’s complete statistical report concerning military sexual assault 

adjudication is provided at Appendix A. 

2. Nonjudicial Punishment, Adverse Administrative Actions, and Administrative Discharges

Narratives included in the case synopses in the Services’ Enclosures to the SAPRO Reports also indicate 

when sexual assault reports result in lower-level disciplinary actions, including nonjudicial punishment, 

adverse administrative actions, or administrative discharge. Disciplinary records from administrative 

proceedings against a Service member are included in the personnel file of the Service member, which 

are protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act. Such records are maintained in accordance with 

individual Service policies; the material in them varies depending on the type of disciplinary action 

taken, the Service affiliation, and the rank of the Service member. 

Because of privacy restrictions and variations among the Services regarding the maintenance 

of administrative records, the JPP determined that the Services could not provide records of 

administrative actions for the JPP’s review. Instead, the JPP used information from the case synopses 

and statistical data included in the SAPRO Reports, which indicate the general nature of the offense 

involved and the outcome of disciplinary or administrative actions in the case. 

3. Appeal of Sexual Assault Convictions

Finally, in order to assess how sexual assault convictions are handled on appeal, the JPP collected and 

reviewed publicly available decisions from the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Armed Forces. From the public records of the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals, 

the JPP identified opinions issued by the courts in fiscal years 2012–14 regarding adult sexual assault 

cases. Most often, appellate opinions are issued well after conviction at courts-martial. Therefore, the 

decisions obtained were for cases tried before 2012, and they do not correspond to the courts-martial 

cases reported in the 2012–14 SAPRO Reports.

other administrative disciplinary process.

28 See JPP Request for Information 65 and 66. JPP staff requested the same set of cases directly from the Coast Guard, 

because it is not within DoD and Coast Guard data are not included in the DoD annual report to Congress.

29 See Appendix B, Methodology, for an accounting of the 2,353 cases initially requested from the Services. 
15

II. OBTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

C. ANALYSIS AND USE OF ADJUDICATION DATA 

A core goal of the tasks assigned to the JPP by Congress is to determine what reasonable 

assessments may, or should, be made based on an analysis of military justice data in military sexual 

assault prosecutions. Experts in civilian crime data collection and research described the value of 

empirical data in understanding criminal justice systems, and they also noted their limitations. 

One expert explained that as a starting point, “social science research offers a way of examining 

and understanding the operation of human social affairs; it provides points of view and technical 

procedures that uncover things that would otherwise escape our awareness.”30

Empirical analysis of the criminal justice system has been used in the civilian community to allocate 

police resources to areas with higher crime rates, to develop risk assessment tools for pretrial hearings, 

and to support the predictive analysis necessary to determine parole release guidelines.31 Mr. Glenn 

Schmitt, Director of the Office of Research and Data, U.S. Sentencing Commission, spoke to the JPP 

about using criminal justice data to form policy:

Commission data is regarded as one of the most complete and accurate data sets in 

social science research and there are several reasons why this is. First, our data is a 

universe and not a sample. Because the courts are required to provide us the source 

materials we use, our data sets reflect the universe of federal sentencing. As a result, 

we know that our data represents the true sentencing practices of the courts and our 

analysis can be reported to a high level of precision on a wide variety of factors. And, 

because of this, policy decisions supported by our data are really not subject to attack 

as if they were based on incorrect or insufficient information.

32 (emphasis added)

The Sentencing Commission offers detailed, current data on felony sentences, but it does not collect 

information about the original charges or the effect of plea bargains, if involved.33 Therefore, 

information about how civilian sexual assault crimes are processed from the earliest stages of the 

justice process is not readily available for study. In addition, a federal practitioner noted that the 

federal sentencing guidelines relating to sexual abuse crimes have not been revised in accordance with 

the most up-to-date sentencing data gathered by the Commission.34

National data on case outcomes in state courts in sexual assault cases are also limited, and specific data 

are difficult to obtain.35 Dr. Spohn explained to the Panel that: 

30 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 275 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn).

31 Letter from Jonathan J. Wroblewski, Director, Office of Policy and Legislation, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Criminal Division, to 

the Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (July 29, 2014).

32 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 189–90 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Mr. Glenn Schmitt).

33 See Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 281 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn) (“And so those of us who use 

that data cannot tell whether, for example, there were plea bargains and, if so, what the nature of those plea bargains were 

because there’s no data on the original charges in that database, as comprehensive as it is.”). Additional information about 

the work of U.S. Federal courts can be found at http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports.

34 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 82–83 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Mr. Steven Grocki, Deputy Chief for Litigation, 

Child Exploitation, and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice) (“I don’t know that within 

[Guideline] 2(a)(3).1 covering sexual abuse that there has actually been that many changes and adjustments over the 

years. The Chapter 109(a) offenses have generally not been altered or changed during the last decade or more.”) (“...that 

guideline, as it pertains to adult sex offenses which we talked about before, are not that commonly charged, are not that 

commonly sentenced within the federal system.”).

35 See Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 281 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn) (“So, one of the real limitations 

. . . is that we have no national data on case processing outcomes in sexual assault cases, or really in any kinds of cases.”).
16

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

the [Bureau of Justice Statistics] and the [National Judicial Reporting Program] data 

are limited; the [National Incident-Based Reporting Program] data is also limited 

in a number of different ways. And so what this means is that researchers who are 

interested in sexual assault case outcomes and case processing decisions have to collect 

data from individual jurisdictions. And this is costly and it’s time consuming, and it 

requires convincing police departments, district attorneys and—to a lesser extent—

court systems to cooperate and collaborate with you.36

Statistical research can be used to identify theoretically relevant reasons for case outcomes, assuming 

that all relevant factors have been identified. Criminologists explained that multivariate research, in 

which “we attempt to isolate the effect of one variable on an outcome while simultaneously controlling 

for other factors—other theoretically relevant factors,” is the most valuable type of analysis in studying 

sexual assault.37

However, the inherent limitation of such analysis is that factors not included in a given study may 

also be influential. Therefore, the explanatory power of a multivariate study depends on its ability to 

account for all likely predictors of case outcomes.38 Dr. Spohn noted specific examples of variables that 

may have influenced case determinations and outcomes but were not available from court documents 

and thus not included in her assessment of military justice case data:

• the relationship between the victim and the accused; 

• whether the victim was engaging in any kind of risk-taking behavior, especially drinking or 

using illegal drugs; 

• the credibility of the victim; 

• the degree of injury to the victim; 

• whether the victim was willing to cooperate into the investigation and prosecution of the case;

• whether there was delay in reporting or whether the crime or the incident was immediately 

reported; 

• whether the victim had any kind of motive to lie about the incident; and

• any indication of the presence of physical evidence or witnesses.39

Dr. Spohn explained that multivariate research is helpful because it attempts to isolate variables to 

understand outcomes, but variables or factors such as those listed above are all components of a case 

36 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 280, 281 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn).

37 See Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 289 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn). See also Kathleen Daly and 

Brigitte Bouhours, Rape and Attrition in the Legal Process: A Comparative Analysis of Five Countries, 39 CRIME & JUST. 

565 (2010).

38 See Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 238–39 (Nov. 6, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn).

39 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 238–39 (Nov. 6, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn).

whether the victim was willing to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of the case; 
17

II. OBTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

“that we will not be able to take into consideration in trying to understand or to explain why cases 

were decided in one way rather than another.”40

D. JPP ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DoD SAPRO is responsible for facilitating and coordinating sexual assault prevention and response in 

DoD and among the military Services. DSAID is an important resource for administering this program, 

and for aggregating descriptive data about sexual assault incidents. However, DoD’s adjudication data 

do not make possible a comprehensive understanding of how sexual assault cases are handled within 

the military justice system. Information collected through DSAID does not include key information 

regarding the legal processing of these cases.

Analyzing how cases are adjudicated through the judicial system requires more information and a 

different approach. The JPP developed an electronic database, modeled on the database used by the 

U.S. Sentencing Commission, to aggregate data directly from court-martial documents. The JPP used 

information compiled through this database to produce the statistical analysis in this report.

The Department of Defense should collect and analyze case adjudication data using a standardized, 

document-based collection model similar to systems developed by the Judicial Proceedings Panel or 

U.S. Sentencing Commission. This database could improve the Service-level analysis of prosecution 

data and inform DoD’s annual reports to Congress.

At a minimum, analysis of how adult sexual assault cases are resolved through the military justice 

system would be improved by the collection of the following case information: 

• all sexual assault charges that were preferred and the outcome of each charge, including 

whether the charge was referred to court-martial, dismissed, or resolved by alternate means; 

• type of court-martial held; 

• pleas of the accused;

• trial forum; 

• findings; 

• sentence; and

• convening authority action on the findings and sentence. 

Because procedural data do not provide complete information about a case, they must be 

supplemented by potentially relevant case facts and evidentiary issues. Such information may include 

characteristics of the victim, the relationship between the accused and victim, whether the victim made 

a prompt report, whether the victim was willing to cooperate, whether the victim engaged in any risktaking behavior around the time of the incident, the presence of eyewitnesses, and physical evidence.

40 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 238–39 (Nov. 6, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn).
18

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES
19

Sexual Assault Cases Resolved 

through Courts-Martial III.

The JPP examined the judicial response to sexual assault crimes in 1,761 cases that were completed 

in fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 in which one or more sexual assault charges were preferred.41

These cases represent a substantial portion, but not all, of the sexual assault courts-martial tried by the 

military Services.42 The JPP asked Dr. Cassia Spohn to analyze the procedural history and outcomes for 

all cases. Her statistical report, provided in Appendix A, informs the JPP’s presentation of data about 

military judicial proceedings. 

A. THE COURT-MARTIAL PROCESS

Once an investigation of a sexual assault report is brought to a commander for review, he or she 

determines whether and how the case will be resolved through judicial proceedings in accordance 

with the UCMJ. The following chart illustrates the process by which a criminal offense is resolved by 

court-martial.

41 The sexual assault offenses analyzed span three versions of Article 120, UCMJ, and other statutes. They include 

Pre-Oct. 2007: Article 120 Article 120(1) – Rape 

Pre-Oct. 2007: Article 134 Article 134 – Assault - Indecent

1 October 2007–27 June 2012: Article 120 Article 120(a) – Rape 

 Article 120(c) – Aggravated Sexual Assault 

 Article 120(e) – Aggravated Sexual Contact 

 Article 120(h) – Abusive Sexual Contact

 Article 120(m) – Wrongful Sexual Contact

28 June 2012–Present: Article 120 Article 120(a) – Rape

 Article 120(b) – Sexual Assault

 Article 120(c) – Aggravated Sexual Contact

 Article 120(d) – Abusive Sexual Contact

Article 125(1) Forcible Sodomy

Article 80 Attempts to commit the above offenses

42 The JPP did not receive the complete universe of cases in which a sexual assault charge was filed throughout the military. 

The data were also limited to cases in which a complete set of disposition records could be identified and retrieved for 

analysis. 

III. Sexual Assault Cases Resolved through Courts-Martial

The Court-Martial Process

Alternate 

disposition/ 

dismissal

Preferral 

of charges

Decision 

to refer to 

courtmartial

Adjudged 

sentence

Approved 

findings and 

sentence by 

convening 

authority

Appellate 

review

Findings by 

judge or 

panel

Article 32 

preliminary 

hearing 

(if necessary)

Arraignment 

(plea)
20

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

By DoD policy, all unrestricted reports of adult sexual assault offenses must be taken to a special 

court-martial convening authority (SPCMCA) for the initial decision on disposition.43 Should the 

commander decide, after consulting with a judge advocate, that a court-martial is warranted, the 

commander initiates the court-martial process with the preferral, or swearing, of charges. Once charges 

are preferred, the initial disposition authority may refer the charges to a form of court-martial that he 

or she is authorized under the UCMJ to convene, forward the charges to a higher convening authority, 

dismiss the charges, or choose an alternate disposition for the case.

Certain commanders who are designated as convening authorities may convene courts-martial, 

provided that they have appropriate authority under the UCMJ to do so.44 The UCMJ provides for 

three types of courts-martial: (1) summary court-martial, (2) special court-martial, and (3) general 

court-martial.45

Summary courts-martial are a unique hybrid between nonjudicial punishment and a criminal trial, 

and they typically adjudicate minor misconduct or offenses that are less serious than those referred to 

special or general court-martial. A summary court-martial may try only enlisted members. Sentences 

are limited to no more than one month of confinement and do not allow for separation from service.46

A member may object to trial by summary court-martial, in which case the member may be tried by 

special or general court-martial.47

Special and general courts-martial are more like civilian criminal trials in appearance and function. 

A guilty verdict at a special or general court-martial results in a federal conviction. Defendants may 

elect to be tried by a military judge alone or by a panel of military members. Unlike in civilian criminal 

trials, which hold a separate sentencing hearing weeks or months after a guilty verdict, once a member 

is found guilty at a court-martial the court immediately moves into the sentencing proceedings. 

Another difference in military courts-martial is the wider range of available punishments if a member 

is found guilty. In addition to or as an alternative to confinement in prison, a military member may 

receive a punitive discharge, forfeitures of pay, a fine, reduction in pay grade, hard labor without 

confinement, restriction to specified limits, or a reprimand.48

A special court-martial is functionally equivalent to a civilian misdemeanor court because confinement 

is limited to no more than one year, even if the maximum punishment authorized for the crime is 

greater than one year.49 In addition, because a dismissal is not an authorized punishment, officers are 

generally not tried by special court-martial.50

43 See U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE, MEMORANDUM FROM THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON WITHHOLDING INITIAL DISPOSITION AUTHORITY

UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE IN CERTAIN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES (Apr. 20, 2012). The SPCMCA is a senior 

commander, typically in the grade of O-6, and generally has at least 20 years of military service.

44 See MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 504.

45 10 U.S.C. § 816 (UCMJ, art. 16).

46 10 U.S.C. § 820 (UCMJ, art. 20). The limits of a summary court-martial sentence are confinement for one month, hard 

labor without confinement for 45 days, restriction to specified limits for two months, and forfeiture of two-thirds of one 

month’s pay. Id.

47 Id.

48 MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 1003(b).

49 10 U.S.C. § 819 (UCMJ, art. 19). The limits of a special court-martial are a bad conduct discharge, confinement for one 

year, hard labor without confinement for three months, and forfeiture of pay for one year. Id.

50 Id.
21

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

A general court-martial is analogous to a civilian felony court, since the only limitations on punishment 

are the maximum sentences authorized for the offenses of which the member is convicted.51 Congress, 

in the FY14 NDAA, limited referral for penetrative sexual assault offenses (rape, sexual assault, 

forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these acts) to trial by general court-martial.52

If referral to a general court-martial is contemplated, the commander must first order that a 

preliminary hearing be conducted, pursuant to Article 32 of the UCMJ. The Article 32 preliminary 

hearing has evolved in form and function in recent years. Traditionally, it was a “thorough and 

impartial investigation” of the case in which an investigating officer, who was not necessarily a lawyer, 

investigated “the truth and form of the charges.”53 In sexual assault cases the victim, if he or she was 

a military member, was typically required to appear and give testimony and was subject to crossexamination by the defense counsel.54

Recent congressional changes have significantly altered the Article 32 process from a pretrial 

investigation into a preliminary hearing, and removed the requirement that a victim appear and testify 

at the hearing.55 Under the new process, the Article 32 preliminary hearing is limited to determining 

whether there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the accused 

committed the offense, determining whether the convening authority has court-martial jurisdiction 

over the offense and the accused, considering the form of the charges, and recommending the 

disposition that should be made of the case.56 At the completion of the Article 32 hearing, the hearing 

officer, who is a judge advocate, prepares a report of the proceedings and forwards the report, along 

with his or her recommendation as to disposition, through command channels, to the general courtmartial convening authority (GCMCA).

In determining whether to refer charges to a general court-martial, the GCMCA considers the Article 

32 report containing the preliminary hearing officer’s recommendations as to disposition and the 

written pretrial advice of the GCMCA’s staff judge advocate.57

When a court-martial convening authority refers a case to trial, a military judge arraigns the accused 

on the charges and presides over the court-martial proceedings.58 The trial process that follows largely 

resembles that of civilian criminal courts and uses many of the same rules of procedure and evidence. 

However, there are meaningful differences between military and civilian criminal proceedings, 

51 10 U.S.C. § 818 (UCMJ, art. 18).

52 FY14 NDAA § 1705. The NDAA provision applies to offenses committed on or after June 24, 2014. Id. A commander 

may still dispose of offenses by alternate means or dismiss charges, but if a court-martial is warranted the only type 

authorized for these offenses is a general court-martial.

53 10 U.S.C. § 832 (UCMJ, art. 32); MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 405(a) and (e).

54 MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 405(g)(2)(A) and (h)(1)(A).

55 FY14 NDAA § 1702(a). National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292 

(2014) [hereinafter FY15 NDAA] § 531(g) makes this change effective for all preliminary hearings conducted on or after 

December 26, 2014.

56 FY14 NDAA § 1702(a).

57 FY14 NDAA § 1702(a); 10 U.S.C. § 833, 834 (UCMJ, art. 33 and art. 34).

58 10 U.S.C. § 936 (UCMJ art. 36) (rules prescribed by the President “shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the 

principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district 

courts, but which may not be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter.”). See also MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 904; 

Military Rule of Evidence [hereinafter M.R.E.] 1102 (Updated June 2015); Preface to the 2014 SUPPLEMENT TO THE MCM

2012 (noting “all Military Rules of Evidence were amended for stylistic reasons and to align them with the Federal Rules 

of Evidence.”).
22

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

including the military’s procedures for plea agreements and sentencing and the convening authority’s 

role in approving the results of a court-martial.

In civilian courts, a plea agreement involves a process in which the prosecutor and defendant arrive at 

an agreement whereby the defendant pleads guilty to some or all of the charges in exchange for a lower 

sentence recommendation or some other concession, such as a reduction in the number or severity 

of the charges, from the prosecutor to the judge.59 The judge is not bound by this recommendation, 

however, and can choose to sentence the defendant to a longer term of confinement, though in such 

circumstances the judge may be required to release the defendant from the plea agreement.60

In the military, a plea agreement is between the defendant and the convening authority, and its terms, 

including any specific limits on confinement, are binding on the convening authority.61 Unlike civilian 

court judges, a military judge is not made aware of the sentence cap agreed to by the defendant and 

convening authority before deciding on a sentence.62 The defendant in a military court ultimately 

receives the benefit of the lower of the two sentences (the one determined at the court-martial and the 

other contained in the plea agreement).63

Another key difference between civilian and military courts is that the conviction and sentence 

announced in civilian court by the judge or jury are final, pending appeal. In the military, the findings 

of guilt and sentence announced by the court-martial panel (the military’s version of a jury) or judge 

are not final and must be forwarded to the convening authority for approval. Historically, convening 

authorities had broad powers under Article 60 of the UCMJ to set aside or modify findings of 

guilt or provide clemency with regard to the sentence.64 However, in the FY14 NDAA, Congress 

significantly restricted the post-conviction authority of convening authorities in serious sexual offenses 

by precluding them from setting aside or commuting findings of guilt.65 The NDAA also significantly 

curtailed the ability of convening authorities to provide clemency from the adjudged sentence.66

59 Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c) and (d).

60 Id.

61 MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 705(a) and (b). See also R.C.M. 705(d)(4) (“Withdrawal. (A) By accused. The accused may 

withdraw from a pretrial agreement at any time; however, the accused may withdraw a plea of guilty or a confessional 

stipulation entered pursuant to a pretrial agreement only as provided in R.C.M. 910(h) or 811(d), respectively.”) and 

R.C.M. 705(d)(4)(B) (“By convening authority. The convening authority may withdraw from a pretrial agreement at any 

time before the accused begins performance of promises contained in the agreement, upon the failure by the accused to 

fulfill any material promise or condition in the agreement, when inquiry by the military judge discloses a disagreement as 

to a material term in the agreement, or if findings are set aside because a plea of guilty entered pursuant to the agreement 

is held improvident on appellate review.”).

62 MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 910(f)(3).

63 MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 705(b)(2).

64 See 10 U.S.C. § 960 (UCMJ art. 60).

65 FY14 NDAA § 1702(b). This provision states that the convening authority may affect findings only for “qualifying 

offenses,” defined as those for which the maximum sentence of confinement that may be adjudged does not exceed two 

years; and the sentence adjudged does not include dismissal or a punitive discharge, or confinement for more than six 

months. Id.

66 Id. The convening authority may not disapprove, commute, or suspend an adjudged sentence that is more than six months 

or that includes a punitive discharge, unless (1) upon recommendation from the trial counsel, in recognition of “substantial 

assistance” by the accused in the investigation or prosecution of another person, including for offenses with mandatory 

minimum sentences; or (2) in order to honor a pretrial agreement; however, the convening authority may not commute a 

mandatory minimum sentence except to reduce a dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge. Id.
23

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

B. MILITARY JUSTICE DATA

1. Courts-Martial Case Characteristics

The JPP received 1,761 court-martial records from the Services for cases that involved the preferral 

of a sexual assault offense during fiscal years 2012 through 2014. The number of cases increased 

substantially from 2012 to 2013, with a slight increase again in 2014. Among the Services, the Army 

generated the most cases in each fiscal year. Courts-martial records indicated that the accused was 

usually male and the victims were most often female. In addition, the majority of the courts-martial 

involved one military victim, however there were several that involved civilians or multiple victims. 

In 72% of cases, the most serious charge that was preferred was a penetrative offense. Specific details 

regarding the characteristics of the data retrieved from court-martial records are described below.

a. Overview of Total Cases Received: Of the 1,761 cases reviewed by the JPP, 426 (24%) were from 

fiscal year 2012, 662 (38%) were from fiscal year 2013, and 673 (38%) were from fiscal year 2014. 

The Army generated the most cases (46%), followed by Air Force (19%), Navy (17%), Marine 

Corps (14%), and Coast Guard (3%).67

67 In a handful of cases, a Marine Corps or Navy accused was tried by a different military Service, and the military Service 

that prosecuted the case provided that case to the JPP. In those instances, the JPP counted that case as belonging to the 

military Service that prosecuted the case. This occurred primarily in Navy and Marine Corps cases due to the fact that 

those Services more commonly detail or attach their Service members to the other branch for operational support.

Adult sexual assault cases 

by fiscal year

Adult sexual assault cases by 

military Service of the accused

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

673 662

426

2012 2013 2014

Army

46%

Air Force

19%

Marine 

Corps

14%

Navy

17%

Coast Guard

3%
24

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

b. Accused Characteristics: The accused in nearly all cases (99%) was male. Only 11 cases involved a 

female accused. Most of the accused were enlisted Service members (93%) rather than officers (7%).

c. Victim Characteristics: The victim(s) in 92% of the cases reviewed by the JPP was female, while the 

victim(s) was male in 7% of the cases and 1% of the cases included both female and male victims. 

77% of the cases involved victims who were Service members. Most cases reviewed involved one 

(83%) or two (11%) victims, with the number of victims ranging from one to eleven.

Adult sexual assault cases by 

sex of the accused

Adult sexual assault cases 

by rank of the accused

Male

99%

Female

1%

Enlisted members

93% Officers

7%

All female

92% All male

7%

Both female

and male

1%

One victim

83%

Two 

victims

11%

Three or 

more victims

6%

All military

74%

All civilian

23%

Both military

and civilian

3%

Adult sexual assault cases by 

sex of the victim(s)

Adult sexual assault cases by 

status of the victim(s)

Adult sexual assault cases by 

number of victims per case
25

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

d. Characteristics Regarding the Nature of the Charges: A penetrative offense,68 as opposed to a 

contact offense, was the most serious charge preferred in 1,275 of 1,761 cases (72%). The number 

of charges and specifications per case ranged from 1 to 30. Just 10% of the cases involved only a 

single charge, but more than half of the cases (53%) involved four or fewer charges.

