Defense Advisory Committee

on Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Defense

of Sexual Assault

in the Armed Forces

March 2018

Annual Report

Defense Advisory Committee

CHAIR

Ms. Martha S. Bashford

MEMBERS

Major General Marcia M. Anderson, U.S. Army, Retired

The Honorable Leo I. Brisbois

Ms. Kathleen B. Cannon

Ms. Margaret A. Garvin

The Honorable Paul W. Grimm

Dean Keith M. Harrison

Mr. A. J. Kramer

Ms. Jennifer Gentile Long

Mr. James P. Markey

Dr. Jenifer Markowitz

Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Rodney J. McKinley, Retired

Brigadier General James R. Schwenk, U.S. Marine Corps, Retired

Dr. Cassia C. Spohn

Ms. Meghan A. Tokash

The Honorable Reggie B. Walton

STAFF DIRECTOR

Captain Tammy P. Tideswell, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Navy

DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR

Colonel Steven B. Weir, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Army

CHIEF OF STAFF

Mr. Dale L. Trexler

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

Mr. Dwight H. Sullivan

Defense Advisory Committee on 

Investigation, Prosecution, and 

Defense of Sexual Assault 

in the Armed Forces

Annual Report

March 2018

5

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

THE DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

ONE LIBERTY CENTER • 875 NORTH RANDOLPH STREET • SUITE 150 • ARLINGTON • VIRGINIA 22203

March 28, 2018

The Honorable John McCain The Honorable Jack Reed

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States Senate United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mac Thornberry The Honorable Adam Smith

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States House of United States House of

Representatives Representatives

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable James Mattis

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1000

Dear Chairs, Ranking Members, and Mr. Secretary:

We are pleased to submit the annual report of the Defense Advisory Committee on 

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD), as 

required by section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public

Law No. 113-291). This report summarizes the Committee’s preliminary impressions on issues 

of importance related to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual assault crimes in 

the military.

Since its establishment, the Committee has held six public meetings and set up three

working groups to support its mission: the Case Review Working Group, the Data Working

Group, and the Policy Working Group. This report details the Committee’s activities over the

past year, focusing on three areas in particular: the Committee’s scope and methodology for its

review of investigative files from fiscal year 2017; the Committee’s collection and analysis of

data on sexual assault courts-martial, with an emphasis on fiscal year 2016; and the Committee’s

assessment of the expedited transfer policy and of commander training. The Committee makes

11 findings about the expedited transfer policy and 4 recommendations for its continued

improvement and development.

The members of the DAC-IPAD would like to express our sincere gratitude and

appreciation to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress for the opportunity to make use of our 

THE DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

ONE LIBERTY CENTER • 875 NORTH RANDOLPH STREET • SUITE 150 • ARLINGTON • VIRGINIA 22203

March 28, 2018

The Honorable John McCain The Honorable Jack Reed

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States Senate United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mac Thornberry The Honorable Adam Smith

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States House of United States House of

Representatives Representatives

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable James Mattis

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1000

Dear Chairs, Ranking Members, and Mr. Secretary:

We are pleased to submit the annual report of the Defense Advisory Committee on 

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD), as 

required by section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public

Law No. 113-291). This report summarizes the Committee’s preliminary impressions on issues 

of importance related to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual assault crimes in 

the military.

Since its establishment, the Committee has held six public meetings and set up three

working groups to support its mission: the Case Review Working Group, the Data Working

Group, and the Policy Working Group. This report details the Committee’s activities over the

past year, focusing on three areas in particular: the Committee’s scope and methodology for its

review of investigative files from fiscal year 2017; the Committee’s collection and analysis of

data on sexual assault courts-martial, with an emphasis on fiscal year 2016; and the Committee’s

assessment of the expedited transfer policy and of commander training. The Committee makes

11 findings about the expedited transfer policy and 4 recommendations for its continued

improvement and development.

The members of the DAC-IPAD would like to express our sincere gratitude and

appreciation to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress for the opportunity to make use of our 

THE DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

ONE LIBERTY CENTER • 875 NORTH RANDOLPH STREET • SUITE 150 • ARLINGTON • VIRGINIA 22203

March 28, 2018

The Honorable John McCain The Honorable Jack Reed

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States Senate United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mac Thornberry The Honorable Adam Smith

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States House of United States House of

Representatives Representatives

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable James Mattis

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1000

Dear Chairs, Ranking Members, and Mr. Secretary:

We are pleased to submit the annual report of the Defense Advisory Committee on 

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD), as 

required by section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public

Law No. 113-291). This report summarizes the Committee’s preliminary impressions on issues 

of importance related to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual assault crimes in 

the military.

Since its establishment, the Committee has held six public meetings and set up three

working groups to support its mission: the Case Review Working Group, the Data Working

Group, and the Policy Working Group. This report details the Committee’s activities over the

past year, focusing on three areas in particular: the Committee’s scope and methodology for its

review of investigative files from fiscal year 2017; the Committee’s collection and analysis of

data on sexual assault courts-martial, with an emphasis on fiscal year 2016; and the Committee’s

assessment of the expedited transfer policy and of commander training. The Committee makes

11 findings about the expedited transfer policy and 4 recommendations for its continued

improvement and development.

The members of the DAC-IPAD would like to express our sincere gratitude and

appreciation to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress for the opportunity to make use of our 

THE DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

ONE LIBERTY CENTER • 875 NORTH RANDOLPH STREET • SUITE 150 • ARLINGTON • VIRGINIA 22203

March 28, 2018

The Honorable John McCain The Honorable Jack Reed

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States Senate United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mac Thornberry The Honorable Adam Smith

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States House of United States House of

Representatives Representatives

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable James Mattis

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1000

Dear Chairs, Ranking Members, and Mr. Secretary:

We are pleased to submit the annual report of the Defense Advisory Committee on 

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD), as 

required by section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public

Law No. 113-291). This report summarizes the Committee’s preliminary impressions on issues 

of importance related to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual assault crimes in 

the military.

Since its establishment, the Committee has held six public meetings and set up three

working groups to support its mission: the Case Review Working Group, the Data Working

Group, and the Policy Working Group. This report details the Committee’s activities over the

past year, focusing on three areas in particular: the Committee’s scope and methodology for its

review of investigative files from fiscal year 2017; the Committee’s collection and analysis of

data on sexual assault courts-martial, with an emphasis on fiscal year 2016; and the Committee’s

assessment of the expedited transfer policy and of commander training. The Committee makes

11 findings about the expedited transfer policy and 4 recommendations for its continued

improvement and development.

The members of the DAC-IPAD would like to express our sincere gratitude and

appreciation to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress for the opportunity to make use of our 

THE DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON

INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

ONE LIBERTY CENTER • 875 NORTH RANDOLPH STREET • SUITE 150 • ARLINGTON • VIRGINIA 22203

March 28, 2018

The Honorable John McCain The Honorable Jack Reed

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States Senate United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mac Thornberry The Honorable Adam Smith

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States House of United States House of

Representatives Representatives

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable James Mattis

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1000

Dear Chairs, Ranking Members, and Mr. Secretary:

We are pleased to submit the annual report of the Defense Advisory Committee on 

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD), as 

required by section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public

Law No. 113-291). This report summarizes the Committee’s preliminary impressions on issues 

of importance related to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual assault crimes in 

the military.

Since its establishment, the Committee has held six public meetings and set up three

working groups to support its mission: the Case Review Working Group, the Data Working

Group, and the Policy Working Group. This report details the Committee’s activities over the

past year, focusing on three areas in particular: the Committee’s scope and methodology for its

review of investigative files from fiscal year 2017; the Committee’s collection and analysis of

data on sexual assault courts-martial, with an emphasis on fiscal year 2016; and the Committee’s

assessment of the expedited transfer policy and of commander training. The Committee makes

11 findings about the expedited transfer policy and 4 recommendations for its continued

improvement and development.

The members of the DAC-IPAD would like to express our sincere gratitude and

appreciation to the Secretary of Defense and to Congress for the opportunity to make use of our 
6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

ONE LIBERTY CENTER • 875 NORTH RANDOLPH STREET • SUITE 150 • ARLINGTON • VIRGINIA 22203

2

experience and expertise to develop recommendations for improving the military’s response to 

sexual misconduct within its ranks over the course of our term. 

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________

Martha S. Bashford, Chair

______________________________ ______________________________

Marcia M. Anderson Leo I. Brisbois

______________________________ ______________________________

Kathleen B. Cannon Margaret A. Garvin

______________________________ ______________________________

Paul W. Grimm Keith M. Harrison

______________________________ ______________________________

A. J. Kramer Jennifer Gentile Long

______________________________ ______________________________

James P. Markey Jenifer Markowitz

______________________________ ______________________________

Rodney J. McKinley James R. Schwenk

______________________________ ______________________________

Cassia C. Spohn Meghan A. Tokash

______________________________

Reggie B. Walton
7

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD FINDINGS 3

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD RECOMMENDATIONS 5

INTRODUCTION 7

I. DAC-IPAD Establishment and Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

II. Composition of the Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

III. Historical Overview of Military Sexual Assault and Department of 

Defense Sexual Assault Advisory Committees 8

IV. Overview of DAC-IPAD 2017 Objectives and Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CHAPTER 1: ACTIVITIES OF THE CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP 15

I. Formation of the Case Review Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

II. Scope of Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

III. Fiscal Year 2017 Case Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

IV. Case Reviews in 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

V. Case Reviews in 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

CHAPTER 2: ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP 27

I. Formation of the Data Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

II. Methodology of the Data Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

III. Military Justice Information for Sexual Assault Cases Collected 

by the Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

IV. The Court-Martial Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

V. Military Justice Information for Sexual Assault Cases Collected 

by the DAC-IPAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

VI. The Way Forward for the Data Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CHAPTER 3: ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP 53

1. Formation of the Policy Working Group and Initial Tasks 53

II. Methodology and Scope of Review of the Policy Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . 53

III. Review of the Expedited Transfer Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

IV. Review of Legal and Sexual Assault Response Training for Commanders . . . . . . . . 75

V. Future Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

APPENDIXES

A. Authorizing Statutes A-1

B. Committee Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Committee Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Committee Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Demographics and Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses 

Recorded in the DAC-IPAD Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Meetings and Presenters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Acronyms and Abbreviations G-1

H. Sources Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, enacted on December 23, 2014, 

Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to establish the sixth congressionally mandated task force on sexual 

assault in the military since 2003: the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense 

of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD).1 The authorizing legislation charges the Committee to 

execute three tasks over its five-year term:2

1. To advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, 

forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces;

2. To review, on an ongoing basis, cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct for purposes of 

providing advice to the Secretary of Defense; and 

3. To submit an annual report to the Secretary of Defense and to the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 30 of each year. 

This report of the DAC-IPAD discusses the Committee’s activities since its establishment. The Committee has 

held six public meetings and set up three working groups to support its mission: the Case Review Working 

Group, the Data Working Group, and the Policy Working Group.

The first chapter discusses the activities of the Case Review Working Group, focusing on the scope, 

methodology, and objectives of the working group’s statutorily mandated case reviews for 2018. The Case Review 

Working Group plans to review 2,069 investigations closed in fiscal year 2017 in which a Service member 

was accused of committing a penetrative sexual assault offense against an adult victim. The Case Review 

Working Group will review three different categories of investigative files: cases resulting in no action taken, 

cases resulting in preferral of charges, and cases resulting in administrative action or nonjudicial punishment. 

Through this broad review of investigative files, the Case Review Working Group plans to identify trends in 

investigations, identify factors that may affect commanders’ disposition decisions, and assess whether those 

decisions were reasonable based solely on the information in the relevant investigative files. The first category of 

cases the Case Review Working Group will review are those resulting in no action taken. In 2019, the Working 

Group intends to turn its review to those cases in which charges were preferred.

The second chapter discusses the Data Working Group’s collection and analysis of data on sexual assault courtsmartial. Acting on the recommendations of the predecessor panel to the DAC-IPAD—the Judicial Proceedings 

Panel—the Data Working Group collected documents for 738 cases from fiscal year 2016 involving a preferred 

charge of sexual assault.3 The chapter records the case characteristics, disposition outcomes, and adjudication 

outcomes for these 738 cases.

1 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291, § 546, 128 Stat. 3374 (2014).

2 Id.

3 For purposes of the DAC-IPAD’s case review and data collection, the term “sexual assault” includes the following offenses under the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice: rape (Article 120(a)), sexual assault (Article 120(b)), aggravated sexual contact (Article 120(c)), abusive sexual contact (Article 

120(d)), forcible sodomy (Article 125), and attempts of these offenses (Article 80). 
2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

The third chapter discusses the Policy Working Group’s examination of the issues of expedited transfers and 

sexual assault training provided to commanders and senior enlisted leaders. The Policy Working Group 

emphasizes that the expedited transfer policy is an important sexual assault response initiative offered by 

the military and makes four recommendations for its continued improvement and development. The Policy 

Working Group also details its progress in gathering information on legal and sexual assault response training 

for commanders and senior enlisted leaders and outlines its plan to continue its review of the substance and 

effectiveness of that training.
3

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD FINDINGS

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD FINDINGS

Overall Assessment: The DAC-IPAD finds that the expedited transfer policy for sexual assault victims is an 

important sexual assault response initiative offered by the military and strongly recommends the continued 

existence and further improvement of the policy.

Finding 1: Special victims’ counsel/victims’ legal counsel (SVCs/VLCs), commanders (O-5) and senior enlisted 

advisors, special court-martial convening authorities (O-6), senior military sexual assault prosecutors, and 

present and former Service members who have received expedited transfers testified at the DAC-IPAD public 

meeting on October 19 and 20, 2017, and Policy Working Group preparatory session on December 1, 2017, that 

they believe the expedited transfer policy to be an overwhelmingly beneficial and effective mechanism to assist 

in the recovery of Service members who are victims of sexual assault.

Finding 2: Several SVCs, VLCs, and military sexual assault prosecutors testified to the Policy Working Group to 

a strong perception among military members across the Services that some Service member victims are abusing 

the expedited transfer policy in order to transfer to more favorable locations. 

Finding 3: Some counsel perceive that court-martial members (jury members) may believe that the expedited 

transfer policy is being abused. At trial, defense counsel may use the fact that a victim received an expedited 

transfer to show a potential motive to fabricate a sexual assault in the hope that doing so will be enough for 

members who believe that there is widespread abuse of the policy to disbelieve the victim and possibly acquit 

the accused on that basis. While this may be a proper line of questioning within the Military Rules of Evidence, 

it may reinforce the members’ perception of widespread abuse of the expedited transfer policy.

Finding 4: Commanders, SVCs, VLCs, and Service prosecutors overwhelmingly testified that they had not 

encountered abuse of the expedited transfer policy, though they do believe there are some rare cases in which it 

has been abused by Service members.

Finding 5: According to data reported in the Service Enclosures to the Fiscal Year 2016 Department of 

Defense (DoD) Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, only 20% of DoD Service members who filed 

unrestricted reports of sexual assault requested expedited transfers.

Finding 6: The expedited transfer statute (10 U.S.C. § 673), which applies to all active duty Service members 

who are victims of sexual assault under Article 120, 120a, or 120c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ), does not differentiate between active duty Service members whose sexual assault reports are handled 

by the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program and those handled by the Family Advocacy 

Program (FAP). 

Finding 7: The DoD Instruction establishing the expedited transfer policy (DoDI 6495.02) applies only to active 

duty victims whose sexual assault reports are handled by the SAPR program and expressly excludes victims 

covered under FAP from the expedited transfer policy.

Finding 8: No DoD-level policy establishes an expedited transfer option for victims of sexual assault covered 

under FAP who are active duty Service members. DoD and Service FAP representatives testified that they use 

other transfer options, such as humanitarian or compassionate transfers, as needed and available.
4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Finding 9: In addition to expedited transfers, other out-of-cycle transfer options available in the Services are 

safety transfers and humanitarian/compassionate transfers. These options differ across the Services and have 

different standards for approval.

Finding 10: Even though the dynamics of sexual assault in the context of spousal and intimate partner 

relationships are different than in other sexual assaults, 10 U.S.C. § 673 requires that expedited transfer be 

available for all Service members who make unrestricted sexual assault reports. In some instances, the option of 

an expedited transfer would be beneficial to Service members covered under the FAP program, such as cases in 

which a Service member wishes to gain physical distance from an alleged perpetrator or to be closer to family or 

other support systems to assist in their recovery.

Finding 11: The Department of Defense regulation regarding procedures for military personnel assignments 

(DoDI 1315.18, “Procedures for Military Personnel Assignments”) references the DoD expedited transfer policy, 

but it does not require that assignments personnel or commanders communicate or coordinate with SAPR or 

FAP personnel in the expedited transfer assignments process.
5

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1: The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Services 

take action to dispel the misperception of widespread abuse of the expedited transfer policy, including 

addressing the issue in the training of all military personnel.

Recommendation 2: The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security identify and 

track appropriate metrics to monitor the expedited transfer policy and any abuses of it. 

Recommendation 3: The DoD-level and Coast Guard equivalent Family Advocacy Program (FAP) 

policy include provisions for expedited transfer of active duty Service members who are victims of 

sexual assault similar to the expedited transfer provisions in the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response (SAPR) policy and consistent with 10 U.S.C. § 673.

Recommendation 4: The DoD-level military personnel assignments policy (DoD Instruction 1315.18) 

and Coast Guard equivalent include a requirement that assignments personnel or commanders 

coordinate with and keep SAPR and FAP personnel informed throughout the expedited transfer, safety 

transfer, and humanitarian/compassionate transfer assignment process when the transfer involves an 

allegation of sexual assault.
6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
7

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

I. DAC-IPAD ESTABLISHMENT AND MISSION

The Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed 

Forces (DAC-IPAD) was established by the Secretary of Defense in February 2016 pursuant to section 546 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, as amended.4 The mission of the DACIPAD is to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, 

forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces.5 In order 

to provide that advice, the Committee is directed to review, on an ongoing basis, cases involving allegations of 

sexual misconduct.6

In accordance with the authorizing statute and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the 

Department of Defense (DoD) filed the charter for the DAC-IPAD with the General Services Administration on 

February 18, 2016.7

The DAC-IPAD is required to submit annual reports to the Secretary of Defense and to the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives, no later than March 30 each year, describing 

the results of its activities.8 This report details the Committee’s activities since its inaugural meeting, focusing on 

three areas in particular: the Committee’s scope and methodology for its review of investigative files from fiscal 

year 2017; the Committee’s collection and analysis of data on sexual assault courts-martial, with an emphasis on 

fiscal year 2016; and the Committee’s assessment of the expedited transfer policy and commander training.

II. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE

The Committee’s authorizing legislation required the Secretary of Defense to select Committee members 

with experience in investigating, prosecuting, and defending against allegations of sexual assault offenses.9

Active duty Service members are expressly prohibited from serving on the Committee.10 In January 2017 the 

Secretary of Defense appointed to the DAC-IPAD 16 members, who represent a broad range of perspectives and 

experience related to sexual assault both within and outside the military.11

4 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291 [hereinafter FY15 NDAA], § 546, 128 Stat. 3292, 3374 (2014); 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-92 [hereinafter FY16 NDAA], § 537, 129 Stat. 726, 817 (2015). 

5 FY15 NDAA, supra note 4, § 546(c)(1).

6 Id. at § 546(c)(2). 

7 Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, 5 U.S.C. App. §§ 1–16. See Appendix B, Charter of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (February 18, 2016).

8 FY15 NDAA, supra note 4, § 546(d).

9 Id. at § 546.

10 Id. 

11 See Appendix C for a list and short biographies of the DAC-IPAD members.
8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

The areas of expertise of the members of the Committee include

• Civilian sexual assault investigation and forensics

• Civilian and military sexual assault prosecution

• Civilian and military sexual assault defense 

• Federal and state court systems

• Military command

• Criminology

• Academic disciplines and legal policy

Combined, the DAC-IPAD members have hundreds of years of experience dealing with sexual assault in both 

military and civilian jurisdictions. Four members of the Committee retired from the military and two more 

served previously as judge advocates. 

III. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT AND DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE SEXUAL ASSAULT ADVISORY COMMITTEES 

Increasing public awareness and concern about sexual assault within the United States military have given 

rise to numerous commissions, task forces, and advisory committees established to conduct assessments and 

recommend ways to eradicate this insidious crime. The DAC-IPAD is the sixth congressionally mandated task 

force on sexual assault in the military since 2003.

The focus on sexual misconduct in the Armed Forces began over 20 years ago, after it was reported that naval 

aviators sexually abused more than 80 women during a party at the 35th Annual Tailhook Symposium in Las 

Vegas.12 The allegations led to the resignation of the Secretary of the Navy and ended many Navy careers. The 

Tailhook scandal ignited the debate that continues today about sexual misconduct in the Armed Forces.13

In the years following Tailhook, several additional high-profile incidents drew further attention and public 

scrutiny. In 1996, dozens of female Army trainees at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland alleged they had 

been subjected to rape and sexual harassment by their drill sergeants.14 Shortly thereafter, female trainees made 

similar allegations against Army trainers in Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and at several other Army training 

bases.15

In early 2003, accusations surfaced that after reporting sexual assaults, female cadets at the U.S. Air Force 

Academy were being ignored or retaliated against by commanders at the Academy.16 To investigate the 

12 Michael Winerip, Revisiting the Military’s Tailhook Scandal, N.Y. Times (May 13, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/booming/revisitingthe-militarys-tailhook-scandal-video.html.

13 See Kingsley R. Browne, Military Sex Scandals from Tailhook to the Present: The Cure Can Be Worse Than the Disease, 14 Duke J. of Gender L. & 

Pol’y 749, 760–64 (2007).

14 Rowan Scarborough, Army Trainees Accuse Instructors of Rape, Harassment, Wash. Times (Nov. 8, 1996), at A3.

15 See Michael Kilian, New Sex Scandal Hits Army Ranks, Chicago Tribune (Nov. 13, 1996), http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-11-13/

news/9611130215_1_trainees-sexual-misconduct-sexual-harassment.

16 See Office of the Inspector Gen. of the Dep’t of Defense, Evaluation of Sexual Assault, Reprisal, and Related Leadership 
9

INTRODUCTION

allegations, Congress established its first military sexual assault task force.17 In September 2003 the Fowler 

Commission—led by former congresswoman Tillie Fowler—issued a report containing 20 recommendations.18

A second task force, established by Congress to assess “sexual harassment and violence” at the U.S. Military 

Academy and the Naval Academy, issued a report in June 2005 containing 15 recommendations.19 Congress 

then extended and renamed the task force. It directed this new entity, the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault 

in the Military Services (DTF-SAMS), to conduct a review of sexual assault across all of the Armed Forces.20

DTF-SAMS began its assessment in 2008, conducting site visits at 60 installations in the United States, the 

Middle East, the Pacific Rim, and Europe.21 In its report, issued in December 2009, DTF-SAMS made 30 

recommendations.22 The task force found that while the military had made significant progress in its handling 

of sexual assaults, there was still much work to be done: the areas that needed improvement included Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program standards and oversight,23 a DoD-wide prevention strategy, 

measures of the effectiveness of prevention and response,24 support of and response to victims,25 and the 

accuracy, reliability, and validity of data collected on sexual assault incidents.26

While DoD and the Services were working to implement the recommendations of DTF-SAMS and the 

legislative reforms that followed, other events of 2012 and 2013 led to some of the most extensive legislative 

reforms enacted to date to address military sexual assault. Among these events was the release in the spring of 

Challenges at the United States Air Force Academy (2004), available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2004/d20041207igsummary.pdf. 

17 See Report of the Panel to Review Sexual Misconduct Allegations at the U.S. Air Force Academy (2003), available at http://files.eric.

ed.gov/fulltext/ED480473.pdf. On April 16, 2003, Congress passed Public Law (P.L.) 108-11 establishing a “Panel to Review Sexual Misconduct 

Allegations at United States Air Force Academy.” Congress required the Secretary of Defense to appoint a seven-member panel from among private 

United States citizens who had expertise in behavioral and psychological sciences and in standards and practices related to properly treating sexual 

assault victims (including their medical and legal rights and needs), as well as members from the United States military academies, to investigate 

reports that at least 56 cadets had been sexually assaulted at the U.S. Air Force Academy. 

18 See id.; the report was issued on September 22, 2003.

19 See Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment & Violence at the Military Service Academies (June 2005), available 

at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/research/High_GPO_RRC_tx.pdf. On November 24, 2003, Congress passed Public Law (P.L.) 108-136 

establishing the “Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy.” Congress 

directed the Task Force to assess and make recommendations concerning how the Departments of the Army and the Navy may more effectively 

address sexual harassment and assault at the academies. The Secretary of Defense appointed six members from the four branches of the Armed 

Forces and six members from the civilian community to the Task Force. On June 30, 2005, the Task Force issued a report, which included 15 

recommendations. Id.

20 See Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services (2009), available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/

research/DTFSAMS-Rept_Dec09.pdf. On October 28, 2004, Congress passed Public Law (P.L.) 108-375, which directed the Service Academy 

Task Force established by P.L. 108-136 to be extended for 18 months, renamed the “Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces 

(DTF-SAMS),” and tasked to examine matters relating to sexual assault cases in which members of the Armed Forces either are victims or commit 

acts of sexual assault. The Secretary of Defense appointed ten members: one Service member from each Military Service, one civilian official from 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and five civilians from outside the Department. DTF-SAMS completed its work and on December 1, 2009, 

released a report with 30 recommendations to the Secretary of Defense. Id.

21 Id. at ES-1. 

22 Id. at ES-2–ES-6.

23 Id. at 41.

24 Id. at 57.

25 Id. at 67.

26 Id. at 77.
10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

2012 of the Academy Award–nominated documentary The Invisible War.

27 The film details the experiences of 

several young female veterans and their treatment by commanders after they reported that they were sexually 

assaulted while serving in the military.28 Shortly after viewing The Invisible War, then Defense Secretary Leon 

Panetta issued a memorandum elevating the initial disposition authority for rape and sexual assault allegations 

to commanders in the grade of O-6 (colonel or Navy captain) or above.29 Many commanders required their 

noncommissioned officers and officers to view the film.30 At the same time, many members of the military 

criticized the film for inaccuracies and misrepresentations of military law and policy.31

Congress also responded by establishing two panels to conduct independent assessments of the military’s 

response to sexual assault. The first of these panels, the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel 

(RSP), was directed by Congress to spend 18 months (subsequently shortened by Secretary of Defense Chuck 

Hagel to 12 months) reviewing and assessing the services provided by the military to sexual assault victims, the 

military’s disciplinary response to allegations of sexual assault, and proposed legislative initiatives to modify 

the role of commanders in the administration of military justice.32 Composed of nine civilian members and 

led by former federal judge Barbara S. Jones, the RSP issued its report in June 2014: all but one of its 132 

recommendations were either approved, approved in part, or sent to working groups for further study by DoD.33

Following the release of the RSP’s report, the Secretary of Defense established the congressionally mandated 

Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (JPP) for a three-year term.34 The JPP was 

composed of five members appointed by the Secretary of Defense, two of whom were required to have served 

on the predecessor RSP.35 The JPP was led by former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who had also 

served as a member of the RSP.36 The JPP issued 11 reports with a total of 63 recommendations on the topics of 

Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), restitution and compensation of victims of sexual 

assault, retaliation against those who report sexual assault, court-martial data trends, military defense counsel 

resources and experience, victims’ appellate rights, sexual assault investigations, and concerns regarding the fair 

27 See Robert E. Murdough, Barracks, Dormitories, and Capitol Hill: Finding Justice in the Divergent Politics of Military and College Sexual Assault, 223 

Mil. L. Rev. 233, 243–45 (2015). 

28 Id.

29 See Todd Perkins, “The Invisible War” Filmmakers Respond to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s “Rock Center with Brian Williams” Appearance on 

Rape in the Military, IndieWire (September 8, 2012), http://www.indiewire.com/2012/09/the-invisible-war-filmmakers-respond-to-secretary-ofdefense-leon-panettas-rock-center-with-brian-williams-appearance-on-rape-in-the-military-44577/. See also Memorandum from Sec’y of Def. to 

Sec’ys of Military Dep’ts et al., subject: Withholding Initial Disposition Authority Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in Certain Sexual 

Assault Cases (Apr. 20, 2012) [hereinafter Memorandum on Withholding Initial Disposition Authority]. 

30 See Murdough, supra note 27, at 244–45.

31 See id. at 244 n.45.

32 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239 [hereinafter FY13 NDAA], § 576, 126 Stat. 1632, 1758–60 (2012). 

The RSP was composed of nine members, five appointed by the Secretary of Defense and four appointed by the chairmen and ranking members of 

the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives. Id.

33 See Report of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (June 2014) [hereinafter RSP Report], available at http://

responsesystemspanel.whs.mil/public/docs/Reports/00_Final/RSP_Report_Final_20140627.pdf; see also Memorandum from Sec’y of Def. to Sec’ys 

of Military Dep’ts et al., subject: Department of Defense Implementation of the Recommendations of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault 

Crimes Panel (Dec. 15, 2014). 

34 FY13 NDAA, supra note 32, § 576.

35 Id.

36 See Judicial Proceedings Panel website, http://jpp.whs.mil/about/panel/holtzman.
11

INTRODUCTION

administration of military justice in sexual assault cases.37 Out of the 63 recommendations, 8 were specifically 

directed at the DAC-IPAD, suggesting areas of further review and investigation.38 The JPP’s reports have led to 

numerous legislative and policy reforms related to sexual assault. By law the JPP terminated on September 30, 

2017. 

IV. OVERVIEW OF DAC-IPAD 2017 OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS 

A. Inaugural Meeting and Initial Report

The DAC-IPAD held its inaugural meeting on January 19, 2017. A recurring theme during the Committee’s 

initial meeting was the need for and importance of accurate, relevant data so that members can fully understand 

the issues and make sound policy recommendations to the Secretary of Defense. The members expressed 

interest in analyzing key data points such as the impact of rank, race, and sexual orientation on charging 

decisions, conviction rates, and sentencing.39

The Committee also discussed its directive to conduct case reviews. Recognizing the substantial privacy 

concerns that must be considered in reviewing cases involving children, the members agreed that they initially 

would concentrate exclusively on adult cases.40 The Committee noted that the DAC-IPAD’s authorizing 

37 Judicial Proceedings Panel Initial Report 11 (Feb. 2015), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_

Reports/01_JPP_Reports/01_JPP_InitialReport_Final_20150204.pdf; Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Restitution and 

Compensation for Military Adult Sexual Assault Crimes 5 (Feb. 2016), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_

Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/02_JPP_Rest_Comp_Report_Final_20160201.pdf; Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Article 

120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 5–7 (Feb. 2016), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_

Reports/01_JPP_Reports/03_JPP_Art120_Report_Final_20160204.pdf; Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Retaliation Related 

to Sexual Assault Offenses 5–10 (Feb. 2016), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_

Reports/04_JPP_Retaliation_Report_Final_20160211.pdf; Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military 

Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses 5–6 (Apr. 2016) [hereinafter April 2016 JPP Report on Statistical Data], available at https://

dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/05_JPP_StatData_MilAdjud_SexAsslt_Report_Final_20160419.

pdf; Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Military Defense Counsel Resources and Experience in Sexual Assault Cases 5–6 

(Apr. 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/06_JPP_Defense_Resources_

Experience_Report_Final_20170424.pdf; Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Victims’ Appellate Rights 3–4 (June 2017), available at

https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/07_JPP_VictimsAppRights_Report_Final_20170602.

pdf; Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Sexual Assault Investigations in the Military 3–4 (Sept. 2017) [hereinafter JPP Report on 

Sexual Assault Investigations], available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/08_JPP_

Report_Investigations_Final_20170907.pdf; Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication 

of Sexual Assault Offenses for Fiscal Year 2015 3–4 (Sept. 2017) [hereinafter JPP Report on FY 2015 Statistical Data], available at

https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/09_JPP_CourtMartial_Data_Report_Final_20170915.

pdf; Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Panel Concerns Regarding the Fair Administration of Military Justice in Sexual 

Assault Cases 7–13 (Sept. 2017) [hereinafter JPP Report on Panel Concerns], available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_

Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/10_JPP_Concerns_Fair_MJ_Report_Final_20170915.pdf.

38 Judicial Proceedings Panel Final Report 31–32 (Oct. 2017) [hereinafter JPP Final Report], available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/

Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/11_JPP_FinalReport_Final_20171016.pdf.

39 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 238 (Jan. 19, 2017) (comment by Judge Reggie Walton, Committee member); id. at 238 (comment by Ms. 

Kathleen Cannon, Committee member); id. at 225–26 (comment by Major General (Ret.) Marcia Anderson, Committee member); id. at 230–31 

(comment by Ms. Martha Bashford, Committee chair); id. at 231 (comment by Dean Keith Harrison, Committee member).

40 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 224 (Jan. 19, 2017) (comment by Ms. Meg Garvin, Committee member) (recommending that the 

DAC-IPAD review child cases and noting that there is a gap in data on children); but see, id. at 264 (comment by Dr. Jenifer Markowitz, Committee 

member) (stating that she does not think the committee should review child sex abuse cases); id. at 266 (comment by Ms. Martha Bashford, 

Committee chair) (maintaining that for her the most important issue is ensuring that adults may serve in the military without getting sexually 

assaulted, but also noting that that doesn’t mean the Committee can’t ever look at children, domestic violence, or civilians). 
12

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

legislation provides little guidance on how to conduct case reviews and acknowledged the need for continuing 

discussions about the scope and methodology of this procedure.41

The Committee outlined the status of its strategic plan in its Initial Report, which was released on March 30, 2017.42

B. Additional Meetings and Strategic Plan

The DAC-IPAD has held five public meetings since its inaugural meeting. At its April 28, 2017, and July 21, 

2107, public meetings, the Committee heard informational presentations about the mechanics of a sexual assault 

investigation and prosecution. The Committee also learned about the military sexual assault case adjudication 

statistics for fiscal year 2015 collected and reported on by the JPP and the annual sexual assault reporting data 

published by the Department of Defense’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO).43

The Committee held planning sessions during these public meetings to continue to develop its strategic plan. One 

of the matters discussed was the best way to approach case reviews. After receiving and reviewing sexual assault 

investigation data for fiscal year 2017 indicating that a low percentage of cases were preferred, the Committee 

decided to begin its review by looking at investigative files for cases in which charges were never preferred.44 The 

members believed that such a wide-ranging review would complement the work of the JPP, which had analyzed 

courts-martial data only for cases in which charges were preferred. The Committee also chose to focus on cases 

involving penetrative offenses, because these cases typically involve the most serious sexual assault offenses.45 The 

Committee agreed to create a working group to support its efforts reviewing case files. 

The Committee also reiterated the importance of collecting and analyzing data on courts-martial. Dr. Cassia 

Spohn, a Committee member who had previously served as an independent consultant to the JPP, noted that the 

court-martial data analyzed by the JPP has generated more questions than answers.46 She recommended that the 

DAC-IPAD look at the different outcomes across the Services to understand whether they can be attributed to 

differences in policies and practices, resources, or training. She also expressed interest in comparing conviction 

rates and punishments for cases involving civilian victims and cases involving military victims. Finally, she 

suggested looking closely at cases involving intimate partners and spouses.47 The Committee agreed to create a 

working group to support its efforts in collecting and analyzing courts-martial data. 

In addition, the Committee identified policy issues for its review. Among other topics, members suggested 

looking at expedited transfers, training for convening authorities, training for defense counsel, and retaliation 

against those who report sexual assault. The Committee decided to begin its assessment by examining expedited 

41 See, e.g., Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 263–64 (Jan. 19, 2017) (comment by Dr. Cassia Spohn, Committee member) (noting the need 

to answer foundational questions before beginning case reviews); id. at 271 (comment by the Honorable Leo Brisbois, Committee member) 

(acknowledging that the enabling legislation of the DAC-IPAD gives the Committee a lot of discretion).

