Defense Advisory Committee

on Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Defense

of Sexual Assault

in the Armed Forces

March 2019

Third 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

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, U.S. Air Force, Retired

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

Dr. Cassia C. Spohn

Ms. Meghan A. Tokash

The Honorable Reggie B. Walton

In Memoriam

Dean Keith M. Harrison

STAFF DIRECTOR

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

DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR

Ms. Julie K. Carson

CHIEF OF STAFF

Mr. Dale L. Trexler

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER

Mr. Dwight H. Sullivan

Defense Advisory Committee on 

Investigation, Prosecution, and 

Defense of Sexual Assault 

in the Armed Forces

Third Annual Report

March 2019

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 26, 2019

The Honorable James Inhofe The Honorable Jack Reed

Chairman Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Adam Smith The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services Committee on Armed Services

U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Patrick M. Shanahan

Acting Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301

Dear Chairmen, Ranking Members, and Mr. Secretary:

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

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (“2019 Annual 

Report”) in accordance with section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). This report details the Committee’s activities over the past 

year related to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual assault crimes in the military.

Since the submission of its March 2018 Annual Report, the Committee has held six 

public meetings during which it heard from 21 presenters and three members of the public on 

topics including sexual assault data collection and management, sexual assault investigation 

practices, and the effects of sexual assault investigations on accused Service members and 

victims. In addition, the Committee’s three working groups held 13 preparatory sessions during 

which members heard testimony from more than 50 presenters, including military prosecutors, 

defense counsel, investigators, victims’ counsel, program managers, victim services personnel, 

and an assistant United States Attorney.

In this report, the Committee provides detailed sexual assault case adjudication data and 

analysis for fiscal years 2015 to 2017 and makes 32 findings and 14 recommendations related to

the following: commander decisions with respect to penetrative sexual assault complaints; 

documentation of command disposition decisions; fingerprint collection and submission 

processes for federal criminal history reporting; sexual assault data collection and management 

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 26, 2019

The Honorable James Inhofe The Honorable Jack Reed

Chairman Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Adam Smith The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services Committee on Armed Services

U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Patrick M. Shanahan

Acting Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301

Dear Chairmen, Ranking Members, and Mr. Secretary:

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

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (“2019 Annual 

Report”) in accordance with section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). This report details the Committee’s activities over the past 

year related to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual assault crimes in the military.

Since the submission of its March 2018 Annual Report, the Committee has held six 

public meetings during which it heard from 21 presenters and three members of the public on 

topics including sexual assault data collection and management, sexual assault investigation 

practices, and the effects of sexual assault investigations on accused Service members and 

victims. In addition, the Committee’s three working groups held 13 preparatory sessions during 

which members heard testimony from more than 50 presenters, including military prosecutors, 

defense counsel, investigators, victims’ counsel, program managers, victim services personnel, 

and an assistant United States Attorney.

In this report, the Committee provides detailed sexual assault case adjudication data and 

analysis for fiscal years 2015 to 2017 and makes 32 findings and 14 recommendations related to

the following: commander decisions with respect to penetrative sexual assault complaints; 

documentation of command disposition decisions; fingerprint collection and submission 

processes for federal criminal history reporting; sexual assault data collection and management 
6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

2

in accordance with the new Article 140a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; and the 

Department’s expedited transfer policy for victims of sexual assault. Most notably, on the basis 

of a first-of-its-kind review of a random sample of 164 penetrative sexual assault investigations 

closed in fiscal year 2017, the Committee found that military commanders’ decisions whether to 

prefer charges or not to prefer charges in penetrative sexual assault cases were reasonable in the 

overwhelming majority (95%) of cases reviewed. 

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

appreciation for the opportunity to make use of our collective experience and expertise in this 

field to develop recommendations for improving the military’s response to sexual misconduct 

within its ranks.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________________

Martha S. Bashford, Chair

______________________________ ______________________________

Marcia M. Anderson Leo I. Brisbois

______________________________ ______________________________

Kathleen B. Cannon Margaret A. Garvin

______________________________ ______________________________

Paul W. Grimm 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

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 26, 2019

The Honorable James Inhofe The Honorable Jack Reed

Chairman Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Adam Smith The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services Committee on Armed Services

U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Patrick M. Shanahan

Acting Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301

Dear Chairmen, Ranking Members, and Mr. Secretary:

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

Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (“2019 Annual 

Report”) in accordance with section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291). This report details the Committee’s activities over the past 

year related to the investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual assault crimes in the military.

Since the submission of its March 2018 Annual Report, the Committee has held six 

public meetings during which it heard from 21 presenters and three members of the public on 

topics including sexual assault data collection and management, sexual assault investigation 

practices, and the effects of sexual assault investigations on accused Service members and 

victims. In addition, the Committee’s three working groups held 13 preparatory sessions during 

which members heard testimony from more than 50 presenters, including military prosecutors, 

defense counsel, investigators, victims’ counsel, program managers, victim services personnel, 

and an assistant United States Attorney.

In this report, the Committee provides detailed sexual assault case adjudication data and 

analysis for fiscal years 2015 to 2017 and makes 32 findings and 14 recommendations related to

the following: commander decisions with respect to penetrative sexual assault complaints; 

documentation of command disposition decisions; fingerprint collection and submission 

processes for federal criminal history reporting; sexual assault data collection and management 
v

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ASSESSMENTS 5

INTRODUCTION 15

I. DAC-IPAD Establishment and Mission 15

II. Composition of the Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

III. Working Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

IV. Previous DAC-IPAD Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

V. Third Annual DAC-IPAD Report – March 2019 18

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT 21

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

II. Case Review Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

III. Command Disposition of Penetrative Sexual Assault Complaints 28

IV. Descriptive Data Collected from Investigative Case Files 31

V. Investigator Discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

VI. Documentation of Command Disposition Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

VII. Unfounded Determinations 47

VIII. Fingerprint Collection and Submission Processes for Federal Criminal History Reporting . 52

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL CASE 

ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 61

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

II. Methodology of the Data Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

III. Military Justice Information for Sexual Assault Cases Collected by the DAC-IPAD . . . 62

IV. Multivariate Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

V. Data Project Way Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
vi

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CHAPTER 3. CHANGES TO MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT DATA COLLECTION AND 

CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW ARTICLE 140a, UNIFORM CODE OF 

MILITARY JUSTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

I. Introduction 83

II. Information Received by the DAC-IPAD Concerning the Collection of 

Sexual Assault Case Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

III. Discussion and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

IV. DAC-IPAD Recommendations Regarding Article 140a, UCMJ Provided to 

the Secretary of Defense on September 13, 2018 88

V. DoD Response to DAC-IPAD Recommendations Regarding Article 140a, UCMJ . . . . 89

VI. Article 140a Standards and Criteria Issued by the General Counsel of 

the Department of Defense on December 17, 2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

VII. Assessment of DoD Response to DAC-IPAD Recommendations 

Regarding Article 140a, UCMJ 91

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED TRANSFER POLICY 

AND RELATED ISSUES 93

I. Introduction 93

II. Methodology 94

III. Overview of the Expedited Transfer Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

IV. Expansion of Expedited Transfer to Restricted Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

V. Victims’ Options Regarding Sexual Assault Reports Made by Third Parties . . . . . . 101

VI. Approval Standard and Purpose of the Expedited Transfer Policy . . . . . . . . . 106

VII. Inclusion of Temporary, Permanent, Intra- and Inter-installation Transfers 

in the Expedited Transfer Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

VIII. Expansion of the Expedited Transfer Policy to Civilian Spouses and 

Children of Service Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

IX. Collection of Data Regarding Expedited Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

X. Transitional Assistance to Facilitate Recovery for Certain Service Members 

after a Sexual Assault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

XI. Expedited Transfer in the National Guard and the Reserve Components and 

at the Service Academies 117

XII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
vii

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION OF REQUIRED STUDY ON COLLATERAL MISCONDUCT 119

I. Introduction 119

II. Initial Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

III. DAC-IPAD Input for the Collateral Misconduct Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

CHAPTER 6. ADDITIONAL ISSUES FOR THE DAC-IPAD’S REVIEW 

IDENTIFIED BY THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL 121

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

II. JPP Recommendation 55 Regarding the Effectiveness of Article 32, UCMJ, 

and the Importance of Having Independent Defense Investigators . . . . . . . . . 122

III. JPP Recommendations 57 and 58 Regarding the Information and 

Legal Advice Provided to Convening Authorities in Sexual Assault Cases 124

APPENDIXES

A. DAC-IPAD Authorizing Statutes and Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

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

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

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

E. DAC-IPAD Requests for Information (Sets 1–10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Investigative Case Review Data Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Statistical Report on Sexual Assault Investigations Closed in Fiscal Year 2017: 

Results from a Sample of 164 Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

H. Aggregated Service Responses to DAC-IPAD RFI Sets 3, 4, and 5 H-1

I. Demographic and Adjudication Data of Sexual Offenses Recorded in 

the DAC-IPAD Case Adjudication Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

J. September 13, 2018, Letter from DAC-IPAD to the Secretary of Defense 

Regarding Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1

K. January 23, 2019, Letter from Mr. Paul S. Koffsky, DoD Senior Deputy General Counsel 

and Deputy General Counsel for Personnel & Health Policy, to DAC-IPAD 

Chair Martha S. Bashford Responding to DAC-IPAD’s Recommendations 

Regarding Article 140a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1
viii

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

L. December 17, 2018, Memorandum from Mr. Paul C. Ney, Jr., DoD General Counsel, to 

Secretaries of the Military Departments Promulgating Article 140a Standards and Criteria . . L-1

M. June 7, 2018, Memorandum from Mr. William S. Castle, Acting DoD General Counsel, 

to DAC-IPAD Chair Martha S. Bashford Regarding Assessment of 

JPP Recommendations 54, 55, 57, 58, and 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-1

N. DAC-IPAD Public Meetings, Preparatory Sessions, and Presenters . . . . . . . . . N-1

O. Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O-1

P. Sources Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P-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

 Its 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 is the third annual report of the DAC-IPAD: it describes the Committee’s activities and the topics examined 

over the previous 12 months. The Committee held six public meetings between April 2018 and February 2019 

during which it heard from 21 presenters, including three members of the public, on topics such as sexual 

assault data collection and management, sexual assault investigation practices, and the effects of sexual assault 

investigations on victims and accused Service members. In addition, the Committee’s three working groups 

held 13 preparatory sessions during which members heard testimony from more than 50 presenters, including 

military prosecutors, defense counsel, investigators, victims’ counsel, program managers, victim services 

personnel, and an assistant United States Attorney on topics including sexual assault investigation practices, 

the Department of Defense (DoD) expedited transfer policy, and sexual assault prosecution standards in the 

military and civilian jurisdictions. 

The first chapter of this report discusses the Committee’s initial findings and recommendations based on the 

Case Review Working Group’s (CRWG) review and analysis of investigative case files. Since beginning the 

reviews in February 2018, the working group members have reviewed investigative case files for 164 individual 

penetrative sexual assault investigations randomly selected from more than 2,000 cases closed in fiscal year 

2017 in which a Service member was accused of committing a penetrative sexual assault against an adult 

victim. Through the members’ review of these 164 investigative case files and testimony received from judge 

advocates, investigators, and other subject matter experts, the Committee analyzed several topics, including the 

reasonableness of commanders’ disposition decisions in cases involving penetrative sexual assault complaints, 

victim participation in the military justice process, investigator discretion, documentation of command 

disposition decisions, unfounded determinations, and subject fingerprint collection and submission to federal 

criminal databases. Based on the 164 case reviews, the Committee finds that commanders’ decisions whether 

to prefer charges in penetrative sexual assault cases are reasonable in an overwhelming majority of cases. The 

Committee also finds that the investigative case files—and more specifically, the documentation of command 

disposition decisions within them—vary widely across the Services, are frequently incomplete, and often 

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

2 Id.
2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

contain inaccurate or conflicting information with respect to case outcomes. This finding is highlighted by the 

Committee not only because it makes reviewing and analyzing the investigative case files more difficult, but also 

because it has implications for current and former Service members about whom erroneous information may be 

contained in federal criminal history databases that are routinely accessed by law enforcement, employers, and 

others. In next year’s annual report, the Committee will be able to provide more comprehensive findings based 

on the working group’s review of more than 2,000 cases closed in fiscal year 2017 (FY17).

The second chapter of this report describes the Committee’s annual collection and analysis of military case 

adjudication statistical data for adult-victim sexual assault cases in which charges were preferred for penetrative or 

contact sexual assault offenses and in which final action on the case is complete.3

 The Committee has collected and 

recorded case documents including charge sheets, Article 32 reports, and Results of Trial forms for a total of 658 

cases completed in fiscal year 2017, 768 cases completed in fiscal year 2016, and 780 cases completed in fiscal year 

2015. This chapter and a detailed appendix provide case characteristics, disposition outcomes, and adjudication 

outcomes for these cases, including sex, Service branch, and pay grade of the subject; relationship of the victim 

to the subject; nature of the charges; forum; and case outcome. This chapter also includes a multivariate statistical 

analysis prepared by a professional criminologist that identifies patterns in the three-year data. 

In Chapter 3, the Committee examines the new military criminal data collection and management 

standardization requirements enacted as part of the Military Justice Act of 2016. This act established a new 

Article 140a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which directs the Secretary of Defense to 

prescribe uniform standards and criteria across the Services for collection and analysis of military justice 

data and records by January 1, 2019. Having experienced some of the challenges resulting from the Services’ 

inconsistent terminology and documentation regarding sexual assault case processing, the sexual assault 

advisory panel that preceded the DAC-IPAD—the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP)—developed a first-of-itskind military sexual assault database, following the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s methodology of centrally 

collecting and managing case documents to ensure the accuracy and reliability of reported data. The DAC-IPAD 

adopted and has continued the JPP’s data collection efforts for sexual assault cases in the military for the past 

three years. Based on this experience, the Committee makes four recommendations—previously submitted to 

the Secretary of Defense in a letter dated September 13, 2018—emphasizing that the uniform standards and 

criteria developed to implement Article 140a, UCMJ, should reflect the following best practices: (1) all case data 

should be collected only from standardized source documents produced in the normal course of the military 

justice process; (2) document collection should be centralized within one organization in DoD; (3) a single 

electronic database should be developed for the storage and analysis of the standardized source documents; and 

(4) one independent team of trained professionals whose full-time job is to enter the data should be responsible 

for the data entry process. DoD provided a response to the Committee’s letter on January 23, 2019. Citing 

concerns about the personnel and fiscal demands of a single system and the risk of failure, the senior deputy 

general counsel stated that a single system would not be considered at this time, but noted that the Department 

may reconsider the Committee’s proposals in the future. 

The fourth chapter of the report describes the Committee’s examination of the DoD expedited transfer policy 

for victims of sexual assault. Over the course of the past year, the Policy Working Group (PWG) has continued 

to study and deliberate on the six specific expedited transfer–related issues identified in the DAC-IPAD’s March 

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). 
3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2018 report, as well as one additional issue. In this report the Committee makes five recommendations related 

to expedited transfers. Among these is a recommendation to extend the expedited transfer option to Service 

members who make restricted reports, if certain requirements are met. The Committee also recommends that 

the Secretary of Defense study the possibility of allowing victims who have lost the ability to make a restricted 

report to request that further disclosure or investigation be restricted or terminated, with appropriate safeguards 

to ensure that victims are not pressured to do so and that there is not an overriding law enforcement need to 

continue the investigation. A victim may lose the ability to make a restricted report if a third party or the victim 

discloses the incident to someone in the chain of command without knowing that this triggers the opening 

of a criminal investigation. The Committee also recommends that sexual assault victims be given an option 

to attend a transitional care program at a medical facility, Wounded Warrior facility, or other facility to allow 

them sufficient time and resources to heal from the trauma of a sexual assault when needed. In addition, in 

order for the Services to continue to monitor the effectiveness of the expedited transfer policy, the Committee 

recommends that the Services track and report specified data elements related to expedited transfers. 

Chapter 5 provides the Committee’s initial observations in response to a provision in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (FY19 NDAA) that requires the Secretary of Defense, “acting through” 

the DAC-IPAD, to prepare and submit biennial reports to Congress detailing the number of instances in which 

an individual who reports an incident of sexual assault is either investigated for or receives adverse action as a 

result of misconduct he or she engaged in that is collateral to the investigation of the sex offense. In this chapter 

the Committee notes its uncertainty about what its role in the study should be, given the unclear statutory 

language and the absence of additional guidance from DoD. In light of a statutory due date for the first report of 

September 2019, the Committee also expresses concern that it currently does not have the resources necessary to 

undertake such a study. As initial suggested guidance for the study, the Committee proposes parameters for the 

study and highlights that it is currently recording instances of victim collateral misconduct in its review of fiscal 

year 2017 investigative case files to the extent that reviewers are able to discern such misconduct. The Committee 

members and staff plan to collaborate with the Services and DoD in the coming months to determine how they 

can most effectively assist in the study and report to Congress. 

Finally, Chapter 6 provides background on three recommendations made by the JPP to the DAC-IPAD for 

continued study and assessment upon the JPP’s termination. These recommendations relate to Articles 32, 33, 

and 34 of the UCMJ and involve the preliminary hearing process, command disposition guidance, and staff 

judge advocate advice to convening authorities, respectively. The JPP also recommended that the DAC-IPAD 

continue the JPP case adjudication data collection effort, which it has already done, as described in Chapter 2. 

The DAC-IPAD members would like to express their sincere gratitude to the engaging, enthusiastic, and 

knowledgeable Service members and civilian presenters who shared their experiences and perspectives with 

the Committee over this past year, as well as the diligent Service representatives who attended meetings, guided 

information requests through their Services, and provided excellent support to the Committee. All imparted 

their wisdom, experience, and pride in service with great professionalism and grace. 

The Committee wishes to dedicate this report to the late Keith Harrison, a beloved member of the DAC-IPAD 

and the Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Savannah Law School. Dean Harrison was a dear friend, 

colleague, leader, father, and husband, with a distinguished career of over 30 years in legal education as both a 

teacher and an administrator. He was especially proud of his service as a judge advocate in the U.S. Coast Guard 

before beginning his academic career. Dean Harrison’s kindness, wisdom, and contagious enthusiasm will be 

deeply missed by all. 
4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
5

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ASSESSMENTS

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, 

AND ASSESSMENTS4

Command Disposition of Penetrative Sexual Assault Complaints

• Finding 12: Based on the review of 164 military investigative cases, the DAC-IPAD finds that 

commanders’ dispositions of penetrative sexual assault complaints are reasonable in 95% of cases.

Investigator Discretion

• Finding 13: Military investigators testified that they feel obligated to perform the same series of 

investigative tasks regardless of the facts of a particular case and that they have little discretion to 

determine which specific investigative actions would provide the most value.

• Initial Assessment: The Committee will continue to monitor this issue.

Documentation of Command Disposition Decisions

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 5: In developing a uniform command action form in accordance with 

section 535 of the FY19 NDAA, the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with 

respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) should establish a standard 

set of options for documenting command disposition decisions and require the rationale for those 

decisions, including declinations to take action.

The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast 

Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) should ensure that the standard set of options 

for documenting command disposition decisions is based on recognized legal and investigatory 

terminology and standards that are uniformly defined across the Services and accurately reflect 

command action source documents.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 6: The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security 

with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) should require that 

judge advocates or civilian attorneys employed by the Services in a similar capacity provide advice to 

commanders in completing command disposition/action reports in order to make certain that the 

documentation of that decision is accurate and complete.

• Finding 14: Accurate and uniform documentation of a commander’s disposition decision, the reason 

for the decision, and any disciplinary action taken for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

4 DAC-IPAD Findings 1–11 and Recommendations 1-4 are included in the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, 

and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces Annual Report 3–5 (Mar. 2018) [hereinafter DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report], 

available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/08-Reports/DACIPAD_Report_02_Final_20180330_Web_Amended.pdf.
6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

is essential to ensure that military criminal investigative agencies provide accurate and timely reports of 

crime data to federal law enforcement agencies and databases.

• Finding 15: The command disposition/action reports that are found in investigative files are often 

unclear, incomplete, inaccurate, and inconsistent within and across the Services.

• Finding 16: Command disposition/action documentation found in investigative case files sometimes 

conflicts with the actual action taken by the command. 

• Finding 17: Command disposition/action reports that are found in investigative files include 

terminology inconsistent with military criminal investigative organization (MCIO) federal database 

reporting requirements; to meet these federal reporting requirements, investigators must therefore 

interpret the terms used, leading to inconsistent and inaccurate database reporting. 

• Finding 18: MCIOs need the command disposition/action report to officially close their cases and make 

required federal reports to the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS) and federal criminal 

history databases.

• Finding 19: Judge advocates testified that they do not routinely assist commanders in completing 

command disposition/action reports.

• Finding 20: Command disposition/action reports often are not submitted to the MCIOs within five days 

of command action, as required by DoD policy.

