U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

73–794 2012

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–122] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARING 

ON

HAZING IN THE MILITARY 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 22, 2012 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

CRAIG GREENE, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

JAMES WEISS, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2012 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, March 22, 2012, Hazing in the Military .............................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, March 22, 2012 ...................................................................................... 23 

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012 

HAZING IN THE MILITARY 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Barrett, SgtMajMC Micheal P., USMC, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps .. 5 

Chandler, SMA Raymond F., III, USA, Sergeant Major of the Army ................. 3 

Leavitt, MCPOCG Michael P., USCG, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast 

Guard .................................................................................................................... 6 

Roy, CMSAF James A., USAF, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force ............ 6 

West, MCPON Rick D., USN, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy .............. 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Barrett, SgtMajMC Micheal P. ........................................................................ 37 

Chandler, SMA Raymond F., III ..................................................................... 29 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 28 

Leavitt, MCPOCG Michael P. ......................................................................... 45 

Roy, CMSAF James A. ..................................................................................... 42 

West, MCPON Rick D. ..................................................................................... 33 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 27 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Letter from Hon. Judy Chu to Chairman Joe Wilson and Ranking Member Susan A. Davis, Dated March 22, 2012 ................................................ 58 

Statement of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice ................. 55 

Statement of the Organization of Chinese Americans .................................. 51 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Ms. Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, a Representative from New York ......................... 63 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Ms. Judy Chu, a Representative from California, and Mr. Michael M. 

Honda, a Representative from California ................................................... 67 

Mr. Coffman ...................................................................................................... 67 

(1) 

HAZING IN THE MILITARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Thursday, March 22, 2012. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m. in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome you 

to a subcommittee meeting of the Military Personnel Subcommittee 

of the House Armed Services Committee. Today, we will be taking 

testimony regarding hazing in the military. 

The committee will come to order. 

Today, the Military Personnel Subcommittee will receive testimony from the Services’ senior enlisted advisors concerning the 

Services’ policies, training, and enforcement with respect to hazing. 

This is a topic that cannot be taken lightly. Hazing is a degrading act that must not be tolerated in the military or in our society. 

Unfortunately, it happens. The military services do have policies on 

hazing to ensure its members understand it is wrong and must not 

be tolerated. Hazing is contrary to the values of our volunteer force 

and affects the morale of units. It violates the professionalism 

achieved and expected by our military. 

The subcommittee will hear from the senior enlisted leadership 

within the Services who are charged with keeping the service chiefs 

informed. These leaders are also responsible for ensuring the service member at the lowest level not only understands these policies 

but also knows the courses of action that service members should 

take to remedy the situation when policies are violated. 

This issue concerns me as a Member of Congress, as a veteran 

myself of the Army National Guard and Reserves, but especially as 

the father of four sons who are currently serving in the military 

where what we want is the best environment for what we know is 

an opportunity of military service. 

I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses: Sergeant 

Major of the Army Raymond F. Chandler, III; Master Chief Petty 

Officer of the Navy Rick D. West; Sergeant Major of the Marine 

Corps Micheal P. Barrett; Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force 

James A. Roy; and Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard 

Michael P. Leavitt. 
2 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 27.] 

Mr. WILSON. Mrs. Davis is our ranking member from California. 

Would you like to make any opening remarks? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am very pleased that the subcommittee is turning its focus to 

the important issue of hazing in the military. Over the past year, 

there has been a number of hazing incidents across the Services 

that have been brought to the public’s attention. 

I am sure that we would all agree that hazing is a serious and 

deplorable crime. It disrupts unit cohesion and reduces the morale 

of our men and women in uniform; and it can, as we know, lead 

to tragic consequences. Hazing, particularly in light of the current 

ongoing deployments and responsibilities that are being asked of 

our men and women in uniform, is a very serious matter. 

I am aware that most of the Services have policies that prohibit 

hazing and harassment, for that matter. But I am interested to 

hear how the Services educate and train our military personnel so 

that they know how to recognize hazing and harassment and what 

they should do to stop it or prevent its tolerance among the force. 

Do we even know how often these incidents occur? If incidents are 

not tracked, how does the Service even recognize that this is an isolated incident or an epidemic? 

Parents and families who send their son or daughter to serve our 

Nation in uniform are already concerned about their health and 

safety, given the operational requirements service members are facing. They should not have to worry about whether their child is 

being subjected to hazing or harassment as well. So we need to restore the confidence in our families that the Services are doing all 

that they possibly can to prevent hazing from occurring among the 

force, and hopefully this hearing will be one step toward that goal. 

I want to welcome our witnesses. We thank you very much for 

being here, and I certainly look forward to hearing our most senior 

enlisted members of the Services present to us today. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 28.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mrs. Davis. 

Without objection, I ask that statements from the Organization 

of Chinese Americans and the Asian American Justice Center be 

included in the record of the hearing. 

Hearing none, so ordered. 

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

pages 51 and 55, respectively.] 

Mr. WILSON. I ask unanimous consent that other committee and 

non-committee members—and I want to welcome Congresswoman 

Judy Chu of California and Congresswoman Nydia Vela ́zquez to be 

present. Also, Congressman Honda, thank you for coming too, as 

you are just entering—that the three of you be allowed to partici-
3 

pate in today’s hearing after all subcommittee members have had 

an opportunity to ask questions. 

Is there any objection? 

Without objection, non-subcommittee members will be recognized 

at the appropriate time under the 5-minute rule that each of us 

has applicable. 

Sergeant Major Chandler, we will begin with your testimony. As 

a reminder, please keep your statements to 3 minutes. We have 

your written statements for the record. 

STATEMENT OF SMA RAYMOND F. CHANDLER III, USA, 

SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE ARMY 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this committee, thank 

you for the invitation to address you on this issue which concerns 

all of us associated with the United States Army. 

Let me give you the bottom line up front. Hazing has no place 

in our Army. We will not tolerate hazing in any form, and we will 

hold those in violation of this policy accountable for their actions. 

I spend about 270 days out of the year traveling around to post 

camps and stations throughout the world visiting with soldiers and 

families and discussing a wide variety of topics. My overall message to the force is the Army profession. I talk about what it means 

to be a professional, how soldiers should conduct themselves, and, 

more importantly, how they should treat each other. 

To be a professional, our soldier must possess the three Cs: competence, commitment, and character. The first is easy to spot. Competence means you are doing your job and doing it well. Commitment and character are not so easy. A soldier who is committed to 

the Army and has character lives the Army values at all times, 

even in the absence of peers or leadership. Soldiers who lack character, commitment, or competence are not the type of individuals 

our Nation needs to serve as part of our Army. 

We have a duty as professional soldiers to maintain the trust 

and confidence of the American people, not just to fight and win 

our Nation’s wars but also to maintain high professional and ethical standards. So when a soldier behaves inappropriately, Congress and the American people expect the Army to hold that soldier 

accountable. For 237 years, the Army has worked hard and successfully to strengthen that bond. 

We must also continue to train and educate our soldiers and Department of the Army civilians on the effects of hazing in our 

ranks. The vast majority live the Army values and are truly professional. However, even one incident of hazing means we are not 

doing enough. 

I can assure you the Army has taken a strong stance against 

hazing. Hazing is not compatible with our Army values and will 

not be tolerated. The American people trust we will hold perpetrators of hazing accountable for their actions, and we take that trust 

seriously. 

I, along with the Army senior leaders, am committed to fight 

hazing until there are no such incidents in our Army anymore. Our 

soldiers, families, Department of the Army civilians, and the American people deserve no less. 
4 

I appreciate your time and will answer any questions you may 

have. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Sergeant Major Chandler can be 

found in the Appendix on page 29.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And we will now proceed with the testimony of the Master Petty 

Sergeant Rick West. 

STATEMENT OF MCPON RICK D. WEST, USN, MASTER CHIEF 

PETTY OFFICER OF THE NAVY 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Chairman Wilson, Ranking 

Member Davis, and distinguished members of this subcommittee, 

as a Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, I am honored to have 

the privilege of representing more than 427,000 Active and Reserve 

sailors who comprise the finest total force in the history of the 

United States Navy. 

People are absolutely our most precious asset. Their individual 

success and the Navy’s collective mission accomplishment lie in our 

ability to provide an environment that promotes inclusiveness and 

a validated sense of value to the team. Maintaining a positive command culture that fosters these ideas is a top priority of our chief 

of naval operations, for me personally, and for leadership at all levels. 

Hazing unequivocally destroys these ideas and is not tolerated in 

your Navy. It is inconsistent with core values, our core values of 

honor, courage, and commitment, and detrimental to the individual 

esteem and unit cohesion. 

The Secretary of the Navy’s instruction on hazing is the cornerstone of our approach to education, prevention, enforcement, and 

accountability. Training on hazing, equal opportunity, and core values begins with recruits at boot camp and is reinforced regularly 

in a variety of forums throughout a sailor’s career. We also emphasize and actively train our force on bystander intervention as an effective measure to prevent numerous offenses, including hazing. 

There is no plausible excuse for lack of awareness on the Navy’s 

hazing policy, nor any legitimate explanation for violation of a policy explicitly intended to protect the health and welfare of our people. Navy policy requires commanders to formally report every suspected incident of hazing to the chain of command as soon as possible. Every sailor has a responsibility to make the appropriate authorities aware of hazing. All reported incidents are fully investigated, while the rights and needs of victims and witnesses are immediately addressed by the chain of command. Those who commit 

violations of the policy and those in leadership positions who may 

tolerate such acts are held accountable. 

We understand people are truly the singular measure of the 

Navy’s success. We appreciate your passionate interest in protecting their welfare, and we stand committed to meeting your expectations. 

I look forward to your questions, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Master Chief Petty Officer West can 

be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 
5 

And we proceed now to the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps 

Micheal P. Barrett. 

STATEMENT OF SGTMAJMC MICHEAL P. BARRETT, USMC, 

SERGEANT MAJOR OF THE MARINE CORPS 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, members of the committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today 

to discuss the important matter of hazing in our Armed Forces. 

The individual marine is our greatest asset. So let me be clear, 

hazing is not a part of our service culture or who we are. 

Our official policy states that hazing is contrary to our ethos of 

taking care of our own. It violates the virtuous conduct and soldierly repute earned by marines who have served the corps honorably since its inception. Hazing fosters a climate of maltreatment 

and cruelty, concepts inconsistent with our core values. 

As leaders, we naturally want marines to be successful and 

maintain the desire to stay in our corps. As an institution, the only 

way that the Marine Corps can exist, survive, and thrive is 

through fostering a climate where marines have every opportunity 

for participation and advancement in accordance with their talents, 

backgrounds, culture, and skills. 

The positive contributions of our marines bring us mission success. The Marine Corps aims to transform our Nation’s youth not 

only into ethical warfighters but into better quality citizens. As we 

do so, we expect to confront matters of hazing arising sometimes 

from the indiscretions of youth. 

The Marine Corps recruits from young demographics; and it is 

well documented that the Marine Corps is the most youthful of all 

the service branches, with 63 percent of the force aged 25 years or 

younger. Unfortunately, hazing can manifest sometimes in organizations that conflate immaturity, youth, and arduous responsibility. In such an environment, young people sometimes might confuse hazing with the means for belonging or a rite of passage. 

As an institution of more than 202,000 personnel, the Marine 

Corps is not perfect. No institution is. Yet we rely on our 236-year 

legacy of honor, courage, and commitment to help us address problems like hazing when they arise. 

Hazing is a behavioral problem and a form of misconduct for 

which we must remain vigilant. The Marine Corps works diligently 

to change behaviors and mindsets into an effort to foster better 

judgment, especially among our junior leaders. 

As a sergeant major of the Marine Corps, I tell our marines 

throughout the entire corps that every marine deserves to be in a 

good unit, led morally, ethically, and professionally; and, as such, 

marines are products of our leadership. Engaged, dedicated leaders 

must display those enduring trust qualities: competent, committed, 

consistently dependable, of the highest moral and ethical character, 

and team mentality. There is no greater compliment than one to 

say to another, I can count, I can trust you always. That is our end 

state. 

Hazing has nothing whatsoever to do with being a leader and is 

not taught as a leadership tool in any period of instruction in our 

schoolhouses. Those engaging in hazing do not act with the Marine 
6 

Corps’ blessing. The commandant and I are disgusted with that 

kind of behavior. 

Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today, and 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Sergeant Major Barrett can be found 

in the Appendix on page 37.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Sergeant Major. 

We now proceed to the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force 

James A. Roy. 

STATEMENT OF CMSAF JAMES A. ROY, USAF, CHIEF MASTER 

SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member 

Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for an opportunity to speak on behalf of the more than 500,000 

men and women who comprise the finest Air Force our Nation has 

ever seen. 

Today’s airmen are highly motivated and better qualified to conduct our missions across the globe than ever before. Regardless of 

where they serve and what they do, none of our airmen can complete this mission alone. Each of us needs a wingman to help make 

sure this job gets done. 

Our Service’s most precious commodity is our airmen. To protect 

them, we create and promote a culture of respect and dignity. Airmen are exposed to human relations training early and often, starting with recruitment, basic training, continuing through separation 

and retirement. This training makes it clear that activities like 

hazing will not be tolerated. 

The Air Force holds leaders responsible for creating a safe work 

environment. However, we believe all of our airmen are leaders; 

and, therefore, we hold all airmen accountable for recognizing conflict and intervening as necessary, especially in less formal settings. 

Although the Air Force does not have its own policy on hazing, 

the DOD’s [Department of Defense] definition and guidance is implemented through our subordinate commands. Our accession 

sources have adopted the DOD’s definition to appeal to the targeted 

audiences. This allows us to impart on our airmen that hazing will 

not be tolerated and serves as a foundation for the culture and respect and dignity we build starting at accession and continuing 

throughout an entire career. 

I would like to thank you again for your continued support and 

concern for our airmen and their families. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Master Sergeant Roy can be 

found in the Appendix on page 42.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much for being here today. 

And we conclude with the opening statements with Master Chief 

Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Michael P. Leavitt. 

STATEMENT OF MCPOCG MICHAEL P. LEAVITT, USCG, 

MASTER CHIEF PETTY OFFICER OF THE COAST GUARD 

Master Chief LEAVITT. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished members of the sub-
7 

committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to 

discuss issues related to military hazing. 

I, along with all the leaders in the Coast Guard, am responsible 

for ensuring our personnel are treated with dignity and respect. 

Hazing serves no purpose and is contrary to our core values of 

honor, respect, and devotion to duty. 

The Coast Guard’s hazing policy is found in a discipline and conduct manual released in October of 2011. The policy defines hazing 

and clearly states that consent does not eliminate accountability. 

Hazing can be punished under provisions of the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice and in severe situations may result in court-martial, fines, reductions in rank, jail sentences, and/or punitive discharge from the Coast Guard. 

Hazing typically occurs in connection with unofficial, unsupervised initiations for other informal rites of passage and are not authorized in the Coast Guard or unit policy. In those cases, offenders 

seem to target junior personnel. 

Prevention of hazing can best be achieved through training and 

strong leadership that is engaged and is involved at all levels. This 

will help ensure the culture across the Coast Guard is intolerant 

of hazing. 

We are constantly striving to improve our organizational culture 

and our workplace environment. For example, every 2 years, the 

Coast Guard conducts a comprehensive survey of the workforce 

called the Organizational Assessment Survey. The results consistently show the Coast Guard is rated strong in several key areas, 

such as communications, diversity, leadership and quality, supervision, team work, and work environment. We will continue to 

monitor trends in these key areas in order to prevent and eradicate 

inappropriate behaviors such as hazing. 

All personnel must understand that hazing will not be tolerated, 

and no one may consent to being hazed, which is an important part 

of our policy. Training of all Coast Guard members occurs during 

recruit training and annually thereafter. 

Awareness and support of hazing policy has been emphasized by 

senior leadership. The commandant as well as Pacific and Atlantic 

area commanders have recently released messages regarding hazing, sending a strong and clear message to the workforce. Leadership courses for our perspective commanding officers and officer in 

charge as well as our boat force’s command cadre positions include 

training on hazing, thus ensuring future leaders understand and 

enforce the policy. 

So, as I close, let me emphasize that the Coast Guard places the 

highest priority on preventing hazing. We have strong and clear 

policy, extensive training, effective leadership, and an environment 

within the Coast Guard to ensure our members are treated with 

dignity and respect. It is essential to eradicate hazing so all Coast 

Guard members may fully contribute to mission success. The people of our great Nation deserve nothing less from us. 

So thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I 

look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Master Chief Leavitt can be found in 

the Appendix on page 45.] 
8 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, and thank each of you for 

being here today. 

This is a real honor for me to have not only members of our subcommittee, but we have three other members who are very interested, and rightly so, in this very, very important issue; and so it 

is an opportunity to have very dedicated Members of Congress here 

on this issue. 

We will have a 5-minute rule. And I appreciate Mr. Craig 

Greene, the professional staff, will be maintaining the time; and we 

will be proceeding with each person of the subcommittee and then 

our visiting welcomed members. 

At this time, my first question is, I believe that hazing contradicts, as has been stated, the Services’ core values. There are 

policies and training that attempt to prevent hazing. I am interested to know, beginning—and we will start with the Army and go 

to the Coast Guard—how you, as the senior enlisted members of 

the Service, emphasize through the noncommissioned officers 

[NCO] chain that hazing threatens the effectiveness of your Service 

and will not be tolerated. 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Recently, we have published a letter to all members of the Service about hazing. The Secretary of the Army, the Chief, and I have 

tri-signed a letter to reemphasize the Army’s commitment to prevention or elimination of hazing. 