2. Disposition Decisions

Using case data from fiscal years 2012 to 2014, the JPP examined the disposition decisions for sexual 

assault offenses according to the type of offense charged, the year in which the case was tried, and the 

military Service of the accused. 

In the JPP’s data for fiscal years 2012 to 2014, convening authorities referred a total of 1,271 cases 

to trial by general, special, or summary court-martial; thus, 72% of all preferred cases were referred 

to trial by court-martial. In contrast, convening authorities dismissed or resolved through alternate 

administrative means 492 cases, or 28% of preferred cases. In 75% of the cases that were not referred 

to trial, an Article 32 hearing was held prior to the decision to dismiss charges. 

The total number of courts-martial 

increased from 2012 to 2013—from 329 

in 2012 to 472 in 2013—and then declined 

slightly to 470 in 2014. Overall, 79% of 

referred cases in fiscal years 2012 to 2014 

were referred to trial by a general courtmartial, although the percentage of referred 

cases that were sent instead to special or 

summary courts-martial increased each year 

from 2012 to 2014, from 15% to 21% 

to 27%. The graphs below illustrate case 

dispositions by type of court-martial and by 

military Service.

68 “Penetrative offenses” refers to offenses under Articles 120 and 125, UCMJ, involving rape, aggravated sexual assault, 

sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and attempts to commit these offenses.

Adult sexual assault cases by 

most serious charge preferred

Penetrative 

offense

72%

(1,275 cases)

Sexual 

contact 

offense

28%

(486 

cases)

General 

court-martial

79%

(998 cases) Special 

court-martial

13%

(164 cases)

Summary 

court-martial

9%

(109 cases)

Case disposition by 

court-martial type
26

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Table 1. Case Disposition by Military Service of the Accused 

Military Service General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

Number % Number % Number %

Air Force 206 83% 35 14% 8 3%

Army 488 83% 41 7% 59 10%

Coast Guard 22 54% 14 34% 5 12%

Marine Corps 118 65% 35 19% 28 16%

Navy 164 77% 39 18% 9 4%

Total 998 164 109

The severity of offense charged 

influences the type of court-martial 

to which a charge is referred. 

More than 92% of penetrative 

offenses were referred to trial 

by general court-martial, while 

contact offenses were referred 

more evenly among the three types 

of court-martial. The graph below 

illustrates case dispositions by 

court-martial type according to the 

most serious charged offense.

Commanders may seek to 

resolve less severe sexual 

assault complaints through 

disciplinary action outside the 

judicial process.69 Case synopsis 

information in annual SAPRO 

Reports for fiscal years 2012 to 

2014 indicates that commanders initiated nonjudicial punishment for adult sexual assault offenses in 

686 cases.70 Nearly all cases initiated as nonjudicial punishment involved sexual contact offenses; very 

few nonjudicial punishment actions addressed rape or sexual assault offenses;71 and in no case was 

a Service member found to have committed a penetrative offense. More detailed information about 

nonjudicial punishment is provided in Part IV.

Commanders may also initiate action to involuntarily separate a military member from the Service for 

misconduct, including sexual assault. Information about separation actions is not uniformly reported 

69 In fiscal year 2014, the Army reported imposing nonjudicial punishment in 31,689 cases involving any offense under 

the UCMJ; the Air Force imposed nonjudicial punishment 5,256 times; the Navy and Marine Corps issued nonjudicial 

punishment a combined total of 13,307 times, and the U.S. Coast Guard reported 699 cases in which nonjudicial 

punishment was imposed. See JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY

JUSTICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014, Sections 3–6, available at http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/ann_reports.htm.

70 These numbers are taken from the Unrestricted Report Cases Synopses of the individual Service Enclosures to the DoD 

SAPRO Annual Reports to Congress from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2014. FY12 – FY14 SAPRO Reports, supra note 19.

71 In FY12, five nonjudicial punishment actions were initiated with a penetrative offense and one in FY13, though in none 

of these actions was the subject found to have committed a penetrative offense. No penetrative offenses were alleged in 

nonjudicial proceedings in FY14. FY12 – FY14 SAPRO Reports, supra note 19.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Summary court-martial

Special court-martial

General court-martial

Contact

offense

Penetrative

offense

92% 44%

6%

2%

31%

25%

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Case disposition by most serious offense referred to trial
27

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

and is difficult to capture from statistical reports, but information from annual SAPRO Reports 

indicates that the military Services separated 437 personnel from service at the close of a sexual assault 

investigation in fiscal years 2012 through 2014. In these cases, a discharge may have been the only 

action taken in a case, or it may have occurred following a court-martial or nonjudicial punishment. 

More detailed information about adverse administrative actions and administrative separations is 

provided in Part V.

In the FY14 NDAA, Congress limited jurisdiction for penetrative sexual assault offenses referred 

to court-martial to trial by general court-martial. Data obtained by the JPP from fiscal years 2012 

through 2014 indicate that this was largely the practice before the statutory requirement took effect, 

because the vast majority of penetrative offenses were referred to general court-martial. 

Contact sexual assault charges during fiscal years 2012 to 2014 were resolved in different ways, from 

referral to general court-martial to nonjudicial punishment. Contact sexual assault offenses encompass 

a wide variety of conduct, ranging from unwanted kissing or touching of the buttocks through clothing 

to forcefully grabbing the genitalia of another person, causing serious bodily injury. 

Without knowing more about the facts of individual cases, the JPP cannot assess the appropriateness 

of case disposition decisions. Specific factors in each case, including the nature of the offenses, any 

mitigating or extenuating circumstances, the willingness of a victim to testify, and the strength of 

available evidence, affect disposition decisions. It is neither possible nor appropriate to make collective 

assessments based solely on the general nature of charges and the forum for disposition. 

This information reflects disposition decisions in cases from only three fiscal years. Collection of data 

in future fiscal years may provide information regarding trends or patterns in disposition decisions.

3. Adjudication Outcomes 

Conviction, acquittal, and dismissal rates summarize how sexual assault prosecutions are ultimately 

resolved through the military justice system. The JPP examined case outcomes according to the most 

serious sex offense charged and the procedural point at which the military justice process concluded. 

The JPP considered case outcomes for all cases in which a sexual assault charge was preferred, and for 

all cases selected for trial by court-martial.72

Table 2 illustrates case outcomes for those cases in which a sexual assault charge was preferred. The 

analysis of the 1,761 cases reviewed by the JPP is divided according to whether the most serious 

initial charge was either a penetrative offense or a contact offense. For each offense category, the table 

indicates whether cases resulted in conviction for a sexual offense or other offenses, acquittal, alternate 

disposition, or dismissal prior to trial. 

72 See DAVID A. SCHLUETER, MILITARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 6-1 (9th ed. 2015) (“The first formal step 

in prosecuting a military criminal case is preferring sworn charges against an accused. . . . As a practical matter, before 

preferring charges, the immediate commander has already decided that a court-martial is probably the most appropriate 

course to take. However the final decision as to whether the charges will be tried and what level of court will try the case 

[i.e., referral] is left to the convening authority who ultimately exercises prosecutorial discretion.”). 
28

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Table 2. Outcomes of Adult Sexual Assault Cases from Preferral (Total for FY12–FY14)73

Outcomes from preferral

Cases in which a 

penetrative offense was 

the most serious charge 

(1,275 total)

Cases in which a 

sexual contact offense was 

the most serious charge 

(486 total)

Convicted of penetrative offense 25% N/A

Convicted of contact offense 17% 29%

Convicted of sex offense 41% (same as above)

Convicted of non-sex offense 10% 31%

Overall conviction rate 51% 60%

Acquitted of all Charges 22% 15%

Alternate disposition 12% 17%

Dismissed without 

further action

16% 

(82% of dismissals occurred 

after Article 32 hearing)

8% 

(58% of dismissals occurred 

after Article 32 hearing)

Table 3 illustrates case outcomes for those cases in which a sexual assault charge was referred to trial 

by court-martial. As previously explained, a referral decision signifies a convening authority’s decision 

to prosecute a case in a specified court-martial forum. The JPP analyzed the outcomes in 1,271 cases in 

which convening authorities referred one or more sexual assault charges to trial by general, special, or 

summary courts-martial from fiscal years 2012 to 2014. 

Table 3. Outcomes of Adult Sexual Assault Cases Referred to Court-Martial by 

Most Serious Sex Offense Charged (Total for FY12–FY14)

Outcomes from referral 

Penetrative offense was the most 

serious charged sex offense 

(912 cases)

Contact offense was the most 

serious charged sex offense 

(359 cases)

Convicted of penetrative offense 34% N/A

Convicted of contact offense 23% 39%

Convicted of non-sex-offense 13% 41%

Overall conviction rate (for sex or 

non-sex related offense) 70% 80%

Acquitted of all charges 29% 20%

Courts-martial convictions may result from a plea of guilty by the accused to one or more charged 

offenses, or from a finding of guilty by the court-martial to one or more charged offenses, contrary to 

the accused’s plea of not guilty. The latter group comprises contested court-martial cases. In cases in 

which an accused was tried for a sexual assault offense in a contested trial, the accused was convicted 

of a sexual assault offense in 348 of 898 (39%) of cases.74

73 MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 401(c)(1). The drafter’s discussion of this rule provides general guidance on when dismissal 

of a charge may be appropriate: “A charge should be dismissed when it fails to state an offense, when it is unsupported by 

available evidence, or when there are other sound reasons why trial by court-martial is not appropriate.” Id.

74 This analysis includes cases in which an accused plead not guilty to all charges, and cases in which an accused pleaded 

guilty to some charges but not guilty to other charges (“mixed plea” cases), and a trial was held on the latter charges. 
29

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

Multivariate statistical analysis of case data highlights factors that are associated with particular 

outcomes.75 The multivariate research performed by Dr. Spohn using combined courts-martial data 

for all Services from fiscal years 2012 through 2014 revealed that conviction was more likely in cases 

that involved more victims and in cases that involved more charges. Conviction was less likely for a 

penetrative offense than for a contact offense. Finally, the data indicated that the military service and 

rank of the accused did not influence the likelihood of conviction or acquittal.

In their testimony to the JPP, victims’ rights advocates and career prosecutors suggested that case 

outcomes are not a fair or effective means of gauging the effectiveness of the justice system.76 Likewise, 

DoD SAPRO Reports explain that conviction rates do not assist DoD in evaluating its efforts to 

tackle the occurrence of sexual assault in the military.77 The JPP agrees that without knowing more 

about the facts of individual cases and the judicial proceedings involved, it is not possible to assess the 

appropriateness of the outcome of case adjudications. 

This information only reflects adjudication outcomes for cases resolved in three fiscal years. Collection of 

future fiscal year data may provide information regarding trends or patterns in adjudication outcomes, 

and the JPP will reassess its statutory task with additional information gathered in future years.

4. Punishments Rendered at Courts-Martial

The JPP examined the type and severity of punishments rendered at military courts-martial. Several 

factors that are unique to the military justice system influence courts-martial sentences. First, for 

each punitive article of the UCMJ, the President of the United States establishes whether a punitive 

discharge may be imposed for an offense, what type of punitive discharge may be imposed, and the 

maximum confinement that may be imposed.78 Second, convening authorities must review convictions 

and sentences adjudged at trial, and they may modify an adjudged sentence in some circumstances, 

within certain limits. When a convening authority makes a final decision on sentence, he or she takes 

into account sentence limitations contained in a pretrial agreement and any clemency requested by the 

convicted Service member. The convening authority’s decision is known as the “approved” sentence. 

The JPP reviewed both adjudged and approved sentencing information in court-martial data. 

Punishment data reviewed by the JPP comprised sentences issued collectively by all types of courtsmartial, but the jurisdictional limits of special and summary courts-martial also may affect sentences. 

Many offenses under the UCMJ authorize more than 12 months of confinement as punishment,79 but 

75 See infra. Appendix A.

76 See Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 28–30 (Nov. 14, 2014) (testimony of Ms. Meg Garvin, National Crime Victims Law 

Institute) (“I, to be very blunt, would not be assessing outcomes of cases. I think that is irrelevant to an analysis of whether 

the system is achieving procedural justice.”); See also Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 63 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Mr. 

Thomas Fichter, Assistant Prosecutor and Director, Special Victim’s Unit, Monmouth County Prosecutor’s Office, New Jersey) 

(“It’s very difficult, you know, I found in my practice of 25 years in dealing with a lot of survivors of sexual assault, both 

adult and juvenile, to actually come up with a metric. I would love to be able to say I judge my success by how long someone 

goes to prison, but I can’t necessarily do that. There are too many variables when we’re dealing with actual live victims.”).

77 FY14 SAPRO Report, supra note 19, at 10.

78 MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 1003 and 1004. Additional punishment options include reduction in rank, forfeitures of pay 

and allowances, fines, restriction, hard labor with or without confinement, and death.

79 UCMJ, Appendix 12. The maximum punishments for sexual assault offenses, which were established by Executive Order 

13643, May 15, 2013, are as follows:

 Rape: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for life without eligibility for parole, 

 forfeiture of all pay and allowances

 Sexual Assault: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 30 years, forfeiture of all pay and 
30

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

the maximum confinement that may be imposed by a special court-martial is 12 months, regardless 

of the offense(s) charged. Summary courts-martial, which are quasi-judicial proceedings, can assess 

no more than one month of confinement and may not punitively discharge a Service member from the 

military. Given these jurisdictional limits, a convening authority’s decision to refer a case to a particular 

type of court-martial functionally expresses a judgment as to the severity of an offense and the scope of 

appropriate punishment.

Statistical analysis indicated that the severity of the offense for which a person is convicted affects 

the punishment in the case. Those who were convicted of penetrative offenses were significantly more 

likely than those convicted of contact offenses to receive a sentence that included confinement—95% 

versus 68%. A Service member convicted of a penetrative offense was also more likely to receive 

a punitive separation than one convicted of a contact offense—91% versus 50%. The average 

confinement sentence imposed on someone convicted of at least one penetrative offense was 55 

months, which was considerably longer than the average confinement sentence of 15 months imposed 

on one convicted of a contact offense.80

The number of victims and number of charges in a case also influenced sentence severity. The military 

Service and rank of the accused, however, did not influence the length of the confinement sentence. 

a. Reviewing Adjudged and Approved Sentences for Sexual Assault Cases

Following a court-martial conviction, a convening authority must review the conviction and 

sentence adjudged at trial, and the convening authority may modify an adjudged sentence in some 

circumstances, within certain limits. A sentence approved by a convening authority takes into account 

any sentence limitations that may be contained in a pretrial agreement and any clemency requested 

by the convicted Service member. The following bar graphs depict the combined average length of 

confinement of adjudged sentences and the actual length of confinement according to the approved 

sentence for all cases reviewed by the JPP for fiscal years 2012 to 2014.

While the average length of 

approved sentences was six 

months less than the average 

length of adjudged sentences, 

the JPP’s review indicated that in 

most cases, convening authorities 

made no changes or made 

relatively minor modifications to 

adjudged confinement based on 

plea agreement terms, clemency 

requests, or other reasons pursuant 

to their Article 60 powers of 

 allowances

 Forcible Sodomy (art. 125, MCM): Dishonorable discharge, confinement for life without eligibility for parole, 

 forfeiture 

 of all pay and allowances

 Aggravated Sexual Contact: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 20 years, forfeiture of all pay and 

 allowances

 Abusive Sexual Contact: Dishonorable discharge, confinement for 7 years, forfeiture of all pay and 

 allowances

80 See infra. Appendix A, p. 66.

Average length

of approved 

confinement sentence

Average length

of adjudged 

confinement sentence

37

months

31

months

Average length of confinement sentence
31

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

review over courts-martial. In 76% of cases reviewed, there was no change between the adjudged and 

approved sentence. In 92% of cases, the approved sentence reduced the adjudged sentence by one year 

or less.81 The JPP’s data included cases that were completed before Congress modified Article 60 of 

the UCMJ in the FY14 NDAA to substantially restrict the discretion of convening authorities to grant 

clemency in sexual assault cases.82

b. Approved Sentences with Confinement and/or a Punitive Discharge

Congress modified the UCMJ in the FY14 NDAA to require imposition of a dismissal or dishonorable 

discharge for any Service member convicted of rape or sexual assault that occurred on or after June 

24, 2014. Prior to this requirement, there was no mandatory minimum sentencing requirement for 

sexual assault cases. Case data from fiscal years 2012 to 2014 that were reviewed by the JPP reflect 

cases resolved prior to this change. The JPP reviewed 942 sexual assault cases with approved sentences. 

Of these cases, 702 accused received confinement, and 537 accused received both confinement and a 

punitive separation. In cases in which a Service member did not receive a punitive discharge as part 

of the court-martial sentence, the accused may have been subsequently separated from Service, on the 

basis of the conviction at court-martial, through an administrative disciplinary process. 

Types of punishment imposed according to the approved sentence 

(942 total cases)*

Because the sentencing scheme under the UCMJ is unitary, it is not possible to assess how a particular 

sentence is apportioned when an accused is convicted of more than one offense. In addition, without 

more knowledge about the facts of individual cases and the circumstances in aggravation, mitigation, 

or extenuation that may have arisen in individualized sentencing proceedings, it is not possible to 

assess the appropriateness or consistency of punishments rendered at courts-martial. 

This information only reflects sentence outcomes for cases resolved in three fiscal years. Collection of 

future fiscal year data may provide information regarding trends or patterns in sentences, and the JPP 

will reassess its statutory task with additional information gathered in future years.

81 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 147 (Mar. 11, 2016) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn and JPP Attorney-Advisor 

Ms. Meghan Peters).

82 FY14 NDAA § 1702.

Included 

only 

confinement

195 did not include confinement 

or punitive separation*

*Includes data from summary courts-martial, which 

are not authorized to impose a punitive separation.

Included 

only 

punitive 

separation 

Included both

confinement and

punitive 

separation

165 537 45
32

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

C. JPP ASSESSMENT REGARDING APPROPRIATENESS AND CONSISTENCY OF 

CASE DISPOSITIONS AND PUNISHMENTS

The Panel is mindful that statistics may provide valuable information about the judicial process. 

Statistical data obtained by the JPP effectively describe certain objective aspects of military cases in 

the aggregate, including the number of annual prosecutions, the procedural history of cases, and the 

punishments imposed. However, individual case outcomes are the result of unique combinations of 

facts and evidence, and the appropriateness or consistency of disposition decisions or punishments 

cannot be evaluated solely by considering procedural data. For these reasons, the JPP provides the 

information gathered without offering specific recommendations.

The information from courts-martial and disciplinary actions reviewed by the JPP in this report spans 

only three fiscal years. While these data provide summary information about judicial processing of 

cases during the years considered, they do not provide a sufficient basis to more broadly assess trends 

or patterns in decisions and punishments in sexual assault cases. The Panel will continue to collect data 

and will reassess its statutory task with additional information gathered in future years.
33

Sexual Assault Cases Resolved Through 

Nonjudicial Punishment IV.

To obtain case data regarding nonjudicial punishments for sexual assault offenses, the JPP reviewed 

data contained in the synopses of unrestricted reports given in each Service Enclosure to the SAPRO 

Reports for fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014.83

A. OVERVIEW OF NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT

Nonjudicial punishment, a commander’s disciplinary tool authorized under Article 15 of the UCMJ, 

is intended for minor offenses.84 It provides commanders with “an essential and prompt means of 

maintaining good order and discipline and also promotes positive behavior changes in Service members 

without the stigma of a court-martial conviction.”85 A Service member has the right to demand trial 

by court-martial in lieu of nonjudicial punishment, in which case proof beyond a reasonable doubt for 

each offense charged would be required for conviction.86

The nonjudicial punishment process is initiated when the commander serves nonjudicial punishment 

paperwork on the Service member, detailing the offenses that he or she is accused of committing.87 The 

member must then decide whether to accept the nonjudicial forum or demand trial by court-martial.88

Acceptance of nonjudicial forum is not an admission of guilt, but simply an acceptance of forum.89 If 

the member accepts nonjudicial punishment, he or she has the right to present information—orally, in 

writing, or both—in defense, extenuation, or mitigation.90

Following the member’s submission of relevant material, the commander must make a decision as to 

whether the member committed one or more of the offenses alleged. If the commander determines no 

offense was committed, the proceedings are terminated. If the commander determines one or more 

offenses were committed, the commander may impose punishment on the member.91 The level of that 

83 Each of the military Services prepares its own Service-specific report, which is an enclosure to the DoD SAPRO Report.

84 10 USC § 815 (UCMJ, art. 15); “Whether an offense is minor depends on several factors: the nature of the offense and 

the circumstances surrounding its commission; the offender’s age, rank, duty assignment, record and experience; and the 

maximum sentence imposable for the offense if tried by general court-martial. Ordinarily, a minor offense is an offense 

with the maximum sentence imposable would not include a dishonorable discharge or confinement for longer than 

one year if tried by general court-martial. The decision whether an offense is ‘minor’ is a matter of discretion for the 

commander imposing nonjudicial punishment . . .” MCM, supra note 1, Part V, ¶1e. 

85 MCM, supra note 1, Part V, ¶ 1c.

86 A member “attached to or embarked in a vessel” may not demand trial by court-martial in lieu of nonjudicial punishment. 

MCM, supra note 1, Part V, ¶ 3.

87 For sexual assault offenses, the special court-martial convening authority makes the decision whether court-martial 

charges will be preferred or whether the offense will be disposed of through some other means. U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE, 

MEMORANDUM FROM THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON WITHHOLDING INITIAL DISPOSITION AUTHORITY UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF

MILITARY JUSTICE IN CERTAIN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES (Apr. 20, 2012), supra note 43.

88 MCM, supra note 1, Part V, ¶ 4.

89 U.S. DEP’T OF AIR FORCE INST. 51-202, NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT ¶3.12 (Mar. 31, 2015) [hereinafter AFI 51-202], available 

at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_ja/publication/afi51-202/afi51-202.pdf.

90 MCM, supra note 1, Part V, ¶ 4.c.(1)(E).

91 MCM, supra note 1, Part V, ¶. 4.c.(4).

IV. Sexual Assault Cases Resolved Through Nonjudicial Punishment
34

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

punishment is dependent on the ranks of both the commander and the member, but it can include 

reduction in rank, restriction to specified limits, and forfeiture of pay.92 After the commander imposes 

punishment, the commander or a successor in command, within certain limitations, may suspend 

a portion or all of the punishment, reduce the quantity or quality of the punishment, or cancel any 

portion of the unexecuted punishment.93 In addition, any member receiving nonjudicial punishment 

may appeal the findings, the punishment, or both to the next superior authority.94 The nonjudicial 

punishment action may also serve as the basis for an administrative discharge.

B. DATA ON NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Owing to the military Services’ differences in structure and mission, each Service maintains nonjudicial 

punishment data differently; however, all of the Services provide a case synopsis for every unrestricted 

adult sexual assault report in the Unrestricted Report Case Synopses in the Service Enclosures to the 

SAPRO Reports.95 According to these case synopses, in fiscal years 2012 through 2014 the Services 

initiated nonjudicial punishment for 686 cases involving adult sexual assault offenses.96

92 The maximum punishment that may be imposed via nonjudicial punishment on an officer or warrant officer is arrest in 

quarters for 30 days, forfeiture of one-half of one month’s pay per month for two months, and restriction to specified 

limits for 60 days. MCM, supra note 1, Part V, para. 5.a.(1)(B). Additional punishments that may be imposed on enlisted 

members include reduction to the lowest enlisted grade (enlisted members above the grade of E-4 may be reduced only one 

pay grade), correctional custody for 30 days, extra duties for 45 days, and, if imposed on a person embarked on a vessel, 

confinement on bread and water or diminished rations for 14 days. MCM, supra note 1, Part V, ¶ 5.a.(2)(B).