Definition and Application of the Term “Unfounded”

• Finding 21: There is significant confusion among investigators, judge advocates, and commanders as 

to what the terms “probable cause” (reasonable grounds to believe) and “unfounded” (false or baseless) 

mean, when and by whom probable cause and unfounded determinations are made, and how they are 

documented throughout the investigative process.

Fingerprint Collection and Submission Processes for Federal Criminal History Reporting 

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 7: The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security 

with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) should provide uniform 

guidance to the Services regarding the submission of final disposition information to federal databases 

for sexual assault cases in which, after fingerprints have been submitted, the command took no action, 

or took action only for an offense other than sexual assault.

• Finding 22: The standards, timing, and authority for collecting and submitting fingerprints to the 

federal database, making probable cause determinations, and submitting final disposition information to 

the federal database are unclear and not uniform across the Services.

• Finding 23: MCIO coordination with judge advocates on a probable cause determination for the 

submission of fingerprints often is not documented in the investigative file.

• Finding 24: Final dispositions being reported to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) for 

sexual assault offenses are often inaccurate or misleading.
7

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ASSESSMENTS

• Finding 25: DoD policy does not provide direction to the Services for cases in which the command 

elects not to prefer charges for a sexual assault offense, but fingerprints have already been submitted to 

the federal criminal history database as part of a sexual assault investigation. 

• Initial Assessment: The Committee will continue to monitor the issues associated with collecting and 

submitting fingerprints and submitting final disposition information to the federal databases.

Sexual Assault Data Collection and Management in the New Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military 

Justice

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 8: The uniform standards and criteria developed to implement Article 

140a, UCMJ, should reflect the following best practices for case data collection:

a. Collect all case data only from standardized source documents (legal and investigative 

documents) that are produced in the normal course of the military justice process, such as the 

initial report of investigation, the commander’s report of disciplinary or administrative action, 

the charge sheet, the Article 32 report, and the Report of Result of Trial.

b. Centralize document collection by mandating that all jurisdictions provide the same procedural 

documents to one military justice data office/organization within DoD.

c. Develop one electronic database for the storage and analysis of standardized source documents, 

and locate that database in the centralized military justice data office/organization within DoD.

d. Collect and analyze data quarterly to ensure that both historical data and analyses are as up-todate as possible.

e. Have data entered from source documents into the electronic database by one independent team 

of trained professionals whose full-time occupation is document analysis and data entry. This 

team should have expertise in the military justice process and in social science research methods, 

and should ensure that the data are audited at regular intervals.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 9: The source documents referenced in DAC-IPAD Recommendation 8 

should contain uniformly defined content covering all data elements that DoD decides to collect to 

meet the requirements of Articles 140a and 146, UCMJ.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 10: The data produced pursuant to Article 140a, UCMJ, should serve as 

the primary source for the Military Justice Review Panel’s periodic assessments of the military justice 

system, which are required by Article 146, UCMJ, and as the sole source of military justice data for all 

other organizations in DoD and for external entities.
8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 11: Article 140a, UCMJ, should be implemented so as to require 

collection of the following information with respect to allegations of both adult-victim and childvictim sexual offenses, within the meaning of Articles 120, 120b, and 125, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 

920b, and 925 (2016)):

a. A summary of the initial complaint giving rise to a criminal investigation by a military criminal 

investigative organization concerning a military member who is subject to the UCMJ, and how 

the complaint became known to law enforcement;

b. Whether an unrestricted report of sexual assault originated as a restricted report;

c. Demographic data pertaining to each victim and accused, including race and sex;

d. The nature of any relationship between the accused and the victim(s);

e. The initial disposition decision under Rule for Court-Martial 306, including the decision to take 

no action, and the outcome of any administrative action, any disciplinary action, or any case in 

which one or more charges of sexual assault were preferred, through the completion of courtmartial and appellate review;

f. Whether a victim requested an expedited transfer or a transfer of the accused, and the result of 

that request;

g. Whether a victim declined to participate at any point in the military justice process;

h. Whether a defense counsel requested expert assistance on behalf of a military accused, whether 

those requests were approved by a convening authority or military judge, and whether the 

government availed itself of expert assistance; and

i. The duration of each completed military criminal investigation, and any additional time taken to 

complete administrative or disciplinary action against the accused.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 12: The Services may retain their respective electronic case management 

systems for purposes of managing their military justice organizations, provided that

a. The Services use the same uniform standards and definitions to refer to common procedures and 

substantive offenses in the Manual for Courts-Martial, as required by Article 140a; and

b. The Services develop a plan to transition toward operating one uniform case management system 

across all of the Services, similar to the federal judiciary’s Case Management/Electronic Court 

Filing (CM/ECF) system.

• DAC-IPAD Assessment: The Committee is very pleased that DoD is open in the future to further 

evaluation and consideration of its recommendation of a centralized, document-based military justice 

data collection system. The Committee will continue to collect and analyze sexual assault case adjudication 

data until its term ends and is hopeful that the Military Justice Review Panel required to be established 

in accordance with Article 146, UCMJ will continue and expand the sexual assault case adjudication data 

project.
9

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ASSESSMENTS

Expansion of Expedited Transfer to Restricted Reports

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 13: The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security 

with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) expand the expedited 

transfer policy to include victims who file restricted reports of sexual assault. The victim’s report would 

remain restricted and there would be no resulting investigation. The DAC-IPAD further recommends 

the following requirements: 

a. The decision authority in such cases should be an O-6 or flag officer at the Service headquarters 

organization in charge of military assignments, rather than the victim’s commander.

b. The victim’s commander and senior enlisted leader, at both the gaining and losing installations, 

should be informed of the sexual assault and the fact that the victim has requested an expedited 

transfer—without being given the subject’s identity or other facts of the case—thereby enabling 

them to appropriately advise the victim on career impacts of an expedited transfer request and 

ensure that the victim is receiving appropriate medical or mental health care.

c. A sexual assault response coordinator, victim advocate, or special victims’ counsel (SVC) / 

victims’ legal counsel (VLC) must advise the victim of the potential consequences of filing 

a restricted report and requesting an expedited transfer, such as the subject not being held 

accountable for his or her actions and the absence of evidence should the victim later decide to 

unrestrict his or her report.

• Finding 26: 10 U.S.C § 673, the statutory basis for the expedited transfer policy, applies to Service members 

who are victims of sexual assault, not solely to Service member victims who file unrestricted reports. DoD 

policy limiting eligibility for expedited transfers to victims who file unrestricted reports is inconsistent with 

this law. 

• Finding 27: Under current DoD policy, a sexual assault victim who files a restricted report and wants 

to transfer to a location closer to family and friends, or who wants to get away from the Service member 

who assaulted him or her, has no way to request a transfer that will help in the healing process except after 

filing an unrestricted report. Filing an unrestricted report to request an expedited transfer may lead to the 

victim’s suffering the same negative consequences, such as the loss of privacy, that he or she sought to avoid 

by initially filing a restricted report.

• Finding 28: Filing an unrestricted report in order to request an expedited transfer triggers a full 

investigation of the allegation even if the victim does not want the case investigated or prosecuted. A sexual 

assault victim may elect not to participate in the investigation or prosecution of the case after unrestricting 

his or her report, but the case may proceed regardless of the victim’s wishes.

• Finding 29: The Response Systems Panel, in its June 2014 report, recommended that the Secretaries of the 

Military Departments create a means by which a sexual assault victim who filed a restricted report could 

request an expedited transfer without making that report unrestricted. 

a. In an October 21, 2015, Exception to Policy memo to the Secretaries of the Military Departments, 

the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness allowed the Services to proceed 

with such an exception to the current expedited transfer policy set forth in DoDI 6495.02. This memo 
10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

expresses support for allowing sexual assault victims who file restricted reports to request expedited 

transfers, but does not change DoD policy to allow for it or provide the implementing procedures for 

how to accomplish this goal.

b. In the three years since this memo was released, none of the Services has requested such an exception to 

policy, and it seems increasingly unlikely that they will do so without explicit direction from DoD.

Victims’ Options Regarding Sexual Assault Reports Made by Third Parties

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 14: The Secretary of Defense (in consultation with the Secretary of 

Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) 

establish a working group to review whether victims should have the option to request that further 

disclosure or investigation of a sexual assault report be restricted in situations in which the member 

has lost the ability to file a restricted report, whether because a third party has reported the sexual 

assault or because the member has disclosed the assault to a member of the chain of command or to 

military law enforcement. The working group’s goal should be to find a feasible solution that would, 

in appropriate circumstances, allow the victim to request that the investigation be terminated. The 

working group should consider under what circumstances, such as in the interests of justice and safety, 

a case may merit further investigation regardless of the victim’s wishes; it should also consider whether 

existing safeguards are sufficient to ensure that victims are not improperly pressured by the subject, 

or by others, to request that the investigation be terminated. This working group should consider 

developing such a policy with the following requirements:

a. The victim be required to meet with an SVC or VLC before signing a statement requesting that 

the investigation be discontinued, so that the SVC or VLC can advise the victim of the potential 

consequences of closing the investigation.

b. The investigative agent be required to obtain supervisory or MCIO headquarters-level approval to 

close a case in these circumstances.

c. The MCIOs be aware of and take steps to mitigate a potential perception by third-party reporters 

that allegations are being ignored when they see that no investigation is taking place; such steps 

could include notifying the third-party reporter of the MCIO’s decision to honor the victim’s 

request.

d. Cases in which the subject is in a position of authority over the victim be excluded from such a 

policy. 

e. If the MCIO terminates the investigation at the request of the victim, no adverse administrative 

or disciplinary action may be taken against the subject based solely on the reporting witness’s 

allegation of sexual assault.

• Finding 30: Under current DoD sexual assault policy, a victim’s communication with another person 

(e.g., roommate, friend, family member) does not, in and of itself, prevent the victim from later electing 

to make a restricted report. However, if the person to whom the victim confided is in the victim’s chain of 

command—whether an officer or a noncommissioned officer—or is DoD law enforcement, the allegation 
11

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ASSESSMENTS

must be reported to the MCIO and is therefore treated as an unrestricted report, regardless of the victim’s 

wishes or intent.

• Finding 31: DoD policy further states that if information about a sexual assault comes to a commander’s 

attention, even if from a source other than the victim, that commander must immediately report the 

matter to an MCIO and an official investigation based on that independently acquired information may be 

initiated.

• Finding 32: DoD policy specifies that a victim’s decision to decline to participate in an investigation 

should be honored; however, the victim cannot change a report from unrestricted to restricted, and the 

investigation may continue regardless of the victim’s participation.

• Finding 33: Several commanders indicated in their testimony to the DAC-IPAD that the one change they 

would make to the system is to allow victims who have lost the ability to make a restricted report—whether 

because of third-party reports or because they were unaware of this consequence of reporting to a member 

of their chain of command—to restrict any further disclosure or investigation of the incident, if they 

so desire. Some representatives from the MCIOs testified in support of such a policy; others testified in 

opposition.

• Finding 34: Additional information is needed in order to fully evaluate the effects of such a policy change. 

Issues that should be considered include the impact on the accused and the unit of closing an investigation, 

potential liability for future sexual misconduct by the accused, and the potential loss of evidence of the 

alleged offense.

Approval Standard and Purpose of the Expedited Transfer Policy 

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 15: The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security 

with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) revise the DoD expedited 

transfer policy (and the policy governing the Coast Guard with respect to expedited transfers) to 

include the following points:

a. The primary goal of the DoD expedited transfer policy is to act in the best interests of the victim. 

Commanders should focus on that goal when they make decisions regarding such requests. 

b. The single, overriding purpose of the expedited transfer policy is to assist in the victim’s mental, 

physical, and emotional recovery from the trauma of sexual assault. This purpose statement 

should be followed by examples of reasons why a victim might request an expedited transfer and 

how such a transfer would assist in a victim’s recovery (e.g., proximity to the subject or to the site 

of the assault at the current location, ostracism or retaliation at the current location, proximity to 

a support network of family or friends at the requested location, and the victim’s desire for a fresh 

start following the assault).

c. The requirement that a commander determine that a report be credible is not aligned with the 

core purpose of the expedited transfer policy. It should be eliminated, and instead an addition 

should be made to the criteria that commanders must consider in making a decision on an 

expedited transfer request: “any evidence that the victim’s report is not credible.”
12

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 16: Congress increase the amount of time allotted to a commander to 

process an expedited transfer request from 72 hours to no more than five workdays.

• Finding 35: The stated purposes of the current DoD expedited transfer policy are (1) to address situations 

in which a victim feels safe, but uncomfortable, and (2) to assist in the victim’s recovery by moving the 

victim to a new location where no one knows of the sexual assault. The expedited transfer policy does not 

address safety issues, which are the focus of other policies.

• Finding 36: Many Service presenters testified that the primary purpose of the expedited transfer program 

is to assist victims in their recovery.

• Finding 37: The standard that commanders must follow to reach a decision regarding an expedited transfer 

request is not clearly stated in DoD policy. According to DoD policy, a commander must find that a 

“credible report” has been made before approving an expedited transfer request, and the commander must 

consider a list of up to 10 additional criteria. However, DoD policy does not specify whether a commander 

should base his or her decision on what is in the best interests of the command, in the best interests of the 

victim, or both.

• Finding 38: Determining whether an expedited transfer request is based on a “credible report” is often 

problematic for commanders because they only have 72 hours to make such a determination, are 

prohibited from conducting their own investigation, and frequently have little information to consider 

beyond the victim’s report.

Inclusion of Temporary, Permanent, Intra- and Inter-installation Transfers in the Expedited Transfer 

Policy 

• DAC-IPAD Final Assessment: Having spoken to numerous presenters from the Services and DoD—

SVCs and VLCs, SARCs, SAPR personnel, assignments personnel, prosecutors, and defense counsel—the 

Committee has determined that with regard to this issue, the current expedited transfer policy is working 

for both victims and command.

Expansion of the Expedited Transfer Policy to Civilian Spouses and Children of Service Members 

• DAC-IPAD Final Assessment: Following the DAC-IPAD’s initial review of this issue in its March 2018 

Annual Report, Congress enacted a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year 2019 that expands the expedited transfer policy to include Service members whose dependents 

are victims of sexual assault by other Service members, thereby effectively resolving this issue. This section 

states:

The Secretary of Defense shall establish a policy to allow the transfer of a member 

of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps whose dependent is the victim of 

sexual assault perpetrated by a member of the Armed Forces who is not related to the 

victim.5

5 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-232 [hereinafter FY19 NDAA], § 536(b) (2019).
13

SUMMARY OF DAC-IPAD FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ASSESSMENTS

Collection of Data Regarding Expedited Transfers

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 17: The Services track and report the following data in order to best 

evaluate the expedited transfer program:

a. Data on the number of expedited transfer requests by victims; the grade and job title of the 

requester; the sex and race of the requester; the origin installation; whether the requester was 

represented by an SVC/VLC; the requested transfer locations; the actual transfer locations; 

whether the transfer was permanent or temporary; the grade and title of the decision maker and 

appeal authority, if applicable; the dates of the sexual assault report, transfer request, approval or 

disapproval decision and appeal decision, and transfer; and the disposition of the sexual assault 

case, if final.

b. Data on the number of accused transferred; the grade and job title of the accused; the sex and race 

of the accused; the origin installation; the transfer installation; the grade and title of the decision 

maker; the dates of the sexual assault report and transfer; whether the transfer was permanent or 

temporary; and the disposition of the sexual assault case, if final.

c. Data on victim participation in investigation/prosecution before and after an expedited transfer.

d. Data on the marital status (and/or number of dependents) of victims of sexual assault who 

request expedited transfers and accused Service members who are transferred under this 

program.

e. Data on the type of sexual assault offense (penetrative or contact) reported by victims requesting 

expedited transfers.

f. Data on Service retention rates for sexual assault victims who receive expedited transfers 

compared with sexual assault victims who do not receive expedited transfers and with other 

Service members of similar rank and years of service.

g. Data on the career progression for sexual assault victims who receive expedited transfers 

compared with sexual assault victims who do not receive expedited transfers and with other 

Service members of similar rank and years of service.

h. Data on victim satisfaction with the expedited transfer program.

i. Data on the expedited transfer request rate of Service members who make unrestricted reports of 

sexual assault.

• Finding 39: Currently, DoD and the Services track and report the number of expedited transfer requests 

(within an installation and between installations) made by Service member victims and the number denied 

and approved, as specifically required by Congress.

• Finding 40: Currently, there is no consistent method of tracking other data related to victims who receive 

expedited transfers, such as career progression or retention in the military.
14

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

• Finding 41: Currently, there is no requirement that DoD and the Services track or report the number of 

subject transfers made in accordance with DoDI 6495.02.

Transitional Assistance to Facilitate Recovery for Certain Service Members after a Sexual Assault 

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 18: The Secretaries of the Military Departments (and the Secretary 

of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the 

Navy) incorporate into policy, for those sexual assault victims who request it, an option to attend a 

transitional care program at a military medical facility, Wounded Warrior center, or other facility in 

order to allow those victims sufficient time and resources to heal from the trauma of sexual assault.

• Finding 42: The expedited transfer policy and existing out-patient mental health, medical, and other 

resources that assist sexual assault victims in the recovery process are not sufficient for all sexual assault 

victims. Some victims may need extra time and resources to heal before resuming their regular duties.

• Finding 43: Existing arrangements, such as military medical facility in-patient programs or Wounded 

Warrior programs, provide effective treatment to those victims who require it prior to returning to their 

regular duties. However, these resources are not being sufficiently utilized by the Services to treat those 

sexual assault victims who require additional mental health or medical treatment beyond the out-patient 

care that may be available at their local installation.
15

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.6

 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.7 In order 

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

sexual misconduct.8

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, 2016.9

 The swearing-in of 16 members and the first meeting of the DAC-IPAD was held on January 

19, 2017.

The DAC-IPAD is required by its authorizing legislation 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, describing the results of its activities.10

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.11 Active 

duty Service members are expressly prohibited from serving on the Committee.12 In January 2017 the Secretary 

of Defense appointed to the DAC-IPAD 16 members, including its Chair, Martha S. Bashford. The members 

represent a broad range of perspectives and experience related to sexual assault both within and outside the 

military.13

The Committee members have spent decades working in their fields of expertise, which include

• Civilian sexual assault investigation and forensics

6 FY15 NDAA, supra note 1, § 546; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-92, § 537, 129 Stat. 726, 817 (2015). 

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

8 Id. at § 546(c)(2). 

9 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 (Feb. 18, 2016; Renewed Feb. 16, 2018).

10 FY15 NDAA, supra note 1, § 546(d).

11 Id. at § 546.

12 Id. 

13 See Appendix C, Committee Members, for a list and biographies of the DAC-IPAD members.
16

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

• 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

• Crime victims’ rights

Four members of the Committee retired from the military and two more served previously as judge advocates. 

Three of the members are sitting federal judges. 

III. WORKING GROUPS

In 2017 the DAC-IPAD established 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 (CRWG) 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 chaired by retired Marine Corps Brigadier General James R. Schwenk, and 

comprises six additional members: Ms. Martha S. Bashford, Ms. Kathleen B. Cannon, Ms. Jennifer Gentile Long, 

Mr. James P. Markey, Dr. Cassia C. Spohn, and initially Judge Reggie B. Walton. In 2018 Judge Walton left the 

working group, and Ms. Meghan A. Tokash joined it. 

The mission of the Data Working Group (DWG) is to make recommendations to the Committee based on its 

collection and analysis of case adjudication data from completed cases involving allegations of both penetrative 

sexual offenses (rape, forcible sodomy, and sexual assault) and contact sexual offenses (aggravated sexual 

contact, abusive sexual contact) for which charges were preferred. The Data Working Group is chaired by 

Dr. Cassia C. Spohn, and comprises two additional members: Mr. James P. Markey and Retired Chief Master 

Sergeant of the Air Force Rodney J. McKinley. 

Finally, the mission of the Policy Working Group (PWG) is to make recommendations to the Committee based 

on its review of DoD 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 chaired by Chief Rodney J. McKinley and comprises four additional members: retired Army Major 

General Marcia M. Anderson, Ms. Margaret A. Garvin, Dr. Jenifer Markowitz, and General James R. Schwenk. 

IV. PREVIOUS DAC-IPAD REPORTS

A. Initial Report – March 2017

The DAC-IPAD held its first meeting on January 19, 2017—about two months before the statutory due date 

of March 30 for the Committee’s annual report. In this initial report, the Committee reflected on its initial 

discussions, emphasizing the need for and importance of accurate, relevant data so that members can fully 
17

INTRODUCTION

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 and agreed to continue the important data collection 

project developed by its predecessor panel, the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP).14

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

concerns that must be considered in reviewing investigative case files, particularly those involving children, the 

members agreed that they initially would concentrate exclusively on adult cases.15 The Committee noted that the 

DAC-IPAD’s authorizing legislation provides little guidance on how to conduct case reviews and acknowledged 

the need for continuing discussions about the scope and methodology of this process.16

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

30, 2017.17

B. Second Annual Report – March 2018

The Committee held six public meetings in the 12 months preceding the release of its second annual report 

on March 30, 2018.18 The Committee first received informational briefings on the mechanics of sexual assault 

investigation and prosecution in the military, the sexual assault case adjudication statistics collected and 

reported on by the JPP, and the sexual assault data collected and published annually by DoD’s Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO).19 After completing its strategic plan, the Committee began its first 

substantive policy review by exploring the topics of expedited transfers and of the legal and sexual assault 

training received by convening authorities.20

In its second annual report, the Committee made 11 findings and 4 recommendations related to the 

Department’s expedited transfer policy. The Committee’s overall assessment was that the expedited transfer 

policy for sexual assault victims is an important sexual assault response initiative offered by the military and 

it strongly recommended the continuation and further improvement of the policy. It also recommended 

expanding the expedited transfer policy to include sexual assault victims who are active duty Service members 

covered by the Family Advocacy Program (FAP). 