Within training, we do that within the initial military training 

environment through basic training through the United States 

Military Academy. The Army does not have a formal policy or 

training program at the unit or individual level specifically focused 

on hazing, and we are actually reconsidering whether or not we 

need to make some adjustments in our training program. 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. Throughout the life cycle of an average 

marine, and we will say the average marine’s is 4 years, because 

75 percent of our cohort gets out every 4 years, but in that 4-year 

timeframe every single marine will go through not less than or a 

minimum of 11 times they will receive value-based leadership and 

value-based training. From the second they step on the yellow footprints at Parris Island or San Diego, to the time they go to their 

infantry training battalion for their Marine combat training, all the 

way to when they step into their MOS [military occupational specialty] school, and then when they get to their first unit, they are 

welcomed aboard, and then they receive annual training, all the 

way through to the Service or the rank appropriate EPME [enlisted 

professional military education] academies that they will attend. So 

through the life cycle of an average marine, through 4 years, a 

minimum of 11 times, they will receive their training. 

We have also refreshed and reenergized our policy order that 

more clearly delineates exactly what hazing is. That was not in our 

old order, and we have reengaged and we reenergized our leadership to take that forward and take it down to the lowest level. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Sir, thank you. 

For the Navy, it is a continuum of training from the time that 

individual starts into boot camp until that individual is out of the 

Navy, essentially. But we reinforce that at all levels, at all times. 

We do that through a variety of mixed training, from the class-
9 

room-type training to individual-based training, i.e. GMT, general 

military training. 

We also have the levels of training associate at our command 

leadership schools, which our COs [commanding officers], our XOs 

[executive officers], department heads, and our command master 

chiefs receive that training as well. 

We check that as well throughout a sailor’s career by various 

means, such as a CMEO survey, or Command Managed Equal Opportunity survey, or through various visits to the fleet, which we 

receive feedback. 

And, also, now as well social media is a powerful tool which we 

are able to get indicators that are out there. 

But it is a continuum, sir, and we will continue to press forward 

on that. We do have a policy in place that is out there. It is very 

clear to our leaders, and it is very clear to our sailors. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. Again, sir, thank you for the question. 

Just like others have stated, ours begins at accessions, whether 

it be officer enlisted, begins at accession. It goes through professional military education. It also touches on those command billets. 

Every time that somebody gets prepared for a command billet, it 

is touched on as well. 

And then also one area that we do a little different maybe is during expeditionary start-up training. We also provide it there, and 

we do annual training as well. 

Some of the ways that we measure its effectiveness is, obviously, 

through the surveys of the IG [Inspector General] and others, 

through travel of just visiting the units, commands and such. 

Master Chief LEAVITT. Mr. Chairman, I would echo the same as 

a lot of my other peers here. 

Our training starts in recruit training, as I mentioned in my oral 

statement. And then as we push through the Service, as you know, 

there is a certain level of maturity that you increase when you try 

to figure out what the core values mean. When you come in at 18 

years old, they might be a little bit different as you are adjusting 

to the Coast Guard. 

It is really important for the senior leadership to understand 

what these values are and what they look like. And so our training 

programs to look at our command cadre, take a look at what your 

command climate is. And one of the key things of that is really focusing on your leadership at all levels and understanding what 

hazing, which is another one of the behaviors, because you have 

other things out there too. But hazing is definitely a detriment to 

your command climate, identifying what those things are and 

training for that. At the end of the day, training is a great thing. 

We have all those things in place. It is what we do on the front 

lines and how we take care of those things and then how we hold 

those things accountable. 

Mr. WILSON. And as we proceed to Mrs. Davis I would like to 

point out that I always found it helpful at armories, at dining facilities, to have posters identifying that hazing is not tolerated. And 

what I would hope that it could indicate are the chain of command 

of if you feel like you have been hazed what to do and that there 
10 

will be a follow-through. But I just—a suggestion. I always found 

it very, very helpful. 

Proceed to Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I wonder if we could just assume for now that a majority 

of incidents are reported. And you can speak to that, and perhaps 

that is really not the case. 

But if we have a number of incidents how do you track that? 

How do you really watch those incidents over time? Are there any 

statistics that would indicate what happens as a result—disciplinary action, punitive action, whether court-martial. Are there stats 

to demonstrate that and how vigorously, I guess, do you feel that 

that represents the situation that we have before us? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. I can go first. 

From the Army perspective, the challenge for us is that there is 

no punitive or statutory title for hazing. There are many for other 

forms of misconduct, but there isn’t one for hazing. 

So if you want to do a search, which the Army has started to 

search through all of the previous records of judicial punishment 

to determine, you know, we do have some statistics. I am not comfortable with the quality of the statistics, because you have to really drill down into each one of the charges to see whether or not it 

was an assault which may have been a fisticuffs or if it was an assault that you could then turn to hazing. 

However, what we do have is that, since 2006, we have 71 cases 

that meet the criteria for hazing, which involved 139 subjects and 

123 victims. Of the 139 subjects, 65 received some administrative, 

judicial, or non-judicial punishment; and 43 are still pending adjudication; 21 have no action taken. 

So I am not positive that that is a final answer, but it is a preliminary search of where we stand. And I think the titling question, whether or not we have a specific specification for hazing, 

may help us to better identify this. 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. We have just presently started with 

the new order that has been delivered that has been sent out by 

the commandant of the Marine Corps. We are now starting to track 

in our case management system, in our SJs [summary of judgments], hazing-specific any allegations or confirmed cases of allegation are immediately reported to our operational reporting systems, 

and they are reported directly to the commandant of the Marine 

Corps. So we have now a tracking system in place that we didn’t 

have before. 

And I concur with exactly what the Sergeant Major of the Army 

said. When it comes down to the particular criteria, when you look 

at article 92, disobey of a lawful order; or cruelty or maltreatment 

for article 93; or 128, assault, you have to drill down to find out 

those things that may have caused that to lead to a hazing incident. 

And I also concur with the Army with what he said that maybe 

hazing as another element inside demand of court-martial be specifically delineated as a way ahead. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Ma’am, from a Navy perspective, our Secretary of the Navy instruction of 2005 has directed us 

to all substantiated incidents of hazing be reported via OPREP [op-
11 

erations report] or SITREP [situation report] to our CNO [Chief of 

Naval Operations]. 

Now, we also have recently started tracking all incidents of hazing via a quarterly criminal activity report via our JAG [Judge Advocate General]. With that, since 2009, we have had 46 reported 

hazing incidents, an average of 15 a year. Twenty of those 46 resulted in punitive, administrative, or disciplinary action. 

Also with that we drilled a little deeper in it. We have seen no 

injuries occur because of the incidents, no suicides or suicide ideations was reported in association with those incidents, and race 

was not a reason or cause for any of those instances as well. The 

majority of these were physical incidents where most of them were 

senior to junior, characterized as horseplay activity associated with 

promotion or qualification achievement. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. Again, as others have stated, inside 

the non-judicial punishment there is not really a label per se to 

pull down. However, we do track through our IG system. We have 

tracked, since 2005, 21 different incidents. Of that, one being substantiated. The others, as we turn them to command and they report back to us on which actions were taken, again, one of them 

being substantiated. 

Master Chief LEAVITT. Ma’am, since 2009, we have had nine 

court-martial cases that we keep track of, and seven of those cases 

occurred at one unit. So there was conflict at one area, and there 

are two others. Some of these cases are still pending, so we are 

going to wait for that, but that is where our numbers sit at right 

now, ma’am. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, and we now proceed with 

Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I thank all of you 

gentlemen for being here this afternoon. 

I have just a couple of questions, and any of you please feel free 

to comment for your respective Services. 

We know that each Service seems to have a zero tolerance for 

hazing, but it is still occurring. Can you tell me how hazing has 

been dealt with in the past, the lessons that we have learned over 

the years, and have you employed today more effective ways to 

combat this type of behavior? How is it different today than it was 

yesteryear? 

We can begin with whoever would like to begin. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Ma’am, I will tell you I have 

been in the Navy since 1980, signed the papers, and I can tell you 

from then to today it is night and day in comparison. 

We helped put several corrective measures, as I previously stated, into place. We are constantly talking about it. In fact, this particular year I instituted a policy called CPO 365, and it goes back 

to the CPO or the chief petty officer inductions that we have been 

doing for many years. Those of the past were behind the closed 

doors and probably not a thing that we would be proud of. Those 

today, it is a training opportunity. It is more so of a training evolution, and we put things in place that teach our sailors our core 

values and our history and heritage. 
12 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. We have also heightened our awareness of the situation. In 31 years of service, I have seen cases of 

hazing that have come before me as being in the leadership position. I have seen them adjudicated. I have seen those who wrongfully committed the violation. I have seen them held accountable. 

I have seen it at the NJP [non-judicial punishment] level. I have 

also seen it at the court-martial level. And I have also seen it 

where it was something as simple as a marine pushing a marine, 

where it was more of an administrative counseling level. 

So I have seen it at every single level, and I have seen convictions, and I have seen the wrongdoers held accountable. There is 

a heightened awareness in the United States Marine Corps. We 

have changed our orders, and we have made it more—like I said, 

we have made it more detailed to truly explain and wash away 

gray area. 

Mr. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. From an Army perspective, ma’am, I 

came in the Army at roughly the same time as Master Chief Petty 

Officer Rick West did. 

And I stood on the back deck of my tank on Grafenwoehr, Germany, in 1982 and was promoted to PV2 private. And at that time 

it was a very common practice to have the backing taken off of 

your rank and basically people punch it into your skin. And that 

was a common practice throughout the Army. That is not a common practice today. We call those blood stripes. 

Another measure that used to happen in the past was a gauntlet 

where soldiers from the platoon would line up on either side and 

as a soldier walked by they would punch him or her in the arm. 

We don’t tolerate that anymore. And that really started to change 

back in the mid-’90s really when we realized that those types of behaviors were not in keeping with who we say we are as professional soldiers. 

I believe and my experience in the Army is that we do not have 

large incidents of hazing throughout the Service, but we still have 

incidents like have happened here recently that cause great concern. So we have not completely eradicated it, and our commitment—my commitment—is to see that that happens, and until it 

is I am very concerned. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. If I could just add to that, ma’am. 

I have only been in for 30 years. We haven’t had the blood 

stripes of sort that has been described. But I will tell you, based 

on the culture of the United States Air Force, based on the values 

that have been published and believed amongst all airmen—and I 

think one other key point, and the Master Chief said it earlier, is 

this idea of bystander training is so, so important, that it is not 

just the member, but it is also those that are around those members that should say something as well should they see something. 

And that has really kind of capped it off for us. 

Master Chief LEAVITT. I would like to answer up. 

I think in the Coast Guard we just updated our discipline and 

conduct manual which does a much better job of defining the elements of hazing. I think that is a great tool for our leadership to 

look at and for all our members in the Coast Guard. 
13 

And then the second thing, as soon as the commandant and I 

took over this job, the commandant updated all our policies to reflect those elements, which hazing is one of those elements and respecting our shipmates, one of his four principles. And then he sent 

a clear message to the field on several other issues of unethical behaviors, and hazing was one of those, and talked about how those 

types of things undermine our morale, which degrades our readiness and damages our mission performance. I think those are critical elements pushing forward on in regards to hazing. 

Mr. BORDALLO. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, in interest of time, if I could just—one question, 

and one of you could answer this. It is important to me. 

Given the recent incidents with Asian Pacific Americans, how are 

the Services learning from these unfortunate experiences and applying lessons to avoid these problems as we go forward in implementing ‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell’’? 

If just one of you could perhaps answer. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Ma’am, I will tell you from a 

Navy perspective we constantly train to, one, the policy. Two, we 

take incidents such as those and those that happen in our Navy 

and we make them case studies. 

I was just up in Newport, Rhode Island, where we teach our commanding officers, our executive officers, and our senior leaders, enlisted leaders. And they will basically walk through an incident 

from A to Z to make sure, one, they understand it; two, what would 

they do. So it is train to; and, more importantly, it is enforced. 

Mr. BORDALLO. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. 

And we now proceed to Congressman Mike Coffman of Colorado. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am somewhat worried by the direction of the discussion here. 

If we think that the problems that recently arose with the two 

Asian Americans was a function of hazing and that was all that we 

have to deal with, I think we have really missed it. I think what 

we really fundamentally have at the end of the day is a failure of 

small unit leadership, is a failure of NCO [non-commissioned officer] leadership. 

When you are in a ground combat team, there is no stronger 

interdependent bond that happens. And so what we have is really, 

in a sense, a soldier—and I am less familiar with the case in the 

Marine Corps—but who was rejected by his fellow soldiers. And 

you had an NCO, probably you had a squad leader—I can’t remember how the Army is organized that way—but you had a squad 

leader, and you had a platoon sergeant, and you had a first sergeant that either knew about it and did nothing or should have 

known about it. 

And it is for somebody who has never been in that situation, who 

has never been a part of a ground combat team, could never realize 

how difficult that is when you have been rejected by that team and 

you are there, and you are there. 

And so I think that if we say that we have corrected hazing and 

we don’t deal with the psychological component of this we have 

really missed the mark. This is much more about physical hazing. 
14 

This is really about a fundamental failure of leadership at the most 

basic levels. And so I mean I am just really stunned by it all. 

And I do have to ask the United States Navy a question, and 

that is that I saw a media report about some sailors who were recently disciplined for a hazing incident being deployed aboard ship, 

and it was caught on some sort of observation cameras, and they 

were discharged. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Am I correct in that? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. Sir, that is absolutely correct. 

There were eight sailors that were charged, taken—as a matter of 

fact, it was investigated, and they were charged. The CO took them 

to mast. There was a battery of disciplinary actions, one of which 

they were all discharged from the Navy, yes, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. I have to say that, you know, we are going to find 

our way here, but I do think that is—let me tell you where that 

is an overreaction. They should have been disciplined. It should 

have been maybe article 15, maybe summary court. I don’t know 

the specific circumstances. But we are going beyond correcting this 

problem and politicizing it by saying to those sailors with one incident—if I understand the article I read correctly—that we are 

going to—and what kind of discharge did they receive for that incident? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. General discharge, sir. 

I would also say that I rely on the chain of command. The chain 

of command was there. They investigated. And those leaders on the 

deck plate, which I wasn’t there to see, they applied the discipline 

as they seen fit on the deck plate. 

Mr. COFFMAN. And that took place after all the congressional 

concern that was expressed publicly. But, you know, I question 

that. I just hope that, and particularly in the Army and the Marine 

Corps—well, in all the Services. I served in the Army and the Marine Corps, but in all the Services that we have certainly better 

leadership that ought to recognize this. 

You know, we just had an incident in Afghanistan where a staff 

sergeant went and killed 16 civilians, and it has practically derailed our policy. Where was the leadership there in recognizing 

this person was starting to, you know, go off-kilter? You know, 

where was that leadership? Where was the leadership for Private 

First Class [PFC] Chen? Where was the leadership in Lance Corporal Lew? 

It was missing. That is the fundamental issue. To me, it is more 

about the lack of leadership by the NCOs than it is about the conduct of the junior enlisted in these alleged hazing incidents. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, and we proceed now to Congresswoman Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to all of you, and I appreciate very much your testimony, and I appreciate again the efforts that you all are putting 

into this. 

But I have to say, as I listen to it, there is a deja vu quality to 

it. This subcommittee and the broader Armed Services Committee 

has spent much time addressing the issue of sexual assault in the 
15 

military. And over the course of my tenure here in Washington, 

which has not been that long, but I know even in the years before 

there are many instances in which you all or representatives of the 

Service came to talk about the policies you were putting in place 

to address the issue, the training you were putting in place to address the issue. But the reality was that, despite all those good efforts, in returning visits it has become clear that there are many, 

many shortcomings. So as you deal with this issue I would encourage you to put in place metrics, objective ways of measuring the 

outcomes of all this hard work that you do. 

And I support also what my colleague, Mr. Coffman, has said, in 

that instance as well as in this one, it is clear that the role, the 

leadership role, the role of the command structure is very, very important and that there have to be accountability measures built 

into that as well. 

So really just to make a statement. I thank you for your testimony. I appreciate the hard work, but it should not be spinning 

your wheels, and we have to find ways to make sure that that is 

not the case. But thank you for being here. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas; and we now proceed to 

Congresswoman Judy Chu of California. 

Ms. CHU. First, I want to thank Chairman Wilson and Ranking 

Member Davis for allowing me to attend this hearing today. I have 

been trying to get a hearing on this issue for many months, and 

I am grateful that you are focusing on this critical matter. 

And the American people watching, in just a few days I have received 2,097 letters and petitions from concerned citizens calling on 

us to do something about hazing, and these are the petitions right 

here. I ask unanimous consent to submit a letter summarizing 

these petitions for the record. 

Mr. WILSON. Without objection. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

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

page 58.] 

Ms. CHU. Today’s hearing is just a first step. I hope the committee will continue to work together on this issue in the coming 

months. 

I have a personal reason for being here. My nephew was a victim 

of hazing, and it killed him. 

Hazing is a serious problem in the military, and though the military has policies in place, they aren’t being enforced, and they 

aren’t effective. Just last year, Private Hamson Daniels McPherson, 

an African American stationed in Okinawa, facing near-constant 

racist hazing by his fellow marines, finally, he set himself on fire 

and died. 

Last year, Private Danny Chen was hazed for 6 weeks. He was 

dragged across gravel until his back bled. Rocks were thrown at 

him to simulate artillery. He was called ‘‘gook’’ and ‘‘chink.’’ Finally, Danny shot himself to death. 

In 2010, black Army Specialist Brushaun Anderson was pushed 

to his physical limit for weeks. He was made to build a sandbag 

wall with no purpose. He was called dirty and forced to wear a 

plastic trash bag at all times. Finally, he could take no more. He 

went to the latrine and shot himself to death. 
16 

And then there is my nephew Harry. The Harry that we knew 

loved to joke and, in fact, was known for his skills in break dancing. 

At age 19, he enlisted in the Marines and was sent to Afghanistan. On April 3rd, Harry was found asleep on duty. At 11:15 p.m., 

his sergeant cursed at Harry loud enough to wake up the rest of 

the marines, announcing that peers should correct peers. 