42 Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces Initial Report

(March 2017) [hereinafter DAC-IPAD Initial Report], available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/08-Reports/DACIPAD_Initial_

Report_20170330_Final_Web.pdf.

43 See generally Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (Apr. 28, 2017); Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (July 21, 2017).

44 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 133–34 (July 21, 2017) (comment by Ms. Martha Bashford, Committee chair).

45 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 134–35 (July 21, 2017) (comment by Ms. Martha Bashford, Committee chair).

46 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 341 (Apr. 28, 2017) (comment by Dr. Cassia Spohn, Committee member).

47 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 341–42 (Apr. 28, 2017) (comment by Dr. Cassia Spohn, Committee member).
13

INTRODUCTION

transfers and training for convening authorities.48 The Committee agreed to create a working group to support 

its efforts reviewing and assessing Department of Defense and Service policies.

The Committee held its first substantive meeting on October 19 and 20, 2017, to begin to explore the topics 

of expedited transfers and of training for convening authorities. The Committee heard presentations on the 

Services’ expedited transfer policies from special victims’ counsel, commanders, and senior enlisted advisors. 

The Committee also heard informational briefings from commanders and senior enlisted advisors about the 

training they receive on how to respond to sexual assault allegations.49

C. Working Groups

The DAC-IPAD has set up three working groups to support its mission: the Case Review Working Group, the 

Data Working Group, and the Policy Working Group. 

The mission of the Case Review Working Group is to make recommendations to the Committee based on its 

review of cases involving allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct. The 

Case Review Working Group is composed of a chair, Brigadier General (Ret.) James Schwenk, and six additional 

members: Ms. Martha S. Bashford, Ms. Kathleen B. Cannon, Ms. Jennifer Gentile Long, Mr. James P. Markey, 

Dr. Cassia C. Spohn, and the Honorable Reggie B. Walton. The activities of the Case Review Working Group are 

discussed in chapter 1.

The mission of the Data Working Group is to make recommendations to the Committee based on its collection 

and analysis of data from cases involving allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual 

misconduct. The Data Working Group is composed of a chair, Dr. Spohn, and two additional members: Mr. 

Markey and Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force (Ret.) Rodney J. McKinley. The activities of the Data 

Working Group are discussed in chapter 2.

Finally, the mission of the Policy Working Group is to make recommendations to the Committee based on its 

review of Department of Defense policies, Military Department policies, and Uniform Code of Military Justice 

provisions applicable to allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct. The 

Policy Working Group is composed of a chair, Chief McKinley, and five additional members: Major General 

(Ret.) Marcia M. Anderson, Dean Keith M. Harrison, Ms. Margaret A. Garvin, Dr. Jenifer Markowitz, and 

Brigadier General (Ret.) Schwenk. The activities of the Policy Working Group are discussed in chapter 3.

The Case Review Working Group briefed the Committee about its activities and strategic plan at the October 

meeting.50 The Committee received presentations and updates from all three working groups at its January 19, 

2018, meeting.51

48 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 318–19 (July 21, 2017) (comment by Brigadier General (Ret.) James Schwenk, Committee member).

49 See generally Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (Oct. 19, 2017); Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (Oct. 20, 2017).

50 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 291–302 (Oct. 20, 2017).

51 See generally Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (Jan. 19, 2018).
14

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
15

CHAPTER 1. ACTIVITIES OF THE CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP

CHAPTER 1.

ACTIVITIES OF THE CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP

I. FORMATION OF THE CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP 

The DAC-IPAD is statutorily directed to “review, on an ongoing basis, cases involving allegations of sexual 

misconduct”—including allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, and sexual assault—involving members of the 

Armed Forces.52 In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Committee tasked the Case Review Working 

Group (CRWG), composed of seven Committee members, to review sexual assault cases on an ongoing basis for 

the duration of the Committee’s charter. The CRWG is chaired by Brigadier General (Ret.) James Schwenk, and 

its other members are Ms. Martha S. Bashford, Ms. Kathleen B. Cannon, Ms. Jennifer Gentile Long, Mr. James P. 

Markey, Dr. Cassia C. Spohn, and the Honorable Reggie B. Walton.

This chapter outlines the activities of the CRWG since its formation. Section II discusses the approach taken by 

the CRWG to gather data from the military criminal investigative organizations (MCIOs)—including issuing 

two requests for information: one for adult sexual assault investigation data for cases closed in fiscal year 2016, 

and one for adult sexual assault investigation data for cases closed in fiscal year 2017. Section III discusses the 

population of cases from fiscal year 2017 on which the CRWG decided to focus for its 2018 case review. Section 

IV discusses the CRWG’s methodology and objectives for its 2018 case review. Finally, Section V discusses the 

CRWG’s anticipated plan for future case reviews.

II. SCOPE OF REVIEW 

The enabling legislation for the DAC-IPAD does not specify the scope or methodology of the Committee’s case 

review.53 Therefore, as a first step, the Committee sought to understand the volume of cases investigated by the 

Services in a year. To begin to explore the types of data available, the Committee issued a request for information 

(RFI) regarding adult sexual assault investigation data for cases closed in fiscal year 2016 from the four MCIOs—

Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), Army Criminal 

Investigation Command (CID), and Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS).54

The Committee requested sexual assault data directly from the MCIOs, rather than relying on data collected 

by DoD, in order to independently assess the adjudicative data maintained in sexual assault cases. While DoD 

SAPRO collects data on sexual assault cases, these data are limited, because DoD does not collect or analyze case 

processing data for sexual assault reports involving spouses, intimate partners, or family members of military 

members.55 In addition, consistent with the recommendations from the JPP and the RSP, the CRWG wanted 

to review the different classifications of disposition terminology used by the MCIOs in cases in which, because 

52 FY15 NDAA, supra note 4, § 546 (c)(2).

53 See Written Statement by Judge Leo Brisbois, Committee member (Apr. 20, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_

Room/02_DACIPAD_Mtg_Materials/DACIPAD_Meeting_Materials_20170428.pdf.

54 DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 3 (June 29, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-RFIs/DACIPAD_RFI_Set3_

QR1_18_20170629_Web.pdf. 

55 JPP Report on FY 2015 Statistical Data, supra note 37, at 13.
16

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

of lack of evidence, no action is taken so that it might assess whether sexual assault cases were being reported 

accurately and consistently in existing data systems.56

In its RFI, the Committee defined an “adult sexual assault allegation” as an unrestricted report of sexual assault 

made by an individual who is at least 16 years of age at the time of the alleged incident.57 The Committee also 

clarified that a case is defined as “closed in fiscal year 2016” if the investigation was complete and a final action 

was taken between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2016, regardless of the date the allegation was made or 

investigation opened.58

In response to the RFI, the MCIOs provided disposition data for all sexual assault cases closed in fiscal year 

2016, but did not separate data for contact cases and penetrative cases.59 The Committee’s analysis of the data 

indicated that when an adult sexual assault allegation—whether for a penetrative or contact offense—was made 

against a person subject to the UCMJ and the allegation was fully investigated, charges were preferred in about 

20% of cases in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. The Air Force did not provide preferral data.60

After receiving the data, all members of the CRWG were given an opportunity to review investigative case files 

closed in fiscal year 2016 in which no action was taken, administrative action was taken, or the case went to trial. 

CRWG members also reviewed records of trial. The purpose of these sessions was to orient the CRWG members 

to the different documents contained in an investigative file and case file and to enable them to gauge the 

amount of time required to review these records.61 MCIO representatives were available during the introductory 

review sessions to answer questions that the CRWG had about the investigation, the closure dispositions, and 

the organization of the case file itself. 

The Committee then requested sexual assault case data for fiscal year 2017 from the MCIOs.62 The Committee 

asked for two sets of data: (1) adult sexual assault case statistics for cases closed in fiscal year 2017, and (2) data 

for all fiscal year 2017 sexual assault investigations for a penetrative sexual offense with a military subject and 

adult victim closed in fiscal year 2017.63 The CRWG was interested in whether the preferral rate for penetrative 

offenses alone was different than the preferral rate of about 20% for cases involving both contact and penetrative 

offenses. The Committee defined a “penetrative sexual offense” as rape and sexual assault, in violation of Article 

56 See April 2016 JPP Report on Statistical Data, supra note 37, at 5–6 (Recommendation 37); JPP Report on Sexual Assault 

Investigations, supra note 37, at 5–7 (Recommendations 47–51); RSP Report, supra note 33, at 4 (“[T]o enable data comparison among the 

Services, and potentially with civilian jurisdictions, the Services should use a single, standardized methodology to track the number and rates of 

judicial or other dispositions in sexual assault cases, and to calculate prosecution and conviction rates across all the Services. Additionally, the 

Services should standardize the process for determining if a case is ‘unfounded’ at the investigation stage. Only those reports of sexual assault that 

are determined to be false or baseless should be unfounded, and the Services should standardize the authority and processes for making those 

determinations.”); id. at 12 (Recommendations 3-A and 3-B).

57 The DAC-IPAD agreed it initially would concentrate only on adult cases. See DAC-IPAD Initial Report, supra note 42, at 18.

58 DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 3 (June 29, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-RFIs/DACIPAD_RFI_Set3_

QR1_18_20170629_Web.pdf. 

59 See Service MCIO Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 3 (June 29, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-

RFIs/DACIPAD_RFI_Set3_QR1_18_20170629_Web.pdf. 

60 Id.

61 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 293–94 (Oct. 20, 2017) (comment by Brigadier General (Ret.) James Schwenk, Committee member)

62 DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 5 (Oct. 30, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-RFIs/DACIPAD_RFI_

Set5_20171030_Web.pdf. 

63 Id.
17

CHAPTER 1. ACTIVITIES OF THE CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP

120 of the UCMJ; forcible sodomy, in violation of Article 125 of the UCMJ; and any attempt to commit such 

offenses, in violation of Article 80 of the UCMJ.

For the set of data on penetrative offenses only, the Committee requested that the Services provide the 

disposition as reflected in the Service MCIO case management systems as well as the case clearance category in 

DoD’s centralized repository for criminal incident data known as the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System 

(DIBRS).64 DIBRS collects case information for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting 

Program.65 The Committee sought the disposition information from both databases in order to evaluate the 

degree of consistency between the two.

III. FISCAL YEAR 2017 CASE DATA

After their initial familiarization with the investigations, the CRWG members, with the DAC-IPAD’s approval, 

agreed to review cases closed in fiscal year 2017 involving a penetrative sexual assault.66 The CRWG decided 

to focus on fiscal year 2017 cases, rather than fiscal year 2016 cases, because by drawing on the most recent 

set of cases available it could best understand the current landscape of sexual assault investigations. It chose 

to examine penetrative offense cases because these cases typically involve the most serious sexual assault 

offenses. The FY14 NDAA mandates that only a general court-martial can be used to try a penetrative sex 

offense and requires that a person found guilty of a penetrative sexual offense receive a sentence including a 

dismissal or a dishonorable discharge.67 In addition, cases involving penetrative sexual assault require a higher 

disposition authority than do other crimes.68 Given that penetrative offenses and contact offenses often result 

in very different outcomes, the CRWG hopes that the initial review of penetrative cases will allow it to tailor its 

recommendations to this specific class of Article 120 offenses.69

The CRWG decided to consider only investigations involving a military subject and an adult victim in which 

the military had jurisdiction at the time of disposition. The CRWG will not consider cases in which a subject 

was from a different branch of Service than the MCIO service reporting the data, a member of the Reserves or 

National Guard, retired, a civilian, or deceased. 

64 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 61 (July 21, 2017) (testimony of Mr. Kevin Poorman, Associate Director, Criminal Investigations, U.S. Air 

Force Office of Special Investigations); Dept. of Def. Manual [DoDM] 7730.47-M, Vol. 1, Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS) 

[hereinafter DoDM 7730.47-M], Encl. 3 ¶ 1b (Dec. 7, 2010). DoDM 7730.47-M implements the crime data reporting requirements contained in 

the Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act of 1988 as amended, Pub. L. 111-369, 124 Stat. 4068. The Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act directs 

federal agencies that routinely investigate complaints of criminal activity to report details about such crimes to the Attorney General. The Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was designated as the central collection point for criminal incident data reporting. 

65 National Incident-Based Reporting System User Manual 6 (Nov. 1, 2017), available at https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/nibrs-user-manual (“The 

FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort of more than 18,000 city, university and college, 

county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies (LEAs) voluntarily reporting data on offenses reported or known. . . . The program’s 

primary objective is to generate reliable information for use in [law enforcement] administration, operation, and management. However, over the 

years, UCR data have become one of the country’s leading social indicators. Criminologists, sociologists, legislators, municipal planners, the media, 

and other students of criminal justice use the data for varied research and planning purposes.”).

66 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 134–35 (July 21, 2017) (comment by Ms. Martha Bashford, Committee chair).

67 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. 113-66 [hereinafter FY14 NDAA], § 1705, 127 Stat. 672 (2013). 

68 Memorandum on Withholding Initial Disposition Authority, supra note 29.

69 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 136 (July 21, 2017) (comment by Dr. Cassia Spohn, Committee member) (noting that penetrative and 

contact offenses result in different outcomes).
18

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Each MCIO has limited ability to close a case without conducting a thorough and complete investigation—

generally because the MCIO lacks investigative jurisdiction or authority. The Services use different terms 

for these files: “Serious Incident Report Only,” “Closed Only,” “Information File Only,” or “Record Only.” For 

purposes of this report, they all will be referred to as “Information File Only,” and the CRWG decided not to 

review cases in that classification. 

The CRWG sorted the remaining cases into two categories—“action taken” and “no action taken”—based on 

the dispositions provided by the MCIOs. Disposition options are outlined in Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 

306(c). “Action taken” means that one of the disposition actions listed in R.C.M. 306(c) was taken by the 

command, such as administrative action, nonjudicial punishment, or preferral of charges. “No action taken”—

also an authorized disposition under R.C.M. 306(c)—means that the allegation was thoroughly investigated by 

the relevant service’s MCIO, a report of the investigation was completed and submitted to the commander, and 

the commander determined against taking any action, whether administrative or judicial. The CRWG’s initial 

reviews indicate that “no action taken” cases are generally those in which a victim declines to participate or a 

judge advocate declines to prosecute because of evidentiary considerations.

The CRWG did not have the opportunity to independently verify the documents detailing commander action 

in the case files, and to define the scope of its case review it will use only the self-reported information provided 

by the MCIOs. The tables included in the following sections represent the disposition classifications used by the 

different Services when reporting types of actions. 

A. Naval Criminal Investigative Service 

NCIS reported a total of 1,156 adult sexual assault investigations closed in fiscal year 2017 for both contact 

and penetrative offenses involving a person subject to the UCMJ. NCIS also provided the Committee with a 

spreadsheet on penetrative allegations that detailed the dispositions of 749 reported allegations of sexual assault, 

including cases with multiple subjects. The CRWG immediately excluded 36 of the cases from its analysis 

because the subject was retired, a reservist, a member of a different Service, or a civilian. Another 10 cases were 

excluded because they were opened for informational purposes only. The CRWG reviewed the data associated 

with the remaining 703 cases involving a penetrative sexual assault for which the military had jurisdiction over 

the alleged subject.70

The disposition closure classifications used by NCIS when reporting no action are “no action taken,” “insufficient 

evidence,” “unknown,” and “unfounded.” For cases marked “unknown” in NCIS’s internal data system, the 

CRWG classified the closure by using the entry from DIBRS. The DIBRS classifications are “prosecution 

declined,” “victim uncooperative,” or “arrest.”71

70 Duplicate case numbers are included in this number with the understanding that there are some cases with multiple subjects associated with one 

case number. 

71 See DoDM 7730.47-M, supra note 64, Vol. 2, Encl. 3, Table 10. 
19

CHAPTER 1. ACTIVITIES OF THE CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP

U.S. NAVY – REPORTED DISPOSITIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

CLOSED PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS

U.S. Navy (Cases Closed FY17)

Total Records 408

Action Taken 146 36%

Preferral Action 65 16%

Administrative Actions 32 8%

Civilian Authority 8 2%

Nonjudicial 41 10%

No Action Taken 262 64%

Insufficient Evidence 3 1%

No Action Taken 112 27%

Unfounded 41 10%

Prosecution Declined* 81 20%

Victim Uncooperative* 25 6%

Arrest* 0 0%

*DIBRS classification when NCIS case closure is categorized as “unknown”

U.S. MARINE CORPS – REPORTED DISPOSITIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

CLOSED PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS

U.S. Marine Corps (Cases Closed FY17)

Total Records 295

Action Taken 109 37%

Preferral Action 66 22%

Administrative Actions 19 6%

Civilian Authority 6 2%

Nonjudicial 18 6%

No Action Taken 186 63%

Insufficient Evidence 5 2%

No Action Taken 84 28%

Unfounded 23 8%

Prosecution Declined* 61 21%

Victim Uncooperative* 12 4%

Arrest* 1 0%

*DIBRS classification when NCIS case closure is categorized as “unknown”
20

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

B. Air Force Office of Special Investigations 

AFOSI reported a total of 745 closed adult sexual assault investigations for both contact and penetrative offenses 

involving a person subject to the UCMJ in fiscal year 2017. AFOSI also provided a spreadsheet on penetrative 

allegations that detailed the dispositions for 431 cases.72 After examining the spreadsheet, the CRWG excluded 8 

cases from review because the subject was a member of a different Service or deceased. The CRWG reviewed the 

data associated with the remaining 423 cases involving a penetrative adult sexual assault for which the military 

had jurisdiction over the alleged subject.73

As it had done with the NCIS data, the CRWG sorted the cases according to the disposition provided. Compared 

to the other Services, AFOSI had more detailed disposition classifications, capturing not only the initial action 

but also the end result. Cases in which no judicial action was reported often contained clear descriptions of the 

alternative administrative action. Moreover, cases that began with judicial action but ended with an alternative 

administrative disposition were easily recognizable. The classifications used by the Air Force when reporting 

no action were “prosecution declined (evidence/threshold),” “uncooperative victim,” “allegation unfounded,” 

and “jurisdiction.” Unfounded cases were further categorized as “no merit” or “false.” No case was classified as 

“unknown.” 

U.S. AIR FORCE – REPORTED DISPOSITIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

CLOSED PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS

U.S. Air Force (Cases Closed FY17)

Total Records 423

Action Taken 183 43%

Preferral Action 117 28%

Administrative Actions 51 12%

Civilian Authority 0 0%

Nonjudicial 15 4%

No Action Taken 240 57%

Unfounded 38 9%

Prosecution Declined 114 27%

Victim Uncooperative 80 19%

Jurisdiction 8 2%

72 The CRWG excluded an additional 69 cases included in the spreadsheet that were considered informational only. 

73 Duplicate case numbers are included in this number with the understanding that there are multiple subjects associated with one case number. 
21

CHAPTER 1. ACTIVITIES OF THE CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP

C. Army Criminal Investigation Command 

CID reported a total of 1,771 adult sexual assault investigations closed in fiscal year 2017 for both contact and 

penetrative offenses involving a person subject to the UCMJ. CID also provided a detailed spreadsheet with 

penetrative allegations, which had a total of 1,154 entries; some of these entries were blank cells, indicating that 

a single case involved multiple victims. In order to do an accurate count of cases by subject and disposition, 

regardless of the number of victims, the CRWG removed 35 blank entries, resulting in a total of 1,119 cases. 

Within those 1,119 cases, 201 entries were not considered, as they were informational files only. The CRWG also 

excluded another 4 cases because the subject was deceased or from another Service. The CRWG then reviewed 

the data associated with the remaining 914 cases involving a penetrative adult sexual assault for which the 

military had jurisdiction over the alleged subject.74

The classifications used by the Army when reporting no action are “unfounded” or “no action taken.” In cases 

marked “no action taken,” the classification listed in DIBRS was “prosecution declined,” “victim uncooperative,” 

“unfounded,” “founded/not applicable/other/pend[ing],” and “arrest.”75

U.S. ARMY – REPORTED DISPOSITIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

CLOSED PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS

U.S. Army (Cases Closed FY17)

Total Records 914

Action Taken 293 32%

Preferral Action 148 16%

Administrative Actions 93 10%

Civilian Authority 0 0%

Nonjudicial 52 6%

No Action Taken 621 68%

Unfounded 210 23%

Prosecution Declined* 113 12%

Victim Uncooperative* 47 5%

Unfounded* 120 13%

Founded/Not 

Applicable/Other/

Pending*

6 1%

Arrest* 125 14%

*DIBRS classification when CID case closure is categorized as “no action 

taken”

74 Duplicate case numbers are included in this number with the understanding that there are multiple subjects associated with one case number. 

75 See DoDM 7730.47-M, supra note 64, Vol. 2, Encl. 3, Table 10. 
22

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

D. Coast Guard Investigative Service

CGIS reported a total of 71 adult sexual assault investigations closed in fiscal year 2017 for both contact and 

penetrative offenses involving a person subject to the UCMJ. CGIS also provided a detailed spreadsheet of 

penetrative allegations, containing a total of 35 entries. Out of these entries, 6 were removed and not considered 

because they were “record only.” 

The classifications used by the Coast Guard when reporting no action cases are “CG command declined action,” 

“no prosecution,” and “unfounded.” The Coast Guard inputs data not into DIBRS but into the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).

U.S. COAST GUARD – REPORTED DISPOSITIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

CLOSED PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS

U.S. Coast Guard (Cases Closed FY17)

Total Records 29

Action Taken 21 72%

Preferral Action 12 41%

Administrative Actions 6 21%

Civilian Authority 0 0%

Nonjudicial 3 10%

No Action Taken 8 28%

Unfounded 1 3%

No Prosecution 7 24%
23

CHAPTER 1. ACTIVITIES OF THE CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP

IV. CASE REVIEWS IN 2018 

The CRWG believes that existing sources of data on sexual assault cases do not indicate why certain cases 

progress through the military justice system and others do not. Therefore, drawing on the direction given during 

the Committee’s strategic planning sessions and the CRWG’s own analysis of the information gathered through 

the RFIs, the CRWG determined that the case reviews conducted in 2018 will encompass 2,069 investigative files 

across three different categories: cases that result in no action taken, cases that result in preferral, and cases that 

result in administrative action or nonjudicial punishment or are classified as “civilian authority.” By comparing 

the different categories of investigative files, the CRWG plans to explore factors from the time of the initial 

report through the decision to pursue formal charges that may affect the outcomes of sexual assault reports. 

When reviewing cases, the CRWG will also make an assessment, based on a detailed analysis of the information 

in the investigative file, about whether the disposition in each case was reasonable.

The CRWG will begin its review by focusing on the 1,317 investigative files in which no action was taken. The 

CRWG decided to examine these cases first because they comprise the majority of sexual assault cases reported 

and investigated in the military. The CRWG plans next to review the investigative files for the 408 cases that 

were preferred across the Services. The CRWG will then review the remaining 344 investigative files for cases 

that were not preferred but resulted in administrative action or nonjudicial punishment or were classified by the 

MCIOs as “civilian authority.” 

By comparing the investigative files that contain a commander’s disposition with the adjudicative classifications 

provided by RFIs from the MCIOs, the CRWG will also be able to assess whether the disposition classifications 

used to generate data for DoD are accurate and consistent.76 Through a better understanding of those data, the 

CRWG hopes to better inform public policy decisions, as was requested by the DoD General Counsel at the 

DAC-IPAD’s inaugural meeting.77

A. Methodology 

The CRWG developed a standardized case review template based on the collective knowledge and experience of 

the CRWG members, review of scholarly articles, and consultation with experts in the field.78 All case reviewers 

will use the template when examining the 2,069 investigative files.

The template captures demographic information about the accused and victim, including—but not limited to—

race and ethnicity, age, and branch of service. It also captures information about the relationship between the 

victim and accused and the location where the alleged sexual assault occurred, as well as military-specific factors 

such as whether there was a restricted report or a mandated third-party report. 

76 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 311–15 (Apr. 28, 2017) (testimony of Dr. Nathaniel Galbreath, Deputy Director, DoD Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office) (discussing disposition classifications used by DoD SAPRO).

77 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 16 (Jan. 19, 2017) (testimony of the Honorable Jennifer M. O’Connor, General Counsel, Department of 

Defense). 

78 See Cassia Spohn & Katharine Tellis, Policing and Prosecuting Sexual Assault in Los Angeles City and County: A Collaborative Study in Partnership 

with Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (Feb. 2012); 

Æquitas, Justice Management Institute, and Urban Institute, Model Response to Sexual Violence for Prosecutors: An Invitation to Lead (2017); 

Women’s Law Project, Recommendations for Annual Advocate Sex Crimes External Review Process Based on Philadelphia Practices (May 2017). 
24

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Drawing on their collective experience, the CRWG members also identified case complexity and evidentiary 

factors that may affect case outcomes and added these factors to the template. For example, among the factors 

that may increase case complexity are a suspect’s or victim’s memory loss, incapacitation, or inconsistent 

statements; a victim’s prior sexual behavior with a suspect; a lack of physical or corroborative evidence; and a 

victim’s decision not to cooperate. 

In addition, the template captures information about the commander’s stated disposition action and the reasons 

given for such action (if any), along with the DIBRS case categorization and any legal determination recorded in 

the investigative file by a judge advocate. 

To ensure the validity of the information collected, the DAC-IPAD staff will review all 2,069 investigative files. 

Members of the CRWG will review a statistically significant random sample of cases, determined to be 182 

cases.79 CRWG members will conduct their reviews at the DAC-IPAD offices. 

NUMBER OF CASES SELECTED FOR REVIEW 

BY CRWG MEMBERS THROUGH RANDOM SELECTION80

By Service Total Sample 

size +/-5% Army Navy Marines Corps Air Force Coast Guard80

Preferrals 36 13 6 6 10 1

Administrative Actions 18 7 3 2 5 1

Nonjudicial Punishment 12 4 3 2 2 1

Civilian Authority 2 0 1 1 0 0

No Action Taken 114 53 23 16 21 1

Totals 182 77 36 27 38 4

When review of an investigative file raises questions about whether the selected disposition was reasonable, 

a CRWG member and two additional members of the DAC-IPAD staff will review the same file. If the staff 

members and CRWG members concur, judging from the investigative file itself, that a specific investigation 

should have resulted in charges being preferred against a suspect, they may request additional information about 

the investigation. 

79 The DoD Office of Inspector General Quantitative Methods Division provided guidance to the CRWG on how to determine a random sample of 

cases that is large enough to ensure that the cases in the sample accurately represent the cases in the entire population. The sample size was selected 

from the population using a 95% confidence level and a 5% precision level and assumed a 15% error rate. 

80 Following the method described in the previous note resulted in a sample size within the Coast Guard of 1, which is not recommended. Its sample 

size will therefore be increased to 2.
25

CHAPTER 1. ACTIVITIES OF THE CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP

B. 2018 Objectives

Through its review of investigative files, the CRWG hopes to achieve the following goals:

• Capture data within investigative case files that may predict disposition outcomes; 

• Review and assess Service disposition categorizations to determine the accuracy and consistency of DoD 

reporting;

• Capture demographic information to be used in future Committee reporting;

• Review and assess investigations to identify common trends; and

• Make an assessment, based on a detailed analysis of the information in the investigative file, of whether 

the disposition in each case was reasonable.

In order to achieve the CRWG’s stated objectives, the DAC-IPAD staff will input the demographic information, 

case complexity factors, and disposition determinations recorded on the template into a searchable database. 

A criminologist will then review and analyze the data in order to identify significant predictors of the various 

outcomes before preferral. The CRWG plans to report its assessment of investigative files in the DAC-IPAD’s 

March 2019 report.

V. CASE REVIEWS IN 2019

After completing its review of non-preferred cases, the CRWG is interested in exploring trends in case attrition 

after preferral in order to identify when and why such attrition may occur. Among the factors relevant to 

this review are whether the case went to an Article 32 preliminary hearing, whether the hearing officer 

recommended referral to a general court-martial or some other type of judicial or administrative disposition, 

whether a victim decided not to participate at some point after preferral, and whether charges were dismissed 

at some point after preferral. The CRWG will also begin reviewing records of trial for cases in which charges for 

penetrative offenses were referred to trial, but a conviction was not obtained. 
26

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
27

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

CHAPTER 2.

ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

I. FORMATION OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP 

Before the DAC-IPAD was established, Congress tasked the JPP with reviewing and evaluating the judicial 

response to sexual assault cases in the military. To conduct its analysis, the JPP sought information from court 

records, case documents, and other publicly available resources. Members of the JPP staff reviewed courtmartial documents from cases resolved in fiscal years 2012 through 2015. Information from the cases was 

entered into a JPP-developed database, and the JPP coordinated with a criminologist to analyze the data and 

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

In its Final Report, the JPP made two recommendations to the DAC-IPAD regarding continuation of data 

collection and analysis, summarized below:

JPP Recommendation 54: The DAC-IPAD should consider continuing to analyze adult-victim sexual 

assault court-martial data on an annual basis as the JPP has done, including certain patterns identified by 

the JPP in its FY15 data analysis such as less punitive outcomes for military versus civilian victims and 

variances in acquittal rates among the Services. 

JPP Recommendation 60: The DAC-IPAD continue to gather data and other evidence on disposition 

decisions and conviction rates of sexual assault courts-martial to supplement information provided to the 

JPP Subcommittee during military installation site visits and to determine future recommendations for 

improvements to the military justice system.81

The DAC-IPAD agreed with these recommendations and decided to form the Data Working Group (DWG) to 

continue the collection and analysis of data on sexual assault courts-martial. The DWG is composed of three 

Committee members: Dr. Cassia Spohn, who serves as the working group’s chair; Chief Master Sergeant of the 

Air Force (Ret.) Rodney McKinley; and Mr. James Markey. 

II. METHODOLOGY OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

At the April 28, 2017, DAC-IPAD meeting, the Committee received testimony on the project started by the JPP 

to analyze adjudication data on military sexual assault cases. Ms. Meghan Peters, an attorney-advisor on the 

JPP and DAC-IPAD staff, provided an overview of the data collection process.82 Dr. Spohn, a current member 

of the Committee who was previously retained by the JPP to perform data analysis, discussed the process she 

employed and the fiscal year 2015 results.83 Subsequently, the DWG held two preparatory sessions during which 

the members received a demonstration of the database created in the data analysis project and discussed the 

process for adding content to it. 

81 See JPP Final Report, supra note 38, at 31–32. 

82 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Meeting 223 (Apr. 28, 2017) (testimony of Ms. Meghan Peters, DAC-IPAD Attorney-Advisor).

83 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Meeting 227 (Apr. 28, 2017) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn, Committee member).
28

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

In June 2017, the DAC-IPAD staff, at the direction of Chair Bashford, requested that the Military Services 

provide documents for cases involving a preferred charge of sexual assault that were completed in fiscal year 

2016.84 Staff screened the case records provided by the Services to identify duplicate cases, cases with incomplete 

documentation, cases of sexual assault that did not involve an adult victim, cases that did not involve a sex 

offense, and cases whose reported year of case completion was not correct. The resulting 738 cases closed in 

fiscal year 2016 were then added to the electronic database. 

As of January 12, 2018, the database contains 3,145 cases encompassing fiscal years 2012 through 2016,85 all 

of which involve at least one charge of a sexual offense deemed either penetrative (i.e., rape, aggravated sexual 

assault, sexual assault, forcible sodomy and attempts to commit these offenses) or contact (i.e., aggravated sexual 

contact, abusive sexual contact, wrongful sexual contact, and attempts to commit these offenses). The sexual 

assault offenses in the database span three versions of Article 120, UCMJ, and other statutes.86

III. MILITARY JUSTICE INFORMATION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES COLLECTED BY THE 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

A. Adjudication Information Collected by the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Office (SAPRO)

To understand the breadth of the JPP’s and DAC-IPAD’s data collection and analysis efforts, it is important to 

first understand the military justice data maintained by the Department of Defense. Section 563 of the NDAA 

for Fiscal Year 2009 required the Secretary of Defense to “implement a centralized, case-level database for the 

collection . . . and maintenance of information regarding sexual assaults involving a member of the Armed 

Forces, including information, if available, about the nature of the assault, the victim, the offender, and the 

84 A “completed” case is any case tried to verdict, dismissed without further action, or dismissed and then resolved by nonjudicial punishment or 

administrative proceedings. 

85 DoD does not collect information on the legal outcome of cases in which the victim is the spouse or intimate partner, and therefore the statistical 

data for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 do not include the legal outcomes of those classes of cases. 

86 Pre–Oct. 2007 Article 120(1) – Rape

Pre–Oct. 2007 Article 134 – Assault – Indecent

Oct. 1, 2007–June 27, 2012 Article 120(a) – Rape

 Article 120(c) – Aggravated Sexual Assault

 Article 120(e) – Aggravated Sexual Contact

 Article 120(h) – Abusive Sexual Contact

 Article 120(m) – Wrongful Sexual Contact

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

 Article 120(b) – Sexual Assault

 Article 120(c) – Aggravated Sexual Contact

 Article 120(d) – Wrongful Sexual Contact

Article 125(1) Forcible Sodomy

Article 80 Attempts to commit the above offenses
29

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

outcome of any legal proceedings in connection with the assault.”87 The Department of Defense was given a 

deadline of January 14, 2010, to implement the database, which was to “be used to develop and implement 

congressional reports.”88

To meet this requirement, DoD developed the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID).89 DSAID 

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

prevention and response policy; it is administered by the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office 

(SAPRO), which is responsible for establishing policy and evaluating DoD’s efforts to address sexual assault 

in the military. DoD SAPRO officials coordinate with sexual assault response coordinators and Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Managers from the Military Services to provide information for 

DSAID. The database has three primary functions: (1) to serve as a case management system, maintaining data 

on sexual assault cases and tracking support for victims in each case; (2) to facilitate the administration and 

management of SAPR programs; and (3) to assist in developing congressional reports, responding to ad hoc 

queries, and analyzing trends. Information about a sexual assault case’s legal disposition and outcome, required 

for congressional reporting, is entered into DSAID by legal officers from the Military Services.90

DoD began using DSAID to produce detailed statistics for its annual reports to Congress in 2014. Before that 

time, DoD had relied on the Services’ separate case management systems to provide information on sexual 

assault cases. In testimony to the JPP, DoD SAPRO’s Deputy Director explained how DSAID improved the 

consistency and reliability of the information that DoD provides Congress: “In the years 2013 and before . . . 

we didn’t have any way to kind of dig into the data, and clean it, and make sure that it was being reported in a 

standardized way across all four services.”91

The JPP found SAPRO’s information on case adjudication to be insufficient, however, because it cannot be used 

to assess thoroughly how sexual assault crimes are resolved through the military justice system.92 Although it has 

increased the amount of case information collected, DSAID omits several important case characteristics. It does 

not include details on all sexual assault offenses alleged and charged, the outcome of each charge, the pleas of the 

accused, the entity trying the accused (i.e., whether a military judge or a jury), the specific findings and sentence 

adjudged, and the action taken on the case by the convening authority in accordance with plea agreement terms 

or clemency requests.

87 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-417 [hereinafter FY09 NDAA], § 563, 122 Stat. 4356 (2009).

88 Id.

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

that Service SAPR officials began using DSAID in fiscal year 2012). All transcripts of Judicial Proceedings Panel public meetings are available on 

the JPP’s website at http://jpp.whs.mil/.

90 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 108 (Oct. 9, 2015) (testimony of Ms. Darlene Sullivan, DSAID Program Manager, DoD SAPRO).