14 See 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).

15 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). 

16 See, e.g., Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 263–64, 271 (Jan. 19, 2017). 

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

(Mar. 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/08-Reports/DACIPAD_Initial_Report_20170330_Final_Web.pdf.

18 See DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4.

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

20 See generally Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (Oct. 19, 2017); Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (Oct. 20, 2017).
18

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Congress followed and expanded on this recommendation when it enacted a provision in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 requiring the Secretary of Defense to extend the expedited transfer policy 

to Service members who are victims of sexual assault regardless of whether the case is handled by SAPRO or 

FAP. 21 The law also extends the expedited transfer policy to members who are victims of physical domestic 

violence committed by the spouse or intimate partner of the member regardless of whether the spouse or 

intimate partner is a member of the Armed Forces.22 In addition, Service members whose dependent is sexually 

assaulted by a Service member not related to the victim are now eligible for expedited transfers.23

V. THIRD ANNUAL DAC-IPAD REPORT – MARCH 2019

This report describes the Committee’s activities and the topics examined over the previous 12 months. The 

Committee held six public meetings between April 2018 and February 2019 during which it heard from 

21 presenters, including three members of the public, on topics such as sexual assault data collection and 

management, sexual assault investigation practices, and the effects of sexual assault investigations on accused 

Service members and victims.24 In addition, the Committee’s three working groups held 13 preparatory sessions 

during which members heard testimony from more than 50 presenters, including military prosecutors, defense 

counsel, investigators, victims’ counsel, program managers, victim services personnel, and an assistant United 

States Attorney on topics including sexual assault investigation practices, the DoD expedited transfer policy, and 

sexual assault prosecution standards in civilian and military jurisdictions. 

The Committee makes 32 findings and 14 recommendations in this report in the areas of commanders’ 

disposition decisions with respect to penetrative sexual assault complaints, documentation of command 

disposition decisions, unfounded determinations, subject fingerprint collection and submission to federal 

criminal databases, Article 140a of the UCMJ regarding military justice data collection and management, and 

the DoD expedited transfer policy. 

The first chapter of this report focuses on the outcome of the Committee members’ review of a random sample 

of 164 of the 2,055 penetrative sexual assault investigative case files closed in FY17 involving Service member 

subjects and adult victims.25 The members of the CRWG recorded descriptive data from each case and assessed 

the reasonableness of the command disposition decisions based on the evidence available in the files and the 

members’ professional experience. 

Chapter 2 of the report details the Committee’s collection and analysis of case adjudication data for completed 

penetrative and contact sexual assault cases in which charges were preferred, covering fiscal years 2015 through 

2017. Chapter 3 provides the Committee’s recommendations and rationale regarding the implementation of the 

new Article 140a, UCMJ, which requires uniform data collection and management for military justice cases. 

These recommendations were initially submitted to the Secretary of Defense by the Committee on September 

13, 2019, in order to be considered before the deadline for the guidance of January 1, 2019. The Committee 

Chair received a response from the DoD Office of General Counsel along with the Department’s uniform 

21 FY19 NDAA, supra note 5, § 536. 

22 Id. at § 536.

23 Id. at § 536.

24 See Appendix N, DAC-IPAD Public Meetings, Preparatory Sessions, and Presenters. 

25 See Chapter 1, Section II on Case Review Methodology for a more detailed discussion of the cases selected for review.
19

INTRODUCTION

guidance on January 23, 2019. Both letters are discussed in the chapter and included as Appendixes J and K to 

the report.

The Committee’s final assessment and recommendations related to the DoD expedited transfer policy are 

discussed in Chapter 4. Finally, in Chapters 5 and 6, the report identifies and makes initial comments on several 

additional topics that the Committee has been requested to explore by DoD and Congress, including collateral 

misconduct engaged in by victims of sexual assault and Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the UCMJ. 
20

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
21

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER 1.

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE CASE 

FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Case File Review Mandate and Scope of Review

Congress directed the DAC-IPAD 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, in order to advise the Secretary of Defense regarding the handling of those cases in the military 

justice system.26 In accordance with this statutory mandate, the Committee formed and tasked a Case Review 

Working Group (CRWG), composed of seven Committee members, to individually review military sexual 

assault cases. The CRWG is chaired by retired Marine Corps Brigadier General James R. Schwenk. The other 

members of the working group are Ms. Martha S. Bashford (the DAC-IPAD Chair), Ms. Kathleen B. Cannon, 

Ms. Jennifer Gentile Long, Mr. James P. Markey, Dr. Cassia C. Spohn, and Ms. Meghan A. Tokash.

Neither the DAC-IPAD’s authorizing statute nor its charter specified the scope of or methodology for the 

Committee’s case review requirement. Recognizing that none of the previous military sexual assault panels 

evaluated military sexual assault cases at the investigative stage, the Committee decided to focus its case review 

on the period from the initial report of a penetrative sexual assault to military law enforcement through the 

decision of the commander whether to prefer charges for a penetrative sexual assault, thereby initiating a 

criminal justice proceeding.27

In October 2017 the Committee submitted a request for information (RFI) to the Services’ military criminal 

investigative organizations (MCIOs).28 In this request the Committee asked for the Services to provide the 

total number of sexual assault investigations closed in fiscal year 2017 as well as case-by-case investigative data, 

including the case dispositions for all cases that met four criteria: (1) closed in fiscal year 2017 (2) involving a 

complaint of penetrative sexual assault (3) made by an adult victim (4) against an active duty military subject.29

26 FY15 NDAA, supra note 1, § 546 (c)(2).

27 U.S. Dep’t of Def., Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense on Withholding Initial Disposition Authority Under the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice in Certain Sexual Assault Cases (Apr. 20, 2012).

28 See DAC-IPAD RFI Set 5 (Jun 29, 2017), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/07-RFIs/DACIPAD_RFI_Set5_20171030_Web.pdf.

For purposes of this report, MCIOs are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command (CID), Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), Air 

Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), and Coast Guard Investigative Services (CGIS). A case is considered “closed,” in this context, after a 

completed MCIO investigation has been submitted to a commander to make an initial disposition decision and any action taken by the convening 

authority is complete and documentation of the outcome has been provided to the MCIO. Id. The Committee defined a “penetrative sexual assault” 

as a complaint of rape or sexual assault, in violation of Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); forcible sodomy, in violation 

of Article 125 of the UCMJ; and any attempt to commit such offenses. Id.; see also Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 294 (Oct. 20, 2017) 

(presentation by Member James Schwenk and Committee discussion); PowerPoint presentation by the Case Review Working Group, Initial Case 

Review Plan (Oct. 20, 2017). 10 U.S.C. § 920(b) (UCMJ, Art. 120(b)) defines a child as an individual who is under the age of 16; therefore, the 

Committee defined an adult victim as a victim over the age of 16. See DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 15–22.

29 The dates of fiscal year 2017 are from October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017. Disposition options are outlined in Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 

306(c) of the Manual for Courts-Martial; they include no action, administrative action, non-judicial punishment, and preferral of charges. The 
22

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

The Service MCIO responses indicated that while more than 6,000 sexual assault cases were closed by the 

MCIOs in FY17, only about 2,000 of those cases—a third—involved penetrative sexual assault complaints made 

against a Service member by an adult victim.30 The individual case data provided by the MCIOs also revealed 

that a majority of the penetrative sexual assault investigations closed in FY17 did not result in the preferral of 

criminal charges for a penetrative sexual assault.31

B. Objectives

The Committee outlined its objectives and plan for the case review project in detail in its March 2018 report.32

After regularly reviewing individual investigative case files over the past year and gaining a hands-on perspective 

regarding military sexual assault cases as documented in military investigative case files, the Committee 

identified the following objectives for its case review project:

• Assess the reasonableness of case disposition decisions in the military.

• Compile descriptive case data regarding the facts of the cases reviewed.

• Examine investigative files for issues involving the discretion afforded to military investigators and the 

duration of investigations.

• Review practices for documenting a commander’s disposition decision in penetrative sexual assault cases 

in which a Service member is the subject. 

• Review MCIO practices for submitting fingerprints and case disposition information to federal 

databases and for documenting cases as unfounded.

A sixth objective outlined in last year’s report, examining predictive factors for case outcomes, is not addressed 

in this report. That objective will require an analysis of the full set of 2,055 cases from FY17, which is not yet 

complete; it will therefore be addressed in a future report. 

The Committee’s initial case review assessments, findings, and recommendations outlined in this chapter were 

derived from members’ review and analysis of 164 individual penetrative sexual assault investigative cases closed 

in FY17.33 The report was further informed by the testimony of civilian and military investigators, military 

prosecutors, military defense counsel, an assistant United States attorney, and Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) analysts received by the Committee and its working group in March, July, August, and October of 2018, 

and by over 25 hours of Committee and working group deliberations on these issues.

Committee decided that a case would be categorized as “action taken” only if the action was for a reported penetrative sexual assault, and not for a 

lesser included or other criminal offense, including collateral misconduct. “No action taken” means that the penetrative sexual assault report was 

thoroughly investigated by the relevant Service’s MCIO, a report of the investigation was completed and submitted to the commander, and the 

commander decided against taking any action, whether administrative, non-judicial, or judicial, for the penetrative sexual assault. 

30 See Appendix H, Aggregated Service Responses to DAC-IPAD RFI Sets 3, 4, and 5 (Oct. 30, 2017), at H-16.

31 Id.

32 DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 25.

33 See Section II on Case Review Methodology for a more detailed discussion of the cases selected for review. 
23

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

II. CASE REVIEW METHODOLOGY

A. Case Data and Files Provided by the MCIOs

In its October 2017 RFI regarding military sexual assault investigations closed in FY17, the DAC-IPAD asked 

for specific descriptive details about each case, including the Service branch of the subject(s), status of the victim 

as either civilian or Service member, date the case was closed, type of penetrative offense reported, and the case 

disposition, both as reflected in the Service MCIO case management systems and as submitted by the MCIOs for 

FBI crime data reporting purposes.34

Once the Committee received the requested information from the MCIOs, the staff thoroughly reviewed the 

lists of cases provided by each of the Services and found that some were outside the scope of the data request, 

such as cases involving victims under the age of 16 or non-Service member subjects. These cases were eliminated 

before the data were evaluated. To further streamline the Committee’s review and avoid possible duplication 

of cases, the staff also excluded any cases in which the subject was from a different branch of Service than the 

MCIO; cases in which the subject was a member of the Reserves or National Guard, or had retired or separated 

from the Service prior to the initiation of the investigation; and cases in which the Service member subject was 

prosecuted by civilian authorities.35 If there were multiple subjects in an investigation, the Committee counted 

the investigation with respect to each subject as a separate “case” for purposes of the Committee’s review.36 The 

resulting list comprised 2,055 cases closed in FY17 in which a Service member was investigated for a penetrative 

sexual assault against an adult victim. 

Next, the cases were sorted by Service of the subject and by the disposition of the case. The DAC-IPAD RFI 

requested that the MCIOs provide the case disposition for each of the penetrative sexual assault offenses 

identified. However, once the Committee members began reviewing the case files, the reviewers found that the 

MCIOs’ categorization by case disposition of the 2,055 penetrative sexual assault cases was not always specific 

to the penetrative sexual assault offense and, in some cases, may have represented action taken for other nonsexual offenses that were investigated in conjunction with the penetrative sexual assault, such as adultery, 

fraternization, or underage drinking. Since the focus of the DAC-IPAD’s review is exclusively on whether an 

investigation resulted in preferral of criminal charges or other adverse action specifically for a penetrative sexual 

assault, the DAC-IPAD will provide case disposition data specifically for the penetrative sexual assault offense 

in all 2,055 cases once the individual case reviews are complete. The table below, which is based on the MCIOs’ 

responses to the RFI and not on the DAC-IPAD’s own categorization of case disposition, illustrates the number 

of cases in which charges were preferred or not preferred for a penetrative sexual assault (PSA) offense. 

34 DAC-IPAD RFI Set 5 (Oct. 30, 2017). In DAC-IPAD RFI Set 5, the MCIOs were requested to provide the disposition of the penetrative sexual 

assault case, including whether no action was taken and/or the case was unfounded, for all FY17 sexual assault investigations for a penetrative 

sexual assault with a military subject and adult victim closed between October 1, 2016, and September 30, 2017 (regardless of the date the 

allegation was made or the investigation opened). See Appendix E, DAC-IPAD Requests for Information Sets 1–10.

35 The staff excluded all cases in which the MCIOs designated the subject as retired in the case lists provided; however, reviewers realized during 

the course of the case reviews that some of the remaining investigations also included Service members who were retired at the time of the 

investigation. The CRWG members determined that they would still review these cases, since the case files were provided to the Committee. The 

retired status of these subjects is noted in the DAC-IPAD’s collected data.

36 In their case lists, the MCIOs included a separate entry for each subject in an investigation. Therefore, if one investigation had multiple subjects, the 

case was indicated multiple times on the case list for each separate subject. During the course of the reviews, however, the reviewers realized that 

some cases that had not been designated as multi-subject by the MCIOs in the case lists also involved multiple subjects; the number of cases for 

review was revised accordingly.
24

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES CLOSED IN FY 2017 INVOLVING ADULT VICTIMS 

AND SERVICE MEMBER SUBJECTS (N=2,055)37

Military Service 

of Subject

Cases with Charges 

Preferred for PSA 

Offense (n=408)

Cases with 

No Charges 

Preferred for PSA 

Offense (n=1,647)

Total PSA 

Cases 

Closed in 

FY 2017

Army 148 16% 766 84% 914

Marine Corps 66 23% 223 77% 289

Navy 65 16% 335 84% 400

Air Force 117 28% 306 72% 423

Coast Guard 12 41% 17 59% 29

The Committee members were particularly struck that an average of 80% of the 2,055 cases involving reports 

of rape, sexual assault, and forcible sodomy that were closed in FY17 did not result in charges being preferred 

for those offenses. The Committee sought to examine these investigative case files first to learn more about the 

specific facts of the cases, the evidence collected, and the decision-making process of the command in choosing 

not to prefer charges (including any written legal advice received, if available). 

The Committee decided that its working group members would individually review a random sample of case 

files selected from the 2,055-case list, proportionately weighted by case disposition, as designated by the MCIOs, 

and by the Service of the subject. With guidance from the DoD Office of Inspector General, the staff identified 

a random sample of cases for the Committee members to review; the random sample was generated from 

the MCIO case lists utilizing the random number function in Microsoft Excel, which identified 184 cases for 

inclusion in the sample stratified by Service and disposition category. These cases were each classified by the 

MCIOs as having one of the following dispositions: preferral of charges, administrative action, non-judicial 

punishment, or no action taken.38

To establish a baseline against which to compare facts and evidence in the cases in which no action was taken 

for the penetrative sexual assault, the Committee also reviewed the cases from the random sample in which 

charges were preferred. Out of the random sample of 184 cases, the combined cases with dispositions of no 

action and preferral of charges was 152. The remaining 32 cases with dispositions of non-judicial punishment or 

administrative action were set aside to be reviewed in a later report. 

When the Committee members began reviewing and documenting case information from the investigative files, 

they found that some case files involved multiple subjects that were not separately identified in the case lists 

provided by the MCIOs. Since each “case” is composed of a single subject-victim pair, the discovery of additional 

subjects and victims during case reviews increased the number of random sample cases from 152 to 164. Of 

37 The cases reported in this table comprise MCIO investigations of all penetrative sexual assault complaints made by adult victims against Service 

member subjects closed in FY17, including those investigations in which a judge advocate determined that no probable cause existed for the 

penetrative sexual assault. Case disposition classifications were provided to the DAC-IPAD by the Service MCIOs in DAC-IPAD RFI Set 5. See

Appendix E, DAC-IPAD Requests for Information Sets 1–10, and Appendix H, Aggregated Service Responses to DAC-IPAD RFI Sets 3, 4, and 5.

38 The distribution of dispositions of the 184 cases was as follows: preferral of charges 37 (20%), administrative action 19 (10%), non-judicial 

punishment 13 (7%), and no action taken 115 (63%). 
25

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

the 164 cases reviewed, 42 were cases in which charges were preferred for the penetrative sexual assault and 

122 were cases in which no action was taken against the subject for the penetrative sexual assault offense. In the 

cases in which no action was taken for the penetrative sexual assault, it is possible that some other adverse action 

was taken against the subject for offenses other than the penetrative sexual assault.

For the random sample cases, the Committee ensured that the dispositions in the “preferred” and “no action” 

categories reflected the disposition of the penetrative sexual assault offense specifically. When a case file indicated 

that the disposition action was for an offense other than the penetrative sexual assault, the case was replaced with 

another randomly selected case file from the universe of 2,055 penetrative sexual assault cases. This process was 

repeated until a case file was identified that reflected the disposition of the penetrative sexual assault.

PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES CLOSED IN FY 2017 INVOLVING ADULT VICTIMS 

AND SERVICE MEMBER SUBJECTS – RANDOM SAMPLE (N=164)39

Military Service 

of Subject

Cases with Charges 

Preferred for PSA 

Offense (n=42)

Cases with 

No Action Taken for 

PSA Offense (n=122)

Total PSA 

Cases 

Reviewed

Army 17 23% 56 77% 73

Marine Corps 6 25% 18 75% 24

Navy 6 20% 24 80% 30

Air Force 12 36% 21 64% 33

Coast Guard 1 25% 3 75% 4

B. The Case Review Process

At the Committee’s request, each Service’s criminal investigative organization provided the Committee members 

and professional staff with copies of the identified investigative case files, unredacted, for review at the DACIPAD office in Arlington, Virginia.40 Because investigative case files contain personal and sensitive information, 

all files provided to the DAC-IPAD by the MCIOs were carefully safeguarded as required by law and DoD policy 

and were returned to the MCIOs upon completion of the reviews.41

The investigative files provided to the Committee typically contained the following documents: the report of 

investigation; verbatim statements from key witnesses; summaries of statements made by the complainant, 

the subject, and other witnesses; a description of the crime scene; evidentiary photographs; digital evidence; 

forensic laboratory test results; and, in some cases, video recordings and/or agent notes. The investigative files 

usually included documentation of the initial disposition decision by commanders and the final outcome of any 

39 For the 164 random sample cases, the dispositions of the penetrative sexual assault offenses were verified by DAC-IPAD staff through case file 

reviews.

40 Case files were provided to the DAC-IPAD in paper copies, on CD-ROMs, on external hard drives, or by other secure electronic method.

41 Dep’t. of Def. Directive 5400.11, DoD Privacy Program (Oct. 29, 2014), available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/

issuances/dodd/540011p.pdf.
26

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

disciplinary or legal proceedings. In addition, some of the investigative files contained documentation of the 

subject’s fingerprints, probable cause determinations, and legal memoranda from a judge advocate.

For cases in which one or more charges of a penetrative sexual assault were preferred, reviewers also examined 

relevant procedural case documents such as the charge sheet, Report of the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing 

Officer, and Report of Result of Trial, in addition to the information available in the investigative file. These 

judicial documents were retrieved from the DAC-IPAD’s sexual assault case adjudication database, which is 

discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2 of this report. 

During their examination of the available documents from case files and the DAC-IPAD’s sexual assault case 

adjudication database, reviewers recorded relevant factual and evidentiary details, including their independent 

assessment of and any comments regarding the investigation of the case and its disposition. To guide the 

reviews, the Committee developed a 21-page standardized data collection form with 231 data elements 

that reviewers filled in by hand with data and comments for each case reviewed.42 To establish standardized 

procedural and interpretive rules for the data gathered in each case, the Committee also developed a detailed 

instruction manual for completing each item on the case review informational form. 

All of the information collected was entered into a secure electronic database developed and maintained by 

DoD and Committee staff. To ensure consistency across reviews by the Committee members and staff, the 

information documented by Committee members in the course of their reviews was routinely compared with 

the information recorded by staff. In addition, the Committee staff met frequently to ensure their own consistent 

practices in conducting reviews. The CRWG staff attorneys and paralegals conducted secondary and tertiary 

reviews of the completed forms prior to entering the information into the database to reconcile any factual 

discrepancies across reviewers and to further ensure consistency in the interpretation of the data collection 

form. Finally, the data extracted from the database were also reviewed for accuracy. 