At 12:01 a.m., the hazing onslaught began. Harry’s peers took it 

upon themselves to administer justice and corrective training. They 

berated him and ordered him to dig a foxhole, to do pushups, 

crunches and planks with his heavy full body armor and a 25- 

pound sandbag. They stomped on his back, kicked and punched 

him, and poured the entire contents of a sandbag onto his face and 

in his mouth. It lasted a full three hours and 20 minutes. 

Finally, 22 minutes after they stopped, at 3:43 a.m., Harry 

climbed into a foxhole and killed himself with his own gun. He was 

21 years old. 

And what punishment was given? Virtually nothing. In Harry’s 

case, three marines were charged. One marine was given just one 

month in confinement. Two were found not guilty by a jury of their 

peers, fellow marines. 

The platoon just had a big celebration for beating the charges, 

as we saw on their Facebook. All of them are free to continue with 

their military careers, be promoted, and continue their behavior. 

Even a jaywalker would get a worse punishment. 

When I talk about Harry, the reaction from the outside versus 

the inside is like night and day. The outside is horrified. But, from 

the inside of the military, the top brass usually says, we prohibit 

hazing, we do not tolerate hazing, these are isolated incidents, we 

are perfect. But the rank-and-file soldier almost to a person usually 

says, hazing is necessary to correct bad behavior and keep soldiers 

strong. Better one person die even at the hand of his fellow service 

members than compromise the entire unit’s safety. 

Why do I know people say this? Because I heard them say it at 

the jury trial over and over again as a defense for those marines. 

And I saw it in the letters to the editors, and I saw it in the blogs. 

This is the attitude that is in the military, and it is pervasive. 

So here is what I say. You cannot know if these are isolated incidents, because none of you even keep records on hazing. In Harry’s 

unit alone there were six previous cases of hazing within a year. 

Do you think you can’t do better, that losing a few soldiers’ lives 

here and there at the hands of their fellow soldiers means you are 

doing everything perfectly? If there is no culture that tolerates or 

encourages hazing, then why did these men die for no reason? 

What are you doing, if anything, to change the culture of hazing 

and institute what I think is necessary, a zero tolerance policy on 

hazing that actually holds soldiers accountable? 

Mr. WILSON. If any would like to answer. 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. Well, first of all, I am personally disturbed by hazing, okay. I am appalled, and I am disgusted by the 

actions of soldiers who I, as the senior enlisted leader for our 

Army, am here representing. I don’t poo poo this. I don’t think that 

it is something that should be cast off or given any kind of, you 
17 

know, wash away or hand wave. This is important things. Because 

it is about who we say as we are as professionals. 

When a young man or woman is hazed, it is not corrective training. It is abuse. And there is a significant difference between abuse 

and corrective training. Corrective training, when applied properly 

in the Army, means that it is tied to a specific training deficiency; 

and the leader is there with the soldier making sure that the training deficiency is overcome and that the corrective action is in line 

with that. 

So, for example, if I show up late to a formation my leader may 

ask me to come or demand or order me to come to my next place 

of duty early in a specific uniform. And when I have met the standard that applies to that training deficiency then we go on about our 

business. 

From the Army perspective, from my perspective, this is not 

something that we are going to tolerate. And I am committed, 

along with the rest of the Army leadership, to solve this problem. 

It is against who we say we are. And if one man or woman, one 

of our brothers or sisters, dies because of our own actions, that is 

not okay with me, and I am committed to this. 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. I am echoing every single thing that 

the Sergeant Major of the Army said. We are taking as an aggressive stance and fight towards all disgusting societal issues and concerns that are plaguing the Services. And I am not talking just 

about hazing. I am talking about drugs, alcohol, domestic violence, 

criminal mischief, sexual misconduct, tasing, operational stress, 

forced preservation measures, hazing and suicide. 

We are taking aggressive steps. Our behavioral health program 

has integrated every one of our programs at headquarters Marine 

Corps to better synchronize the research, the resources, the policies, the training, the prevention, and the treatment for all these 

things. I refer to them as the insurgents inside of our wire, and it 

is affecting every single Service sitting at this table. 

We are aggressive. We are constantly taking and making assessments, and we are going after a problem when we see the problem. 

Ma’am, what happened to Lance Corporal Lew is disgusting. The 

small unit leadership that the congressman was speaking of 10, 15 

minutes ago, he is absolutely spot-on. The small unit leadership 

failed. I wish I could take it all back. We should have done better. 

But we are aggressively attacking these societal concerns as hard 

as we can possibly take them, and you have our assurance on that, 

ma’am. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Chu; and we will proceed to Congresswoman Nydia Vela ́zquez of New York. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Wilson, 

and Ranking Member Davis. 

Sirs, our immigrant community is truly something that makes 

our country great. In New York, where I am from, this community 

has always been our strength, growing not just from all over the 

world but serving as a magnet for young people in this country. As 

I go to the various parts of my district, whether it is the Polish 

community, Chinatown, or some West Indies communities, the 

pride they show in their new country, their country of choice, is inspiring. 
18 

This is especially true with the young people. It is not surprising 

that they would want to show that pride through serving the military or in the military. I have attended over 100 of induction ceremonies. Seeing the young men and women as they are beginning 

their military careers with the American flag in their lap beaming 

with pride is inspiring. 

Private Danny Chen was one such excited young people. He was 

my constituent, embarking on a new chapter of his life serving this 

country. He had a true love for this country and wanted to give 

back. So imagine the shock he felt upon arriving at his unit to find 

he was not only unwelcome but the focal point of systemic torture, 

an act that can only be described as appalling. The result cost us 

a very special young man who had so much to offer. 

What is important to understand is, when we have these acts 

take place, they don’t just impact the individual or family. They 

impact entire communities. As I talk to family, friends, teachers, 

and those who knew Danny, I keep hearing a familiar refrain, how 

could this happen? And while I appreciate all the discussion of the 

policy on hazing and the difference it will make, I need to hear how 

the leadership of the military and Services, of all Services, going 

forward is going to make this policy part of everyday life, just like 

a soldier formation so it is second nature. This cannot be another 

paper policy stuck up on a bulletin board or discussed one day and 

forgotten the next. 

So my question to our representatives from the military is, what 

mechanisms will be in place to ensure that there will be regular 

top-to-bottom reviews to ensure the policy that we have heard 

about today is implemented properly and becomes part of our 

armed services’ everyday life? 

And I heard, I heard your anger, I heard your frustration and 

your commitment. I need to hear what is the mechanism that will 

be in place to make sure that this is part of every soldier, men and 

women’s, life, day life? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. Yes, ma’am. And I appreciate your 

sentiments. 

We have established a working group. The Director of the Army 

Staff, Lieutenant General Troy, has directed a working group between Army TRADOC [Training and Doctrine Command] forces 

command, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve, along 

with the Army staff to do a comprehensive review of our current 

policy, to look for gaps that are associated with our current policy 

and training programs, and then to look at either changes to our 

Army policy or to request changes to the DOD or even up through 

Members of Congress if we need to have a statutory change to ensure we have the enforcement mechanisms we need. 

From a training perspective, we are going to look at how we 

train this across the Army and whether or not we need to insert 

it as a special topic as a mandatory training like our Marine Corps 

and Navy brothers have done. 

And that is our commitment. We will have a program. We are 

in the very early stages, but I expect a very rapid turn. The Secretary of the Army has demanded swift action, and I believe we 

will have it. 
19 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. And, sir, are you getting input from different 

immigrant communities? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. I am not sure about that, ma’am, but 

I can take that question for the record and get you a response. 

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

page 63.] 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. Thank you, ma’am. 

First, one of the significant purposes behind us integrating all of 

our behavioral health programs into one single area is so that 

there is that cross-talk. So we are looking for that common thread 

to improve our value-based leadership training curriculum from the 

second you enter the military until the second you decide to walk 

out a better citizen. 

Next, the commandant of the Marine Corps has just directed— 

and it is starting with our sexual assault. He has just instituted 

a sexual assault prevention operational planning team consisting of 

20 senior officers and 20 senior enlisted leaders headed up by a 

two-star general. And the purpose of it is to take a fresh, unconstrained look at the problem that sexual assault, the programs, the 

courses, and the initiatives that we presently have and how we are 

going to beat this back and get all the prevention to the left of the 

incident. And we are going to assess what we are doing presently 

and what we need to do to get to the left of the problem. 

The next thing is early this summer the commandant is holding 

a leadership symposium where he is bringing in all the three-star 

level leadership this summer to capture every single lesson learned 

over the last 10 years for the appropriate and the right way ahead. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, and we will proceed with 

Congressman Mike Honda of California. 

Mr. HONDA. I want to add my thanks to Chairman Wilson and 

Davis and, to the gentlemen here, thank you for your service; and 

I appreciate, as Congresswoman Nydia Vela ́zquez had indicated, 

your sentiments. 

But just by listening to the testimony I would think that this 

hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service appears to denounce 

hazing and have safeguards to prevent it. Yet, hazing occurs, as 

evidenced by the recent incidents of Private Danny Chen, Lance 

Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy Vessel the Bonhomme 

Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta just issued an anti-hazing directive during his holiday message in December. 

It keeps coming up. What I find extremely troubling is a lack of 

actual statistics on hazing. And how can anyone be convinced that 

a problem doesn’t exist or our current policies are working if there 

is no method to monitor or evaluate it? And do any of the Services 

have a database or other monitoring system to record incidents of 

hazing and harassment? 

I read the reports. It appears that the Coast Guard was doing 

one that turned in some datum on the incidences and the outcomes. But what I found interesting was that—that needs to be 

talked about, I guess—in each category of—areas—suicide have no 

data available to determine hazing was or was not a contributing 

factor. You need to dig deeper into that and to see, you know, if 

there is any connection with the breakdown of the racial background—you know, white, Asian, black, Hispanic, others—looking 
20 

into the dynamics of diversity, language, background, and cultural 

issues needs to be dug even a little bit deeper. 

How does each Service evaluate their current policies if they are 

working or not? Waiting to review policies after a slew of tragic 

cases is not an effective preventative approach. I know that and I 

have heard that abuse versus corrective training—I am not sure 

how corrective training is put together, or whether having these 

kinds of things looked at internally without an external review 

from other folks who are familiar with these kinds of practices—— 

A few years ago, we were a part of the Port Hueneme training 

for the folks over there, both the civilians and enlisted folks. And 

we did a lot of work on racial interaction, and there was a lot of 

work to be done, within the ethnic groups and outside of the ethics 

groups. So I think that that kind of thing needs to be continued. 

The hazing of servicemen in a National Guard company assigned 

in Kosovo surfaced only last month after a private in the company 

lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, 

Commander of the U.S. Army Europe, commented that the private 

reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the General said, for 

this guy to say what you guys are doing is wrong, courageous is 

an understatement. 

I definitely agree. However, it also speaks to how difficult for 

subordinate servicemen to report inappropriate behavior to the senior officers. I am not sure that we are not looking into that more, 

to say that this is what you do, this is the process, and not understand some of the barriers or some of the dynamics that enter into 

reporting. And as a vice principal of a middle school, you know, my 

kids say, I don’t want to be known as a snitch. Translation: I will 

get my ass beaten. 

Okay, so I think that that is the kind of dynamics that you may 

want to look at. However, this must be nearly impossible during an 

extended forward operation that these folks are involved in. 

So what can be done to create an environment that allows for 

this type of reporting, both psychologically and physically being 

able to report that, whether that is through information or through 

sharing, whatever it is, but it still has to be an environment that 

is safe and confidential? 

What have you done to address culture sensitivity and to adopt 

a more intentional diversity and inclusion effort? And do hazing 

and harassment training, monitoring, and enforcement policies 

need to be uniform across the Services? 

And so those are the kinds of thoughts I have, and I appreciate 

the other members here and their thoughts about leadership in the 

smaller units. I think that that is part of that dynamics, too. So 

there is insulation between those who needed to be reported to and 

those who are victims or bystanders. I think that you have the 

sense of who the actors are. It is the interaction and the motivation 

or the encouragement or the sense of responsibility fulfilled that 

what you say you are instilling in each and every service person. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will wait for my response. 

And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, if these responses could be 

turned in in writing within a couple of weeks, that would be appreciated. 
21 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, actually, thank you very much. Because the time is up, except for one thing. I thought that you actually provided an extraordinary summary. And so for the record, for 

each of you, I thought the points of the Congresswoman were well 

made, and I know we would all look forward to receiving response 

to that question. 

And in consultation with our ranking member, again, I want to 

thank all of you for being here today, your commitment to our 

country, your dedication, and we look forward to working with you 

to address this issue in the future. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 22, 2012 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 22, 2012 

(27) 

Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson 

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

Hearing on 

Hazing in the Military 

March 22, 2012 

Today, the Military Personnel Subcommittee will receive testimony from the Services’ senior enlisted advisors, concerning the 

Services’ policies, training, and enforcement with respect to hazing. 

This is a topic that cannot be taken lightly. Hazing is a degrading act that must not be tolerated in the military or in our society. 

Unfortunately, it happens. The military services do have policies on 

hazing to ensure its members understand it is wrong and must not 

be tolerated. Hazing is contrary to the values of our volunteer force 

and affects the morale of units. It violates the professionalism 

achieved and expected by our military. 

The Subcommittee will hear from the senior enlisted leadership 

within the Services who are charged with keeping the service chiefs 

informed. These leaders are also responsible for ensuring the service member at the lowest level not only understands these policies, 

but also knows the courses of action service members should take 

to remedy the situation when policies are violated. This issue concerns me as a member of Congress, as a veteran myself, but especially as the father of four sons currently in the military where it 

was the best environment for what I know is the opportunity of 

military service. 
28 

Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis 

Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel 

Hearing on 

Hazing in the Military 

March 22, 2012 

I am pleased that the subcommittee is turning its focus to the 

important issue of hazing in the military. Over the past year, there 

has been a number of hazing incidents across the Services that 

have been brought to the public’s attention. 

I am sure that we all agree that hazing is a serious and deplorable crime, which disrupts unit cohesion and reduces the morale of 

our men and women in uniform. Hazing, particularly in light of the 

current ongoing deployments and responsibilities that are being 

asked of our men and women in uniform, is a very serious matter. 

I am aware that most of the Services have policies that prohibit 

hazing, and harassment for that matter. But, I am interested to 

learn how the Services educate and train our military personnel, 

so that they know how to recognize hazing and harassment, what 

they should do to stop it or prevent its tolerance among the force. 

Do we even know how often these incidences occur? If incidences 

are not tracked, how does a Service recognize that this is an isolated incident or an epidemic? 

Parents and families who send their son or daughter to serve our 

Nation in uniform are already concerned about their health and 

safety given the operational requirements service members are facing. They should not have to worry about whether their child is 

being subjected to hazing or harassment as well. We need to restore the confidence in our families that the Services are doing all 

they can to prevent hazing from occurring among the force; hopefully, this hearing will be one step toward that goal. 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 22, 2012 

(51) 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 22, 2012 

(63) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. VELA ́ ZQUEZ 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. Yes. The Army has relationships with several organizations from across the Nation’s diverse communities. These engagements allow the 

Army to communicate directly with community leaders, gain a better understanding 

of their culture, and more adequately address human relations challenges including, 

but not limited to hazing. The Army currently works with eight key Asian-American 

and Pacific Islander organizations. Similarly, the Army is also engaged in dialog 

with the American-Islamic community which has provided useful culture based 

training packages. The overall objective of the Army’s Diversity Outreach Strategy 

is to build stronger relationships with our Nation’s diverse communities while increasing awareness. [See page 19.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 22, 2012 

(67) 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN 

Mr. COFFMAN. 1) What was the disciplinary record for the eight sailors discharged 

for hazing on board the USS Bonhomme Richard? Was this the decision to discharge 

them made on the hazing charge alone? What article(s) of the UCMJ were they 

charged with? Were they taken to a court martial or were they a subject of a nonjudicial punishment? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 1)  What was the disciplinary record for the 

eight sailors discharged for hazing on board the USS BONHOMME RICHARD? Of 

the eight Sailors discharged for hazing, one had previous documentation for non-judicial punishment.  Was the decision to discharge them made on the hazing charge alone? The Sailors were processed for administrative discharge on the basis of the hazing misconduct alone. Commanding Officer of BONHOMME RICHARD determined 

that the hazing misconduct met the requirements for mandatory administrative 

processing in accordance with Navy regulations (MILPERSMAN 1910–142, Separation by reason of misconduct—commission of a serious offense.)  What article(s) of the UCMJ were they charged with? Seven of the eight Sailors 

were charged with violations of UCMJ Article 128 (Assault) and Article 92 

(Failure to Obey a Lawful General Order). The eighth sailor was charged only 

with Article 93 (Cruelty and Maltreatment) because the extent of his involvement was to lure subordinate victims into the berthing in order to be assaulted 

by others.  Were they taken to a court martial or were they a subject of a nonjudicial punishment? The Commanding Officer of BONHOMME RICHARD held nonjudicial 

punishment for the Sailors involved. They were not taken to a court-martial. 

After imposing nonjudicial punishment, the Commanding Officer began immediate administrative separation processing for all eight sailors. All were processed using Notification Procedures with General (Under Honorable Conditions) 

being the least favorable characterization of service. All had less than six years 

of service and therefore were not entitled to administrative separation boards. 

All eight were given the opportunity to meet with an attorney prior to signing 

their administrative separation notifications and all eight met with attorneys. 

All were ultimately discharged with a characterization of service of General 

(Under Honorable Conditions). 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. CHU AND MR. HONDA 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 2) Just by listening to the testimonies, we would think 

that this hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service appears to denounce hazing 

and has safeguards to prevent it. Yet, hazing occurs, as evident by the recent incidents of Private Danny Chen, Lance Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy vessel, Bonhomme Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta issued an anti-hazing directive 

during his holiday message in December. 