91 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 223–24 (Apr. 7, 2017) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Deputy Director, DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office).

92 See April 2016 JPP Report on Statistical Data, supra note 37, at 12.
30

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

B. Cases Not Included in DoD SAPRO’s Data

Intimate partner sexual assault cases fall outside DoD SAPRO’s data collection policy and therefore are not 

included in DSAID or reported by DoD SAPRO in its annual or other reports.93 Such cases are the responsibility 

of the DoD Family Advocacy Program (FAP).94 FAP provides social work services to military families and 

informs law enforcement of all unrestricted sexual assault allegations it receives against Service members.95

However, FAP does not collect case adjudication information for the cases covered by its policies.

Because DSAID and DoD SAPRO reports exclude spouse and intimate partner sexual assaults that are the 

responsibility of FAP, DoD’s annual reports do not fully account for all sexual assault cases in the military. The 

JPP noted in its April 2016 Report on Statistical Data that DSAID should include sexual assault case disposition 

and adjudication information for all adult victim sexual assault cases, regardless of whether responsibility for 

monitoring the case and providing victim services is claimed by the DoD SAPRO program or by FAP. In April 

2016 the JPP issued its Recommendation 38: “The Department of Defense include legal disposition information 

related to all adult sexual assault complaints in one annual DoD report, changing its policy that excludes adultvictim cases that are handled by the Family Advocacy Program from Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Office reports.”96

On April 5, 2017, DoD responded to this recommendation by reaffirming its policy not to include cases covered 

by FAP in DoD SAPRO’s reports: 

Given that FAP’s mission is clinical in nature with a mission towards rehabilitation, FAP is not required 

to collect data on legal disposition of its case and does not monitor such information. Responsibility 

for collecting information on alleged offender accountability and associated outcomes (including legal 

disposition, if appropriate) remains with the Office of the Judge Advocate General within each military 

Department.97

DoD further explained that Section 544 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 201798 requires that the DoD SAPRO 

and FAP annual reports be released simultaneously to Congress; however, DoD also noted that neither report 

would include information on the legal or disciplinary outcome of sexual assault cases covered by FAP policy.99

Finally, DoD indicated it has been considering ways to include such information in future reports; it declined to 

elaborate further on how or when this might happen, adding that “the means for collecting and reporting legal 

disposition information pertaining to these allegations in the future remains pre-decisional.”100

93 This omission was noted by the Response Systems Panel in its report and was the subject of RSP Recommendation 66. RSP Report, supra note 33, 

at 33. 

94 Dep’t of Def. Instr. 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures ¶2.b (Mar. 28, 2013) (Incorporating 

Change 3, Effective May 24, 2017) [hereinafter DoDI 6495.02].

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

Office of Military Family Readiness Policy, U.S. Department of Defense).

96 April 2016 JPP Report on Statistical Data, supra note 37, at 6.

97 DoD Response to JPP Request for Information 164B (Apr. 5, 2017). 

98 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. No. 114-328 [hereinafter FY17 NDAA], § 544, 130 Stat. 2000 (2016).

99 DoD Response to JPP Request for Information 164B (Apr. 5, 2017).

100 Id. See also Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 211–17 (Apr. 7, 2017) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Deputy Director, DoD Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office) (acknowledging that this issue of combining SAPRO and FAP case data in one report has been under review since 

the RSP issued its report in June 2014). See supra note 33.
31

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

IV. THE COURT-MARTIAL PROCESS

To evaluate trends in the military’s judicial response to sexual assault crimes, one must have a basic 

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

The military justice system is designed to “promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order and discipline 

in the armed forces, to promote efficiency and effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby to 

strengthen the national security of the United States.”101 All Service members (including National Guard in 

federal service and Reserve Component members on inactive duty training) are subject to the UCMJ, which sets 

forth both substantive military criminal law and procedures for handling criminal offenses.

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

good order and discipline, commanders have a variety of tools of military justice at their disposal, and they 

respond to misconduct with the advice and counsel of judge advocates. A military convening authority may 

determine that a court-martial is not the appropriate disposition in a case and has other ways to address the 

misconduct, such as nonjudicial punishment, administrative discharge, or other adverse administrative action.102

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

to a given case’s circumstances and evidence. A case that is initially considered appropriate for low-level 

disciplinary action may later be elevated to court-martial; conversely, a criminal charge preferred with a view 

toward court-martial may instead be resolved by alternate means.

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

whether and how the case will be resolved through judicial proceedings in accordance with the UCMJ. The 

following chart illustrates the process by which any criminal offense (not just a sexual offense) is resolved by 

court-martial.

Dismissal / Alternate 

Disposition

Preferral 

of Charges

Article 32 

Preliminary 

Hearing 

(if required)

Decision to 

Refer to 

Court-Martial

Arraignment 

(Plea)

Findings by 

Judge or Panel 

of Military 

Members

Adjudged 

Sentence

Approved 

Findings and 

Sentence by 

Convening 

Authority

Appellate 

Review

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

convening authority (SPCMCA) for the initial decision on disposition.103 Should the commander decide, after 

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

process with the preferral, or swearing, of charges. Once charges are preferred, the initial disposition authority 

101 Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.) [hereinafter MCM], Preamble ¶ 3.

102 Id., Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 306(c). Section 1705 of the FY14 NDAA (supra note 67) limits court-martial jurisdiction over the 

offenses of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and attempts to commit these offenses to trial by general court-martial.

103 See Memorandum on Withholding Initial Disposition Authority, supra note 29. The SPCMCA is a senior commander, typically in the grade of O-6, 

and generally has at least 20 years of military service.
32

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

may refer the charges to a form of court-martial that he or she is authorized under the UCMJ to convene, 

forward the charges to a higher convening authority, dismiss the charges, or choose an alternate disposition for 

the case.

Commanders designated as convening authorities may convene courts-martial, provided that they have 

appropriate authority under the UCMJ to do so.104 The UCMJ sets forth three types of courts-martial: summary 

court-martial, special court-martial, and general court-martial.105

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

typically adjudicate minor misconduct or offenses that are less serious than those referred to special or general 

courts-martial. Only enlisted members may be tried at a summary court-martial. Sentences are limited to no 

more than one month of confinement and do not allow for separation from service.106 In addition, a finding 

of guilt at a summary court-martial does not result in a federal conviction. A member may object to a trial by 

summary court-martial, in which case the member may be tried by special or general court-martial.107

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

verdict at a special or general court-martial results in a federal conviction. Defendants may elect to be tried by 

a military judge alone or by a panel of military members (jury). Unlike in civilian criminal trials, which hold 

a separate sentencing hearing weeks or months after a guilty verdict, once a Service member is found guilty at 

a court-martial the court immediately moves into the sentencing proceedings. Another difference in military 

courts-martial is the wide range of available punishments if a member is found guilty. In addition to or as an 

alternative to confinement in prison, a Service member may receive a punitive discharge, forfeiture of pay, a fine, 

a reduction in pay grade, hard labor without confinement, restriction to specified limits, or a reprimand.108

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

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

one year.109 In addition, because a dismissal is not an authorized punishment, officers are generally not tried by a 

special court-martial.110

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

maximum sentences authorized for the offenses of which the member is convicted.111 Congress, in the FY14 

NDAA, mandated that penetrative sexual assault offenses (rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, or attempts to 

commit these acts) be referred to trial by general court-martial.112

104 MCM, supra note 101, R.C.M. 504.

105 10 U.S.C. § 816 (UCMJ, art. 16).

106 10 U.S.C. § 820 (UCMJ, art. 20). The limits of a summary court-martial sentence are confinement for one month, hard labor without confinement 

for 45 days, restriction to specified limits for two months, and forfeiture of two-thirds of one month’s pay.

107 Id.

108 MCM, supra note 101, R.C.M. 1003(b).

109 10 U.S.C. § 819 (UCMJ, art. 19). The limits of a special court-martial are a bad conduct discharge, confinement for one year, hard labor without 

confinement for three months, and forfeiture of pay for one year.

110 Id.

111 10 U.S.C. § 818 (UCMJ, art. 18).

112 FY14 NDAA, supra note 67, § 1705. The NDAA provision applies to offenses committed on or after June 24, 2014. A commander may still dispose 
33

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

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

hearing be conducted, pursuant to Article 32 of the UCMJ. Traditionally, the Article 32 hearing was a “thorough 

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

investigated “the truth and form of the charges.”113 In sexual assault cases the victim, if he or she was a military 

member, was typically required to appear and give testimony and was subject to cross-examination by the 

defense counsel.114

The FY14 NDAA significantly altered the Article 32 process, making it a preliminary hearing rather than a 

pretrial investigation, and removed the requirement that a victim appear and testify.115 Under the new process, 

the Article 32 preliminary hearings are limited to determining whether there is probable cause to believe that an 

offense has been committed and that the accused committed the offense, determining whether the convening 

authority has court-martial jurisdiction over the offense and the accused, considering the form of the charges, 

and recommending the disposition that should be made of the case.116 At the completion of the Article 32 

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

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

In determining whether to refer charges to a general court-martial, the GCMCA considers the Article 32 report 

containing the preliminary hearing officer’s recommendations and the written pretrial advice of the GCMCA’s 

staff judge advocate.117

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

charges and presides over the court-martial proceedings.118 The trial process that follows largely resembles 

that of civilian criminal courts and uses many of the same rules of procedure and evidence. However, there 

are meaningful differences between military and civilian criminal proceedings, including the military’s 

procedures for plea agreements and sentencing and the convening authority’s role in approving the results of a 

court-martial.

In civilian courts, a plea agreement is made between the prosecutor and the defendant: the defendant pleads 

guilty to some or all of the charges in exchange for a lower sentence recommendation or some other concession, 

such as a reduction in the number or severity of the charges, presented by the prosecutor to the judge.119 The 

judge is not bound by this recommendation and can choose to sentence the defendant to a longer term of 

of an offense by alternate means or dismiss charges, but if a court-martial is warranted the only type authorized for these offenses is a general courtmartial.

113 10 U.S.C. § 832 (UCMJ, art. 32); MCM, supra note 101, R.C.M. 405(a) and (e).

114 MCM, supra note 101, R.C.M. 405(g)(2)(A) and (h)(1)(A).

115 FY14 NDAA, supra note 67, § 1702(a). Section 531(g) of the FY15 NDAA (supra note 4) makes this change effective for all preliminary hearings 

conducted on or after December 26, 2014.

116 FY14 NDAA, supra note 67, § 1702(a).

117 Id.; 10 U.S.C. §§ 833, 834 (UCMJ, art. 33 and art. 34).

118 10 U.S.C. § 936 (UCMJ, art. 36) (stating that rules prescribed by the President “shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law 

and rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts, but which may not be contrary to or 

inconsistent with this chapter.”). See also MCM, supra note 101, R.C.M. 904; Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 1102.

119 Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c) and (d).
34

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

confinement, though in such circumstances the judge may be required to release the defendant from the plea 

agreement.120

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

any specific limits on confinement, are binding on the convening authority.121 Unlike civilian court judges, a 

military judge is not made aware of the sentence limitations agreed to by the defendant and convening authority 

before deciding on a sentence.122 The defendant in a military court ultimately receives the benefit of the lower of 

the two sentences (the one determined at the court-martial and the other contained in the plea agreement).123

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

civilian court by the judge or jury are final, pending appeal. In the military, the findings of guilt and the sentence 

announced by the court-martial panel or judge are not final and must be forwarded to the convening authority 

for approval. Historically, convening authorities had broad powers under Article 60 of the UCMJ to set aside 

or modify findings of guilt or provide clemency with regard to the sentence.124 However, in the FY14 NDAA, 

Congress significantly restricted the post-conviction authority of convening authorities concerning serious 

sexual assault offenses, prohibiting them from setting aside or commuting findings of guilt.125 In addition, the 

NDAA significantly curtailed the ability of convening authorities to provide relief from the adjudged sentence.126

V. MILITARY JUSTICE INFORMATION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES COLLECTED BY THE 

DAC-IPAD

It should be noted that the DAC-IPAD relies on the Services to report all cases meeting the specified criteria. 

The DAC-IPAD therefore cannot assert that it has the complete universe of cases throughout the Armed 

Forces in which a sexual assault charge was filed. The data were also limited to cases in which a complete set of 

disposition records could be identified and retrieved for analysis. In the following tables and charts, percentages 

may not total 100, owing to rounding errors or missing data. Also, cadets/midshipmen and warrant officers are 

included with “officers.” 

120 Id. 

121 MCM, supra note 101, R.C.M. 705(a) and (b). See also R.C.M. 705(d)(4) (“Withdrawal. (A) By accused. The accused may withdraw from a pretrial 

agreement at any time; however, the accused may withdraw a plea of guilty or a confessional stipulation entered pursuant to a pretrial agreement 

only as provided in R.C.M. 910(h) or 811(d), respectively.” See id., R.C.M. 705(d)(4)(B): “By convening authority. The convening authority may 

withdraw from a pretrial agreement at any time before the accused begins performance of promises contained in the agreement, upon the failure 

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

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

appellate review.”).

122 MCM, supra note 101, R.C.M. 910(f)(3).

123 MCM, supra note 101, R.C.M. 705(b)(2).

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

125 FY14 NDAA, supra note 67, § 1702(b).

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

includes a punitive discharge, unless (1) upon recommendation from the trial counsel, in recognition of “substantial assistance” by the accused in 

the investigation or prosecution of another person, including for offenses with mandatory minimum sentences; or (2) in order to honor a pretrial 

agreement. However, the convening authority may not commute a mandatory minimum sentence except to reduce a dishonorable discharge to a 

bad conduct discharge. 
35

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

A. Court-Martial Case Characteristics

The DAC-IPAD received 738 court-martial records from the Services that involved the preferral of an adultvictim sexual assault offense and were completed in fiscal year 2016. Among the Services, the Army generated 

the most cases. Courts-martial records indicated that the accused was usually male and the victims were 

most often female. In addition, though the vast majority of courts-martial involved one military victim, there 

were several that involved multiple victims. In 76% of cases, the most serious charge that was preferred was a 

penetrative offense. Almost all cases involved an offense charged under the most current version of Article 120, 

UCMJ, the military’s sexual assault statute, which covers offenses committed on or after June 28, 2012. 

The DAC-IPAD notes that a number of characteristics are similar across the cases from fiscal year 2012 through 

fiscal year 2016: 

• The characteristics of the accused and the victim,

• The proportion of cases involving a penetrative offense,

• The proportion of cases tried by court-martial, and

• The proportion of penetrative offenses referred to general courts-martial. 

1. Overview of Total Cases Received

Of the total number of cases in the DAC-IPAD database, 301 (10%) are from fiscal year 2012, 587 (19%) are 

from fiscal year 2013, 738 (23%) are from fiscal year 2014, 781 (25%) are from fiscal year 2015, and 738 (23%) 

are from fiscal year 2016. 

CASES DOCUMENTED BY THE DAC-IPAD

301

FY 2012 FY 2013

587

FY 2014

738

FY 2015

781

FY 2016

738
36

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Of the 738 cases received by the DAC-IPAD for fiscal year 2016, the Army generated the most cases (35%), 

followed by the Air Force (29%), Navy (17%), Marine Corps (16%), and Coast Guard (3%). 

MILITARY SERVICE OF THE ACCUSED

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

35.2%

44.2% 44.3%

47.2% 48.9%

15.9%

13.3%

4.2%

5.8% 17.9% 7.6%

16.7%

3.0%

16.0%

18.8%

5.1%

15.0%

25.6%

29.3% 22.2%

14.0%

28.1%

2.2%

18.6%

1.0%

Coast Guard

Air Force

Navy

Marine Corps

Army
37

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

To provide additional context for the number of cases included in the DAC-IPAD database from each Military 

Service, the tables below show the active duty population in each in fiscal years 2012 through 2016, and the 

proportion that each Military Service constitutes of the overall active duty population.

ACTIVE DUTY POPULATION BY MILITARY SERVICE WITH 

NUMBER OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES IN DAC-IPAD DATABASE (FY 2012)

Size of Active 

Duty Population

Percentage of 

Total Active Duty 

Population

Number of Cases 

in DAC-IPAD 

Database

Percentage of 

Cases in DAC-IPAD 

Database

Army 546,057 38.2% 142 47.2%

Marine Corps 198,820 13.9% 23 7.6%

Navy 314,339 22.0% 77 25.6%

Air Force 328,812 23.0% 56 18.6%

Coast Guard 41,776 2.9% 3 1.0%

Total 1,429,804 100.0% 301 100.0%

ACTIVE DUTY POPULATION BY MILITARY SERVICE WITH 

NUMBER OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES IN DAC-IPAD DATABASE (FY 2013)

Size of Active 

Duty Population

Percentage of 

Total Active Duty 

Population

Number of Cases 

in DAC-IPAD 

Database

Percentage of 

Cases in DAC-IPAD 

Database

Army 528,070 37.4% 287 48.9%

Marine Corps 195,848 13.9% 34 5.8%

Navy 319,838 22.7% 88 15.0%

Air Force 326,573 23.1% 165 28.1%

Coast Guard 40,356 2.9% 13 2.2%

Total 1,410,685 100.0% 587 100.0%
38

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

ACTIVE DUTY POPULATION BY MILITARY SERVICE WITH 

NUMBER OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES IN DAC-IPAD DATABASE (FY 2014)

Size of Active 

Duty Population

Percentage of 

Total Active Duty 

Population

Number of Cases 

in DAC-IPAD 

Database

Percentage of 

Cases in DAC-IPAD 

Database

Army 504,330 36.9% 326 44.2%

Marine Corps 187,891 13.8% 132 17.9%

Navy 321,599 23.5% 139 18.8%

Air Force 312,453 22.9% 103 14.0%

Coast Guard 39,442 2.9% 38 5.1%

Total 1,365,715 100.0% 738 100.0%

ACTIVE DUTY POPULATION BY MILITARY SERVICE WITH 

NUMBER OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES IN DAC-IPAD DATABASE (FY 2015)

Size of Active 

Duty Population

Percentage of 

Total Active Duty 

Population

Number of Cases 

in DAC-IPAD 

Database

Percentage of 

Cases in DAC-IPAD 

Database

Army 487,366 36.4% 346 44.3%

Marine Corps 183,417 13.7% 104 13.3%

Navy 323,334 24.1% 125 16.0%

Air Force 307,326 22.9% 173 22.2%

Coast Guard 39,071 2.9% 33 4.2%

Total 1,340,514 100.0% 781 100.0%
39

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

While the Army’s respective share of cases in the database decreased from the fiscal year 2015 level (44.3%), as a 

proportion of the entire active duty population, the percentage of cases (35%) closely aligns with its percentage 

of the population (35.5%) in fiscal year 2016. 

ACTIVE DUTY POPULATION BY MILITARY SERVICE WITH 

NUMBER OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES IN DAC-IPAD DATABASE (FY 2016)

Size of Active 

Duty Population

Percentage of 

Total Active Duty 

Population

Number of Cases 

in DAC-IPAD 

Database

Percentage of 

Cases in DAC-IPAD 

Database

Army 471,271 35.5% 260 35.2%

Marine Corps 183,501 13.8% 117 15.9%

Navy 320,101 24.1% 123 16.7%

Air Force 313,723 23.6% 216 29.3%

Coast Guard 39,487 3.0% 22 3.0%

Total 1,328,083 100.0% 738 100.0%
40

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

2. Accused Characteristics

For each fiscal year in the database, the accused in nearly all cases is male (99%). A female accused occurs in 

only 21 out of a total of 3,145 cases in the database.

GENDER OF THE ACCUSED

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

99.0%

1.0% 0.3% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5%

99.7% 99.2% 99.2% 99.5%

Male Female
41

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

In addition, the accused is most often enlisted. In fiscal year 2016, enlisted were roughly 80% of the total active 

duty population but were a higher percentage of the cases (94%) in the database. Although officers were nearly 

20% of the active duty population, they made up a smaller percentage of the cases (6%). In fiscal year 2016, 

personnel in the pay grades E3 to E5 were approximately 51% of the active duty population, but accounted for 

most (68%) of the enlisted accused. 

RANK OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2012)

Cadet/ W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5 O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6

Mid

E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9

23 20

64

75

54

27

9 4 4 4 8

0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 1

RANK OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2013)

Cadet/ W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5 O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6

Mid

E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9

35 29

121

154

112

61

30

6 6 5 11

0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 3 8
42

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

RANK OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2014)

Cadet/ W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5 O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6

Mid

E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9

28

44

164

196

147

70

35

6 5

13 13

1 0 1 0 0 0 3 4 4 4

RANK OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2015)

Cadet/ W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5 O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6

Mid

E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9

31

42

158

184

156

89

47

8 3 3 3

20 12 12

1 1 1 6 2 0 2
43

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

RANK OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2016)

Cadet/ W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5 O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6

Mid

E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9

21

47

145

193

136

86

46

16

5 5 4

15

1 0 1 2 6 6 0 0 3
44

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

3. Victim Characteristics

In fiscal year 2016, 93% of the victims were female. The proportion of male victims (7%) represented a decline 

from fiscal year 2015, when 12% of the victims were male. The cause of the decline is unclear from the data. 

Most cases in fiscal year 2016, as well as historically, involved one (84%) or two (11%) victims. 

GENDER OF THE VICTIM(S)

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

8.8%

91.2% 90.6%

87.0% 87.7%

93.0%

9.4%

13.0% 12.3%

7.0%

Male Female

NUMBER OF VICTIMS PER CASE

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

84.1%

9.6%

6.3%

85.0%

9.5%

5.5%

82.7%

10.3%

7.0%

83.1%

11.8%

5.1%

84.1%

10.6%

5.3%

Three or More Victims Two Victims One Victim
45

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

4. Characteristics Regarding the Nature of the Charges

A penetrative offense,127 as opposed to a contact offense, was the offense type more often preferred, constituting 

559 of 738 cases (76%) in fiscal year 2016. This preferral rate is similar to the rates observed in fiscal years 2012 

through 2015.

TYPE OF SEX OFFENSE CHARGED

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

73.4%

75.5%

68.6%

71.2%

75.7%

Penetrative Offense Contact Offense

24.3%

28.8%

31.4%

24.5% 26.6%

127 The phrase “penetrative offense” refers to offenses under Article 120 and 125, UCMJ, involving rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, 

forcible sodomy, and attempts to commit these offenses.
46

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

B. Disposition Decisions

In fiscal year 2016, convening authorities referred a total of 477 cases to trial by general, special, and summary 

court-martial; thus, 65% of all preferred cases were referred to trial. Conversely, convening authorities dismissed 

or resolved through alternate administrative means 261, or 35%, of preferred cases. Overall, 81% of referred 

cases in fiscal year 2016 were referred to trial by general court-martial. 

CASE DISPOSITION: COURT-MARTIAL TYPE

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

83.3%

9.0% 7.7%

79.8%

12.8%

7.4%

73.9%

16.6%

9.5%

78.6%

13.8%

7.5%

81.1%

13.8%

5.0%

The following tables illustrate case dispositions by Military Service of the accused for fiscal years 2012 through 

2016.128

CASE DISPOSITION BY MILITARY SERVICE OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2012)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

Army 89 84.8% 6 5.7% 10 9.5%

Marine Corps 14 73.7% 3 15.8% 2 10.5%

Navy 39 84.8% 6 13.0% 1 2.2%

Air Force 42 85.7% 5 10.2% 2 4.1%

Coast Guard 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 2 66.7%

128 Figures obtained from the 2012 through 2016 DoD demographic reports are available at http://www.militaryonesource.mil//mos/reports-andsurveys. The figures do not include the number of Guard and Reserve Component members who were on active duty and subject to the UCMJ.
47

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

CASE DISPOSITION BY MILITARY SERVICE OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2013)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

Army 183 84.7% 13 6.0% 20 9.3%

Marine Corps 18 64.3% 6 21.4% 4 14.3%

Navy 40 67.8% 15 25.4% 4 6.8%

Air Force 100 82.6% 17 14.0% 4 3.3%

Coast Guard 2 33.3% 4 66.7% 0 0.0%

CASE DISPOSITION BY MILITARY SERVICE OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2014)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

Army 189 79.7% 21 8.9% 27 11.4%

Marine Corps 54 60.7% 18 20.2% 17 19.1%

Navy 73 69.5% 31 29.5% 1 1.0%

Air Force 53 86.9% 7 11.5% 1 1.6%

Coast Guard 18 56.3% 10 31.3% 4 12.5%

CASE DISPOSITION BY MILITARY SERVICE OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2015)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

Army 219 88.3% 17 6.9% 12 4.8%

Marine Corps 50 66.7% 13 17.3% 12 16.0%

Navy 58 62.4% 27 29.0% 8 8.6%

Air Force 100 87.0% 13 11.3% 2 1.7%

Coast Guard 11 42.3% 7 26.9% 8 30.8%

CASE DISPOSITION BY MILITARY SERVICE OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2016)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

Army 177 93.2% 11 5.8% 2 1.1%

Marine Corps 49 60.5% 23 28.4% 9 11.1%

Navy 51 62.2% 23 28.0% 8 9.8%

Air Force 99 93.4% 6 5.7% 1 0.9%

Coast Guard 11 61.1% 3 16.7% 4 22.2%
48

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

The severity of offense charged influences the type of court-martial to which a charge is referred. Among cases 

completed in fiscal year 2016, 93% of penetrative offenses were referred to trial by general court-martial, while 

contact offenses were referred at about equal frequency to general (42%) and special court-martial (46%), and 

less often to summary court-martial (13%). 

CASE DISPOSITION: PENETRATIVE OFFENSES REFERRED TO TRIAL

General Court-Martial

94.7% 93.8%

91.0%

94.5% 92.9%

Special Court-Martial

2.4%

5.0% 6.6%

3.3% 4.4%

Summary Court-Martial

2.9% 1.3% 2.3% 2.3% 2.7%

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

CASE DISPOSITION: CONTACT OFFENSES REFERRED TO TRIAL

General Court-Martial

46.2%

39.1% 40.4% 39.4%

41.8%

Special Court-Martial

30.8%

35.5% 36.0%

40.0%

45.5%

Summary Court-Martial

23.1%

25.5% 23.6%

20.6%

12.7%

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
49

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

C. Adjudication Outcomes

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

through the military justice system. The following charts illustrate case outcomes for cases according to how the 

case was adjudicated (by a military judge or by a panel of military members) and according to the type of offense 

charged (penetrative or contact). 

OUTCOMES FOR CONTESTED PENETRATIVE OFFENSE TRIALS: 

ADJUDICATED BY MILITARY JUDGE

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

36.4%

37.5%

30.1%

36.9%

28.1%

31.8%

38.5%

41.3%

33.3%

37.1%

9.1%

11.5%

18.9%

25.3%26.3%

22.7%

12.5%

9.5%

4.5%

8.4%

Convicted of 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Aquitted of

All Charges

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

OUTCOME FOR CONTESTED PENETRATIVE OFFENSE TRIALS: 

ADJUDICATED BY PANEL OF MILITARY MEMBERS

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

39.1%

45.6%

28.5%

35.7%

28.2%

20.7%

18.9%

20.3%

23.4%

13.3%

29.3%29.6%

43.0%

38.6%

55.2%

10.9%

5.9%

8.1%

2.3% 3.3%

Convicted of 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Aquitted of

All Charges

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
50

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

OUTCOMES FOR CONTESTED CONTACT OFFENSE TRIALS: 

ADJUDICATED BY MILITARY JUDGE

66.7%

71.4%

60.8%

64.3%

74.0%

8.3%

0.0%

9.5%10.0%

8.0%

25.0%

28.6%

29.7%

25.7%

18.0%

Convicted of 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Aquitted of

All Charges

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

OUTCOMES FOR CONTESTED CONTACT OFFENSE TRIALS: 

ADJUDICATED BY PANEL OF MILITARY MEMBERS

14.3%

29.5%

20.8%

31.3%

26.7%

33.3% 31.8%

47.9%

37.5%

43.3%

52.4%

38.6%

31.3%

31.3%

30.0%

Convicted of 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Aquitted of

All Charges

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016
51

CHAPTER 2. ACTIVITIES OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

D. Article 32

On December 26, 2014, a new Article 32 framework was implemented, transforming the Article 32 process from 

a pretrial investigation into a less robust preliminary hearing. Under the old process, victims were frequently 

required to appear and testify at the Article 32 hearing and undergo cross-examination from defense counsel; 

this requirement has been removed from the new process. 

In fiscal year 2016, Article 32 hearings were held in 487 cases and waived in an additional 127 cases. Since the 

change in the law, the number of hearings waived has doubled year over year from 2014 to fiscal year 2016, as 

shown below. No such clear pattern has emerged for the number of hearings held during this same period. 

ARTICLE 32 HEARINGS

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

216

14

422

38

513

29

538

59

487

127

Article 32 Held Article 32 Waived

In fiscal year 2016, Article 32 hearings were waived in 90 cases without a pretrial agreement, an increase from 

31 cases in fiscal year 2015. Of the 127 cases in fiscal year 2016 for which the Article 32 hearing was waived, 20 

(15.7%) involved a contact offense and 107 (84.3%) involved a penetrative offense. Of the Article 32 hearings 

waived, the percentage involving a contact offense decreased from fiscal years 2014 to 2016, while the percentage 

involving a penetrative offense increased from fiscal years 2014 to 2016. The conviction rate when the Article 32 

was waived continued to decrease from fiscal years 2013 (92.1%) to 2016 (52.0%).
52

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

ARTICLE 32 WAIVERS

Percentage Waived

Without Pretrial

Agreement

Percentage Waived

When Contact

Offense Preferred

Percentage Waived

When Penetrative

Offense Preferred

Conviction Rate

When Article 32

Waived

28.6%

28.9%

24.1%

50.8%

70.9%

35.7%

18.4%

34.5%

20.3%

15.7%

64.3%

81.6%

65.5%

79.7%

84.3%

78.6%

92.1%

89.7%

78.0%

52.0%

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

VI. THE WAY FORWARD FOR THE DATA PROJECT

The DWG will continue the data collection and analysis project in the coming months. On January 25, 2018, 

the DAC-IPAD requested that the Services provide documents for cases involving a preferred charge of 

sexual assault completed in fiscal year 2017. As the JPP did previously, the DWG will retain the services of a 

criminologist to provide specialized analysis of data from fiscal years 2016 and 2017. The analysis will include 

descriptive statistics concerning court-martial case characteristics, case dispositions, and case outcomes. In 

addition, the DWG anticipates further examination of data points concerning adjudged versus approved 

sentences, influence of the relationship between the victim and the accused on the outcome of the case, and the 

timeliness of the courts-martial processes among the Services. 
53

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

CHAPTER 3.

ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

1. FORMATION OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP AND INITIAL TASKS 

At the July 21, 2017, DAC-IPAD public meeting, the Committee agreed to set up a Policy Working Group 

(PWG) to look at sexual assault policy issues. The Committee identified two issues as priorities for review—the 

DoD expedited transfer policy and legal and sexual assault response training for commanders. The Committee 

decided to begin by inviting presenters from the Services and DoD to discuss these issues at its October 2017 

public meeting and by requesting information from DoD and the Services on commander training and 

expedited transfer data.

The seven Committee members serving on the PWG are Brigadier General (Ret.) James Schwenk, Major 

General (Ret.) Marcia Anderson, Dean Keith Harrison, Ms. Margaret Garvin, Mr. A. J. Kramer, Dr. Jenifer 

Markowitz, and Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force (Ret.) Rodney McKinley, who serves as the chair.

II. METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE OF REVIEW OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

A. DAC-IPAD Public Meeting

To begin its assessment, the DAC-IPAD held a two-day public meeting on October 19 and 20, 2017. Members of 

the full Committee heard testimony from 26 individuals from DoD and each of the Military Services regarding 

their expedited transfer policies and practices, as well as the legal and sexual assault training given commanders. 

In addition, the Committee heard from a survivor about her experiences following her 2012 sexual assault while 

she was serving in the military.

To learn about the history and specifics of the DoD-level expedited transfer policy, the Committee received 

a briefing from representatives of the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office 

(DoD SAPRO). This was followed by presentations from policy and assignments personnel from each of the 

Military Services, who discussed the Services’ individual expedited transfer policies and procedures. To gain a 

firsthand understanding of how the policy is working in the field, the Committee invited a panel of experienced 

special victims’ counsel (SVCs) and victims’ legal counsel (VLCs) representing each Service to share their 

experiences and insights gained from representing clients who have requested expedited transfers.129

The Committee also heard from two panels of commanders. The first, composed of mid-level commanders at 

the O-5 level (lieutenant colonel or Navy commander) and their senior enlisted advisors, was asked to testify 

about the legal and sexual assault response training they had received, as well as their experiences in dealing 

with allegations within their commands and with requests for expedited transfers. The second was composed 

of commanders from each Service at the O-6 (colonel or Navy captain) level, who are special court-martial 

129 See generally Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 132–220 (Oct. 19, 2017) (testimony of Service SVCs/VLCs). The SVC/VLC program was 

initiated by all of the Services at the direction of the Secretary of Defense in 2014 and provides Service member victims of sexual assault and their 

dependents with free legal representation throughout the military justice process. See U.S. Dep’t of Def., Memorandum from the Secretary of 

Defense on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (Aug. 14, 2013), available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/news/SECDEF_Memo_SAPR_

Initiatives_20130814.pdf.
54

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

convening authorities.130 These panelists discussed the legal and sexual assault response training they had 

received, as well as their experiences in making initial disposition decisions about sexual assault allegations and 

in dealing with Service members who have requested expedited transfers.

B. Policy Working Group Preparatory Sessions 

On December 1, 2017, the PWG held a full-day preparatory session devoted entirely to the expedited transfer 

policy. The members heard from 20 individuals. The first panel, composed of the director of the DoD Family 

Advocacy Program (FAP) and representatives from each of the Services’ FAP programs, discussed whether 

the expedited transfer policy could and should be available to Service members covered by FAP who make 

unrestricted reports of sexual assault. 

The PWG also heard from a panel of senior special victim prosecutors from each Service about the impact of 

expedited transfers on the prosecution of sexual assault cases; a second panel of SVCs and VLCs described their 

experiences with the expedited transfer policy. Importantly, the PWG was also able to hear from a panel of active 

duty Service members who had received expedited transfers and were willing to share their experiences and 

insights, as well as the compelling testimony of a parent of a Service member who received an expedited transfer. 

C. Requests for Information Regarding Expedited Transfers and Commander Training 

The Committee submitted a written request for information to DoD and the Services on September 11, 2017, 

seeking information on expedited transfer requests received in fiscal year 2016 (FY16) and on the legal and 

sexual assault response training provided to commanders.131

1. Data for Fiscal Year 2016 on Expedited Transfer Requests

To obtain more detailed information about the Service-level expedited transfer policies and procedures, the 

DAC-IPAD requested that the Services provide all current Service-specific policies and procedures related to 

expedited transfers of adult sexual assault victims and accused Service members.132 The DAC-IPAD also sought 

information on all sexual assault–related expedited transfer requests made by victims in fiscal year 2016 (FY16), 

asking the Services to provide the following data for each request: rank, gender, job title, and duty station of the 

victim at the time of the request; whether the victim was represented by an SVC or a VLC; whether the request 

was approved or denied; information about the individual making the decision on the request; the requested 

transfer locations; the location to which the victim actually transferred, if approved; the requester’s job title at 

the new location; the disposition of the underlying sexual assault allegation; and the dates of the sexual assault 

report, the transfer request, the approval decision, and the transfer.133 The PWG requested data for FY16 so that 

130 The disposition of all penetrative sexual assault allegations are required by law and DoD policy to be handled by special court-martial convening 

authorities who are at least at the O-6 level. See Memorandum on Withholding Initial Disposition Authority, supra note 29.