C. Status of the Case Review Project

Beginning in February 2018, the Committee members individually traveled to the DAC-IPAD’s Arlington, 

Virginia, office to review cases on a regular basis. The professional staff began its ongoing review of the full data set 

of 2,055 FY17 cases at the same time, starting with the random sample cases reviewed by the Committee members.

As of the October 19, 2018, DAC-IPAD public meeting, the Committee members had reviewed all of the 164 

random sample cases in which charges were preferred or no action was taken for the penetrative sexual assault. 

The Committee makes its findings and recommendations in this chapter drawing on its review of these 164 

cases. Once the Committee and staff have finished their review of all of the FY17 cases, the Committee will 

publish its complete results.

The process of reviewing and collecting data from investigative files has proved to be extremely time-intensive. 

Reviewers observed that not all investigative files included the same documents and that the contents varied 

across the Services. For example, Air Force files always contained agent’s notes, while the Navy and Army 

included these notes only some of the time. Further, each of the Services documents command disposition 

42 See Appendix F, Investigative Case Review Data Form, for the complete list of items documented for every MCIO case file reviewed by the 

Committee and staff.
27

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

decisions differently. Command disposition documentation was also often missing from the investigative files 

provided to the Committee and had to be specifically requested from the Service MCIOs. 

On average, a thorough examination of a case in which no charges were preferred for the penetrative sexual assault 

takes a reviewer about three hours to complete; reviews of cases in which audio or video files are available, multiple 

subjects or victims are involved, or charges are preferred take even longer. Furthermore, considerable resources 

have been required to perform quality control tests on the checklists, to develop and refine the database in which 

the data from the forms are collected, and to enter and review the data. Lastly, the process of requesting, physically 

inventorying, collecting, maintaining, and returning case files has itself required significant resources. 

D. Way Ahead

As of February 5, 2019, the Committee members and staff have reviewed 1,482 cases out of the total population 

of 2,055 investigative cases closed in FY17. The Committee members and staff plan to have their review of the 

remaining cases completed by the summer of 2019. The results from the review of the entire population of cases 

will be presented in the DAC-IPAD’s 2020 report.

STATUS OF CASE REVIEWS AS OF FEBRUARY 5, 201943

NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED TO DATE (N=1,482)

Military Service 

of Subject

Charges 

Preferred

Non-judicial 

Punishment

Admin. 

Action No Action Total Cases Reviewed

Army 68 17 9 461 555

Marine Corps 52 2 3 186 243

Navy 16 3 3 237 259

Air Force 116 8 34 238 396

Coast Guard 12 3 6 8 29

NUMBER OF CASES PENDING REVIEW (N=573)

Military Service 

of Subject

Charges 

Preferred

Non-judicial 

Punishment

Admin. 

Action No Action Total Cases Pending

Army 80 35 84 160 359

Marine Corps 14 16 16 0 46

Navy 49 38 29 25 141

Air Force 1 7 17 2 27

Coast Guard 0 0 0 0 0

43 Although the data requested from the MCIOs was for the disposition of the penetrative sexual assault offense specifically, Committee and staff case 

reviewers have found that in some instances the action taken is for other, non-sexual misconduct. Therefore, the categorization by case disposition 

of the 2,055 penetrative sexual assault cases identified in this report is not always specific to the penetrative sexual assault offense and may in some 

cases reflect action taken for other offenses that were investigated in conjunction with the penetrative sexual assault. These case categorizations will 

be corrected in the 2020 report to accurately reflect the disposition of the penetrative sexual assault offense.
28

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

III. COMMAND DISPOSITION OF PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT COMPLAINTS

A. Introduction and Background

Over the past decade, the military, including commanders, has been criticized for taking insufficient action 

against Service members accused of sexual assault.44 Reflecting this concern, in 2014 the United States Senate 

considered a bill to remove court-martial disposition authority from commanders in sexual assault cases and 

place it with military prosecutors.45 Such a change would require a dramatic and unprecedented restructuring of 

the military justice process. However, to date, no entity has attempted to systematically analyze individual sexual 

assault cases for the specific purpose of determining whether commanders are making appropriate disposition 

decisions, or if there is indeed a systemic problem in how commanders are exercising this discretion. 

The Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) was directed by Congress in 2013 to conduct this type of analysis; however, 

that panel quickly discovered that reliable data on sexual assault case dispositions and sentencing across the 

Services were not available from DoD.46 Without reliable data, or access to investigative case files, the JPP 

determined in 2014 that it could not make qualitative assessments of military sexual assault cases because it was 

unable to review the facts and evidence in individual cases.47 Therefore, the DAC-IPAD, which was specifically 

directed by Congress to look at individual cases, followed up on the previous congressional directive to the JPP 

and undertook a review of sexual assault investigative files in order to evaluate the reasonableness of command 

disposition decisions in these cases. 

The Committee leveraged members’ collective expertise in sexual assault case investigation and adjudication to 

assess whether, from an investigatory and legal standpoint, commanders are systemically exercising their authority 

to dispose of sexual assault offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) appropriately, particularly 

when the commander declines to prefer charges for a penetrative sexual assault complaint. While such assessments 

are inherently subjective, they are an important way of responding to the need for Service members to have 

confidence in the military’s criminal justice system and for the public to perceive the system as fair.

In making its assessment, the Committee cannot and does not relitigate or second-guess any single case or 

decision. The members recognize that they are not in a position to identify any individual case as having rightly 

44 See, e.g., The Invisible War (Chain Camera Pictures 2012); Craig Whitlock, How the Military Handles Sexual Assault Behind Closed Doors, Wash. 

Post, Sept. 30, 2017; Robert Draper, The Military’s Rough Justice on Sexual Assault, N.Y. Times, Nov. 26, 2014. 

45 Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013, S. Res. 1752, 113th Cong. § 2(a) (2013). Congress directed the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault 

Crimes Panel (RSP) to make “an assessment of the impact, if any, that removing from the chain of command any disposition authority regarding 

charges preferred under chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), would have on overall reporting and 

prosecution of sexual assault cases.” National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66, 127 Stat. 672 (2013) [hereinafter 

FY14 NDAA], § 1731(a)(1)(A). The RSP recommended that Congress not adopt the Military Justice Improvement Act to modify the authority 

vested in convening authorities to refer sexual assault charges to courts-martial. See Report of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual 

Assault Crimes Panel 2, 22 (June 2014) [hereinafter RSP Report], available at http://responsesystemspanel.whs.mil/public/docs/Reports/00_

Final/RSP_Report_Final_20140627.pdf.

46 See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, 126 Stat. 1632, § 576 (d)(2) (2013) (tasking the JPP with 

assessing the appropriateness and consistency of case dispositions, outcomes, and punishments).

47 Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses 27 (April 

2016) [hereinafter JPP Report on Statistical Data], available at http://jpp.whs.mil/public/docs/08-Panel_Reports/05_JPP_StatData_MilAdjud_

SexAsslt_Report_Final_20160419.pdf (“Without knowing more about the facts of individual cases, the JPP cannot assess the appropriateness 

of case disposition decisions. Specific factors in each case, including the nature of the offenses, any mitigating or extenuating circumstances, the 

willingness of a victim to testify, and the strength of available evidence, affect disposition decisions. It is neither possible nor appropriate to make 

collective assessments based solely on the general nature of charges and the forum for disposition.”).
29

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

or wrongly resulted in the preferral or non-preferral of charges for the penetrative sexual assault, as there are 

many variables that cannot be gleaned from a review of an investigative file alone. However, on the basis of their 

review of 164 individual case files, the Committee members could develop a sense of whether commanders 

charged with making preferral decisions in sexual assault cases are doing so in a manner consistent with the 

Committee members’ own experience and judgment. In addition, the reviewers could identify any concerning 

patterns regarding command decision-making in sexual assault cases. 

B. Methodology for Assessing the Reasonableness of Disposition Decisions

Committee members serving on the Case Review Working Group reviewed 164 investigative files closed in FY17 

that involved a complaint of a penetrative sexual assault made by an adult victim against an active duty Service 

member subject. In assessing the “reasonableness” of the command’s disposition decision in individual cases—

that is, whether the command’s disposition decision was within an appropriate zone of discretion—the members 

were informed by their diverse perspectives and expertise in criminal justice. 

The Committee members recognized that what is “reasonable” to one person may not be “reasonable” to 

another. Therefore every investigative case file reviewed from the random sample was reviewed at least twice, 

by both a Committee member and a DAC-IPAD professional staff member. Further, a third reviewer—either a 

Committee member or DAC-IPAD staff attorney—reviewed the case file if any previous reviewer determined 

that the command’s disposition decision was not supported by the evidence reviewed in the investigative file. 

Each reviewer made an independent assessment based on the same facts. All reviewers recorded their individual 

comments and opinions. 

In the 122 cases in which the investigation of a penetrative sexual assault complaint resulted in no action 

taken for the penetrative sexual assault, the reviewers evaluated whether the command’s decision to decline to 

prefer charges for the penetrative sexual assault was reasonable. Reviewers did not assess whether they would 

have reached a different conclusion in a specific case; reviewers assessed whether the decision regarding the 

penetrative sexual assault, based on all of the evidence contained in the investigative file, was reasonable. 

In the 42 cases in which the investigation of a penetrative sexual assault complaint resulted in preferred charges for 

a penetrative sexual assault, the reviewers assessed whether the command’s decision to prefer charges and initiate a 

criminal justice proceeding was reasonably supported by the evidence contained in the investigative file. 

C. The Committee’s Evaluation of Command Disposition Decisions in Penetrative Sexual 

Assault Cases

In 95% of the investigative case files that the Committee reviewed, a majority of reviewers (two out of two 

reviewers or two out of three reviewers) determined that the command’s disposition decision regarding 

the penetrative sexual assault complaint was reasonable. The percentage of command disposition decisions 

determined to be reasonable was similar whether the commander preferred charges for the penetrative sexual 

assault (95%) or did not prefer charges for the penetrative sexual assault (94%). 

The reviewers’ decisions were largely consistent regardless of whether the reviewer was a Committee member 

or professional staff member, regardless of whether the reviewer had expertise in military justice, and regardless 

of whether the reviewer’s professional background involved investigating, prosecuting, or defending individuals 

charged with sexual assault offenses. Reviewers determined that the commander’s disposition decision was not 
30

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

supported by the evidence in the investigative file reviewed by the Committee in 7—or 6%—of the 122 cases in 

which no charges were preferred. Similarly, out of the 42 cases in which charges were preferred for a penetrative 

sexual assault, reviewers determined that the commander’s decision to prefer charges was not supported by the 

evidence reviewed in the case file in 2—or 5%—of those cases.

ASSESSMENT OF COMMAND DISCRETION BASED ON 

THE COMMITTEE’S REVIEW OF INVESTIGATIVE CASE FILES CLOSED IN FY 2017 

INVOLVING PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT COMPLAINTS (N=164)48

Reviewer Assessment of 

Disposition Decision

Charges Preferred 

for PSA Offense

(n=42)

No Charges 

Preferred for PSA 

Offense (n=122)

Total Reviewed 

Sample PSA Cases 

Closed in FY 2017

Majority found reasonable 40 95% 115 94% 155 95%

Majority found unreasonable 2 5% 7 6% 9 5%

D. Discussion

Through its independent assessment of 164 cases, in 122 (or 74%) of which charges were not preferred for a 

penetrative sexual assault, the Committee determined that the overwhelming majority of those cases—115 out 

of 122 (94%)—were appropriately declined for preferral by the command. The remaining 6% of decisions not 

to prefer charges for a penetrative sexual assault were found by the majority of reviewers not to be supported 

by the evidence reviewed in the case file. The Committee members note that these do not necessarily constitute 

cases in which charges should have been preferred; rather, the reviewers felt they would need to consider more 

information before they could adequately evaluate whether the disposition decision was reasonable. Such 

additional information could include a review of the prosecution merits memorandum and perhaps interviews 

with the judge advocates and commander involved. However, the Committee felt that such an endeavor would 

be unnecessary, since review of the 164 cases from the random sample reveals no sign of systemic problems 

with the reasonableness of commanders’ decisions on whether to prefer charges in cases involving a penetrative 

sexual assault. 

The same is true for the 42 cases reviewed in which the command preferred charges for a penetrative sexual 

assault. The Committee noted that 95% of these cases were deemed to have been reasonably decided as well. The 

remaining 5% of decisions to prefer charges were found by the majority of reviewers not to have been sufficiently 

supported by the case file. Again, this is not a dispositive finding that it was unreasonable for the command to 

have preferred charges, only a finding that more information would need to be reviewed in these cases.

48 Out of the 42 cases in which charges were preferred for a penetrative sexual assault, reviewers unanimously (three out of three reviewers) found the 

command decision reasonable in 37 (88%) of the cases, and the majority of reviewers (two out of three reviewers) found the command decision 

reasonable in 3 (7%) of the cases. Of the preferred cases, reviewers unanimously found the command decision unreasonable in one case, and 

a majority of reviewers found the command decision unreasonable in one case. Out of the 122 cases in which no charges were preferred for a 

penetrative sexual assault, reviewers unanimously found that the command disposition was reasonable in 105 (86%) of the cases, and a majority 

of reviewers found the command decision reasonable in another 10 (8%) of the cases. A majority of reviewers found the command decision 

unreasonable in 3 (2%) of the cases in which charges were not preferred, and reviewers unanimously found that the command decision was 

unreasonable in 4 (3%) of those cases in which charges were not preferred. 
31

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

The Committee noted that the reasonableness of command decisions was nearly identical both in the cases in 

which charges were preferred and in those in which no action was taken. This consistency lends support to the 

Committee’s conclusion that there is no systemic problem with command decision-making regarding preferral 

of charges for penetrative sexual assaults. 

Regardless of whether a case should be prosecuted at trial or court-martial, it is vital to continue encouraging 

people to report suspected sexual offenses. In many of the cases that cannot be prosecuted for evidentiary 

reasons—often involving excessive alcohol consumption—the victims or reporting witnesses are terribly upset 

and traumatized by what has occurred. Whether or not the reported incident rises to the level of a criminal 

offense or is provable in a court-martial, it is still important that these men and women feel comfortable 

reporting the event so that they may receive the support they need and appropriate counseling or other medical 

treatment. Reporting also makes it possible for victims and reporting witnesses to discuss their cases with 

investigators or victim services personnel who can help them process the upsetting or traumatic events. 

E. Finding 

Finding 12: Based on the review of 164 military investigative cases, the DAC-IPAD finds that commanders’ 

dispositions of penetrative sexual assault complaints are reasonable in 95% of cases.

IV. DESCRIPTIVE DATA COLLECTED FROM INVESTIGATIVE CASE FILES

A. Introduction and Background

The data reported in this section provide descriptive characteristics of the 164 penetrative sexual assault cases 

closed in FY17 that were reviewed by the Committee members.49 The data are drawn from reviews of the 

investigative files and, for cases in which charges were preferred, any additional documents in the Committee’s 

separate sexual assault case adjudication database, such as the transcript and findings from the preliminary 

hearing and documentation of the trial result. 

B. Characteristics Related to Reporting Type, Reporting Party, and Reporting Time in Military 

Sexual Assault Investigations 

A victim of sexual assault in the military has the option to make a restricted or an unrestricted report of the 

assault. A restricted report allows the victim to confidentially disclose the assault to specifically identified 

individuals—such as a health care professional, a sexual assault response coordinator (SARC), a victim advocate 

(VA), or a representative from the Services’ Family Advocacy Programs (FAP), known as a domestic abuse 

victim advocate (DAVA)—without triggering a criminal investigation.50 An unrestricted report, on the other 

hand, triggers a criminal investigation. If the victim initially makes a restricted report, he or she may convert it 

into an unrestricted report at a later point.

49 This report does not address the race or ethnicity of victims or subjects, because this information is not consistently or reliably documented in the 

investigative case files. The DAC-IPAD will address the categorizations of race and ethnicity after it receives clarification from the Services. 

50 Reporting Options and Sexual Assault Reporting Procedures, 32 C.F.R. § 105.8(a)(5) (2016).
32

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Conversion from Restricted to Unrestricted Reports

When collecting data from case files, reviewers recorded whether a sexual assault report was initially restricted. 

Reviewers observed that no official document explicitly provides that information: it had to be gleaned either 

from the victim statement or from a note in the file from the investigation. They found that 28 (17%) of the 164 

investigations began as restricted reports; out of those 28 investigations, 9 victims (32%) declined to participate 

after converting the report into an unrestricted report. 

Status of Person Reporting the Sexual Assault 

Certain personnel in the military—such as commanders and noncommissioned officers in the victim’s chain of 

command—are mandatory reporters of sexual assault: that is, they must alert the MCIO if they learn of a sexual 

assault in any way, whether or not the victim wishes to participate in a criminal investigation.51 MCIOs, in turn, 

have a duty to investigate any sexual assault report with a military nexus, including reports made by a third party 

or reports involving a victim who declines to participate at the reporting stage.52 Unlike mandatory reporters, 

victim-authorized representatives, such as SARCs, VAs, DAVAs, special victims’ counsel (SVCs), and victims’ 

legal counsel (VLCs) may report a sexual offense to an MCIO only when the victim affirmatively indicates that 

he or she wants the report to be unrestricted.53

Reviewers recorded and classified reports of sexual assault into victim reports, victim–authorized representative 

reports, command reports, and third-party reports. The majority of sexual assault investigations (63%) come to 

the attention of the MCIOs from someone other than the victim. 

INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION: 

CLASSIFICATION OF REPORTING PERSON (N=164)

Reporting Person Number 

of Cases

Percentage 

of Cases

Victim 60 37%

Victim-authorized representative 43 26%

Command 33 20%

Other third party 28 17%

51 Reporting Options and Sexual Assault Reporting Procedures, 32 C.F.R. § 105.8(a)(5)(i) (2016). 

52 Dep’t of Def. Instr. 5505.03, Initiation of Investigations by Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations [hereinafter DoDI 

5505.03], ¶ 4(d) (Mar. 24, 2011, Incorporating Change 2, Feb. 13, 2017). See also DoDI 5505.18, Investigation of Adult Sexual Assault in the 

Department of Defense [hereinafter DoDI 5505.18], ¶ 1.2 (Mar. 22, 2017, Incorporating Change 1, Effective Feb. 13, 2018).

53 Dep’t of Def. Instr. 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures [hereinafter DoDI 6495.02], encl. 2 (Mar. 

28, 2013, Incorporating Change 3, May 24, 2017). Special victims’ counsel and victims’ legal counsel are judge advocates who are available to represent 

Service member victims and certain other individuals who are victims of sexual assault free of charge. SVCs and VLCs can represent victims of sexual 

assault regardless of whether the sexual assault report is restricted or unrestricted. See FY14 NDAA, supra note 45, § 1716.
33

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

INITIATION OF INVESTIGATION: 

THIRD PARTY AS REPORTING PERSON (N=28)

Classification of Third-Party 

Reporting Person

Number 

of Cases

Percentage 

of Cases

Victim’s spouse or intimate partner 7 25%

Family, friend, neighbor 11 39%

Other 10 36%

Timeliness of Reporting the Sexual Assault 

In the course of its analysis, the JPP found some correlation between the promptness with which a sexual assault 

was reported to law enforcement and the likelihood that a case will be prosecuted and tried to verdict.54 The 

Committee’s review of sexual assault cases included an analysis of the amount of time that elapsed between the 

date of the incident and the date of its report to law enforcement by either a victim or a third party. In order to 

conduct this analysis the Committee members and staff extracted those dates from each investigative file. For cases 

involving multiple offenses or an estimated date range, the Committee used the date of the most recent occurrence. 

For the 122 cases reviewed by the Committee in which no action was taken for the penetrative sexual assault, 

31 days was the median amount of time that elapsed between the date of the incident and the report to law 

enforcement—meaning half of the cases reviewed were reported in fewer than 31 days, and half of the cases 

reviewed were reported in more than 31 days. For cases in which charges were preferred (42 out of 164 cases 

reviewed), the median reporting time was 7 days after the incident. 

Overall, more than one-third (34%) of complaints to law enforcement involving a penetrative sexual assault were 

made within 48 hours of the incident, and a majority (53%) were reported within one month of the incident. The 

table below further illustrates the time elapsed from incident to report across the cases reviewed by the Committee.