93 MCM, supra note 1, Part V, ¶ 6.

94 MCM, supra note 1, Part V, ¶ 7; AFI 51-202, para. 4.1; U.S. DEP’T OF ARMY, REGULATION 27-10, MILITARY JUSTICE ¶ 3-31 

(OCT. 3, 2011)[hereinafter AR 27-10], available at http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r27_10.pdf.

95 These reports, if taken at face value, appear to contain all of the data points and information necessary to answer the 

JPP’s statutory tasks regarding the types of offenses being handled through nonjudicial punishment. Because nonjudicial 

punishment records are covered under the Privacy Act, they were not made available to the JPP for review. In addition, 

many of the records from which these data were derived are filed locally at the installation level and are destroyed after 

two years. AR 27-10 ¶ 3-37.

96 These numbers are taken from the Unrestricted Report Cases Synopses of the individual military Service enclosures to the 

DoD SAPRO Annual Reports to Congress from Fiscal Years 2012 through 2014. FY12–14 SAPRO reports, supra note 18. 

While there were five cases listed in the Army’s FY12 synopses showing that nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was initiated 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Found to have committed sexual assault offense

Initiated for sexual assault offense

FY12 FY13 FY14

Nonjudicial punishment actions completed for adult sexual assault 

offenses, by fiscal year, based on data in annual DoD SAPRO reports
35

IV. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT

These actions are broken out by Service and fiscal year in Table 4, below. The U.S. Coast Guard 

reported separately that in fiscal year 2014, seven nonjudicial punishment actions were completed for 

sexual assault offenses, one for a penetrative offense, and six for contact offenses.97

Table 4. Nonjudicial Punishment Actions Broken Out by Service and Fiscal Year, Based on Data in 

Annual DoD SAPRO Reports98

Initiated 

for 

penetrative 

offense 

Initiated 

for 

contact 

offense

Found to have 

committed 

penetrative 

offense

Found to have 

committed 

contact 

offense

Found to have 

committed 

non-sexual 

assault offense

Found not 

to have 

committed 

any offense

Army

FY12 0 144 0 124 6 14

FY13 0 135 0 126 5 4

FY14 0 192 0 163 15 14

Navy

FY12 3 24 0 17 6 4

FY13 1 37 0 35 3 0

FY14 0 69 0 59 0 10

USMC

FY12 2 0 0 0 2 0

FY13 0 1 0 1 0 0

FY14 0 2 0 2 0 0

Air 

Force

FY1298 -- 14 -- -- -- --

FY13 0 27 0 27 0 0

FY14 0 35 0 31 0 4

Each case that was initiated as a nonjudicial punishment action for an adult sexual assault offense, as 

could best be discerned from the case synopses, was included in this chart, regardless of whether the 

case also resulted in administrative discharge. Those cases that were initiated as a court-martial action 

but ultimately resulted in nonjudicial punishment are accounted for separately in the court-martial data 

above as cases reaching an alternate disposition after a court-martial was contemplated. It should be 

noted, however, that in fiscal year 2014, commanders imposed nonjudicial punishment on 46 Service 

members for whom court-martial charge(s) for an adult sexual assault offense were initially preferred 

and subsequently dismissed. The nonjudicial punishments for these Service members may have been 

in response to any type of offense, not necessarily a sexual assault.99 For fiscal year 2013, 26 subjects 

received nonjudicial punishment after having court-martial charges preferred and later dismissed. For 

fiscal year 2012, the number is 16.100

for a penetrative offense, the Army service representative informed staff members that this was incorrect and those five 

cases involved only non-sexual assault offenses. These five cases were therefore removed from the total.

97 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE Encl 5 , 

U.S. COAST GUARD at A-15 (2014) available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY14_POTUS/FY14_DoD_Report_

to_POTUS_SAPRO_Report.pdf.

98 The Air Force did not include NJP actions in its FY12 case summaries. It is therefore not possible to determine the 

breakout of its 14 reported NJP actions. FY12 SAPRO Report, supra note 19.

99 Nonjudicial punishment action was dismissed for six of those subjects.

100 FY14 SAPRO Report, supra note 19, Appendix A: Statistical Data on Sexual Assault at 26; FY13 SAPRO Report, supra

note 19 at 81; FY12 SAPRO Report, supra note 19, Volume I, at 71.
36

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Because DoD SAPRO’s policy places each case into only one disposition category, determined by 

the most serious action taken,101 the numbers here are somewhat different from those contained in 

annual SAPRO Report summaries of unrestricted sexual assault reports closed during fiscal years 

2012 through 2014. For example, if the Army determined that administrative discharge was a more 

serious action than nonjudicial punishment, then nonjudicial punishment actions that preceded 

administrative discharge would not be counted as nonjudicial punishment—they would show up only 

in the administrative discharge category. Because the Services do not always agree as to whether an 

administrative discharge or nonjudicial punishment is the more severe action, the Services’ data vary.102

The data in Table 4 show that nonjudicial punishment is used almost exclusively for contact sexual 

assault offenses, rather than penetrative sexual assault offenses.103 While a penetrative sexual assault 

offense appears to have been initiated in a total of five nonjudicial punishment actions in fiscal year 

2012, none of those cases resulted in the subject being found to have committed a penetrative sexual 

assault offense. In fiscal year 2013, in comparison, a penetrative sexual assault offense was initiated in 

only one nonjudicial punishment action and the subject was not ultimately found to have committed a 

penetrative offense. No nonjudicial punishments were initiated for penetrative sexual assault offenses 

for fiscal year 2014.104

Further illustrating this point, in fiscal year 2014 all of the Air Force’s nonjudicial punishment actions 

for sexual assault offenses involved the subject touching the victim through clothing (including the 

victim’s buttocks or breasts) or kissing the victim without consent.105 Similarly, in fiscal years 2012 

through 2014 the Army’s nonjudicial punishment actions for sexual assault offenses were all nonpenetrative offenses, with “the vast majority” being “unwanted touching over clothing.”106

Unlike data for courts-martial, which can be compiled from public documents, nonjudicial punishment 

case documents, which are maintained as personnel records and protected under the Privacy Act, could 

not be reviewed by the JPP. In addition, nonjudicial punishment records are maintained according to 

Service regulations, often at the installation level, and typically are destroyed within two to three years. 

For these reasons, the JPP relied for its analysis on the data contained in the Service case synopses in 

101 Actions in order of decreasing severity are court-martial, nonjudicial punishment, administrative discharge, and other 

administrative actions. Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 127 (Nov. 6, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Senior 

Executive Advisor, Dep’t of Defense SAPR Office); FY14 SAPRO Report, supra note 19 at 4.

102 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 127–28 (Nov. 6, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath) (“We only count one 

subject one time and we’ve kind of made an arbitrary level of severity associated with these cases. So, clearly, with courtmartial being the most severe action taken, or the most serious action taken. With non-judicial punishment being the next 

severe action taken and then administrative discharges and then other administrative actions. Just to let you know, I don’t 

have real good agreement between the JAG Offices as some believe that administrative discharge is a more serious action 

than a non-judicial punishment.”).

103 Because of the variety of nonjudicial punishment options and the limitations based on the rank of the imposing 

commander and the member, these numbers were not further broken down into types of punishments imposed. It is also 

important to note that the evaluations of the nonjudicial punishment actions were based on whether a sexual assault 

offense was charged or whether the member was found guilty of a sexual assault offense. The data from the case synopses 

do not fully and accurately detail other non-sexual assault charges that may have also been charged in the nonjudicial 

punishment action. Therefore, it is difficult to gauge the severity of punishment without knowing the full scope of the 

charged offenses.

104 The FY14 NDAA § 1705 limits court-martial jurisdiction for rape, rape of a child, sexual assault, sexual assault of a child, 

forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these acts to trial by general court-martial. This provision is effective for offenses 

committed on or after June 24, 2014.

105 FY14 SAPRO Report, supra note 19, Encl. 3: Department of the Air Force.

106 FY12–14 SAPRO Reports, supra note 19, Army enclosures.
37

IV. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT

annual DoD SAPRO Reports. These case synopses appeared to contain all relevant data necessary 

to determine the number of sexual assault cases resolved through nonjudicial punishment, but the 

accuracy of nonjudicial punishment data in this report is contingent on the accuracy of data provided 

in the SAPRO Reports. 

As noted in the JPP’s discussion about case dispositions in Part III of this report, contact sexual assault 

offenses were resolved through different adjudication methods, from referral to general court-martial 

to nonjudicial punishment. The JPP’s data indicate that the Services initiated nonjudicial punishment in 

686 sexual assault cases from fiscal years 2012 through 2014. These cases were primarily for contact 

offenses. Without knowing the facts of each of the individual cases, the JPP cannot draw conclusions as 

to the appropriateness or consistency of these disposition decisions. The JPP will continue to evaluate 

nonjudicial punishment data in future reports.
38

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES
39

Adverse Administrative Actions and 

Administrative Discharges for 

Sexual Assault Offenses

V.

The adverse administrative action data and administrative discharge data used in this section were 

taken from the Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for fiscal years 

2012, 2013, and 2014, together with the individual Service annexes to these reports.

A. OVERVIEW OF ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGES

1. Adverse Administrative Actions

Commanders may use adverse administrative actions to correct a member’s behavior when a courtmartial or nonjudicial punishment is not available as an option or is deemed not appropriate.107

Adverse administrative actions may include reprimands, counseling sessions, and other corrective 

actions.108 They may also include denial of reenlistment for enlisted members, negative evaluation 

reports, removal from the promotion list, and other ancillary administrative actions. These actions 

often occur in conjunction with other disciplinary actions rather than in isolation. They are intended 

not to serve as punishment of the member, but rather to correct the member’s behavior and document 

it so that it can be considered in the future when the member seeks promotion, a new assignment, and 

reenlistment. Administrative actions may also be used for acts that are not offenses under the UCMJ.109

Adverse administrative actions sometimes precede administrative discharge of the member.

2. Administrative Discharges

Administrative discharge is essentially the removal of a member from the military. There are a variety 

of reasons for which a military member can be discharged, some voluntary and many involuntary. For 

purposes of this report dealing with sexual assault, we will be discussing only administrative discharge 

for misconduct.110

The types of service characterization that may be awarded to a military member being administratively 

discharged are honorable, general (under honorable conditions), and under other than honorable 

conditions.111 Department of Defense policy states that the service characterization for an enlisted 

107 MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 306(c)(2).

108 “Administrative actions include corrective measures such as counseling, admonition, reprimand, exhortation, disapproval, 

criticism, censure, reproach, rebuke, extra military instruction, or the administrative withholding of privileges.” MCM, 

supra note 1, R.C.M. 306(c)(2).

109 MCM, supra note 1, Part V, ¶ 1.g.

110 There are a number of subsets of misconduct under DoD and Service regulations for enlisted members, but the two most 

relevant for members accused of sexual assault are Commission of a Serious Offense and Civilian Conviction. DOD 

INSTRUCTION 1332.14, ENLISTED ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS Encl. 3, ¶ 10.a(3) and (4)(Jan. 27, 2014)(Incorporating Change 

1, Effective Dec. 4, 2014)[Hereinafter DoDI 1332.14], available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133214p.

pdf. For officers, the subsets of misconduct relevant to sexual assault are Serious or recurring misconduct, punishable by 

military or civilian authorities; or final conviction for rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or an attempt to commit one 

of those offenses. DOD DIRECTIVE 1332.30, SEPARATION OF REGULAR AND RESERVE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS encl. 2, ¶ 2.a and 

2.g (Nov. 25, 2013)[hereinafter DODD 1332.30], available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133230p.pdf.

111 DoDD 1332.30, Glossary; DoDI 1332.14, Enclosure 4, ¶ 3.b(2). Honorable is defined as follows: “When the quality of 

V. Adverse Administrative Actions and Administrative Discharges for Sexual Assault Offenses
40

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

military member discharged for misconduct will normally be under other than honorable conditions—

the worst available for an administrative separation.112 The type of service characterization a military 

member receives may prevent that member from reentering the military and collecting disability 

or other benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs; it may also hinder civilian employment 

opportunities.113

The due process afforded a military member being administratively discharged depends on whether the 

member is an officer or enlisted member, the number of years of service, and the proposed discharge 

service characterization. If a member has six or more years of service or is being recommended for the 

service characterization of under other than honorable conditions, the member is entitled to have his 

or her case presented to an administrative discharge board or, if the member is an officer, to a Board of 

Inquiry.114 All other members can be discharged through a shorter notification procedure.115

In the FY13 NDAA, Congress directed the Service Secretaries to establish policies requiring 

administrative discharge processing of military members who received a court-martial conviction for 

rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit one of these offenses, but who did not 

receive a punitive discharge at trial.116 The Services have since updated or are in the process of updating 

their regulations to include this policy, and, in many cases, have even gone beyond this requirement.

Air Force regulations governing enlisted personnel and officers require commanders to initiate 

discharge of a member who has been determined to have committed a sexual assault offense,117 or to 

submit a waiver.118 The Navy mandates discharge processing for members found to have committed 

the Service member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for military 

personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.” General 

(Under Honorable Conditions) is defined as follows: “When a Service member’s service has been honest and faithful, 

it is appropriate to characterize that service under honorable conditions. Characterization of service as general (under 

honorable conditions) is warranted when the negative aspects of the Service member’s conduct or performance of duty 

outweigh positive aspects of the Service member’s conduct or performance of duty.” Under Other Than Honorable 

Conditions is defined as follows: “When separation is based on a pattern of behavior that constitutes a significant 

departure from the conduct expected of Service members. Or, when separation is based upon one or more acts or 

omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of Service members.” Id.

112 DoDI 1332.14, Enclosure 3, ¶ 10.c. The service characterization of an officer discharged for misconduct may be 

characterized as “Honorable, General (Under Honorable Conditions), or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.” 

DoDD 1332.30, Enclosure 7, para. 2. In addition, when the sole basis for separation of an enlisted member is commission 

of a serious offense that resulted in a court-martial conviction in which a punitive discharge was authorized but was 

not imposed, the member’s service may not be characterized as under other than honorable conditions. DoDI 1332.14, 

Enclosure 4, ¶ 3.b(3)(d).

113 38 C.F.R. § 3.12 (2016).

114 DoDI 1332.14, Enclosure 3, ¶ 10.d and Enclosure 5, ¶ 2.a(7); DoDD 1332.30, Enclosure 6, ¶ 1.a and Glossary.

115 DoDI, 1332.14, Enclosure 3, ¶ 10.d and Enclosure 5, ¶ 2.a(7); DoDD 1332.30, Enclosure 6, ¶ 1.a and Glossary. It should 

be noted that the separation authority for officer members, regardless of whether the case goes to a Board of Inquiry, is the 

Service Secretary or his or her designee. DoDD 1332.30, Enclosure 6, ¶ 2.

116 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, 126 Stat. 1632 (2013).

117 For purposes of these regulations, sexual assault includes rape, sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual 

contact, forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these offenses. U.S. DEP’T OF AIR FORCE INST. 36-3208, ADMINISTRATIVE

SEPARATION OF AIRMEN ¶5.55 (July 9, 2004 incorp. through Change 7, July 2, 2013) [hereinafter AFI 36-3208], available 

at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-3208/afi36-3208.pdf; U.S. DEP’T OF AIR FORCE

INST. 36-3206, ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE PROCEDURES FOR COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ¶3.3.3.1 (June 9, 2004 incorp. through 

Change 7, July 2, 2013)[hereinafter AFI 36-3206], available at http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/

publication/afi36-3206/afi36-3206.pdf.

118 A commander may submit a request for waiver of discharge processing if the commander believes that the member meets 
41

V. ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGES FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

sexual misconduct, “based on reliable evidence.”119 Similarly, the Marine Corps mandates discharge 

processing following the “first substantiated incident”120 or attempted incident of sexual misconduct.121

The policies of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps do not require that the member receive a 

court-martial conviction prior to mandatory administrative discharge processing; instead, they require 

just that the member was found to have committed the offense. These policies apply to contact sexual 

assault offenses as well as to penetrative sexual assault offenses. Army policy more closely aligns with 

the statute: it mandates administrative discharge processing for members convicted of a sex offense 

whose conviction did not result in a punitive discharge or dismissal at a court-martial.122 The Army 

also includes contact sexual assault offenses, not just penetrative offenses.

certain retention criteria, as laid out in AFIs 36-3208 and 36-3206, supra note 117, as follows:

A member found to have committed sexual assault or sexual assault of a child will be discharged unless the member 

meets all of the following criteria: 

(a) The conduct surrounding and including the sexual assault or sexual assault of a child is a departure from the 

member’s usual and customary behavior; 

(b) The conduct surrounding and including the sexual assault or sexual assault of a child under all circumstances is 

not likely to recur;

(c) The sexual assault or sexual assault of a child did not involve the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or 

anus or mouth of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or 

degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

(d) The sexual assault or sexual assault of a child was not committed by (1) using force causing or likely to cause 

death or grievous bodily harm to any person; (2) threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person 

will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping; (3) first rendering the other person unconscious; 

or (4) administering to the other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of the 

person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of the other 

person to appraise or control conduct;

(e) The sexual assault or sexual assault of a child was not the result of an abuse of rank, grade, authority or position; 

and

(f) Under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the Air Force is consistent 

with the interest of the Air Force in maintaining proper discipline, good order, leadership, and morale. 

(Noncommissioned officers have special responsibilities by virtue of their status; fulfill an integral role in 

maintaining discipline; and, therefore, must exhibit high standards of personal integrity, loyalty, dedication, 

devotion to duty and leadership.)

The regulation also states that the board or the separation authority must consider the impact of the sexual assault on 

the victim and the views of the victim on retention.

119 Sexual misconduct includes rape, sexual assault, stalking, forcible sodomy, or “any sexual misconduct that could 

be charged as a violation or an attempt to violate [Articles 120, 120a, 120b, or 120c of the UCMJ].” U.S. DEP’T

OF NAVY, MILPERSMAN 1910-142, ENLISTED ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS—SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT—

COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE (May 31, 2013), available at http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/

milpersman/1000/1900Separation/Documents/1910-142.pdf; U.S. DEP’T OF NAVY, MILPERSMAN 1910-233, ENLISTED

ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS-MANDATORY SEPARATION PROCESSING (July 11, 2013), available at http://www.public.navy.

mil/bupers-npc/reference/milpersman/1000/1900Separation/Documents/1910-233.pdf; These policies apply to enlisted 

members, but the same policy applies to officers, though the regulation covering Navy officer administrative separations 

has not yet been updated to reflect this policy. DoD SAPRO FY13 Report, Encl. 3, Department of the Navy.

120 An incident is considered substantiated when there has been a court-martial or civilian court conviction, nonjudicial 

punishment, or “when a commander determines, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that an incident or attempted 

incident of sexual misconduct has occurred.” U.S. MARINE CORPS ORDER 1900.16, SEPARATION AND RETIREMENT MANUAL

§6210 ¶ 4.d; §4103 ¶ 3.d (Nov. 26, 2013)[hereinafter USMC Order 1900.16], available at http://www.marines.mil/

Portals/59/Publications/MCO%20%201900.16.pdf.

121 Sexual misconduct includes conduct that could form the basis of a violation of Article 120, UCMJ. This includes rape, 

sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, and abusive sexual contact. USMC Order 1900.16, §6210, ¶ 4.b. and §4103, ¶ 

3.b.

122 U.S. DEP’T OF ARMY, DIRECTIVE 2013-21, INITIATING SEPARATION PROCEEDINGS AND PROHIBITING OVERSEAS ASSIGNMENT FOR

SOLDIERS CONVICTED OF SEX OFFENSES ¶ 3 (Nov. 7, 2013), available at http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/ad2013_21.pdf.
42

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Finally, it should be noted that the FY14 NDAA mandates the punitive discharge or dismissal of a 

member upon conviction at a general court-martial of a penetrative offense or attempt to commit a 

penetrative offense.123 This mandate would presumably reduce the number of administrative discharge 

actions in sexual assault cases. 

B. DATA ON ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES

According to DoD,124 in fiscal year 2012, commanders took adverse administrative action against 

military members for sexual assault offenses in 65 cases;125 83 cases in fiscal year 2013,126 and 123 

cases in fiscal year 2014.127

C. DATA ON ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGES FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

As was true of the nonjudicial punishment data, the JPP’s sole source of data on administrative 

discharges is the Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, together 

with the individual Service annexes to this report.128 The DoD annual reports provide valuable data 

regarding sexual assault; however, the administrative discharge data have some significant limitations.

 This paragraph references 42 U.S.C. § 16911 and AR 27-10 to define “sex offense.” 42 U.S.C. § 16911 falls under the Sex 

Offender Registration and Notification subchapter and defines “sex offense” in a number of ways, to include “a criminal 

offense that has an element involving a sexual act or sexual contact with another;” 42 U.S.C. § 16911(5)(A). In addition, 

AR 27-10 at ¶ 24-2, discusses offenses requiring sex offender registration and includes rape, aggravated sexual assault, 

forcible sodomy, abusive sexual contact, wrongful sexual contact, and attempts to commit these offenses. Note that the 

regulation was written prior to the 2012 revisions to Article 120, UCMJ.

123 FY14 NDAA, § 1705. This provision takes effect for offenses committed on or after June 24, 2014.

124 This information was taken entirely from the Department of Defense Annual Reports on Sexual Assault in the Military. 

The JPP did not have access to the actual adverse administrative action documents, because there is no central repository 

for them and because they fall under the Privacy Act. The types of administrative actions taken are not specified: among 

the possible actions is a letter of reprimand, bar to reenlistment, administrative reduction in rank, removal from promotion 

list, or a negative performance appraisal.

125 This number is broken down by Service as follows: Army-56; Navy-8; Marine Corps-1; and Air Force-0.The Army stated 

that these were all non-penetrative offenses and “the vast majority an unwanted touch over the clothing.” FY12 SAPRO 

Report, supra note 19, Encl. 1: Department of the Army at 41; FY12 SAPRO Report, supra note 19, Encl. 2: Department 

of the Navy at 2 and 24; FY12 SAPRO Report, supra note 19, Encl. 3: Department of the Air Force at 6.

126 This number is broken down by Service as follows: Army, 55; Navy, 26; Marine Corps, 2; and Air Force, 0.The Army 

stated that these were all non-penetrative offenses and “the vast majority an unwanted touch over the clothing.” FY13 

SAPRO Report, supra note 19, Encl. 2: Department of the Army at 46; FY13 SAPRO Report, supra note 19, Encl. 3: 

Department of the Navy at 5 and 20; FY13 SAPRO Report, supra note 19, Encl. 4: Department of the Air Force at 12.

127 This number is broken down by Service as follows: Army, 73; Navy, 15; Marine Corps, 16; and Air Force, 19.The Army 

stated that these were all non-penetrative offenses and “the vast majority an unwanted touch over the clothing.” FY14 

SAPRO Report, supra note 19, Encl. 1: Department of the Army at 64; FY14 SAPRO Report, supra note 19, Encl. 2: 

Department of the Navy, Navy Summary of Unrestricted Sexual Assault Reports Closed During Fiscal Year 2014 Involving 

Service Members, Section H and Sexual Assault Statistical Report Data Call for Sexual Assault in the Military, ¶ 2.2; the 

Air Force stated that fourteen of the cases involved unwanted touching over clothing, or a hug or kiss on the cheek. In 

three of the cases, the victim declined to participate in the military justice process. In the final two cases, the evidence was

deemed insufficient to proceed to court-martial or nonjudicial punishment, but the subject’s conduct was determined to be 

inappropriate. FY14 SAPRO Report, supra note 19, Encl. 3: Department of the Air Force at 26.