131 See DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_

Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

132 See DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4, Question 4 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/

DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

133 See DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4, Question 5 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/

DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.
55

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

it might compare the data received with the statistics provided to Congress by DoD SAPRO in its FY16 annual 

sexual assault report.134

The DAC-IPAD also requested similar information about each Service member accused of a sexual assault 

offense who was transferred.

2. Legal and Sexual Assault Response Training for Commanders

To gain insight into legal and sexual assault response training for commanders, the DAC-IPAD requested 

information from the Services covering three areas: 

• Service-wide UCMJ legal training provided to special and general court-martial convening authorities, 

including the portion of such training that is devoted to dealing with sexual assault and making 

appropriate disposition decisions in sexual assault cases;135

• Service-wide UCMJ legal training provided to commanders below the level of special court-martial 

convening authority (i.e., company commanders, squadron commanders), including the portion of such 

training devoted to sexual assault;136

• Service-wide SAPR training that is provided to commanders at all levels on handling sexual assault 

issues and supervising both victims of sexual assault and accused Service members, including how 

commanders are trained regarding the different ways victims may respond to a sexual assault; how to 

respond to and treat a victim in the commander’s unit; how to respond when both the victim and alleged 

perpetrator are in the commander’s unit; how to address professional and peer retaliation and ostracism; 

and how to respond to expedited transfer requests.137

D. Additional Stakeholders

The DAC-IPAD recognizes that there are several very important groups involved with expedited transfers that 

neither the full Committee nor the PWG was able to hear from in time for this report: sexual assault response 

coordinators (SARCs) and victim advocates (VAs), defense counsel, military criminal investigators, and 

providers of behavioral health services. Therefore, the Committee will continue to explore the issues of concern 

identified in this chapter after requesting additional testimony and input from these stakeholders.

134 The Services’ enclosures to the Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for Fiscal Year 2016 provided information 

on the number of expedited transfers requested during the fiscal year for each DoD Service (the Coast Guard is not included in the annual SAPRO 

reports) and the number of requests denied and the reason for the denial, but no additional data was available about the requests. See Dep’t of 

Def., Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military: Fiscal Year 2016 (May 1, 

2017) [hereinafter FY16 DoD SAPRO Report], available at http://sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY16_Annual/FY16_SAPRO_Annual_Report.pdf.

135 See DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4, Question 1 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/

DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

136 See DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4, Question 2 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/

DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

137 See DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4, Question 3 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mfil/images/Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/

DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.
56

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

III. REVIEW OF THE EXPEDITED TRANSFER POLICY

A. Overview of the Expedited Transfer Policy

Expedited transfers were first conceived in 2011, when DoD SAPRO was identifying gaps in its response to 

sexual assault. DoD SAPRO realized that after reporting a sexual assault, many victims were unable to move 

from their units or get away from the individual who had assaulted them. As a result, victims continued to be 

re-traumatized and were unable to fully recover.138 After discussing the potential for a new policy with victim 

services personnel, members of Congress, and the Secretary of Defense, and receiving support for the initiative, 

DoD SAPRO developed its expedited transfer policy.139

The next step was a DoD-wide directive issued by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 

on December 16, 2011.140 In the initial DoD guidance, the key tenets of the policy were a presumption in favor 

of transferring sexual assault victims when there was a credible report, assurance that the transfer would not 

harm the victim’s career, and authorization of an appeal process to the first general or flag officer in the chain 

of command.141 This guidance was incorporated into the DoD sexual assault prevention and response program 

instruction in 2013.142 Congress passed its own version of the expedited transfer authorization in the Fiscal Year 

2012 NDAA, which added time frames of 72 hours for approval and for appeal.143 Two years later, in the FY14 

NDAA, Congress extended to the U.S. Coast Guard the requirement to establish an expedited transfer policy 

and also authorized the transfer of a suspect of a sex-related offense.144

138 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 31–33 (Oct. 19, 2017) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Deputy Director, Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense).

139 See id.

140 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 33–35 (Oct. 19, 2017) (testimony of Ms. Diana Rangoussis, Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor, 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense); see also Dep’t of Def. Directive-Type Memorandum 11-063, 

Expedited Transfer of Military Service Members Who File Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault (Dec. 16, 2011).

141 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 34–35 (Oct. 19, 2017) (testimony of Ms. Diana Rangoussis, Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor, 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense).

142 See id.; see also DoDI 6495.02, supra note 94. 

143 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 35 (Oct. 19, 2017) (testimony of Ms. Diana Rangoussis, Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor, Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense); see also National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. 

112–81 [hereinafter FY12 NDAA], § 582(a), 125 Stat. 1432 (2011).

The statutory requirements for the military’s expedited transfer policy are codified in 10 U.S.C. § 673:

Consideration of application for permanent change of station or unit transfer for members on active duty who are the victim of 

a sexual assault or related offense

(a) Timely Consideration and Action.—The Secretary concerned shall provide for timely determination and action on an 

application for consideration of a change of station or unit transfer submitted by a member of the armed forces serving on 

active duty who was a victim of a sexual assault or other offense covered by section 920, 920a, or 920c of this title (article 120, 

120a, or 120c) so as to reduce the possibility of retaliation against the member for reporting the sexual assault or other offense.

(b) Regulations.—The Secretaries of the military departments shall issue regulations to carry out this section, within guidelines 

provided by the Secretary of Defense. These guidelines shall provide that the application submitted by a member described in 

subsection (a) for a change of station or unit transfer must be approved or disapproved by the member’s commanding officer 

within 72 hours of the submission of the application. Additionally, if the application is disapproved by the commanding officer, 

the member shall be given the opportunity to request review by the first general officer or flag officer in the chain of command 

of the member, and that decision must be made within 72 hours of submission of the request for review.

144 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 36 (Oct. 19, 2017) (testimony of Ms. Diana Rangoussis, Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor, Sexual 
57

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

The current DoD expedited transfer policy is found in DoD Instruction 6495.02, “Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures.”145 The policy applies only to active duty Service members who 

have made an unrestricted report of sexual assault; notably, the policy expressly excludes sexual assault victims 

covered under FAP policy as well as Service members who make a restricted report of sexual assault.146

The purpose of the DoD expedited transfer policy is to address “situations where a victim feels safe, but 

uncomfortable,” such as instances when a victim experiences ostracism or retaliation as a result of the sexual 

assault report.147 The intent behind the policy is to assist the victim’s recovery by moving the victim to a new 

location, where no one knows of the sexual assault.148

In additional provisions of the DoD expedited transfer policy, it 

1. Establishes a presumption in favor of transferring an eligible Service member who files a “credible 

report”;

2. Defines “credible report” as either a written or verbal report made in support of an expedited transfer 

that is determined to have credible information;

3. Requires a commanding officer (CO) to make a determination to approve or disapprove a request for 

transfer within 72 hours of receipt of the request; 

4. Requires that if the initial request is disapproved, the requesting Service member be given an 

opportunity to appeal to the first general or flag officer in the chain of command, who then must make a 

decision within 72 hours of receiving the appeal; and

5. Requires the CO or appropriate approving authority to provide his or her reasons for and justification of 

the transfer based on a “credible report” of sexual assault and consideration of 10 additional factors. 

The 10 additional factors are (1) the reason for the request, (2) the potential transfer of the alleged offender 

instead of the requesting Service member, (3) the nature and circumstances of the offense, (4) whether a 

temporary transfer would meet the needs of the requester and the unit, (5) the training status of the requester, 

(6) the availability of positions within other units on the installation, (7) the status of and impact on the 

investigation and disposition of the offense (after consultation with the MCIOs), (8) the location of the alleged 

offender, (9) whether the alleged offender is civilian or military, and (10) “other pertinent circumstances or 

facts.”149

The DoD expedited transfer policy also requires the CO to ask for and take into consideration the Service 

member’s input before making an approval decision and determining the location of the transfer, if granted. 

Further, it notes that “in most circumstances, transfers to a different installation should be completed within 

Assault Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense) (noting that the FY14 NDAA authorized transferring suspects, which was 

already authorized in DoD policy). 

145 See generally DoDI 6495.02, supra note 94, at encl. 5.

146 Id. at encl. 5 ¶¶ 6b(2)(a), b(2).

147 Id. at encl. 5 ¶ a(2).

148 Id. 

149 Id. at encl. 5 ¶ 6b(8).
58

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

30 calendar days from the date the transfer is approved, and those that are on the same installation should be 

completed within one week of approval.”150

B. Statistical Data on Expedited Transfers 

1. Data Collected by the Department of Defense

DoD currently administers two surveys that include questions related to expedited transfers.151 The first is the 

Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members (WGRA), which is administered force-wide; 

the second is the Military Investigation and Justice Experience Survey (MIJES), which goes only to victims of 

sexual assault who have completed their participation in the justice system.152 The response rate for the WGRA 

is usually between 29% and 30%.153 Because it is a randomized, stratified sample, the results are representative of 

the entire force.154 The MIJES, on the other hand, has a very low response rate and was completed by only about 

150 victims last year.155

In addition to these surveys, each fiscal year, in the Service Enclosures to its annual report to Congress, DoD 

SAPRO publishes the number of intra-installation and inter-installation expedited transfer requests received, 

approved, and rejected.156

150 Id. at encl. 5 ¶ 6b(4).

151 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 75 (Oct. 19, 2017) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Deputy Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense). 

152 Id. at 75–76. 

153 Id. 76. 

154 Id. 

155 Id. at 77.

156 See Service Enclosures to FY16 DoD SAPRO Report, supra note 134.
59

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

a. FY 2016 DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military

DOD SAPRO: EXPEDITED TRANSFER REQUESTS BY VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN FISCAL YEAR 2016

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard* Services Total

Total FY16 Expedited 

Transfer Requests 254 306 99 87 N/A 746

Total FY16 Expedited 

Transfers Denied/Withdrawn 2 7 9 1 N/A 19

Percent of Total Requests 

Approved 99% 98% 91% 99% N/A 97%

FY16 – Service Member 

Unrestricted Reports 1591 955 436 738 N/A 3720

Percent of Service Member 

Unrestricted Repts. 

Requesting Transfers

16% 32% 23% 12% N/A 20%

*Coast Guard data not included in the annual DoD SAPRO reports to Congress

Source: FY16 DoD SAPRO Report, Service Enclosures

b. 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members

The Defense Research, Surveys, and Statistics Center within DoD’s Office of People Analytics (OPA) has 

conducted gender relations surveys since 1988 to assess unwanted gender-related behaviors in the military. 

These surveys are designed to gauge the perceived experiences of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the 

military via self-reported responses from Service members.157

Between July 22 and October 14, 2016, OPA sampled a total of 735,329 active duty members from the Army, 

Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard who were below flag rank and had been on active duty for 

about five months. Surveys were completed by 151,010 Service members. OPA scientifically weights the survey 

data so that findings can be generalized to the full population of active duty members.158 The weighted response 

rate for the 2016 WGRA was 24%, which is typical for large DoD-wide surveys.159

The results were as follows:160

• Of the 31% of DoD women and the 15% of men who reported a sexual assault to the military, 24% of 

women and 16% of men received an expedited transfer

157 Office of People Analytics, 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members Report v–vi (2017).

158 According to the WGRA report, “OPA scientifically weighted the 2016 WGRA respondents to be generalizable to the active duty population 

using the generalized boosted modeling (GBM) approach. Within this process, statistical adjustments are made to ensure the sample respondents 

accurately reflect the characteristics of the population from which it was drawn and provide a more rigorous accounting to reduce nonresponse 

bias in estimates. This ensures oversampling within any one subgroup does not result in overrepresentation in the Total Force estimates.” Id. at 24.

159 Id. at vii–viii.

160 Id. at 113–15.
60

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

• Of the 24% of DoD women who indicated that they received an expedited transfer after reporting a 

sexual assault in the military:

° 54% indicated that their living situation was better than before, 35% indicated that it was about the 

same as before, and 12% indicated that it was worse than before

° 47% indicated that their treatment by leadership was better than before, 37% indicated that it was 

about the same as before, and 16% indicated that it was worse than before

° 47% indicated that their treatment by peers was better than before, 40% indicated that it was about 

the same as before, and 13% indicated that it was worse than before

° 45% indicated that their medical and mental health care was better than before, 45% indicated that it 

was about the same as before, and 9% indicated that it was worse than before

° 42% indicated that their social support was better than before, 34% indicated that it was about the 

same as before, and 24% indicated that it was worse than before

° 42% indicated that their career progression was better than before, 34% indicated that it was about 

the same as before, and 24% indicated that it was worse than before

• Results were not reportable for DoD men

c. 2016 Military Investigation and Justice Experience Survey

The MIJES is an anonymous survey designed to assess the investigative and legal processes experienced by 

military members who have made a report of sexual assault, gone through the military investigation process, 

and agreed to voluntarily participate in the survey. The MIJES was created in response to a Secretary of Defense 

directive requiring that a survey be administered to offer sexual assault victims the opportunity to provide 

feedback on their experiences with victim assistance, the military health system, the military justice process, and 

other areas of support.161

The 2016 MIJES reflects the attitudes and opinions of military members who brought forward a report of sexual 

assault to military officials and whose case was closed (investigation done, disposition complete, and case 

information entered into the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database [DSAID]) between April 1, 2015, and 

March 31, 2016. Participants in the survey were required to be current uniformed military members, whose 

report resulted in a criminal investigation by an MCIO, who chose to participate in the investigation or military 

justice process, and whose alleged perpetrator was a military member. Out of a total eligible sample number of 

2,041 members, the 2016 MIJES had 225 responders.162

The 2016 MIJES was not weighted; therefore, results are not generalizable to Service members who had a closed 

case in DSAID.163 The results were as follows:

161 Office of People Analytics, 2016 Military Investigation and Justice Experience Survey (MIJES): Overview Report iii (March 2017).

162 Id. at 6.

163 Id. at 4–5.
61

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

• 43% of respondents indicated that they requested and received an expedited transfer as a result of their 

report of sexual assault164

• Of respondents who received an expedited transfer:165

° 69% reported that their living situation was better than before, 21% reported that it was about the 

same as before, and 10% reported that it was worse than before

° 61% reported that their treatment by leadership was better than before, 26% reported that it was 

about the same as before, and 12% reported that it was worse than before

° 59% reported that their treatment by peers was better than before, 31% reported that it was about the 

same as before, and 10% reported that it was worse than before

° 56% reported that their social support was better than before, 28% reported that it was about the 

same as before, and 16% reported that it was worse than before

° 51% reported that their medical/mental health care was better than before, 33% reported that it was 

about the same as before, and 16% reported that it was worse than before

° 47% reported that their career progression was better than before, 31% reported that it was about the 

same as before, and 22% reported that it was worse than before 

• No significant association was found between receiving an expedited transfer and the decision to 

recommend to another survivor that he or she should make a report166

2. DAC-IPAD Request for Information 

The DAC-IPAD Chair sent a written request for information to the Service Secretaries on September 11, 2017, 

asking that they provide specific information on all sexual assault–related expedited transfer requests made by 

victims in FY16—including those made pursuant to DoDI 6495.02 or any other policies, such as transfers made 

within the purview of FAP—so that the DAC-IPAD could assess the policy. Data were sought in response to 16 

questions related to expedited transfers of victims and 13 questions related to transfers of the accused.167 The 

Chair requested responses within four weeks. 

The DAC-IPAD staff was notified by DoD SAPRO on September 26, 2017, that the data request was too onerous 

to be completed in four weeks; instead, responses would be available from the DoD Services three months from 

the request date. 

Because the DAC-IPAD has not had time to fully examine and follow up on the information received, the 

Committee does not draw here any definitive conclusions from the data. The PWG plans to continue its review 

and analysis, which will be incorporated into a future report. The Committee is publishing the aggregated 

164 Id. at 113.

165 Id.

166 Id. at 124.

167 See DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4, Questions 5 and 6 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-RFIs/

Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.
62

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

statistics in this report because they may be useful to those in DoD, Congress, and the public who seek to better 

understand how the expedited transfer policy is being implemented and is operating in the field.

Only the Navy provided data on the number of Service members requesting expedited transfers who were 

represented by victims’ counsel. Out of 302 requests for expedited transfer in the Navy, 300 of the requesters, 

or 99%, were represented by VLCs.168 The Committee believes that tracking SVC/VLC representation of those 

who request transfers would be extremely useful in assessing the benefits of both the SVC/VLC program and the 

expedited transfer policy. 

The DAC-IPAD summarized the data provided by the Services for all expedited transfer requests submitted in 

FY16 and compiled the results of key statistics in the charts below.169 A total of 900 expedited transfer requests 

were submitted in FY16 across all of the Services; 29 of the requests were denied or withdrawn, yielding an 

approval rate of 97%.170

RFI SET 4: EXPEDITED TRANSFER REQUESTS BY VICTIMS OF 

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN FISCAL YEAR 2016

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard Services Total

Total FY16 Expedited 

Transfer Requests 276 302 98 206 18 900

Total FY16 Expedited 

Transfers Denied/Withdrawn 12 5 8 3 1 29

Percent of Total Requests 

Approved 96% 98% 92% 99% 94% 97%

FY16 – Service Member 

Unrestricted Reports (DoD 

SAPRO Rept)

1,591 955 436 738 116 3,836

Percent of Service Member 

Unrestricted Reports 

Requesting Transfers

17% 32% 22% 28% 16% 23%

168 See Service responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4, Questions 5 and 6 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/

Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

169 Id.

170 Id. 
63

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

RFI SET 4 QUESTION 5, ATTACHMENT A – SUMMARY OF RESPONSES (FY 2016)

RANK OF MEMBER REQUESTING EXPEDITED TRANSFER

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

C-3 1 0.4% E-1 15 5% E-1 3 3% E-1 1 0.5% E-1 0 0%

E-1 22 8% E-2 44 15% E-2 20 20% E-2 9 4% E-2 1 6%

E-2 40 14% E-3 100 33% E-3 47 48% E-3 78 38% E-3 5 28%

E-3 84 30% E-4 77 25% E-4 18 18% E-4 61 30% E-4 10 56%

E-4 98 36% E-5 52 17% E-5 8 8% E-5 29 14% E-5 1 6%

E-5 15 5% E-6 7 2% E-6 2 2% E-6 13 6% E-6 1 6%

E-6 10 4% E-7 2 1% 98 100% E-7 7 3% 18 100%

E-7 2 1% E-8 2 1% O-1 1 0%

O-1 1 0.4% O-1 2 1% O-2 3 1%

O-2 1 0.4% O-2 1 0.3% O-3 2 1%

O-3 1 0.4% 302 100% O-4 1 0.5%

O-4 1 0.4% O-5 1 0.5%

276 100% 206 100%

GENDER OF MEMBER REQUESTING EXPEDITED TRANSFER

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Female 239 87% Female 255 84% Female 81 83% Female 165 80% Female 13 72%

Male 37 13% Male 47 16% Male 17 17% Male 41 20% Male 5 28%

276 100% 302 100% 98 100% 206 100% 18 100%

APPROVAL RATE FOR EXPEDITED TRANSFER

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Approved 263 95% Approved 292 97% Approved 90 92% Approved 203 99% Approved 17 94%

Approved/

Deleted 1 Disapproved 10 Denied 5 Disapproved 3 Disapproved 1

Disapproved 2 276 Rescinded 3 206 18

RWA*/Intra 

Post Move 2 98

RWA/Not

Credible 6

RWA/Not

Eligible 1

Withdrawal 1

276

*Returned Without Action
64

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

INSTALLATIONS WHERE MOST EXPEDITED TRANSFER REQUESTS ARE RECEIVED (TOP 10)

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

FT Campbell, KY 21 USS GEORGE BUSH

(CVN 77) 14 Okinawa, Japan 24 RAMSTEIN 12

FT Hood, TX 20 USS RONALD REAGAN

(CVN 76) 9 Camp Lejeune, NC 19 ELLSWORTH 10

FT Bragg, NC 19

USS GUNSTON HALL

(LSD-44) HAMPTON 

RDS VA

7 Camp Pendleton, 

CA 13 DOVER 9

FT Bliss, TX 17 USS NIMITZ 7 Twentynine 

Palms, CA 5 HICKAM 9

FT Riley, KS 16 USS EISENHOWER 6 Cherry Point, NC 3 MALMSTROM 7

Joint Base LewisMcChord, WA 16 USS PEARL HARBOR

(LSD 52) 6 Quantico, VA 3 WRIGHT PATTERSON 7

FT Drum, NY 13 USS BONHOMME 

RICHARD (LHD-6) 5 San Diego, CA 3 AVIANO 6

FT Carson, CO 12 USS ANTIETAM (CG-54) 4 Beaufort, SC 2 MINOT 6

Schofield 

Barracks, HI 11 USS GEORGE H. W. BUSH 4 Henderson Hall, VA 2 HOLLOMAN 5

Camp 

Humphreys, 

Korea

9 USS GEORGE 

WASHINGTON 4 Jacksonville, NC 2 LANGLEY 5

INSTALLATIONS RECEIVING THE MOST SERVICE MEMBERS VIA EXPEDITED TRANSFER (TOP 10)

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

FT Carson, CO 26 NAVMEDCEN SAN 

DIEGO CA 14 Camp Pendleton, CA 14 NELLIS AFB 11

FT Hood, TX 22 NAVMEDCEN 

PORTSMOUTH 10 Camp Lejeune, NC 11 MACDILL AFB 11

FT Stewart, GA 20 NAVSTA NORFOLK VA 9 Cherry Point, NC 8 TRAVIS AFB 9

FT Bragg, NC 15 USS ABRAHAM 

LINCOLN NORVA 8 Miramar, CA 8 SCOTT AFB 9

Joint Base LewisMcChord, WA 13 USS GEORGE 

WASHINGTON NORVA 8 Jacksonville, NC 7 LACKLAND AFB 9

FT Campbell, KY 11 MARMC NORFOLK VA 7 Okinawa, Japan 6 EGLIN AFB 9

FT Eustis, VA 8 NAVBASE SAN DIEGO, 

CA 7 New River, NC 5 MCCHORD AFB 8

FT Gordon, GA 8 USS THEODORE 

ROOSEVELT CA 6 MCAS Kaneohe Bay, HI 4 LANGLEY AFB 7

FT Lee, VA 8 USS HARRY S TRUMAN 

NORVA 5 Twentynine Palms, CA 3 HURLBURT FIELD 7

Hunter AAF, GA 8 NAVBASE CORONADO 

SAN DIEGO CA 4 Parris Island, SC 2 CHARLESTON AFB 7

Coast Guard data not 

provided, because 

some installations are

too small to protect

the anonymity of

transferees.

Coast Guard data not 

provided, because 

some installations are

too small to protect

the anonymity of

transferees.
65

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

PERCENTAGE OF EXPEDITED TRANSFERS MADE TO REQUESTED LOCATION

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Approved 

Requests 263 Approved Requests 292 Approved Requests 90 Approved Requests 203 Approved Requests 17

Requested 

Location 89% Requested Location 78% Requested Location 72% Requested Location 90% Requested Location 76%

C. Overall DAC-IPAD Assessment of the Expedited Transfer Policy

After reviewing the data collected and the testimony received from numerous individuals who have worked with 

sexual assault victims in the military—commanders and senior enlisted advisors, SVCs/VLCs, senior military 

prosecutors—the Committee concludes that the expedited transfer policy is clearly working. It is achieving its 

primary goal of enabling sexual assault victims to leave safe but uncomfortable situations in which they may not 

be able to avoid contact with the alleged perpetrator, as well as making it possible for them to escape the rumor 

mill and social ostracism that often accompany a sexual assault report.171 Expedited transfers also enable victims 

to move closer to family members or others who can support them, aiding them in getting a fresh start away 

from the installation where the assault occurred.172

An Air Force senior trial counsel reported that in his experience, the expedited transfer program has been 

lauded by every single victim who has availed themselves of it.173 A Navy victims’ legal counsel agreed, stating 

that the expedited transfer program is “absolutely necessary” and an “indispensable tool.”174

The Committee was strongly persuaded by the testimony of sexual assault victims who had received expedited 

transfers. While many of these experiences were not without problems, the victims who testified at the PWG 

preparatory session believe that the expedited transfer program is beneficial and should be continued.175 One 

sexual assault survivor who received an expedited transfer told the PWG that her expedited transfer saved her 

career and made her proud again to be in the Navy.176 She also noted that she had just been promoted to E-5 

171 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 61–62 (Oct. 19, 2017) (testimony of Captain Brittany Tedford, U.S. Air Force, Special Victims’ Counsel) 

(stating that victims ask for transfers for a variety of reasons, including to move closer to their families or other support systems; to get away from 

the subject, especially in cases in which the subject may be a supervisor or in the chain of command; to separate themselves from other airmen who 

may gossip or discuss the case, especially in cases in which many members of the same unit are involved; and to have the opportunity for a fresh 

start away from the physical location where the assault occurred); id. at 175 (testimony of Commander Paul Markland, U.S. Coast Guard, Special 

Victims’ Counsel) (stating that, in his experience, the most common reason for requesting the transfer is relief from the distracting and relentless 

rumor mill that pervades cutters and small boat stations); Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 369 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Lieutenant Kevin 

Larson, U.S. Navy, Victims’ Legal Counsel) (stating that all but one of his clients who requested a transfer did so because the alleged offender was 

attached to the same command and all of his clients requesting transfer were attached to a ship or a command that is deployable with a ship—

noting that this makes sense because the ships are very tight and closed spaces, and victims easily come into contact with the accused).

172 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 369 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Lieutenant Kevin Larson, U.S. Navy, Victims’ Legal Counsel).

173 Id. at 263 (testimony of Major Pete Havern, U.S. Air Force, Senior Trial Counsel).

174 Id. at 349–50, 361 (testimony of Captain Eliot Rasmussen, U.S. Marine Corps, Victims’ Legal Counsel); id. at 360 (testimony of Lieutenant 

Nathaniel Eichler, U.S. Coast Guard, Special Victims’ Counsel) (stating that he believes the expedited transfer is a great device and it’s a 

commonsense tool that should remain in all Services’ toolboxes). 

175 See also id. at 305 (testimony of a petty officer third class, U.S. Coast Guard) (stating that her new command has been very supportive and she feels 

the expedited transfer was a good thing).

176 Id. at 292 (testimony of a petty officer second class, U.S. Navy).
66

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

and did not think she would have remained in the military without having had the opportunity to start over at 

a new command.177 Another victim stated that she believes receiving an expedited transfer was a great decision 

and only wishes she had taken advantage of the program earlier.178 She added that she was able to get a fresh 

start with the transfer and now has a good support system in place.179 These sentiments are further supported by 

victims who received expedited transfers and responded to the 2016 MIJES and 2016 WGRA survey questions 

regarding their expedited transfer experience (see above). 

Finding 1: Special victims’ counsel/victims’ legal counsel (SVCs/VLCs), commanders (O-5) and senior enlisted 

advisors, special court-martial convening authorities (O-6), senior military sexual assault prosecutors, and 

present and former Service members who have received expedited transfers testified at the DAC-IPAD public 

meeting on October 19 and 20, 2017, and Policy Working Group preparatory session on December 1, 2017, that 

they believe the expedited transfer policy to be an overwhelmingly beneficial and effective mechanism to assist 

in the recovery of Service members who are victims of sexual assault.

Overall Assessment: The DAC-IPAD finds that the expedited transfer policy for sexual assault victims is an 

important sexual assault response initiative offered by the military and strongly recommends the continued 

existence and further improvement of the policy.

D. DAC-IPAD Recommendations for Improvements to the Expedited Transfer Policy 

Issue 1: Many Service members have a mistaken perception that victims abuse the expedited transfer policy.

The JPP’s September 2017 Report on Panel Concerns Regarding the Fair Administration of Military Justice 

in Sexual Assault Cases raised concerns about a perception among military defense counsel and prosecutors 

that sexual assault victims are abusing the expedited transfer policy to transfer to more desirable locations.180

These counsel also viewed victims who transferred to a different location as less likely to cooperate with the 

prosecution of the case.181

Senior military prosecutors who spoke to the PWG at the December 2017 preparatory session stated that 

military members who serve on court-martial panels seem to share this perception that the expedited transfer 

policy is being abused.182 A former Army trial counsel reported that many in the Army believe that victims are 

abusing the expedited transfer policy in order to transfer to a better location, though she emphasized that she 

does not think this perception is accurate.183

177 Id. at 294.

178 Id. at 291 (testimony of an airman first class, U.S. Air Force).

179 Id.

180 See JPP Report on Panel Concerns, supra note 37, at 12.

181 Id.

182 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 156 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Major Jennifer Venghaus, U.S. Army, Plans Officer, Personnel, Plans, and 

Training Office, Office of the Judge Advocate General) (stating that she believes that members have a perception of abuse of the expedited transfer 

program, and in her experience this perception is stronger among enlisted members than officers); id. at 156–57 (testimony of Major Pete Havern, 

U.S. Air Force, Senior Trial Counsel) (stating that the perception of abuse may come from the fact that expedited transfers are granted very early, 

often right after a victim has made an allegation, when there is no other evidence).

183 Id. at 153–54 (testimony of Major Jennifer Venghaus, U.S. Army, Plans Officer, Personnel, Plans, and Training Office, Office of the Judge Advocate 

General).
67

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

Another concern noted by the JPP in its September 2017 report was that defense counsel may use the perception 

that victims are abusing the expedited transfer policy to “challenge the victim’s motives during a court-martial, 

causing the panel members to question the victim’s credibility.”184 This sentiment was reinforced by a trial 

counsel who spoke to the PWG at the December 2017 preparatory session, stating that “a good defense counsel 

creates that stigma [of abuse of the expedited transfer policy] at trial every single time, and you’ll never eliminate 

that. It is a fair cross. It is a motive to fabricate.”185

The testimony and data received by the Committee, however, indicate that the policy is not being widely 

abused. The DAC-IPAD learned that in FY16, only 20% of all eligible sexual assault victims requested expedited 

transfers: thus, 80% percent of Service members who make an unrestricted report chose to remain in their 

units.186 This fact alone argues against the view that abuse of the system is common. In addition, panels of 

military members from all Services who have worked with victims who have requested expedited transfers—

mid-level and senior commanders, SVCs/VLCs, and senior sexual assault prosecutors—testified that they have 

not encountered widespread abuse of the policy.187

Any policy may be subject to abuse, and several of the attorneys and commanders who testified before the 

DAC-IPAD and PWG acknowledged that in some cases the expedited transfer policy may be abused—but 

most expressed the view that abuse of the policy is not widespread and that victims are using the policy for its 

intended purposes.188 Sexual assault victims who request expedited transfers are typically doing so in order to get 

away from the alleged perpetrator, to move closer to family members or others who can provide support, and to 

escape negative associations with or retaliation from the unit.189

In addition, most of the SVCs/VLCs testified that receipt of an expedited transfer has had no impact on the 

victim’s willingness to cooperate with the investigation and prosecution of the case.190 Indeed, several noted 

184 Id.

185 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 164 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Captain Brandon Regan, U.S. Marine Corps, Complex Trial Team, Legal 

Services Support Section – East).

186 See Service Enclosures to FY16 DoD SAPRO Report, supra note 134. 

187 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 233 (Oct. 20, 2017) (testimony of Colonel Ty Neuman, U.S. Air Force, Commander, 2nd Bomb Wing) 

(stating that he feels that the importance of providing space for healing to the victim is worth the cost and that he has never denied an expedited 

transfer and isn’t familiar with any cases where they have been denied); id. at 186 (testimony of Captain John Bushey, U.S. Navy, Commander, Navy 

Installations Command, Director of Public Safety) (noting that he has never seen a case where an expedited transfer wasn’t the right thing to do for 

the member); id. at 21–22, 111–12 (testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Erin Miller, U.S. Army, former Commander, 101st Airborne Division) (stating 

that while there are individuals that are capable of abusing the expedited transfer policy, very few actually do).

188 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 21, 111–12 (Oct. 20, 2017) (testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Erin Miller, U.S. Army, former 

Commander, 101st Airborne Division) (stating that she believes the expedited transfer is a good tool and a resource for the soldier to be removed 

from a situation where they feel unsafe and noting that she believes a very small portion of those individuals abuse the policy); id. at 194 (testimony 

of Colonel Erik Gilbert, U.S. Army, Chief of Staff to the Director, Joint Future Force Development, Joint Staff) (stating that he doesn’t think abuse is 

common, but did suspect that was the case in a few of the allegations he has dealt with).

189 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 61–62 (Oct. 19, 2017) (testimony of Captain Brittany Tedford, U.S. Air Force, Special Victims’ Counsel) 

(stating that victims ask for transfers for a variety of reasons, including to move closer to their families or other support systems; to get away from 

the subject, especially in cases in which the subject may be a supervisor or in the chain of command; to separate themselves from other airmen who 

may gossip or discuss the case, especially in cases in which many members of the same unit are involved; and to have the opportunity for a fresh 

start away from the physical location where the assault occurred). 

190 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 175 (Oct. 19, 2017) (testimony of Commander Paul Markland, U.S. Coast Guard, Special Victims’ 

Counsel) (noting that clients who don’t want to cooperate with the prosecution tend to make that decision clear, whether or not they are interested 

in an expedited transfer and noting the most common reason he has seen for victims becoming uninterested in the prosecution is because the 

process takes too long); id. at 137 (testimony of Major Simone Jack, U.S. Army, Special Victims’ Counsel) (stating that after they transferred, all 
68

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

that in some cases the transfer actually increased a client’s willingness to participate in the process.191 In the 

experience of trial counsel, however, some victims lose interest in the trial once they have transferred and moved 

on with their lives.192

Finding 2: Several SVCs, VLCs, and military sexual assault prosecutors testified to the Policy Working Group to 

a strong perception among military members across the Services that some Service member victims are abusing 

the expedited transfer policy in order to transfer to more favorable locations. 

Finding 3: Some counsel perceive that court-martial members (jury members) may believe that the expedited 

transfer policy is being abused. At trial, defense counsel may use the fact that a victim received an expedited 

transfer to show a potential motive to fabricate a sexual assault in the hope that doing so will be enough for 

members who believe that there is widespread abuse of the policy to disbelieve the victim and possibly acquit 

the accused on that basis. While this may be a proper line of questioning within the Military Rules of Evidence, 

it may reinforce the members’ perception of widespread abuse of the expedited transfer policy.

Finding 4: Commanders, SVCs, VLCs, and Service prosecutors overwhelmingly testified that they had not 

encountered abuse of the expedited transfer policy, though they do believe there are some rare cases in which it 

has been abused by Service members.

Finding 5: According to data reported in the Service Enclosures to the Fiscal Year 2016 DoD Annual Report 

on Sexual Assault in the Military, only 20% of DoD Service members who filed unrestricted reports of sexual 

assault requested expedited transfers.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 1: The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the 

Services take action to dispel the misperception of widespread abuse of the expedited transfer policy, including 

addressing the issue in the training of all military personnel.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 2: The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security identify and 

track appropriate metrics to monitor the expedited transfer policy and any abuses of it.

of her clients continued to cooperate with investigators and the prosecution); id. at 165 (testimony of Captain Brittany Tedford, U.S. Air Force, 

Special Victims’ Counsel) (stating that she has not seen a negative impact on any case due to an expedited transfer and noting that all of her clients 

have traveled back for the Article 32 hearings and trials); see also Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 348 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Captain 

Eliot Rasmussen, U.S. Marine Corps, Victims’ Legal Counsel) (reporting that of his eight clients who left the base as part of an expedited transfer, 

six fully participated in the military justice process); id. at 364–65 (testimony of Captain Matthew Blyth, U.S. Air Force, Special Victims’ Counsel) 

(reporting that of his thirteen clients who transferred, ten participated in the military justice process as much as possible, two participated but 

declined to testify—a decision both made before going through the expedited transfer process—and one declined to participate at all because 

someone else had reported the assault and she didn’t want it resolved); id. at 381–82 (testimony of Captain Alana Hines, U.S. Army, Special Victims’ 

Counsel) (reporting that overall, the expedited transfer has been a great process for clients, that she doesn’t believe it has hindered the military 

justice process, and noting that one of her clients who transferred from Korea actually elected to go back to participate in person multiple times for 

proceedings).