TIME ELAPSED BETWEEN INCIDENT AND COMPLAINT (N=164)

Time Elapsed Between Incident and 

Report to Law Enforcement 

Total Number of 

Cases and Percent 

of Total

Cases in Which 

No PSA Charge 

Preferred

Cases in Which PSA 

Charge Preferred

Reported within 48 hours 55 34% 38 31% 17 40%

Reported between 3 and 30 days 33 20% 22 18% 11 26%

Reported between 1 and 6 months 43 26% 32 26% 11 26%

Reported between 6 and 12 months 12 7% 10 8% 2 5%

Reported more than 1 year later 16 10% 15 12% 1 2%

Reported more than 10 years later 2 1% 2 2% 0 0%

Date of incident not indicated 3 2% 3 2% 0 0%

54 See JPP Report on Statistical Data, supra note 47, at 16. 
34

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

C. Duration of Military Criminal Investigations into Complaints of Penetrative Sexual Assault 

While collecting data from case files, the Committee captured information about key dates during the 

investigation. In every investigative file, the MCIOs documented the date on which they opened the 

investigation and the date on which they provided the completed investigation to the command. The Committee 

used these dates to measure the length of the investigation, understanding that in individual cases MCIOs may 

investigate further after presenting a case to a commander, or they may have an administrative reason, such 

as documenting the receipt of long-awaited forensic laboratory test results, to issue a supplemental report. In 

general, however, providing a case to a commander for a disposition decision marks the conclusion of the MCIO 

investigation.

Overall, the average duration of an investigation was 190 days, or just over six months. Investigations that did 

not result in the preferral of a penetrative sexual assault charge took slightly less time, 175 days on average, 

while cases in which one or more penetrative sexual assault charges were preferred lasted longer—236 days, on 

average. 

DURATION OF INVESTIGATION (N=164)

All 

Investigations

Duration of Investigations 

Resulting in No Preferral of 

a PSA Offense (n=122)

Duration of Investigations 

Resulting in Preferral of 

One or More Charges of 

a PSA Offense (n=42)

Average Duration (days) 190 175 236

Median Duration (days) 154 149 163

In addition, the Committee analyzed the amount of time that elapsed from the opening of an investigation into 

a reported penetrative sexual assault to the date on which a commander decided how to dispose of the case. 

This timeframe encompasses not only the initial investigation but also any follow-on investigative activity and 

consultation between a commander and judge advocate concerning the options available for disposing of the 

case. For most of the cases it reviewed, the Committee was able to identify the date on which a commander 

decided, on the basis of the evidence in the investigative file and the advice of a judge advocate, to prefer one or 

more charges of penetrative sexual assault or to take no action on the penetrative sexual assault complaint. 

Cases in which a commander decided not to take action on the penetrative sexual assault took on average 266 

days (almost 9 months) to complete. Cases in which one or more charges of penetrative sexual assault were 

preferred had an average duration of 226 days (more than 7 months) from the opening of the investigation to the 

date of preferral. Given the Committee’s focus on the investigative phase of a case and on cases closed without 

action, the Committee did not collect data on the duration of the military justice process (i.e., the length of time 

elapsed from preferral to trial or an alternate resolution). 
35

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

TIME ELAPSED FROM DATE OF REPORT TO DISPOSITION DECISION DATE (N=164)55

Time Elapsed (Days) from 

Date of Report to Date of 

Decision Not to 

Take Action (n=97)

Time Elapsed (Days) from 

Date of Report to Date 

of Preferral of One or 

More Charges of 

a PSA Offense (n=37)

Average Duration (days) 266 228

Median Duration (days) 227 179

D. Victim Characteristics

Reviewers recorded demographic information as well as military-specific characteristics of victims. Reviewers 

classified victims as either a Service member or civilian. Service member victims were further classified by their 

branch of Service, age, rank, and pay grade. If appropriate, civilian victims were further designated as “civilian 

spouse of a Service member,” “other family members,” or “foreign nationals.” A designation of civilian spouse 

of Service member did not necessarily mean that his or her Service member spouse was the subject of the 

investigation.56 Foreign nationals are victims who reside in the country to which the Service member is assigned. 

Other family members are victims who are related to a Service member but are not spouses; a family member 

designation does not mean that the related Service member is the subject of the investigation. 

The DAC-IPAD found that a victim was most commonly characterized as a female, active duty enlisted Service 

member in her late teens or early twenties. The next largest demographic was civilian spouses of Service 

members. In 50% of the cases involving a civilian spouse of a Service member, the subject of the investigation 

was not the spouse but another Service member. 

VICTIM: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS (N=164)

Sex of the Victim Number 

of Victims

Percentage 

of Victims

Female 150 91%

Male 14 9%

55 Only 97 out of 122 no action cases (80%) and 37 of the 42 preferred cases (88%) had sufficient documentation in the investigative file for the DACIPAD to calculate the time elapsed from the date of the report to the date of the command disposition decision.

56 There are three victims with dual characteristics of Service member and spouse of a Service member. For purposes of these tables they are classified 

as Service members rather than spouses of Service members. All three victims reported that they were assaulted by their Service member spouse. 
36

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Status of the Victim Number 

of Victims

Percentage 

of Victims

Enlisted 73 45%

Officer 3 2%

Civilian spouse of Service member 40 24%

Other family member 10 6%

Other civilian 34 21%

Foreign national 2 1%

Unknown victim* 2 1%

*One unknown victim was a Service member but no other identifying information is known. 

AGE OF VICTIMS

36 37 38 41 42 43 45

Unknown

343332302928272625242322212019181716

1111111

8

2

4

2 3

5

3 2

8

4

6

13 12

17

26 25

10

6

2

Victim Age

Number of Victims
37

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

E. Victim-Subject Relationship

Reviewers analyzed the relationships between the victims and subjects in the sample of 164 cases. The 

relationship data were analyzed by recording the victim’s and subject’s description of their relationship.57 The 

most common relationship reported is “friend” (30%), followed by intimate partner or former intimate partner 

(24%). Together these categories represent over half of the cases and show that the parties involved in most cases 

have a close relationship. Cases involving acquaintances occurred 18% of the time. Incidents between strangers 

were relatively rare, occurring 7% of the time.

RELATIONSHIP OF VICTIM TO SUBJECT (N=164)

Relationship of 

Victim to Subject

Number of 

Victims

Percentage of 

Victims

Spouse/intimate partner/

former intimate partner 39 24%

Friend 49 30%

Co-worker/classmate/roommate 17 10%

Acquaintance 29 18%

Online/met for the first time 9 5%

Stranger 11 7%

Other 4 2%

Unknown/unable to determine 6 4%

F. Victim Participation in the Military Justice Process

Reviewers recorded any indication in the investigative case file that a victim declined to participate in either 

the investigation or the prosecution of the case. Investigative files provided this information in a number of 

ways. Some files contained a formal declination from the victim or the victim’s representative, others included 

narrative notes from the investigator stating that the victim declined to participate, and still others contained a 

memorandum from the victim or the victim’s attorney directly to the commander declaring that he or she did 

not want to participate or have action taken against the subject. 

Out of the 164 cases reviewed, documentation indicated that 56 (34%) victims declined to participate at 

some stage in the criminal justice process. In some cases, a victim may have declined to participate after 

an investigation was complete, but the reviewers rarely found documentation in the investigative case files 

indicating that a victim declined to participate after the investigation stage. However, if charges were preferred 

in the case, the DAC-IPAD’s case adjudication database (discussed in Chapter 2) sometimes contained formal 

memoranda indicating a victim declined to participate in a case after charges were filed, and this declination 

would be noted by reviewers in their case reviews. If information specifically indicating that the victim declined 

to participate was not identified, reviewers assumed for purposes of analysis that the victim participated in the 

military justice process. The data collected from the case reviews showed that as a group, civilian spouses of 

57 See Appendix G, Statistical Report on Sexual Assault Investigations Closed in Fiscal Year 2017: Results from a Sample of 164 Cases, at Tables 8 and 9.
38

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Service members were the most likely to decline to participate (50%); Service members were the second-largest 

group of non-participating victims (32%). Civilians, including family members, declined to participate in the 

fewest cases (20%–25%).58

VICTIM: DECLINATION TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE INVESTIGATION BY STATUS (N=164)

Victim Status

Number 

of Victims 

Declining to 

Participate

Percentage 

of Victims 

Declining to 

Participate

Total Victims 

by Status

Service member 24 32% 76

Civilian spouse of Service member* 20 50% 40

Family member 2 20% 10

Other civilian 9 25% 36

Unknown 1 50% 2

* In 12 of the cases, the subject was the Service member spouse of the victim. 

In 8 cases, the subject was a Service member other than the victim’s spouse.

Comprising 47% and 24% of the victims, respectively, in the 164 cases reviewed, Service members and their 

civilian spouses represented the largest segment of the 56 non-participating victims (79%). 

Reviewers recorded whether the investigative case file indicated that the victim was represented by a special 

victims’ counsel (SVC), victims’ legal counsel (VLC), or civilian victim’s attorney.59 Reviewers found that 

documentation of legal representation of victims was inconsistent in the case files. Some case files contained a 

formal notice of legal representation, others contained only investigator notes referring to a conversation with 

a victim’s attorney, and still others contained only a memorandum from a victim’s attorney communicating the 

victim’s desire not to participate in the case. If no documentation of SVC, VLC, or other legal representation 

was found in the case file, reviewers assumed that the victim was not represented. In the 164 cases reviewed, 81 

victims (49%) were represented by an SVC, VLC, or civilian counsel. The reviewers also found that a victim’s 

representation by counsel did not have a significant effect on whether they participated in the process. In fact, 

victim participation decreased slightly for victims represented by an attorney. 

VICTIM: STATUS OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND PARTICIPATION STATUS (N=164)

Victims’ Legal Representation 

Status

Victim Participated in 

Investigation

Victim Declined 

to Participate in 

Investigation

Total 

Number of 

Victims

Victims represented by counsel 51 63% 30 37% 81

Victims not represented by counsel 57 69% 26 31% 83

58 Although 1 (50%) of the 2 victims with unknown status declined to participate, these numbers are too low to support analysis. 

59 SVCs and VLCs can represent victims of sexual assault regardless of whether the sexual assault report is restricted or unrestricted. See FY14 

NDAA, supra note 45, § 1716.
39

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

The Committee examined the rate of victim participation based on the status of the person making the sexual 

assault report. The members noted that the highest rate of victim participation in the military justice process 

(82%) occurred when the command reported the incident. When the victim reported the incident, he or she 

participated in 65% of the cases (39 of 60); when someone else reported the incident, the victim participated in 

66% of the cases (69 of 104). 

VICTIM: CLASSIFICATION OF REPORTING PERSON AND PARTICIPATION STATUS (N=164)

Classification of Reporting Person Victim Participated in 

Investigation

Victim Declined 

to Participate in 

Investigation

Total 

Reporting 

Persons

Victim 39 65% 21 35% 60

Victim-authorized representative 25 58% 18 42% 43

Command 27 82% 6 18% 33

Other third party 17 61% 11 39% 28

G. Subject Characteristics 

Reviewers recorded the demographics of Service member subjects.60 The subject was most commonly an 

enlisted male in his twenties. 

SUBJECT: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS (N=164)

Sex of the Subject Number 

of Subjects

Percentage 

of Subjects

Female 2 1%

Male 162 99%

Status of the Subject Number 

of Subjects

Percentage 

of Subjects

Enlisted 151 92%

Officer 13 8%

60 The Committee limited the case review to cases in which the subject was a Service member on active duty at the time of the incident. There were a 

few minor exceptions, which will be discussed in a later report on the complete case review. 
40

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

AGE OF SUBJECTS

36 37 38 39 41 48 54

Unknown

353433323130292827262524232221201918

222 111 1

6

33

1 2

3

6

3

5

2

1414

19

15

9

13

21

13

3

Subject Age

Number of Subjects

H. Subject Representation

Reviewers recorded whether a subject was interviewed by the MCIO or a civilian investigator. In 74% of 

investigations, subjects waived their Article 31 right to remain silent under the UCMJ or their Fifth Amendment 

rights and were interviewed by law enforcement. Eleven subjects were represented at the time of their initial 

interview. 

SUBJECT: STATEMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT (N=164)

Subject Status Regarding Statement Number 

of Subjects

Percentage 

of Subjects

Subject provided statement 122 74%

Subject invoked right to remain silent 42 26%

SUBJECT: LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT INITIAL INTERVIEW (N=11)

Represented Subject Status 

Regarding Statement

Number 

of Subjects

Percentage 

of Subjects

Represented subject provided statement 4 36%

Represented subject invoked right to 

remain silent 7 64%
41

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

V. INVESTIGATOR DISCRETION 

A. Introduction and Background

During the case reviews, the Committee paid particular attention to the types of investigative action taken 

in each penetrative sexual assault case. The Committee sought to assess whether the military was conducting 

complete and thorough investigations into complaints of sexual assault. 

B. Analysis of and Testimony about Investigator Discretion in Sexual Assault Cases

Committee members observed that nearly all the case files they reviewed included the same series of 

investigative actions. The members believed that in some cases, these investigative tasks appeared to have no 

probative value and were extraneous and unnecessary given the specific facts of the case. For example, members 

noted that investigative files routinely included photographs of the location of the incident, even if the incident 

had occurred many years earlier when the location looked completely different. Investigative files also routinely 

included interviews of a subject’s and victim’s co-workers, friends, family members, and former intimate 

partners when these interviews had nothing to do with the incident.

The Committee’s observations were reinforced by testimony received from MCIO investigators, many of whom 

commented that they have little discretion in determining what steps to take when conducting sexual assault 

investigations. One investigator noted that investigators have “less control” when conducting investigations than 

they previously had, adding, “There’s almost a checklist and people feel very required to do absolutely everything 

that is on the checklist.”61 Another noted that investigators have to do the same amount of work for cases that 

are unlikely to be prosecuted as for cases in which a felony trial is likely.62 However, the investigators explained 

that some of the seemingly extraneous investigative steps did serve specific purposes. For example, they told the 

Committee members that the reason they conduct interviews of a subject’s co-workers in a sexual assault case is 

to detect predatory behavior and identify other potential victims of sexual assault or harassment.63

C. Discussion

The DAC-IPAD is concerned about the investigators’ lack of discretion in how they conduct investigations in 

sexual assault cases. The Committee noted that the military is treating the investigators as if they were untrained 

and not fully capable, without giving any credence to their experience and professionalism.64 Members added 

that some of the steps taken in military sexual assault investigations, such as interviewing a subject’s co-workers, 

would never be taken in similar civilian investigations.65 At the same time, the Committee is reluctant to 

recommend that investigators adopt civilian standards or omit certain investigative tasks, recognizing that what 

seems extraneous may end up being useful in certain investigations.66

61 See generally Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 176 (Mar. 6, 2018).

62 Id. at 179-80.

63 Id. at 173.

64 See Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 133 (July 19, 2018) (comments of Ms. Martha Bashford, CRWG member).

65 Id. at 140 (comments of Ms. Martha Bashford, CRWG member).

66 Id. at 130 (comments of Ms. Jennifer Gentile Long, CRWG member).
42

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

D. Finding and Assessment

Finding 13: Military investigators testified that they feel obligated to perform the same series of investigative 

tasks regardless of the facts of a particular case and that they have little discretion to determine which specific 

investigative actions would provide the most value.

Assessment: The Committee will continue to monitor this issue.

VI. DOCUMENTATION OF COMMAND DISPOSITION DECISIONS

A. Introduction and Background

During the course of their case reviews, Committee members serving on the CRWG examined MCIO 

investigative case files for 164 penetrative sexual assault cases involving an adult victim and a Service member 

subject. The reviewers examined and recorded the action taken by the command for the penetrative sexual 

assault based on the information contained in the command disposition documents in the case files. Command 

disposition documents should be included in the investigative files in compliance with DoD policy, which 

requires the commander of a Service member who is the reported subject of a sexual assault investigation 

to provide the Service MCIO with written “disposition data” within five business days of disposition.67 In 

accordance with the policy, disposition data must include “[a]ny administrative, non-judicial punishment, or 

judicial action that occurs as a result of the investigation” as well as a “declination of command action when no 

action is taken.”68

The commander’s written disposition documentation is used by MCIOs for three purposes. First, MCIOs use the 

information to complete the final disposition report they are required to submit to the national criminal history 

databases maintained by the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division of the FBI; these include 

the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Second, the MCIOs use the information to meet federal crime 

data reporting requirements for the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS) and the FBI’s National 

Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), in accordance with the Uniform Crime Reporting Act. Third, the 

MCIOs use the information internally to close the investigative case.69 In addition to its use by MCIOs, two 

Services, the Navy and Marine Corps, have developed command disposition forms specifically related to sexual 

assault cases for another purpose: to provide case information to the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office’s (SAPRO’s) Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID).70

In conducting case reviews, the Committee discovered that even though commanders were making reasonable 

disposition decisions in the overwhelming majority of cases with respect to the reported penetrative sexual 

67 DoDI 5505.18, supra note 52, ¶ 2.2.e.

68 Id.

69 Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act of 1988, 34 U.S.C. § 41303; Dep’t of Def. Instr. 7730.47, Defense Incident-Based Reporting System 

(DIBRS) [hereinafter DoDI 7730.47], ¶ 3.a, (Jan. 23, 2014, Incorporating Change 1, June 29, 2018). Under the Uniform Federal Crime Reporting 

Act of 1988, as implemented by DoDI 7730.47, DoD law enforcement agencies are required to report criminal information to the U.S. Attorney 

General, as part of the Uniform Crime Reports.

70 See DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53. DSAID has three primary functions: (1) to serve as a case management system to maintain data on sexual assault 

cases and to track support for victims in each case, (2) to facilitate program administration and management for SAPR programs, and (3) to 

develop congressional reports, respond to ad hoc queries, and assist in trend analysis.
43

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

assault, the documentation found in MCIO files that is used to memorialize these decisions was sometimes 

inconsistent or inaccurate. The reviewers noted that the Services use different methods for documenting 

command decisions in sexual assault cases and different terminology to explain the reasons for these decisions. 

In addition, the Committee noted that in cases that did not result in court-martial, MCIO case files frequently 

do not contain command action reports or other documentation of the final case disposition at all.

Congress recently passed section 535 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019, 

which requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a uniform command action form, applicable across the 

Armed Forces, for reporting the final disposition of sexual assault complaints in which (1) the subject is a 

member of the Armed Forces and (2) the victim files an unrestricted report on the sexual assault.71 In response 

to this new statutory provision, the DAC-IPAD makes two recommendations—discussed below—that are 

intended to assist DoD in creating a policy and a standardized form that accurately and consistently records 

each commander’s rationale for his or her disposition decisions so that the Services can produce and report 

meaningful data in the future.72

B. Analysis and Testimony Regarding Command Disposition Policy, Documentation, and 

Terminology 

1. Inconsistencies in Disposition Documentation and Terminology

Currently each Service uses a different format for reporting case disposition information. While the Air Force 

uses a memorandum from the general court-martial convening authority to memorialize the command 

disposition decision in the investigative case file, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard use Servicespecific forms to record this information.73 Unlike the Army, which uses a standard command disposition form 

for investigations of all offenses, including sexual assault, the Navy and Marine Corps have developed a sexual 

assault–specific case disposition form that is completed by commanders for sexual assault investigations only. 

These Sexual Assault Disposition Reports (SADRs) are 8- to 10-page forms designed to record sexual assault 

case information for entry into the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database—a federally mandated DoD 

database developed to collect data related to sexual assault complaints involving Service members.74

Committee members noted during their case reviews that the terminology contained in the case disposition 

forms and in memoranda commanders use to document the rationale for the action taken in a particular case 

is inconsistent across the Services.75 For cases in which no action is taken by the command for the penetrative 

sexual assault, some of the documents explain the disposition decision in legal terms such as “no probable 

cause”; some use law enforcement terminology such as “unfounded”; and some contain terms used only by DoD 

SAPRO, such as “insufficient evidence.”76 MCIO investigators explained that they sometimes have difficulty 

71 FY19 NDAA, supra note 5, § 535.

72 See DAC-IPAD Recommendations 5 and 6, infra p. 47. 

73 The Army uses Department of the Army Form 4833, Commander’s Report of Disciplinary or Administrative Action; the Navy and Marine Corps 

use Sexual Assault Disposition Reports (SADRs); and the Coast Guard uses a Report of Adjudication form.

74 See DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53. 

75 Action on a case includes the decision to take no action.

76 The Air Force stated reasons for non-action include “insufficient evidence,” “victim preference,” “no probable cause,” and “unfounded.” The Army 
44

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

identifying the appropriate case clearance code because the language provided in DoD or Service-specific 

SAPRO forms, and in some other command action documents, does not necessarily align with law enforcement 

case closure terminology.77

The table below, whose contents are discussed in more detail in Appendix G, shows the variances in the 

terminology and the inconsistency in the application of common terms across organizations within a Service.78

The table also includes a column indicating the probable cause determination made by a judge advocate with 

respect to the penetrative sexual assault for federal indexing purposes. 

CASE DISPOSITION TERMS MOST COMMONLY UTILIZED ACROSS ORGANIZATIONS 

FOR CASES IN WHICH NO ACTION WAS TAKEN (N=122)

Terms Utilized to Indicate 

Reason No Action Taken 

Command 

Disposition 

Documentation*

DoD DIBRS 

Policy for Federal 

Reporting by Law 

Enforcement

MCIO Case 

Management 

System Records

Probable Cause 

Opine by Judge 

Advocate for 

Federal Indexing

No Probable Cause 20 Not an Option Not an Option 65

Unfounded 11 36 27 Not an Option

Victim Declined / 

Did Not Participate 23 15 6 Not an Option

Prosecution Declined 6 41 10 Not an Option

Insufficient Evidence 47 Not an Option 1 Not an Option

Other Term(s) 2 29 61 32

No Document in File or 

No information Provided 36 1 17 25

* Column totals 145 owing to 23 instances with multiple reasons provided.