What I find extremely troubling is the lack of actual statistics on hazing. How 

can anyone be convinced that a problem doesn’t exist or current policies are working 

if there is no method to monitor and evaluate it? Do any of the Services have a database or other monitoring system to record the incidences of hazing and harassment? 

If so, how do you use the data you collect? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 2) The Army does not have a central database dedicated to incidences of hazing and harassment. Commander’s administrative actions 

are tracked at the local level; while criminal investigations are tracked in centralized law enforcement databases. The Army holds its commanders accountable for 

maintaining good order and discipline in their units. This includes investigating all 

allegations of misconduct upon notification to the chain of command. Depending 

upon the seriousness of the misconduct, Army law Enforcement conducts a criminal 

investigation or a commander at any level orders an administrative investigation 

pursuant to Army Regulation (AR) 15–6. Hazing is not an enumerated offense under 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); therefore, misconduct that would violate the hazing prohibitions in AR 600–20 could be charged under Article 92 (viola-
68 

tion of a lawful general regulation), Article 93 (cruelty and maltreatment), Article 

128 (assault), Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer) or Article 134 (servicing 

discrediting conduct/conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline). 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 3) How does each Service evaluate that their current 

policies are working? Waiting to review policies after a slew of tragic cases is not 

effective prevention. 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 3) Our Hazing policy clearly states that Hazing is fundamentally in opposition to Army Values and is prohibited. AR 600–20 was comprehensively reviewed in March 2008. The Army’s Hazing policy is currently under 

review by the Hazing Policy Assessment Team (HPAT). Part of the assessment is 

to review the training conduct in the Army and how well it supports the Army policy on Hazing. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 4) The hazing of service members in a National Guard 

company assigned in Kosovo surfaced only last month after a private in the company lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, Commander of 

U.S. Army Europe, commented that the private reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the General said, ‘‘For this guy to say what you guys are doing is 

wrong, courageous is an understatement.’’ We definitely agree. However, it also 

speaks to the difficulties for subordinate service members to report inappropriate 

behavior of their senior officers. This must be nearly impossible during extended forward deployments when only the unit’s immediate senior officers are present. What 

can be done to create an environment that ensures both accessibility to higher level 

of command for reporting of incidents and the safety of the victims and whistleblowers? What type of support system is in place for victims of hazing and whistleblowers who report hazing? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 4) Commanders are responsible for ensuring an environment free from reprisal and commanders are required to establish and implement a plan to protect complainants and others involved in the complaint from acts 

or threats of reprisal. At a minimum, a commander’s plan for protecting complainants and others involved from reprisal must include specified meetings and discussions with the complainant, subject, named witnesses and selected members of the 

chain of command and co-workers. Retaliation or reprisals against Soldiers who file 

informal or formal complaints are prohibited (AR 600–20, paragraph 5–12). 

In a deployed environment, commanders use town-hall type meetings and battlefield rotations with members of his staff, such as the Equal Opportunity Representative, Inspector General, and Chaplain. These teams talk to Soldiers and provide 

their assessment to the command on issues of concern. 

The support system for Soldiers who have reported incidents will vary, and include the Chain of command, Chaplain, Equal Opportunity, behavioral health, medical system, and Army Staff Judge Advocate. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 5) What have you done to address cultural sensitivity 

and to adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion effort? Have you outreached 

to communities for resources and guidance? If not, what plans do you have to do 

so? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 5) The Army’s ‘‘Consideration of Others’’ program currently provides foundational cultural sensitivity training. The Army Diversity Roadmap, issued in December 2010, addresses diversity training and education that will 

support inclusiveness throughout the Army. Preliminary diversity and inclusion 

competencies have been developed, along with corresponding knowledge, skills, and 

abilities. Training and education planning are in progress. The Army’s Hazing Policy Assessment Team, which consists of members from HQDA, TRADOC and 

FORSCOM, is working closely with the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) to develop diversity and inclusion specific training, both at the 

intuitional and tactical levels. The training is scheduled to be implemented during 

the 4th quarter of FY12. 

In January 2012, the Army implemented a new strategy for execution of diversity 

outreach on an Army-wide basis (including Reserve Components). Coordination efforts are through the Army Diversity Outreach Strategy Working Group, which facilitates a comprehensive approach that synchronizes efforts, including senior leader 

participation. The Army is emphasizing strong relationships with Asian American 

and Pacific Islander organizations. From those organizations, we have learned much 

about cultural considerations and community priorities. The Army is also significantly increasing participation in events and activities that support relationships 

and understanding. Similar outreach efforts are in place for other communities, including Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans. We also have a dialog 

with organizations that support American-Islamic relations. A number of organizations have offered support for improved cultural understanding. 
69 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 6) Do hazing and harassment training, monitoring, and 

enforcement policies need to be uniform across the Services? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 6) The definition of Hazing should be uniform across 

the Services. The training of these topic must be relevant to culture, force composition and specific to each Service. If we created a statutory definition of hazing under 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice, then enforcement of the policy would be uniform across the all Services. It is important to incorporate the cultural differences 

of each Service exhibits into training to make it effective. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 7) Army Sergeant Major Chandler and USMC Sergeant 

Major Barrett testified their interest in creating a statutory definition of hazing in 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They implied that this would make 

it easier for them to track these incidents. Currently 44 States have anti-hazing 

laws and 31 States define hazing as a crime in their criminal code. We believe that 

defining hazing in the UCMJ would provide a strong disincentive against hazing 

and yet another tool for prosecutors to go after the perpetrators of hazing. What are 

the Services’ assessments regarding a statutory definition for the Defense Department? What should a definition look like? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 7) The Army Hazing Policy Assessment Team is considering whether to recommend that Army leadership support the creation of a statutory definition of hazing under the UCMJ. If that course of action is followed, the 

recommendation will be forwarded to the Joint Service Committee (JSC), which is 

comprised of subject matter experts in military justice from all Services. The JSC 

is charged with researching and drafting proposed revisions to the UCMJ 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 8) Representative Coffman expressed a failure of leadership in the unit level as the primary cause for these recent hazing cases. We understand that annual drop-down reviews of command are required by the Services. Do 

these reviews actually occur annually? Do they include reviews of commands within 

smallest units? What specifically are they reviewing? Do they include hazing incidents and hazing culture as part of the review? Do they include reviews to ensure 

that each command level has adequate hazing and harassment prevention training? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 8) In accordance with AR 600–20, Paragraph 6-i(13 

and Appendix E3i(13) and Appendix E, the Army requires company level commanders to conduct Command Climate Assessments within 90 days of assuming 

command and then annually thereafter to gauge ‘‘climate’’ factors such as leadership, cohesion, morale, ease of ability to approach the command about issues, and 

the human relations environment. Surveys are important as provide a baseline that 

allows the command to develop action plans and implement program initiatives. The 

Army is modifying the frequency for the command climate survey so there would 

be an initial survey, then one at the six month point, and annually thereafter, allowing commanders to evaluate the effectiveness of their plans and adjust them necessary. 

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) provides a Command Climate Survey (DEOCCS) and it does not currently have hazing specific 

questions. DEOMI plans to release DEOCCS 4.0 in September 2012 to include hazing, bullying, and toxic leadership questions. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 9) Some of the Services stated that they require their 

personnel to report incidents of hazing and harassment. Where are these reporting 

requirements defined or documented? Also, what are the penalties for failure to report these incidents? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 9) The Army does not have a specific reporting requirement for hazing allegations. The Hazing Policy Assessment Team is considering the adoption of such a reporting requirement. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 10) During the hearing, each of the Services shared 

their latest statistics about hazing. However, the timeline for these numbers were 

inconsistent across all the branches and only included cases that went to a Courts 

Martial. How many cases of hazing occurred within each of the Services over the 

last 5 years, including both Courts Martial and Non-Judicial Punishment? How do 

these numbers break down by race and gender? What were the respective punishments for each instance? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 10) In the last 5 calendar years, Army law enforcement investigated 37 hazing cases, which involved 128 subjects and 103 victims. Of 

the 128 subjects, 124 were male and 4 were female; 103 were Caucasian; 18 were 

African-American; 4 were Asian; and 3 were of other/unknown origin. Of the 103 

victims, 95 were male, 7 were female and 1 was unknown; 81 were Caucasian; 11 

were African-American; 3 were Hispanic; 3 were Asian; and 5 were of other/unknown origin. This number does not include allegations of hazing investigated 

through administrative investigations or commanders’ inquiries. 
70 

In the last 5 calendar years, the Army prosecuted 12 Soldiers at courts-martial 

for hazing-related offenses. Of the 12 accused, all were males; 5 were African-American; 5 were Caucasian; and 2 were Hispanic. One accused was acquitted. Of those 

convicted, the sentences ranged from a formal reprimand to reduction in rank, loss 

of pay and allowances, confinement and a punitive discharge. 

The Army does not maintain statistics of hazing-related offenses that resulted in 

non-judicial punishment. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 11) Please provide the Committee with the relevant 

anti-hazing material and documents you use to train your service members. 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 11) Currently, the Army has no hazing specific training in our schools or in our units. Our Hazing Policy Assessment Team (HPAT) 

noted this as a gap during the analysis of our policy and training. Recommendations 

developed by the HPAT will be briefed to senior Army leadership for decision/and 

or approval. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 12) Please describe the difference under regulation and 

in practice, for each Service, between appropriate ‘‘corrective training’’ and hazing. 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 12) In the Army, corrective training is addressed in 

Army Regulation (AR) 600–20, paragraphs 2–18(c)(3) and 4–6 and in AR 27–10, 

paragraph 3–3(c). It is defined as extra training or instruction used by commanders 

and noncommissioned officers in leadership roles to correct deficiencies. It must be 

directly related to the deficiency and must be oriented to improve the Soldier’s performance in the problem area. Examples of corrective training include a squad leader ordering a Soldier to assemble and disassemble an M16 rifle repeatedly to ensure 

proficiency and speed, or to perform additional physical training to ensure the minimum standards for running endurance are achieved. 

Hazing is prohibited by Army Regulation 600–20, paragraph 4–20 and is defined 

as conduct whereby one military member unnecessarily causes another to be exposed to an activity that is cruel, abusive, oppressive or harmful. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 13) When did your Service last update its hazing policy? 

Do you have any plans to review and update it if necessary? If your Service does 

not currently have an anti-hazing policy, are you considering instituting one? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 13) Our policy on hazing clearly states that hazing is 

fundamentally in opposition with the Army Values and is prohibited. AR 600–20 

was comprehensively reviewed in March 2008. The Hazing Policy Assessment Team 

is reviewing the current policy and will propose recommended changes that better 

define harassment and hazing. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 14) Please provide data broken up according to race/ 

ethnic heritage and gender, regarding the following: How many service members 

have died from non-combat injuries in the last 10 years? Of these incidents, how 

many were classified as suicide, homicide, accident, etc. Also, please include data 

on deaths resulted from friendly fire. How many equal opportunity complaints have 

been received from service members within the last 10 years? Of these claims, how 

many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of members in each Service 

of the last 10 years? 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 14) In the last 10 years Casualty and Mortuary Affairs reports a total of 5,551 non-combat deaths. The Army considers any death of 

a Soldier due to a non-combat injury a significant loss, all efforts are made to investigate and put in place policies and procedures to avoid future losses. As part of that 

process, non-combat deaths of Soldiers are separated into 5 categories: 1) accidents, 

2) homicides, 3) illness, 4) self-inflicted (suicide) and 5) undetermined. 

Of the total non-combat deaths, 2,614 were classified as accidents and are comprised of the following: 54 Asian/Pacific Islander (A/PI) males, 4 A/PI females, 24 

American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) males, 5 AI/AN females, 379 Black males, 

32 Black females, 1,787 White males, 73 White females, 182 Hispanic males, 16 Hispanic females, 32 Other males, and 6 Other females. 

Homicides accounted for 286 of the total non-combat deaths and are comprised 

of the following: 4 A/PI males, 1 A/PI female, 3 AI/AN males, 1 AI/AN female, 82 

Black males, 21 Black females, 128 White males, 20 White females, 18 Hispanic 

males, 6 Hispanic females, 1 Other male, and 1 Other female. 

Illnesses accounted for 1,250 of the total non-combat deaths and are comprised 

of the following: 28 A/PI males, 7 A/PI females, 4 AI/AN males, 2 AI/AN females, 

267 Black males, 73 Black females, 719 White males, 59 White females, 66 Hispanic 

males, 9 Hispanic females, and 76 Other males. 

Self-inflicted deaths accounted for 1,193 of the total non-combat deaths and are 

comprised of the following: 46 A/PI males, 3 A/PI females, 17 AI/AN males, 3 AI/ 

AN females, 139 Black males, 14 Black females, 839 White males, 37 White females, 

78 Hispanic males, 2 Hispanic females, 13 Other males, and 2 Other females. 
71 

Of the total non-combat deaths, 135 were classified as undetermined and are comprised of the following: 3 A/PI males, 1 AI/AN male, 18 Black males, 3 Black females, 92 White males, 14, White females, 2 Hispanic males, and 2 Other males. 

Currently 34 of the total non-combat deaths are pending determination and are 

comprised of the following: 1 A/PI male, 5 Black males, 1 Black female, and 27 

White males. 

As friendly fire deaths take place in combat, they are not included in the categories of non-combat deaths. There were 27 deaths in the Army that resulted from 

friendly fire since 2002. Of those deaths one (1) was identified as A/PI male; one 

(1) AI/AN male; and 25 White males. 

There were a total of 1,641 Equal Opportunity complaints from FY02 through 

FY11. The complaints were comprised of the following: 24 A/PI males (four substantiated), 51 A/PI females (17 substantiated), 4 AI/AN males (three substantiated), 15 

AI/AN females (nine substantiated), 277 Black males (54 substantiated), 479 Black 

females (143 substantiated), 113 White males (40 substantiated), 426 White females 

(207 substantiated), 61 Hispanic males (16 substantiated), 124 Hispanic females (44 

substantiated), 23 Other males (six substantiated), 28 other females (12 substantiated), three Unknown males (one substantiated), and 13 Unknown females (six 

substantiated). 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 15) The Army’s Hazing Task Force was recently created 

to review its hazing policies. What is it directed to review and produce? Is it authorized to make any recommended changes to policies? If not, then what are the followup procedures to act on any recommendations? Does it outreach to the public for 

comment or advice? Also, please provide periodic updates on the Task Force’s 

progress and findings. 

Sergeant Major CHANDLER. 15) The Hazing Policy Assessment Team (HPAT) was 

directed to employ a multi-disciplinary team from across the Army that will conduct 

a gap analysis of Army Regulation (AR) 600–20, Army Command Policy, paragraph 

4–20 that prohibits hazing. The team will review the definition of hazing and the 

policy, collect and review pertinent data, evaluate training and training execution, 

and then present written assessments and recommendations regarding policies and 

training to Army Senior Leadership. To date, the HPAT has not sought public comment or advice for its recommendations. 

Members of the team are from Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower & Reserve Affairs); G–1, Human Resource Policy Directorate (HRPD); Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP); G–3/5/7 Training; Office Provost 

Marshal General; Office of The Judge Advocate General (OTJAG); Office of the 

Chief of Chaplains (OCCH); The Inspector General (IG); Office of Congressional Legislative Liaison (OCLL); Forces Command (FORSCOM); Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC); The National Guard; The Army Reserves; and, the Army Research Institute (ARI). The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 

(DEOMI) volunteered to participate. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 16) Just by listening to the testimonies, we would think 

that this hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service appears to denounce hazing 

and has safeguards to prevent it. Yet, hazing occurs, as evident by the recent incidents of Private Danny Chen, Lance Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy vessel, Bonhomme Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta issued an anti-hazing directive 

during his holiday message in December. 

What I find extremely troubling is the lack of actual statistics on hazing. How 

can anyone be convinced that a problem doesn’t exist or current policies are working 

if there is no method to monitor and evaluate it? Do any of the Services have a database or other monitoring system to record the incidences of hazing and harassment? 

If so, how do you use the data you collect? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 16) The Navy has not historically maintained 

statistics on hazing. However, hazing has been added as a new category in our 

Quarterly Criminal Activity, Disciplinary Infractions and Courts-Martial Report 

(QCAR), requiring subordinate authorities to report hazing statistics to the General 

Court-Martial Convening Authority for consolidation and further forwarding to Office of the Judge Advocate General, where the statistics will be kept. 

Navy is developing a database called Military Equal Opportunity Network 

(MEONet), which will be an online, web-based program and database that will be 

used to assist Navy Leadership in recording the number of harassment and hazing 

incidents. It will provide leadership with an additional means to identify trends and 

implement corrective actions. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 17) How does each Service evaluate that their current 

policies are working? Waiting to review policies after a slew of tragic cases is not 

effective prevention. 
72 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 17) Navy evaluates the hazing policy by reviewing trends of reported hazing incidents. We also review results from command climate assessments, feedback from Equal Opportunity Advisors, and reports from 

Navy Inspector General visits. Additionally, senior Navy leadership (officer and enlisted) conducts continuous proactive engagement with command teams and Sailors 

at units and installations around the world to discuss policies pertaining to command readiness/climate. Through observation and interactive two-way dialogue, we 

gather timely feedback on the effectiveness of policies and determine if changes are 

required. Hazing will continue to be a part of those discussions and a focus of our 

training. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 18) The hazing of service members in a National Guard 

company assigned in Kosovo surfaced only last month after a private in the company lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, Commander of 

U.S. Army Europe, commented that the private reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the General said, ‘‘For this guy to say what you guys are doing is 

wrong, courageous is an understatement.’’ We definitely agree. However, it also 

speaks to the difficulties for subordinate service members to report inappropriate 

behavior of their senior officers. This must be nearly impossible during extended forward deployments when only the unit’s immediate senior officers are present. What 

can be done to create an environment that ensures both accessibility to higher level 

of command for reporting of incidents and the safety of the victims and whistleblowers? What type of support system is in place for victims of hazing and whistleblowers who report hazing? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 18) By Department of the Navy policy, any allegation of hazing must be reported to the Commanding Officer, who must in turn 

report any substantiated incident to the Chief of Naval Operations. Navy leaders 

are also responsible for ensuring that victims, witnesses, and whistleblowers 

(whether military or civilian) are afforded their rights under applicable regulations. 