191 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 365 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Matthew Blyth, U.S. Air Force, Special Victims’ Counsel) (stating that one 

of his clients initially declined to participate in the court-martial, but after the process of transferring and getting settled on her new base, changed 

her mind and testified); id. at 175–76 (testimony of Commander Paul Markland, U.S. Coast Guard, Special Victims’ Counsel) (pointing to a couple 

of cases in which clients reengaged after their transfer because they felt safer without the accused around and saw the move as an opportunity to get 

their careers back on track).

192 See id. at 173–74 (testimony of Major Jennifer Venghaus, U.S. Army, former trial counsel) (stating that one of the biggest issues with the distance 

of an expedited transfer is that victims have moved on with their life, and don’t want to come back to try to go to trial); id. at 174 (testimony of 

Lieutenant Commander Katherine Shovlin, U.S. Navy, Senior Trial Counsel) (stating that she has had victims who no longer want to participate in 

the process after moving to a new location, though she couldn’t estimate a percentage of cases in which she has seen this happen).
69

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

The PWG will continue to evaluate data received on expedited transfer requests and associated training.

Issue 2: Active duty Service member spouses and intimate partners covered by the Family Advocacy Program (FAP) 

are excluded from the DoD-level expedited transfer policy.

In the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress statutorily required the Services to enact 

an expedited transfer policy for active duty Service members who are sexual assault victims.193 This statute did 

not differentiate between victims who are married to or in other intimate relationships with the alleged offender 

and those that are not.194 However, DoD has implemented this statute in a way that treats victims differently 

depending on their relationship status.195 DoD SAPRO has enacted an expedited transfer policy to benefit 

Service member victims who are not married to or in a relationship with the alleged offender. DoD FAP has 

chosen not to enact a similar policy for those who fall under their program, including Service member victims 

who are married to or in a relationship with the alleged offender.196

Ms. Kathy Robertson, the DoD Family Advocacy Program Manager, explained that when the expedited transfer 

policy was first introduced in 2011, leaders from DoD and Service FAP organizations who held meetings and 

discussions at that time decided that FAP had adequate policies and processes already in place to make sure 

that victims are safe and able to be transferred. Therefore, FAP chose not to adopt or implement an expedited 

transfer policy.197 Service FAP offices instead often rely on other types of transfers—such as safety transfers 

or humanitarian/compassionate transfers—to accommodate victims who would otherwise be eligible for an 

expedited transfer under the terms of the statute.198 However, these other transfers have different standards and 

193 FY12 NDAA, supra note 143, at § 582(a).

194 See 10 U.S.C. § 673 (outlining “[c]onsideration of application for permanent change of station or unit transfer for members on active duty who are 

the victim of a sexual assault or related offense).

195 See DoDI 6495.02, supra note 94, at encl. 5 ¶ 6b(2)(a) (“This Instruction does not address victims covered under FAP.”).

196 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 24, 26 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Ms. Kathy Robertson, Associate Director/Family Advocacy Program 

Manager, Office of Military Family Readiness Policy, U.S. Department of Defense).

197 Id. 

198 Id. at 25–26; see also U.S. Dep’t of Def., Instr. 1315.18, Procedures for Military Personnel Assignments (Oct. 28, 2015) (Inc. Ch. 1, Apr. 

14, 2017) [hereinafter DoDI 1315.18] available at http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/131518p.pdf. DoDI 1315.18 

provides that Service members may request moves for “humanitarian” reasons such as a “nonviable” family care plan, becoming a single parent, or 

qualifying for the Exceptional Family Member Program, which deals with family members’ special needs. Id. at encl. 3 ¶ 3b(9), 4d(1), 5g(3), 9b–e. 

DoDI 1315.18 also refers to “safety” moves for

[a] Service member who is or who has dependents who are threatened with bodily harm or death and the circumstances are 

such that military and civilian authorities are unable to provide for their continued safety. The appropriate investigative agency 

(such as the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Army Criminal Investigation Command, or Naval Criminal Investigative 

Service) and a local judge advocate will verify the threats and circumstances.

Id. at encl. 3 ¶ 3b(18). Most notably, the Instruction states that it is DoD policy that

Service members who make an Unrestricted Report of being sexually assaulted may request an expedited transfer as authorized 

in DoDI 6495.02 (Reference (h)) and in accordance with section 673 of Title 10, United States Code (Reference (i)). Sexual 

assault against adults includes rape and sexual assault in violation of Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see 

section 920 of Reference (i)), forcible sodomy in violation of Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (see section 

925 of Reference (i)), and attempts to commit those offenses. Service members accused of committing a sexual assault may 

be transferred in accordance with Reference (h) [DoDI 6495.02] instead of the Service member who requests an expedited 

transfer. 

Id. at ¶ 3d (emphasis added).
70

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

timelines for approval than do expedited transfer requests, and some of these differences may be less favorable to 

victims.

While the Committee recognizes that expedited transfer requests may be more difficult to carry out when the 

victim and the alleged offender are spouses or intimate partners, especially when they have children in common, 

expedited transfers should be available to eligible victims who choose to request them, as required by statute. 

The DAC-IPAD also found that the DoD policy on military assignments includes no requirement that 

assignments personnel or commanders work together with SAPR and FAP personnel when transfer requests 

involve Service members who are using or are eligible to use FAP or SAPR assistance to ensure that those 

members have a smooth transition and receive coordinated services and support. The FAP program managers 

who spoke to the PWG highlighted the lack of such coordination as a problem. The DAC-IPAD agrees that 

requiring military assignments personnel or commanders to coordinate expedited transfer requests with the 

servicing FAP and SAPR offices would benefit victims.199

Finding 6: The expedited transfer statute (10 U.S.C. § 673), which applies to all active duty Service members 

who are victims of sexual assault under Article 120, 120a, or 120c of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ), does not differentiate between active duty Service members whose sexual assault reports are handled 

by the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program and those handled by the Family Advocacy 

Program (FAP). 

Finding 7: The DoD Instruction establishing the expedited transfer policy (DoDI 6495.02) applies only to active 

duty victims whose sexual assault reports are handled by the SAPR program and expressly excludes victims 

covered under FAP from the expedited transfer policy.

Finding 8: No DoD-level policy establishes an expedited transfer option for victims of sexual assault covered 

under FAP who are active duty Service members. DoD and Service FAP representatives testified that they use 

other transfer options, such as humanitarian or compassionate transfers, as needed and available.

Finding 9: In addition to expedited transfers, other out-of-cycle transfer options available in the Services are 

safety transfers and humanitarian/compassionate transfers. These options differ across the Services and have 

different standards for approval.

Finding 10: Even though the dynamics of sexual assault in the context of spousal and intimate partner 

relationships are different than in other sexual assaults, 10 U.S.C. § 673 requires that expedited transfer be 

available for all Service members who make unrestricted sexual assault reports. In some instances, the option of 

an expedited transfer would benefit Service members covered under the FAP program, such as cases in which a 

Service member wishes to gain physical distance from an alleged perpetrator or to be closer to family or other 

support systems to assist in their recovery.

Finding 11: The Department of Defense regulation regarding procedures for military personnel assignments 

(DoDI 1315.18, “Procedures for Military Personnel Assignments”) references the DoD expedited transfer policy, 

but it does not require that assignments personnel or commanders communicate or coordinate with SAPR or 

FAP personnel in the expedited transfer assignments process.

199 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Ms. Jackie Richardson, U.S. Army Family Advocacy Program) (suggesting that 

if a soldier is having a problem and goes to his or her command, the commander should ensure that FAP is contacted so it can do an assessment 

and create a safety plan prior to the commander transferring the soldier; this does not always happen currently).
71

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 3: The DoD-level and Coast Guard equivalent FAP policy include provisions 

for expedited transfer of active duty Service members who are victims of sexual assault similar to the expedited 

transfer provisions in the DoD SAPR policy and consistent with 10 U.S.C. § 673.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 4: The DoD-level military personnel assignments policy (DoDI 1315.18) and 

Coast Guard equivalent include a requirement that assignments personnel or commanders coordinate with and 

keep SAPR and FAP personnel informed throughout the expedited transfer, safety transfer, and humanitarian/

compassionate transfer assignment process when the transfer involves an allegation of sexual assault.

E. Issues Related to the Expedited Transfer Policy That the PWG Will Continue to Review

Issue 1: The expedited transfer option is not available to Service members who make restricted sexual assault 

reports.

Under current policy, expedited transfers are available only to Service members who file unrestricted reports 

of sexual assault.200 The Committee has asked the PWG to explore the advisability and practicality of allowing 

Service members who file restricted reports to request expedited transfers.

Service members who are sexually assaulted have various reasons for filing restricted reports—privacy and 

career concerns, among others. Yet these members may still be in positions where they will have to face their 

attacker at work or on the installation, possibly adding to their trauma. They may also need the assistance of 

family or other support systems to help with their recovery. Under current DoD policy, a Service member 

who files an unrestricted report may request an expedited transfer but in most circumstances is not required 

to participate in the investigation or prosecution of the case. However, policy does require that the MCIOs 

continue to investigate the allegation, and this investigation often includes interviewing the victim’s friends and 

co-workers, possibly against the strong wishes of the victim.

While the logistics of making an expedited transfer available to a member who filed a restricted report may 

be difficult or complex, this program’s overwhelmingly positive effects on victims may make the idea worth 

pursuing. Perhaps allowing a victim the opportunity to get a fresh start at a new installation, without the fear of 

encountering the alleged perpetrator, will encourage the victim to change his or her report to unrestricted and 

allow the allegation to be investigated.201

The Committee notes that the statute requiring an expedited transfer policy does not itself limit such transfers to 

Service members who file unrestricted reports.202

DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment: The DAC-IPAD believes that the development of a workable option allowing 

Service members who make restricted reports to request and receive expedited transfers without triggering an 

investigation would be beneficial for certain victims. The PWG will continue to explore this issue.

200 DoDI 6495.02, supra note 94, at ¶ 4(o) (“Service members who file an Unrestricted Report of sexual assault shall be informed by the SARC or 

SAPR VA at the time of making the report, or as soon as practicable, of the option to request an Expedited Transfer.”).

201 See e.g. Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 360 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Lieutenant Nathaniel Eichler, U.S. Coast Guard, Special Victims’ 

Counsel) (explaining that he has witnessed total changes in the demeanor of his clients after an expedited transfer from a state of fear and 

reluctance to actual participation with the military justice process).

202 See 10 U.S.C. § 673(a) (providing the expedited transfer option to a “member of the armed forces serving on active duty who was a victim of a 

sexual assault or other offense covered by section 920, 920a, or 920c of this title (article 120, 120a, or 120c)”).
72

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Issue 2: The approval standard and the purpose of DoD’s expedited transfer policy are not sufficiently clear or 

comprehensive.

The stated purpose of the expedited transfer policy—to address situations in which a victim feels safe, but 

uncomfortable—does not cover the important purpose of helping the victim to recover and seek needed care 

before resuming military duties.203 In addition, the standard that commanders must follow to approve expedited 

transfers is unclear. First, a commander must find that a “credible report” has been made.204 This term is not 

clearly defined and is coupled with a presumption in favor of the transfer.205 In addition, pursuant to the 

DoD-level policy, the commander must consider a list of 10 additional criteria, including moving the suspect 

instead.206

DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment: The DAC-IPAD believes that the purpose, standards, and criteria outlined in 

the expedited transfer policy should be further evaluated and clarified. The PWG will continue to explore this 

issue.

Issue 3: Some active duty Service members who are sexually assaulted are not able to successfully return to duty 

even after an expedited transfer, because their need for transitional assistance is not met.

At the December PWG meeting, the mother of a medically retired Service member who was violently sexually 

assaulted by two Service members while in the Army described her daughter’s experience and the need for a 

period of transitional care for sexual assault victims who require it.207 The DoD expedited transfer policy does 

not address such transitional care, though many of the victims who testified at the December PWG meeting 

agreed that it would greatly benefit those sexual assault victims who need it.208

For many victims, the chance to start over at a new installation without having to fear running into the alleged 

perpetrator, combined with mental health counseling, is enough to enable them to move on with their lives and 

successfully continue their careers. But for other victims, the ongoing trauma from the assault may make an 

immediate return to work, even at a different location, too difficult. As some of the SVC/VLC and sexual assault 

victims told the PWG, many victims are reluctant to get the mental health care they need for fear that their 

supervisors and co-workers, who are likely unaware of the sexual assault, may disparage them for missing too 

much work.209 Statistics show that one-third of active duty sexual assault victims leave the military within one 

year of reporting a sexual assault.210 Allowing those victims who require it to attend a transitional care program 

away from their units—perhaps something similar to the Wounded Warrior programs for military members 

203 See DoDI 6495.02, supra note 94, at encl. 5. 

204 Id. at encl. 5. 

205 Id. at encl. 5. 

206 Id. at encl. 5. 

207 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 305–22 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Ms. Amanda Hagy, DAC-IPAD Paralegal).

208 Id. at 330 (testimony of a U.S. Army specialist) (stating that a transition period would have been helpful because she didn’t want anyone to know 

about the assault and as a result she did not seek any mental health treatment, though she wanted to); id. at 342 (testimony of Ms. Amanda Hagy, 

DAC-IPAD paralegal) (stating that having more substantial transition assistance when arriving at a new unit would be helpful).

209 Id. at 330 (testimony of a U.S. Army specialist) (stating that she hasn’t gone to a mental health professional because she doesn’t want the entire 

chain of command to know and judge her or her peers to wonder why she’s gone and judge her for that).

210 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 290–91 (Jan. 19, 2017) (testimony of Mr. Don Christensen, President, Protect Our Defenders) (citing a 

DoD Inspector General report stating that one-third of active duty victims discharge within one year of reporting a sexual assault).
73

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

wounded in action—may enable them to return to full duty status as healthy, functioning members of their 

units. 

DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment: The DAC-IPAD believes that some active duty Service members who are 

sexually assaulted are in need of transitional assistance before they are able to successfully return to duty. The 

PWG will continue to explore this issue.

Issue 4: The expedited transfer policy includes temporary intra-installation moves as well as permanent moves to 

new installations or locations.

Under DoD policy, a sexual assault victim may request an expedited transfer to another unit on the same 

installation or to a different installation.211 Though there are many reasons for Service members to undertake 

temporary intra-installation transfers, these moves do not always adequately separate sexual assault victims from 

the accused or from their problematic situations. 

Several counsel described scenarios in which a victim requested an intra-installation transfer but continued to 

run into the alleged offender at various locations on base, making it necessary for the victim to then request 

another expedited transfer to another installation.212 The Committee is concerned that victims who request and 

receive more than one expedited transfer may be viewed unfavorably by supervisors or commanders and that 

these multiple moves may harm the victim’s career. 

The PWG will explore whether reserving the term “expedited transfer” solely for moves to a different installation 

would alleviate some of these issues. While a commander, at the victim’s request, could transfer the victim to 

another unit on base, not referring to this move as an expedited transfer might forestall difficulties for a victim 

who eventually requests a transfer to a different installation. Having only one transfer request in their record 

may be less problematic than having two or more requests. 

Further, a Marine Corps judge advocate noted that in the Marine Corps, when a command denies a request, it 

typically opts to move the victim internally—raising questions about whether the Services are categorizing both 

intra- and inter-installation moves uniformly as expedited transfers, as well as about what each Service considers 

a “denial” of a request.213

DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment: The DAC-IPAD is concerned that Service members who initially receive 

an intra-installation expedited transfer may be penalized if the transfer does not resolve the problems in their 

situation and they subsequently request a second expedited transfer to leave the installation. The PWG will 

continue to explore this issue.

211 See DoDI 6495.02, supra note 94, at encl. 5.

212 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 189–90 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Captain Brandon Regan, U.S. Marine Corps, Complex Trial Team, Legal 

Services Support Section - East) (stating that he had one case where a victim was moved from one side of Camp Lejeune to the other, which he at 

first thought was great because it showed the victim was committed to the case and wanted to see it through; however, she continued seeing the 

accused on base and so she requested another transfer—which the defense counsel will use against her); id. at 190–91 (testimony of Major Jennifer 

Venghaus, U.S. Army, former trial counsel) (stating that the Army does quite a few intra-installation expedited transfers because some victims want 

to stay on post—they’ve made friends and want to be with the people they’ve become close to—but there are those times when you move them to 

another brigade, and they still run into each other at the post exchange).

213 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 63–64 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Major Tyler Brummond, U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy Branch Head, 

Military Personnel Law, Judge Advocate Division).
74

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Issue 5: The expedited transfer policy is limited to Service members who are victims of sexual assault and does not 

include Service members whose civilian spouses or children are sexual assault victims, even though all may face 

exactly the same difficult situations at the installation.

By statute and by DoD-level policy, expedited transfers are available only to active duty Service member 

victims.214 However, there may be instances when expedited transfers should be available to Service members 

whose family members are sexually assaulted by other Service members. For example, if a civilian spouse of 

an active duty Service member is sexually assaulted by another Service member at the same duty station, the 

victim’s Service member spouse may also need a transfer to a new location to avoid contact with the alleged 

offender or retaliation from within the community.

DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment: The DAC-IPAD believes that the expedited transfer policy should be a 

complete program without gaps in eligibility within the military community, and thus should include family 

members. The PWG will continue to explore this issue.

Issue 6: Inadvertent disclosures to command of sexual assaults and reports made by third parties deny Service 

members the opportunity to make a restricted report and protect their privacy, if they so desire.

Current DoD policy allows a victim to disclose a sexual assault to a friend, family member, or roommate and 

still make a restricted report.215 However, if the victim inadvertently discloses the assault to a member of his or 

her chain of command or if the assault is disclosed to law enforcement or the victim’s chain of command by a 

third party, the victim no longer has the option of filing a restricted report and the assault must be investigated 

by the MCIO.216 In most instances, the victim can choose not to cooperate with the investigation; however, the 

MCIO is still required to complete the investigation, which often includes interviewing the victim’s co-workers 

and friends. If the victim’s goal is to maintain privacy, he or she may find this investigation quite upsetting.

The PWG will explore whether it is feasible or advisable to allow a victim to re-restrict his or her report in the 

event of a third-party report made without the victim’s consent or an unintentional disclosure by the victim to a 

member of his or her chain of command. This idea was proposed during the October 2017 DAC-IPAD meeting 

by Navy Captain John Bushey, a special court-martial convening authority. Several other commanders agreed 

that they would support the ability of victims to re-restrict their reports in some circumstances.

DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment: The DAC-IPAD believes that victims who lose the ability to make a restricted 

report, whether because of third-party reports or because they are unaware of the consequences of reporting to a 

member of their chain of command, may benefit from being able to restrict further disclosure or investigation of 

the incident if they wish to protect their privacy. The PWG will continue to explore this issue.

214 See DoDI 6495.02, supra note 94, at encl. 5.

215 See DoDI 6495.02, supra note 94, at encl. 5.

216 Id.
75

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

IV. REVIEW OF LEGAL AND SEXUAL ASSAULT RESPONSE TRAINING FOR COMMANDERS 

A. Background

To pursue its interest in legal and sexual assault response training for commanders, the DAC-IPAD issued a 

request for information on those topics to the Department of Defense and the military Services.217 In addition, 

the Committee heard from a panel of special court-martial convening authorities (SPCMCAs) and a panel of 

mid-level (O-5) commanders on these topics at its public meeting on October 19 and 20, 2017. 

B. Commander Legal Training

1. Special Court-Martial Convening Authority Legal Training

In the military, commanders are given the responsibility and authority to administer discipline. This includes 

convening courts-martial and making decisions regarding the appropriate disposition of offenses. For 

penetrative sexual assault offenses (i.e., rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and 

attempts to commit these offenses), only a commander in the grade of O-6 or higher who is serving as an 

SPCMCA is authorized to make the initial decision regarding how the allegation will be handled (i.e., courtmartial, an alternate disposition, or no action).218

Because of the authority possessed by SPCMCAs in the military, the DAC-IPAD wanted to know the amount 

and type of legal training and support that commanders holding this position were given. According to the 

Service responses to the DAC-IPAD’s request for information, all commanders who serve as SPCMCAs receive 

formal training, which includes training on sexual assaults. Commanders attend these courses upon selection to, 

or shortly after assuming, the role of SPCMCA. The following chart offers a sketch of this training by Service.

SPCMCA LEGAL TRAINING COURSES

Army Air Force Navy / USMC Coast Guard

Name Senior Officer Legal 

Orientation (SOLO)

Senior Officer Legal 

Orientation (SOLO)

Senior Officer Course Command Leadership 

Courses

Location

Army JAG School 

(TJAGLCS)

Charlottesville, VA

Air Force JAG School

Maxwell AFB, AL

Naval Justice School

Various locations

Coast Guard Leadership 

Development Center 

New London, CT

Length 1 week 2 days 2.5 days 6 hours

Attendees

SPCMCAs – brigade and 

battalion commanders 

(prior to assuming 

command)

SPCMCAs – wing, 

vice wing, and group 

commanders (prior to 

or soon after assuming 

command)

Navy – captains (prior to 

assuming command)

USMC – commanding 

officers, executive officers, 

and officers in charge

All prospective 

commanding officers 

and executive officers

Subjects

Criminal, administrative, 

and operational law and 

ethics

4 hours of UCMJ 

training

3-hour military justice 

block, of which 1.5 hours is 

dedicated to sexual assault

SAPR training, 

UCMJ training

Source: Service Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Question 2 (Sept. 11, 2017)

217 See DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Questions 1–3 (Sept. 11, 2017), and Service Responses, available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/

Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

218 Memorandum on Withholding Initial Disposition Authority, supra note 29.
76

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

SPCMCAs from all of the Services who spoke to the DAC-IPAD at the October 2017 public meeting stated they 

received valuable legal training at these formal courses. In addition, they all emphasized that they relied on close 

working relationships with their staff judge advocates (SJAs) for coordination of sexual assault cases and other 

legal issues.219

2. Mid-Level Commander Legal Training

The Services provide some formalized legal training, including material on sexual assault, for lower or midlevel commanders (O-4 or O-5), though the amount and type of such training varies widely by Service.220 These 

commanders do not have the authority to decide the disposition of penetrative sexual assault cases, but they may 

make recommendations to the SPCMCA regarding an appropriate disposition.

Like the SPCMCA panel, the panel of mid-level commanders from each of the Services who spoke to the 

Committee at the October 2017 DAC-IPAD public meeting all stated that they relied on their SJAs and had their 

SJAs on “speed dial” for consultation as legal issues arose and progressed.221

3. Additional Resources

Each of the Services produces a legal handbook for use by commanders and senior leaders.222 These handbooks 

provide basic legal information covering search and seizure, Article 31 rights, disposition of cases, and other 

legal topics. Each of these handbooks provides information on sexual assault cases.

C. Sexual Assault Response Training for Commanders

Lower and mid-level commanders (company/brigade or squadron commanders or their equivalents) and 

noncommissioned officers (NCOs) frequently are faced with having a sexual assault victim, the alleged 

219 Colonel Ty Neuman, the Air Force SPCMCA on the panel, stated, “The most invaluable training, however, comes directly from routine interactions 

I have with my SJA in all matters regarding these issues.” He emphasized the value of this interaction, adding, “Each time I consider disposing of 

a sexual assault allegation, I meet one on one with my SJA to review the facts and circumstances and discuss the range of disciplinary actions at 

my disposal.” Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 171–73 (Oct. 20, 2017) (testimony of Colonel Ty Neuman, U.S. Air Force, Commander, 2nd 

Bomb Wing). These points were echoed by the Navy SPCMCA, who told the Committee, “While serving as an installation commander, I met with 

my JAG almost daily . . . [a]nd we discussed a myriad of concerns, involving NJP [nonjudicial punishment], court-martial and other issues.” Id. at 

184–85 (testimony of Captain John Bushey, U.S. Navy, Commander, Navy Installations Command, Director of Public Safety). The Army SPCMCA 

agreed, stating, “In summary, I felt that I had adequate training and good access to the required expertise and the resources to deal with the 

uniqueness of all sexual assault and harassment cases I handled as a commander.” Id. at 194 (testimony of Colonel Erik Gilbert, U.S. Army, Chief of 

Staff to the Director, Joint Future Force Development, Joint Staff).

220 See Service Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Question 2 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/

Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

221 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 13 (Oct. 20, 2017) (testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Erin Miller, U.S. Army, Assistant Chief of Staff, G4, 

Chief of Sustainment, 101st Airborne Division); id. at 30 (testimony of Commander Chad Livingston, U.S. Navy, Deputy Director, Financial Policy 

and Systems); id. at 38 (testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Jennifer Nash, U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding Officer, 7th Engineer Support Battalion); 

id. at 45 (testimony of Major Christopher Seamans, U.S. Air Force, Commander, 69th Maintenance Squadron).

222 See Commander’s Legal Handbook at 83–90, Misc. Pub. 27-8 (2015), The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, United States 

Army, available at http://www.jag.navy.mil/distrib/instructions/Commanders_ARMY_Legal_HB_2015_C1.pdf; The Military Commander 

and the Law at 157–75, Edition 13 (2016), The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States Air Force, available at www.holloman.af.mil/

Portals/101/documents/JA Documents/References/MCL 2016 web.pdf?ver=2016-11-28-145828-903; USN/USMC Commander’s Quick 

Reference Legal Handbook (QUICKMAN) at 1–8, 13–14 (Oct. 2017), Naval Justice School, United States Navy, available at http://www.jag.

navy.mil/documents/NJS/QUICKMAN_October_2017.pdf.
77

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

perpetrator, or both serving in their units. These commanders and NCOs must provide leadership to the unit 

as a whole, assist the victim, and treat the alleged perpetrator fairly while action is pending. Though these 

commanders and NCOs often are not making legal decisions in such cases, they are responsible for morale and 

good order and discipline in their units while the investigation is ongoing and while legal actions are pending. 

Carrying out these responsibilities can be especially difficult because investigating and resolving an allegation 

of sexual assault can take considerable time. Throughout the process, commanders and NCOs may have to deal 

with rumors about and peer ostracism of the victim or alleged perpetrator, expedited transfer requests, the need 

to address the mental health of the victim or alleged perpetrator, and other complex issues. The DAC-IPAD 

tasked the PWG with reviewing the types and amount of training that these commanders and NCOs receive on 

handling these issues.

1. Service Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information 

The DAC-IPAD requested information from the Services on sexual assault response training provided to 

commanders and senior enlisted leaders.223 The type and amount of sexual assault response training varies by 

Service and includes a DoD regulatory requirement that the SARC meet with new commanders for one-on-one 

SAPR training within 30 days of their taking command.224 The following is a summary of training, by Service.

a. Army

• Company Commander/First Sergeant Pre-Command Course. This course is for company 

commanders (O-3) and first sergeants (E-8). The training contains a 90-minute lesson 

consisting of a male sexual assault/hazing video followed by a discussion. This lesson also 

covers sexual assault reporting options, privileged communications, consent, collateral 

misconduct, expedited transfers, military protective orders, the management of alleged 

offenders, retaliation, and other related topics.225

• Battalion/Brigade Pre-Command Course. This course is for battalion commanders (O-5), 

brigade commanders (O-6), and command sergeant majors (E-9). The training contains 

a 240-minute presentation and facilitation session used to reinforce learning outcomes 

from previous small-group discussions on promoting and safeguarding the Army’s Sexual 

Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention Program. This presentation includes roundtable 

discussions and scenarios on managing cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault.226

• To meet the DoD regulatory requirement, the Army has developed the Emergent Leader 

Immersive Training Environment – Command Team Trainer, an interactive scenario–based 

program that SARCs use to guide command teams through right and wrong decisions when 

dealing with a sexual assault.227

223 See DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Question 3 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/

DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

224 See DoDI 6495.02, supra note 94, at encl. 5 ¶ 3b.

225 See Army Response to DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Question 3 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-

RFIs/Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

226 Id.

227 Id.
78

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

b. Air Force

• Wing Commander Course. This course is for wing commanders, vice wing commanders, and 

group commanders (O-6). SAPR content is incorporated into a 4-hour block delivered by the 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services (A1/CC), on the commander’s 

responsibility to care for airmen. Students are evaluated via knowledge check scenarios. 

Students also receive a primer addressing SAPR topics.228

• Major Command Squadron Commander Course. This course is for squadron commanders 

(O-4/O-5). In a 3-hour block, the major command SARCs train incoming squadron 

commanders on sexual assault response topics, including the neurobiology of trauma, 

victimology and survivability (victim’s reactions and responses), a commander’s role in sexual 

assault prevention and response, the sexual assault incident response oversight (SAIRO) 

report, and expedited transfer policies. Training on the expedited transfer process includes 

scenario-based discussions on items to consider, complex situational dynamics, victim 

advocacy, access to resources, military justice and accountability, reporting options, the 

presence of victim and subject in the same unit, retaliation, male victimization, offenders’ 

rights, and opportunities for prevention.229

• To meet the DoD regulatory requirement, SARCs meet with new commanders for a minimum 

of one hour, and training is tailored to local policies, procedures, and trends.230

c. Navy

• Senior Officer Course. Navy captains (O-6) attending this course receive training in sexual 

assault investigations, administrative reporting requirements, expedited transfers, and 

disposition of sexual assault allegations.231

• Naval Leadership and Ethics Center. Prospective major commanding officers, commanding 

officers, executive officers, and command master chiefs are required to attend a 2-hour 

training titled “Empowered to Act” prior to assuming command. This training includes 

scenario-based videos and facilitated small-group discussions that cover sexual assault 

response, awareness, investigative and accountability considerations, victim assistance 

considerations, and prevention.232

• Senior Shore Leadership Course (SSLC). During the quarterly SSLC, the installation 

commanding officers, executive officers, and command master chiefs receive SAPR training 

228 See Air Force response to DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Question 3 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/

Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

229 Id.

230 See Air Force Response to DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Question 3 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/

Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

231 See Navy Response to DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Question 3 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-

RFIs/Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

232 Id.
79

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

and review policy on case management groups; attendees also conduct a mock case 

management group. The course is 1 hour and 20 minutes long.

• To meet the DoD regulatory requirement, within 30 days of taking command new 

commanding officers, executive officers, and command master chiefs meet with the SARC to 

discuss sexual assault topics. The SARC uses a commander’s checklist to provide training on 

the SAPR program, victim support and services, expedited transfer process, sexual assault 

prevention and response, retaliation, reporting, treatment of the alleged offender, command 

climate, command-specific trends, and designated personnel. The briefing is allotted 30 

minutes to one hour, depending on command needs.233

d. Marine Corps

• Cornerstone: Commandant’s Combined Commandership Course. During this training, 

new or incoming commanders (O-5/O-6) and sergeants major receive three hours of SAPR 

training conducted by a subject matter expert who provides guidance, instruction, and 

interactive discussion on the commander’s role in the SAPR program. Attendees are trained 

on retaliation, reprisal, ostracism, and maltreatment, as well as expedited transfers, military 

protective orders, victim services, victim response to sexual assault, and maintaining an 

appropriate command climate.234

• To meet DoD regulatory requirements, within 30 days of taking command new commanders 

meet with the SARC to discuss sexual assault topics.235

e. Coast Guard

• Coast Guard Leadership Development Center (LDC) Commander Course. The Coast Guard 

provides a 6-hour formal SAPR course for officers assuming command. Commanders receive 

training on different reporting methods, on understanding the ways individuals may respond 

to victimization, and on how to ensure victims are directed to appropriate resources. They 

also receive training on the rights of the subject of a sexual assault complaint, and on what 

to do when the subject makes a cross-claim of sexual assault. The course covers reducing the 

barriers to reporting sexual assault as well as fostering a healthy command climate, including 

prevention of retaliation and reprisal. Finally, commanders are trained on the command’s 

responsibilities when in receipt of an expedited transfer request. This course always includes 

both an attorney and a SARC, who are present throughout to answer questions.236

• Coast Guard LDC Courses for Mid-Level Supervisors and New Officer Accessions. Midlevel supervisors take the 2.5-hour class and receive general guidance on what the reporting 

233 See Navy Response to DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Question 3 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-

RFIs/Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

234 See Marine Corps Response to DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Question 3 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/

Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.

235 DoDI 6495.02, supra note 94, at encl. 5 ¶ 3b.

236 See Coast Guard Response to DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Question 3 (Sept. 11, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/

Public/07-RFIs/Set_4/DACIPAD_RFI_Set4_Q1_6_Responses_1_3_and_5_20170911_Web_Ready.pdf.
80

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

options are, how to dispel myths about sexual offenses, and how to foster a positive command 

climate. New officer accessions take the 3.5-hour class, which goes into some depth about 

reporting options, duties and responsibilities of the command to the victim and subject, and 

the need to embrace a climate of professionalism in order to prevent sexual assault. Both 

the 3.5-hour and 2.5-hour modules may be supported by an attorney and/or SARC if one is 

available, but their presence is optional.237

2. Commander Perspectives on Sexual Assault Response Training

The mid-level commanders and senior enlisted leaders who spoke to the DAC-IPAD at the October 19 and 20, 

2017, public meeting discussed the importance of their relationships with their assigned SARCs and VAs. These 

commanders found the training provided by their SARCs or VAs to be very valuable in their understanding of 

the proper handling of sexual assault cases and issues.238 Several of the commanders stated that they had their 

SARCs or VAs on “speed dial,” echoing their comments about their judge advocates, and relied on them when 

dealing with sexual assault cases in their units.239

The commanders on the panel held varying opinions of the formal training provided to them at their respective 

commander courses, with some finding it helpful and others finding it cursory.240 One commander said that a 

written commander’s sexual assault prevention and response guide given to him by the SARC was a valuable 

resource.241

3. Victim Perspectives

As noted above in the expedited transfer section, several sexual assault victims testified at the December 1, 2017, 

PWG preparatory session regarding their experiences with the expedited transfer process and with command 

237 Id.

238 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 26 (Oct. 20, 2017) (testimony of Commander Livingston, U.S. Navy); id. at 33 (testimony of Lieutenant 

Colonel Nash, U.S. Marine Corps); id. at 41 (testimony of Sergeant Major Stennent Rey, U.S. Marine Corps, Senior Enlisted Advisor, 7th Engineer 

Support Battalion); id. at 61 (testimony of Commander Jonathan Carter, U.S. Coast Guard, Commanding Officer, Coast Guard Cutter Legare).

239 The Army commander told the Committee she spent at least an hour every week with her VA “having conversations about atmosphere, what was 

going on in the unit, what was going on in the barracks, and then, really talking about the status of the victims inside the formation, to understand 

where they were in their process of healing or dealing with what had occurred[.]” She discussed a situation she had dealt with in which both the 

victim and alleged perpetrator were in her unit and she worked closely with the judge advocate and VA to move the alleged perpetrator to another 

unit. Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 15–16 (Oct. 20, 2017) (testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Miller, U.S. Army); id. at 29–30 (testimony of 

Commander Livingston, U.S. Navy); id. at 45 (testimony of Major Seamans, U.S. Air Force); id. at 52–53 (testimony of SMSgt Terry Zanella, U.S. 