128 The Privacy Act prohibits personal information of the members involved from being disclosed to the public. The Privacy 

Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a.
43

V. ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGES FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

As previously noted in Section IV, the DoD annual reports and Service enclosures capture disposition 

data for sexual assault offenses by order of severity of the action taken; moreover, an offense can be 

placed into only one disposition category, even if more than one action was taken.129 For example, if 

a member was court-martialed for a sexual assault offense, this is the disposition that would be noted 

in the report. If the member received a punitive discharge as part of his or her court-martial sentence, 

there would be no further action necessary to remove the member from the military. But if the member 

did not receive a punitive discharge as part of the court-martial sentence, based on Service policies on 

sexual assault, the member would likely be processed for administrative discharge.130 However, because 

the administrative discharge was not the primary disposition, the discharge might not be noted in the 

report, especially if the discharge took place after the fiscal year reporting period was over.131

While the Services note in the case summaries the fact that a court-martial, nonjudicial punishment 

action, or adverse action was subsequently followed by an administrative discharge of the member, 

these data may not be noted if the primary disposition (e.g., court-martial, nonjudicial punishment) 

occurred later in the fiscal year, as the member’s unit may not have completed the administrative 

discharge process by the end of the fiscal year. Even if the administrative discharge process were 

initiated during the reporting period, the process can be lengthy in cases in which the member is 

entitled to an administrative discharge board hearing. In such cases, the Services may not have reported 

the administrative discharge in their numbers, as the action was not yet complete.

The Services collectively reported the total number of cases that DoD classified as administrative 

discharge cases. Beginning with the fiscal year 2014 report, the military Services also noted the 

characterization of Service issued upon discharge. These data are presented in Tables 5 and 6.132

Table 5. Reports of Administrative Discharges in Adult Sexual Assault Offenses Based on DoD 

SAPRO Annual Reports133

Fiscal year Administrative discharges

2012 65

2013 143

2014 229133

129 Actions in order of decreasing severity are court-martial, nonjudicial punishment, administrative discharge, and other 

administrative actions. Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 127 (Nov. 6, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath); FY14 

SAPRO Report, supra note 19 at 4.

130 An enlisted member cannot be administratively discharged for an offense that resulted in a court-martial acquittal. DoDI 

1332.14 at Encl. 4, ¶ 1.c(1).

131 Dr. Nathan Galbreath told the JPP:

We only count one subject one time and we’ve kind of made an arbitrary level of severity associated 

with these cases. So, clearly, with court-martial being the most severe action taken, or the most serious 

action taken. With nonjudicial punishment being the next severe action taken and then administrative 

discharges and then other administrative actions. Just to let you know, I don’t have real good agreement 

between the JAG Offices as some believe that administrative discharge is a more serious action than a 

nonjudicial punishment. 

 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 127–28 (Nov. 6, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath).

132 FY12–14 SAPRO Reports, supra note 19.

133 This includes 17 administrative discharge proceedings that were pending at the end of the fiscal year.
44

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Table 6. Information Regarding Fiscal Year 2014 Characterization of Administrative Discharges 

Related to Adult Sexual Assault Offenses, Based on Data in Annual DoD SAPRO Reports134135

Types of discharge Total number

Under other than honorable conditions 107

General 76

Honorable 11

Uncharacterized135 18

Pending 17

The military Services reported more administrative discharges each year from fiscal year 2012 to 

2014. Slightly more than half of the individuals who were reported as discharged from the military 

in the fiscal year 2014 report received the least favorable characterization of Service, “under other 

than honorable conditions.” Discharge and characterization totals may not include cases in which 

commanders imposed other adverse administrative or nonjudicial actions prior to separation, due to 

DoD’s method of accounting for cases. 

As was the case for data regarding nonjudicial punishment, the JPP did not have access to 

administrative discharge case documents from the military Services, as they are personnel records 

protected under the Privacy Act. The JPP instead relied on information included in the SAPRO Reports 

for fiscal years 2012 to 2014 and case synopses from the Service enclosures included in each report. 

The JPP could not validate information provided in the SAPRO Reports or case information included 

in the Service synopses. 

The number of administrative discharges significantly increased from fiscal year 2012 to 2014. As 

noted above regarding courts-martial and nonjudicial punishment, without knowing the facts of each 

individual administrative discharge, the JPP cannot provide a meaningful analysis of whether these 

actions were appropriate or consistent. The JPP will continue to monitor these data in future reports.

134 Administrative discharge characterization data were not available for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.

135 Uncharacterized discharges may be given for entry level separations for members with six months or less of service, unless 

characterization under other than honorable conditions is warranted by the circumstances of the case. DoDI 1332.14 at 

Encl 4, ¶ 3.c(1).
45

Appellate Review of VI. Sexual Assault Convictions

The JPP was also tasked with reviewing and evaluating court-martial convictions for adult sexual 

assault offenses in the year covered by the most recent report of the Judicial Proceedings Panel and 

to examine the number and description of instances when punishments were reduced or set aside 

upon appeal and the instances in which the defendant appealed following a plea agreement, if such 

information is available.

For this report, the JPP reviewed the opinions archived on the public websites of the Service Courts of 

Criminal Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) for fiscal years 

2012 through 2014.

A. OVERVIEW OF THE MILITARY APPELLATE PROCESS

Under the UCMJ, an accused convicted by a court-martial is entitled to an automatic review of his 

or her trial. Because there is no common law right to appeal, the accused’s right must derive from 

statutory or regulatory sources.136 In the military, the statutory provisions are contained in UCMJ 

Articles 64 through 76.137

Following a court-martial conviction, the case is first reviewed by the convening authority—that is, 

the commander who referred the accused’s case to trial.138 Until recently, the convening authority had 

broad clemency powers under Article 60 of the UCMJ to act on a case after trial, powers not always 

shared with military appellate courts. For example, the convening authority could, subject to some 

limitations, suspend all or a portion of the adjudged sentence, a power not possessed by either the 

Service Courts of Criminal Appeals or CAAF. However, as discussed in Section III of this report, in the 

FY14 NDAA, Congress substantially restricted the convening authority’s powers and thus limited the 

ability of a convicted Service member to obtain relief from the convening authority.139

The military justice system features three levels of appellate review to which an accused may appeal a 

court-martial conviction. The first level consists of the four military Service Courts of Criminal Appeals 

(Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, and Navy-Marine Corps). The Courts of Criminal Appeal, which 

are located in the Washington, DC, area, consist of senior judge advocates, who are usually active 

duty officers or reserve officers on active duty.140 Under Article 66 of the UCMJ, all cases in which 

136 SCHLUETER, supra note 72 at § 17-1.

137 See generally 10 U.S.C. § 864 - 876 (UCMJ, art. 64 - 76).

138 See 10 U.S.C. § 860 (UCMJ, art. 60).

139 The convening authority may not disapprove, commute, or suspend an adjudged sentence that is more than six months or 

that includes a punitive discharge, unless (1) upon recommendation from the trial counsel, in recognition of “substantial 

assistance” by the accused in the investigation or prosecution of another person, including for offenses with mandatory 

minimum sentences; or (2) in order to honor a pretrial agreement; however, the convening authority may not commute 

a mandatory minimum sentence except to reduce a dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge. FY14 NDAA 

§1702(b). 

140 SCHLUETER, supra note 72, at § 17-15.

VI. Appellate Review of Sexual Assault Convictions
46

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

the approved sentence includes death, a punitive discharge, or confinement for one year or more are 

forwarded to the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals for appellate review.141

The second level of appellate review is CAAF, which sits as a civilian appellate forum in Washington, 

DC, and is composed of five judges appointed by the President.142 CAAF reviews all cases involving a 

sentence to death and cases reviewed by the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals that are forwarded to 

CAAF by the Judge Advocate Generals. In all other cases reviewed by the Service Courts, CAAF review 

is discretionary.143 The third level of review is petition to the United States Supreme Court, though this 

review is subject to statutory limitations.144

Not all military members who receive a court-martial conviction are entitled to appellate review at 

the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals. As noted, appeal to the Service appellate courts is automatic 

under Article 66 of the UCMJ when the approved sentence includes death, a punitive discharge, or one 

or more years of confinement. For courts-martial convictions that don’t meet these criteria, the UCMJ 

provides for lesser forms of post-trial review. 

Article 69(a) of the UCMJ provides for review by the Service Judge Advocate General for general 

courts-martial convictions that don’t meet the criteria for review by the Service appellate courts under 

Article 66.145 The Judge Advocate General has the power to modify or set aside the findings, sentence, 

or both, for these cases.146 In addition, the UCMJ also grants to the Service Judge Advocates General 

the power to modify or set aside the findings or sentence for summary, special, or general courtsmartial convictions not reviewed by the Service appellate courts on grounds of newly discovered 

evidence, fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction over the accused or offense, error prejudicial to the 

substantial rights of the accused, or the appropriateness of the sentence.147

Article 64 of the UCMJ provides for automatic review by a judge advocate in all summary courtsmartial convictions and special courts-martial convictions in which the approved sentence includes 

confinement for less than one year and does not include a bad conduct discharge. The judge advocate, 

in the written review, provides conclusions as to whether the court had jurisdiction over the accused 

and the offense, whether the charges and specifications stated an offense, and whether the sentence was 

within the limits prescribed by law, and responds to each allegation of error made by the accused.148

If the judge advocate determines that corrective action should be taken, he or she then forwards the 

review to the general court-martial convening authority, who may disapprove the findings or sentence; 

remit, commute, or suspend the sentence; or order a rehearing on the findings or sentence.149

Finally, exhaustion of review through these channels does not necessarily end the review of a courtmartial. There are additional avenues of review available to the convicted Service member, including 

141 10 U.S.C. §866 (UCMJ, art. 66).

142 SCHLUETER, supra note 72, at § 17-16.

143 See 10 U.S.C. § 867 (UCMJ, art. 67).

144 See 10 U.S.C. § 867a (UCMJ, art. 67a).

145 See 10 U.S.C. § 869(a) (UCMJ, art. 69(a)).

146 Id.

147 See 10 U.S.C. § 869(b) (UCMJ, art. 69(b)).

148 See 10 U.S.C. § 864(a) (UCMJ, art. 64(a)).

149 See 10 U.S.C. § 864 (UCMJ, art. 64).
47

VI. APPELLATE REVIEW OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTIONS

internal military administrative review of the proceedings and external collateral review by the federal 

courts.150

B. APPELLATE ACTION ON COURT-MARTIAL CONVICTIONS FOR SEXUAL 

ASSAULT OFFENSES

The JPP reviewed the published and unpublished opinions of the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals 

from fiscal years 2012 through 2014, which can be found on the courts’ public websites, and found 

256 opinions that included conviction on one or more charges of adult sexual assault offenses.151 Of 

these opinions, the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals set aside an adult sexual assault charge or 

specification, or granted relief on the sentence of a case involving an adult sexual assault offense, in 34 

cases.152 Table 7 shows these cases by military Service and by fiscal year.

Table 7. Adult Sexual Assault Cases on Appeal: Conviction Set Aside or Sentence Reduced at Service 

Courts of Criminal Appeals

FY12 FY13 FY14 Total

Air Force 0 23 5

Army 3 3 14 20

Marine Corps 1 2 2 5 

Navy 1 1 0 2 

Coast Guard 0 20 2

TOTAL 5 10 19 34

The appellate courts’ reasons for granting relief in these cases varied. The most common justifications 

were significant post-trial case processing delays, unreasonable multiplication of charges (e.g., the 

court determined on appeal that an accused had unreasonably been charged in multiple ways for 

the same offense), and factual insufficiency, a remedy available in military courts of criminal appeal. 

Other reasons include faulty jury instructions, lack of personal jurisdiction over the accused, unlawful 

command influence, confrontation clause denial, and improper determination of a lesser included 

offense. Owing to the length of time from adjudication of a court-martial to appellate review, the 

fiscal year 2012 to 2014 appellate data largely cover courts-martial tried under the 2007 Article 120, 

UCMJ, and prior statute(s). The 2012 statute applies to offenses committed on or after June 28, 2012, 

making it unlikely that many cases tried under this statute reached appellate review by fiscal year 2014. 

Appellate decisions for fiscal year 2015 and beyond will likely cover courts-martial adjudicated under 

the 2012 statute. The JPP will assess these decisions in future reports.

The JPP was also tasked to assess appellate actions in cases involving a pretrial agreement. Table 8 

shows the number of cases in which guilty pleas pursuant to a pretrial agreement in adult sexual 

150 SCHLUETER, supra note 72, at § 17-18.

151 This number includes only the published and unpublished opinions and does not include the cases in which the appellate 

courts affirm the findings and sentence without an opinion. https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/ACCA#; http://afcca.law.af.mil/

content/opinions.php%3Ftabid=3.html; http://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/opinion_archive.htm; http://www.uscg.mil/legal/

cca/Court_of_Criminal_Appeals_Opinions/Court_of_Criminal_Appeals_Opinions.asp.

152 This number includes cases in which the appellate court overturned a conviction for a sexual assault charge or reduced 

the sentence imposed for all offenses, including a sexual assault offense; however, where the appellate courts reduced 

a sentence or authorized a rehearing on sentence solely based on its decision to set aside a conviction for a non-sexual 

assault offense, then the case was not counted as granting relief on a sexual assault offense. 
48

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

assault offenses were set aside or sentences were reduced on appeal by the Service Courts of Criminal 

Appeals. The six cases all involved technical errors made in the initial charging of the case, such as 

unreasonable multiplication of charges (i.e., the same sexual assault charged as two different types of 

assault), or involved unreasonable post-trial case processing delays.

Table 8. Relief Granted by Service Courts of Criminal Appeals Following a Guilty Plea

FY12 FY13 FY14 Total 

Air Force 0 0 0 0 

Army 0 0 6 6 

Marine Corps 0 0 0 0

Navy 0 0 0 0 

Coast Guard 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 0 0 6 6 

Finally, Table 9 shows the number of cases involving adult sexual assault offenses in which CAAF 

granted relief to the appellant from fiscal years 2012 to 2014.153 CAAF’s reasons for granting relief 

varied: two cases involved errors by the military judge in admitting witness testimony, one case 

involved multiplicity of charges, one case involved improper admission of prior misconduct, and one 

case involved improper jury instructions. 

Table 9. Relief Granted by United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF)

FY 12 FY13 FY14 Total

Air Force 0022

Army 0011

Marine Corps 1102

Navy 0000

Coast Guard 0000

TOTAL 1135

The Service Courts of Criminal Appeals set aside sexual assault convictions or reduced sentences in 

cases involving an adult sexual assault charge in 34 cases from fiscal years 2012 to 2014. In only 6 of 

these 34 cases in which relief was granted did the accused plead guilty to the sexual assault offense. 

While the JPP was tasked with determining the number of times a defendant appealed following a plea 

agreement, it is important to note that under Article 66 of the UCMJ, appeal is automatic in cases in 

which the approved sentence includes a punitive discharge or one year or more of confinement: no 

action on the part of the Service member is required. During this same time period, there were only five 

cases involving an adult sexual assault offense in which CAAF granted relief. 

153 In each of these published opinions, relief consisted of setting aside a charge or specification, as opposed to granting relief 

on a term of confinement without setting aside any charge of conviction. 
49

Military, Federal, and State Data on VII. Sexual Assault Adjudications

A. FELONY SEXUAL ASSAULT PROSECUTIONS IN STATE AND FEDERAL 

COURTS

The statutory tasks require that the JPP examine federal and state sentencing data concerning sexual 

assault crimes. The JPP heard testimony and received submissions from officials from the United States 

Sentencing Commission and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, as well as criminologists summarizing the 

most current data collected from civilian criminal courts. While academic analysis of crime phenomena 

is prolific, there is little comprehensive statistical information measuring the disposition or outcome of 

sexual assault cases in the civilian community.154

The Sentencing Commission collects detailed information on felony sentences issued by the U.S. 

District Courts. These data are used in amending the federal sentencing guidelines, in publicizing the 

sentences for federal felons, and in shaping federal criminal law and policies. However, because the 

overwhelming majority of rape and sexual assault prosecutions are carried out in state courts, the 

Sentencing Commission reports relatively few sexual assault cases each year.155

In response to a request for information regarding sentences for federal sexual abuse offenses, the 

Sentencing Commission compiled data for the JPP from fiscal years 2012 through 2014, identifying 

116 cases that involved adult victims of sexual abuse.156 The JPP requested that the Commission 

narrow its study to cases in which the offenders had no prior criminal history so that they might be 

analogous to those convicted in military courts-martial, the vast majority of whom have no prior 

criminal history. The Commission found only nine such cases. In an effort to provide more data, the 

Commission expanded its search to include cases in which the federal offender had been convicted of 

low-level crimes; 94 offenders met that criterion.157 Table 10 summarizes the sentencing information 

provided to the JPP by the Sentencing Commission. 

154 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 280–81 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn), 294–96 (testimony of 

Dr. James Lynch, Professor and Chair, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland).

155 U.S. SENTENCING COMMISSION’S 2015 ANNUAL SOURCEBOOK OF FEDERAL SENTENCING STATISTICS. Statistic from Sentencing 

Commission’s quarterly report, available at http://www.ussc.gov/research-and-publications/annual-reportssourcebooks/2015/sourcebook-2015.

156 The Sentencing Commission provided information concerning sentences imposes for offenses described in Title 18, United 

States Code, sections 2241(a) and (b), 2242, and 2244(a) and (b). The Commission does not regularly record the age of 

the victim in any case, but undertook a special coding project to ascertain the age of the victim(s) in these cases. See Letter 

to the JPP Staff Director from the Director of the Office of Research and Data at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, Mr. 

Glenn R. Schmitt, dated December 10, 2015, available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/03_Topic-Areas/07-CM_Trends_

Analysis/20160122/03_USSC_Response_JPP_SpecialRequest.pdf. 

157 The Sentencing Commission explained its rationale for expanding the search by pointing to the policy that “persons 

may be allowed to enlist in the military despite the fact of prior low-level convictions for such crimes as public disorder, 

underage alcohol use, or traffic crimes in which no person was injured. We thought it might be helpful, therefore, to 

expand our analysis to include cases in which the federal offender had been convicted of similar low-level crimes.” Id.

VII. Military, Federal, and State Data on Sexual Assault Adjudications
50

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Table 10. U.S. Sentencing Commission Data on Sentences for Federal Sex Abuse Convictions

Offense of conviction 

in FY12–14:

9 offenders with 

no prior criminal 

history

Sentence

94 offenders 

with (low-level) 

criminal history

Average sentence

18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) 

Aggravated sexual 

abuse

1 offender Life 25 offenders

156 months 

(median 

121 months)

18 U.S.C. § 2242 

Sexual abuse 2 offenders 36–70 months 30 offenders

84 months 

(median 

78 months)

18 U.S.C. § 2244(a) 

Abusive sexual 

contact

4 offenders

12–26 months 

(average 22 

months)

34 offenders

31 months 

(median 

24 months)

18 U.S.C. §2244(b) 

Sexual contact 

without permission

2 offenders 12 months; 

30 months 8 offenders

32 months 

(median 

24 months)

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, compiles and analyzes a 

wide array of federal and state crime data, from survey research on crime incidence to the Bureau of 

Prisons data on post-conviction recidivism.158 Officials periodically survey 75 urban jurisdictions for 

arrest, prosecution, and sentencing data in several specific crime categories. The most recent analysis 

was conducted in 2009 and included data on forcible rape arrests.159 Statistics from that study are 

summarized in Table 11.

Table 11. Bureau of Justice Statistics Data from State Courts in Large Urban Counties (May 2009)

Cases involving an arrest charge of forcible rape

Overall conviction rate for any offense 68%

Conviction rate for rape 35%

Acquittals 3%

Dismissals 24%

Sentence included confinement 89% (5% in jail)

Mean confinement sentence 142 months

Jurisdiction-specific research provides a wealth of detail about the criminal justice process and informs our 

understanding of the complex nature of sexual assault crimes. Experts explained, however, that the results 

from one jurisdiction may not be generalizable or applicable to another jurisdiction, and they emphasized 

the difficulty of obtaining nationally representative data in order to conduct a comparative study.160

158 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 195–203 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Howard Snyder).

159 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009 – Statistical 

Tables, 34 (December 2013). Related research based on 2002 data can be referenced in: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Large Urban Counties (2009).

160 Dr. Cassia Spohn told the JPP: 

Another limitation of jurisdiction-specific research is that the results of our research may not be 

generalizable. And so, even though we conduct research in some of the largest jurisdictions in the 

United States, we cannot necessarily say that what we find in Los Angeles or New York City or 

Philadelphia or any other city really is the same—are the same patterns or outcomes that we would 

find in other jurisdictions.
51

VII. MILITARY, FEDERAL, AND STATE DATA ON SEXUAL ASSAULT ADJUDICATIONS

B. CONTRASTING APPROACHES TO SENTENCING IN THE MILITARY AND 

CIVILIAN JUSTICE SYSTEMS 

The military judicial system has many fundamental differences from its civilian counterparts, ranging 

from the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by commanders to adversarial sentencing procedures and 

aggregate sentencing.161 Experts offering testimony to the JPP stressed the importance of understanding 

the procedures used in each justice system in order to identify any “decision points that are 

comparable”162 before drawing conclusions or embarking on any empirical study.

Several aspects of the sentencing phase of the military judicial process are unique.163 The military 

justice system follows a unitary sentencing system: sentences are imposed in the aggregate, without a 

specific punishment or term of confinement being designated for a particular offense. As a result, if 

the defendant has been convicted of more than one crime, there is no way to assess how much weight 

the sentencing authority gave to any individual crime.164 Sentencing hearings are adversarial in nature 

and immediately follow the announcement of findings.165 Military sentences may be assessed by either 

a judge or a member panel, at the defendant’s election, whereas in federal courts and most state 

jurisdictions only judges can decide punishment, even when a jury decides guilt in the findings phase of 

trial. For most military offenses the range of a sentence stretches from no punishment to the maximum 

established by the President, rather than being arranged by sentencing guidelines or mandatory 

minimum punishments.166 The only sentencing limitation in sexual assault cases now requires that 

Service members convicted of certain offenses receive a punitive discharge.167

In the federal system, as noted above, sentencing occurs in an entirely separate hearing, often months 

after conviction.168 Practitioners in the federal and state system commented that while the overarching 

purposes of sentencing are somewhat similar in the federal and military systems, the information 

 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 283 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn).

161 In enacting the UCMJ, Congress endeavored to balance the need for the commander to maintain discipline within the 

ranks against the desire to make the military justice system fairer for those accused of offenses. This dual purpose of 

ensuring both justice and discipline distinguishes the military justice system from civilian systems. See generally SCHLUETER,

supra note 72 at § 1-1.

162 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 296–97 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Dr. James P. Lynch) (“The second thing if you 

want to do a comparable study is . . . you’re going to have to get decision points that are comparable. The military process 

is somewhat different, at least in the reports that I read and there are more actors involved and there’s more decision 

points made and how those actually square up to the decision points and the processing in the civilian system, someone’s 

going to have to deal with that, I think, so that you get those points.”) (“The civilian justice system has a very limited 

number of things that they can do so that—and that will affect every other decision in the process. If my choice is to send 

you to prison or to let you go, that constrains a lot of things in the system. If I have the option of taking your pension, of 

demoting you, of doing a whole bunch of other things, then you should have a philosopher around to see how things are 

going to square up in terms of sentencing area and so on.”).

163 RSP REPORT, supra note 10, at 136–45 (providing a detailed description of how sentencing procedures in the military and 

civilian sectors differ, including a table that highlights the dissimilarities between the systems.).

164 See Colonel James E. Baker, Is Military Justice Sentencing On the March? Should It Be? And If So, Where Should It Head? 

Court-Martial Sentencing Process, Practice, and Issues, 27 FEDERAL SENTENCING REPORTER 72 (Dec. 2014).

165 See Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 37–38 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Hon. Frank D. Whitney, United States Chief 

District Judge, Western District of North Carolina). 