Victims and witnesses of hazing also qualify for services under the Victim/Witness 

Assistance Program (VWAP). VWAP is designed to ensure victims and witnesses are 

afforded their rights throughout the criminal justice process—from initial contact by 

investigators through final disposition. Additionally, service providers (e.g., Family 

Service Center personnel, family advocacy counselors, health care personnel, chaplains, and legal assistance attorneys) provide services to victims and witnesses, to 

include referrals, as necessary. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 19) What have you done to address cultural sensitivity 

and to adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion effort? Have you outreached 

to communities for resources and guidance? If not, what plans do you have to do 

so? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 19) The Navy has taken steps via our Equal 

Opportunity (EO) program and command climate program to ensure everyone respects each other and feels they are valued in a more inclusive workplace. Through 

changes to EO policy, Navy reinforces its commitment to ensuring a safe, professional environment for our Sailors. 

Additionally, the Navy continues to demonstrate its commitment to respecting cultural sensitivities through training events like our Diversity Leadership Symposium, where we directly engage and educate our deckplate leaders on current best 

practices. The health and welfare our Sailors will always remain at the forefront, 

and we continue to develop new and innovative training methods to ensure our Sailors feel they are valued and respected at all times. 

The Navy also conducts heritage month activities and observances of nine specific 

diversity-related groups, events, and individuals honoring the many contributions 

made and those that continue to be made in our Navy. Reflecting on these contributions honors the diversity of thoughts, ideas, and competencies in our Navy today. 

Current communication partnerships with organizations such as the Defense Equal 

Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) continue to provide resources and 

guidance for our Sailors, in addition to our own internal efforts. 

The Navy has an ongoing effort to identify and leverage talent and is working to 

develop enduring relationships with over 60 nationally recognized affinity groups. 

The Navy commits time and resources by attending various conferences to gain insight and understanding into the issues facing underrepresented/minority groups. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 20) Do hazing and harassment training, monitoring, 

and enforcement policies need to be uniform across the Services? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 20) I don’t believe they do. While the policy that 

prohibits hazing is uniform across the Department of Defense, the inherent differences between the individual Services warrant specific and tailored approaches 

to training, monitoring, and enforcement within each branch. The Navy has its own 

unique organizational structures, service culture, and traditions, and we adjust our 
73 

response based upon these factors. We are always seeking to improve our ability to 

prevent, identify, and take immediate action to address hazing. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 21) Army Sergeant Major Chandler and USMC Sergeant Major Barrett testified their interest in creating a statutory definition of hazing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They implied that this would 

make it easier for them to track these incidents. Currently 44 States have anti-hazing laws and 31 States define hazing as a crime in their criminal code. We believe 

that defining hazing in the UCMJ would provide a strong disincentive against hazing and yet another tool for prosecutors to go after the perpetrators of hazing. What 

are the Services’ assessments regarding a statutory definition for the Defense Department? What should a definition look like? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 21) The Department of the Navy uses a standard definition of hazing which we believe allows sufficient flexibility and autonomy 

for commanders to act based upon their assessment of the circumstances and their 

interpretation as to whether a given act constitutes hazing under that definition. 

Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1610.2a defines hazing as any conduct whereby 

a military member or members, regardless of Service or rank, without proper authority causes another military member or members, regardless of Service or rank, 

to suffer or be exposed to any activity which is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Soliciting or coercing another to perpetrate any such 

activity is also considered hazing. Hazing need not involve physical contact among 

or between military members; it can be verbal or psychological in nature. Actual or 

implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator. Hazing can include, but is not limited to, the following: playing abusive or 

ridiculous tricks; threatening or offering violence or bodily harm to another; striking; branding; taping; tattooing; shaving; greasing; painting; requiring excessive 

physical exercise beyond what is required to meet standards; ‘‘pinning’’; ‘‘tacking 

on’’; ‘‘blood wings’’; or forcing or requiring the consumption of food, alcohol, drugs, 

or any other substance. Currently, hazing can be charged in a variety of ways and 

prosecuted at general, special, or summary court-martial. Possible charges include 

Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 92 (violation of a lawful general order), Article 93 (cruelty and maltreatment), and Article 128 (assault). 

Navy policy further provides our leaders and service members guidance on what 

is not considered hazing. Under Department of the Navy policy, hazing does not include command-authorized or operational activities; the requisite training to prepare 

for such missions or operations; administrative corrective measures; extra military 

instruction; athletics events, command-authorized physical training, contests or 

competitions and other similar activities that are authorized by the chain of command. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 22) Representative Coffman expressed a failure of leadership in the unit level as the primary cause for these recent hazing cases. We understand that annual drop-down reviews of command are required by the Services. 

Do these reviews actually occur annually? Do they include reviews of commands 

within smallest units? What specifically are they reviewing? Do they include hazing 

incidents and hazing culture as part of the review? Do they include reviews to ensure that each command level has adequate hazing and harassment prevention 

training? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 22) Department of the Navy is unfamiliar with 

the term ‘‘drop-down reviews.’’ However, the Navy utilizes Command Climate Assessments which are administered via the Defense Equal Opportunity Management 

Institute. The questions in the Command Climate Assessment survey are Service 

specific and each command may tailor up to ten additional, locally-prepared and focused questions to the survey for their command. The information provided by command members is retained in an anonymous format and their verbatim comments 

are provided to the Commanding Officer and the Command Assessment Team who 

will work together to resolve command climate concerns. Also, an executive summary of the Command Climate Assessment is provided to the Commanding Officer’s 

Immediate Superior In Command. This allows the senior officer to maintain awareness of the climates in the units under his/her command. 

Command Climate Assessments are required to be performed annually. Specifically, they are conducted within 90 days of assumption of command of the new Commanding Officer and annually thereafter. Our 2011 annual review showed a 98% 

completion rate of required Command Climate Assessments in CY2011. 

Every command, regardless of size, is required to conduct Command Climate Assessments. 

A Command Climate Assessment seeks to determine the ‘‘health’’ and functional 

effectiveness of an organization by examining such factors as morale, teamwork, and 

communication and is accomplished using an anonymous survey of command mem-
74 

bers and a minimum of two of the following assessment methodologies; review of 

records and reports, individual interviews, observations, focus groups, and other 

methods deemed appropriate by the commander. The survey focuses on four primary 

areas: Military Equal Opportunity, Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity, Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response, and Organizational Effectiveness. 

The survey does not contain specific questions on hazing incidents and hazing culture. However, Commanders have the capability to select up to an additional 10 locally-developed questions and five short-answer questions and these elements can 

include inquiries about hazing, command culture, etc. Additionally, service members 

can write their own comments on any personal concern and these responses are provided verbatim to the Commander and the Command Assessment Team. 

Department of Navy policies direct that service members receive training on hazing both on an annual basis and each time a service member reports to a new duty 

station. Training materials are developed by the Navy’s Center for Personal and 

Professional Development and are available to commands and individuals alike via 

the Navy Knowledge Online website. 

The annual requirement for commands to conduct hazing training is driven by 

Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1610.2A. Additionally, in the e-Learning course 

‘‘Navy Policy on Hazing’’ the service member learns the definition of hazing; identifies examples of hazing; identifies components of the Navy Policy on Hazing; identifies consequences of violating the Navy Policy on Hazing; and identifies resulting 

actions when hazing is reported. 

Additionally, Navy requires that within the first 30 days of reporting to a new 

command, or within 3 drill weekends for reservists, commands provide service members Navy Pride and Professionalism training which includes the Navy policy on 

hazing. 

All general Navy training is monitored and managed within each command. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 23) Some of the Services stated that they require their 

personnel to report incidents of hazing and harassment. Where are these reporting 

requirements defined or documented? Also, what are the penalties for failure to report these incidents? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 23) The requirement to report acts of hazing is 

outlined in the Department of the Navy’s hazing instruction. Failure by witnesses 

to report a hazing incident is punishable under appropriate articles of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or 

regulation), and Service regulations which mandate the reporting of crimes. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 24) During the hearing, each of the Services shared 

their latest statistics about hazing. However, the timeline for these numbers were 

inconsistent across all the branches and only included cases that went to a Courts 

Martial. How many cases of hazing occurred within each of the Services over the 

last 5 years, including both Courts Martial and Non-Judicial Punishment? How do 

these numbers break down by race and gender? What were the respective punishments for each instance? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 24) The DON does not have the specific information Congresswoman Chu seeks. 

Hazing is not a stand-alone offense that can be charged under the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice (UCMJ). Under Navy regulations, hazing is defined as any conduct whereby a military member or members, regardless of Service or rank, without 

proper authority causes another military member or members, regardless of Service 

or rank, to suffer or be exposed to any activity which is cruel, abusive, humiliating, 

oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. 

Under the UCMJ hazing can be charged as follows: 

 Article 92, UCMJ, Violation of a Lawful General Order. Maximum punishment: 

punitive discharge, two years of confinement, total forfeitures of pay and allowances, and reduction to paygrade E–1. 

 Article 93, UCMJ, Cruelty and Maltreatment. This article may apply when the 

accused is in a position of authority over another person (such that the accused 

can issue orders to that person), and the accused is cruel toward, or oppresses, 

or maltreats that person. Maximum punishment: punitive discharge, one year 

confinement, total forfeitures of pay and allowances, and reduction to paygrade 

E–1. 

 Article 128, UCMJ, Assault. Depending on the circumstances and method of assault, the crime may be prosecuted as simple assault; assault consummated by 

a battery, or aggravated assault. Maximum punishment for aggravated assault 

(most serious): punitive discharge, eight years confinement, total forfeitures of 

pay and allowances, and reduction to paygrade E–1. 

Hazing-related offenses can be prosecuted at general, special or summary courtsmartial or service members can receive nonjudicial punishment for conduct amount-
75 

ing to hazing. While Navy commanders have been required to report incidents of 

hazing for years, our statistics have focused on the tracking cases by Article number 

and have not specifically tracked the disposition of hazing allegations. Beginning 

this year, however, the Navy and Marine Corps have begun tracking the disposition 

of hazing offenses. Our databases do not presently capture offender race demographics. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 25) Please provide the Committee with the relevant 

anti-hazing material and documents you use to train your service members. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 25) The requested material was forwarded to 

the House Armed Services Committee on, or about, February 13, 2012, in response 

to an earlier committee request for information. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 26) Please describe the difference under regulation and 

in practice, for each Service, between appropriate ‘‘corrective training’’ and hazing. 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 26) Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1610.2a 

defines hazing as any conduct whereby a military member or members, regardless 

of Service or rank, without proper authority causes another military member or 

members, regardless of Service or rank, to suffer or be exposed to any activity which 

is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. 

Soliciting or coercing another to perpetrate any such activity is also considered 

hazing. Hazing need not involve physical contact among or between military members; it can be verbal or psychological in nature. Actual or implied consent to acts 

of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator. Hazing can include, 

but is not limited to, the following: playing abusive or ridiculous tricks; threatening 

or offering violence or bodily harm to another; striking; branding; taping; tattooing; 

shaving; greasing; painting; requiring excessive physical exercise beyond what is required to meet standards; ‘‘pinning’’; ‘‘tacking on’’; ‘‘blood wings’’; or forcing or requiring the consumption of food, alcohol, drugs, or any other substance. 

While the specific term ‘‘corrective training’’ is not included in the lexicon of Navy 

hazing policy, hazing does not include command-authorized or operational activities; 

the requisite training to prepare for such missions or operations; administrative corrective measures; extra military instruction; athletics events, command-authorized 

physical training, contests or competitions and other similar activities that are authorized by the chain of command. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 27) When did your Service last update its hazing policy? 

Do you have any plans to review and update it if necessary? If your Service does 

not currently have an anti-hazing policy, are you considering instituting one? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 27) Our current policy on hazing was written 

in 2005. We completed a review of this policy in 2012 and found the policy to be 

clear and unambiguous. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 28) Please provide data broken up according to race/ 

ethnic heritage and gender, regarding the following: How many service members 

have died from non-combat injuries in the last 10 years? Of these incidents, how 

many were classified as suicide, homicide, accident, etc. Also, please include data 

on deaths resulted from friendly fire. How many equal opportunity complaints have 

been received from service members within the last 10 years? Of these claims, how 

many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of members in each Service 

of the last 10 years? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 28) The accompanying table provides requested 

data on the number of Navy non-hostile fatalities over the past 10 years, broken 

out by casualty category as well as race and ethnicity. I am unable to offer data 

on friendly fire incidents since that information is not centrally captured as a sortable data field in the personnel casualty reporting process under Department of Defense Instruction 1300.18. 

Since 2002, the Navy Equal Opportunity (EO) office has received 1,317 complaints, 563 of which were substantiated. 

During the last 10 years there have been 829,206 individuals in the Navy. 

[The information referred to is retained in the committee files and can be viewed 

upon request.] 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 29) Just by listening to the testimonies, we would think 

that this hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service appears to denounce hazing 

and has safeguards to prevent it. Yet, hazing occurs, as evident by the recent incidents of Private Danny Chen, Lance Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy vessel, Bonhomme Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta issued an anti-hazing directive 

during his holiday message in December. 

What I find extremely troubling is the lack of actual statistics on hazing. How 

can anyone be convinced that a problem doesn’t exist or current policies are working 

if there is no method to monitor and evaluate it? Do any of the Services have a data-
76 

base or other monitoring system to record the incidences of hazing and harassment? 

If so, how do you use the data you collect? 

Master Chief Petty Officer WEST. 29) The Discrimination and Sexual Harassment 

(DASH) database will serve as the model for reporting ALL hazing incidents. This 

database will capture substantiated and unsubstantiated incidents of hazing. The 

Equal Opportunity and Diversity Management Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps 

will use this information to modify training and education requirements as necessary across the Marine Corps. This reporting/tracking process will be the tool the 

unit commander will use to report all incidents of hazing. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 30) How does each Service evaluate that their current 

policies are working? Waiting to review policies after a slew of tragic cases is not 

effective prevention. 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 30) The Marine Corps has numerous tools available to 

evaluate the effectiveness of policies, and keep the finger on the pulse of the command climate. For example, Marines are given the opportunity to provide additional 

comments during Command Climate, Retention, and Exit Surveys, which are conducted at different intervals throughout a Marine’s service. Alleged criminal offenses are reviewed and investigated. Marines also have the right to ‘‘Request 

Mast’’, to directly communicate grievances to, or seek assistance from, their commanding officers or Officer in Charge. Additionally, Marines can contact the Inspector General’s (IG) office through the IG hotline, which receives and handles allegations regarding fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement or misconduct. The Marine 

Corps Order on Hazing was recently updated (1 Feb 2012) to ensure all Marines 

understand the definition of hazing and it deteriorating effects. The Marine Corps 

is taking a comprehensive approach with the establishment of a hazing incident 

tracking system (DASH) along with a 24 hour Sexual Harassment and Hazing Advice Line which will provide available resources and information to victims. All Marine units undergo regular inspections per Marine Corp Order 5430.1, Inspector 

General Program (IGP). The Inspector General of the Marine Corps oversees the 

program to ensure inspections are conducted throughout the Service, that all units 

are in compliance with Marine Corps policy and that the policies are current and 

relevant. There are 122 functional areas with checklist which help assess compliance and mission readiness. However, there are currently 33 ‘‘core’’ functional areas 

that all units are assessed regardless of their mission. The fundamental mission of 

inspectors is to teach, train and enhance the operational readiness of the unit and 

Marine Corps. 

Currently, the new Marine Corps Order 1700.28A, 1 Feb 2012. Hazing does not 

have a functional area checklist developed. Vetting a new functional area checklist 

for hazing is currently underway. Once a functional area checklist is developed, hazing will be added to the ‘‘core’’ (or mandatory) list of areas to be inspected across 

the Marine Corps. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 31) The hazing of service members in a National Guard 

company assigned in Kosovo surfaced only last month after a private in the company lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, Commander of 

U.S. Army Europe, commented that the private reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the General said, ‘‘For this guy to say what you guys are doing is 

wrong, courageous is an understatement.’’ We definitely agree. However, it also 

speaks to the difficulties for subordinate service members to report inappropriate 

behavior of their senior officers. This must be nearly impossible during extended forward deployments when only the unit’s immediate senior officers are present. What 

can be done to create an environment that ensures both accessibility to higher level 

of command for reporting of incidents and the safety of the victims and whistleblowers? What type of support system is in place for victims of hazing and whistleblowers who report hazing? 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 31) The Marine Corps has numerous tools available to 

create an environment to ensure accessibility to the chain of command. For example, 

Marines are given the opportunity to provide additional comments during Command 

Climate, Retention, and Exit Surveys, which are conducted at different intervals 

throughout a Marine’s service. Alleged criminal offenses are reviewed and investigated. Marines also have the right to ‘‘Request Mast’’, to directly communicate 

grievances to, or seek assistance from; their commanding officers or Officer in 

Charge. Additionally, Marines can contact the Inspector General’s (IG) office 

through the IG hotline, which receives and handles allegations regarding fraud, 

waste, abuse, mismanagement or misconduct. The Marine Corps is going to implement a 24 hour Sexual Harassment and Hazing Advice Line which will provide 

available resources and information to victims. Furthermore, the Marine Corps has 

37 Equal Opportunity Advisors (EOA) assigned to Major Subordinate Commands 
77 

(MSC), Marines can use to seek guidance and information. The EOA is a special 

staff member for the commanding general/commander. The EOA is trained on all 

Department of Defense Equal Opportunity policies, information related to cultural 

and ethnic diversity, contemporary issues, and discrimination to include sexual harassment prevention training. The Marine Corps has added ‘‘hazing’’ to the EOAs list 

of responsibilities and will be managed by the Equal Opportunity and Diversity 

Management Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps. 

The Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), through ALMAR 05/12, reminded 

all Marines that Hazing is contrary to our Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment. With the focus on leadership, the CMC issued a direct and personal message to commanders to ensure all Marines are treated with dignity, care, and respect, and to be ever vigilant for signs of hazing within our ranks and that there 

is no environment to condone hazing. Marines have available resources to report incidents without fear of reprisal. The Marine Corps is currently in the process establishing additional resources to provide victim assistance services to victims of hazing 

consistent with the victim assistance standards. A sexual harassment/hazing advice 

line and the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) are currently being established in conjunction with the Marine Corps Hazing Reporting Process. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 32) What have you done to address cultural sensitivity 

and to adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion effort? Have you outreached 

to communities for resources and guidance? If not, what plans do you have to do 

so? 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 32) The Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has 

directed a comprehensive review of the Marine Corps’ current diversity posture and 

issues in his Commandant’s Planning Guidance of 2010. A draft Diversity Campaign 

Plan is currently in staffing. The mission and intent is to improve diversity across 

the Marine Corps while maintaining the Corps’ dedication to developing and maximizing the potential of every Marine and strengthening our connectedness to the 

American public. The following goals will assist in the successful achievement of the 

mission: 

(1) Improve diversity across the Marine Corps. (2) Ensure each Marine is provided 

equitable opportunities for professional development and career progression. (3) Ensure every Marine understands the importance of having a diverse force. (4) Institutionalize diversity and inclusive policies and practices across the Marine Corps. 

In addition, the Marine Corps participates in affinity group conferences annually, 

i.e. Black Engineer of the Year Awards (BEYA), Women of Color in STEM (WOC– 

STEM), Association of Naval Services Officers (ANSO), and National Naval Officer 

Association (NNOA). These conferences foster positive relationships between the 

Marine Corps and the American people. The conferences also provide opportunities 

to increase awareness of the diversity within our Corps and the career opportunities 

offered. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 33) Do hazing and harassment training, monitoring, 

and enforcement policies need to be uniform across the Services? 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 33) The policy and definition for hazing and harassment 

should be standardized across the Services to ensure the message is consistent. The 

training, monitoring, and enforcement of those policies need to be maintained by the 

individual Service. 

The Marine Corps provides rank appropriate training and education on Marine 

Corps Values and Values Based Training (VBT) subjects that directly influence the 

conduct and ethical behavior of Marines. All courses stress VBT and Leadership as 

a leadership imperative and emphasize the establishment of proper command climate toward VBT the key to success for an effective VBT/L program. Hazing, Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response, Substance Abuse, Fraternization, and Sexual 

Harassment are the VBT subjects that must be continually emphasized in the Operating Force and Supporting Establishment. Marine Corps Bulletin (MCBUL) 1500, 

Annual and Ancillary Training and Marine Corps Common skills requires the annual sustainment of all of those VBT subjects. These requirements ensure there is 

no gap between the schoolhouse and Operating Force. 

Marine Corps recruits in the Delayed Entry Program begin receiving instructions 

on Ethics and Core Values training. Students in the Entry Level Training pipeline 

receive training on the Marine Corps policy for each one of the VBT subjects at the 

MCRDs and then receive reinforcement training at MCT and the MOS producing 

school. Students in career progression courses at MOS schools and students in PME 

schools, both officer and enlisted, receive rank appropriate training and education 

on the VBT subjects, how to conduct a VBT guided discussion and, ethical leadership training. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 34) Army Sergeant Major Chandler and USMC Sergeant Major Barrett testified their interest in creating a statutory definition of haz-
78 

ing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They implied that this would 

make it easier for them to track these incidents. Currently 44 States have anti-hazing laws and 31 States define hazing as a crime in their criminal code. We believe 

that defining hazing in the UCMJ would provide a strong disincentive against hazing and yet another tool for prosecutors to go after the perpetrators of hazing. What 

are the Services’ assessments regarding a statutory definition for the Defense Department? What should a definition look like? 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 34) Hazing is defined in the Marine Corps in Marine 

Corps Order 1700.28A. This definition [‘‘any conduct whereby a military member or 

members, regardless of Service or rank, without proper authority causes another 

military member or members, regardless of Service or rank, to suffer or be exposed 

to any activity which is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful.’’] is identical to that prescribed for the Department of the Navy in 

SECNAVINST 1610.2A. 

Violations of the Marine Corps policy prohibiting hazing subject those involved to 

potential disciplinary action under Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) 

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Article 92, UCMJ carries with it 

a maximum punishment (at General Court-Martial) of two years of confinement, 

total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. ‘‘Hazing,’’ however, may include conduct proscribed by other Articles under the UCMJ. Therefore, those who have engaged in acts of hazing may also be charged under other applicable Articles to include, but not limited to, Article 93 (Cruelty and maltreatment) or Article 128 (Assault). 

One potential benefit of creating a statutory definition of hazing would be consistency across the Services. While the Navy and Marine Corps definitions are identical, 

the Army definition does differ slightly [‘‘any conduct whereby one military member 

or employee, regardless of Service or rank, unnecessarily causes another military 

member or employee, regardless of Service or rank, to suffer or be exposed to an 

activity that is cruel, abusive, oppressive, or harmful.’’]. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 35) Representative Coffman expressed a failure of leadership in the unit level as the primary cause for these recent hazing cases. We understand that annual drop-down reviews of command are required by the Services. 

Do these reviews actually occur annually? Do they include reviews of commands 

within smallest units? What specifically are they reviewing? Do they include hazing 

incidents and hazing culture as part of the review? Do they include reviews to ensure that each command level has adequate hazing and harassment prevention 

training? 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 35) All questions will be addressed individually. 

Question: We understand that annual drop-down reviews of command are required by the Services. Do these reviews actually occur annually? Answer: While 

Marine Corp Order 5430.1, Inspector General Program (IGP) prescribes how annual 

inspections are to be conducted, Marine Corps Order 5040.6I Marine Corps Inspections and Readiness Assessments further details administration of the process. Furthermore, there are two kinds of inspections conducted annually, first is the Commanding General Inspection Program where all units under the cognizance of a 

General Officer are systematically inspected, second are all units not commanded 

by a General Officer participate in the Unit Inspection Program which is also assess 

under the Inspector General of the Marine Corps. 

Question: What specifically are they reviewing? Answer: Unit Inspectors assess 

Marine Corps policy compliance by using functional area checklist. Functional area 

checklists contain the requirements to assess whether a unit is Mission Capable or 

Non-Mission Capable. For example, there are 122 functional area checklists for the 

Marine Corps to include Safety, Physical Security, Training, Medical, Dental, Equal 

Opportunity and Sexual Assault. If a unit is assessing to be Non-Mission Capable, 

the Unit Commander has 30 days to bring his command up to standard. Commanders can ask for HQMC assistance, request for extensions or refer an issue they 

can’t fix (Manpower, Funding, etc.) up the chain of command for resolution 

Question: Do they include reviews of commands within smallest units? Answer: 

The Marine Corps inspection program applies to all units regardless of mission, size 

or location. The subject of Hazing is address through annual Ethics and Core Values 

training. 

Question: Do they include hazing incidents and hazing culture as part of the review? Answer: Hazing is addressed as part of Ethics and Core Values required 

training at all levels of command to include: 

1) Entry level training, MCRD Paris Island, MCRD San Diego, Officer Candidate 

School, Quantico 

2) Career Level Schools, Expeditionary Warfare School, Command and Staff College, Marine Corps War College, Corporals Course, NCO School, Staff NCO 
79 

Academy Professional Development, General Officers Symposium, SgtMajs 

Symposium, Commanders Course 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 36) Some of the Services stated that they require their 

personnel to report incidents of hazing and harassment. Where are these reporting 

requirements defined or documented? Also, what are the penalties for failure to report these incidents? 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 36) The updated MCO on Hazing (MCO 1700.28A) directs Commanding Officers and Officers in Charge to report all substantiated incidents of hazing. The Marine Corps is implementing a reporting process to capture 

all substantiated and unsubstantiated incidents of hazing through the DASH reporting system. Incidents of hazing are documented and reported with the Operations 

Event/Incident Report (OPREP–3) Serious Incident Report as directed in MCO 

3504.2. This Order articulates the reporting policies and instructions for reportable 

events or incidents. The report provides information to the Commandant of the Marine Corps and Senior Marine Corps Leadership for reportable events. A Hazing 

event or incident that results in death, injury requiring hospitalization or significant 

property damage, is included as a reportable event. 

Failure to comply with Marine Corps orders is punishable under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice. Art. 92., Failure to obey any lawful order or regulation. 

Art. 134. Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 37) During the hearing, each of the Services shared 

their latest statistics about hazing. However, the timeline for these numbers were 

inconsistent across all the branches and only included cases that went to a Courts 

Martial. How many cases of hazing occurred within each of the Services over the 

last 5 years, including both Courts Martial and Non-Judicial Punishment? How do 

these numbers break down by race and gender? What were the respective punishments for each instance? 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 37) The Marine Corps has court-martial statistics for 

hazing cases dating back to the implementation of the Marine Corps Case Management System (CMS) in February 2010. 

In calendar year 2011, there were no general court-martial (GCM) cases involving 

hazing. There were 43 special court-martial (SPCM) cases that involved hazing. 

Of the 43 SPCMs, 11 resulted in convictions, 5 resulted in acquittals, and 27 were 

ultimately withdrawn from SPCM and adjudicated at lower forums. Of the 11 convictions, the following punishments were adjudged:—Restriction for 60 Days, Reduction to E–3, Reprimand;—Reduction to E–6, Reprimand;—Bad Conduct Discharge, 

9 Months Confinement, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of $900 pay for 9 Months;— 

90 Days Confinement, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of $500.00 pay for 3 Months;— 

Bad Conduct Discharge, 12 Months Confinement, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of 

$978.00 pay for 12 Months;—Bad Conduct Discharge, 150 Days Confinement, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of $500.00 pay for 3 Months;—Bad Conduct Discharge, 

6 Months Confinement, Reduction to E–1;—4 Months Confinement, Reduction to E– 

1, Forfeiture of $900.00 pay for 5 Months;—Bad Conduct Discharge, 8 Months Confinement, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of $970.00 pay for 8 Months;—Bad Conduct 

Discharge, 4 Months Confinement, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of $978.00 pay for 

4 Months;—Restriction and Hard Labor w/o Confinement for 60 Days, Reduction to 

E–1, Forfeiture of $978.00 pay for 6 Months. 

In calendar year 2010, there were three GCM and 26 SPCM cases that involved 

hazing. 

Of the three GCMs, two resulted in convictions and one resulted in an acquittal. 

The two convictions resulted in the following punishments:—Bad Conduct Discharge, 13 Months Confinement, Reduction to E–1, and Total Forfeitures;—Bad 

Conduct Discharge, 36 Months Confinement, Reduction to E–1, and Total Forfeitures. 

Of the 26 SPCMs, 10 resulted in convictions, 5 resulted in acquittals, and 11 were 

withdrawn from SPCM and ultimately adjudicated at lower forums. The 10 convictions adjudged the following punishments:—Bad Conduct Discharge, 8 Months Confinement, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of $964.00 pay for 8 Months;—Bad Conduct 

Discharge, 4 Months Confinement, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of $964.00 pay for 

4 Months;—Bad Conduct Discharge, 10 Months Confinement, Reduction to E–1, 

Forfeiture of $964.00 pay for 10 Months;—45 Days Confinement, Reduction to E– 

1, Forfeiture of $964.00 pay for 2 Months;—Reduction to E–4, Forfeiture of $833.00 

pay for 1 Month;—Confinement for 85 Days, Reduction to E–2;—Confinement for 

240 Days, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of $200.00 pay for 10 Months;—Confinement 

for 150 Days, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of $500.00 pay for 10 Months;—Confinement for 180 Days, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of $400.00 pay for 10 Months;— 

Confinement for 3 Months, Reduction to E–1, Forfeiture of 2/3 pay for 3 Months. 
80 

JAGINST 5800.9C, the Department of the Navy’s Quarterly Criminal Activity Report (QCAR), was revised on 23 March 2012 and now includes a sub-category, ‘‘Disposition of Hazing Offenses.’’ This report will now track the disposition of hazing 

offenses, as defined by MCO 1700.28A, including non-judicial punishment, summary 

court-martial, special court-martial, and general court-martial. The report will include ‘‘total adjudicated,’’ ‘‘total guilty,’’ and ‘‘total not guilty.’’ Prior to this revision 

of the JAGINST, hazing offenses that were disposed of below the special court-martial level were not separately reported. 

Neither the Marine Corps Case Management System nor the QCAR identifies the 

race or gender of victims or accused in any disciplinary action. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 38) Please provide the Committee with the relevant 

anti-hazing material and documents you use to train your service members. 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 38) Lesson materials are within enclosures (2) through 

(5). The training schools are updating/pen changing their lesson plans and material, 

with the new Marine Corps Order number and new policy on Hazing, while their 

periods of instructions are being taught. The current lesson materials are in the 

process of being updated by the Marine Corps Recruiting Depots (MCRDs), Marine 

Combat Training, School of Infantry (SOIs), Officer Candidates School, and The 

Basic School. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 39) Please describe the difference under regulation and 

in practice, for each Service, between appropriate ‘‘corrective training’’ and hazing. 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 39) There are two forms of corrective training. Incentive 

Training is only authorized at Marine Corps Recruit Depots (MCRD). Extra Military 

Instruction is authorized beyond recruit training. Both are designed to correct minor 

deficiencies and instill discipline. Neither is intended to be used in an abusive nature with no relation to the infraction committed. 

(1) ‘‘Incentive Training’’ (IT) is ‘‘an aid in instilling discipline and motivation . . . 

’’ IT consists of physical exercises administered in a controlled and deliberate manner as a consequence for minor disciplinary infractions.’’ It is ONLY used at the 

MCRDs and may ONLY be administered by a Drill Instructor, per MCRDPI Depot 

Order P1513.6A. 

(2) ‘‘Extra Military Instruction’’ (EMI) is a non-punitive measure defined in 

JAGMAN paragraph 0103, as ‘‘instruction in a phase of military duty in which an 

individual is deficient, and is intended for and directed towards the correction of 

that deficiency . . . It may be assigned only if genuinely intended to accomplish that 

result. It is not to be used as a substitute for judicial (court-martial) action or nonjudicial punishment (NJP), and must be logically related to the deficiency in performance for which it was assigned.’’ 

Authority to assign EMI that is to be performed during normal working hours is 

not limited to any particular grade or rate, but is an inherent part of that authority 

over their subordinates that are vested in officers and noncommissioned/petty officers in connection with duties and responsibilities assigned to them. This authority 

to assign EMI that is to be performed during normal working hours may be withdrawn by any superior if warranted. 

Authority to assign EMI to be performed after normal working hours is vested in 

the Commanding Officer or Officer In Charge. Such authority may be delegated, as 

appropriate, to officers and noncommissioned/petty officers, in connection with duties and responsibilities assigned to them. 

Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby a military member or members, regardless of Service or rank, without proper authority causes another military member 

or members, regardless of Service or rank, to suffer or be exposed to any activity 

which is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. It is prohibited at all times pursuant to MCO 1700.28A. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 40) When did your Service last update its hazing policy? 

Do you have any plans to review and update it if necessary? If your Service does 

not currently have an anti-hazing policy, are you considering instituting one? 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 40) The Marine Corps policy on Hazing was last updated on 1 February, 2012 (MCO 1700.28A). We are reviewing and updating the 

Hazing reporting process with the establishment of additional reporting and tracking procedures. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 41) Please provide data broken up according to race/ 

ethnic heritage and gender, regarding the following: How many service members 

have died from non-combat injuries in the last 10 years? Of these incidents, how 

many were classified as suicide, homicide, accident, etc. Also, please include data 

on deaths resulted from friendly fire. How many equal opportunity complaints have 

been received from service members within the last 10 years? Of these claims, how 

many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of members in each Service 

of the last 10 years? 
81 

Sergeant Major BARRETT. 41) During 2002–2012, the Marine Corps had 1,293 

non-combatant deaths. Accidents were the number one cause of non-combatant 

deaths (941). There were nine cases of ‘‘Friendly Fire Deaths’’ with white males having the majority of the incidents (6). White males also had the greatest number of 

suicides among all races (263) during the 10 year span. A complete breakdown of 

data is documented within enclosures (6) through (9). 

(PART 2): How many equal opportunity complaints have been received from service members within the last 10 years? Of these claims, how many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of members in each Service of the last 10 years? 

Answer: A consolidation of the total number of equal opportunity complaints, over 

the past 10 years, is listed in the following table and includes the total Active Component population. A breakdown of all equal opportunity complaints per year (2002– 

2012) are within enclosure (10). 

Type of Complaint Total Cases Substantiated Cases Cases of Sexual Discrimination 325 197 Cases of Race Discrimination 142 66 Cases of Gender Discrimination 

60 13 Cases of Age Discrimination 1 1 Cases of Religion Discrimination 6 4 

Total Force Numbers (AC) Year Qty Year Qty 2002—173,749 2008—198,505 

2003—177,756 2009—202,786 2004—177,159 2010—202,441 2005—180,025 2011— 

201,157 2006—180,414 2012—198,427 2007—186,471 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 42) Just by listening to the testimonies, we would think 

that this hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service appears to denounce hazing 

and has safeguards to prevent it. Yet, hazing occurs, as evident by the recent incidents of Private Danny Chen, Lance Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy vessel, Bonhomme Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta issued an anti-hazing directive 

during his holiday message in December. 

What I find extremely troubling is the lack of actual statistics on hazing. How 

can anyone be convinced that a problem doesn’t exist or current policies are working 

if there is no method to monitor and evaluate it? Do any of the Services have a database or other monitoring system to record the incidences of hazing and harassment? 