Air Force, First Sergeant, 69th Maintenance Squadron).

240 The Navy commander recalled some of the formal sexual assault training he had received at the commander course and stated he wished they had 

spent more time discussing the legal and administrative requirements involved in sexual assault cases, rather than spending time trying to convince 

senior officers that sexual assault is “bad and detrimental to the command.” Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 27 (Oct. 20, 2017) (testimony 

of Commander Livingston, U.S. Navy). The Air Force commander described the initial sexual assault response training he received at his major 

command squadron commander course and hearing from a sexual assault victim about her experiences and from the victim’s commander and first 

sergeant regarding how they handled that case. He described his formal training as “cursory,” but stated it prepared him because he knew who to 

contact at his installation for help. Id. at 44–46 (testimony of Major Seamans, U.S. Air Force). The Coast Guard commander told the Committee he 

received extensive sexual assault response training prior to assuming command. This training was interactive and involved a sexual assault victim, a 

judge advocate, and a SARC, as well as case studies. Id. at 61, 71 (testimony of Commander Carter, U.S. Coast Guard).

241 Id. at 28 (testimony of Commander Livingston, U.S. Navy).
81

CHAPTER 3. ACTIVITIES OF THE POLICY WORKING GROUP

and senior enlisted personnel. While some victims described their commanders or first sergeants as helpful and 

supportive following their sexual assaults, some were more critical of their commanders’ involvement.

An Air Force victim of sexual assault told the PWG that her first sergeant was helpful to her in processing her 

expedited transfer request and she felt her command handled her assault well.242 On the other hand, a petty 

officer second class, a Navy victim, stated that she felt a lack of support from her chain of command following 

her assault, adding that she felt that she and the bystanders who had helped her were punished to the same 

extent as the accused. For these and other reasons, she requested an expedited transfer. She stated that her 

commander made her feel like a victim of “victim shaming.”243 However, her new command was “extremely 

supportive,” ensuring she received time off from work for counseling and had everything she needed. She 

explained, “My new command helped me to believe in myself again, to have the courage to do things I never 

would have done a year ago.”244 A petty officer third class, a Coast Guard victim, told the PWG that her 

command has been similarly supportive and helped her with whatever she needed.245

One victim from the Army highlighted the unintended consequences of the actions of leaders who mean well 

but do not have experience handling a sexual assault report. She explained that after hearing about her report, 

both her first sergeant and commander showed up at her barracks room, along with the SARC. Because her unit 

was very small and she was the only woman in it, she felt that everyone knew what had happened to her.246 She 

stated that her commander and first sergeant were “calling people and trying to figure out what to do.”247

In addition to this testimony, a senior airman who was medically retired from the Air Force shared her 

experiences following her 2012 sexual assault with the Committee at the October 2017 DAC-IPAD public 

meeting. She told the Committee that when she reported her assault to the command, her commander told her 

that nothing would be done.248 She spent time at an inpatient program to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, but 

because of her absence from work, she received a lower rating on her Enlisted Performance Report.249 She said 

that two years after her assault, when sexual assault awareness had increased among military members, her first 

sergeant told her they had handled her sexual assault poorly and asked what he could do to help her.250

D. Analysis and Future Review

The PWG has made good progress gathering information on legal and sexual assault response training for 

commanders and senior enlisted leaders. Commanders who spoke at the DAC-IPAD public meeting on October 

19 and 20, 2017, consistently emphasized the importance of having immediate and continuous access to judge 

advocates and SARCs when they were faced with sexual assault allegations in their units. Frequent contact with 

242 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 289, 323 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of an airman first class, U.S. Air Force).

243 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 294–95, 325 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of a petty officer second class, U.S. Navy).

244 Id. at 295.

245 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 305, 329 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of a petty officer third class, U.S. Coast Guard).

246 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 326 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of a U.S. Army specialist).

247 Id. at 327.

248 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 12 (Oct. 19, 2017) (testimony of former Airman Hannah Stolberg, U.S. Air Force, Retired).

249 Id. at 14–15.

250 Id. at 13.
82

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

assigned judge advocates and SARCs, as well as the training provided by those individuals, seemed to support 

and supplement the formal training that these commanders had received upon assuming command.

The PWG will continue to review the substance and effectiveness of formal training to commanders and senior 

enlisted leaders in order to determine whether current training is effective, whether improvements are needed, 

and whether there should be more uniformity in legal and sexual assault response training across the Services.

V. FUTURE ISSUES

Going forward, the PWG will continue to review the issues related to the expedited transfer policy identified in 

section IV of this chapter. The PWG will also continue its review of the substance and effectiveness of legal and 

sexual assault training for commanders.

The DAC-IPAD has also asked the PWG to review the new Article 140a of the UCMJ, which was enacted in 

the FY17 National Defense Authorization Act.251 Article 140a requires the Services to develop and implement 

a uniform military justice data collection system that will support case management, data analysis, and public 

access to case documents by December 2020. The PWG will explore and make recommendations on the 

standards and criteria that should be used to determine what data related to sex offenses are most important to 

track and should be uniformly collected across the Services. 

251 FY17 NDAA, supra note 98, § 1104(a).
A-1

APPENDIX A. AUTHORIZING STATUTES

APPENDIX A. AUTHORIZING STATUTES

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

SECTION 546. DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND 

DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT REQUIRED.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish and maintain within the Department of 

Defense an advisory committee to be known as the “Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces” (in this section referred to as the 

“Advisory Committee”).

(2) DEADLINE FOR ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary shall establish the Advisory Committee not later 

than 30 days before the termination date of the independent panel established by the Secretary under 

section 576(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 

126 Stat. 1758), known as the “judicial proceedings panel”.

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Advisory Committee shall consist of not more than 20 members, to be appointed by 

the Secretary of Defense, who have experience with the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations 

of sexual assault offenses. Members of the Advisory Committee may include Federal and State prosecutors, 

judges, law professors, and private attorneys. Members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty may not 

serve as a member of the Advisory Committee.

(c) DUTIES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Advisory Committee shall advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation, 

prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual 

misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces.

(2) BASIS FOR PROVISION OF ADVICE.—For purposes of providing advice to the Secretary pursuant to 

this subsection, the Advisory Committee shall review, on an ongoing basis, cases involving allegations of 

sexual misconduct described in paragraph (1).

(d) ANNUAL REPORTS.—Not later than March 30 each year, the Advisory Committee shall submit to the 

Secretary of Defense and the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives 

a report describing the results of the activities of the Advisory Committee pursuant to this section during the 

preceding year.

(e) TERMINATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Advisory Committee shall terminate on 

the date that is five years after the date of the establishment of the Advisory Committee pursuant to 

subsection (a).
DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

A-2

(2) CONTINUATION.—The Secretary of Defense may continue the Advisory Committee after the 

termination date applicable under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines that continuation of the 

Advisory Committee after that date is advisable and appropriate. If the Secretary determines to continue 

the Advisory Committee after that date, the Secretary shall submit to the President and the congressional 

committees specified in subsection (d) a report describing the reasons for that determination and 

specifying the new termination date for the Advisory Committee.

(f) DUE DATE FOR ANNUAL REPORT OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—Section 576(c)(2)(B) of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 1760) is amended by 

inserting “annually thereafter” after “reports”.

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

SECTION 537. MODIFICATION OF DEADLINE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DEFENSE ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE 

ARMED FORCES.

Section 546(a)(2) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291; 128 Stat. 3374; 10 U.S.C. 1561 note) is amended by striking “not later 

than” and all that follows and inserting “not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.”.
B-1

APPENDIX B: COMMITTEE CHARTER

APPENDIX B. COMMITTEE CHARTER

Charter 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of 

Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces

1

1. Committee’s Official Designation: The Committee will be known as the Defense Advisory 

Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed 

Forces (“the Committee”).

2. Authority: The Secretary of Defense, pursuant to section 546 of the Carl Levin and Howard 

P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (“FY 2015 

NDAA”) (Public Law 113-291), as modified by section 537 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92), and in accordance with the 

provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as 

amended) and 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.50(a), established this non-discretionary Committee.

3. Objectives and Scope of Activities: The Committee, pursuant to section 546(c)(1) of the FY 

2015 NDAA, will advise the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense on 

the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual 

assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces.

4. Description of Duties: Pursuant to section 546(c)(2) and (d) of the FY 2015 NDAA, the 

Committee, not later than March 30 of each year, will submit to the Secretary of Defense 

through the General Counsel (GC) for the Department of Defense (DoD), and the 

Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives, a report 

describing the results of the activities of the Committee pursuant to section 546 of the FY 

2015 NDAA during the preceding year. The Committee will review, on an ongoing basis, 

cases involving allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual 

misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces. 

5. Agency or Official to Whom the Committee Reports: The Committee will report to the 

Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, through the GC DoD. 

6. Support: The DoD, through the GC DoD, the Washington Headquarters Services, and the 

DoD Components, will provide staffing and resources to support the Committee’s functions, 

and will ensure compliance with requirements of the FACA, the Government in the Sunshine 

Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. § 552b, as amended) (“the Sunshine Act”), governing Federal statutes 

and regulations, and established DoD policies and procedures. 

7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Staff Years: The estimated annual operating cost, 

including travel, meetings, and contract support, is approximately $2,000,000. The estimated 

annual personnel cost to the DoD is 15.0 full-time equivalents. 

8. Designated Federal Officer: The Committee’s Designated Federal Officer (DFO), pursuant 

to DoD policy, will be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee or military member, 

designated in accordance with established DoD policies and procedures. 

The Committee’s DFO is required to be in attendance at all Committee and subcommittee 

meetings for the entire duration of each and every meeting. However, in the absence of the

Committee’s DFO, a properly approved Alternate DFO, duly designated to the Committee
B-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Charter 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of 

Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces

2

according to DoD policies and procedures, will attend the entire duration of all of the 

Committee or subcommittee meetings.

The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, will call all of the Committee and its subcommittee 

meetings; prepare and approve all meeting agendas; and adjourn any meeting when the DFO, 

or the Alternate DFO, determines adjournment to be in the public interest or required by

governing regulations or DoD policies and procedures.

9. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings: The Committee will meet at the call of the 

Committee’s DFO, in consultation with the GC DoD and the Committee’s Chair. The 

Committee will meet at a minimum of once per year.

10. Duration: The Committee will remain in effect until terminated as provided for by sections

546(e)(1) and (2) of the FY 2015 NDAA; however, the charter is subject to renewal every 

two years.

11. Termination: According to sections 546(e)(1) and (2) of the FY 2015 NDAA, the Committee

will terminate on the date that is five years after the date the Committee is established unless

the Secretary of Defense determines that continuation of the Committee after that date is 

advisable and appropriate. If the Secretary of Defense determines to continue the Committee 

after that date, the Secretary of Defense will submit to the President and the Committees on 

Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report describing the reasons 

for that determination and specifying the new termination date for the Committee.

12. Membership and Designation: Pursuant to section 546(b) of the FY 2015 NDAA, the 

Committee will be composed of no more than 20 members. Committee members selected 

will have experience with the investigation, prosecution, and defense of allegations of sexual 

assault offenses. Members of the Committee may include Federal and State prosecutors, 

judges, law professors, and private attorneys. Members of the Armed Forces serving on 

active duty may not serve as members of the Committee. 

The appointment of Committee members will be authorized by the Secretary of Defense or 

the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and administratively certified by the GC DoD, for a term of 

service of one to four years, and their appointments will be renewed on an annual basis in 

accordance with DoD policies and procedures. Members of the Committee who are not fulltime or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be appointed as experts or 

consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3109 to serve as special government employee (SGE)

members. Committee members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or 

employees will be appointed pursuant to 41 C.F.R. § 101-3.130(a) to serve as regular 

government employee (RGE) members. No member, unless authorized by the Secretary of 

Defense, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the Committee, including

its subcommittees, or serve on more than two DoD federal advisory committees at one time.
B-3

APPENDIX B: COMMITTEE CHARTER

Charter 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of 

Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces

3

All members of the Committee are appointed to provide advice on the basis of their best 

judgment on behalf of the Government without representing any particular point of view and 

in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. 

Except for reimbursement of official Committee-related travel and per diem, Committee

members serve without compensation. 

Consistent with authority delegated to DoD Sponsors, the GC DoD will appoint the 

Committee’s Chair from among the membership previously authorized by the Secretary of 

Defense or Deputy Secretary of Defense. 

13. Subcommittees: The DoD, as necessary and consistent with the Committee’s mission and 

DoD policies and procedures, may establish subcommittees, task forces, or working groups 

to support the Committee. 

Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, including terms 

of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the GC DoD

as the DoD Sponsor. 

Such subcommittees will not work independently of the Committee and will report all their 

recommendations and advice solely to the Committee for full deliberation and discussion. 

Subcommittees, task forces, or working groups have no authority to make decisions and 

recommendations, orally or in writing, on behalf of the Committee. No subcommittee or any 

of its members can update or report, orally or in writing, directly to the DoD or any Federal 

officers or employees. If a majority of Committee members are appointed to a particular 

subcommittee, then that subcommittee may be required to operate pursuant to the same 

notice and openness requirements of FACA which govern the Committee’s operations.

Pursuant to Secretary of Defense policy, the GC DoD is authorized to administratively certify 

the appointment of subcommittee members if the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy 

Secretary of Defense has previously authorized the individual’s appointment to the 

Committee or another DoD advisory committee. If the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy 

Secretary of Defense has not previously authorized the appointment of the individual to the 

Committee or another DoD advisory committee, then the individual’s subcommittee 

appointment must first be authorized by the Secretary of Defense or the Deputy Secretary of 

Defense and subsequently administratively certified by the GC DoD. 

Subcommittee members, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, will be appointed for

a term of service of one-to-four years, subject to annual renewals; however, no member will

serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the subcommittee. Subcommittee 

members, if not full-time or part-time Federal officers or employees, will be appointed as 

experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3109 to serve as SGE members. Subcommittee

members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal officers or employees will be 

appointed pursuant to 41 C.F.R. § 101-3.130(a) to serve as RGE members. With the 

exception of reimbursement for travel and per diem as it pertains to official travel related to 
B-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Charter 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of 

Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces

4

the Committee or its subcommittees, subcommittee members will serve without 

compensation.

The Secretary of Defense authorizes the GC DoD to appoint the chair of any appropriately 

approved subcommittee from among the subcommittee membership previously authorized by 

the Secretary of Defense or Deputy Secretary of Defense.

Each subcommittee member is appointed to provide advice on the basis of his or her best 

judgment on behalf of the Government without representing any particular point of view and 

in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.

All subcommittees operate under the provisions of the FACA, the Sunshine Act, governing 

Federal statutes and regulations, and established DoD policies and procedures.

14. Recordkeeping: The records of the Committee and its subcommittees will be managed in 

accordance with General Record Schedule 6.2, Federal Advisory Committee Records, or 

other approved agency records disposition schedule, and the appropriate DoD policies and 

procedures. These records will be available for public inspection and copying, subject to the 

Freedom of Information Act of 1966 (5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended).

15. Filing Date: February 18, 2016
C-1

APPENDIX C. COMMITTEE MEMBERS

APPENDIX C. COMMITTEE MEMBERS

MS. MARTHA S. BASHFORD, CHAIR

Martha Bashford is the chief of the New York County District Attorney’s Office Sex Crimes Unit, 

which was the first of its kind in the country. Previously she was co-chief of the Forensic Sciences/

Cold Case Unit, where she examined unsolved homicide cases that might now be solvable 

through DNA analysis. Ms. Bashford was also co-chief of the DNA Cold Case Project, which used 

DNA technology to investigate and prosecute unsolved sexual assault cases. She indicted 

assailants identified through the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) and obtained John 

Doe DNA profile indictments to stop the statute of limitations in cases in which no suspect had 

yet been identified. She is a Fellow in the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Ms. Bashford graduated from 

Barnard College in 1976 (summa cum laude) and received her J.D. degree from Yale Law School in 1979.

MAJOR GENERAL MARCIA M. ANDERSON, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED

Marcia Anderson has been the Clerk of Court for the Bankruptcy Court–Western District of 

Wisconsin since 1998, where she is responsible for the management of the budget and 

administration of bankruptcy cases for 44 counties in western Wisconsin. Major General 

Anderson recently retired in 2016 from a distinguished career in the U.S. Army Reserve after 

36 years of service, which included serving as the Deputy Commanding General of the Army’s 

Human Resources Command at Fort Knox, Kentucky. In 2011, she became the first African 

American woman in the history of the U.S. Army to achieve the rank of major general. Her 

service culminated with an assignment at the Pentagon as the Deputy Chief, Army Reserve (DCAR). As the 

DCAR, she represented the Chief, Army Reserve, and had oversight for the planning, programming, and 

resource management for the execution of an Army Reserve budget of $8 billion that supported more than 

225,000 Army Reserve soldiers, civilians, and their families. She is a graduate of the Rutgers University School of 

Law, the U.S. Army War College, and Creighton University. 

THE HONORABLE LEO I. BRISBOIS

Leo I. Brisbois has been a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota chambered in 

Duluth, Minnesota, since 2010. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge Brisbois served 

as an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, U.S. Army, from 1987 through 1998, both on active duty 

and then in the reserves; his active duty service included work as a trial counsel and as an 

administrative law officer, both while serving in Germany. From 1991 to 2010, Judge Brisbois 

was in private practice with the Minneapolis, Minnesota, firm of Stich, Angell, Kreidler, 

Dodge & Unke, where his practice included all aspects of litigation and appeals involving the 

defense of civil claims in state and federal courts. Judge Brisbois has also previously served on the Civil Rules 

and Racial Fairness in the Courts advisory committees established by the Minnesota State Supreme Court, and 

he has served on the Minnesota Commission on Judicial Selection. From 2009 to 2010, Judge Brisbois was the 

first person of known Native American heritage to serve as President of the more than 16,000–member 

Minnesota State Bar Association.
C-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

MS. KATHLEEN B. CANNON

Kathleen Cannon is a criminal defense attorney in Vista, California, specializing in serious 

felony and high-profile cases. Prior to entering private practice in 2011, Ms. Cannon was a 

public defender for over 30 years, in Los Angeles and San Diego Counties. Over the course of 

her career, Ms. Cannon supervised branch operations and training programs within the offices 

and handled thousands of criminal cases. She has completed hundreds of jury trials, including 

those involving violent sexual assault and capital murder with special circumstances. Since 

1994, Ms. Cannon has taught trial advocacy as an adjunct professor of law at California 

Western School of Law in San Diego, and has been on the faculty of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy as a 

team leader and teacher. She is past-President and current Training Coordinator for the California Public 

Defenders’ Association, providing educational seminars for criminal defense attorneys throughout the state of 

California. Ms. Cannon has lectured on battered woman syndrome evidence at the Marine Corps World Wide 

Training Conference at Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD), San Diego, and was a small-group facilitator for 

the Naval Justice School course “Defending Sexual Assault Cases” in San Diego. Ms. Cannon has received 

numerous awards, including Top Ten Criminal Defense Attorney in San Diego, Lawyer of the Year from the 

North County Bar Association, and Attorney of the Year from the San Diego County Public Defender’s Office.

MS. MARGARET A. GARVIN

Margaret “Meg” Garvin, M.A., J.D., is the executive director of the National Crime Victim Law 

Institute (NCVLI), where she has worked since 2003. She is also a clinical professor of law at 

Lewis & Clark Law School, where NCVLI is located. In 2014, Ms. Garvin was appointed to the 

Victims Advisory Group of the United States Sentencing Commission, and during 2013–14, 

she served on the Victim Services Subcommittee of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual 

Assault Crimes Panel of the U.S. Department of Defense. She has served as co-chair of the 

American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section Victims Committee, as co-chair of the 

Oregon Attorney General’s Crime Victims’ Rights Task Force, and as a member of the Legislative & Public Policy 

Committee of the Oregon Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force. Ms. Garvin received the John W. Gillis 

Leadership Award from National Parents of Murdered Children in August 2015. Prior to joining NCVLI, Ms. 

Garvin practiced law in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and clerked for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. She 

received her bachelor of arts degree from the University of Puget Sound, her master of arts degree in 

communication studies from the University of Iowa, and her J.D. from the University of Minnesota.

THE HONORABLE PAUL W. GRIMM

Paul W. Grimm serves as a U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland. Previously, he 

served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge and as Chief Magistrate Judge for the District of Maryland. 

In 2009, the Chief Justice of the United States appointed Judge Grimm to serve as a member of 

the Civil Rules Advisory Committee, where he served for six years and chaired the Discovery 

Subcommittee. Before his appointment to the court, Judge Grimm was in private practice for 

13 years, handling commercial litigation. Prior to that, he served as an Assistant Attorney 

General for Maryland, an Assistant States Attorney for Baltimore County, Maryland, and an 

active duty and Reserve Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer, retiring as a lieutenant colonel in 2001. 

Judge Grimm has served as an adjunct professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law and at the 

University of Baltimore School of Law, and has published many articles on evidence and civil procedure.
C-3

APPENDIX C. COMMITTEE MEMBERS

DEAN KEITH M. HARRISON

Keith Harrison began his legal career as a judge advocate in the U.S. Coast Guard. After 

military service he began what was supposed to be a two-year stint as a law teacher. More than 

30 years later he has been a member of the full-time faculty at three law schools and a visiting 

faculty member at four others. In 2016 he joined the faculty of the Savannah Law School as a 

visiting professor and acting associate dean.

Dean Harrison’s primary areas of teaching are in the criminal justice area, including criminal 

law, criminal procedure, military criminal law, and intellectual property crimes. He was the founding chair of 

the International Criminal Law & Justice Graduate Programs at Franklin Pierce Law Center. He served as a 

public member of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Code Committee. He has served as a volunteer guardian 

ad litem for CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates), New Hampshire. He is a graduate of Leadership New 

Hampshire and has served on several arts, education, and community boards, including the Endowment for 

Health and the board of St. John’s College.

MR. A. J. KRAMER

A. J. Kramer has been the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia since 1990. He 

was the Chief Assistant Federal Public Defender in Sacramento, California, from 1987 to 1990, 

and an Assistant Federal Public Defender in San Francisco, California, from 1980 to 1987. He 

was a law clerk for the Honorable Proctor Hug, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 

Reno, Nevada, from 1979 to 1980. He received a B.A. from Stanford University in 1975, and a 

J.D. from Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley in 1979. Mr. 

Kramer taught legal research and writing at Hastings Law School from 1983 to 1988. He is a 

permanent faculty member of the National Criminal Defense College in Macon, Georgia. He is a Fellow of the 

American College of Trial Lawyers. He is a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States’ Advisory 

Committee on Evidence Rules and the ABA Criminal Justice System Council. He was a member of the National 

Academy of Sciences Committee on Scientific Approaches to Understanding and Maximizing the Validity and 

Reliability of Eyewitness Identification in Law Enforcement and the Courts. In December 2013, he received the 

Annice M. Wagner Pioneer Award from the Bar Association of the District of Columbia.

MS. JENNIFER GENTILE LONG

Jennifer Gentile Long (M.G.A., J.D.) is CEO and co-founder of Æquitas and an adjunct 

professor at Georgetown University Law School. She served as an Assistant District Attorney 

in Philadelphia specializing in sexual violence, child abuse, and intimate partner violence. She 

was a senior attorney and then Director of the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence 

Against Women at the American Prosecutors Research Institute. She publishes articles, 

delivers trainings, and provides expert case consultation on issues relevant to gender-based 

violence and human trafficking nationally and internationally. Ms. Long serves as an Advisory 

Committee member of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code Revision to Sexual Assault and Related 

Laws and as an Editorial Board member of the Civic Research Institute for the Sexual Assault and Domestic 

Violence Reports. She graduated from Lehigh University and the University of Pennsylvania Law School and the 

Fels School of Government.
C-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

MR. JAMES P. MARKEY 

Jim Markey has over 30 years of law enforcement experience with the Phoenix Police 

Department. Serving in a variety of positions, Mr. Markey was recognized with more than 30 

commendations and awards. For over 14 years he directly supervised the sexual assault unit, 

which is part of a multidisciplinary sexual assault response team co-located in the City of 

Phoenix Family Advocacy Center. Mr. Markey oversaw the investigation of more than 7,000 

sexual assaults, including more than 150 serial rape cases. In 2000, he was able to secure 

Violence Against Women grant funding to design, develop, and supervise a first-of-its-kind 

sexual assault cold case team with the City of Phoenix. This team has been successful in reviewing nearly 4,000 

unsolved sexual assault cases dating back over 25 years. For the past 15 years Mr. Markey has been a certified 

and nationally recognized trainer delivering in-person and online webinar training for numerous criminal 

justice organizations on sexual assault investigations and response. Currently, he is a contract consultant for the 

DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI), where his team provides technical 

assistance and training to more than 50 SAKI grantees across the United States. His expertise and experience 

have been used in investigative case review as well as assessment of sexual assault unit response. This includes a 

recently completed comprehensive assessment for the Tempe Police Department (Tempe, AZ) Sexual Assault 

Unit. Mr. Markey currently serves as a member of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Sexual Assault Forensic 

Evidence Reporting (SAFER) Working Group and Editorial Team, NIJ Cold Case Working Group, Arizona 

Commission on Victims in the Courts (COVIC), and the Arizona Forensic Advisory Committee.

DR. JENIFER MARKOWITZ

Jenifer Markowitz is a forensic nursing consultant who specializes in issues related to sexual 

assault, domestic violence, and strangulation, including medical-forensic examinations and 

professional education and curriculum development. In addition to teaching at workshops 

and conferences around the world, she provides expert testimony, case consultation, and 

technical assistance and develops training materials, resources, and publications. A forensic 

nurse examiner since 1995, Dr. Markowitz regularly serves as faculty and as an expert 

consultant for the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps for the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, 

Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Past national activities include working with the Army Surgeon General’s office 

to develop a curriculum for sexual assault medical-forensic examiners working in military treatment facilities 

(subsequently adopted by the Navy and Air Force); with the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence 

Against Women (OVW) to develop a national protocol and training standards for sexual assault medicalforensic examinations; with the Peace Corps to assess the agency’s multidisciplinary response to sexual assault; 

with the U.S. Department of Defense to revise the military’s sexual assault evidence collection kit and 

corresponding documentation forms; and as an Advisory Board member for the National Sexual Violence 

Resource Center. In 2004, Dr. Markowitz was named a Distinguished Fellow of the International Association of 

Forensic Nurses (IAFN); in 2012, she served as IAFN’s President.
C-5

APPENDIX C. COMMITTEE MEMBERS

CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE RODNEY J. MCKINLEY, RETIRED

Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Rodney J. McKinley represented the highest enlisted 

level of leadership and, as such, provided direction for the enlisted corps and represented their 

interests, as appropriate, to the American public and to those in all levels of government. He 

served as the personal advisor to the Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Air Force on all 

issues regarding the welfare, readiness, morale, and proper utilization and progress of the 

enlisted force. Chief McKinley is the 15th chief master sergeant appointed to the highest 

noncommissioned officer position. His background includes various duties in medical and 

aircraft maintenance, and he served 10 years as a first sergeant. He also served as a command chief master 

sergeant at wing, numbered Air Force, and major command levels. He is currently the co-chair of the Air Force 

Retiree Council and frequently is a guest speaker at bases across the Air Force. He is an honors graduate of St. 

Leo College, Florida, and received his master’s degree in human relations from the University of Oklahoma.

BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES SCHWENK, U.S. MARINE CORPS, RETIRED

BGen Schwenk was commissioned as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps in 1970. After 

serving as a platoon commander and company commander, he attended law school at the 

Washington College of Law, American University, and became a judge advocate. As a judge 

advocate he served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of the Secretary of the 

Navy, and Headquarters, Marine Corps; he served as Staff Judge Advocate for Marine Forces 

Atlantic, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Air Bases West, and several other 

commands; and he participated in several hundred courts-martial and administrative discharge 

boards. He represented the Department of Defense on the television show American Justice, and represented the 

Marine Corps in a Mike Wallace segment on 60 Minutes. He retired from the Marine Corps in 2000.

Upon retirement from the Marine Corps, BGen Schwenk joined the Office of the General Counsel of the 

Department of Defense as an associate deputy general counsel. He was a legal advisor in the Pentagon on 9/11, 

and he was the primary drafter from the Department of Defense of many of the emergency legal authorities 

used in Afghanistan, Iraq, the United States, and elsewhere since that date. He was the principal legal advisor 

for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” for the provision of benefits to same-sex spouses of military personnel, in 

the review of the murders at Fort Hood in 2009, and on numerous DoD working groups in the area of military 

personnel policy. He worked extensively with the White House and Congress, and he retired in 2014 after 49 

years of federal service.

DR. CASSIA C. SPOHN

Cassia Spohn is a Foundation Professor and the Director of the School of Criminology and 

Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. She received a Ph.D. in political science from the 

University of Nebraska–Lincoln. Prior to joining the ASU faculty in 2006, she was a faculty 

member in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska at 

Omaha for 28 years. She is the author or co-author of seven books, including Policing and 

Prosecuting Sexual Assault: Inside the Criminal Justice System and How Do Judges Decide? The 

Search for Fairness and Equity in Sentencing. Her research interests include prosecutorial and 

judicial decision making; the intersections of race, ethnicity, crime, and justice; and case processing decisions in 

sexual assault cases. In 2013, she received ASU’s Award for Leading Edge Research in the Social Sciences and 

was selected as a Fellow of the American Society of Criminology.
C-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

MS. MEGHAN A. TOKASH

Meghan Tokash is an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) at the U.S. Department of 

Justice serving the Western District of New York in the violent crimes unit. For eight years she 

served as a judge advocate in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps, where she 

prosecuted a wide range of cases relating to homicide, rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, 

and child abuse. AUSA Tokash was selected by the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Army 

to serve as one of 15 Special Victim Prosecutors; she worked in the Army’s first Special Victim 

Unit at the Fort Hood Criminal Investigation Division Office and U.S. Army Europe/Central 

Command. Previously, AUSA Tokash served as an Army trial defense counsel and as a civilian victim-witness 

liaison officer for the Department of the Army. AUSA Tokash clerked for the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces. She is a graduate of the Catholic University Columbus School of Law. She earned her master 

of laws degree in trial advocacy from the Beasley School of Law at Temple University, where at graduation she 

received the program’s Faculty Award.

THE HONORABLE REGGIE B. WALTON

Judge Walton was born in Donora, Pennsylvania. In 1971 he graduated from West Virginia 

State University, where he was a three-year letterman on the football team and played on the 

1968 nationally ranked conference championship team. Judge Walton received his law degree 

from the American University, Washington College of Law, in 1974.

Judge Walton assumed his current position as a U.S. District Judge for the District of 

Columbia in 2001. He was also appointed by President George W. Bush in 2004 as the Chair 

of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, a commission created by Congress to identify methods 

to reduce prison rape. The U.S. Attorney General substantially adopted the Commission’s recommendations for 

implementation in federal prisons; other federal, state, and local officials throughout the country are considering 

adopting the recommendations. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist appointed Judge Walton 

in 2005 to the federal judiciary’s Criminal Law Committee, on which he served until 2011. In 2007 Chief 

Justice John Roberts appointed Judge Walton to a seven-year term as a Judge of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Court, and he was subsequently appointed Presiding Judge in 2013. He completed his term on 

that court on May 18, 2014. Upon completion of his appointment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Court, Judge Walton was appointed by Chief Justice Roberts to serve as a member of the Judicial Conference 

Committee on Court Administration and Case Management.

Judge Walton traveled to Russia in 1996 to instruct Russian judges on criminal law in a program funded by the 

U.S. Department of Justice and the American Bar Association’s Central and East European Law Initiative Reform 

Project. He is also an instructor in Harvard Law School’s Advocacy Workshop and a faculty member at the 

National Judicial College in Reno, Nevada. 
D-1

APPENDIX D. COMMITTEE STAFF 

APPENDIX D. COMMITTEE STAFF 

COMMITTEE STAFF

Captain Tammy P. Tideswell, JAGC, 

U.S. Navy, Staff Director

Colonel Steven B. Weir, JAGC, 

U.S. Army, Deputy Staff Director

Mr. Dale Trexler, Chief of Staff

Ms. Julie Carson, Attorney 

Dr. Janice Chayt, Investigator

Dr. Alice Falk, Editor

Ms. Theresa Gallagher, Attorney

Ms. Nalini Gupta, Attorney

Ms. Amanda Hagy, Senior Paralegal

Mr. Glen Hines, Attorney

Mr. R. Chuck Mason, Attorney

Ms. Laurel Prucha Moran, Graphic Designer

Ms. Meghan Peters, Attorney

Ms. Stacy A. Powell, Senior Paralegal

Ms. Stayce Rozell, Senior Paralegal

Ms. Terri Saunders, Attorney

Ms. Kate Tagert, Attorney

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIALS

Mr. Dwight H. Sullivan

Associate Deputy General Counsel for

Military Justice

U.S. Department of Defense

Designated Federal Official

Mr. David J. Gruber

Associate Deputy General Counsel for 

Military Personnel, Readiness, and Voting

U.S. Department of Defense 

Alternate Designated Federal Official

Major Israel King

U.S. Air Force

Office of the General Counsel

U.S. Department of Defense

Alternate Designated Federal Official
D-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
E-1

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF 

SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD 

DATABASE 

The Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed 

Forces (DAC-IPAD) was established by the Secretary of Defense in February 2016 pursuant to section 546 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as amended. The Committee is tasked by 

its authorizing statute to advise the Secretary of Defense on the investigation, prosecution, and defense of 

allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the 

Armed Forces, drawing on its review of such cases on an ongoing basis.

Before the DAC-IPAD was established, Congress tasked the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) with reviewing 

and evaluating the judicial response to sexual assault cases in the military. To conduct its analysis, the JPP 

sought information from court records, case documents, and other publicly available resources. Members of the 

JPP staff reviewed court-martial documents from the Military Services that were resolved in fiscal years 2012 

through 2015. Information from the court-martial cases were entered into a JPP-developed database, and the 

JPP coordinated with a criminologist to analyze the data and provide descriptive statistics concerning courtmartial case characteristics, case dispositions, and case outcomes. Further, the JPP made two recommendations 

to the DAC-IPAD regarding the continuation of data collection and analysis:

• JPP Recommendation 54: The successor federal advisory committee to the JPP, the DAC-IPAD, should 

consider continuing to analyze adult-victim sexual assault court-martial data on an annual basis as 

the JPP has done, and should consider analyzing the following patterns that the JPP discovered in its 

analysis of fiscal year 2015 court-martial data:

a. Cases involving military victims tend to have fewer punitive outcomes than cases involving civilian 

victims; and

b. The conviction and acquittal rates for sexual assault offenses vary significantly among the military 

Services.

c. If a Service member is charged with a sexual assault offense, and pleads not guilty, the probability 

that he or she will be convicted of a sexual assault offense is 36%, and the probability that he or she 

will be convicted of any offense (i.e., either a sex or a non-sex offense) is 59%.”1

• JPP Recommendation 60: The Secretary of Defense and the DAC-IPAD continue to gather data 

and other evidence on disposition decisions and conviction rates of sexual assault courts-martial to 

supplement information provided to the JPP Subcommittee during military installation site visits and to 

determine future recommendations for improvements to the military justice system.2

In 2017, the DAC-IPAD staff requested that the Military Services provide documents for cases involving a 

preferred charge of sexual assault that were completed in fiscal year 2016. As of January 12, 2018, the database 

1 JPP Report on Data for FY15, at 6 (Recommendation 54).

2 Id. at 11 (Recommendation 60).
E-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

contains 3,145 cases encompassing fiscal years 2012–16, all of which involve at least one charge of a sexual 

offense deemed either penetrative (i.e., rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and 

attempts to commit these offenses) or contact (i.e., aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, wrongful 

sexual contact, and attempts to commit these offenses). The sexual assault offenses in the database span three 

versions of Article 120, UCMJ, and other statutes:

Pre–Oct. 2007 Article 120(1) – Rape

Pre–Oct. 2007 Article 134 – Assault - Indecent

Oct. 1, 2007–June 27, 2012 Article 120(a) – Rape

Article 120(c) – Aggravated Sexual Assault

Article 120(e) – Aggravated Sexual Contact

Article 120(h) – Abusive Sexual Contact

Article 120(m) – Wrongful Sexual Contact

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

Article 120(b) – Sexual Assault

Article 120(c) – Aggravated Sexual Contact

Article 120(d) – Wrongful Sexual Contact

Article 125(1) Forcible Sodomy

Article 80 Attempts to commit the above offenses

The following tables provide a general overview of data contained in the DAC-IPAD database for fiscal years 

2012–16 and are the source material for the data charts and discussion in chapter 2 of this report. It should be 

noted that the DAC-IPAD relies on the Services to report all cases meeting the specified criteria. The DAC-IPAD 

therefore cannot assert that it has the complete universe of cases throughout the Armed Forces in which a sexual 

assault charge was filed. The data were also limited to cases in which a complete set of disposition records could 

be identified and retrieved for analysis. In interpreting the data, readers should keep in mind that

• Percentages may not total 100, owing to rounding errors or missing data.