166 See SCHLUETER, supra note 72 at § 16-2.

167 See 10 U.S.C. § 856 (UCMJ, art. 56), as amended by FY14 NDAA § 1705(a).

168 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 34–35 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Mr. Steven J. Grocki).
52

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

available to the sentencing authorities may vary.169 Federal judges receive a presentencing report, 

prepared by the probation office, that contains very detailed information about the offense, the 

offender, and the victim.170 By contrast, evidence offered at military sentencing is limited to the matters 

of aggravation, extenuation, and mitigation specified in the rules for courts-martial.171

One expert providing comparative analysis observed how procedural distinctions between the two 

systems can explain differences observed in punishment data: 

I think we have to keep in mind that there are other kinds of punishments that can be 

imposed in the military system with punitive separation, restitution, fines and forfeitures 

and, in many cases, those punishments, a sort of a cornucopia of punishments were 

imposed in the military cases.172

Other experts emphasized the distinctiveness of the military’s option to impose a punitive discharge: 

That is first and foremost what is sought by the prosecution side. And so when looking 

at confinement as a comparative measure between the two systems that you have to 

account for that. And it’s going to be difficult to account for that, because if it’s a panel 

doing the sentencing, I mean it’s very difficult to know how much weight they placed on 

the punitive discharge, how much they may have reduced the confinement term because 

they did get a punitive discharge. So looking across to the federal system, all you’re going 

to see is confinement. And so that comparative measure is going to be difficult I think 

to make.173

As mentioned above, prosecutors and judges explained to the JPP that federal sentencing guidelines, 

much like statutory schemes for grading offenses at the state level, do not apply in the military. The 

Federal Sentencing Guidelines grade offenses on a point system that corresponds to a range of months 

of confinement. In sexual assault cases, adjustments are made to the range based on several factors, 

including the age of the victim, whether a weapon was used or serious injury resulted, and other special 

circumstances surrounding the assault. The criminal history of the offender also has a significant 

influence on sentencing in state and federal courts. At the same time, presenters noted, a lack of 

detail across state data that is publicly available makes the influence of criminal history impossible to 

discern.174

C. JPP ASSESSMENT 

Limited national data and systemic differences between the military criminal justice system and 

other civilian systems make comparisons of civilian and military punishments in sexual assault crime 

convictions inappropriate. Federal sentencing information is comprehensive, but the number of adult 

victim sexual assault cases prosecuted in the federal system was insufficient to allow for reasonable 

169 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 34–35 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Mr. Steven J. Grocki).

170 Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d).

171 MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 1001(b)(4), (c), (d), and (f); MCM, supra note 1, R.C.M. 1001A.

172 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 124 (Jan. 22, 2016) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn).

173 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 40–41 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Hon. Frank D. Whitney).

174 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 125, 145 (Jan. 22, 2016) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn).
53

VII. MILITARY, FEDERAL, AND STATE DATA ON SEXUAL ASSAULT ADJUDICATIONS

comparison with courts-martial outcomes for similar offenses. In addition, federal sentencing statistics 

are also heavily influenced by the federal sentencing guidelines, which do not exist in the military 

system.

Conversely, data from state courts, where the vast majority of civilian sexual assault cases are tried, are 

categorized in very broad terms and collected infrequently. State criminal statutes also vary widely, and 

rules for sentencing differ from one state to the next. The JPP shares the perspective of a criminologist 

who observed that “it’s very difficult even to compare outcomes across jurisdictions in the civilian 

system because they vary so much on many, many dimensions.”175

The JPP considered other distinctions between the military justice system and civilian jurisdictions that 

bolster the view that comparison of sentence outcomes is not appropriate:

• Definitions of offenses and delineations between severe and minor offenses vary widely in 

military, federal, and state sexual assault statutes.

• The Manual for Courts-Martial provides a maximum sentence for each criminal offense, which 

is then combined with all offenses of conviction to produce a total maximum sentence in each 

case. 

• Because the military justice system uses a unitary sentencing procedure, it is not possible to 

determine what portion of a sentence is attributed to specific offenses in any case involving 

more than one charge.

• Military panel (jury) and judge sentencing occurs immediately after findings in a court-martial, 

and sentencing procedures in military justice provide for the prosecution to present matters 

in aggravation and defense to present matters in extenuation and mitigation; there is usually 

a delay in sentencing in civilian jurisdictions, which provides time for a probation officer to 

prepare a presentencing report for the judge’s consideration. 

• Civilian jurisdictions often apply sentencing guidelines that account for the offense, the 

offender’s criminal history, the relevant characteristics of the victim, and a host of aggravating 

and mitigating factors beyond the scope of the military’s sentencing rules.

• The military has more punishment options than do civilian courts, including confinement, 

punitive discharge, reduction in rank, forfeitures, fines, and hard labor without confinement; 

these options are not comparable to the sentence results in civilian jurisdictions.

175 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 68 (Mar. 11, 2016) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn).
54

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES
55

APPENDIX A: Statistical Report on Military 

Adjudication of Sexual Assault

Appendix A: Statistical Report on Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault

,""$)'"& *

&$

*$.!+'*1'%%!,, 



"-!,!'&'0-$++-$,+

('*,!&, 
!$!,*1*.!+

)5**"('!&

,
%*

'-&,!'&*'++'*&!*,'*

 ''$'*!%!&'$'1&*!%!&$-+,!

*!2'&,,&!.*+!,1




56

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Data 

The Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) is tasked with reviewing and evaluating the 

response to sexual assault cases in the military. In 2014 and 2015, JPP staff 

requested that the military services provide documents for cases involving a 

preferred charge of sexual assault that were completed in fiscal years 2012, 2013, 

and 2014. JPP staff worked with WHS Sharepoint contractors to develop a 

comprehensive database that would allow staff to analyze case information 

extracted from the documents provided by the military services. JPP staff entered 

the data obtained from the documents and the database was then converted to an 

EXCEL file and imported into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for 

analysis. 

The database includes 1,761 cases, all of which involve at least one charge of a 

penetrative (i.e., rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, forcible sodomy and 

attempts to commit these offenses) or contact (i.e., aggravated sexual contact, 

abusive sexual contact, wrongful sexual contact, and attempts to commit these 

offenses) sexual offense. 

Case Characteristics, Case Dispositions, and Case Outcomes 

The characteristics of the sexual assault cases, their dispositions, and outcomes are 

presented in Tables 1 and 2. As shown in Table 1, there were more cases in which 

sexual assault charges were preferred in FY2013 and FY2014 than in FY2012 (this 

is the fiscal year assigned by SAPRO). In terms of the military service of the accused, 

almost half (46.2%) of the cases were from the Army, 19.4% were from the Air 

Force, 17.3% were from the Navy, 14.0% were from the Marine Corps, and 3.1% 

were from the Coast Guard. Most of the accused were enlisted service members 

(93.2%) rather than officers (6.8%) and all but 11 (1750 or 99.4%) were male. 

The number of victims in the case ranged from 1 to 11; most cases involved either 

one (82.9%) or two (10.9%) victims, and the mean number of victims was 1.28 . 

Although most victims (92.0%) were female, there were 127 cases (7.2%) in which 

the victim(s) were male and 14 cases (0.8%) in which there were both female and 

male victims. Nearly three fourths (73.8%) of the cases involved victims who were 

members of military services. 

The number of charges and specifications per case ranged from 1 to 30; very few 

cases (10.1%) involved only a single charge but more than half of the cases (52.9%) 

involved four or fewer charges. The mean number of charges and specifications was 

5.77. In 72.4% (N = 1275) of the cases the most serious charge was a penetrative 

offense and in 27.6% (N = 486) cases the most serious charge was a contact offense. 

Of the 1275 individuals charged with a penetrative offense, 312 (24.5%) were 

convicted of a penetrative offense. Of the 486 individuals charged with a contact 

offense, 140 (28.8%) were convicted of a contact offense. 
57

APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL REPORT ON MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

TABLE 1 

SEXUAL OFFENSES: CASE CHARACTERISTICS 

 N % 

Fiscal Year Assigned by SAPRO 

 2012 

 2013 

 2014 

426 

662 

673 

24.2 

37.6 

38.2 

Military Service of the Accused 

 Air Force 

 Army 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps 

 Navy 

342 

814 

 54 

247 

304 

19.4 

46.2 

 3.1 

14.0 

17.3 

Rank of Accused 

 Enlisted 

 Officer 

1641 

 120 

93.2 

6.8 

Sex of Accused 

 Male 

 Female 

1750 

 11 

99.4 

 0.6 

Sex of Victim(s) 

 All Female 

 All Male 

 Female and Male 

1619 

 127 

 14 

92.0 

 7.2 

 0.8 

Status of Victim(s) 

 All Military 

 All Civilian 

 Military and Civilian 

1296 

 407 

 54 

73.8 

23.2 

 3.1 

Number of Victims (mean) [range: 1 – 11] 1.28 

Number of Charges and Specifications (mean) [range: 1 – 30] 5.77 

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offensea

 Yes 

 No 

 

1275 

 486 

72.4 

27.6 

Number of Penetrative Offenses Charged 

 0 

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 or more 

486 

544 

409 

176 

79 

67 

27.6 

30.9 

23.2 

10.0 

4.4 

3.8 

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense 

 Yes 

 No 

 [Not Charged with Penetrative Offense] 

312 

963 

[486] 

24.5 

75.5 

Accused Charged with Contact Offenseb

 Yes 

 No 

 486 

1275 

27.6 

72.4 

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense 

 Yes 

 No 

 [Not Charged with Contact Offense] 

140 

346 

[1275] 

28.8 

71.2 

aAccused was charged with at least one count of rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, 

forcible sodomy, and attempts to commit these offenses. 

bThe most serious offense with which the accused was charged was aggravated sexual contact, 

abusive sexual contact, wrongful sexual contact, and attempts to commit these offenses. 
58

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Descriptive data on the dispositions and outcomes of the sexual assault cases are 

presented in Table 2. Most (78.6%) of the cases that went to a court-martial 

proceeding were disposed as a result of a general court-martial; 12.8% were 

disposed as a result of a special court-martial and 8.6% were disposed as a result of 

a summary court-martial. In terms of the type of trial forum, 42.0% of the cases 

were adjudicated by a military judge, 49.1% were handled by a panel of military 

members, and 8.9 percent were adjudicated by a summary court-martial officer. 

Article 32 hearings were held in most (72.4%) of the cases; the accused waived the 

hearing in 5.3% of the cases and an Article 32 hearing was not held in 22.2% of the 

cases. 

For each type of case (i.e., penetrative and contact offenses) we determined whether 

the accused was convicted of at least one charge of that type, convicted of another 

type of charge, received an alternative disposition of some type, was acquitted of all 

charges, or whether all charges were dismissed without further action. 

Among individuals charged with penetrative offenses, we found that 24.5% were 

convicted of at least one penetrative offense, 16.7% were convicted of at least one 

count of a sexual contact offense, and 10.0% were convicted of a non-sex offense 

only. The overall conviction rate for those charged with at least one penetrative 

offense was therefore 51.2% (24.5% + 16.7% + 10.0%). Among those charged with 

a penetrative offense who were not convicted, 11.8% received an alternative 

disposition, 21.6% were acquitted of all charges, and 15.5% had all charges 

dismissed without further action. The case outcomes for those charged with contact 

offenses were somewhat different. For example, 59.7% of these individuals were 

convicted of a sexual contact offense (28.8%) or a non-sex offense (30.9%). Of those 

who were not convicted, 17.1% received an alternative disposition, 15.0% were 

acquitted of all charges, and 8.2% had all charges dismissed without further action. 

We also calculated conviction and acquittal rates for cases that were referred to 

trial. Among individuals referred to trial for penetrative offenses, 34.3% were 

convicted of penetrative offenses, 23.4% were convicted of sexual contact offenses, 

13.4% were convicted of non-sex offenses, and 28.9% were acquitted of all charges. 

Among those referred to trial for sexual contact offenses, 39% were convicted of 

sexual contact offenses, 41.5% were convicted of non-sex offenses, and 19.5% were 

acquitted of all charges. The overall conviction rates for cases referred to trial were 

therefore 71.1% for penetrative offenses and 80.5% for contact offenses. 

Table 2 also presents data on the type and length of the sentence imposed on those 

who were convicted. Focusing on the approved sentence, 74.5% were sentenced to 

confinement, 61.7% were given a punitive separation, and 57% received both 

confinement and punitive separation. The mean sentence (approved sentence) of 

confinement was 30.56 months; the range was from less than one month (recorded 

as 0 months) to 780 months (i.e., life in prison). 
59

APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL REPORT ON MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

TABLE 2 

SEX OFFENSES: CASE DISPOSITIONS AND CASE OUTCOMES 

 N % 

Type of Court-martial 

 General Court-martial 

 Special Court-martial 

 Summary Court-martial 

 Not Applicable 

 998 

 164 

 109 

 [490] 

78.6 

12.9 

8.5 

Type of Trial Forum 

 Military Judge 

 Panel of Military Members 

 Summary Court-martial Officer 

 Not Applicable 

514 

600 

109 

[539] 

42.0 

49.1 

8.9 

Article 32 Hearing Held 

 Yes 

 Waived 

 No 

 [Unknown] 

1260 

93 

387 

[21] 

72.4 

 5.3 

22.2 

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense (N = 1275) 

 Convicted of Penetrative Offense 

 Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 

 Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 

 Alternative Disposition 

 Acquitted of All Charges 

 All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 

 (After Article 32 Hearing) 

312 

213 

128 

150 

275 

197 

(159) 

24.5 

16.7 

10.0 

11.8 

21.6 

15.5 

(82.4) 

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense (N = 486) 

 Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 

 Convicted of Other Charge 

 Alternative Disposition 

 Acquitted of All Charges 

 All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 

 (After Article 32 Hearing)

140 

150 

 83 

 73 

 40 

(19)

28.8 

30.9 

17.1 

15.0 

 8.2 

(57.6) 

Accused Referred to Trial for Penetrative Offense (N = 912) 

 Convicted of Penetrative Offense 

 Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 

 Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 

 Acquitted 

313 

213 

122 

264 

34.3 

23.4 

13.4 

28.9 

Accused Referred to Trial for Contact Offense (N =359) 

 Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 

 Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 

 Acquitted 

140 

149 

70 

39.0 

41.5 

19.5 

Approved Sentence Included Confinement 

 Yes 

 No 

 [Not convicted, dismissed, alternative disposition] 

702 

240 

[819] 

74.5 

25.4 

Approved Sentence Included Punitive Separation 

 Yes 

 No 

 [Not convicted, dismissed, alternative disposition] 

582 

360 

[819] 

61.7 

38.2 

Approved Sentence Included Confinement + Punitive Separation 
60

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

 Yes 

 No 

 [Not convicted, dismissed, alternative disposition} 

537 

405 

[819] 

57.0 

42.9 

Length of Adjudged Confinement Sentence, in Months (mean) [range = .12 

to 780.00 (i.e., life in prison)] 37.14 

Length of Approved Confinement Sentence, in Months (mean) 

[range = 0.00 to 780.00 (i.e., life in prison)] 30.56 

Analyzing Dispositions, Outcomes, and Sentences 

Descriptive data on case dispositions and case outcomes provide information 

regarding what happened in these sexual assault cases. In order to understand why 

cases were disposed as they were, it is necessary to conduct bivariate and 

multivariate analyses of the factors associated with case dispositions and case 

outcomes. Bivariate analysis is designed to determine if two variables are related 

(or correlated); it attempts to determine if one variable (the independent variable—

for example, the accused’s military service) is a statistically significant predictor of 

another variable (the dependent variable—for example, whether the accused was 

convicted). If there is a statistically significant relationship between the variables, 

we can conclude that the independent variable is related to, associated with, or 

predictive of the dependent variable. In multivariate analysis, one controls for 

several independent variables simultaneously. With this type of analysis, one can 

isolate the effect of one variable (e.g., the military service of the accused) while 

controlling for or holding constant other theoretically relevant variables (e.g., the 

fiscal year, the seriousness of the offense, and the characteristics of the case, the 

accused, and the victim). 

In that sections that follow, we examine bivariate relationships between relevant 

independent variables and the type of case disposition and several indicators of case 

outcomes. 

Factors Associated with Type of Disposition. JPP staff posed a number of 

questions regarding the disposition of Art. 120 sexual offenses, asking whether 

dispositions varied by the type of offense charged, the fiscal year or by the accused’s 

military service. As shown in Table 3, there are statistically significant differences in 

dispositions based on all three of these factors. Cases in which the accused was 

charged with a penetrative offense were significantly more likely than those in 

which the accused was charged with a contact offense to be disposed at a general 

court-martial; by contrast, cases involving contact offenses were substantially more 

likely than those involving penetrative offenses to be disposed at a special or 

summary court-martial. Disposition via general court-martial declined and 

disposition via special and summary court-martials increased from 2012 to 2013 to 

2014. Cases from the Army, Air Force and, to a lesser extent, the Navy were more 

likely than cases from the Marine Corps or Coast Guard to be disposed at a general 

court-martial. There also were differences across the military services in the use of 

special and summary court-martials. 
61

APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL REPORT ON MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

TABLE 3 

DISPOSITION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

Most Serious Type of Offense Charged 

General 

Court 

Martial 

Special Courtmartial Summary 

Court-martial 

 N % N % N % 

Accused charged with penetrative offense 840 92.1 52 5.7 20 2.2 

Accused charged with contact offense only 158 44.0 112 31.2 89 24.8 

Differences in disposition by type of offense statistically significant; P < .05 

Year General Court-martial Special Court-martial Summary Courtmartial 

 N % N % N % 

2012 280 85.1 25 7.6 24 7.3 

2013 374 79.2 60 12.7 38 8.1 

2014 344 73.2 79 16.8 47 10.0 

Differences in disposition by year statistically significant; P < .05 

Military Service General Court-martial Special Court-martial Summary Courtmartial 

 N % N % N % 

Air Force 206 82.7 35 14.1 8 3.2 

Army 488 83.0 41 7.0 59 10.0 

Coast Guard 22 53.7 14 34.1 5 12.2 

Marine Corps 118 65.2 35 19.3 28 15.5 

Navy 164 77.4 39 18.4 9 4.2 

Differences in disposition by military service statistically significant; P < .05. 

Factors Associated with Case Outcomes. JPP staff were asked to determine 

whether there were differences in the outcomes of sexual offenses based on the 

fiscal year, the military service of the accused, whether the accused was an enlisted 

member or an officer, and the gender and status of the victim. Because preliminary 

analyses revealed that outcomes varied depending on whether the accused was 

charged with a penetrative or contact offense, we conducted separate analyses for 

each type of offense. 

When we examined the relationship between case outcomes and the fiscal year of 

the case, we found that outcomes varied significantly over time for penetrative 

offenses but not for contact offenses (see Table 4). Offenders charged with 

penetrative offenses were less likely to be convicted in 2014 than in 2012 (the 
62

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

overall conviction rate declined from 59.4% in 2012 to 43.7% in 2014); conversely, 

these cases were more likely to be dismissed without further action in 2014 

(19.1%) than in 2012 (9.3%). These patterns were not observed for those charged 

with contact offenses. 

TABLE 4 

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY FISCAL YEAR 

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) 

 

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense 

Convicted of 

Sexual 

Contact 

Offense 

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense 

Acquitted of 

all Charges 

Alternative 

Disposition 

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action 

2012 

(N = 323) 

27.2% 

(88) 

18.6% 

(60) 

13.6% 

(44) 

22.3% 

(72) 

9.0% 

(29) 

9.3% 

(30) 

2013 

(N = 497) 

27.0% 

(134) 

15.3% 

(76) 

10.7% 

(53) 

18.9% 

(94) 

12.1% 

(60) 

16.1% 

(80) 

2014 

(N =455) 

20.0% 

(91) 

16.9% 

(77) 

6.8% 

(31) 

24.0% 

(109) 

13.2% 

(60) 

19.1% 

(87) 

* Differences in outcome by year statistically significant; P < .05 

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) Only 

 

Convicted of 

Contact 

Offense 

Convicted 

of Other 

Offense 

Acquitted of 

all Charges 

Alternative 

Disposition 

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action 

2012 

(N = 103) 

36.9% 

(38) 

22.3% 

(23) 

11.7% 

(12) 

20.4% 

(21) 

8.7% 

(9) 

2013 

(N = 165) 

27.9% 

(46) 

30.3% 

(50) 

17.0% 

(28) 

17.6% 

(29) 

7.3% 

(12) 

2014 

(N = 218) 

25.7% 

(56) 

35.3% 

(77) 

15.1% 

(33) 

15.1% 

(33) 

8.7% 

(19) 

Differences in outcome by year not significant. 

The results of the analysis of the relationship between case outcomes and the 

military service of the accused are presented in Table 5. As these results show, 

there were significant differences in outcomes by military service for penetrative 

offenses (because of small cell sizes, we could not calculate statistical significance 

for cases involving contact offenses). For cases in which the most serious charge 

was a penetrative offense, the overall conviction rate (i.e, convicted of a penetrative 

offense + convicted of a contact offense + convicted of a non-sex offense) was 61.7% 

for the Coast Guard, 55.1% for the Army, 51.7% for the Marine Corps, 47.3% for the 

Navy and 44.2% for the Air Force. The odds of being convicted of a penetrative 

offense were highest for the Army (28.0%), lowest for the Marine Corps (16.9%). 

The likelihood that the accused would be acquitted of all charges was lowest for the 
63

APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL REPORT ON MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

Marine Corps (8.8%) and highest for the Air Force (26.1%); by contrast, the 

likelihood that the case would be dismissed without further action was lowest for 

the Army (9.0%)and highest for the Coast Guard (26.5%). The services also differed 

in their use of alternative dispositions. 

TABLE 5 

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY MILITARY SERVICE OF ACCUSED 

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) 

 

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense 

Convicted 

of Sexual 

Contact 

Offense 

Convicted 

of Non-Sex 

Offense 

Acquitted 

of all 

Charges 

Alternative 

Disposition 

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action 

Army 

(N = 592) 

28.0% 

(166) 

17.1% 

(101) 

10.0% 

(59) 

19.6% 

(116) 

16.4% 

(97) 

9.0% 

(53) 

Air Force 

(N = 264) 

24.2% 

(64) 

11.7% 

(31) 

8.3% 

(22) 

26.1% 

(69) 

10.6% 

(28) 

18.9% 

(50) 

Navy 

(N = 212) 

22.7% 

(47) 

16.9% 

(35) 

7.7% 

(16) 

24.2% 

(50) 

4.8% 

(10) 

23.7% 

(49) 

Coast Guard 

(N = 34) 

17.6% 

(6) 

23.5% 

(8) 

20.6% 

(7) 

8.8% 

(3) 

2.9% 

(1) 

26.5% 

(9) 

Marine Corps 

(N = 178 

16.9% 

(30) 

21.3% 

(38) 

13.5% 

(24) 

20.8% 

(37) 

7.3% 

(13) 

20.2% 

(36) 

Differences in outcomes by military service statistically significant; P < .05 

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) Only 

 

Convicted of 

Contact 

Offense 

Convicted 

of Other 

Offense 

Acquitted of 

all Charges 

Alternative 

Disposition 

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action 

Army 

(N = 222) 

31.1% 

(69) 

 29.3% 

(65) 

 11.3% 

(25) 

24.3% 

(54) 

4.1% 

(9) 

Air Force 

(N = 78) 

32.1 % 

(25) 

25.6% 

(20) 

30.8% 

(24) 

7.7% 

(6) 

3.8% 

(3) 

Navy 

(N = 97) 

24.7% 

(24) 

25.8% 

(25) 

16.5% 

(16) 

16.5% 

(16) 

16.5% 

(16) 

Coast Guard 

(N = 20) 

25.0% 

(5) 

55.0% 

(11) 

5.0% 

(1) 

0.0% 

(0) 

15.0% 

(3) 

Marine Corps 

(N = 69) 

24.6% 

(17) 

42.0% 

(29) 

10.1% 

(7) 

10.1% 

(7) 

13.0% 

(9) 

Cannot calculate statistical significance due to cells with counts less than 5. 
64

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

The results of the analysis of case outcomes by the status of the accused are 

presented in Table 6. Although the results are not identical for either type of 

offense, the differences by the status of the accused are not statistically significant. 