If so, how do you use the data you collect? 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 42) The Air Force does not specifically track incidents 

of misconduct as hazing. However, the Air Force carefully monitors the disciplinary 

response to many incidents of misconduct through a computer-based tracking system known as AMJAMS (Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management 

System). The purpose of AMJAMS is to collect data pertaining to investigations, 

nonjudicial punishment imposed pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (UCMJ), trials by court-martial, and related military justice activity; it does 

not always contain information related to a case handled purely administratively 

(no UCMJ action). 

As hazing usually consists of behaviors otherwise punishable under the UCMJ 

(i.e., assault in violation of Article 128, or cruelty and maltreatment of a subordinate 

under Article 93), AMJAMS tracks the disciplinary response to underlying misconduct. For example, if two airmen were accused of hazing another airman by assaulting him in violation of Article 128, AMJAMS would identify the allegations for 

those two airmen as ‘‘assault,’’ not hazing. Since hazing does not have an objective 

definition, AMJAMS would only recognize an incident as ‘‘hazing’’ if UCMJ specifications used the word ‘‘hazing’’ in the specification. After a thorough search of 

AMJAMS, only two incidents were identified in the past three years where charging 

authorities used ‘‘hazing’’ in the specification to describe the incident; both airmen 

were punished via Article 15. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 43) How does each Service evaluate that their current 

policies are working? Waiting to review policies after a slew of tragic cases is not 

effective prevention. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 43) Air Force training is constantly evaluated for 

overall effectiveness and improvements via course critiques, end-of-course surveys, 

climate surveys, and measurement devices (e.g. written tests, progress checks, etc) 

and can be immediately updated by Air Education and Training Command (AETC) 

and United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). Furthermore, all Air Force training 

encourages Airmen to anonymously complete critique forms at any time to report 

unauthorized behavior. Airmen complete End of Course Surveys which includes 

questions covering their treatment during training and the opportunity to provide 

written comments regarding any aspect. Basic Military Training also uses systematic trend data to retool their education and training programs and policies. 

Additionally, the Air Force utilizes the Chief of Staff’s Climate Survey to evaluate 

the climate at the unit and institutional levels. This is an opportunity for Airmen 

to provide anonymous feedback on issues such as hazing, maltreatment, favoritism, 

harassment, etc. 
82 

At the local level, each unit is also required to have a Unit Climate Assessment 

when a new commander takes command, or every two years. These climate assessments are another opportunity for Airmen to provide feedback on the overall climate 

in the unit and inform leadership of any issues with hazing, maltreatment, harassment, favoritism, etc. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 44) The hazing of service members in a National Guard 

company assigned in Kosovo surfaced only last month after a private in the company lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, Commander of 

U.S. Army Europe, commented that the private reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the General said, ‘‘For this guy to say what you guys are doing is 

wrong, courageous is an understatement.’’ We definitely agree. However, it also 

speaks to the difficulties for subordinate service members to report inappropriate 

behavior of their senior officers. This must be nearly impossible during extended forward deployments when only the unit’s immediate senior officers are present. What 

can be done to create an environment that ensures both accessibility to higher level 

of command for reporting of incidents and the safety of the victims and whistleblowers? What type of support system is in place for victims of hazing and whistleblowers who report hazing? 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 44) Air Force whistleblowers are protected under 

IAW 10 USC 1034. Violations are investigated and personnel who violate the whistleblower law are dealt with by command. Air Force personnel have avenues to complain about hazing that includes their chain of command and the Inspectors General 

(IG). Air Force IGs are assigned at nearly every wing/installation within the Air 

Force, to include active duty, Air Force Reserves, and Air National Guard. Personnel 

are briefed whenever they PCS at Newcomers’ Briefings on how to contact the IG. 

The IGs are also required by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 90–301 to brief all newly 

assigned wing, group, and/or squadron commanders within 30 days of assumption 

of command on the roles of the IG and what whistleblower protection is. Also, the 

role of the IG and the IG process are outlined within the Professional Development 

Guide (PDG) that every enlisted member of the Air Force has to study prior to taking tests for promotion. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 45) What have you done to address cultural sensitivity 

and to adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion effort? Have you outreached 

to communities for resources and guidance? If not, what plans do you have to do 

so? 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 45) Diversity and inclusion are vital to the successful 

accomplishment of the Air Force mission. In fact, the Air Force characterizes diversity as a military necessity. The Secretary, Chief of Staff, and Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force signed the Air Force Declaration on Diversity reinforcing 

their commitment to the principles of diversity and inclusion. Additionally, the Air 

Force promotes a culture that embraces diversity and provides the opportunity for 

all Airmen to reach their full potential. The Air Force Policy Directive on Diversity, 

Strategic Roadmap on Diversity, and Air Force Instruction on Diversity (in coordination now) all provide guidance and direction for Air Force members on promoting 

diversity and inclusion throughout the force. 

In response to Executive Order 13583 Establishing a Coordinated Governmentwide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce, our diversity office is conducting a thorough review of the Air Force’s Diversity Strategic 

Roadmap to ensure that it is consistent with the President’s guidance, federal jurisprudence, the Office of Personnel Management’s Government-wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan and the Department of Defense Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan. Ensuring Air Force strategic level guidance is consistent with these higher level documents will allow us to further institutionalize diversity and inclusion 

throughout the Air Force. 

To ensure the Air Force is tied in with communities across the country, we developed a Calendar of National-level Diversity Outreach Events. For example, the Scientist and Engineer Career Field recruitment team at the Air Force Personnel Center annually sponsors and participates in the Hispanic Engineers National Achievement Awards Conference (HENAAC). Their participation at HENAAC and similar 

events not only helps to inform prospective Hispanic employees about Air Force civilian career opportunities but also provides a national-level venue to recognize the 

notable accomplishments of outstanding Air Force civilian members who have excelled in science and other technical careers. To plant the seeds of the benefits of 

service, good citizenship and a healthy lifestyle early on, the Air Force participates 

in other outreach programs focused on our youth. Heroes and Heritage is a program 

that brings high school students with high grade point averages together with military professionals to showcase opportunities in the Air Force and encourage young 

people to maintain their grades in order to widen their opportunities. Air Force in 
83 

the Community (AFiC) is an Air Force sponsored program in which we brought a 

science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) program to middle school students, parents, and key educators and influencers for a two day event featuring a 

STEM related project competition, student physical fitness challenges, and Air Force 

guest speakers. Our messaging stressed the importance of leadership, physical fitness, education, and good citizenship. 

Air Force bases across the country are also collaborating with their local communities and reaching out to young students. For example, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, recently partnered with Viva Technology and a local middle school involving over 100 

students, local high schools, and Tinker AFB employees during a special technology 

program at the Mid-Del Technology Center. Additionally, Air Force members participate in approximately 350 regional fairs in the United States and Puerto Rico 

along with the International Science and Engineering Fair to encourage the achievements of America’s youth in STEM. 

Our deliberate civilian force development programs are intended to develop and 

sustain our world-class and diverse civilian force and meet mission requirements by 

training civilians to perform essential technical and occupational skills, serve in institutional leadership roles in multiple environments, and produce a competitive 

cadre of candidates prepared to fill key positions. The Air Force is committed to 

building diversity within our military and civilian ranks; we actively recruit, develop and retain highly qualified people who bring tremendous talent and ability to 

our team. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 46) Do hazing and harassment training, monitoring, 

and enforcement policies need to be uniform across the Services? 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 46) Yes, we believe these policies should be standardized across the Services to the maximum extent possible. In a fiscally constrained 

environment where aircraft and other weapon systems will be cut from the Air 

Force inventory along with corresponding personnel, standardized programs that 

can be used as a baseline would be optimal provided the Services are afforded the 

flexibility to supplement and tailor based on mission needs. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 47) Army Sergeant Major Chandler and USMC Sergeant Major Barrett testified their interest in creating a statutory definition of hazing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They implied that this would 

make it easier for them to track these incidents. Currently 44 States have anti-hazing laws and 31 States define hazing as a crime in their criminal code. We believe 

that defining hazing in the UCMJ would provide a strong disincentive against hazing and yet another tool for prosecutors to go after the perpetrators of hazing. What 

are the Services’ assessments regarding a statutory definition for the Defense Department? What should a definition look like? 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 47) In the past, perpetrators of hazing have been 

prosecuted under the UCMJ for associated behaviors in connection with the incident 

(i.e., assault consummated by battery, cruelty and maltreatment of a subordinate, 

failure to obey lawful general order, etc.). While the behaviors associated with hazing usually constitute offenses under Articles 128, 92, 93, 133, and/or 134, the maximum punishment for each offense depends on the specific UCMJ article under 

which it is charged. A UCMJ offense specifically criminalizing ‘‘hazing’’ could be 

helpful if drafted correctly. A statutory definition for hazing would have to be broad 

enough to cover behaviors commonly connected with hazing, delineated enough to 

distinguish hazing offenses from similar crimes not constituting hazing, and narrow 

enough to not criminalize appropriate activities customarily associated with military 

training. Such a definition could look similar to the following draft, though any definition should be carefully studied and reviewed by the Joint Service Committee on 

Military Justice. 

‘‘17a. Article 93a—Hazing 

Any person subject to this chapter who, as a form of initiation, congratulatory action, unauthorized training, or unlawful punishment, wrongfully causes another person subject to this chapter to suffer or be exposed to any activity which is cruel, 

abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful, or encourages another to 

engage in such activities or other illegal activities under this code, shall be guilty 

of hazing and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.’’ 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 48) Representative Coffman expressed a failure of leadership in the unit level as the primary cause for these recent hazing cases. We understand that annual drop-down reviews of command are required by the Services. 

Do these reviews actually occur annually? Do they include reviews of commands 

within smallest units? What specifically are they reviewing? Do they include hazing 

incidents and hazing culture as part of the review? Do they include reviews to ensure that each command level has adequate hazing and harassment prevention 

training? 
84 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 48) Within the United States Air force Inspector General channels, the Air Force Inspection Agency conducts Compliance Inspections 

that review both the functional requirements of entire units’ mission, and the leadership and management elements of the unit. However, there is no specific checklist 

item that addresses hazing incidents within the unit. The Compliance Inspections 

are targeted to occur every 24 months to ensure they capture the current commander’s performance in that position. 

Additionally, the Air Force utilizes the Chief of Staff’s Climate Survey to evaluate 

the climate at the unit and institutional levels. This is an opportunity for Airmen 

to provide anonymous feedback on issues such as hazing, maltreatment, favoritism, 

harassment, etc. 

At the local level, each unit is also required to have a Unit Climate Assessment 

(UCA) when a new commander takes command, or every two years. These climate 

assessments are another opportunity for Airmen to provide feedback on the overall 

climate in the unit and inform leadership of any issues with hazing, maltreatment, 

harassment, favoritism, etc. The installation commander has visibility of all completed UCAs through the semi-annual Human Relations Climate Assessment 

(HRCA). During the HRCA the installation commander receives an analysis of the 

installation equal opportunity (EO) and human relations climate (HRC). Senior 

leadership discusses EO complaints and UCA trends affecting the installation work 

environment from a total force perspective and makes actionable strategic/tactical 

recommendations to address areas of concern. Another assessment tool conducted by 

the EO office is the Out and About Program. During this assessment, EO staff 

members visit various work centers and base facilities to gather additional EO/ 

human relations information that may impact installation personnel. The EO director schedules out and about assessments with the unit commander, staff agency 

chief or first sergeant. The EO director will ensure unit leadership receives a summary of observations following the assessment. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 49) Some of the Services stated that they require their 

personnel to report incidents of hazing and harassment. Where are these reporting 

requirements defined or documented? Also, what are the penalties for failure to report these incidents? 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 49) The Air Force does not have a formal policy specifically regarding the reporting of hazing. However, Air Force training courses are 

required to brief trainees on the Air Force policy prohibiting hazing. Air Education 

and Training Command Instruction (AETCI) 36–2203, Technical and Basic Military 

Training Development, requires all training venues, i.e. Basic Military Training and 

technical training, to address sexual harassment/assault, unprofessional relationships, and hazing within their orientation programs. The AETCI further requires 

commanders to ensure AETCVA 36–6, Points of Contact for Students and Trainees, 

is displayed on Airmen bulletin boards in military training flights (MTF) and dormitory areas. This visual aid reinforces the reporting proceedure and encourages 

Airmen to follow the chain of command, inspector general channels or other means 

(i.e. students are encouraged to anonymously complete critique forms and end of 

course surveys) to resolve issues. 

All Airmen are entitled to an environment free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that prevent Airmen from rising to the highest level of responsibility 

possible. Hazing is contrary to good order and discipline, is not acceptable behavior, 

and is not tolerated in the Air Force. Compliance with the policy against hazing is 

the responsibility of every Airman, and Airmen who engage in, condone, or ignore 

it face administrative actions. A commander’s options include, but are not limited 

to, counseling, reprimand, creation of an unfavorable information file (UIF), removal 

from position, reassignment, demotion, delay of or removal from a promotion list, 

adverse or referral comments in performance reports and administrative separation. 

More serious cases that involve assault, aggravated assault, maltreatment of subordinates, etc, may warrant court-martial or non-judicial punishment for the offender. 

Moreover, if an Airman is uncomfortable with reporting suspected hazing incidents 

through his or her chain of command, they are encouraged to use the base Inspector 

General. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 50) During the hearing, each of the Services shared 

their latest statistics about hazing. However, the timeline for these numbers were 

inconsistent across all the branches and only included cases that went to a Courts 

Martial. How many cases of hazing occurred within each of the Services over the 

last 5 years, including both Courts Martial and Non-Judicial Punishment? How do 

these numbers break down by race and gender? What were the respective punishments for each instance? 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 50) The Air Force does not specifically categorize 

cases under a ‘‘hazing’’ designation and does not routinely see incidents of hazing. 
85 

However, there were two cases within the past 3 years where ‘‘hazing’’ was used 

in the language of the specification. Those cases were Article 15s: 

1) An airman’s violation of Article 92 (dereliction of duty) at Basic Military Training (BMT) for hazing another BMT student, resulting in forfeiture of $699 per 

month for two months (one month suspended) and a reprimand; and, 

2) A Staff Sergeant’s violation of Article 93 (cruelty and maltreatment of subordinate) for striking and threatening an airman with a poor Enlisted Performance Report for failing to submit to hazing, resulting in a reduction to Senior Airman. 

Although hazing in the Air Force appears to be limited and isolated, the Air Force 

is confident that if hazing incidents arise in the future that are localized to a unit 

or part of a unit, commanders would be aware of them, address the misconduct 

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and deal with the hazing aspect appropriately through administrative or other command actions. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 51) Please provide the Committee with the relevant 

anti-hazing material and documents you use to train your service members. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 51) The requested relevant anti-hazing material and 

documents were provided on a CD to PSM Craig Greene of the HASC Mil Pers on 

16 Feb 12. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 52) Please describe the difference under regulation and 

in practice, for each Service, between appropriate ‘‘corrective training’’ and hazing. 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 52) The Military Commander and the Law defines 

hazing as any conduct whereby a military member without proper authority causes 

another military member, regardless of Service or rank, to suffer or be exposed to 

any activity which is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. 

It further states that physical contact is not necessary—verbal or psychological 

abuse will suffice. In addition, soliciting or encouraging another to engage in such 

activity is also considered hazing. Hazing is typically associated with ‘‘rites of passage’’ or initiations. Some examples include hitting or striking, tattooing, branding, 

shaving, ‘‘blood pinning,’’ and forcing alcohol consumption. Actual or implied consent 

to hazing does not eliminate the perpetrator’s culpability. 

Conversely, alternative corrective measures (verbal counseling, training sessions, 

remedial transition period (RTP), and mandatory curfew), when authorized by the 

chain of command and not unnecessarily cruel, abusive, oppressive, or harmful falls 

outside the punitive definition of hazing. Therefore, in accordance with (IAW) Air 

Education and Training Command Instruction (AETCI) 36–2216, Administration of 

Military Standards and Discipline Training, such measures are used during Basic 

Military Training (BMT) and technical training to correct disciplinary infractions 

and substandard behavior with a specific focus on the following areas: room and 

uniform inspections, Air Force Core Values, Enlisted Force Structure, drill and ceremonies, fitness, combat skills, and tasks. The AETI further states, if and when required, Military Training Leaders (MTLs), Military Training Instructors (MTIs), and 

Commanders will use a ‘‘flexible leadership style that employs mutual respect, support, genuine concern, and targeted doses of discipline, as needed.’’ For example, an 

Airman who consistently fails room inspections may be tasked with building clean 

up duty until the behavior is learned. These temporary measures will not exceed 

10–12 duty hours over 15 calendar days unless additional time is warranted, properly documented, and approved by the military training flight chief not to exceed 

30 consecutive days. Should additional corrective measures be warranted to reinforce attention to detail, motivate students, and/or build teamwork to accomplish a 

specific goal or training objective to promote student success, it will only be authorized as reflected in approved and certified training plans. These procedures are reviewed/approved annually by the applicable group, wing, and numbered air force director of operations. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 53) When did your Service last update its hazing policy? 

Do you have any plans to review and update it if necessary? If your Service does 

not currently have an anti-hazing policy, are you considering instituting one? 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 53) The Chief of Staff of the Air Force issued an Air 

Force Policy on Hazing on 30 Oct 97. The Air Force has not issued any subsequent 

policy specifically addressing hazing. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 54) Please provide data broken up according to race/ 

ethnic heritage and gender, regarding the following: How many service members 

have died from non-combat injuries in the last 10 years? Of these incidents, how 

many were classified as suicide, homicide, accident, etc. Also, please include data 

on deaths resulted from friendly fire. How many equal opportunity complaints have 

been received from service members within the last 10 years? Of these claims, how 

many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of members in each Service 

of the last 10 years? 
86 

Chief Master Sergeant ROY. 54) Attached. 
87 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 55) Just by listening to the testimonies, we would think 

that this hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service appears to denounce hazing 

and has safeguards to prevent it. Yet, hazing occurs, as evident by the recent incidents of Private Danny Chen, Lance Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy vessel, Bonhomme Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta issued an anti-hazing directive 

during his holiday message in December. 