The most reliable record of a commander’s disposition decision if action was taken on an investigated offense 

is the action itself—that is, the charge sheet, Report of Result of Trial, or record of non-judicial punishment 

or administrative action. However, these documents are rarely provided to the MCIOs for their reporting 

purposes and inclusion in the investigative file. For cases in which no action is taken by the commander for an 

investigated criminal offense, the command disposition document may be the only record of that decision and 

the reason for it.

reasons for non-action include “no probable cause,” “insufficient evidence,” “prosecution declined,” “victim declined,” “unfounded,” “pre-trial 

diversion,” or “accepted.” The Navy and Marine Corps require case dispositions to be categorized based solely on DoD SAPRO terminology and 

definitions. For cases in which the commander takes no action, the classification is “command action precluded.” Cases classified as “command 

action precluded” require one of the following reasons to be selected on the form: “insufficient evidence,” “victim declination,” or “false or baseless.”

77 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 190–92 (Mar. 6, 2018) (testimony of Special Agent Ernest Slatinsky, U.S. Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations, Chief of Quality Assessments) (testimony of Mr. Robert Diederichsen, Program Management Analyst, U.S. Navy, explaining that 

agents input the best they can based on what they have gotten back from the command). Id. at 192 (testimony of Special Agent Diederichsen).

78 “Insufficient evidence” is defined by SAPRO as insufficient evidence to legally prove those elements beyond a reasonable doubt. “Unfounded,” 

which is discussed in detail in Section VII of this chapter, is defined by DoD and the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook as a complaint that is 

determined through investigation to be false or baseless. “Probable cause” is most generally understood as reasonable grounds to believe that an 

offense has been committed and that the person to be identified as the offender committed it. 
45

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

In addition to inconsistencies in the documentation of command disposition decisions across the Services, 

the Committee also noted inconsistencies and inaccuracies within each Service in preparing the command 

disposition reports. For example, some of the Army command disposition forms indicated that the command 

took action on a penetrative sexual assault, but further inquiry revealed that the command action was for a 

collateral or unrelated non-sexual offense. In one case reviewed by the Committee, the command action form 

indicated that the investigated penetrative sexual assault had a disposition of non-judicial punishment, when in 

fact the non-judicial punishment was for a barracks violation uncovered during the sexual assault investigation. 

In another case, the command disposition form indicated that the investigated penetrative sexual assault 

complaint resulted in preferral of charges, though in fact, no action was taken for the penetrative sexual assault 

offense; rather, a fraternization charge was forwarded to a summary court-martial by the command. Reviewers 

also found documentation indicating that no action was taken in cases in which charges were actually pending. 

Further, some of the command disposition reports were internally inconsistent or even contained conflicting 

information. For example, a form might state in one place that action was taken for a sexual offense but in 

another place that there was no probable cause that the offense occurred. Case reviewers also observed that 

commanders taking no action on a case would sometimes provide multiple reasons for the disposition that were 

inconsistent or made the reasoning uncertain. Moreover, Committee member and staff reviews of investigative 

files showed that in almost 30% of cases, either no reason was provided on the command action report for 

the disposition or no command disposition report was included in the investigative file. This absence can be 

problematic because MCIOs must report command disposition information for criminal investigations to 

federal criminal history databases as well as determine the case clearance codes required for DIBRS reporting.

Though judge advocates work closely with commanders in providing advice on the appropriate disposition 

for a case, it is unclear whether or to what extent Service judge advocates assist commanders in preparing 

the command disposition documentation. Service judge advocates testified that prosecutors do not assist 

commanders with completing the command disposition forms, but—with the exception of the Marine Corps79—

it is unclear whether the commander’s staff judge advocate assists with this process.80

2. Timeliness of Providing the Documentation to the MCIOs 

As discussed above, DoD policy regarding the investigation of adult sexual assault requires that the commander 

of the Service member who is a reported subject of a sexual assault investigation provide the MCIO, in writing, 

all disposition data within five business days of disposition, including

(1) Any administrative, non-judicial punishment, or judicial action that occurs as a result of the 

investigation; or 

(2) A declination of command action when no action is taken.81

79 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 325 (Apr. 20, 2018) (testimony of Major Jesse Schweig, U.S. Marine Corps, Trial Counsel Assistance 

Program) (stating that staff judge advocates prepare the form for the commander).

80 Id. at 326 (testimony of Captain Michael Luken, U.S. Navy, Director, U.S. Navy Trial Counsel Assistance Program) (stating that prosecutors don’t 

touch the command disposition form and that it is completed by command); Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 46 (Mar. 6, 2018) (testimony 

of Lieutenant Colonel Rebecca Farrell, U.S. Army, Special Victim Prosecutor) (stating that commanders, and not the judge advocates, fill out the 

Army Form 4833 command disposition form).

81 DoDI 5505.18, supra note 52, ¶ 2.2.e.
46

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Notwithstanding the current DoD policy, an MCIO representative reported to the DAC-IPAD that investigators 

are not receiving the disposition documentation in a timely manner and that frequently they have to track it 

down. As a result, the MCIOs are delayed in closing their cases and providing input to DIBRS and the CJIS 

databases.82

C. Discussion 

A uniform command action form with standardized terminology, as required by the FY19 NDAA, will go 

a long way toward resolving the inconsistencies and confusion that currently exist in memorializing and 

meeting federal reporting requirements related to command disposition decisions. However, in deciding 

on that terminology, DoD and the Services should align the terms with the primary function for which law 

enforcement—the MCIOs—must use the disposition information: CJIS and DIBRS federal database reporting, 

which requires the use of recognized legal and law enforcement terminology. 

It is important for judge advocates and commanders to understand the purpose of command disposition 

documents and how they are used by the MCIOs, and for judge advocates to have more involvement in the 

process. Case disposition documentation, which in federal and state jurisdictions is handled by law enforcement 

and district attorney’s offices, directly affects the information available in federal criminal databases about 

Service members who are the subject of a criminal investigation, yet military prosecutors take a surprisingly 

hands-off approach to assisting commanders in recording their official action in criminal justice matters. Absent 

assistance from judge advocates, commanders alone must determine which disposition categories and reasons 

most accurately match the action taken, wading through often complex and confusing terminology. Judge 

advocates perform legal analyses of all sexual assault investigations in advising commanders about appropriate 

dispositions; their involvement should extend to assisting commanders in filling out disposition documentation 

to ensure that the commander’s decision and the reasons for that decision are recorded with accuracy and 

uniformity. A better understanding of how command disposition documentation is used by the MCIOs would 

also help judge advocates and commanders understand the importance of providing this information to the 

MCIOs in a timely manner.

D. Findings and Recommendations

Finding 14: Accurate and uniform documentation of a commander’s disposition decision, the reason for the 

decision, and any disciplinary action taken for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is essential to 

ensure that military criminal investigative agencies provide accurate and timely reports of crime data to federal 

law enforcement agencies and databases.

Finding 15: The command disposition/action reports that are found in investigative files are often unclear, 

incomplete, inaccurate, and inconsistent within and across the Services.

Finding 16: Command disposition/action documentation found in investigative case files sometimes conflicts 

with the actual action taken by the command. 

82 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 168 (Mar. 6, 2018) (testimony of Special Agent Ernest Slatinsky, U.S. Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations, Chief of Quality Assessments).
47

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

Finding 17: Command disposition/action reports that are found in investigative files include terminology 

inconsistent with MCIO federal database reporting requirements; to meet these federal reporting requirements, 

investigators must therefore interpret the terms used, leading to inconsistent and inaccurate database reporting. 

Finding 18: MCIOs need the command disposition/action report to officially close their cases and make 

required federal reports to DIBRS and federal criminal history databases.

Finding 19: Judge advocates testified that they do not routinely assist commanders in completing command 

disposition/action reports.

Finding 20: Command disposition/action reports often are not submitted to the MCIOs within five days of 

command action, as required by DoD policy.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 5: In developing a uniform command action form in accordance with section 

535 of the FY19 NDAA, the Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect 

to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) should establish a standard set of options 

for documenting command disposition decisions and require the rationale for those decisions, including 

declinations to take action.

The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not 

operating as a service in the Navy) should ensure that the standard set of options for documenting command 

disposition decisions is based on recognized legal and investigatory terminology and standards that are 

uniformly defined across the Services and accurately reflect command action source documents.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 6: The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with 

respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) should require that judge advocates or 

civilian attorneys employed by the Services in a similar capacity provide advice to commanders in completing 

command disposition/action reports in order to make certain that the documentation of that decision is 

accurate and complete.

VII. UNFOUNDED DETERMINATIONS

A. Introduction and Background

As discussed earlier, DoD law enforcement agencies are required to report crime data for inclusion in federal 

crime databases. Using DIBRS, investigators must identify how the investigation into each offense investigated 

was resolved—or “cleared”—and indicate the reason why it was resolved in that manner. Standard reasons for 

clearing a case include “arrest or arrest equivalent,” “prosecution declined,” and “victim refused to cooperate.”83

One of the clearance categories listed in the DoD policy for DIBRS is “unfounded.”84 In contrast, NIBRS, the 

FBI’s system, has no separate category of “unfounded,” and an incident that is unfounded will not be entered into 

83 Dep’t of Def. Manual 7730.47-M-Volume 1, Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS): Data Segments and Elements, encl. 

4, Table 1 (Dec. 7, 2010, Incorporating Change 2, June 29, 2018). NIBRS clearance categories are “cleared by arrest” or “cleared by exceptional 

means.” The reasons for clearing by exceptional means include the other categories listed in the DoD Manual. See U.S. Department of Justice, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, National Incident-Based Reporting System, Volume 1: Data 

Collection Guidelines 70 (2000).

84 Id. at 83.
48

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

the system. If such an incident had already been entered into NIBRS, it will be deleted from the system and will 

not be reported as a criminal incident.85

B. Analysis and Testimony

1. Definitions of “Unfounded”

Throughout DoD and the Services, the term “unfounded” appears to have differing definitions and be used in 

different ways.

DoD Definition. The DoD DIBRS manual defines “unfounded” as “[a] complaint that is determined through 

investigation to be false or baseless. In other words, no crime occurred.” The DoD definition is substantially the 

same as that found in the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Handbook used by the FBI.86 If the investigation 

reveals that no crime occurred or was attempted, the offense should be reported as “unfounded” in DIBRS.87

DoD Instruction 5505.03, “Initiation of Investigations by Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations,” 

specifies the point at which MCIOs may clear a case as unfounded in accordance with the terms and definitions 

used in DIBRS. It directs that MCIOs may only do so at the close of a case, after the subject’s commander 

has decided how to dispose of the offenses investigated.88 The prohibition on MCIO investigators making 

investigative conclusions (i.e., founded or unfounded) in the investigative reports presented to commanders 

is intended to avoid the potential that an investigator’s written assessment might bias the case disposition, 

something that is solely within a commander’s authority to decide.

Army Definition. While the DoD DIBRS manual also defines unfounded as “false or baseless,” the Army 

conflates this definition with the idea of probable cause. According to a memorandum of agreement (MOA) 

between the Office of the Judge Advocate General and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, judge 

advocates agree to provide Criminal Investigation Command (CID) with a “probable cause opine” for purposes 

of DIBRS/UCR reporting and other reporting purposes.89 This memorandum states that an opinion of no 

probable cause may be given only in cases in which the complaint is shown to be false or when there is a “failure 

to substantiate all elements of the offense,” mirroring the DIBRS/UCR definition of unfounded.90

DoD SAPRO Definition. DoD Instruction 6495.02, “Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program 

Procedures” (hereinafter DoD SAPRO instruction), uses the DIBRS/UCR definition of unfounded in the context 

of reporting sexual assault case disposition information in DoD SAPRO’s annual reports to Congress. It states, 

“Unfounded allegations reflect a determination by command, with the supporting advice of a qualified legal 

officer, that the allegations made against the alleged offender did not occur nor were attempted. These cases are 

85 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 41 (July 25, 2018) (testimony of Mr. Scott Myers, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), Federal 

Bureau of Investigation).

86 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division Uniform Crime 

Reporting (UCR) Program: Summary Reporting System User Manual 175 (2013).

87 Id.

88 DoDI 5505.03, supra note 52, at encl. 2, ¶ 7a.

89 Memorandum of Agreement Between the Office of the Judge Advocate General and the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation 

Command (CID), Legal Coordination for CID Law Enforcement Reports (June 5, 2018).

90 Id.
49

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

either false or baseless” (emphasis added).91 The instruction further explains that cases are considered “false” 

when “Evidence obtained through an investigation shows that an offense was not committed nor attempted by 

the subject of the investigation.”92 Cases are labeled “baseless” when “Evidence obtained through an investigation 

shows that the alleged offense did not meet at least one of the required elements of a UCMJ offense constituting 

the SAPR definition of sexual assault or was improperly reported as a sexual assault.”93 According to DoD 

SAPRO, a determination that a case is unfounded “precludes” a commander from taking disciplinary action.94

2. Varying Practices for Unfounding Cases

While the MCIOs are responsible for reporting incident clearance information in DIBRS, it is difficult to 

determine who bears responsibility for making the actual decision to unfound a case.95 For example, the same 

DoD SAPRO policy that includes a category for cases “unfounded by command” also provides that cases may 

be classified as “unfounded by MCIO,” without noting why these different categories exist.96 These provisions 

suggest that both commanders and MCIOs have the authority to declare a reported offense unfounded. Further 

highlighting the confusion, a DoD SAPRO official informed the DAC-IPAD that while Army CID investigators 

used to make the unfounding decision—meaning the case was not provided to a commander for disciplinary 

action—Army CID has changed its procedures to make them consistent with those of the other Services and 

now sends the cases to the commander for the unfounding decision, without offering an opinion on whether the 

case should be unfounded.97

As discussed earlier, the reasons available on the command disposition forms used to explain why no action was 

taken do not always align with the clearance reasons listed as options in DIBRS, and investigators testified that 

they find it difficult to translate the information from command disposition reports to an appropriate DIBRS 

case clearance category. The Committee compared the case clearance category in investigations reported in 

DIBRS with the commanders’ disposition determination as recorded in the command disposition reports sent 

to the MCIOs. The Committee’s review of 122 investigative files in which no action was taken for the penetrative 

sexual assault revealed that the command classified 11 cases (10%) as unfounded. However, for this same set of 

cases, MCIOs categorized 36 cases (30%) as unfounded in DIBRS. 

Testimony received by the Committee illustrates that confusion also exists about a judge advocate’s role in 

unfounding a case. One judge advocate explained that while attorneys assess whether probable cause exists 

to believe an alleged offender committed a criminal offense, they do not assist CID in determining whether 

“unfounded” is the appropriate code for a case in DIBRS.98 However, another judge advocate considered the 

91 DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, Appendix to encl. 12, ¶¶ c, d, and f. 

92 Id. at ¶ d(1).

93 Id. at ¶ d(2); DoDI 5505.03, supra note 52, ¶ 7.a.

94 DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, Appendix to encl. 12, ¶¶ c and d.

95 Id. at ¶ d.

96 Id. at ¶ f.

97 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 313–14 (Apr. 28, 2017) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Deputy Director, Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense).

98 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 45–46 (Mar. 6, 2018) (testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Rebecca Farrell, U.S. Army, Special Victim 

Prosecutor).
50

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

unfounding of a case to be very similar to a judge advocate’s assessment as to whether probable cause exists to 

believe a sexual assault was committed.99

3. Civilian Law Enforcement Practices

In civilian jurisdictions, unlike in the military, the unfounding decision is typically made by law enforcement.100

In its June 2014 report to Congress, the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (RSP) compared 

the process for unfounding cases in the military with the various processes for unfounding cases in civilian 

jurisdictions. The RSP observed that some civilian police departments require approval by the investigator’s 

supervisor or review by the prosecutor before a case could be unfounded.101 The RSP found that a best practice 

among civilian law enforcement agencies was to require supervisory review of unfounded cases; when the 

percentage of unfounded cases rises above a specified point, the supervisor reviews patterns and investigative 

practices to ensure that only false or baseless cases are being unfounded.102

The Comparative Systems Subcommittee of the RSP stated that in some civilian jurisdictions, the responding 

police officer or detective can unfound a case before it ever reaches a prosecutor; as a result, the civilian 

prosecution rate does not account for all reported sexual assaults. By contrast, the Subcommittee noted, the 

Services are required to account for every reported sexual assault through disposition.103

A supervisory sex crimes detective with the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) testified to the DAC-IPAD that 

Baltimore previously had an unfounded rate for sex crimes that was much higher than the national average.104

One of the reasons for its high unfounded rate was that responding patrol officers often were coding sexual assault 

reports as unfounded prior to sexual assault investigators being involved.105 In response, in 2000 the BPD created 

a policy that patrol officers are not allowed to unfound a case at the scene and a detective must be called for every 

sexual assault report.106 Subsequently, it added the requirement that a sexual assault review team composed of 

a representative from the mayor’s office, a state’s attorney, police officials, and others must review a case at the 

conclusion of the investigation before it can be unfounded, though the ultimate decision rests with BPD.107

4. Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (RSP) Recommendation

The Comparative Systems Subcommittee of the RSP found that while DoD uses the same definition of 

unfounded as the UCR, the term is applied incorrectly; moreover, the Services use different definitions and give 

authority for making the decision to different entities.108 The Subcommittee called for formalizing standards 

99 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 92-93 (Apr. 28, 2017) (testimony of Colonel Christopher Kennebeck, U.S. Army, Chair, Criminal Law 

Department, The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School).

100 RSP Report, supra note 45, at 121.

101 Id.

102 Id.

103 RSP Report, supra note 45, at Annex A: Report of the Comparative Systems Subcommittee 9.

104 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 81 (Oct. 19, 2018) (testimony of Major Steve Hohman, Baltimore Police Department).

105 Id. 

106 Id. at 82.

107 Id. at 83–84, 100.

108 RSP Report, supra note 45, at Annex A: Report of the Comparative Systems Subcommittee 17.
51

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

and procedures to “reduce conflation and confusion of various definitions for terms such as unfounded, 

substantiated, and probable cause.”109 Subcommittee members also recommended that the Secretary of 

Defense direct the Service Secretaries to “standardize the process for determining a case is unfounded.”110 They 

specifically recommended that the decision to unfound reports should be made by the MCIOs in coordination 

with trial counsel, using the UCR standard of “false or baseless.”111

The RSP adopted the Comparative Systems Subcommittee’s recommendation, but with significant modifications. 

The RSP recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the Service Secretaries to “standardize the 

process for determining a case is unfounded” and use the UCR standard of “false or baseless,” but did not 

recommend that the decision to unfound reports be made by the MCIOs.112 Their discussions surrounding this 

recommendation suggest that RSP members believed that the commander should at least have the opportunity 

to review a case prior to the unfounding decision, and should have the recommendation of the MCIOs as to 

whether it should be unfounded.113

C. Discussion

The term “unfounded” is a crime reporting category used by criminal investigators or law enforcement personnel 

when reporting incident clearance reasons in DIBRS. In determining an appropriate disposition of a case, attorneys 

use the term “probable cause,” meaning reasonable grounds to believe that an offense was committed and the 

subject committed it. These are different terms with different meanings and different purposes, applied by different 

entities. The Army’s use of “probable cause” to discuss unfounded decisions in DIBRS deviates from the DIBRS/

UCR definition of unfounded as “false or baseless” and introduces needless confusion by conflating a legal standard 

with a law enforcement clearance category in a crime reporting database. 

In addition to the confusion about the definition and usage of the term “unfounded,” there also appears to be 

confusion regarding when and how the commander makes this determination and who is supposed to advise 

the commander in doing so. As noted by the RSP Subcommittee and discussed by investigators appearing 

before the DAC-IPAD, unfounding decisions in civilian law enforcement agencies are typically made by law 

enforcement personnel, with some jurisdictions requiring additional oversight by supervisors or outside 

agencies, such as prosecutors.

DoD regulations prevent the MCIOs from making an investigative conclusion, such as whether the case should 

be founded or unfounded. Military prosecutors testified that they do not use the term “unfounded” and do 

not assist the MCIOs in filling out the DIBRS incident clearance codes. The reasons provided on command 

disposition documents for the action taken do not closely match the clearance reasons in DIBRS, requiring 

investigators to translate the reason on the command form into the appropriate DIBRS category. 

The documentation used by the commands to memorialize their disposition determinations does not allow 

for clear, simple translation of that determination into the appropriate clearance code. This confusion likely 

109 Id. at 6.

110 Id. at 17.

111 Id.

112 Id. at 41.

113 Transcript of RSP Public Meeting 138 (May 29, 2014) (comment of Chair Barbara Jones) (“Well, I think once the commander plays his role, reviews 

the unfounded decision of the military investigator and approves it, it is the same thing as a final disposition.”).
52

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

accounts for the wide disparity between the number of cases determined by commanders to be unfounded and 

the much larger number reported as unfounded by the MCIOs in DIBRS. The process for determining whether a 

case is unfounded, and who makes this decision, should be further examined and clarified.