(This may reflect the relatively small number of cases involving accused individuals 

who were officers.) 

TABLE 6 

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY ACCUSED’S STATUS 

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) 

 

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense 

Convicted 

of Sexual 

Contact 

Offense 

Convicted 

of Non-Sex 

Offense 

Acquitted 

of all 

Charges 

Alternative 

Disposition 

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action 

Officer 

 (N = 85) 

20.0 % 

(17) 

16.5% 

(14) 

18.8% 

(16) 

24.7% 

(21) 

10.6% 

(9) 

9.4% 

(8) 

Enlisted 

(N = 1190) 

24.9% 

(296) 

16.7% 

(199) 

9.4% 

(112) 

21.3% 

(254) 

11.8% 

(140) 

15.9% 

(189) 

Differences in outcomes by status of accused not statistically significant 

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) only 

 

Convicted 

of Contact 

Offense 

Convicted 

of Other 

Offense 

Acquitted of 

all Charges 

Alternative 

Disposition 

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action 

Officer 

 (N = 35) 

17.1 % 

(6) 

37.1% 

(13) 

11.4% 

(4) 

25.7% 

(9) 

8.6% 

(3) 

Enlisted 

(N = 451) 

29.7% 

(134) 

30.4% 

(137) 

15.3% 

(69) 

16.4% 

(74) 

8.2% 

(37) 

Differences in outcomes by status of accused not statistically significant 

Table 7 presents the results of the analysis of the relationship between outcomes of 

sexual offenses and the gender and status of the victim. Because many cases 

involved more than one victim, there were some cases in which the victims were 

both females and males and both members of the military services and civilian. 

Consequently, we differentiated between cases in which all of the victims were 

female, cases in which all of the victims were male, and cases in which there were 

both female and male victims; however, there were too few cases involving both 

female and male victims to analyze. We similarly differentiated between cases in 

which all of the victims were members of the military services, cases in which all of 

the victims were civilians, and cases in which there were both military and civilian 

victims. 
65

APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL REPORT ON MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

TABLE 7 

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY GENDER AND STATUS OF THE VICTIM 

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) 

 

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense 

Convicted 

of Sexual 

Contact 

Offense 

Convicted 

of Non-Sex 

Offense 

Acquitted 

of all 

Charges 

Alternative 

Disposition 

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action 

Victim(s) Gender 

All Females 

(N = 1216) 

24.6% 

(299) 

16.4% 

(199) 

10.0% 

(122) 

21.8% 

(265) 

11.5% 

(140) 

15.7% 

(191) 

All Males 

(N = 52) 

23.1% 

(12) 

25.0% 

(13) 

7.7% 

(4) 

17.3% 

(9) 

15.4% 

(8) 

11.5% 

(6) 

Males and Females 

(N = 7) 

 

Victim(s) Status 

Military 

(N = 898) 

23.2% 

(208) 

14.8% 

(133) 

10.5% 

(94) 

22.8% 

(205) 

12.0% 

(108) 

16.7% 

(150) 

Civilian 

(N = 331) 

26.0% 

(86) 

20.8% 

(69) 

8.8% 

(29) 

19.3% 

(64) 

11.8% 

(39) 

13.3% 

(44) 

Military and Civilian 

(N =43) 

44.2% 

(19) 

25.6% 

(11) 

11.6% 

(5) 

11.6% 

(5) 

2.3% 

(1) 

4.7% 

(2) 

Differences in outcomes by gender of victim not statistically significant 

Differences in outcomes by status of victim statistically significant; P < .05 

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) Only 

 

Convicted of 

Contact 

Offense 

Convicted 

of Other 

Offense 

Acquitted of 

all Charges 

Alternative 

Disposition 

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action 

Victim(s) Gender 

All Females 

(N = 403) 

26.8% 

(108) 

30.8% 

(124) 

16.4% 

(66) 

17.4% 

(70) 

8.7% 

(35) 

All Males 

(N = 75) 

37.3% 

(28) 

33.3% 

(25) 

8.0% 

(6) 

16.0% 

(12) 

5.3% 

(4) 

Males and Females 

(N = 7) 

 

Victim(s) Status 

Military 

(N = 398) 

28.6% 

(114) 

31.4% 

(125) 

14.6% 

(58) 

16.6% 

(66) 

8.8% 

(35) 

Civilian 

(N = 76) 

25.0% 

(19) 

27.6% 

(21) 

19.7% 

(15) 

22.4% 

(17) 

5.3% 

(4) 

Military and Civilian 

(N = 11) 

 

Differences in outcomes by gender of victim not statistically significant 

Differences in outcomes by status of victim not statistically significant 
66

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

As shown in Table 7, the differences by the status of the victim were significant, but 

only for cases in which the accused was charged with a penetrative offense. There 

were no significant differences based on the gender of the victim for either 

penetrative or contact offenses. For cases in which the accused was charged with a 

penetrative offense, the overall conviction rate was substantially higher for cases 

involving both military and civilian victims (81.4%) than for cases involving only 

civilian victims (55.6%) or only military victims (48.5%). Cases involving military 

victims were more likely to result in an acquittal or dismissal (39.5%) than cases 

involving civilian victims (32.6%) or cases involving military and civilian victims 

(16.3%). 

Factors Associated with Sentences. The results of the bivariate analyses of 

sentences are presented in Tables 8 through 11. The dependent variables analyzed 

are whether the offender was sentenced to a term of confinement, whether the 

offender received a punitive separation, whether the offender received both 

confinement and a punitive separation, and the length of the confinement sentence. 

For each of these outcomes, the results are the same. None of the outcomes were 

affected by the fiscal year of case disposition, the military service of the accused, the 

rank of the accused, or the gender of the victim. By contrast, each outcome was 

affected by the type of conviction charge, the status of the victim, the type of courtmartial, and the type of trial forum. Not surprisingly, sentences varied by the type of 

conviction charge. Those who were convicted of penetrative offenses were 

significantly more likely than those convicted of contact offenses to receive a 

confinement sentence (95.2% versus 67.6%), to receive a punitive separation 

(90.7% versus 50.4%), and to receive both confinement and punitive separation 

(88.2% versus 44.6%). The confinement sentences imposed on those convicted of 

penetrative offenses also were considerably longer than the sentences imposed on 

those convicted of contact offenses (54.8 months versus 14.67 months). Regarding 

the status of the victim, cases involving both military and civilian victims were more 

likely to receive a confinement sentence, a punitive separation, and both 

confinement and punitive separation; the mean sentence imposed on those whose 

victims were both military and civilian was also substantially longer than the mean 

sentence imposed on those whose victims were either military or civilian. 

Sentences also varied by the type of court-martial and the type of trial forum. 

Accused individuals whose cases were disposed at a general court-martial and those 

adjudicated by a military judge were more likely than other types of cases to receive 

confinement, punitive separation, and both confinement and punitive separation. 

These individuals also received longer sentences than those whose cases were 

disposed by special or summary courts-martial or by a panel of military members or 

a summary court-martial officer. 
67

APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL REPORT ON MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

TABLE 8 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT 

 No Confinement Confinement 

 N % N % 

Year of Disposition (NS) 

 2012 

 2013 

 2014 

56 

89 

96 

22.1 

24.9 

29.1 

197 

268 

234 

77.9 

75.1 

70.9 

Military Service of Accused (NS) 

 Army 

 Air Force 

 Navy 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps 

124 

27 

34 

12 

44 

27.0 

16.7 

23.1 

32.4 

32.6 

335 

135 

113 

25 

91 

73.0 

83.3 

76.9 

67.6 

67.4 

Type of Conviction Charge (P < .05) 

 Penetrative Offense 

 Contact Offense 

15 

43 

4.8 

32.4 

298 

94 

95.2 

67.6 

Rank of Accused (NS) 

 Officer 

 Enlisted 

18 

223 

27.3 

25.5 

48 

651 

72.7 

74.5 

Gender of Victim(s) (NS) 

 All Females 

 All Males 

 Females and Males 

223 

18 

0 

26.3 

22.0 

0.0 

625 

64 

10 

73.7 

78.0 

100.0 

Status of Victim(s) (P < .05) 

 All Military 

 All Civilian 

 Military and Civilian 

188 

47 

6 

28.0 

21.2 

13.0 

484 

175 

40 

72.0 

78.8 

87.0 

Type of Court-martial (P < .05) 

 General Court-martial 

 Special Court-martial 

 Summary Court-martial 

128 

40 

70 

18.3 

30.3 

70.0 

573 

92 

30 

81.7 

69.7 

30.0 

Type of Trial Forum (P < .05) 

 Military Judge 

 Panel of Military Members 

 Summary Court-martial Officer 

62 

96 

70 

14.0 

25.7 

70.0 

382 

277 

30 

86.0 

74.3 

30.0 
68

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

TABLE 9 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PUNITIVE SEPARATION SENTENCE 

 No Punitive Separation Punitive Separation 

 N % N % 

Year of Disposition (NS) 

 2012 

 2013 

 2014 

99 

129 

135 

39.1 

36.0 

40.8 

154 

229 

196 

60.9 

64.0 

59.2 

Military Service of Accused (NS) 

 Army 

 Air Force 

 Navy 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps 

173 

56 

57 

20 

57 

37.6 

34.6 

38.8 

54.1 

41.9 

287 

106 

90 

17 

79 

62.4 

65.4 

61.2 

45.9 

58.1 

Type of Conviction Charge (P < .05) 

 Penetrative Offense 

 Contact Offense 

29 

69 

9.3 

49.6 

284 

70 

90.7 

50.4 

Rank of Accused (NS) 

 Officer 

 Enlisted 

25 

338 

37.9 

35.9 

41 

538 

62.1 

64.1 

Gender of Victim(s) (NS) 

 All Females 

 All Males 

 Females and Males 

326 

35 

2 

38.4 

42.7 

20.0 

524 

47 

8 

61.6 

57.3 

80.0 

Status of Victim(s) (P < .05) 

 All Military 

 All Civilian 

 Military and Civilian 

276 

79 

8 

41.0 

35.4 

17.4 

397 

144 

38 

59.0 

64.6 

82.6 

Type of Court-martial (P < .05) 

 General Court-martial 

 Special Court-martial 

 Summary Court-martial 

185 

74 

100 

26.3 

56.1 

100.0 

518 

58 

0 

73.7 

43.9 

0.0 

Type of Trial Forum (P < .05) 

 Military Judge 

 Panel of Military Members 

 Summary Court-martial Officer 

119 

125 

100 

26.7 

33.5 

100.0 

327 

248 

0 

73.3 

66.5 

0.0 
69

APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL REPORT ON MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

TABLE 10 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT & PUNITIVE 

SEPARATION 

 Not Sentenced to 

Confinement and 

Punitive Separation 

Sentence to 

Confinement and 

Punitive Separation 

 N % N % 

Year of Disposition (NS) 

 2012 

 2013 

 2014 

112 

142 

154 

44.3 

39.7 

46.5 

141 

216 

177 

55.7 

60.3 

53.5 

Military Service of Accused (NS) 

 Army 

 Air Force 

 Navy 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps 

198 

63 

62 

22 

63 

43.0 

38.9 

42.2 

59.5 

46.3 

262 

99 

85 

15 

73 

57.0 

61.1 

57.8 

40.5 

53.7 

Type of Conviction Charge (P < .05) 

 Penetrative Offense 

 Contact Offense 

37 

77 

11.8 

55.4 

276 

62 

88.2 

44.6 

Rank of Accused (NS) 

 Officer 

 Enlisted 

32 

376 

48.5 

42.9 

34 

500 

51.5 

57.1 

Gender of Victim(s) (NS) 

 All Females 

 All Males 

 Females and Males 

368 

38 

2 

43.3 

46.3 

20.0 

482 

44 

8 

56.7 

53.7 

80.0 

Status of Victim(s) (P < .05) 

 All Military 

 All Civilian 

 Military and Civilian 

313 

85 

10 

46.5 

38.1 

21.7 

360 

138 

36 

53.5 

61.9 

78.3 

Type of Court-martial (P < .05) 

 General Court-martial 

 Special Court-martial 

 Summary Court-martial 

224 

79 

100 

31.9 

59.8 

100.0 

479 

53 

0 

68.1 

40.2 

0.0 

Type of Trial Forum (P < .05) 

 Military Judge 

 Panel of Military Members 

 Summary Court-martial Officer 

135 

153 

100 

30.3 

41.0 

100.0 

311 

220 

0 

69.7 

59.0 

0.0 
70

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

TABLE 11 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LENGTH OF CONFINEMENT SENTENCE 

 Mean Sentence 

Year of Disposition (NS) 

 2012 

 2013 

 2014 

30.20 

34.39 

26.49 

Military Service of Accused (NS) 

 Army 

 Air Force 

 Navy 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps 

32.99 

32.32 

27.19 

11.91 

28.37 

Type of Conviction Charge (P < .05) 

 Penetrative Offense 

 Contact Offense 

54.80 

14.67 

Rank of Accused (NS) 

 Officer 

 Enlisted 

14.50 

31.53 

Gender of Victim(s) (NS) 

 All Females 

 All Males 

 Females and Males 

32.29 

13.88 

30.00 

Status of Victim(s) (P < .05) 

 All Military 

 All Civilian 

 Military and Civilian 

26.73 

34.59 

60.16 

Type of Court-martial (P < .05) 

 General Court-martial 

 Special Court-martial 

 Summary Court-martial 

36.45 

4.01 

0.78 

Type of Trial Forum (P < .05) 

 Military Judge 

 Panel of Military Members 

 Summary Court-martial Officer 

27.08 

38.50 

0.78 
71

APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL REPORT ON MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

Results of the Multivariate Analysis 

We used logistic regression to analyze several binary outcome variables (that is, 

variables, such as whether the accused was convicted of a penetrative offense 

(coded 1) or not (coded 0)) that are coded 1 or 0. We used ordinary least squares 

(OLS) regression to analyze the length of the confinement sentence, which is an 

interval variable. These types of analysis are used to identify the statistically 

significant predictors of the outcomes. The analysis simultaneously controls for all 

of the variables in the analysis; therefore, if a particular variable affects the 

outcome, it does so while holding all of the other variables in the model constant. 

For example, the number of victims is a significant predictor of whether the offender 

was charged with and convicted of a penetrative offense; this is net of the effects of 

the fiscal year in which the case was completed, the military service of the accused, 

the accused’s rank, the accused’s gender, whether all victims were female, whether 

all victims were military, and the number of charges. 

For the categorical variable (military service of the accused), the values for the 

included category are compared to that of the reference category (army). The 

negative coefficient for the Coast Guard in Table 12 indicates that those from the 

Coast Guard were significantly less likely than those from the Army to be convicted 

of a penetrative offense. 

Variables that are statistically significant predictors of outcomes are indicated with 

an asterisk. In the tables, B is the logistic regression coefficient, SE is the standard 

error, and Exp(B) is the odds ratio. 

The results of the analysis of two indicators of the likelihood of conviction—

whether the accused was charged with and convicted of a penetrative offense and 

whether the accused was convicted of at least one charge (i.e., a penetrative offense, 

a contact offense, or a non-sex offense) are presented in Table 15. Conviction of a 

penetrative offense was about half as likely if the accused was in the Coast Guard 

rather than the Army; stated another way, individuals who were in the Army were 

twice as likely as those in the Coast Guard to be convicted of a penetrative offense. 

There were no differences in the likelihood of conviction between the Army and the 

other military services. Conviction for a penetrative offense also was affected by the 

number of victims; as the number of victims increased, the likelihood of conviction 

also increased. Variables that did not affect the likelihood of conviction for a 

penetrative offense were the rank of the accused, the gender and status of the 

victim, and the number of charges. 

The statistically significant predictors of conviction for at least one charge are the 

fiscal year (conviction was less likely in 2014 than in earlier years), the gender of 

the victim (those who assaulted females were less likely to be convicted), the 

number of victims (cases with more victims had higher odds of conviction), the 

number of charges (cases in which the accused faced more charges had higher odds 
72

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

of conviction), and whether the accused was charged with a penetrative offense 

(conviction was less likely if the most serious charge was a penetrative offense 

rather than a contact offense). The likelihood of conviction for any charge was not 

affected by the military service of the accused, the rank of the accused, or the status 

of the victim. 

TABLE 12 

LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS: LIKELIHOOD OF CONVICTION 

 

Accused Convicted of a Penetrative Offense 

 B SE Exp(B) 

Fiscal Year -.140 .088 0.87 

Military Service of the Accused 

 Army (reference category) 

 Air Force 

 Navy 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps 

-.163 

-.195 

-.873 

-.633* 

.177 

.193 

.477 

.228 

0.85 

0.82 

0.42 

0.53 

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .357 .285 1.43 

Female Victim(s) .087 .342 1.09 

Military Victim(s) -.126 .151 0.88 

Number of Victims .343* .104 1.41 

Number of Charges .026 .015 1.03 

Accused Convicted of At Least One Charge 

 B SE Exp(B) 

Fiscal Year -.174* .068 0.84 

Military Service of the Accused 

 Army (reference category) 

 Air Force 

 Navy 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps 

-.168 

-.193 

.076 

-.053 

.139 

.144 

.327 

.160 

0.85 

0.82 

1.08 

0.95 

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .001 .203 1.00 

Female Victim(s) -.436* .209 0.64 

Military Victim(s) -.186 .122 0.84 

Number of Victims .400* .112 1.51 

Number of Charges .139* .016 1.15 

Accused Charged with 

Penetrative Offense -.332* .117 0.72 

* P < .05 

Table 13 presents the results of two additional indicators of case outcomes: (1) 

whether the accused was acquitted of all charges and (2) whether all charges were 

dismissed without further action. Recall from Table 2 that 21.6% (N = 275) of those 

charged with penetrative offenses and 15.0% (N = 73) of those charged with contact 

offenses were acquitted of all charges; 15.5% (N = 197) of those charged with 

penetrative offenses and 8.2% (N = 40) of those charged with contact offenses had 
73

APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL REPORT ON MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

all charges dismissed without further action. As shown in Table 16, compared to 

individuals who were in the Army, those in the Air Force were 1.55 times more 

likely to be acquitted. In addition, acquittal was less likely if there were more 

victims and more charges; it was 1.44 times more likely if the most serious charge 

against the accused was a penetrative offense. The odds of that the case would be 

dismissed without further action were affected by the military service of the 

accused, the number of charges preferred, and whether the accused was charged 

with a penetrative offense. Compared to individuals in the Army, the odds of case 

dismissal were higher for individuals in the Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, and 

Marine Corps. Case dismissal was less likely if there were more filed charges; it was 

2.4 times more likely if the most serious charge was a penetrative offense. 

TABLE 13 

LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF ACQUITTALS AND DISMISSALS 

Accused Acquitted of All Charges 

 B SE Exp(B) 

Fiscal Year -.010 .083 0.99 

Military Service of the Accused 

 Army (reference category) 

 Air Force 

 Navy 

 Marine Corp 

 Coast Guard 

.438* 

.190 

-.636 

.140 

.159 

.173 

.539 

.200 

1.55 

1.21 

0.53 

1.15 

Accused Rank (Enlisted) -.120 .241 0.89 

Female Victim(s) .548 .294 1.73 

Military Victim(s) .132 .149 1.14 

Number of Victims -.329* .164 0.72 

Number of Charges -.128* .022 0.88 

Accused Charged with 

Penetrative Offense .367* .150 1.44 

Case Dismissed without Further Action 

 B SE Exp(B) 

Fiscal Year .166 .102 1.18 

Military Service of the Accused 

 Army (reference category) 

 Air Force 

 Navy 

 Marine Corps 

 Coast Guard 

.509* 

1.09* 

1.59* 

1.08* 

.210 

.204 

.422 

.229 

1.66 

2.98 

4.92 

2.95 

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .415 .355 1.51 

Female Victim(s) .478 .357 1.61 

Military Victim(s) .209 .185 1.23 

Number of Victims -.038 .178 0.96 

Number of Charges -.190* .030 0.83 

Article 32 Hearing Held .068 .104 1.08 

Accused Charged with 
74

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Penetrative Offense .865* .227 2.37 

* P < .05 

The results of the logistic regression analysis of the likelihood of confinement and 

the results of the ordinary least square regression analysis of the length of the 

confinement sentence are presented in Table 14. The strongest predictor of the 

odds of a confinement sentence (based on the odds ratio) is whether the accused 

was convicted of a penetrative offense; those who were convicted of a penetrative 

offense were 11.8 times more likely than those convicted of a contact offense or a 

non-sex offense to be sentenced to confinement. Cases involving military rather 

than civilian victims had lower odds of confinement, as did cases that were disposed 

at a summary court-martial. The only variables affecting the length of the 

confinement sentence were the type of conviction charge (those convicted of 

penetrative offenses got longer sentences), the number of victims (those with more 

victims received more severe sentences), and the number of charges (those with 

more preferred charges received more severe sentences). As the B values in the 

table indicate, those convicted of penetrative offenses received sentences that were 

more than 43 months longer than the sentences imposed on other offenders. 
75

APPENDIX A: STATISTICAL REPORT ON MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

TABLE 14 

LOGISTIC AND OLS REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF CONFINEMENT 

AND LENGTH OF CONFINEMENT 

Approved Sentence Included Confinement 

 B SE Exp(B) 

Year Case Disposed -.145 .143 0.86 

Military Service of the Accused 

 Army (reference category) 

 Air Force 

 Navy 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps 

 .673 

.060 

-.653 

-.084 

.350 

.321 

.555 

.314 

1.96 

1.06 

0.52 

0.92 

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .436 .401 1.55 

Female Victim(s) -.856 .594 0.42 

Military Victim(s) -.531* .256 0.59 

Number of Victims .278 .216 1.32 

Number of Charges .080* .027 1.09 

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense 2.46* .298 11.76 

 

Length (in months) of Approved Confinement Sentence 

 B Beta T-value 

Year Case Disposed -.492 -.006 -0.14 

Military Service of the Accused 

 Army (reference category) 

 Air Force 

 Navy 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps 

1.89 

3.06 

-22,27 

-2.01 

.011 

.017 

-.055 

-.010 

0.26 

0.39 

-1.33 

-0.24 

Accused Rank (Enlisted) 11.97 .045 1.11 

Female Victim(s) 5..89 .020 0.46 

Military Victim(s) -6.59 -.045 -1.10 

Number of Victims 9.67 .146 3.06* 

Number of Charges 2.11 .193 4.00* 

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense 43.32 .324 7.82* 

*P < .05 
76

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Summary 

Descriptive Data on Case Characteristics and Case Outcomes. The military 

service with the most cases during the 2012 to 2014 fiscal years was the Army, 

followed by the Air Force, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard. The 

typical accused was a male enlisted member and the typical victim was a female 

member of the military services. Most cases involved multiple charges and in almost 

three fourths of the cases the most serious charge was a penetrative offense. More 

than three fourths of the cases that went to a court-martial went to a general court 

marital. The overall conviction rate for individuals charged with penetrative 

offenses was somewhat lower than the rate for individuals charged with contact 

offenses. Dismissal of the case without further action was more common for 

individuals charged with penetrative rather than contact offenses. A large majority 

of those who were convicted received a term of confinement and the average 

sentence was about two and a half years, 

Bivariate Analyses. The results of the bivariate analysis, which address the 

relationships between case disposition and case outcomes and a single independent 

variable, revealed that the type of disposition (i.e., whether the case was disposed by 

general court-martial, special court-martial, or summary court-martial) varied by 

fiscal year, the type of offense charged, and the military service of the accused. With 

very few exceptions, case outcomes did not vary by the fiscal year the case was 

disposed, the status of the accused, or the gender or status of the victim. Sentences 

consistently were affected by the type of conviction charge, the status of the victim, 

the type of court-martial, and the type of trial forum. 