• Cadets/Midshipmen and warrant officers are included with “officers” in tables.
E-3

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 1A.

CASE CHARACTERISTICS (FY 2012)

N %

FY 2012 Total Cases 301

Military Service of the Accused

Army 142 47.2%

Marine Corps 23 7.6%

Navy 77 25.6%

Air Force 56 18.6%

Coast Guard 3 1.0%

Rank of Accused

Enlisted 278 92.4%

Officer 23 7.6%

Pay Grade of Accused

Enlisted 278

E-1 23 8.3%

E-2 20 7.2%

E-3 64 23.0%

E-4 75 27.0%

E-5 54 19.4%

E-6 27 9.7%

E-7 9 3.2%

E-8 4 1.4%

E-9 2 0.7%

Officer 23

Cadet/Midshipman 4 17.4%

W-1 0 0.0%

W-2 2 8.7%

W-3 0 0.0%

W-4 0 0.0%

W-5 0 0.0%

O-1 2 8.7%

O-2 2 8.7%

O-3 8 34.8%

O-4 4 17.4%

O-5 1 4.3%

O-6 0 0.0%

O-7 0 0.0%

O-8 0 0.0%

O-9 0 0.0%

O-10 0 0.0%
E-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Sex of Accused

Male 298 99.0%

Female 3 1.0%

Location of Unit to Which Accused Assigned When Charges Preferred

CONUS 207 68.8%

OCONUS 64 21.3%

Vessel 30 10.0%

Sex of Victim(s)

All Female 279 92.7%

All Male 22 7.3%

Female and Male 0 0.0%

Status of Victim(s)

All Military 216 71.8%

All Civilian 76 25.2%

Military and Civilian 9 3.0%

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense

Yes 221 73.4%

No 80 26.6%

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense

Yes 59 26.7%

No 162 73.3%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense

Yes 80 26.6%

No 221 73.4%

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense

Yes 28 35.0%

No 52 65.0%

TABLE 1B.

CASE CHARACTERISTICS (FY 2013)

N %

FY 2013 Total Cases 587

Military Service of the Accused

Army 287 48.9%

Marine Corps 34 5.8%

Navy 88 15.0%

Air Force 165 28.1%

Coast Guard 13 2.2%

Rank of Accused

Enlisted 548 93.4%

Officer 39 6.6%
E-5

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

Pay Grade of Accused

Enlisted 548

E-1 35 6.4%

E-2 29 5.3%

E-3 121 22.1%

E-4 154 28.1%

E-5 112 20.4%

E-6 61 11.1%

E-7 30 5.5%

E-8 6 1.1%

E-9 0 0.0%

Officer 39

Cadet/Midshipman 6 15.4%

W-1 0 0.0%

W-2 2 5.1%

W-3 1 2.6%

W-4 0 0.0%

W-5 0 0.0%

O-1 3 7.7%

O-2 8 20.5%

O-3 11 28.2%

O-4 5 12.8%

O-5 3 7.7%

O-6 0 0.0%

O-7 0 0.0%

O-8 0 0.0%

O-9 0 0.0%

O-10 0 0.0%

Sex of Accused

Male 585 99.7%

Female 2 0.3%

Location of Unit to Which Accused Assigned When Charges Preferred

CONUS 406 69.2%

OCONUS 140 23.9%

Vessel 41 7.0%

Sex of Victim(s)

All Female 543 92.5%

All Male 40 6.8%

Female and Male 4 0.7%

Status of Victim(s)

All Military 422 71.9%

All Civilian 147 25.0%

Military and Civilian 18 3.1%
E-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense

Yes 443 75.5%

No 144 24.5%

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense

Yes 126 28.4%

No 317 71.6%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense

Yes 144 24.5%

No 443 75.5%

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense

Yes 41 28.5%

No 103 71.5%

TABLE 1C.

CASE CHARACTERISTICS (FY 2014)

N %

FY 2014 Total Cases 738

Military Service of the Accused

Army 326 44.2%

Marine Corps 132 17.9%

Navy 139 18.8%

Air Force 103 14.0%

Coast Guard 38 5.1%

Rank of Accused

Enlisted 691 93.6%

Officer 47 6.4%

Pay Grade of Accused

Enlisted 691

E-1 28 4.1%

E-2 44 6.4%

E-3 164 23.7%

E-4 196 28.4%

E-5 147 21.3%

E-6 70 10.1%

E-7 35 5.1%

E-8 6 0.9%

E-9 1 0.1%
E-7

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

Officer 47

Cadet/Midshipman 5 10.6%

W-1 0 0.0%

W-2 3 6.4%

W-3 1 2.1%

W-4 0 0.0%

W-5 0 0.0%

O-1 4 8.5%

O-2 13 27.7%

O-3 13 27.7%

O-4 4 8.5%

O-5 4 8.5%

O-6 0 0.0%

O-7 0 0.0%

O-8 0 0.0%

O-9 0 0.0%

O-10 0 0.0%

Sex of Accused

Male 732 99.2%

Female 6 0.8%

Location of Unit to Which Accused Assigned When Charges Preferred

CONUS 503 68.2%

OCONUS 180 24.4%

Vessel 55 7.5%

Sex of Victim(s)

All Female 665 90.1%

All Male 67 9.1%

Female and Male 6 0.8%

Status of Victim(s)

All Military 540 73.2%

All Civilian 180 24.4%

Military and Civilian 18 2.4%

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense

Yes 506 68.6%

No 232 31.4%

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense

Yes 106 20.9%

No 400 79.1%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense

Yes 232 31.4%

No 506 68.6%

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense

Yes 56 24.1%

No 176 75.9%
E-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 1D.

CASE CHARACTERISTICS (FY 2015)

N %

FY 2015 Total Cases 781

Military Service of the Accused

Army 346 44.3%

Marine Corps 104 13.3%

Navy 125 16.0%

Air Force 173 22.2%

Coast Guard 33 4.2%

Rank of Accused

Enlisted 721 92.3%

Officer 60 7.7%

Pay Grade of Accused

Enlisted 721

E-1 31 4.3%

E-2 42 5.8%

E-3 158 21.9%

E-4 184 25.5%

E-5 156 21.6%

E-6 89 12.3%

E-7 47 6.5%

E-8 8 1.1%

E-9 6 0.8%

Officer 60

Cadet/Midshipman 3 5.0%

W-1 1 1.7%

W-2 1 1.7%

W-3 2 3.3%

W-4 0 0.0%

W-5 1 1.7%

O-1 3 5.0%

O-2 12 20.0%

O-3 20 33.3%

O-4 12 20.0%

O-5 3 5.0%

O-6 2 3.3%

O-7 0 0.0%

O-8 0 0.0%

O-9 0 0.0%
E-9

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

O-10 0 0.0%

Sex of Accused

Male 775 99.2%

Female 6 0.8%

Location of Unit to Which Accused Assigned When Charges Preferred

CONUS 532 68.1%

OCONUS 199 25.5%

Vessel 50 6.4%

Sex of Victim(s)

All Female 709 90.8%

All Male 68 8.7%

Female and Male 4 0.5%

Status of Victim(s)

All Military 523 67.0%

All Civilian 228 29.2%

Military and Civilian 30 3.8%

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense

Yes 556 71.2%

No 225 28.8%

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense

Yes 146 26.3%

No 410 73.7%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense

Yes 225 28.8%

No 556 71.2%

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense

Yes 45 20.0%

No 180 80.0%

TABLE 1E.

CASE CHARACTERISTICS (FY 2016)

N %

FY 2016 Total Cases 738

Military Service of the Accused

Army 260 35.2%

Marine Corps 117 15.9%

Navy 123 16.7%

Air Force 216 29.3%

Coast Guard 22 3.0%
E-10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Rank of Accused

Enlisted 696 94.3%

Officer 42 5.7%

Pay Grade of Accused

Enlisted 696

E-1 21 3.0%

E-2 47 6.8%

E-3 145 20.8%

E-4 193 27.7%

E-5 136 19.5%

E-6 86 12.4%

E-7 46 6.6%

E-8 16 2.3%

E-9 6 0.9%

Officer 42

Cadet/Midshipman 5 11.9%

W-1 1 2.4%

W-2 5 11.9%

W-3 0 0.0%

W-4 0 0.0%

W-5 0 0.0%

O-1 1 2.4%

O-2 2 4.8%

O-3 15 35.7%

O-4 6 14.3%

O-5 4 9.5%

O-6 3 7.1%

O-7 0 0.0%

O-8 0 0.0%

O-9 0 0.0%

O-10 0 0.0%

Sex of Accused

Male 734 99.5%

Female 4 0.5%

Location of Unit to Which Accused Assigned When Charges Preferred

CONUS 524 71.0%

OCONUS 162 22.0%

Vessel 52 7.0%

Sex of Victim(s)

All Female 693 93.9%

All Male 42 5.7%
E-11

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

Female and Male 3 0.4%

Status of Victim(s)

All Military 450 61.0%

All Civilian 257 34.8%

Military and Civilian 31 4.2%

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense

Yes 559 75.7%

No 179 24.3%

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense

Yes 101 18.1%

No 458 81.9%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense

Yes 179 24.3%

No 559 75.7%

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense

Yes 23 12.8%

No 156 87.2%

TABLE 2A.

CASE DISPOSITIONS AND CASE OUTCOMES (FY 2012)

N %

FY 2012 Total Cases 301

Type of Court-Martial

General Court-Martial 185 83.3%

Special Court-Martial 20 9.0%

Summary Court-Martial 17 7.7%

Not Applicable 79

Type of Trial Forum

Military Judge 68 34.0%

Panel of Military Members 115 57.5%

Summary Court-Martial Officer 17 8.5%

Not Applicable/Unknown 101

Article 32 Hearing Held

Waived 14 4.7%

Yes 216 71.8%

No/Not Applicable 71 23.6%

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 221

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 59 26.7%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 22 10.0%
E-12

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 42 19.0%

Alternative Disposition 17 7.7%

Acquitted of All Charges 47 21.3%

All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 34 15.4%

(After Article 32 Hearing) 24 70.6%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 80

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 28 35.0%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 15 18.8%

Alternative Disposition 18 22.5%

Acquitted of All Charges 9 11.3%

All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 10 12.5%

(After Article 32 Hearing) 5 50.0%

Outcomes for Cases Referred to Trial

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 170

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 59 34.7%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 22 12.9%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 42 24.7%

Acquitted of All Charges 47 27.6%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 52

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 28 53.8%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 15 28.8%

Acquitted of All Charges 9 17.3%

Outcomes for Contested Trials

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 161

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 52 32.3%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 22 13.7%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 40 24.8%

Acquitted of All Charges 47 29.2%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 42

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 20 47.6%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 13 31.0%

Acquitted of All Charges 9 21.4%
E-13

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 2B.

CASE DISPOSITIONS AND CASE OUTCOMES (FY 2013)

N %

FY 2013 Total Cases 587

Type of Court-Martial

General Court-Martial 343 79.8%

Special Court-Martial 55 12.8%

Summary Court-Martial 32 7.4%

Not Applicable 157

Type of Trial Forum

Military Judge 145 37.2%

Panel of Military Members 213 54.6%

Summary Court-Martial Officer 32 8.2%

Not Applicable/Unknown 197

Article 32 Hearing Held

Waived 38 6.5%

Yes 422 71.9%

No/Not Applicable 127 21.6%

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 443

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 126 28.4%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 24 5.4%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 82 18.5%

Alternative Disposition 44 9.9%

Acquitted of All Charges 88 19.9%

All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 79 17.8%

(After Article 32 Hearing) 67 84.8%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 144

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 41 28.5%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 47 32.6%

Alternative Disposition 21 14.6%

Acquitted of All Charges 22 15.3%

All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 13 9.0%

(After Article 32 Hearing) 6 46.2%

Outcomes for Cases Referred to Trial

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 320

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 126 39.4%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 24 7.5%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 82 25.6%

Acquitted of All Charges 88 27.5%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 110
E-14

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 41 37.3%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 47 42.7%

Acquitted of All Charges 22 20.0%

Outcomes for Contested Trials

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 307

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 118 38.4%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 23 7.5%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 78 25.4%

Acquitted of All Charges 88 28.7%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 97

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 32 33.0%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 43 44.3%

Acquitted of All Charges 22 22.7%

TABLE 2C.

CASE DISPOSITIONS AND CASE OUTCOMES (FY 2014)

N %

FY 2014 Total Cases 738

Type of Court-Martial

General Court-Martial 387 73.9%

Special Court-Martial 87 16.6%

Summary Court-Martial 50 9.5%

Not Applicable 214

Type of Trial Forum

Military Judge 248 47.9%

Panel of Military Members 220 42.5%

Summary Court-Martial Officer 50 9.7%

Not Applicable/Unknown 220

Article 32 Hearing Held

Waived 29 3.9%

Yes 513 69.5%

No/Not Applicable 196 26.6%

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 506

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 106 20.9%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 29 5.7%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 106 20.9%

Alternative Disposition 68 13.4%

Acquitted of All Charges 105 20.8%

All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 92 18.2%
E-15

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

(After Article 32 Hearing) 75 81.5%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 232

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 56 24.1%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 89 38.4%

Alternative Disposition 32 13.8%

Acquitted of All Charges 33 14.2%

All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 22 9.5%

(After Article 32 Hearing) 7 31.8%

Outcomes for Cases Referred to Trial

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 346

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 106 30.6%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 29 8.4%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 106 30.6%

Acquitted of All Charges 105 30.3%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 178

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 56 31.5%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 89 50.0%

Acquitted of All Charges 33 18.5%

Outcomes for Contested Trials

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 319

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 92 28.8%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 28 8.8%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 94 29.5%

Acquitted of All Charges 105 32.9%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 148

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 44 29.7%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 71 48.0%

Acquitted of All Charges 33 22.3%
E-16

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 2D.

CASE DISPOSITIONS AND CASE OUTCOMES (FY 2015)

N %

FY 2015 Total Cases 781

Type of Court-Martial

General Court-Martial 438 78.6%

Special Court-Martial 77 13.8%

Summary Court-Martial 42 7.5%

Not Applicable 224

Type of Trial Forum

Military Judge 294 53.0%

Panel of Military Members 219 39.5%

Summary Court-Martial Officer 42 7.6%

Not Applicable/Unknown 226

Article 32 Hearing Held

Waived 59 7.6%

Yes 538 68.9%

No/Not Applicable 184 23.6%

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 556

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 146 26.3%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 14 2.5%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 120 21.6%

Alternative Disposition 79 14.2%

Acquitted of All Charges 117 21.0%

All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 80 14.4%

(After Article 32 Hearing) 64 80.0%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 225

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 45 20.0%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 89 39.6%

Alternative Disposition 52 23.1%

Acquitted of All Charges 26 11.6%

All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 13 5.8%

(After Article 32 Hearing) 8 61.5%

Outcomes for Cases Referred to Trial

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 397

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 146 36.8%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 14 3.5%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 120 30.2%

Acquitted of All Charges 117 29.5%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 160
E-17

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 45 28.1%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 89 55.6%

Acquitted of All Charges 26 16.3%

Outcomes for Contested Trials

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 376

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 135 35.9%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 13 3.5%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 111 29.5%

Acquitted of All Charges 117 31.1%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 140

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 36 25.7%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 78 55.7%

Acquitted of All Charges 26 18.6%

TABLE 2E.

CASE DISPOSITIONS AND CASE OUTCOMES (FY 2016)

N %

FY 2016 Total Cases 738

Type of Court-Martial

General Court-Martial 387 81.1%

Special Court-Martial 66 13.8%

Summary Court-Martial 24 5.0%

Not Applicable 261

Type of Trial Forum

Military Judge 242 50.7%

Panel of Military Members 211 44.2%

Summary Court-Martial Officer 24 5.0%

Not Applicable/Unknown 261

Article 32 Hearing Held

Waived 127 17.2%

Yes 487 66.0%

No/Not Applicable 124 16.8%

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 559

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 101 18.1%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 22 3.9%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 100 17.9%

Alternative Disposition 95 17.0%

Acquitted of All Charges 144 25.8%

All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 97 17.4%
E-18

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

(After Article 32 Hearing) 72 74.2%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 179

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 23 12.8%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 70 39.1%

Alternative Disposition 47 26.3%

Acquitted of All Charges 17 9.5%

All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action 22 12.3%

(After Article 32 Hearing) 8 36.4%

Outcomes for Cases Referred to Trial

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 367

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 101 27.5%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 22 6.0%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 100 27.2%

Acquitted of All Charges 144 39.2%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 110

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 23 20.9%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 70 63.6%

Acquitted of All Charges 17 15.5%

Outcomes for Contested Trials

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 351

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 98 27.9%

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 21 6.0%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 88 25.1%

Acquitted of All Charges 144 41.0%

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 89

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 19 21.3%

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 53 59.6%

Acquitted of All Charges 17 19.1%

TABLE 3A.

CASE DISPOSITIONS: INDIVIDUALS REFERRED TO TRIAL AND CONVICTED (FY 2012)

N %

Charged with Penetrative Offense and Convicted of 

At Least One Count

59

Guilty Plea 7 11.9%

Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial 38 64.4%

Pled to Some Counts, Found Guilty at Trial on Others 14 23.7%

Charged with Contact Offense and Convicted of At 

Least One Count

28

Guilty Plea 8 28.6%

Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial 15 53.6%

Pled to Some Counts, Found Guilty at Trial on Others 5 17.9%
E-19

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 3B.

CASE DISPOSITIONS: INDIVIDUALS REFERRED TO TRIAL AND CONVICTED (FY 2013)

N %

Charged with Penetrative Offense and Convicted of 

At Least One Count

126

Guilty Plea 10 7.9%

Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial 90 71.4%

Pled to Some Counts, Found Guilty at Trial on Others 26 20.6%

Charged with Contact Offense and Convicted of At 

Least One Count

41

Guilty Plea 9 22.0%

Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial 21 51.2%

Pled to Some Counts, Found Guilty at Trial on Others 11 26.8%

TABLE 3C.

CASE DISPOSITIONS: INDIVIDUALS REFERRED TO TRIAL AND CONVICTED (FY 2014)

N %

Charged with Penetrative Offense and Convicted of 

At Least One Count

106

Guilty Plea 14 13.2%

Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial 67 63.2%

Pled to Some Counts, Found Guilty at Trial on Others 25 23.6%

Charged with Contact Offense and Convicted of At 

Least One Count

56

Guilty Plea 12 21.4%

Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial 23 41.1%

Pled to Some Counts, Found Guilty at Trial on Others 21 37.5%

TABLE 3D.

CASE DISPOSITIONS: INDIVIDUALS REFERRED TO TRIAL AND CONVICTED (FY 2015)

N %

Charged with Penetrative Offense and Convicted of 

At Least One Count 

146

Guilty Plea 11 7.5%

Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial 87 59.6%

Pled to Some Counts, Found Guilty at Trial on Others 48 32.9%

Charged with Contact Offense and Convicted of At 

Least One Count

45

Guilty Plea 9 20.0%

Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial 24 53.3%

Pled to Some Counts, Found Guilty at Trial on Others 12 26.7%
E-20

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 3E.

CASE DISPOSITIONS: INDIVIDUALS REFERRED TO TRIAL AND CONVICTED (FY 2016)

N %

Charged with Penetrative Offense and Convicted of 

At Least One Count 

101

Guilty Plea 3 3.0%

Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial 69 68.3%

Pled to Some Counts, Found Guilty at Trial on Others 29 28.7%

Charged with Contact Offense and Convicted of At 

Least One Count

23

Guilty Plea 4 17.4%

Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial 13 56.5%

Pled to Some Counts, Found Guilty at Trial on Others 6 26.1%

TABLE 4A.

TYPE OF TRIAL BY OFFENSE TYPE, SERVICE AND RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2012)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

N % N % N %

Most Serious Type of Offense Charged

Accused Charged with Penetrative 

Offense

161 94.7% 4 2.4% 5 2.9%

Accused Charged with Contact 

Offense

24 46.2% 16 30.8% 12 23.1%

Military Service

Army 89 84.8% 6 5.7% 10 9.5%

Marine Corps 14 73.7% 3 15.8% 2 10.5%

Navy 39 84.8% 6 13.0% 1 2.2%

Air Force 42 85.7% 5 10.2% 2 4.1%

Coast Guard 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 2 66.7%

Rank of Accused

Officer 16 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Enlisted 169 82.0% 20 9.7% 17 8.3%

TABLE 4B.

TYPE OF TRIAL BY OFFENSE TYPE, SERVICE AND RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2013)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

N % N % N %

Most Serious Type of Offense Charged

Accused Charged with Penetrative 

Offense

300 93.8% 16 5.0% 4 1.3%

Accused Charged with Contact 

Offense

43 39.1% 39 35.5% 28 25.5%
E-21

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

Military Service

Army 183 84.7% 13 6.0% 20 9.3%

Marine Corps 18 64.3% 6 21.4% 4 14.3%

Navy 40 67.8% 15 25.4% 4 6.8%

Air Force 100 82.6% 17 14.0% 4 3.3%

Coast Guard 2 33.3% 4 66.7% 0 0.0%

Rank of Accused

Officer 31 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Enlisted 312 78.2% 55 13.8% 32 8.0%

TABLE 4C.

TYPE OF TRIAL BY OFFENSE TYPE, SERVICE AND RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2014)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

N % N % N %

Most Serious Type of Offense Charged

Accused Charged with Penetrative 

Offense

315 91.0% 23 6.6% 8 2.3%

Accused Charged with Contact 

Offense

72 40.4% 64 36.0% 42 23.6%

Military Service

Army 189 79.7% 21 8.9% 27 11.4%

Marine Corps 54 60.7% 18 20.2% 17 19.1%

Navy 73 69.5% 31 29.5% 1 1.0%

Air Force 53 86.9% 7 11.5% 1 1.6%

Coast Guard 18 56.3% 10 31.3% 4 12.5%

Rank of Accused

Officer 33 97.1% 1 2.9% 0 0.0%

Enlisted 354 72.2% 86 17.6% 50 10.2%

TABLE 4D.

TYPE OF TRIAL BY OFFENSE TYPE, SERVICE AND RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2015)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

N % N % N %

Most Serious Type of Offense Charged

Accused Charged with Penetrative 

Offense

375 94.5% 13 3.3% 9 2.3%

Accused Charged with Contact 

Offense

63 39.4% 64 40.0% 33 20.6%

Military Service

Army 219 88.3% 17 6.9% 12 4.8%
E-22

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Marine Corps 50 66.7% 13 17.3% 12 16.0%

Navy 58 62.4% 27 29.0% 8 8.6%

Air Force 100 87.0% 13 11.3% 2 1.7%

Coast Guard 11 42.3% 7 26.9% 8 30.8%

Rank of Accused

Officer 46 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Enlisted 392 76.7% 77 15.1% 42 8.2%

TABLE 4E.

TYPE OF TRIAL BY OFFENSE TYPE, SERVICE AND RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2016)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

N % N % N %

Most Serious Type of Offense Charged

Accused Charged with Penetrative 

Offense

341 92.9% 16 4.4% 10 2.7%

Accused Charged with Contact 

Offense

46 41.8% 50 45.5% 14 12.7%

Military Service

Army 177 93.2% 11 5.8% 2 1.1%

Marine Corps 49 60.5% 23 28.4% 9 11.1%

Navy 51 62.2% 23 28.0% 8 9.8%

Air Force 99 93.4% 6 5.7% 1 0.9%

Coast Guard 11 61.1% 3 16.7% 4 22.2%

Rank of Accused

Officer 30 96.8% 1 3.2% 0 0.0%

Enlisted 357 80.0% 65 14.6% 24 5.4%

TABLE 5A.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY MILITARY SERVICE OF ACCUSED (FY 2012)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of All 

Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 221)

Army

N = 104 31 29.8% 6 5.8% 22 21.2% 22 21.2% 11 10.6% 12 11.5%

Marine Corps

N = 16 3 18.8% 5 31.3% 3 18.8% 4 25.0% 0 0.0% 1 6.3%

Navy

N = 55 11 20.0% 8 14.5% 6 10.9% 10 18.2% 6 10.9% 14 25.5%
E-23

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

Air Force

N = 44 14 31.8% 3 6.8% 10 22.7% 10 22.7% 0 0.0% 7 15.9%

Coast Guard

N = 2 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 80)

Army

N = 38 10 26.3% 11 28.9% 3 7.9% 13 34.2% 1 2.6%

Marine Corps

N = 7 2 28.6% 2 28.6% 0 0.0% 1 14.3% 2 28.6%

Navy

N = 22 5 22.7% 1 4.5% 5 22.7% 4 18.2% 7 31.8%

Air Force

N = 12 10 83.3% 1 8.3% 1 8.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Coast Guard

N = 1 1 100.0% - - - - - - - -

TABLE 5B.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY MILITARY SERVICE OF ACCUSED (FY 2013)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 443)

Army

N = 224 69 30.8% 9 4.0% 50 22.3% 43 19.2% 31 13.8% 22 9.8%

Marine Corps

N = 25 7 28.0% 3 12.0% 8 32.0% 2 8.0% 0 0.0% 5 20.0%

Navy

N = 60 17 28.3% 2 3.3% 11 18.3% 10 16.7% 1 1.7% 19 31.7%

Air Force

N = 125 32 25.6% 9 7.2% 12 9.6% 33 26.4% 12 9.6% 27 21.6%

Coast Guard

N = 9 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 2 22.2% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 66.7%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 144)

Army

N = 63 20 31.7% 18 28.6% 7 11.1% 14 22.2% 4 6.3%

Marine Corps

N = 9 0 0.0% 8 88.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 11.1%

Navy

N = 28 11 39.3% 7 25.0% 1 3.6% 4 14.3% 5 17.9%

Air Force

N = 40 10 25.0% 11 27.5% 14 35.0% 3 7.5% 2 5.0%

Coast Guard

N = 4 0 0.0% 3 75.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0%
E-24

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 5C.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY MILITARY SERVICE OF ACCUSED (FY 2014)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 506)

Army

N = 220 55 25.0% 13 5.9% 49 22.3% 39 17.7% 43 19.5% 21 9.5%

Marine Corps

N = 91 10 11.0% 2 2.2% 28 30.8% 19 20.9% 9 9.9% 23 25.3%

Navy

N = 86 17 19.8% 6 7.0% 15 17.4% 26 30.2% 2 2.3% 20 23.3%

Air Force

N = 86 18 20.9% 6 7.0% 5 5.8% 19 22.1% 13 15.1% 25 29.1%

Coast Guard

N = 23 6 26.1% 2 8.7% 9 39.1% 2 8.7% 1 4.3% 3 13.0%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 232)

Army

N = 106 34 32.1% 36 34.0% 11 10.4% 19 17.9% 6 5.7%

Marine Corps

N = 41 7 17.1% 16 39.0% 7 17.1% 4 9.8% 7 17.1%

Navy

N = 53 10 18.9% 22 41.5% 9 17.0% 7 13.2% 5 9.4%

Air Force

N = 17 1 5.9% 6 35.3% 6 35.3% 2 11.8% 2 11.8%

Coast Guard

N = 15 4 26.7% 9 60.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 13.3%

TABLE 5D.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY MILITARY SERVICE OF ACCUSED (FY 2015)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 556)

Army

N = 261 87 33.3% 4 1.5% 58 22.2% 45 17.2% 48 18.4% 19 7.3%

Marine Corps

N = 71 11 15.5% 5 7.0% 20 28.2% 15 21.1% 4 5.6% 16 22.5%

Navy

N = 70 18 25.7% 2 2.9% 14 20.0% 17 24.3% 3 4.3% 16 22.9%
E-25

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

Air Force

N = 135 26 19.3% 3 2.2% 18 13.3% 39 28.9% 22 16.3% 27 20.0%

Coast Guard

N = 19 4 21.1% 0 0.0% 10 52.6% 1 5.3% 2 10.5% 2 10.5%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 225)

Army

N = 85 22 25.9% 24 28.2% 8 9.4% 27 31.8% 4 4.7%

Marine Corps

N = 33 2 6.1% 22 66.7% 0 0.0% 5 15.2% 4 12.1%

Navy

N = 55 11 20.0% 21 38.2% 10 18.2% 9 16.4% 4 7.3%

Air Force

N = 38 9 23.7% 12 31.6% 8 21.1% 8 21.1% 1 2.6%

Coast Guard

N = 14 1 7.1% 10 71.4% 0 0.0% 3 21.4% 0 0.0%

TABLE 5E.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY MILITARY SERVICE OF ACCUSED (FY 2016)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 559)

Army

N = 210 54 25.7% 13 6.2% 40 19.0% 53 25.2% 25 11.9% 25 11.9%

Marine Corps

N = 80 12 15.0% 4 5.0% 22 27.5% 14 17.5% 14 17.5% 14 17.5%

Navy

N = 77 15 19.5% 2 2.6% 18 23.4% 18 23.4% 12 15.6% 12 15.6%

Air Force

N = 178 17 9.6% 3 1.7% 13 7.3% 57 32.0% 43 24.2% 45 25.3%

Coast Guard

N = 14 3 21.4% 0 0.0% 7 50.0% 2 14.3% 1 7.1% 1 7.1%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 179)

Army

N = 50 8 16.0% 16 32.0% 6 12.0% 14 28.0% 6 12.0%

Marine Corps

N = 37 3 8.1% 24 64.9% 2 5.4% 4 10.8% 4 10.8%

Navy

N = 46 7 15.2% 17 37.0% 5 10.9% 9 19.6% 8 17.4%

Air Force

N = 38 3 7.9% 9 23.7% 4 10.5% 18 47.4% 4 10.5%

Coast Guard

N = 8 2 25.0% 4 50.0% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 0 0.0%
E-26

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 6A

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2012)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 219)

Officer

N = 12 4 33.3% 2 16.7% 3 25.0% 0 0.0% 2 16.7% 1 8.3%

Enlisted

N = 207 55 26.6% 20 9.7% 38 18.4% 46 22.2% 15 7.2% 33 15.9%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 79)

Officer 

N = 11 3 27.3% 3 27.3% 1 9.1% 3 27.3% 1 9.1%

Enlisted

N = 68 24 35.3% 12 17.6% 8 11.8% 15 22.1% 9 13.2%

TABLE 6B.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2013)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 443)

Officer 

N = 28 7 25.0% 1 3.6% 7 25.0% 9 32.1% 2 7.1% 2 7.1%

Enlisted

N = 415 119 28.7% 23 5.5% 75 18.1% 79 19.0% 42 10.1% 77 18.6%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 144)

Officer 

N = 11 3 27.3% 4 36.4% 0 0.0% 3 27.3% 1 9.1%

Enlisted

N = 133 38 28.6% 43 32.3% 22 16.5% 18 13.5% 12 9.0%
E-27

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 6C.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2014)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 506)

Officer 

N = 27 1 3.7% 3 11.1% 3 11.1% 11 40.7% 1 3.7% 8 29.6%

Enlisted

N = 479 105 21.9% 26 5.4% 103 21.5% 94 19.6% 67 14.0% 84 17.5%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 232)

Officer 

N = 20 4 20.0% 6 30.0% 6 30.0% 3 15.0% 1 5.0%

Enlisted

N = 212 52 24.5% 83 39.2% 27 12.7% 29 13.7% 21 9.9%

TABLE 6D.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2015)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 555)

Officer 

N = 41 12 29.3% 2 4.9% 13 31.7% 6 14.6% 1 2.4% 7 17.1%

Enlisted

N = 514 133 25.9% 12 2.3% 107 20.8% 111 21.6% 78 15.2% 73 14.2%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 224)

Officer 

N = 18 6 33.3% 5 27.8% 1 5.6% 4 22.2% 2 11.1%

Enlisted

N = 206 39 18.9% 83 40.3% 25 12.1% 48 23.3% 11 5.3%
E-28

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 6E.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2016)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 559)

Officer 

N = 33 5 15.2% 0 0.0% 11 33.3% 11 33.3% 2 6.1% 4 12.1%

Enlisted

N = 526 96 18.3% 22 4.2% 89 16.9% 133 25.3% 93 17.7% 93 17.7%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 179)

Officer 

N = 9 1 11.1% 2 22.2% 1 11.1% 3 33.3% 2 22.2%

Enlisted

N = 170 22 12.9% 68 40.0% 16 9.4% 44 25.9% 20 11.8%
E-29

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 7A.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY GENDER AND STATUS OF VICTIM (FY 2012)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 221)

Victim Gender

All 

Females

N = 213

57 26.8% 21 9.9% 41 19.2% 46 21.6% 16 7.5% 32 15.0%

All Males

N = 8 2 25.0% 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 2 25.0%

Females & 

Males

N = 0

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Victim Status

All Military

N = 151 38 25.2% 13 8.6% 29 19.2% 31 20.5% 14 9.3% 26 17.2%

All Civilian

N = 62 18 29.0% 7 11.3% 12 19.4% 15 24.2% 3 4.8% 7 11.3%

Military & 

Civilian

N = 8

3 37.5% 2 25.0% 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% 1 12.5%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 80)

Victim Gender

All 

Females

N = 66

21 31.8% 14 21.2% 7 10.6% 14 21.2% 10 15.2%

All Males

N = 14 7 50.0% 1 7.1% 2 14.3% 4 28.6% 0 0.0%

Females & 

Males

N = 0

- - - - - - - - - -

Victim Status

All Military

N = 65 23 35.4% 13 20.0% 5 7.7% 14 21.5% 10 15.4%

All Civilian

N = 14 4 28.6% 2 14.3% 4 28.6% 4 28.6% 0 0.0%

Military & 

Civilian

N = 1

1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
E-30

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 7B.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY GENDER AND STATUS OF ACCUSED (FY 2013)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 443)

Victim Gender

All 

Females

N = 427

123 28.8% 22 5.2% 79 18.5% 84 19.7% 42 9.8% 77 18.0%

All Males

N = 14 3 21.4% 2 14.3% 1 7.1% 4 28.6% 2 14.3% 2 14.3%

Females & 

Males

N = 2

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 100% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Victim Status