D. Finding

Finding 21: There is significant confusion among investigators, judge advocates, and commanders as to what the 

terms “probable cause” (reasonable grounds to believe) and “unfounded” (false or baseless) mean, when and by 

whom probable cause and unfounded determinations are made, and how they are documented throughout the 

investigative process.

VIII. FINGERPRINT COLLECTION AND SUBMISSION PROCESSES FOR FEDERAL CRIMINAL 

HISTORY REPORTING 

A. Introduction and Background

As discussed above, MCIOs, like their state and federal counterparts, are required to report information on 

offenders’ criminal history for inclusion in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) criminal history 

database.114 This history is defined as information on “arrests; detentions; indictments; informations or other 

formal criminal charges; and any disposition arising therefrom”; the data include fingerprints and information 

on acquittal and sentencing.115 Federal law requires that criminal history information be collected, stored, and 

disseminated in a manner that ensures accuracy, completeness, currency, and integrity and protects individual 

privacy.116 Authorized users can then access criminal history information in the NCIC to make decisions about 

hiring and licensing individuals and allowing them to purchase firearms.117

The collection and submission of fingerprints and final disposition reports by the military for entry into the FBI 

databases became a subject of national attention and concern when a former Air Force member, Devin Kelley, 

shot and killed 26 people and wounded 22 others at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, on 

November 5, 2017.118 Investigation into the shooting revealed that Kelley had a general court-martial conviction 

for assault and had received a bad-conduct discharge from the Air Force in 2014.119 His offense required Air 

114 Dep’t of Def. Instr. 5505.11, Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submission Requirements [hereinafter DoDI 5505.11], 

¶ 1 (July 21, 2014, Incorporating Change 2, Mar. 30, 2017). MCIOs are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Command (CID), Naval Criminal 

Investigative Service (NCIS), and Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI); they are typically responsible for investigating more serious 

crimes. MCIOs are a subset of the investigative organizations referred to in DoDI 5505.11. DoDI 5505.11 does not apply to the Coast Guard 

Investigative Services, an entity under the Department of Homeland Security.

115 Criminal Justice Information Systems, 28 C.F.R. § 20.3(d) (2017). See also DoDI 5505.11, supra note 114, at Glossary. Throughout this report, the 

term “fingerprints” encompasses not only the actual fingerprints on the fingerprint card, or its electronic equivalent, but also the criminal history 

information contained therein.

116 Criminal Justice Information Systems, 28 C.F.R. § 20.1 (2017).

117 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Arrest Disposition Submission, https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/arrestdisposition-submission (stating that “[a] complete Identity History Summary is important to Law Enforcement for investigative purposes, as well 

as for non-criminal justice background checks for employment, licensing, adoption, citizenship and firearm purchases.”).

118 Dep’t of Def., Office of Inspector General, Report of Investigation into the United States Air Force’s Failure to Submit Devin Kelly’s 

Criminal History Information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 5 (2018) [hereinafter DoDIG 2019-030], available at

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Dec/07/2002070069/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2019-030_REDACTED.PDF.

119 Id. at 30.
53

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

Force investigators to report his criminal history to the NCIC. Unfortunately, neither his fingerprints nor a final 

disposition report of the conviction was submitted to the FBI for inclusion in the criminal history database.120

Before Kelley’s purchase of each firearm used in the assault, a criminal history check was conducted by the seller, 

but his criminal history was not in the database.121 Kelley’s conviction should have prevented him from buying a 

firearm from a licensed dealer.122

Committee members became interested in the process of collecting and submitting fingerprints when they 

noted during their review of criminal investigative files that investigators took subject fingerprints early in the 

investigation and submitted them to federal databases at various times throughout it. The Committee observed 

that in the military, the fingerprinting processes did not seem to be linked to a specific legal or law enforcement 

action, whereas in federal and many state jurisdictions, arrest or indictment is the stage at which fingerprint 

samples are taken.123 Another area of concern was the lack of documentation in the investigative file regarding 

coordination with a judge advocate about probable cause before fingerprints were submitted to the federal 

database. Finally, the members noted that the information being provided to federal criminal history databases 

about the final disposition of criminal offenses was not always accurate.124

B. Analysis and Testimony 

1. Collection of Fingerprints

DoDI 5505.11, “Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submission Requirements,” provides little 

guidance on the collection of fingerprints for purposes of submission to the federal database: it states only 

that fingerprints and other required criminal history information will be obtained from military subjects 

under investigation by an MCIO, recorded on a Department of Justice Form FD-249 “Arrest and Institution 

Fingerprint Card,” and electronically submitted to the NCIC.125 It does not specify the standard on which 

collection is based, the person responsible for collecting the fingerprints and assessing whether the standard for 

collection has been met, and the time when the fingerprints should be collected. 

During their review of criminal investigative files, Committee members observed that criminal investigators 

generally collect a subject’s fingerprints during the first subject interview—a point unrelated to charging the 

subject with a crime.126 In contrast, members noted, in the federal and state systems fingerprints are generally 

taken at the time of arrest, whether by indictment or criminal complaint.127

120 Id. at 1–2.

121 Id. at 30–31.

122 Id. at 1.

123 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 114–15 (Aug. 23, 2018). 

124 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Meeting 300 (Jan. 25, 2019).

125 DoDI 5505.11, supra note 114, at encl. 4, ¶ (b)-(c). The Department of Justice Form FD-249, “Arrest and Institution Fingerprint Card,” is the form 

used to transmit criminal history data, including fingerprints, to the CJIS, NCIC, for inclusion in the federal criminal history database. See also 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Guidelines for Preparation of Fingerprint Cards and Associated Criminal History Information

(Sept. 30, 2016), available at https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/guidelines-for-preparation-of-fingerprint-cards-and-association-criminal-historyinformation.pdf/view.

126 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 115 (Aug. 23, 2018) (In discussing the military fingerprinting processes, Ms. Martha Bashford, CRWG 

member, noted, “The problem I see is that it’s not really an arrest equivalent because it happens often early in the investigation. The investigation 

still keeps going on, there doesn’t seem to be any . . . impact on . . . the suspect.”).

127 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 114–26 (Aug. 23, 2018). 
54

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Members also observed that in the military, fingerprints are routinely collected before a legal advisor is consulted 

as to whether there is probable cause that the subject committed a crime.128 In some cases, investigators submit 

the date of collection in the date of arrest block on the fingerprint form, leaving the question open as to whether 

a probable cause to arrest standard is used or should be used to trigger fingerprint collection.129

2. Probable Cause Determinations and Submission of Fingerprint Cards to the FBI

DoDI 5505.11 requires that MCIOs submit offender criminal history information to the NCIC when probable 

cause “exists to believe that the person has committed” a qualifying offense, including sexual assault—although 

submission can occur no earlier than the subject’s interview or apprehension.130 Probable cause, defined as 

“reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed and that the person to be identified as the 

offender committed it,”131 is to be determined after coordination with the legal advisor.132 Under DoD policy, 

coordination with the legal advisor is required to be documented in the investigative file.133

DoD policy does not address what coordination with the legal advisor should include—for example, whether the 

legal advisor should discuss what charge is appropriate given the facts, which elements are met, whether there is 

a reasonable belief that a specific offense occurred and this subject committed it, or whether more investigation is 

necessary before a probable cause determination can be made. Several Services go beyond the DoD requirement 

of mere coordination between the investigator and legal advisor and specify that there must be a determination 

128 DoDI 5505.11, supra note 114, at ¶ 3 (requiring a probable cause determination to be made in conjunction with a judge advocate as a prerequisite 

to submission of fingerprints to the federal database).

129 The military investigator’s confusion as to the military equivalent of the civilian date of arrest for purposes of the federal criminal history database 

is shared by members of the CRWG. See Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 97 (Aug. 23, 2018) (comment of Ms. Martha Bashford, CRWG 

member) (“I think even the arrest equivalent is cloudy because I see a lot of cases where ultimately there’s no action taken, but the DNA sample 

is taken and the prints are taken on a [probable cause] finding.”). See also Federal Bureau of Investigation, Guidelines for Preparation of 

Fingerprint Cards and Associated Criminal History Information 5 (Sept. 30, 2016), available at https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/

guidelines-for-preparation-of-fingerprint-cards-and-association-criminal-history-information.pdf/view (noting that one should enter the date the 

subject was arrested in the date of arrest block).

130 DoDI 5505.11, supra note 114, at encl. 4, ¶ 1c(1). 

131 DoDI 5505.11, supra note 114, at Glossary. The definition is drawn from DoD Manual 7730.47-M-Volume 1, “Defense Incident-Based Reporting 

System (DIBRS): Data Segments and Elements,” which, in part, establishes guidance for entering data into a defense central repository of 

criminal incident data for federal criminal incident reporting in compliance with the UCR and the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 

1993, as amended. Enclosure 3, paragraph 2(c), prohibits reporting of any personally identifiable information (PII) “without a ‘probable cause’ 

determination that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed and that the person to be identified as the offender 

committed it.” That paragraph also establishes the events that “shall be construed as the equivalent of a probable cause determination, and that shall 

trigger the requirement to report PII as Arrestee/Offender data”: apprehension, custody, pretrial confinement, preferral of charges, imposition of 

non-judicial punishment, approval of separation from the Service, and conviction by civilian court. Dep’t of Def. Manual 7730.47-M-Volume 

1, Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS): Data Segments and Elements, encl. 3, ¶ 2(c) (Dec. 7, 2010, incorporating 

Change 2, June 29, 2018); see also 10 U.S.C. § 807b and 809 (UCMJ, Art. 7b and 9); Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.) 

[hereinafter 2019 MCM], Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 302(a) &(c) (defining apprehension as taking a person into custody based 

on probable cause to apprehend which exists when there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed and the person to be 

apprehended committed it).

132 DoDI 5505.11, supra note 114, at ¶ 3 (requiring submission of offender criminal history data based on a “probable cause standard determined in 

conjunction with the service Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) or other legal advisor[.]”). Earlier versions of DoDI 5505.11 made command initiation 

of military judicial proceedings or command action in non-judicial proceedings the trigger for submission of criminal history data to the NCIC. 

Dep’t of Def. Instr. 5505.11, Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submission Requirements ¶ 6.2.1 (June 20, 2006). The 

June 20, 2006, DoD Instruction was subsequently changed to allow submission as early as the subject’s statement upon a finding of probable cause 

determined in conjunction with the legal advisor. Dep’t of Def. Instr. 5505.11, Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submission 

Requirements ¶ 4 (July 9, 2010, Incorporating Change 1, May 3, 2011).

133 DoDI 5505.11, supra note 114, at encl. 4, ¶ 1c(1).
55

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

of probable cause by the legal advisor prior to submission of fingerprints to the federal database.134 However, in 

its report on Devin Kelley, issued December 6, 2018, the DoD Office of Inspector General (OIG)—which has the 

authority to establish policy for the MCIOs—did not find it problematic that the investigators and legal advisors 

failed to coordinate on the specific question of whether probable cause existed to believe the subject had committed 

the offense.135 Instead, the DoD OIG implied that a general case briefing to the legal advisor or evidentiary search 

warrant consultations with a legal advisor met the coordination requirement.136

During their review of criminal investigative files, members collected data from each file on whether a judge 

advocate had made a probable cause determination for purposes of submitting fingerprints to the NCIC.137

Generally, this data point was recorded in the investigative case files in one of two ways. In most cases there 

would be an agent note or a reference in the report of investigation indicating that on a specific day the agent 

consulted with a judge advocate and the judge advocate gave an opinion as to whether there was probable 

cause or whether additional investigation was required before he or she would give an opinion on probable 

cause. Sometimes when the probable cause opinion was deferred, no follow-up with the judge advocate on 

probable cause was reflected in the investigative case file. The other way in which coordination with a judge 

advocate appeared in the investigative case files was a written memorandum signed by a judge advocate stating 

the facts of the case and giving an opinion as to whether there was probable cause. In 20% (33) of the 164 

cases from the random sample, “no action” and “preferred” investigative files did not indicate that a probable 

cause determination was made by a judge advocate. Such files usually lacked any sign of a probable cause 

determination by the investigative agent as well.

Several senior judge advocates with expertise in sexual assault investigations testified that in the absence of 

DoD policy requiring judge advocates’ coordination on probable cause prior to fingerprint submission, judge 

advocates would not give a probable cause opinion until the investigation was completed.138 Judge advocates also 

noted that there are different points during the investigation when they determine whether probable cause exists 

for the purpose of submitting fingerprints. One judge advocate stated that the probable cause determination 

for fingerprinting is made around the time that the investigator interviews the subject.139 A Coast Guard judge 

advocate stated that fingerprints are submitted at the time of referral, but a Marine judge advocate said that 

134 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 71–73, 113–14 (Mar. 6, 2018) (testimony of Colonel Christopher Brown, U.S. Air Force, Chief, Military 

Justice Division) (noting that the Air Force uses a form for the judge advocate to record a probable cause determination); id. at 112–13 (testimony 

of Lieutenant Colonel Farrell, U.S. Army Special Victim Prosecutor, Fort Campbell) (noting that the Army requires the legal advisor to give the 

investigator a probable cause opinion). 

135 DoDIG 2019-030, supra note 118, at 10, 13, 50–54. While noting that the AFOSI’s investigative documentation did not contain evidence indicating 

a legal advisor made a probable cause determination and determining that policy required legal coordination, none of the analysis, conclusions, or 

recommendations further discuss this failure.

136 Id. at 64–71. Neither legal advisors nor investigators recalled discussing probable cause that Kelley committed the offense of assault. The report 

references consultations between investigators and legal advisors on search warrants and general weekly case updates and concludes that 

fingerprints should have been submitted. Analysis of probable cause focused primarily on the agent’s belief at the time of the subject interview 

as to whether probable cause existed, without any consideration of coordination with a legal advisor and how such coordination might influence 

the agent’s probable cause determination. The DAC-IPAD does not dispute that at some point during the investigations and conviction of Kelley, 

fingerprints and a final disposition report should have been submitted to the federal criminal history database.

137 These observations are based solely on the portions of the investigative file available for our review. As discussed earlier, not all Services provided 

investigator notes for our review in all cases.

138 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 113–20 (Mar. 6, 2018) (testimony of Colonel Christopher Brown, U.S. Air Force, Chief, Military Justice 

Division; testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Farrell, U.S. Army Special Victim Prosecutor, Fort Campbell).

139 Id. at 74–75 (testimony of Colonel Christopher Brown, U.S. Air Force, Chief, Military Justice Division).
56

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

fingerprints are submitted before referral.140 At the same meeting, a senior MCIO with expertise in sexual 

assault investigations testified that he asks judge advocates for probable cause determinations near the end of the 

investigation.141

DoD OIG has published several reports on military submission of fingerprints and other criminal history 

information to the FBI. A December 4, 2017, DoD OIG report found that a significant percentage of military 

fingerprint cards and final disposition reports were missing from the FBI databases. As a result, DoD OIG 

recommended that the Services verify their compliance with fingerprint card requirements and conduct 

comprehensive reviews of the criminal history reporting programs to ensure that policy, training, and processes 

are consistent with DoDI 5505.11.142 All Services agreed with the recommendations and reported that they are 

currently updating and revising their policies. DoD is also in the process of revising DoDI 5505.11.143 The DoD 

OIG report on the Kelley case found that Air Force law enforcement failed to submit Kelley’s fingerprints to the 

FBI on four separate occasions.144 DoD OIG determined that there was a lack of understanding in the Air Force 

about when to submit fingerprints to the FBI.145

3. Final Disposition Reports 

MCIOs are required to submit disposition information on Department of Justice (DOJ) Form R-84, titled the 

“Final Disposition Report,” for each charge submitted to the federal database on the FD-249 fingerprint card.146

The final disposition information must be submitted within 15 calendar days after the final disposition is 

made.147 According to federal regulations, disposition data must include specific information on the outcome of 

the proceedings, such as whether the subject was convicted of the submitted offense, convicted of a lesser charge, 

or acquitted of the charge; the sentence imposed for the submitted offense; or information that a prosecutor has 

elected not to commence criminal proceedings.148

140 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 116–20 (Mar. 6, 2018) (testimony of Major Clare Hodge III, U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy Branch Head, 

Military Justice Branch; testimony of Commander Cassie Kitchen, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Military Justice and Command Advice).

141 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 150–53 (Mar. 6, 2018) (testimony of Mr. Clarence Joubert III, U.S. Army, Supervisory Special Agent and 

Program Manager for the Special Victim Unit).

142 Dep’t of Def., Office of Inspector General, Evaluation of Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submissions by Military 

Service Law Enforcement Organizations i–ii (2017), available at https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/08/2001854487/-1/-1/1/

DODIG-2018-035.PDF. 

143 Email from Steven A. Knight, Chief, Investigative Policy, DoD OIG, to Jan Chayt, DAC-IPAD Investigator (Dec. 17, 2018) (on file with DAC-IPAD 

staff) (confirming that DoD OIG is in the process of updating DoDI 5505.11).

144 DoDIG 2019-030, supra note 118, at 61.

145 Id. at 67, 71, 76, 108–16.

146 DoDI 5505.11, supra note 114, at encl. 4, ¶ 1c. See also Federal Bureau of Investigation, Arrest Disposition Submission, https://www.fbi.gov/services/

cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/arrest-disposition-submission (“The FBI defines a disposition as the formal or informal conclusion of an 

arrest or charge at whatever stage it occurs in the criminal justice system. A disposition reports the court’s findings and can include information as 

to whether an arrest charge has been modified or dropped.”).

147 Id. at ¶ 1c(3). DoDI 5505.11 addresses only reporting final disposition of military judicial or non-judicial proceeding; approval of discharges, 

retirements, or resignations in lieu of court-martial; and discharges resulting in an other than honorable characterization of service. Despite the 

specific 15-day reporting mandate for these dispositions, no reporting mandate is provided for other types of dispositions, including cases in which 

there is “no action” or other administrative action taken on the sexual assault offense.

148 Criminal Justice Information Systems, 28 C.F.R. § 20.3 (2017). While Title 28 refers to the prosecutor electing not to commence criminal 

proceedings, it is the commander in the military that has the authority to elect not to commence criminal proceedings. Title 28 also identifies 

instances in which the police elect not to refer a matter to a prosecutor as a disposition. However, DoD policy requires all sexual assault cases to be 
57

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

Unlike the federal regulations, which expressly state that electing not to commence criminal proceedings is an 

option for disposition, DoD policy does not provide any examples or instructions for documenting “no action” 

or “administrative action only” cases.149 In addition, even though the Committee’s review of investigative files 

found that commanders rarely took action for a lesser included offense but frequently took action for a different, 

non-sexual offense, DoD policy does not provide guidance on how to address this situation in the R-84 final 

disposition report.

Following their review of the command disposition source documents (such as the court-martial result of 

trial or non-judicial punishment form) and the form R-84, members observed that the final disposition 

submitted on the R-84 to the federal database was not always correct. Specifically, members noted that when 

the administrative action or non-judicial punishment recorded was not for the sexual assault offense or a lesser 

included offense, the disposition often did not convey that the command had elected not to pursue the sexual 

assault charge. Instead, the disposition found on the R-84 erroneously implied that disciplinary action was taken 

on the sexual assault offense. 

In one case reviewed by the Committee, the only charge on the R-84 was for “Article 120, sexual assault” and the 

only disposition noted was “administrative punishment.” Examination of the command action form revealed 

that the administrative punishment consisted of verbal counseling on professional conduct and sensitivity to the 

mental effects of alcohol, not related to a violation of Article 120 or any other criminal offense. In another case, 

the charge on the R-84 was “sexual assault” and the disposition was “non-judicial punishment.” Examination of 

the command disposition form revealed that the non-judicial punishment was for the offense of adultery; sexual 

assault was not charged on the non-judicial punishment form.150

As discussed earlier, a Service member’s fingerprints must be submitted to the federal database upon a finding 

of probable cause, even if the commander ultimately takes no action on the case. The Committee found that 

out of the 96 cases it reviewed in which a judge advocate made a probable cause determination and the case did 

not result in preferral of charges, non-judicial punishment, or administrative action for the penetrative sexual 

assault, the judge advocate determined that probable cause existed in 31 cases (32%). In the absence of a final 

disposition report accurately conveying the information that the command did not pursue criminal charges of 

penetrative sexual assault, in those cases the Service members’ information in the federal database would remain 

linked to the sexual assault offense. 

C. Discussion

The standards, timing, and authority for collecting and submitting fingerprints to the federal database should be 

clear, unambiguous, uniform for all Services, and aligned with federal and state practice to the greatest extent 

possible. 

DoD policy does not provide the Services with direction on what standard to apply in order to collect 

fingerprints or on what point in the criminal investigation to collect them. The widespread current practice of 

referred to the commander for a disposition determination.