Multivariate Analyses. Because the multivariate analyses control simultaneously 

for relevant characteristics of the case, the accused, and the victim, the results of 

these analyses provide more nuanced findings regarding the factors that affect case 

outcomes. Although there are some exceptions, outcomes in the Article 120 cases 

examined in this study were affected primarily by legally relevant factors, especially 

whether the accused was charged or convicted of at least one count of a penetrative 

offense. Those who were charged with penetrative offenses were less likely than 

those charged with contact offenses or non-sex offenses to be convicted of at least 

one charge, were more likely to be acquitted of all charges, and were more likely to 

have the case dismissed without further action. On the other hand, if the accused 

was convicted of a penetrative offense, he/she was more likely to be sentenced to 

confinement and faced a substantially longer sentence than those convicted of 

contact or non-sex offenses. Other variables that consistently affected outcomes 

were the number of victims and the number of charges. Outcomes generally did not 

vary by the fiscal year, the rank or gender of the accused (but gender of the accused 

did affect conviction likelihood), the gender or status of the victim (but victim 

gender did affect the likelihood of conviction and victim status did influence the 

odds of a confinement sentence). 
77

APPENDIX B: Methodology

This appendix discusses the methodology employed by the JPP to obtain and analyze adjudication data 

relating to sexual assault offenses.

I. REVIEWING DOD’S AND THE MILITARY SERVICES’ SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE 

TRACKING SYSTEMS 

As a preliminary step, the JPP identified and reviewed the systems that currently exist within DoD and 

the military Services for tracking sexual assault offense case information.

In February 2014, DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) implemented the 

Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID), a centralized, case-level database for collecting 

and managing information on sexual assault cases.1

 DSAID contains data for each restricted and 

unrestricted report of sexual assault covered by DoD’s sexual assault prevention and response policy.2

However, DSAID does not include data on sexual assault cases involving spouses, intimate partners, or 

dependents under the age of 18, as such cases are covered by the military’s Family Advocacy Program.3

Sexual assault response coordinators (SARCs) at each military installation are responsible for entering 

reported sexual assaults covered by SAPR policy into the database. SAPRO coordinates with the 

military criminal investigative organization (MCIO) to record in DSAID additional information 

regarding the Service member under investigation. Once the criminal investigation is complete, a SAPR 

legal officer at each military Service headquarters accesses a specific module in DSAID to report the 

legal action taken in a case. The adjudication data include the results of cases for each victim; thus 

if one court case involves multiple victims, the case outcome is repeated in the data entries for every 

victim associated with that case. 

Since FY14, DoD SAPRO has used the information entered in DSAID by all three stakeholders 

(SARCs, MCIOs, and legal officers) to generate data for its annual report to Congress. Each SAPRO 

Report contains case synopsis charts that provide general information on case disposition and 

adjudication for every unrestricted report of sexual assault made in that year, including information 

on the most serious sexual assault offense charged, the finding of guilt or not guilty with respect to 

the most serious offense charged, and occasionally the sentence and type of court-martial proceeding. 

Published reports remove personally identifying information from the legal disposition data: they 

contain simply the most serious sexual assault offense investigated or charged, as well as a summary of 

the outcome at court-martial or other disciplinary proceeding.

While the data contained in the FY14 DoD SAPRO Report are based on the information entered into 

DSAID, previous annual DoD reports were based on information collected directly from case lists or 

1 32 C.F.R. § 105.15.

2 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE OFFICE, DEFENSE SEXUAL ASSAULT INCIDENT

DATABASE (DSAID) 3 (Oct. 9, 2015), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/03_Topic-Areas/07-CM_Trends_

Analysis/20151009/04_DSAID_Presentation_Data_Flow.pdf.

3 Id. The Coast Guard is not part of DoD, and its case adjudication data are not included in DSAID or DoD SAPRO’s 

reports to Congress.

Appendix B: Methodology
78

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

spreadsheets generated within each military Service. These lists were designed to fulfill specific DoD 

and congressional reporting requirements. The Services provided information using DoD’s reporting 

criteria, but the JPP staff observed differences in how each military Service interpreted or applied 

DoD’s reporting criteria from year to year. 

A. Limitations of DoD Statistical Reports on Sexual Assault Cases

Although the annual SAPRO Reports contain the most comprehensive compilation of sexual assault 

court-martial data available, the JPP staff also identified limitations and inaccuracies in their data. 

The SAPRO Reports do not provide a full chronology of the cases initiated by every sexual assault 

report. Instead, they present a snapshot of the number of allegations received in the reporting period, 

the number of investigations pending from the current or any prior years, and the number of cases 

concluded or resolved through court-martial or other disciplinary measures within the same reporting 

period. As a result, these data cannot be used to perform any trend or pattern analysis.

The SAPRO Reports also lack detailed information about case adjudications and dispositions.4

 Among 

other things, the reports do not contain:

• information about all offenses prosecuted;

• information about the amount of confinement assessed and whether the confinement term was 

adjudged at trial or approved by the convening authority pursuant to a plea agreement;

• information about the accused’s plea;

• information about the forum (i.e., whether the accused was tried before a military judge or 

panel);

• information about the terms of plea agreements, even when the terms result in a modification 

of the adjudged sentence; and

• information on the convening authority’s action on a case, which can result in a modification 

of the court-martial findings and sentence.5

In addition, in the FY14 SAPRO Report, case adjudication data were aggregated differently than in the 

FY12 and FY13 SAPRO Reports. In the FY12 and FY13 SAPRO Reports, a case involving multiple 

victims and one subject was counted once. In the FY14 report, however, a case involving multiple 

victims in a single court-martial was counted multiple times. The way in which cases are classified by 

military Service has also changed with the implementation of DSAID. Previously, case dispositions 

were associated with a particular military Service on the basis of the Service affiliation of the subject 

or victim. However, beginning in FY 2014, the Service associated with a case refers to the Service 

affiliation of the SARC handling the case.6

 It is unclear how this change affects the Services’ reporting 

of adjudication data in their separate enclosures to the DoD report. Because of these changes, data 

4 FY14 SAPRO Report, APPENDIX A at 1 (Apr. 29, 2015).

5 But see Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 161 (Nov. 6, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Senior Executive 

Advisor, DoD SAPR Office) (explaining that DoD considers a case “closed” when the convening authority takes action on 

the court-martial findings and sentence).

6 FY14 SAPRO Report, APPENDIX A at 7, Statistical Data on Sexual Assault (“This shift provides valuable insight into the 

resources each Service expends to respond to reports of sexual assault.”).
79

APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY

from the FY12 and FY13 SAPRO Reports cannot be accurately compared with those from the FY14 

SAPRO Report.7

Finally, while reviewing the underlying case records, the JPP staff identified numerous inaccuracies in 

the court-martial data contained in the SAPRO Reports. Several cases included in the SAPRO Reports 

involved child-victim cases, non-sexual assault cases, cases involving spouses and intimate partners 

outside the scope of SAPR policy, or cases still pending trial. Yet all of these cases were reported in the 

SAPRO Reports as completed, adult-victim sexual assault cases, and the final case results of pending 

trials were not included in subsequent years’ reports. In addition, the JPP identified instances in which 

the SAPRO Reports contained incorrect or inconsistent case information about the most serious 

offense charged, the disciplinary action received, and the number of victims involved in a case.

B. Service Case Management Systems

Although legal officers from the Services input limited adjudication information into DSAID, 

the Services also maintain individual systems for collecting and managing case adjudication and 

prosecution information.

Service System Description

Army Military Justice Online Used to create, process, and certify all administrative and 

courts-martial documents and military justice reports.

Army Courts-martial 

Information System

Used to monitor, track, and document general and special 

courts-martial from trial termination through appellate review.

Special Victim Prosecutors 

Application

Used to track pending special victim investigations and 

adverse actions.

Air Force Automated Military 

Justice Administration and 

Management System

Used to track and process all military justice cases from 

investigation through convening authority action.

Web-based Administrative 

Separation System

Used to track administrative discharge processing for enlisted 

personnel.

Navy and 

Marine Corps

Military Justice Case 

Management System

Used to track cases from pretrial through case disposition, 

including trial and appeal or alternate disposition.

Coast Guard Law Manager Used to track and monitor cases in which court-martial 

charges are preferred from investigation through trial and the 

appellate process.

Direct Access Used to track information about sexual assault matters when 

court-martial charges are not preferred.

1. Army

Military Justice Online (MJO) is the Army’s platform for creating, processing, and certifying all 

administrative and courts-martial documents. MJO is used to develop monthly reports on military 

justice actions and civil felony convictions processed by each installation. Detailed information about 

individual cases is tracked and maintained locally by individual staff judge advocate offices. The 

Army Courts-Martial Information System (ACMIS) is a management system administered by the 

7 Id. at 6, 10–11 (“Unrestricted reports were previously recorded as the number of sexual assault cases, as organized by the 

MCIOs. Thus, one case did not necessarily correspond to one victim’s report. Starting in FY 2014, DSAID accounts for 

each individual report of sexual assault, such that each report corresponds to one victim”). See also Figure 3, APPENDIX

A, comparing the number of cases reported according to the previous “victim-driven” accounting method and the “casedriven” accounting method.
80

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Clerk of Court for the Army Criminal Court of Appeals to monitor, track, and document general and 

special courts-martial from trial termination through appellate review. The Special Victim Prosecutors 

application is an internal program used to manage workload and track pending special victim 

investigations and military justice actions.8

2. Air Force

The Automated Military Justice Administration and Management System (AMJAMS) is the Air Force’s 

case management system for tracking and processing all military justice cases from investigation 

through convening authority action. AMJAMS case information includes background information on 

the allegations, charges preferred and referred, important dates and significant case events, and updates 

on case status. Appellate decisions are also annotated in AMJAMS. AMJAMS can be used to generate 

data and processing reports to assess the health of the military justice system. The Air Force uses 

the Web-Based Administrative Separation Program to track administrative discharge processing for 

enlisted personnel.9

3. Navy and Marine Corps

The Military Justice Case Management System (CMS) is the primary military justice data management 

system for the Navy and Marine Corps. CMS covers cases from the pretrial phase through final 

resolution, including trial and appeal or alternate disposition. CMS is intended to provide commanders 

and staff judge advocates with the insight and oversight necessary to meet legal requirements for the 

timely processing and post-trial review of courts-martial.10

4. Coast Guard

The Coast Guard’s Law Manager database is used to track and monitor cases in which courtmartial charges are preferred from investigation through trial and the appellate process. For sexual 

assault matters in which court-martial charges are not preferred, information concerning the matter 

is collected by the member’s servicing personnel office and entered into the Coast Guard’s human 

resources database known as Direct Access.11

The JPP determined that it could not rely on the existing military justice tracking systems to fulfill its 

tasks for two overarching reasons. First, the systems do not uniformly track information across all of 

the military Services. Second, not all of the systems can perform the complex search queries necessary 

to obtain the information needed to accurately and completely analyze sexual assault court-martial 

trends.

8 Army’s Response to JPP Request for Information 89(a) (Sept. 11, 2015).

9 Air Force’s Response to JPP Request for Information 89(a) (Sept. 11, 2015).

10 Navy’s and Marine Corps’ Responses to JPP Request for Information 89(a) (Sept. 11, 2015).

11 Coast Guard’s Response to JPP Request for Information 89(a) (Sept. 11, 2015).
81

APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY

II. JPP METHODOLOGY FOR OBTAINING AND ANALYZING MILITARY 

JUSTICE CASE INFORMATION

A. COURT-MARTIAL DATA

1. Identifying Documents to Request from the Services

Given the limitations of the existing systems and reports, the JPP determined that it needed to collect 

sexual assault case records directly from the Services. The JPP drew on the work of the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission to help it determine what information it needed to request from the Services. The U.S. 

Sentencing Commission receives the following information from federal district courts within 30 days 

of entry of judgment on a case: 

• judgment and commitment order;

• Statement of Reasons form explaining the judge’s sentence;

• plea agreement, if any;

• indictment or other charging document;

• presentence investigation report; and

• any other information deemed helpful.12

The U.S. Sentencing Commission uses this information to conduct its analysis of federal criminal 

convictions and sentences.

The JPP decided to follow a similar approach to obtain information about military justice cases 

involving sexual assault offenses. Using the Sentencing Commission’s procedures as guidance, the JPP 

identified 11 pieces of information necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of military justice cases, 

along with 9 relevant case documents containing this information. The information and corresponding 

documents identified by the JPP are listed in the following table:

Information needed Documents

1. All offenses charged

2. Article 32 investigating officer recommendation 

3. Staff judge advocate pretrial advice 

4. Court-martial type (general, special, or summary)

5. Pleas to each charge

6. Motions (including MRE 412/513)

7. Guilty and not guilty findings

8. Forum (judge alone or panel members)

9. Pretrial agreement (terms and sentence limitations)

10. Sentence

11. Clemency

1. Charge sheet

2. Article 32 investigating officer’s report

3. Staff judge advocate’s pretrial advice

4. Record of trial

5. Report of result of trial form

6. Pretrial agreements

7. Master index of exhibits

8. All court-martial orders

9. Protective orders

12 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 186 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Mr. Glenn Schmitt, Director of the Office of Research 

and Data, U.S. Sentencing Commission).
82

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

The JPP also considered how the different trial processing requirements in different circumstances 

affect the information available in trial records. First, there is no requirement to complete a verbatim 

court-martial transcript in cases in which the accused was acquitted or received a sentence that did 

not include a punitive discharge or confinement for longer than six months. Such cases often include a 

shortened, summarized transcript. Second, because records of proceedings related to M.R.E. 412 and 

M.R.E. 513 are sealed by military judges, access to certain relevant facts is limited. Third, not all cases 

will contain the same documents, because various forums have different procedures and thus require 

different types of documentation. For example, an Article 32 hearing and a staff judge advocate’s 

written pretrial advice are not required in every case. 

2. Requesting and Collecting Court-Martial Case Documents

The JPP identified a total of 2,353 cases listed in the annual SAPRO Reports for fiscal years 2012 to 

2014 in which the case synopsis indicated that a sexual assault charge was preferred. The JPP staff 

provided the Services with the listing of case numbers assigned to cases included in each Service’s 

section of the SAPRO Report and requested that the Services provide the accused’s name (court-martial 

case name) and the location where the case records were maintained. 

The Services, however, encountered challenges in identifying cases based on the SAPRO Report case 

numbers. In many instances for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the Services were unable to identify the 

accused’s name by using the case number assigned by DoD SAPRO; instead, the Services searched their 

individual military justice tracking systems, using additional data from the SAPRO Reports to match 

listed cases with accused Service members. 

For fiscal year 2014 cases, the Services faced different challenges in identifying court cases by using 

case numbers from the fiscal year 2014 SAPRO Report. Because that report contained aggregate 

statistics that were computed in DSAID without the identifying information associated with each case, 

the Service JAG Corps could not identify which cases had been included in those statistics. Therefore, 

the Services were unable to match the cases listed in the SAPRO Report with offender names or their 

case numbers. Instead, the Services supplied listings of case names that they believed had been included 

in the SAPRO Report. As a result, the number of cases identified by the Services did not precisely 

match the number of cases reported in the fiscal year 2014 SAPRO Report.13

Data for the U.S. Coast Guard are not included in annual DoD SAPRO Reports. Therefore, to obtain 

data for Coast Guard cases, the JPP requested that the Coast Guard identify all cases with at least 

one preferred charge of sexual assault that was completed at the trial level or resulted in an alternate 

disposition for fiscal years 2012 to 2014.14

Using SAPRO Report case listings, the JPP requested case names and record locations for 2,353 cases 

for fiscal years 2012 to 2014. The Services identified 2,360 cases by case name. The table below 

indicates the cases requested by the JPP and those identified by the Services for each fiscal year.

13 For example, while the FY14 SAPRO Report identifies 384 cases in which a sexual assault offense was preferred in the 

Army in FY 2014, the Army provided the JPP staff with a case list consisting of 381 such cases. Similar discrepancies 

existed in the Air Force’s and Marine Corps’ cases lists (Air Force: 135 identified, 132 provided; Marine Corps: 170 

identified, 171 provided).

14 JPP Request for Information Set 1, Attachment 6.
83

APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY

FY12 FY13 FY14 Total

Requested based on SAPRO case 

lists

612 865 876 2,353

Identified by the Services in 

response to the JPP staff’s 

request

624 865 871 2,360

For all requested cases, the JPP asked for access to several specified case documents.15 For cases 

whose record of trial was located at the installation, the military Services’ headquarters or field offices 

provided available requested case documents. For cases whose record of trial was stored or archived 

within the National Capital Region, including records located at the National Archives and Record 

Administration in Suitland, Maryland, and at the Service Criminal Courts of Appeals, the military 

Services provided the JPP staff with access to the record, and the JPP staff scanned relevant case 

records. The table below captures, by Service and fiscal year, the number of cases for which the JPP 

obtained case documents and the number of cases identified by the Services. 

FY12 FY13 FY14

Identified Received % Identified Received % Identified Received %

Army 422 388 92% 445 415 93% 381 320 84%

Air Force 54 54 100% 169 169 100% 132 131 99%

Navy 99 91 92% 110 98 89% 175 145 83%

Marines 29 28 97% 113 109 96% 171 167 98%

Coast 

Guard

20 20 100% 28 28 100% 12 12 100%

3. Documenting Information About Courts-Martial for Panel Analysis

The JPP reviewed each case file obtained to ensure that cases fell within the scope of the JPP’s mandate 

and could be included in the JPP’s analysis. Of the 2,175 cases received, the JPP eliminated 414 cases 

from analysis because the cases were duplicative of other cases already identified, the case documents 

did not indicate a sexual assault offense, the case had not yet been completed, or the case record was 

missing or incomplete.

The JPP staff developed an electronic database to record information for 1,761 cases from fiscal years 

2012 through 2014. The staff entered case information into the database for each case, including the 

Service, fiscal year, case number, case location, rank and gender of the accused, and status (civilian vs. 

military) and gender of all victims. The staff also entered specific procedural information, as applicable, 

including information about every charge preferred, the Article 32 proceeding, pretrial advice, pretrial 

agreement, referral of charges, the outcome for each offense, and forms of punishment that were 

imposed.

Using information contained in the JPP’s database, Dr. Cassia Spohn, Foundation Professor and 

Director of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University, analyzed the 

15 The JPP sought the following documents for every identified case: (1) charge sheet; (2) Article 32 investigating officer’s 

report; (3) staff judge advocate’s pretrial advice; (4) record of trial; (5) report of the result of trial; (6) pretrial agreement; 

(7) master index of exhibits; (8) all court-martial orders; and (9) protective orders.
84

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

procedural history and outcomes of all cases. Dr. Spohn’s statistical report is provided as Appendix A, 

above. The JPP staff tabulated additional court-martial data to inform the JPP’s analysis.

B. NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT AND ADVERSE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS 

The JPP also identified cases listed in the annual SAPRO Reports for fiscal years 2012 to 2014 

whose case synopsis indicated that the accused received a lower-level disciplinary measure, including 

nonjud5icial punishment, adverse administrative actions, or administrative discharge. The JPP initially 

planned to seek access to nonjudicial punishment and administrative action records, but the staff 

learned through consultation with representatives from the military Services that disciplinary records 

from administrative proceedings could not be made available. Documents from administrative actions 

are included in the personnel files of Service members and are protected from disclosure by the Privacy 

Act. In addition, these records are maintained locally at the installation level for only a limited time. 

Nonjudicial punishment records, for example, are destroyed within two to three years, depending on 

Service regulations. Administrative discharge records are maintained locally for a short time following 

a discharge, and then records are sent to the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, 

where they are subject to Privacy Act disclosure restrictions. 

Instead, the JPP used the case synopses included in the annual SAPRO Reports to collect information 

on nonjudicial punishment, including the nature of the offense involved and the outcome. The JPP 

used the raw numbers provided in the military Services’ enclosures to the DoD SAPRO Reports for 

administrative actions and administrative discharges. 

In total, the JPP identified 686 cases involving nonjudicial punishment, 271 cases involving adverse 

administrative action, and 437 cases involving administrative discharge from fiscal years 2012 through 

2014. The table below gives the number of cases by fiscal year.

FY12 FY13 FY14

Nonjudicial punishment 192 246 338

Adverse administrative action 65 83 123

Administrative discharge 65 143 229

C. APPELLATE CASES 

Congress also tasked the JPP to review and evaluate court-martial convictions for sexual assault 

cases that were reduced or set aside on appeal. To address this task, the JPP reviewed the 

published and unpublished opinions on the public websites of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces and the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals. The JPP did not review short form 

affirmances from the Army, merits opinions from the Air Force, or summary dispositions from 

the Navy and Marine Corps, as these actions did not grant relief to the appellant and the JPP 

could not determine, from the documents, the types of offenses that were reviewed by the courts. 

In total, the JPP reviewed 256 written opinions from the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals in 

which the appellant was convicted at trial of at least one adult sexual assault offense at trial.
85

APPENDIX C: Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Authorizing Statutes

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

SECTION 576. INDEPENDENT REVIEWS AND ASSESSMENTS OF UNIFORM 

CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF SEXUAL 

ASSAULT CASES.

(a) INDEPENDENT REVIEWS AND ASSESSMENTS REQUIRED.—

(2) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SINCE FISCAL YEAR 2012 AMENDMENTS.— The Secretary 

of Defense shall establish a panel to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial 

proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice involving adult sexual 

assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 

112–81; 125 Stat. 1404) for the purpose of developing recommendations for improvements to 

such proceedings.

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANELS. 

(1) COMPOSITION.

(B) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—The panel required by subsection (a)(2) shall be 

appointed by the Secretary of Defense and consist of five members, two of whom must have 

also served on the panel established under subsection (a)(1).

(2) QUALIFICATIONS.—The members of each panel shall be selected from among private United 

States citizens who collectively possess expertise in military law, civilian law, the investigation, 

prosecution, and adjudication of sexual assaults in State and Federal criminal courts, victim 

advocacy, treatment for victims, military justice, the organization and missions of the Armed 

Forces, and offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and other adult sexual assault crimes.

(3) CHAIR.—The chair of each panel shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense from among 

the members of the panel.

(4) PERIOD OF APPOINTMENT; VACANCIES.—Members shall be appointed for the life of the 

panel. Any vacancy in a panel shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.

(5) DEADLINE FOR APPOINTMENTS.—

(B) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—All original appointments to the panel required by 

subsection (a)(2) shall be made before the termination date of the panel established under 

subsection (a)(1), but no later than 30 days before the termination date.

(6) MEETINGS.—A panel shall meet at the call of the chair.

Appendix C: Judicial Proceedings Panel Authorizing Statutes
86

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

(7) FIRST MEETING.—The chair shall call the first meeting of a panel not later than 60 days after 

the date of the appointment of all the members of the panel.

(c) REPORTS AND DURATION.—

(2) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—

(A) FIRST REPORT.—The panel established under subsection (a)(2) shall submit a first report, 

including any proposals for legislative or administrative changes the panel considers 

appropriate, to the Secretary of Defense and the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the first meeting of 

the panel.

(B) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS.—The panel established under subsection (a)(2) shall submit 

subsequent reports during fiscal years 2014 through 2017.

(C) TERMINATION.—The panel established under subsection (a)(2) shall terminate on 

September 30, 2017.