All Military

N = 302 79 26.2% 18 6.0% 55 18.2% 61 20.2% 35 11.6% 54 17.9%

All Civilian

N = 124 37 29.8% 4 3.2% 24 19.4% 25 20.2% 9 7.3% 25 20.2%

Military & 

Civilian

N = 17

10 58.8% 2 11.8% 3 17.6% 2 11.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 144)

Victim Gender

All 

Females

N = 116

30 25.9% 39 33.6% 20 17.2% 17 14.7% 10 8.6%

All Males

N = 26 10 38.5% 8 30.8% 2 7.7% 4 15.4% 2 7.7%

Females & 

Males

N = 2

1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 50%

Victim Status

All Military

N = 120 35 29.2% 38 31.7% 16 13.3% 19 15.8% 12 10.0%

All Civilian

N = 23 6 26.1% 8 34.8% 6 26.1% 2 8.7% 1 4.3%

Military & 

Civilian

N = 1

0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
E-31

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 7C.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY GENDER AND STATUS OF ACCUSED (FY 2014)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N =506)

Victim Gender

All 

Females

N = 478

99 20.7% 25 5.2% 102 21.3% 99 20.7% 65 13.6% 88 18.4%

All Males

N = 25 6 24.0% 4 16.0% 3 12.0% 5 20.0% 3 12.0% 4 16.0%

Females & 

Males

N = 3

1 33.3% 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Victim Status

All Military

N = 344 66 19.2% 19 5.5% 68 19.8% 82 23.8% 45 13.1% 64 18.6%

All Civilian

N = 146 34 23.3% 7 4.8% 34 23.3% 23 15.8% 22 15.1% 26 17.8%

Military & 

Civilian

N = 16

6 37.5% 3 18.8% 4 25.0% 0 0.0% 1 6.3% 2 12.5%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 232)

Victim Gender

All 

Females

N = 187

39 20.9% 69 36.9% 32 17.1% 26 13.9% 21 11.2%

All Males

N = 42 16 38.1% 19 45.2% 1 2.4% 5 11.9% 1 2.4%

Females & 

Males

N = 3

1 33.3% 1 33.3% 0 0% 1 33.3% 0 0%

Victim Status

All Military

N = 196 45 23.0% 77 39.3% 30 15.3% 26 13.3% 18 9.2%

All Civilian

N = 34 9 26.5% 12 35.3% 3 8.8% 6 17.6% 4 11.8%

Military & 

Civilian

N = 2

2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
E-32

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 7D.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY GENDER AND STATUS OF ACCUSED (FY 2015)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 556)

Victim Gender

All 

Females

N = 518

132 25.5% 12 2.3% 113 21.8% 109 21.0% 74 14.3% 78 15.1%

All Males

N = 36 14 38.9% 2 5.6% 5 13.9% 8 22.2% 5 13.9% 2 5.6%

Females & 

Males

N = 2

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Victim Status

All Military

N = 346 78 22.5% 6 1.7% 72 20.8% 81 23.4% 55 15.9% 54 15.6%

All Civilian

N = 188 57 30.3% 7 3.7% 42 22.3% 34 18.1% 22 11.7% 26 13.8%

Military & 

Civilian

N = 22

11 50.0% 1 4.5% 6 27.3% 2 9.1% 2 9.1% 0 0.0%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 225)

Victim Gender

All 

Females

N = 191

38 19.9% 73 38.2% 22 11.5% 46 24.1% 12 6.3%

All Males

N = 32 7 21.9% 15 46.9% 3 9.4% 6 18.8% 1 3.1%

Females & 

Males

N = 2

0 0% 1 50% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0%

Victim Status

All Military

N = 177 33 18.6% 70 39.5% 24 13.6% 44 24.9% 6 3.4%

All Civilian

N = 40 9 22.5% 14 35.0% 2 5.0% 8 20.0% 7 17.5%

Military & 

Civilian

N = 8

3 38% 5 63% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
E-33

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 7E.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY GENDER AND STATUS OF ACCUSED (FY 2016)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 559)

Victim Gender

All 

Females

N = 540

95 17.6% 17 3.1% 98 18.1% 141 26.1% 94 17.4% 95 17.6%

All Males

N = 19 6 31.6% 5 26.3% 2 10.5% 3 15.8% 1 5.3% 2 10.5%

Females & 

Males

N = 0

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Victim Status

All Military

N = 314 54 17.2% 15 4.8% 46 14.6% 84 26.8% 61 19.4% 54 17.2%

All Civilian

N = 220 42 19.1% 5 2.3% 49 22.3% 52 23.6% 31 14.1% 41 18.6%

Military & 

Civilian

N = 25

5 20.0% 2 8.0% 5 20.0% 8 32.0% 3 12.0% 2 8.0%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 179)

Victim Gender

All 

Females 

N = 153

19 12.4% 65 42.5% 12 7.8% 37 24.2% 20 13.1%

All Males

N = 23 3 13.0% 5 21.7% 5 21.7% 8 34.8% 2 8.7%

Females & 

Males

N = 3

1 33% 0 0% 0 0% 2 67% 0 0%

Victim Status

All Military

N = 136 18 13.2% 53 39.0% 13 9.6% 34 25.0% 18 13.2%

All Civilian

N = 37 4 10.8% 15 40.5% 4 10.8% 10 27.0% 4 10.8%

Military & 

Civilian

N = 6

1 17% 2 33% 0 0% 3 50% 0 0%
E-34

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 8A.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY ACCUSED’S LOCATION (FY 2012)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without 

Further Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 221)

CONUS

N = 150 37 24.7% 16 10.7% 34 22.7% 28 18.7% 15 10.0% 20 13.3%

OCONUS

N = 51 16 31.4% 5 9.8% 6 11.8% 13 25.5% 0 0.0% 11 21.6%

Vessel

N = 20 6 30.0% 1 5.0% 2 10.0% 6 30.0% 2 10.0% 3 15.0%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 80)

CONUS

N = 57 22 38.6% 11 19.3% 6 10.5% 13 22.8% 5 8.8%

OCONUS

N = 13 5 38.5% 3 23.1% 0 0.0% 3 23.1% 2 15.4%

Vessel

N = 10 1 10.0% 1 10.0% 3 30.0% 2 20.0% 3 30.0%

TABLE 8B.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY ACCUSED’S LOCATION (FY 2013)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 443)

CONUS

N = 320 89 27.8% 22 6.9% 64 20.0% 68 21.3% 26 8.1% 51 15.9%

OCONUS

N = 97 29 29.9% 2 2.1% 15 15.5% 18 18.6% 18 18.6% 15 15.5%

Vessel

N = 26 7 26.9% 0 0.0% 4 15.4% 2 7.7% 0 0.0% 13 50.0%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 144)

CONUS

N = 86 22 25.6% 33 38.4% 15 17.4% 9 10.5% 7 8.1%

OCONUS

N = 43 13 30.2% 10 23.3% 6 14.0% 10 23.3% 4 9.3%

Vessel

N = 15 6 40.0% 4 26.7% 1 6.7% 2 13.3% 2 13.3%
E-35

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 8C.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY ACCUSED’S LOCATION (FY 2014)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 506)

CONUS

N = 354 76 21.5% 16 4.5% 72 20.3% 73 20.6% 50 14.1% 67 18.9%

OCONUS

N = 118 25 21.2% 10 8.5% 26 22.0% 23 19.5% 16 13.6% 18 15.3%

Vessel

N = 34 5 14.7% 3 8.8% 8 23.5% 9 26.5% 2 5.9% 7 20.6%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N =232)

CONUS

N = 149 36 24.2% 55 36.9% 22 14.8% 21 14.1% 15 10.1%

OCONUS

N = 62 17 27.4% 22 35.5% 8 12.9% 10 16.1% 5 8.1%

Vessel

N = 21 3 14.3% 12 57.1% 3 14.3% 1 4.8% 2 9.5%

TABLE 8D.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY ACCUSED’S LOCATION (FY 2015)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 556)

CONUS

N = 386 101 26.2% 9 2.3% 73 18.9% 92 23.8% 53 13.7% 58 15.0%

OCONUS

N = 142 38 26.8% 5 3.5% 36 25.4% 20 14.1% 26 18.3% 17 12.0%

Vessel

N = 28 7 25.0% 0 0.0% 11 39.3% 5 17.9% 0 0.0% 5 17.9%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 225)

CONUS

N = 146 29 19.9% 55 37.7% 22 15.1% 32 21.9% 8 5.5%

OCONUS

N = 57 12 21.1% 20 35.1% 2 3.5% 18 31.6% 5 8.8%

Vessel

N = 22 4 18.2% 14 63.6% 2 9.1% 2 9.1% 0 0.0%
E-36

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 8E.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY ACCUSED’S LOCATION (FY 2016)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

Without Further 

Action

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 559)

CONUS

N = 409 74 18.1% 16 3.9% 68 16.6% 106 25.9% 69 16.9% 76 18.6%

OCONUS

N = 119 23 19.3% 4 3.4% 24 20.2% 31 26.1% 20 16.8% 17 14.3%

Vessel

N = 31 4 12.9% 2 6.5% 8 25.8% 7 22.6% 6 19.4% 4 12.9%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (N = 179)

CONUS

N = 115 17 14.8% 46 40.0% 10 8.7% 29 25.2% 13 11.3%

OCONUS

N = 43 1 2.3% 15 34.9% 5 11.6% 15 34.9% 7 16.3%

Vessel

N = 21 5 23.8% 9 42.9% 2 9.5% 3 14.3% 2 9.5%

TABLE 9A.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM (FY 2012)

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

Convicted of Sexual 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N =144)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 51

21 41.2% 10 19.6% 16 31.4% 4 7.8%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 93

37 39.8% 10 10.8% 19 20.4% 27 29.0%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N = 39)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 17

6 35.3% 10 58.8% 1 5.9%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 22

12 54.5% 3 13.6% 7 31.8%
E-37

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 9B.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM (FY 2013)

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

Convicted of Sexual 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N = 284)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 115 

47 40.9% 14 12.2% 42 36.5% 12 10.4%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 169

77 45.6% 10 5.9% 32 18.9% 50 29.6%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N = 74)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 30

10 33.3% 20 66.7% 0 0.0%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 44

17 38.6% 13 29.5% 14 31.8%

TABLE 9C.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM (FY 2014)

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

Convicted of Sexual 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N = 334)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 162

57 35.2% 15 9.3% 63 38.9% 27 16.7%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 172

49 28.5% 14 8.1% 35 20.3% 74 43.0%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N = 134)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 86

26 30.2% 53 61.6% 7 8.1%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 48

15 31.3% 10 20.8% 23 47.9%
E-38

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 9D.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM (FY 2015)

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

Convicted of Sexual 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N = 385)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 215

83 38.6% 10 4.7% 72 33.5% 50 23.3%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 170

60 35.3% 4 2.4% 40 23.5% 66 38.8%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N = 127)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 79

20 25.3% 52 65.8% 7 8.9%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 48

15 31.3% 15 31.3% 18 37.5%

TABLE 9E.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM (FY 2016)

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

Convicted of Sexual 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N = 357)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 176

50 28.4% 14 8.0% 68 38.6% 44 25.0%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 181

51 28.2% 6 3.3% 24 13.3% 100 55.2%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N = 96)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 66

11 16.7% 51 77.3% 4 6.1%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 30

9 30.0% 8 26.7% 13 43.3%
E-39

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 10A.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM FOR 

CASES IN WHICH THE ACCUSED PLED NOT GUILTY (FY 2012)

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

Convicted of Sexual 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (N = 136)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 44

16 36.4% 10 22.7% 14 31.8% 4 9.1%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 92

36 39.1% 10 10.9% 19 20.7% 27 29.3%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (N = 33)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 12

3 25.0% 8 66.7% 1 8.3%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 21

11 52.4% 3 14.3% 7 33.3%

TABLE 10B.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM FOR 

CASES IN WHICH THE ACCUSED PLED NOT GUILTY (FY 2013)

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

Convicted of Sexual 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (N = 273)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 104

39 37.5% 13 12.5% 40 38.5% 12 11.5%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 169

77 45.6% 10 5.9% 32 18.9% 50 29.6%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (N = 72)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 28

8 28.6% 20 71.4% 0 0.0%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 44

17 38.6% 13 29.5% 14 31.8%
E-40

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 10C.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM FOR 

CASES IN WHICH THE ACCUSED PLED NOT GUILTY (FY 2014)

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

Convicted of Sexual 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (N = 315)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 143

43 30.1% 14 9.8% 59 41.3% 27 18.9%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 172

49 28.5% 14 8.1% 35 20.3% 74 43.0%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (N = 122)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 74 

22 29.7% 45 60.8% 7 9.5%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 48

15 31.3% 10 20.8% 23 47.9%

TABLE 10D.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM FOR 

CASES IN WHICH THE ACCUSED PLED NOT GUILTY (FY 2015)

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

Convicted of Sexual 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (N = 369)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 198

73 36.9% 9 4.5% 66 33.3% 50 25.3%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 171

61 35.7% 4 2.3% 40 23.4% 66 38.6%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (N = 118)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 70

18 25.7% 45 64.3% 7 10.0%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 48

15 31.3% 15 31.3% 18 37.5%
E-41

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 10E.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM FOR 

CASES IN WHICH THE ACCUSED PLED NOT GUILTY (FY 2016)

Convicted of 

Penetrative Offense

Convicted of Sexual 

Contact Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

N % N % N % N %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (N = 348)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 167

47 28.1% 14 8.4% 62 37.1% 44 26.3%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 181

51 28.2% 6 3.3% 24 13.3% 100 55.2%

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (N = 80)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

N = 50

9 18.0% 37 74.0% 4 8.0%

Case Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

N = 30

9 30.0% 8 26.7% 13 43.3%
E-42

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 11A.

ARTICLE 32 WAIVER (FY 2012)

N %

FY 2012 Total Cases 301

Art. 32 Waived 14 6.1%

Art. 32 Held 216 93.9%

Art. 32 Not Applicable 71

Waived Without Pretrial Agreement 4 28.6%

Waived When Contact Offense Charged 5 35.7%

Waived When Penetrative Offense Charged 9 64.3%

Conviction Rate When Art. 32 Waived 11 78.6%

TABLE 11B.

ARTICLE 32 WAIVER (FY 2013)

N %

FY 2013 Total Cases 587

Art. 32 Waived 38 8.3%

Art. 32 Held 422 91.7%

Art. 32 Not Applicable 127

Waived Without Pretrial Agreement 11 28.9%

Waived When Contact Offense Charged 7 18.4%

Waived When Penetrative Offense Charged 31 81.6%

Conviction Rate When Art. 32 Waived 35 92.1%

TABLE 11C.

ARTICLE 32 WAIVER (FY 2014)

N %

FY 2014 Total Cases 738

Art. 32 Waived 29 5.4%

Art. 32 Held 513 94.6%

Art. 32 Not Applicable 196

Waived Without Pretrial Agreement 7 24.1%

Waived When Contact Offense Charged 10 34.5%

Waived When Penetrative Offense Charged 19 65.5%

Conviction Rate When Art. 32 Waived 26 89.7%
E-43

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

TABLE 11D.

ARTICLE 32 WAIVER (FY 2015)

N %

FY 2015 Total Cases 781

Art. 32 Waived 59 9.9%

Art. 32 Held 538 90.1%

Art. 32 Not Applicable 184

Waived Without Pretrial Agreement 30 50.8%

Waived When Contact Offense Charged 12 20.3%

Waived When Penetrative Offense Charged 47 79.7%

Conviction Rate When Art. 32 Waived 46 78.0%

TABLE 11E.

ARTICLE 32 WAIVER (FY 2016)

N %

FY 2016 Total Cases 738

Art. 32 Waived 127 20.7%

Art. 32 Held 487 79.3%

Art. 32 Not Applicable 124

Waived Without Pretrial Agreement 90 70.9%

Waived When Contact Offense Charged 20 15.7%

Waived When Penetrative Offense Charged 107 84.3%

Conviction Rate When Art. 32 Waived 66 52.0%
E-44

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
F-1

APPENDIX F. MEETINGS AND PRESENTERS 

APPENDIX F. MEETINGS AND PRESENTERS

MEETING PRESENTERS

January 19, 2017

Holiday Inn Arlington 

at Ballston

Arlington, Virginia

• The Honorable Jennifer M. O’Connor, General Counsel, Department of 

Defense

• Mr. Dwight Sullivan, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense

• Captain Warren Record, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Chair, Joint Service Committee on 

Military Justice

• Ms. Maria Fried, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense

April 28, 2017

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Colonel Christopher Kennebeck, U.S. Army, Chair, Criminal Law 

Department, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School 

• Ms. Patricia Sudendorf, Professor and Special Victims’ Litigation Expert, 

Criminal Law Department, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center 

and School

• Major Kristen Fricchione, U.S. Army, Associate Professor and Special Victims’ 

Counsel Course Manager, Criminal Law Department, The Judge Advocate 

General’s Legal Center and School

• Major Iain Pedden, U.S. Marine Corps, Associate Professor, Criminal Law 

Department, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School

• Dr. Cassia Spohn, Professor and Director, School of Criminology and 

Criminal Justice, Arizona State University

• Ms. Meghan Peters, Attorney, DAC-IPAD Staff

• Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Deputy Director, Department of Defense Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Office

July 21, 2017

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Ms. T. L. Williams, Deputy Chief, Policy Branch, U.S. Army Criminal 

Investigation Command

• Mr. Kevin Poorman, Associate Director, Criminal Investigations, 

U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations 

• Mr. Michael J. Defamio, Division Chief for Family and Sexual Violence, 

U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service

• Ms. Beverly A. Vogel, Senior Special Agent, U.S. Coast Guard Criminal 

Investigative Services
F-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

MEETING PRESENTERS

October 19, 2017

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Senior Airman Hannah Stolberg, U.S. Air Force, Retired

• Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Deputy Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense

• Ms. Diana Rangoussis, Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor, 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense

• Mr. Paul Rosen, Director, U.S. Navy Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Branch

• Ms. Gail Reed, Policy and Plans Program Specialist, 

U.S. Marine Corps Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

• Colonel Melanie A. Prince, U.S. Air Force, Division Chief, 

Interpersonal Self-Directed Violence Response Division

• Lieutenant Amanda Styles, U.S. Coast Guard, 

Central Assignment Coordinator, Personnel Service Center, 

Enlisted Personnel Management Division

• Ms. Laura Massey, Policy Branch Chief for the Department of 

Army Sexual Harassment / Assault Response and Prevention Office

• Major Simone Jack, U.S. Army, former Special Victims’ Counsel

• Lieutenant Commander Clair Huffstetler, U.S. Navy, Victims’ Legal Counsel

• Major Jessica Martz, U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy Officer-in-Charge, 

Victims’ Legal Counsel Organization

• Captain Brittany Tedford, U.S. Air Force, Special Victims’ Counsel

• Commander Paul Markland, U.S. Coast Guard, Special Victims’ Counsel 
F-3

APPENDIX F. MEETINGS AND PRESENTERS 

MEETING PRESENTERS

October 20, 2017

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Lieutenant Colonel Erin Miller, U.S. Army, Assistant Chief of Staff, G4, 

Chief of Sustainment, 101st Airborne Division

• Commander Chad Livingston, U.S. Navy, Deputy Director Financial 

Policy and Systems, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Financial 

Management and Comptroller

• Lieutenant Colonel Jennifer Nash, U.S. Marine Corps, Commanding Officer, 

7th Engineer Support Battalion

• Sergeant Major Stennent Rey, U.S. Marine Corps, Senior Enlisted Advisor, 

7th Engineer Support Battalion

• Major Christopher Seamans, U.S. Air Force, Commander, 

69th Maintenance Squadron

• Senior Master Sergeant Terry Zannella, U.S. Air Force, First Sergeant, 

69th Maintenance Squadron

• Commander Jonathan Carter, U.S. Coast Guard, Commanding Officer, 

U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Legare

• Chief Petty Officer Matthew Lee, U.S. Coast Guard, Command Chief, 

U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Legare

• Colonel Erik Gilbert, U.S. Army, Chief of Staff to the Director, 

Joint Future Force Development, Joint Staff

• Captain John Bushey, U.S. Navy, Commander, Navy Installations Command, 

Director of Public Safety

• Colonel Kevin Stewart, U.S. Marine Corps, Executive Assistant to 

the Deputy Commandant, Installation and Logistics

• Colonel Ty Neuman, U.S. Air Force, Commander, 2nd Bomb Wing, 

Barksdale Air Force Base

• Captain Brett Millican, U.S. Coast Guard, Commanding Officer, 

U.S. Coast Guard Base Boston

January 19, 2018

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Deputy Director, Department of Defense Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Office

March 9, 2018

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Deliberations
F-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CASE REVIEW 

WORKING GROUP 

PREPARATORY 

SESSIONS

PRESENTERS

July 21, 2017

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Planning meeting 

September 12, 2017

Headquarters,

U.S. Army Criminal 

Investigation Command

 Quantico, Virginia

• U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command case orientation and 

review of selected files

September 21–22, 2017

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Military criminal investigative organization case file orientation and 

review of selected files and judicial documents

September 25–26, 2017

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Military criminal investigative organization case file orientation and 

review of selected files and judicial documents

October 19, 2017

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Military criminal investigative organization case file orientation and 

review of selected files and judicial documents

• Discussion of findings based on preliminary case reviews

December 12, 2017

Telephonic

• Deliberations and discussion of case review protocols

January 4, 2018

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Review of Air Force Office of Special Investigations case files

January 10, 2018

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Review of Air Force Office of Special Investigations case files
F-5

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

CASE REVIEW 

WORKING GROUP 

PREPARATORY 

SESSIONS

PRESENTERS

January 17–18, 2018

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Review of Air Force Office of Special Investigations case files

January 18, 2018

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Deliberations
F-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

POLICY WORKING 

GROUP PREPARATORY 

SESSIONS

PRESENTERS

October 19, 2017

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Planning meeting
F-7

APPENDIX E. DEMOGRAPHICS AND ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD DATABASE 

POLICY WORKING 

GROUP PREPARATORY 

SESSIONS

PRESENTERS

December 1, 2017

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Ms. Kathy Robertson, Associate Director/Family Advocacy Program Manager, 

Office of Military Family Readiness Policy, U.S. Department of Defense

• Ms. Jackie Richardson, U.S. Army Family Advocacy Program

• Ms. Sonia Smith, U.S. Navy Family Advocacy Program Senior, Analyst and 

Director of Prevention of Destructive Behaviors

• Major Tyler Brummond, U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy Branch Head, Military 

Personnel Law, Judge Advocate Division

• Colonel Andrew Cruz, U.S. Air Force, Chief, Family Advocacy Program, Air 

Force Medical Operations Agency

• Ms. Adrienne Wright-Williams, U.S. Coast Guard Employee Assistance 

Program Manager and Acting Family Advocacy Program Manager 

• Major Jennifer Venghaus, U.S. Army, Plans Officer, Personnel, Plans, and 

Training Office, Office of the Judge Advocate General 

• Lieutenant Commander Katherine Shovlin, U.S. Navy, Senior Trial Counsel, 

Region Legal Service Office Naval District Washington 

• Captain Brandon K. Regan, U.S. Marine Corps, Complex Trial Team, Legal 

Services Support Section–East 

• Major Pete Havern, U.S. Air Force, Senior Trial Counsel 

• Lieutenant Commander Amanda Lee, U.S. Coast Guard, Legal Service 

Command

• Specialist, U.S. Army

• Captain Alana Hines, U.S. Army, Special Victims’ Counsel, 3rd Infantry 

Division, Fort Stewart

• Petty Officer Third Class, U.S. Navy

• Lieutenant Kevin Larson, U.S. Navy, Victims’ Legal Counsel, Naval Station 

Norfolk

• Airman First Class, U.S. Air Force

• Captain Matt Blyth, U.S. Air Force, Special Victims’ Counsel, Joint Base San 

Antonio–Fort Sam Houston

• Petty Officer Third Class, U.S. Coast Guard (via telephone)

• Lieutenant Nathaniel Eichler, U.S. Coast Guard, Special Victims’ Counsel

• Ms. Amanda Hagy, DAC-IPAD Paralegal

• Captain Eliot V. Rasmussen, U.S. Marine Corps, Victims’ Legal Counsel, 

Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni
F-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

POLICY WORKING 

GROUP PREPARATORY 

SESSIONS

PRESENTERS

January 4, 2018

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, VA

• Deliberations

January 18, 2018

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, VA

• Deliberations

DATA WORKING 

GROUP PREPARATORY 

SESSIONS

PRESENTERS

October 19, 2017

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Planning meeting

January 18, 2018

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, Virginia

• Deliberations
G-1

APPENDIX G. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX G. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A1/CC Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and Services

AFOSI Air Force Office of Special Investigations

CGIS Coast Guard Investigative Service 

CID Army Criminal Investigation Command

CO commanding officer

CONUS continental United States

CRWG Case Review Working Group

DAC-IPAD Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and 

Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces

DIBRS Defense Incident-Based Reporting Systems

DoD Department of Defense

DoDI Department of Defense Instruction

DoDM Department of Defense Manual

DSAID Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database

DTF-SAMS Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services

DWG Data Working Group

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 

FAP Family Advocacy Program

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FY fiscal year

GCMCA general court-martial convening authority

JAG judge advocate general

JAGC Judge Advocate General’s Corps

JPP Judicial Proceedings Panel

LDC Leadership Development Center
G-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

MCIO military criminal investigative organization

MIJES Military Investigation and Justice Experience Survey

NCIS Naval Criminal Investigative Service

NCO noncommissioned officer

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

OCONUS outside the continental United States

OPA Office of People Analytics

PWG Policy Working Group

R.C.M. Rule for Courts-Martial

RFI request for information

RSP Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel

SAIRO sexual assault incident response oversight 

SAPR Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

SAPRO Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office

SARC sexual assault response coordinator

SJA staff judge advocate

SOLO Senior Officer Legal Orientation

SPCMCA special court-martial convening authority

SSLC Senior Shore Leadership Course

SVC special victims’ counsel

TJAGLCS The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School

UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice

UCR Uniform Crime Reporting

U.S.C. United States Code

USMC United States Marine Corps

VA victim advocate

VLC victims’ legal counsel

WGRA Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members
H-1

APPENDIX H. SOURCES CONSULTED 

APPENDIX H. SOURCES CONSULTED

1. U.S. Constitution

2. Legislative Sources

a. Enacted Statutes

5 U.S.C. App. §§ 1–16 (Federal Advisory Committee Act)

10 U.S.C. § 673 (Consideration of application for permanent change of station or unit transfer for members on 

active duty who are the victim of a sexual assault or related offense)

10 U.S.C. §§ 801–946 (Uniform Code of Military Justice)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-417, 122 Stat. 4356 (2009)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-81, 125 Stat. 1298 (2011)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, 126 Stat. 1632 (2012)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66, 127 Stat. 672 (2013)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292 (2014)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-92, 129 Stat. 726 (2015)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. No. 114-328, 130 Stat. 2000 (2016)

3. Rules and Regulations

a. Executive Orders

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016)

b. Rules

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

c. Department of Defense Instructions and Manuals

Dep’t. of Def. Instruction 1315.18, Procedures for Military Personnel Assignments 

(October 28, 2015) (Incorporating Change 1, April 14, 2017), available at

http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/131518p.pdf

Dep’t. of Def. Instruction 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program 

Procedures (March 28, 2013) (Incorporating Change 3, Effective May 24, 2017), available at

http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/649502p.pdf
H-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Dep’t. of Def. Manual 7730.47-M, Volume 1, Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS): 

Data Segments and Elements (December 7, 2010), available at

http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/773047m_vol1.pdf

4. Meetings and Hearings

a. Public Meetings of the DAC-IPAD

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (January 19, 2017)

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (April 28, 2017)

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (July 21, 2017)

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (October 19, 2017)

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (October 20, 2017)

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (January 19, 2018)

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (March 9, 2018)

b. Public Meetings of the Judicial Proceedings Panel

Transcript of Judicial Proceedings Panel Public Meeting (October 9, 2015)

Transcript of Judicial Proceedings Panel Public Meeting (April 7, 2017)

c. Preparatory Sessions 

Transcript of Policy Working Group Preparatory Session (December 1, 2017) (on file with the DAC-IPAD)

5. Committee Member Submissions

Written Statement by Judge Leo Brisbois, Committee member (April 20, 2017), available at 

https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/02_DACIPAD_Mtg_Materials/

DACIPAD_Meeting_Materials_20170428.pdf

6. Military Policy and Guidance

a. Department of Defense

Dep’t of Def. Directive-Type Memorandum 11-063, Expedited Transfer of Military Service Members Who File 

Unrestricted Reports of Sexual Assault (December 16, 2011) 

Memorandum from Sec’y of Def. to Sec’ys of Military Dep’ts et al., subject: Withholding Initial Disposition 

Authority Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in Certain Sexual Assault Cases (April 20, 2012)

Memorandum from Sec’y of Def. to Sec’ys of Military Dep’ts et al., subject: Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response (August 14, 2013)
H-3

APPENDIX H. SOURCES CONSULTED 

Memorandum from Sec’y of Def. to Sec’ys of Military Dep’ts et al., subject: Department of Defense 

Implementation of the Recommendations of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel 

(December 15, 2014)

b. Services

Commander’s Legal Handbook, Misc. Pub. 27-8 (2015), The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center 

and School, United States Army, available at http://www.jag.navy.mil/distrib/instructions/

Commanders_ARMY_Legal_HB_2015_C1.pdf

The Military Commander and the Law, Edition 13 (2016), The Judge Advocate General’s School, United States 

Air Force, available at www.holloman.af.mil/Portals/101/documents/JA Documents/References/

MCL 2016 web.pdf?ver=2016-11-28-145828-903

USN/USMC Commander’s Quick Reference Legal Handbook (QUICKMAN) (October 2017), 

Naval Justice School, United States Navy, available at http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/NJS/

QUICKMAN_October_2017.pdf

7. Official Reports

a. DoD and DoD Agencies

Dep’t of Def., Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation of Sexual Assault, Reprisal, and 

Related Leadership Challenges at the United States Air Force Academy (2004), available at

https://media.defense.gov/2017/Jan/06/2001774407/-1/-1/1/IPO2004C003-report.pdf

Dep’t of Def., Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Annual Report on Sexual Assault in 

the Military: Fiscal Year 2016 (May 1, 2017), available at http://sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/

FY16_Annual/FY16_SAPRO_Annual_Report.pdf

Office of People Analytics, 2016 Military Investigation and Justice Experience Survey: Overview 

Report (March 2017), available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY16_Annual/

Annex_2_2016_MIJES_Report.pdf

Office of People Analytics, 2016 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty 

Members: Overview Report (May 2017), available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/

FY16_Annual/Annex_1_2016_WGRA_Report.pdf

Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services (December 2009), 

available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/research/DTFSAMS-Rept_Dec09.pdf

Report of the Panel to Review Sexual Misconduct Allegations at the U.S. Air Force Academy

(2003), available at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED480473.pdf

b. Response Systems Panel Report

Report of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (June 2014), available at

http://responsesystemspanel.whs.mil/public/docs/Reports/00_Final/RSP_Report_Final_20140627.pdf
H-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

c. Judicial Proceedings Panel Reports 

Initial Report of the Judicial Proceedings Panel (February 2015), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/

images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/01_JPP_InitialReport_Final_20150204.pdf

Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

(February 2016), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/

01_JPP_Reports/03_JPP_Art120_Report_Final_20160204.pdf

Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Restitution and Compensation for Military Adult Sexual 

Assault Crimes (February 2016), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/

10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/02_JPP_Rest_Comp_Report_Final_20160201.pdf

Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Retaliation Related to Sexual Assault Offenses (February 

2016), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/

01_JPP_Reports/04_JPP_Retaliation_Report_Final_20160211.pdf

Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of Sexual 

Assault Offenses (April 2016), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/

04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/05_JPP_StatData_MilAdjud_SexAsslt_Report_Final_20160419.pdf

Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Military Defense Counsel Resources and Experience in 

Sexual Assault Cases (April 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_

Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/06_JPP_Defense_Resources_Experience_Report_Final_20170424.pdf

Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Victims’ Appellate Rights (June 2017), available at

https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/

07_JPP_VictimsAppRights_Report_Final_20170602.pdf

Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Sexual Assault Investigations in the Military (September 

2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/

01_JPP_Reports/08_JPP_Report_Investigations_Final_20170907.pdf

Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of 

Sexual Assault Offenses for Fiscal Year 2015 (September 2017), available at

https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/

09_JPP_CourtMartial_Data_Report_Final_20170915.pdf

Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Panel Concerns Regarding the Fair Administration of 

Military Justice in Sexual Assault Cases (September 2017), available at 

https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/

10_JPP_Concerns_Fair_MJ_Report_Final_20170915.pdf

Judicial Proceedings Panel Final Report (October 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/

Public/10-Reading_Room/04_Reports/01_JPP_Reports/11_JPP_FinalReport_Final_20171016.pdf
H-5

APPENDIX H. SOURCES CONSULTED 

d. Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the 

Armed Forces Initial Report (March 2017)

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the 

Armed Forces Initial Report (March 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/

08-Reports/DACIPAD_Initial_Report_20170330_Final_Web.pdf

8. Requests for Information and Responses

DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 3 (June 29, 2017)

DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4 (September 11, 2017)

DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 5 (October 30, 2017)

DoD Response to JPP Request for Information 164B (April 5, 2017)

Military Criminal Investigative Organizations Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 3 (June 29, 

2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/

Service Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4 (September 11, 2017)

9. Academic Articles 

Æquitas, Justice Management Institute, and Urban Institute, Model Response to Sexual Violence for Prosecutors: 

An Invitation to Lead (2017)

Kingsley R. Browne, Military Sex Scandals from Tailhook to the Present: The Cure Can Be Worse Than the Disease, 

14 Duke J. of Gender L. & Pol’y 749 (2007)

Robert E. Murdough, Barracks, Dormitories, and Capitol Hill: Finding Justice in the Divergent Politics of Military 

and College Sexual Assault, 223 Mil. L. Rev. 233 (2015)

Cassia Spohn & Katharine Tellis, Policing and Prosecuting Sexual Assault in Los Angeles City and County: A 

Collaborative Study in Partnership with Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 

Department, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office (February 2012)

Women’s Law Project, Recommendations for Annual Advocate Sex Crimes External Review Process Based on 

Philadelphia Practices (May 2017)

10. News Articles

Michael Kilian, New Sex Scandal Hits Army Ranks, Chicago Tribune (November 13, 1996), 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-11-13/news/9611130215_1_trainees-sexual-misconductsexual-harassment

Rowan Scarborough, Army Trainees Accuse Instructors of Rape, Harassment, Wash. Times (November 8, 1996) 

Michael Winerip, Revisiting the Military’s Tailhook Scandal, N.Y. Times (May 13, 2013), 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/booming/revisiting-the-militarys-tailhook-scandal-video.html
H-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

11. Internet Resources

Judicial Proceedings Panel Website, available at http://jpp.whs.mil/

Military OneSource, Demographic Profile, available at http://www.militaryonesource.mil/web/mos/

reports-and-surveys

National Incident-Based Reporting System User Manual, Version 2.2 (November 1, 2017), available at

https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/nibrs-user-manual

Todd Perkins, “The Invisible War” Filmmakers Respond to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s “Rock Center with 

Brian Williams” Appearance on Rape in the Military, IndieWire (September 28, 2012), available at 

http://www.indiewire.com/2012/09/the-invisible-war-filmmakers-respond-to-secretary-of-defense-leonpanettas-rock-center-with-brian-williams-appearance-on-rape-in-the-military-44577/