What I find extremely troubling is the lack of actual statistics on hazing. How 

can anyone be convinced that a problem doesn’t exist or current policies are working 

if there is no method to monitor and evaluate it? Do any of the Services have a database or other monitoring system to record the incidences of hazing and harassment? 

If so, how do you use the data you collect? 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 55) Hazing may be investigated at the Command level or 

by the Coast Guard Investigative Service, and may be punishable under provisions 

of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Substantiated cases may result in courtmartial, confinement (jail time,) and punitive discharge. 

Courts-martial involving hazing misconduct are tracked by the Judge Advocate 

General in the Office of Military justice at Coast Guard Headquarters. The Coast 

Guard does not have a mechanism to track hazing cases that are adjudicated outside courts-martial. 

Harassment based on a protected status is reported to the unit chain of command 

or to a Civil Rights Service Provider. When a Harassment Incident is reported, 

Commanders of Coast Guard Units have an affirmative duty to ensure the safety 

of the victim, conduct an investigation, and report findings to the Civil Rights Directorate. In addition to these steps, the victims may choose to initiate the Equal Employment Opportunity discrimination complaint process as outlined in COMDTINST 

M5350.4C, 4–A.1. The Coast Guard offers a complaint process for military members 

patterned after the process for civilian members, based on the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Federal Sector Regulations at 29 Code of Federal 

Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 1614. Data regarding Civil Rights complaints is tracked 

by CG–00H, the Coast Guard Civil Rights Directorate. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 56) How does each Service evaluate that their current 

policies are working? Waiting to review policies after a slew of tragic cases is not 

effective prevention. 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 56) The Coast Guard uses proactive monitoring based on 

organizational and climate surveys as well as input from the field and multiple leadership/diversity councils to review and update policies. 

Additionally, these inputs are used to monitor and evolve Coast Guard culture via 

revised policies, training, or leadership emphasis. 
88 

Every other year beginning in 2002, Coast Guard members and employees have 

confidentially participated in the Coast Guard’s 154-question Organizational Assessment Survey (OAS) about employee satisfaction. The survey does not include specific questions about hazing, but does indicate the overall unit climate. The results 

are provided via reports generated by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

OPM web based tool. Data is kept at OPM to insure confidentially and to prevent 

suppression of honest responses during future administrations of the OAS and other 

surveys. 

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) manages another command assessment tool, the DEOMI Organizational Climate Survey 

(DEOCS). This survey is used as a Commander’s management tool that allows the 

Coast Guard to proactively assess critical organizational climate dimensions that 

can impact the organization’s effectiveness. Additional information is available at 

their website, http://www.deocs.net/public/index.cfm . 

Within the DEOCS tool: 

—Respondents answer questions that characterize their unit’s readiness, formal 

and informal policies, practices, and procedures that occur or are likely to occur 

within the organization. 

—The survey assesses 13 climate factors by posing questions answered by survey 

takers using a five-point scale. 

—The questionnaire focuses on three primary areas: Military Equal Opportunity 

(EO), Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), and Organizational Effectiveness (OE). 

—Respondents’ anonymity is protected when completing the online survey by 

using a computer-generated, untraceable, single use password. Also, no personally 

identifying information is collected. 

Commanding Officers (COs) can add up to 10 locally-developed questions (LDQs) 

and five short answer questions (SAQs) to their unit surveys, helping them target 

specific areas of concern. The program allows COs to select from among hundreds 

of LDQs and SAQs already written, or to create their own. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 57) The hazing of service members in a National Guard 

company assigned in Kosovo surfaced only last month after a private in the company lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, Commander of 

U.S. Army Europe, commented that the private reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the General said, ‘‘For this guy to say what you guys are doing is 

wrong, courageous is an understatement.’’ We definitely agree. However, it also 

speaks to the difficulties for subordinate service members to report inappropriate 

behavior of their senior officers. This must be nearly impossible during extended forward deployments when only the unit’s immediate senior officers are present. What 

can be done to create an environment that ensures both accessibility to higher level 

of command for reporting of incidents and the safety of the victims and whistleblowers? What type of support system is in place for victims of hazing and whistleblowers who report hazing? 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 57) Lieutenant General Hertling’s visible leadership stance 

in this regard is often the most effective factor in changing a culture or creating 

an environment that supports and reinforces the policy of reporting incidents. Similarly, the leadership of the Coast Guard has taken steps to unequivocally denounce 

hazing, to reinforce policy and to foster an environment that does not tolerate hazing and promotes reporting incidents when they occur. This leadership emphasis, 

coupled with robust training for all new members, and annually thereafter, reinforces the requirement to report incidents. 

There are multiple venues for reporting incidents, including the chain of command 

and the Civil Rights program (via regional Civil Rights Service Providers). Access 

to the chain of command is codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Article 

138). 

The Coast Guard has both organic resources and administrative policies and procedures available to ensure the protection of victims and/or whistleblowers. Organic 

resources include: the Critical Incident Stress Management program, the Employee 

Assistance Program and Chaplains to assist with the mental welfare of the workforce; Family and Sexual Violence Investigators from Coast Guard Investigative 

Service (CGIS), trained to handle incidents of rape and sexual assault and provide 

recommendations regarding the safety of the victims, and Sexual Assault Response 

Coordinators (SARC) and Victim Advocates (VA) from the Work-Life program to provide victim advocacy services. Administrative policies and procedures include: temporary or permanent reassignment to another unit during or after an investigation 

for the safety and best interests of the member; the Personnel Records Review 

Board and the Board for Corrections of Military Records to appeal retaliatory eval-
89 

uations; the Civil Rights program for Equal Opportunity and Equal Employment 

Opportunity complaints; and Military Protective Orders issued by the command 

when warranted to ensure the safety of personnel. In addition, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act of 1988, 10 U.S.C. Section 1034, provides protection for a military service member who makes a protected communication regarding a violation 

of law or regulation. The superiors of these service members are prohibited from retaliating against the service member making the protected statements. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 58) What have you done to address cultural sensitivity 

and to adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion effort? Have you outreached 

to communities for resources and guidance? If not, what plans do you have to do 

so? 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 58) Culture and diversity sensitivity are emphasized 

throughout the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is very proud of its strategic approach to diversity management and strives to be recognized as the ‘‘Service of 

Choice’’ in the federal government for recruiting, retaining, and sustaining a ready, 

diverse, and highly-skilled Total Workforce. The Commandant’s Diversity Policy 

Statement is published on the Coast Guard Website and is circulated to all personnel. In 2011, the Coast Guard published its revised Diversity Strategic Plan that 

set clear and concise direction to better position Coast Guard leaders to define a 

pathway for change in our efforts to make the Coast Guard workforce reflective of 

American society. To implement our Plan, we are executing a deliberate and focused 

campaign plan, OPTASK DIVERSITY, which captures performance assessments 

quarterly to identify, address and remove barriers. 

To acknowledge and better utilize the link between leadership and diversity, the 

Coast Guard combined the Leadership Advisory Council and the Diversity Advisory 

Council into the Commandant’s Leadership, Excellence, and Diversity (LEAD) 

Council. This council meets semi-annually and is comprised of representatives from 

every facet of our workforce. The LEAD Council’s findings and recommendations are 

briefed directly to the Commandant. To work in conjunction with the Commandant 

level LEAD Council, a Coast Guard wide Leadership and Diversity Advisory Council 

network was established. This network established a pathway for field leadership 

and diversity issues to be discussed throughout the Coast Guard and be brought to 

the highest levels of Coast Guard leadership via the LEAD Council when appropriate. 

Recruiting and retaining a high quality diverse workforce is an important mission 

for the Coast Guard. The Office of Diversity partners with many communities, as 

well as national level organizations and affinity groups. Specifically, an extensive 

collaboration exists between the Coast Guard Academy, the Coast Guard Human 

Resources Directorate and the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) to increase awareness of Coast Guard career opportunities to underrepresented populations. Coast Guard members also participate in a variety of affinity groups such 

as the National Naval Officer Association (NNOA), the Sea Service Leadership Association (SSLA) and the Association of Naval Service Officers (ANSO). These groups 

provide a venue at local, regional and national levels for mentoring, professional development and an open discussion on diversity and inclusion. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 59) Do hazing and harassment training, monitoring, 

and enforcement policies need to be uniform across the Services? 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 59) Anti-hazing and harassment policies, training, and 

monitoring should be similar for all the Services. However, each service chief must 

retain the authorities necessary to promote and enforce good order and discipline 

within their Service. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 60) Army Sergeant Major Chandler and USMC Sergeant Major Barrett testified their interest in creating a statutory definition of hazing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They implied that this would 

make it easier for them to track these incidents. Currently 44 States have anti-hazing laws and 31 States define hazing as a crime in their criminal code. We believe 

that defining hazing in the UCMJ would provide a strong disincentive against hazing and yet another tool for prosecutors to go after the perpetrators of hazing. What 

are the Services’ assessments regarding a statutory definition for the Defense Department? What should a definition look like? 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 60) ‘‘It is the Coast Guard’s opinion that it is unnecessary 

to create a new punitive article under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 

to hold active duty service members accountable for hazing misconduct, nor would 

it make ‘‘tracking’’ hazing courts-martial easier. The Coast Guard has a robust and 

clear anti-hazing policy (and associated training requirements). That policy is outlined in Chapter 2 of the Discipline and Conduct Manual, COMDTINST M1600.2. 

As recognized by COMDTINST M1600.2, there is a wide variety of misconduct that 

can be associated with and manifest during hazing activity. The variety of hazing 
90 

misconduct can and has been addressed by Commanders through disciplinary action 

under the UCMJ to include trial by court-martial. Hazing misconduct has successfully been charged under Articles 90, 92, 93, 120, 128, and 134 of the UCMJ. Thus, 

the UCMJ provides great flexibility for Commanders and the Service in disciplining 

and prosecuting hazing activity. Charging decisions are informed by the facts 

unique to the particular hazing case(s). If an enumerated offense of hazing is developed, there would be the unintended consequence of narrowing the type of conduct 

labeled and charged as ‘‘hazing’’. Essentially, this could lead to the underreporting 

of hazing incidents throughout the Services. The Coast Guard is unable to draft a 

clear ‘‘hazing’’ definition that can fully capture the vast range of misconduct that 

is currently punitive under the existing UCMJ. 

During preparation for MCPOCG Leavitt’s recent congressional testimony on hazing, the Coast Guard JAG Office of Military Service (CG–0946) was able to quickly 

abstract metrics for all Coast Guard courts-martial held over the past 4 years that 

involved hazing. Non-judicial punishment remains an area of weakness for tracking 

due to the inherent limitations of the Direct Access data base. The value of an enumerated ‘‘hazing’’ definition in statute has been a recent topic of discussion at the 

Joint Service Committee. Response from all Services has initially been unfavorable 

for many of the reasons outlined above.’’ 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 61) Representative Coffman expressed a failure of leadership in the unit level as the primary cause for these recent hazing cases. We understand that annual drop-down reviews of command are required by the Services. 

Do these reviews actually occur annually? Do they include reviews of commands 

within smallest units? What specifically are they reviewing? Do they include hazing 

incidents and hazing culture as part of the review? Do they include reviews to ensure that each command level has adequate hazing and harassment prevention 

training? 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 61) The Coast Guard uses a number of surveys in a systemic manner to monitor Coast Guard culture, and the impact of policy and other 

changes intended to improve the culture of the organization. 

Every other year beginning in 2002, Coast Guard members and employees have 

confidentially participated in the Coast Guard’s 154-question Organizational Assessment Survey (OAS) about employee satisfaction. The survey does not include specific questions about hazing, but does indicate the overall unit climate. The results 

are provided via reports generated by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM). Data is kept at OPM to insure confidentially and to prevent suppression of 

honest responses during future administrations of the OAS and other surveys. 

The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) manages another command assessment tool, the Defense Equal Opportunity Climate Survey 

(DEOCS). This survey is used as a Commander’s management tool that allows the 

Coast Guard to proactively assess critical organizational climate dimensions that 

can impact the organization’s effectiveness. Additional information is available at 

their website: http://www.deocs.net/public/index.cfm . Specific hazing related questions in the DEOCS survey would be beneficial. Within the DEOCS tool: 

—Respondents answer questions that characterize their unit’s readiness, formal 

and informal policies, practices, and procedures that occur or are likely to occur 

within the organization. 

—The survey assesses 13 climate factors by posing questions answered by survey 

takers using a five-point scale. 

—The questionnaire focuses on three primary areas: Military Equal Opportunity 

(EO), Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), and Organizational Effectiveness (OE). 

—Respondents’ anonymity is protected when completing the online survey by 

using a computer-generated, untraceable, single use password. Also, no personally 

identifying information is collected. 

Commanding Officers (COs) can add up to ten locally-developed questions (LDQs) 

and five-short answer questions (SAQs) to their unit surveys, helping them target 

specific areas of concern. The program allows COs to select from among hundreds 

of LDQs and SAQs already written, or to create their own. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 62) Some of the Services stated that they require their 

personnel to report incidents of hazing and harassment. Where are these reporting 

requirements defined or documented? Also, what are the penalties for failure to report these incidents? 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 62) The Coast Guard’s hazing policy is found in the Discipline and Conduct Manual, Commandant Instruction Manual M1600.2. The policy 

includes the following language: ‘‘Every military member must inform the appropriate authorities of each suspected violation of this policy’’ and ‘‘Victims of actual 
91 

or attempted hazing and witnesses to these activities must report it to the appropriate level of the chain of command.’’ Additionally, the hazing policy mandates that 

commands must investigate hazing incidents, including those who ‘‘tacitly condoned 

such practices, either by inaction or neglecting to investigate reported incidents.’’ 

Commands have a wide variety of tools available to hold individuals accountable 

for failing to report hazing. The appropriate action is dependent upon incident-specific circumstances. Available remedies range from counseling to discharge proceedings, and/or adjudication under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 63) During the hearing, each of the Services shared 

their latest statistics about hazing. However, the timeline for these numbers were 

inconsistent across all the branches and only included cases that went to a Courts 

Martial. How many cases of hazing occurred within each of the Services over the 

last 5 years, including both Courts Martial and Non-Judicial Punishment? How do 

these numbers break down by race and gender? What were the respective punishments for each instance? 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 63) Since CY 2009, nine courts-martial have convened and 

one case is pending for serious misconduct arising out of hazing activity throughout 

the Coast Guard. Seven of the cases related to hazing took place aboard Coast 

Guard Cutter VENTUROUS between 2007 and 2009, and were referred to courtsmartial. Several other crew members received administrative action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for less egregious infractions. Punishments from the 

seven courts-martial resulted in five members receiving confinement or restrictions 

of up to five months, six members being reduced in pay grade, three members forfeiting pay, one member being discharged, and one member receiving a bad conduct 

discharge. 

In addition to the incidents on VENTUROUS, two other courts-martial have convened for hazing incidents, at Station Cape Disappointment and Sector Mobile since 

2009; both of these cases are in final legal review. There is also a case pending at 

Sector San Francisco set for trial in late April 2012. 

Twenty-three Coast Guard personnel, all male, have been identified as the ‘‘targets,’’ or victims of serious hazing misconduct. Seventy-eight percent of the victims 

are Caucasian (white). Other victims are evenly distributed across other racial profiles to include Asian, African-American/Black, Hispanic, Hawaiian Islander and Native American/Alaska Native. ‘‘Juniority’’ of rank appears to be the primary motivating factor for the offender to target a victim. 

Hazing Victim Racial Profiles 

White—78%—(18) Asian—4%—(1) Black—4%—(1) Hispanic—4%—(1) Other— 

8%—(2) Total—23 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 64) Please provide the Committee with the relevant 

anti-hazing material and documents you use to train your service members. 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 64) [The information referred to is retained in the committee files and can be viewed upon request.] 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 65) Please describe the difference under regulation and 

in practice, for each Service, between appropriate ‘‘corrective training’’ and hazing. 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 65) Corrective training, called Extra Military Instruction 

(EMI) in the Coast Guard, has specific requirements and structure, which is outlined by the Military Justice Manual. The tasks and/or training ordered to be performed as EMI must relate to and have the logical purpose of correcting an identified deficiency related to the performance of assigned duties. 

The Conduct and Discipline Manual defines hazing as any conduct in which a 

military member without proper authority causes another military member(s) to 

suffer or be exposed to any cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning or 

harmful activity regardless of the perpetrator’s and recipient’s Service or rank. Soliciting or coercing another to conduct such activity also constitutes hazing. Specific 

examples are listed in the policy. 

Extra Military Instruction is outlined in section 1.G.1.b of the Military Justice 

Manual, COMDTINST M5810.1, available at: http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/ 

5000–5999/CIM58101E.pdf. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 66) When did your Service last update its hazing policy? 

Do you have any plans to review and update it if necessary? If your Service does 

not currently have an anti-hazing policy, are you considering instituting one? 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 66) The Coast Guard’s hazing policy is found in the Discipline and Conduct Manual, Commandant Instruction Manual M1600.2. The Manual was updated in September, 2011, and is reviewed frequently and updated whenever appropriate. 

Ms. CHU and Mr. HONDA. 67) Please provide data broken up according to race/ 

ethnic heritage and gender, regarding the following: How many service members 
92 

have died from non-combat injuries in the last 10 years? Of these incidents, how 

many were classified as suicide, homicide, accident, etc. Also, please include data 

on deaths resulted from friendly fire. How many equal opportunity complaints have 

been received from service members within the last 10 years? Of these claims, how 

many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of members in each Service 

of the last 10 years? 

Master Chief LEAVITT. 67) See attached. 
93 
94 

Æ