(d) DUTIES OF PANELS.—

(2) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—The panel required by subsection (a)(2) shall perform 

the following duties:

(A) Assess and make recommendations for improvements in the implementation of the reforms 

to the offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct under the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice that were enacted by section 541 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112– 81; 125 Stat. 1404).

(B) Review and evaluate current trends in response to sexual assault crimes whether by courtsmartial proceedings, non-judicial punishment and administrative actions, including the 

number of punishments by type, and the consistency and appropriateness of the decisions, 

punishments, and administrative actions based on the facts of individual cases.

(C) Identify any trends in punishments rendered by military courts, including general, special, 

and summary courts-martial, in response to sexual assault, including the number of 

punishments by type, and the consistency of the punishments, based on the facts of each 

case compared with the punishments rendered by Federal and State criminal courts.

(D) Review and evaluate court-martial convictions for sexual assault in the year covered by 

the most-recent report required by subsection (c)(2) and the number and description of 

instances when punishments were reduced or set aside upon appeal and the instances in 

which the defendant appealed following a plea agreement, if such information is available.

(E) Review and assess those instances in which prior sexual conduct of the alleged victim was 

considered in a proceeding under section 832 of title 10, United States Code (article 32 of 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice),and any instances in which prior sexual conduct was 

determined to be inadmissible.
87

APPENDIX C: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL AUTHORIZING STATUTES

(F) Review and assess those instances in which evidence of prior sexual conduct of the alleged 

victim was introduced by the defense in a court-martial and what impact that evidence had 

on the case.

(G) Building on the data compiled as a result of paragraph (1)(D), assess the trends in the 

training and experience levels of military defense and trial counsel in adult sexual assault 

cases and the impact of those trends in the prosecution and adjudication of such cases.

(H) Monitor trends in the development, utilization and effectiveness of the special victims 

capabilities required by section 573 of this Act.

(I) Monitor the implementation of the April 20, 2012, Secretary of Defense policy 

memorandum regarding withholding initial disposition authority under the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice in certain sexual assault cases.

(J) Consider such other matters and materials as the panel considers appropriate for purposes 

of the reports.

(3) UTILIZATION OF OTHER STUDIES.—In conducting reviews and assessments and preparing 

reports, a panel may review, and incorporate as appropriate, the data and findings of applicable 

ongoing and completed studies.

(e) AUTHORITY OF PANELS.—

(1) HEARINGS.—A panel may hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such 

testimony, and receive such evidence as the panel considers appropriate to carry out its duties 

under this section.

(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Upon request by the chair of a panel, a 

department or agency of the Federal Government shall provide information that the panel 

considers necessary to carry out its duties under this section.

(f) PERSONNEL MATTERS.—

(1) PAY OF MEMBERS.—Members of a panel shall serve without pay by reason of their work on 

the panel.

(2) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—The members of a panel shall be allowed travel expenses, including per 

diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I 

of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 

business in the performance or services for the panel.

(3) STAFFING AND RESOURCES.—The Secretary of Defense shall provide staffing and resources 

to support the panels, except that the Secretary may not assign primary responsibility for such 

staffing and resources to the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.
88

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

SEC. 1731. INDEPENDENT REVIEWS AND ASSESSMENTS OF UNIFORM CODE 

OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

CASES.

(b) ADDITIONAL DUTIES FOR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—

(1) ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS SPECIFIED.—The independent panel established by 

the Secretary of Defense under subsection (a)(2) of section 576 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 1758), known as the 

“judicial proceedings panel”, shall conduct the following:

(A) An assessment of the likely consequences of amending the definition of rape and sexual 

assault under section 920 of title 10, United States Code (article 120 of the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice), to expressly cover a situation in which a person subject to chapter 47 

of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), commits a sexual act 

upon another person by abusing one’s position in the chain of command of the other person 

to gain access to or coerce the other person.

(B) An assessment of the implementation and effect of section 1044e of title 10, United States 

Code, as added by section 1716, and make such recommendations for modification of such 

section 1044e as the judicial proceedings panel considers appropriate.

(C) An assessment of the implementation and effect of the mandatory minimum sentences 

established by section 856(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 56(b) of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice), as added by section 1705, and the appropriateness of statutorily 

mandated minimum sentencing provisions for additional offenses under chapter 47 of title 

10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

(D) An assessment of the adequacy of the provision of compensation and restitution for victims 

of offenses under chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice), and develop recommendations on expanding such compensation and restitution, 

including consideration of the options as follows:

(i) Providing the forfeited wages of incarcerated members of the Armed Forces to victims of 

offenses as compensation.

(ii) Including bodily harm among the injuries meriting compensation for redress under 

section 939 of title 10, United States Code (article 139 of the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice).

(iii) Requiring restitution by members of the Armed Forces to victims of their offenses upon 

the direction of a court-martial.

(2) SUBMISSION OF RESULTS.—The judicial proceedings panel shall include the results of the 

assessments required by paragraph (1) in one of the reports required by subsection (c)(2)(B) of 

section 576 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
89

APPENDIX C: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL AUTHORIZING STATUTES

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

SEC. 545. ADDITIONAL DUTIES FOR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.

(a) ADDITIONAL DUTIES IMPOSED.—The independent panel established by the Secretary of 

Defense under section 576(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 1758), known as the ‘‘judicial proceedings panel’’, shall perform 

the following additional duties:

(1) Conduct a review and assessment regarding the impact of the use of any mental health records 

of the victim of an offense under chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice), by the accused during the preliminary hearing conducted under section 

832 of such title (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), and during court-martial 

proceedings, as compared to the use of similar records in civilian criminal legal proceedings.

(2) Conduct a review and assessment regarding the establishment of a privilege under the Military 

Rules of Evidence against the disclosure of communications between—

(A) users of and personnel staffing the Department of Defense Safe Helpline; and

(B) users of and personnel staffing of the 26 Department of Defense Safe Help Room.

(b) SUBMISSION OF RESULTS.—The judicial proceedings panel shall include the results of the 

reviews and assessments conducted under subsection (a) in one of the reports required by section 

576(c)(2)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239; 

126 Stat. 1760).

SEC. 546. DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, 

PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

(f) DUE DATE FOR ANNUAL REPORT OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL – Section 576(c)(2)

(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 

1760) is amended by inserting “annually” thereafter” after “reports”.
90

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES
91

APPENDIX D: Judicial Proceedings 

Panel Members

HONORABLE ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN – JPP CHAIR

Ms. Holtzman is counsel with the law firm Herrick, Feinstein LLP. Ms. Holtzman served for eight 

years as a U.S. representative (D-NY, 1973–81). While in office, she authored the Rape Privacy Act. 

She then served for eight years as District Attorney of Kings County, New York (Brooklyn), the fourthlargest DA’s office in the country, where she helped change rape laws, improve standards and methods 

for prosecution, and develop programs to train police and medical personnel. In 1989 Ms. Holtzman 

became the only woman ever elected Comptroller of New York City. Ms. Holtzman graduated from 

Radcliffe College, magna cum laude, and received her law degree from Harvard Law School.

HONORABLE BARBARA S. JONES, U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN 

DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (RETIRED) 

Judge Jones is a partner at the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. She served as a judge in the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District of New York for sixteen years, and heard a wide range of cases 

relating to accounting and securities fraud, antitrust, fraud and corruption involving city contracts 

and federal loan programs, labor racketeering, and terrorism. Before being nominated to the bench in 

1995, Judge Jones was the Chief Assistant to Robert M. Morgenthau, then the District Attorney of 

New York County (Manhattan). In that role she supervised community affairs, public information, 

and oversaw the work of the Homicide Investigation Unit. In addition to her judicial service, she 

spent more than two decades as a prosecutor. Judge Jones was a special attorney of the United States 

Department of Justice (DOJ) Organized Crime & Racketeering, Criminal Division, and the Manhattan 

Strike Force Against Organized Crime and Racketeering. Previously, Judge Jones served as an Assistant 

U.S. Attorney, as chief of the General Crimes Unit, and as chief of the Organized Crime Unit in the 

Southern District of New York.

MR. VICTOR STONE

Victor Stone represents crime victims at the Maryland Crime Victims Resource Center, Inc. Previously, 

Mr. Stone served as Special Counsel at the United States Department of Justice. He spent forty years 

with the Department of Justice in numerous positions, including as Chief Counsel, FBI Foreign 

Terrorist Task Force, and as Assistant U.S. Attorney in Oregon and the District of Columbia. He 

has experience working on victim and prisoners’ rights, serving on committees that resulted in the 

enactment of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and updates to the ABA Standards for Prisoner Rights. 

After graduating from Harvard Law School, he clerked on the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit.

Appendix D: Judicial Proceedings Panel Members
92

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

PROFESSOR THOMAS W. TAYLOR

Tom Taylor teaches graduate courses at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy. Previously, 

he served as a decorated and distinguished Army officer, civil servant, and member of the Senior 

Executive Service. During a twenty-seven-year career in the Pentagon he advised seven secretaries and 

seven Chiefs of Staff of the Army, and as the senior leader of the Army legal community he worked on 

a wide variety of operational, personnel, and intelligence issues. He graduated with high honors from 

Guilford College, Greensboro, N.C., and with honors from the University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill law school, where he was a Morehead Fellow, a member of the law review, and a member of the 

Order of the Coif. 

VICE ADMIRAL PATRICIA A. TRACEY, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED) 

Pat Tracey is the Vice President of Homeland Security and Defense for HP Enterprise Services, U.S. 

Public Sector, developing dynamic strategies and providing support to various government agencies, 

including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of 

State, and U.S. Department of Defense. In 2006, after thirty-four years in the U.S. Navy, she retired as 

the first female vice admiral. As Chief of the Navy’s $5 billion global education and training enterprise, 

she led a successful revolution in training technology to improve the quality, access, and effectiveness 

of Navy training while lowering its cost. Admiral Tracey graduated from the College of New Rochelle 

and the Naval Postgraduate School, with distinction, and completed a fellowship with the Chief of 

Naval Operations’ Strategic Studies Group. 
93

APPENDIX E: Staff Members and 

Designated Federal Officials

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS 

PANEL STAFF

Colonel Kyle Green, 

U.S. Air Force, Staff Director

Lieutenant Colonel Kelly McGovern, 

U.S. Army, Deputy Staff Director

Mr. Dale Trexler, Chief of Staff

Ms. Julie Carson, Attorney and Legislative 

Analyst

Ms. Janice Chayt, Investigator

Ms. Alice Falk, Editor

Ms. Nalini Gupta, Attorney

Lieutenant Colonel Glen Hines, 

U.S. Marine Corps, Attorney

Mr. Kirtland Marsh, Attorney 

(October 2015-March 2016)

Ms. Laurel Prucha Moran, Graphic Designer

Mr. Matt Osborn, Attorney 

(August 2014 - October 2015)

Ms. Meghan Peters, Attorney 

Ms. Terri Saunders, Attorney

Ms. Stayce Rozell, Senior Paralegal

Ms. Tiffany Williams, Supervising Paralegal

Ms. Sharon Zahn, Senior Paralegal 

(December 2013-March 2016)

CONSULTANT

Dr. Cassia C. Spohn, Foundation Professor and 

Director, Arizona State University School of 

Criminology and Criminal Justice

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIALS

Ms. Maria Fried, Designated Federal Official

Mr. William Sprance, 

Alternate Designated Federal Official

Major Jacqueline M. Stingl, 

Alternate Designated Federal Official

Mr. Dwight Sullivan, 

Alternate Designated Federal Official

Appendix E: Staff Members and Designated Federal Officials
94

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES
95

APPENDIX F: Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Public Meetings Addressing 

Statistical Data

MEETINGS PRESENTERS AND DELIBERATIONS 

On Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of 

Sexual Assault Offenses

August 6, 2015

Public Meeting 

of the JPP

The George 

Washington University 

Law School, 

Washington, D.C.

• JPP Staff presentation and Panel discussion on proposed plan to review 

and evaluate court-martial statistical data

September 18, 2015

Public Meeting 

of the JPP 

Holiday Inn Arlington 

at Ballston, 

Arlington, Virginia

• Mr. Glenn R. Schmitt, Director, Office of Research and Data at the 

United States Sentencing Commission 

• Dr. Howard N. Snyder, Deputy Director, Statistical Programs Division, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice 

• Dr. Cassia Spohn, Foundation Professor and Director, Arizona State 

University School of Criminology and Criminal Justice 

• Dr. James P. Lynch, Professor and Chair, Department of Criminology and 

Criminal Justice, University of Maryland 

• Major General Camille M. Nichols, U.S. Army, Director, Department of 

Defense Sexual Assault and Prevention and Response Office 

• Dr. Nathan W. Galbreath, Senior Executive Advisor, Department of 

Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office

Appendix F: Judicial Proceedings Panel Public Meetings Addressing Statistical Data
96

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

MEETINGS PRESENTERS AND DELIBERATIONS 

On Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of 

Sexual Assault Offenses

October 9, 2015

Public Meeting 

of the JPP

Holiday Inn Arlington 

at Ballston, 

Arlington, Virginia

• Hon. Frank D. Whitney, United States Chief District Judge, Western 

District of North Carolina [By telephone]

• Mr. Steven J. Grocki, Deputy Chief for Litigation, Child Exploitation 

and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division, United States Department of 

Justice

• Mr. Thomas F. Fichter, Assistant Prosecutor, Monmouth County 

Prosecutor’s Office and Director, Special Victim’s Unit, Monmouth, New 

Jersey

• Ms. Darlene Sullivan, Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID) 

Program Manager, Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office (SAPRO) 

• Ms. Katherine E. Robertson, Family Advocacy Program (FAP) Manager, 

Department of Defense Office of Family Readiness Policy

• Colonel Walter M. Hudson, U.S. Army, Chief, Criminal Law Division, 

Office of The Judge Advocate General 

• Lieutenant Colonel Julie L. Rutherford, U.S. Air Force, Air Staff Counsel, 

Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office

• Lieutenant Colonel Angela B. Wissman, U.S. Marine Corps, Branch 

Head, Judge Advocate Division’s Military Justice Branch, Headquarters, 

U.S. Marine Corps

• Mr. Stephen P. McCleary, U.S. Coast Guard (Retired), Senior Military 

Justice Counsel and Chief Prosecutor, Office of Military Justice, Office of 

the Judge Advocate General 

• Lieutenant Commander Stuart Kirkby, U.S. Navy, Staff Attorney, NavyMarine Corps Appellate Review Activity

November 6, 2015

Public Meeting 

of the JPP

Holiday Inn Arlington 

at Ballston, 

Arlington, Virginia

• Dr. Nathan W. Galbreath, Senior Executive Advisor, Department of 

Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office

• JPP Staff presentation and Panel discussion on research methodology 

used to obtain and examine information about the adjudication of sexual 

assault crimes

• Dr. Cassia Spohn, Foundation Professor and Director, Arizona State 

University School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
97

APPENDIX F: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL PUBLIC MEETINGS ADDRESSING STATISTICAL DATA

MEETINGS PRESENTERS AND DELIBERATIONS 

On Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of 

Sexual Assault Offenses

January 22, 2016

Public Meeting 

of the JPP

Holiday Inn Arlington 

at Ballston, 

Arlington, Virginia

• JPP Staff presentation

• Dr. Cassia Spohn, Foundation Professor and Director, Arizona State 

University School of Criminology and Criminal Justice 

March 11, 2016

Public Meeting 

of the JPP

Holiday Inn Arlington 

at Ballston, 

Arlington, Virginia

• JPP Staff presentation

• Panel deliberations and review of draft report

• Dr. Cassia Spohn, Foundation Professor and Director, Arizona State 

University School of Criminology and Criminal Justice (by phone)

April 8, 2016

Public Meeting 

of the JPP

Holiday Inn Arlington 

at Ballston, 

Arlington, Virginia

• Panel deliberations and report approval
98

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES
99

APPENDIX G: Acronyms and 

Abbreviations

CAAF: Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

DoD: Department of Defense

DSAID: Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database

FAP: Family Advocacy Program

FY: fiscal year

GCMCA: general court-martial convening authority

JAG: Judge Advocate General

JPP: Judicial Proceedings Panel

NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act

SAPR: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

SAPRO: Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office

SARC: sexual assault response coordinator

SPCMCA: special court-martial convening authority

UCMJ: Uniform Code of Military Justice

Appendix G: Acronyms and Abbreviations
100

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES
101

APPENDIX H: Sources Consulted

1. LEGISLATIVE SOURCES

a. Enacted Federal Statutes

5 U.S.C. App § 2 (Federal Advisory Committee Act)

5 U.S.C. § 552a (Privacy Act) 

10 U.S.C. §§ 801-946 (Uniform Code of Military Justice)

18 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (Aggravated Sexual Abuse)

18 U.S.C. § 2242 (Sexual Abuse)

18 U.S.C. § 2244(a) (Abusive Sexual Contact)

18 U.S.C. § 2244(b) (Sexual Contact without Permission)

42 U.S.C. § 16911 (Sex Offender Registration and Notification, relevant definitions, including Amie 

Zyla expansion of sex offender definition and expanded inclusion of child predators)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, PUB. L. 110-417, 122 Stat. 4356 (2009)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, PUB. L. NO. 112-239, 126 Stat. 1632 (2013)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, PUB. L. NO. 113-66, 127 Stat. 672 (2013)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, PUB. L. NO. 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292 (2014)

2. RULES AND REGULATIONS

a. Executive Orders

MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES (2012), available at 

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2012.pdf 

MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UPDATED RULES FOR COURT-MARTIAL (June 2015), available at 

http://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/RCMsJun15.pdf

MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UPDATED MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE (June 2015), available at 

http://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/MREsRemoved412e.pdf

b. United States Code of Federal Regulations

38 C.F.R. § 3.12 (2016) (Character of discharge)

c. Department of Defense

DOD DIRECTIVE 1332.30, SEPARATION OF REGULAR AND RESERVE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS (Nov. 25, 2013), 

available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133230p.pdf 

Appendix H: Sources Consulted
102

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

DOD INSTRUCTION 1332.14, ENLISTED ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS (Jan 27, 2014) (Incorporating Change 

1, Effective Dec. 4, 2014), available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/133214p.pdf 

DOD INSTRUCTION 6495.02, SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE (SAPR) PROGRAM PROCEDURES

(Mar. 28, 2013) (Incorporating Change 2, Effective July 7, 2015), available at http://www.dtic.mil/

whs/directives/corres/pdf/649502p.pdf

DOD MANUAL 6400.1-M-1, FOR CHILD MALTREATMENT AND DOMESTIC ABUSE INCIDENT REPORTING

SYSTEM (Jul 2005) (Incorporating Change 1, Sep. 20, 2011), available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/

directives/corres/pdf/640001m1.pdf 

d. Services

U.S. DEP’T OF AIR FORCE, INSTRUCTION 36-3206, ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE PROCEDURES FOR COMMISSIONED

OFFICERS (June 9, 2004) (Incorporating through Change 7, Effective July 2, 2013), available at 

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-3206/afi36-3206.pdf

U.S. DEP’T OF AIR FORCE, INSTRUCTION 36-3208, ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF AIRMEN (July 9, 2004) 

(Incorporating through Change 7, Effective July 2, 2013), available at 

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a1/publication/afi36-3208/afi36-3208.pdf 

U.S. DEP’T OF AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 51-202, NONJUDICIAL PUNISHMENT (Mar. 31, 2015), available at 

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_ja/publication/afi51-202/afi51-202.pdf

U.S. DEP’T OF ARMY, REGULATION 27-10, MILITARY JUSTICE (OCT. 3, 2011), available at 

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r27_10.pdf

U.S. DEP’T OF ARMY, DIRECTIVE 2013-21, INITIATING SEPARATION PROCEEDINGS AND PROHIBITING OVERSEAS

ASSIGNMENT FOR SOLDIERS CONVICTED OF SEX OFFENSES (Nov. 7, 2013), available at 

http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/ad2013_21.pdf

U.S. DEP’T OF NAVY, MILPERSMAN 1910-142, ENLISTED ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATIONS-SEPARATION BY

REASON OF MISCONDUCT (May 31, 2013), available at http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/

reference/milpersman/1000/1900Separation/Documents/1910-142.pdf 

U.S. MARINE CORPS ORDER 1900.16, SEPARATION AND RETIREMENT MANUAL (26 Nov. 2013), available at 

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCO%20%201900.16.pdf

3. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS

Public Meetings of the Response Systems Panel

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (Nov. 14, 2014)

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (Sept. 18, 2015)

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (Oct. 9, 2015)

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (Nov. 6, 2015)

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (Jan. 22, 2016)

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (Mar. 11, 2016)
103

APPENDIX H: SOURCES CONSULTED

4. OFFICIAL POLICY STATEMENTS

Department of Defense

U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE, MEMORANDUM FROM THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON WITHHOLDING INITIAL

DISPOSITION AUTHORITY UNDER THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE IN CERTAIN SEXUAL ASSAULT

CASES (Apr. 20, 2012), available at http://www.dod.gov/dodgc/images/withhold_authority.pdf

5. OFFICIAL REPORTS

a. DoD and DoD Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION

AND RESPONSE (NOV. 25, 2014) available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY14_POTUS/

FY14_DoD_Report_to_POTUS_SAPRO_Report.pdf

DOD SAPRO, ANNUAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: FISCAL YEAR 2012, Volume I (May

2013), available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY12_DoD_SAPRO_Annual_Report_

on_Sexual_Assault-VOLUME_ONE.pdf

DOD SAPRO, ANNUAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: FISCAL YEAR 2013 (Apr. 15, 2014), 

available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY13_DoD_SAPRO_Annual_Report_on_

Sexual_Assault.pdf

DOD SAPRO, ANNUAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: FISCAL YEAR 2014 (Apr. 29, 2015), 

available at http://www.sapr.mil/index.php/annual-reports 

JOINT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CODE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE (Apr.

1, 2015), available at http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/ann_reports.htm

b. Other Government Reports

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report on Profile of Intimate Partner 

Violence Cases in Large Urban Counties (Oct. 2009), available at http://www.bjs.gov/ 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 

2009-Statistical Tables (Dec. 2013), available at http://www.bjs.gov/

U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2015 Annual Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. (2016), 

available at http://www.ussc.gov/research-and-publications/annual-reports-sourcebooks/2015/

sourcebook-2015

c. Response Systems Panel Report

REPORT OF THE RESPONSE SYSTEMS TO ADULT SEXUAL ASSAULT CRIMES PANEL (June 2014), available at http://

responsesystemspanel.whs.mil/ 

d. Other Reports 

Cassia C. Spohn, Adjudication of Sexual Assault Reported in the Military Services (2015), available at 

https://jpp.whs.mil
104

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

6. RESPONSES TO JPP REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

Services’ Responses to Requests for Information 65-66 (Feb. 28, 2015 and Oct. 31, 2015)

Services’ Responses to Request for Information 89 (Sept. 11, 2015)

7. BOOKS, BOOKLETS, AND FILMS

DAVID A. SCHLUETER, MILITARY CRIMINAL JUSTICE: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (9th ed., 2015)

8. JOURNAL ARTICLES

James E. Baker, Is Military Justice Sentencing on the March? Should it be? And if so, Where should it 

Head? Court-Martial Sentencing Process, Practice, and Issues. 27 FEDERAL SENTENCING REPORTER 72 

(Dec. 2014)

Kathleen Daly and Brigitte Bouhours, Rape and Attrition in the Legal Process: A Comparative Analysis 

of Five Countries, 39 CRIME & JUST. 565 (2010)

9. LETTERS AND E-MAILS

Letter from Mr. Glenn R. Schmitt, Director of the Office of Research and Data at the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission, to Colonel Kyle Green, JPP Staff Director (December 10, 2015)

Letter from Jonathan J. Wroblewski, Director, Office of Policy and Legislation, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 

Criminal Division, to the Chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission (July 29, 2014)