149 DoDI 5505.11, supra note 114, at encl. 4, ¶ 1c(4) (providing examples of exculpatory dispositions related to cases in which charges have been 

preferred, but not providing an example for the commander’s election not to file charges). 

150 Id. at encl. 2 (listing offenses that require submission of criminal history data to the FBI; adultery is not a listed offense).
58

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

collecting fingerprints at the time of the subject interview, and before a probable cause consultation with a legal 

advisor, suggests that the standard, if any, may be less than that of probable cause. 

DoD policy also does not clearly articulate who has the authority to determine whether probable cause exists 

to submit fingerprints to the federal database—the lawyer or the investigator. One can interpret the language in 

DoD policy to authorize military criminal investigators to make the probable cause determination irrespective 

of what the legal advisor thinks, or to require the legal advisor to make the determination. Review of the files 

reveals that different Services may interpret the policy differently. Some Services clearly give the legal advisor 

the authority to make the ultimate probable cause determination, while DoD seems to require only coordination 

with a legal advisor. In addition, in a significant percentage of criminal investigative files that the Committee 

reviewed, coordination with a legal advisor, if it occurred, is not documented. 

Because DoD policy allows for submission of fingerprints upon a finding of probable cause any time after 

the subject interview, the Services submit fingerprints at various points between the subject interview and 

completion of the report of investigation.151 In military practice, the subject interview normally occurs fairly 

early in the investigation, and many months before any charging decisions are made.152 Allowing a subject’s 

fingerprints to be submitted to the federal criminal history database so early in the investigation seems to deviate 

from the specific military and federal definition of criminal history data—information on “arrests; detentions; 

indictments; informations or other formal criminal charges.” Such early submission is allowed under DoD 

policy even though charges may never be preferred or referred in the case; in such cases, the information in the 

federal database will not be accurate regarding the subject’s criminal history until the final disposition report is 

submitted, which often occurs many months after the subject interview.153

Finally, the final disposition report submitted to the federal database must accurately depict the commander’s 

disposition decision for the sexual assault offense.154 Since the final disposition report is used to provide 

information to the federal database, its long-term consequences for the subject and society are significant. DoD 

policy allows fingerprints to remain in the federal database after final disposition even though no criminal action 

is ultimately taken on the sexual assault complaint or a lesser included offense.155 If Service members’ criminal 

history records are inaccurate or misleading regarding a sexual assault offense, they can suffer lifelong harm. To 

ensure that the potential for inaccuracies is minimal, bearing in mind the definition of criminal history data, 

151 In the 31 cases reviewed by the CRWG in which probable cause was found but no action was taken by the command on the sexual assault offense, 

the length of time between the subject interview and the completion of the report of investigation ranged from two weeks to nine months.

152 In the 31 cases reviewed by the CRWG in which probable cause was found but no action was taken by the command on the sexual assault offense, 

the command decision to take no action occurred most frequently between 6 and 12 months following the subject interview. One command 

decision occurred between 0 and 3 months after the subject interview, 9 decisions occurred between 3 and 6 months, 12 decisions occurred 

between 6 and 12 months, and 6 decisions took over a year. These calculations do not include 3 cases lacking either a statement date or a command 

disposition decision.

153 DoDI 5505.11, supra note 114, at encl. 4, ¶ 1c(1) (noting that submission of the fingerprint card may be as early as the subject interview). See 

also Federal Bureau of Investigation, Arrest Disposition Submission, https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/arrestdisposition-submission (noting that without the final disposition report to complete a subject’s criminal history record, criminal investigations and 

background checks can be prevented or delayed).

154 Criminal Justice Information Systems, 28 C.F.R. § 20.34(4) (2017) (noting that if the final disposition report is not accurate, the criminal history 

will not be corrected until the disposition originating agency sends a correction to the NCIC; this is a process normally initiated by the subject). 

See also Federal Bureau of Investigation, Arrest Disposition Submission, https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/arrestdisposition-submission.

155 See DoDI 5505.11, supra note 114. DoDI 5505.11 does not require removal from the federal criminal history database of fingerprints that are entered 

into the database upon a finding of probable cause even when no criminal action is ultimately taken on the offense identified in the database.
59

CHAPTER 1. SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIVE 

CASE FILE REVIEW – INITIAL ASSESSMENT

DoD policy should provide appropriate direction to the Services on how to address cases in which the command 

took no action on the sexual assault offense or took administrative, judicial, or non-judicial action only for an 

offense other than sexual assault. 

D. Findings, Assessment, and Recommendation

On the basis of its review of investigative case files for cases of penetrative sexual assault closed in fiscal year 

2017, testimony received during DAC-IPAD meetings and CRWG preparatory sessions, publicly available 

documents, and documentation provided by the Services, the DAC-IPAD makes the following findings, 

assessment, and recommendation related to the collection and submission of fingerprints and the submission of 

final disposition information to federal databases. 

Finding 22: The standards, timing, and authority for collecting and submitting fingerprints to the federal 

database, making probable cause determinations, and submitting final disposition information to the federal 

database are unclear and not uniform across the Services.

Finding 23: MCIO coordination with judge advocates on a probable cause determination for the submission of 

fingerprints often is not documented in the investigative file.

Finding 24: Final dispositions being reported to the NCIC for sexual assault offenses are often inaccurate or 

misleading.

Finding 25: DoD policy does not provide direction to the Services for cases in which the command elects not to 

prefer charges for a sexual assault offense, but fingerprints have already been submitted to the federal criminal 

history database as part of a sexual assault investigation. 

Initial Assessment: The Committee will continue to monitor the issues associated with collecting and 

submitting fingerprints and submitting final disposition information to the federal databases.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 7: The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with 

respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) should provide uniform guidance to the 

Services regarding the submission of final disposition information to federal databases for sexual assault cases in 

which, after fingerprints have been submitted, the command took no action, or took action only for an offense 

other than sexual assault.
60

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
61

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL 

CASE ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

CHAPTER 2.

SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL CASE 

ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

I. INTRODUCTION

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 for courts-martial 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. 

To continue the collection and analysis of data on sexual assault courts-martial, the DAC-IPAD formed the 

Data Working Group (DWG). The DWG is composed of three Committee members: Dr. Cassia Spohn, who 

serves as the working group’s chair; retired Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Rodney McKinley; and Mr. 

James Markey. The DWG has continued to develop, refine, and expand the DAC-IPAD database and, in the past 

calendar year, added cases completed in fiscal year 2017.

II. METHODOLOGY OF THE DATA WORKING GROUP

In January 2018, the DAC-IPAD staff, at the direction of Chair Bashford, requested that the Services provide 

documents for cases involving a preferred charge of sexual assault that were completed in fiscal year 2017.156

However, the Department of Defense advised the DAC-IPAD that it would not provide the requested 

information until its Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office released the Annual Report on Sexual 

Assault in the Military (SAPRO Report) to Congress in May 2018. On January 25, 2018, the DAC-IPAD staff, 

again at the direction of Chair Bashford, requested that the Services provide by March 26, 2018, a case list and 

associated documents, utilizing their individual case tracking databases without reference to the SAPRO Report. 

Ultimately, the Services did provide the requested information but only after DoD released the SAPRO Report 

to Congress in May. The 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 658 cases 

from fiscal year 2017 were then added to the electronic database.157

The DAC-IPAD database includes cases encompassing fiscal years 2012 through 2017, all of which involve 

at least one charge of a penetrative sexual offense (i.e., rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, forcible 

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

abusive sexual contact, wrongful sexual contact, and attempts to commit these offenses). DoD does not collect 

information on the legal outcome of cases in which the victim is the spouse or intimate partner; therefore the 

156 A “completed” case means any case tried to verdict, dismissed without further action, or dismissed and then resolved by non-judicial or 

administrative proceedings. 

157 An additional 30 FY16 cases were added to the DAC-IPAD database, including one FY15 case reclassified as FY16. 
62

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

statistical data for fiscal years 2012 through 2014, collected by the JPP, do not include the legal outcomes of those 

classes of cases and will not be included in the historical discussion to follow.

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

DAC-IPAD 

The DAC-IPAD relies on the Services to report cases meeting the criteria specified. The DAC-IPAD therefore 

does not 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.” Data 

tables for fiscal years 2015 through 2017, provided in Appendix I, inform the presentation of data that follows. 

A. Court-Martial Case Characteristics

The DAC-IPAD received 658 court-martial records from the Services that involved the preferral of an adultvictim sexual assault offense and were completed in fiscal year 2017. 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, the vast majority of courts-martial involved one military victim; however, there 

were several that involved multiple victims. In 74% of cases, the most serious charge that was preferred was a 

penetrative offense. 

The DAC-IPAD notes that a number of characteristics are similar across the cases from fiscal year 2015 through 

fiscal year 2017: 

• The characteristics of the accused and the victim

• The proportion of cases involving a penetrative offense

• The proportion of cases tried by court-martial

• The proportion of penetrative offenses referred to general courts-martial

1. Overview of Total Cases Received

The Services provided 918 cases in response to the request for information. After the DAC-IPAD staff reviewed 

the cases to verify their alignment with established criteria for inclusion, 658 cases (72% of submitted cases) 

for FY17 were added to the database. Reasons for a case being classified as “non-responsive” and therefore not 

added to the database include being a non-qualifying non-sex offense, being a child-victim sex offense, being an 

instance of duplicate reporting, and falling into another fiscal year. 

In FY17 the DAC-IPAD recorded an almost 15% decline in cases from FY16, representing a substantial change 

when compared to the 2% decline between FY15 and FY16. The reason for the decline is unclear from the data; 

the question will be examined again when cases from future fiscal years are available. 
63

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL 

CASE ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

CASES DOCUMENTED BY THE DAC-IPAD

FY 2015

780

FY 2016

768

FY 2017

658

Of the 658 cases received by the DAC-IPAD for FY17, the Army generated the most cases (42%), followed by the 

Air Force (25%), Navy (19%), Marine Corps (11%), and Coast Guard (3%).

MILITARY SERVICE OF THE ACCUSED

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

42.2% 36.2%

44.5%

11.1%

16.0%

13.5%

19.0%

3.0%

16.4%

15.6%

24.6%

Percentage

of Active Duty

Population

FY 2017

35.3%

13.8%

23.9%

3.1%

23.8% 28.4%

3.0%

22.3%

4.1%

Coast Guard

Air Force

Navy

Marine Corps

Army
64

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

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 Military Service in fiscal years 2015 through 

2017, and the proportion that each Military Service constitutes of the overall active duty population.158

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 491,365 36.3% 347 44.5%

Marine Corps 183,417 13.5% 105 13.5%

Navy 327,801 24.2% 122 15.6%

Air Force 311,357 23.0% 174 22.3%

Coast Guard 39,970 3.0% 32 4.1%

Total 1,353,910 100.0% 780 100.0%

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 475,400 35.4% 278 36.2%

Marine Corps 183,501 13.7% 123 16.0%

Navy 324,524 24.2% 126 16.4%

Air Force 317,883 23.7% 218 28.4%

Coast Guard 40,473 3.0% 23 3.0%

Total 1,341,781 100.0% 768 100.0%

158 Figures obtained from the 2015 through 2017 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.
65

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL 

CASE ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

ACTIVE DUTY POPULATION BY MILITARY SERVICE WITH 

NUMBER OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES IN DAC-IPAD DATABASE (FY 2017)

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 472,047 35.3% 278 42.2%

Marine Corps 184,401 13.8% 73 11.1%

Navy 319,492 23.9% 125 19.0%

Air Force 318,580 23.8% 162 24.6%

Coast Guard 41,581 3.1% 20 3.0%

Total 1,336,101 100.0% 658 100.0%

As noted earlier, the total number of cases reported declined in 2017; however, the decline was not consistent 

across the Services. While the Air Force’s respective share of total cases decreased slightly from its fiscal year 

2016 level (28%) to 25%, the latter roughly corresponds to its percentage of the active duty population in fiscal 

year 2017 (24%). Between fiscal years 2016 and 2017, the Army’s number of cases (278) and its percentage 

of the active duty population (35%) were unchanged, but as a portion of cases in the DAC-IPAD database its 

percentage increased from 36% to 42%. The Marine Corps showed the most significant change in its number 

of cases, which dropped from 123 in FY16 to 73 in FY17, though its percentage of the active duty population 

remained unchanged at 14%. 

2. Accused Characteristics

For fiscal years 2015 through 2017, the accused in nearly all cases is male (99%). 

SEX OF THE ACCUSED

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Male Female

99.2% 99.5% 99.2%

0.8% 0.5% 0.8%
66

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

In addition, the accused is most often enlisted. In FY17, enlisted personnel were roughly 80% of the total active 

duty population but were a higher percentage of the cases (92%) in the database. Whereas officers were nearly 

20% of the active duty population, they were a smaller percentage of the cases (8%). In FY17, personnel in the 

pay grades E3 to E5 were approximately 51% of the active duty population, but accounted for most (65%) of the 

enlisted accused.159

PAY GRADE OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2015)

E-1

30

E-2

43

E-3

159

E-4

187

E-5

156

E-6

87

E-7

46

E-8

8

Cadet

/Midshipman

3

O-1

3

O-5

3

O-3

20

O-2

11

O-4

12

W-1

1

W-2

1

W-5

1

E-9

6

W-3

2

O-6

1

W-4

0

PAY GRADE OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2016)

E-1

22

E-2

48

E-3

154

E-4

196

E-5

141

E-6

90

E-7

49

E-8

17

Cadet

/Midshipman

5

O-1

1

O-5

4

O-3

17

O-2

2

O-4

6

W-1

1

W-2

6

W-5

0

E-9

6

W-3

0

O-6

3

W-4

0

159 Id.
67

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL 

CASE ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

PAY GRADE OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2017)

E-1

36

E-2

34

E-3

129

E-4

158

E-5

110

E-6

76

E-7

51

E-8

13

Cadet

/Midshipman

10

O-1

1

O-5

5

O-3

16

O-2

8

O-4

2

W-1

1

W-2

4

W-5

0

E-9

0

W-3

2

O-6

1

W-4

1

3. Victim Characteristics

In FY17 93% of the victims were female and 6% were male; nearly 1% of the cases involved both male and 

female victims.

SEX OF THE VICTIM(S)

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Male Female Male & Female

90.8%

93.9% 93.2%

0.4%

8.8% 5.7% 6.1%

0.4% 0.8%
68

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

In FY17 when the accused was male, the victim was exclusively female in 93% of the cases, exclusively male in 

6% of the cases, and in nearly 1% of the cases victims were of both sexes.

MALE ACCUSED/SEX OF THE VICTIM(S)

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Male Female Male & Female

91.0%

93.8% 93.4%

0.4%

8.7% 5.8% 5.8%

0.4% 0.8%

In FY17 when the accused was female, the victim was exclusively female in 60% of the cases and exclusively male 

in 40% of the cases. The DAC-IPAD has not received a case from the Services in which a female accused sexually 

assaulted both male and female victims during fiscal years 2015 through 2017. 

FEMALE ACCUSED/SEX OF THE VICTIM(S)

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Male Female Male & Female

2 2

0 0

4 4

3

0 0
69

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL 

CASE ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

In FY17 the accused’s spouse or intimate partner was the victim in 17% of the cases, a decrease from FY16 (23%) 

and FY15 (18%). 

VICTIM RELATIONSHIP TO ACCUSED

Spouse or

Intimate Partner

Other Relationship

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

83.0%

22.7%

17.6% 17.0%

77.3%

82.4%

Most cases in FY17, as well as historically, involved one (83%) or two (13%) victims.

NUMBER OF VICTIMS PER CASE

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

One Victim Two Victims Three or More Victims

83.3%

11.8%

4.9%

84.8%

10.0%

5.2%

83.0%

12.6%

4.4%
70

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

4. Characteristics of the Nature of the Charges

A penetrative offense, as opposed to a contact offense, was the type of offense preferred most often, appearing 

in 485 (74%) of 658 cases in FY17. This preferral rate is similar to those observed in fiscal years 2015 (72%) and 

2106 (75%). 

TYPE OF MOST SERIOUS SEX OFFENSE CHARGED

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Penetrative Offense Contact Offense

71.5% 73.7% 75.4%

28.5% 26.3% 24.6%

B. Article 32 Hearings

In 2014 the Article 32 hearing, required prior to charges being referred to a general court-martial, was changed 

from a pretrial investigation into a less robust preliminary hearing. Under the old process, victims were 

frequently required to appear, testify, and undergo cross-examination from defense counsel; this requirement 

has been removed from the process. 

ARTICLE 32 HEARINGS

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

Article 32 Held Article 32 Waived

540 496 400

58 133

115
71

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL 

CASE ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

In FY17, Article 32 hearings were held in 400 cases and waived in an additional 115 cases. The number of 

hearings waived more than doubled from FY15 to FY16; but while there were fewer hearings waived in FY17, 

the proportion of hearings waived (18%) was nearly unchanged from FY16 (17%).

In FY17, Article 32 hearings were waived in 66 cases without a pretrial agreement, a decrease from 92 cases in 

FY16. Of the 115 cases in FY17 for which the Article 32 hearing was waived, 96 (84%) involved a penetrative 

offense and 19 (17%) involved a contact offense. In both instances, the rates in fiscal years 2016 and 2017 do not 

vary more than 1%. However, the conviction rate when the Article 32 hearing was waived increased in FY17 

(62%) from FY16 (47%). 

ARTICLE 32 WAIVER

Percentage Waived Without

Pretrial Agreement

Percentage Waived Involving

Contact Offense

Percentage Waived Involving

Penetrative Offense

Conviction Rate When

Article 32 Waived

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

51.7%

69.2%

57.4%

19.0%

15.8%

16.5%

81.0%

84.2%

83.5%

79.3%

46.6%

61.7%
72

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

C. Disposition Decisions

In FY17, convening authorities referred a total of 428 cases to trial by general, special, and summary courtmartial; thus, 65% of all preferred cases were referred to trial. Conversely, convening authorities dismissed or 

resolved through alternate administrative means 230, or 35%, of preferred cases. Overall, 77% of referred cases 

in FY17 were referred to trial by general court-martial, representing a decline from FY16 (81%). 

CASE DISPOSITION: COURT-MARTIAL TYPE

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

General 

Court-Martial

Special

Court-Martial

Summary 

Court-Martial

18.0%

76.6%

5.4%

13.2%

81.1%

5.7%

13.8%

78.6%

7.5%

The following tables illustrate case dispositions by Military Service of the accused for fiscal years 2015 through 

2017.

CASE DISPOSITION BY MILITARY SERVICE OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2015)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

Penetrative Contact Penetrative Contact Penetrative Contact

Army 192 77.1% 29 11.6% 3 1.2% 14 5.6% 1 0.4% 10 4.0%

Marine Corps 41 54.7% 8 10.7% 4 5.3% 9 12.0% 6 8.0% 7 9.3%

Navy 49 52.1% 10 10.6% 2 2.1% 25 26.6% 0 0.0% 8 8.5%

Air Force 83 73.5% 15 13.3% 1 0.9% 12 10.6% 0 0.0% 2 1.8%

Coast Guard 9 34.6% 2 7.7% 3 11.5% 4 15.4% 3 11.5% 5 19.2%
73

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL 

CASE ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

CASE DISPOSITION BY MILITARY SERVICE OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2016)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

Penetrative Contact Penetrative Contact Penetrative Contact

Army 163 80.7% 24 11.9% 1 0.5% 10 5.0% 2 1.0% 2 1.0%

Marine Corps 40 48.2% 10 12.0% 7 8.4% 16 19.3% 7 8.4% 3 3.6%

Navy 45 54.2% 7 8.4% 6 7.2% 16 19.3% 2 2.4% 7 8.4%

Air Force 89 84.0% 10 9.4% 1 0.9% 5 4.7% 0 0.0% 1 0.9%

Coast Guard 11 61.1% 0 0.0% 1 5.6% 2 11.1% 0 0.0% 4 22.2%

CASE DISPOSITION BY MILITARY SERVICE OF THE ACCUSED (FY 2017)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

Penetrative Contact Penetrative Contact Penetrative Contact

Army 142 76.3% 24 12.9% 1 0.5% 10 5.4% 4 2.2% 5 2.7%

Marine Corps 24 44.4% 3 5.6% 8 14.8% 13 24.1% 4 7.4% 2 3.7%

Navy 49 55.7% 5 5.7% 2 2.3% 28 31.8% 2 2.3% 2 2.3%

Air Force 68 81.0% 6 7.1% 0 0.0% 10 11.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Coast Guard 6 37.5% 1 6.3% 2 12.5% 3 18.8% 0 0.0% 4 25.0%

The severity of offense charged influences the type of court-martial to which a charge is referred. Among cases 

completed in FY17, 93% of penetrative offenses were referred to trial by general court-martial, while contact 

offenses were referred less often to general (34%) and summary (11%) than to special court-martial (55%). In 

contrast, in FY16 contact offenses were referred at about equal frequency to general (44%) and special courtmartial (42%) and less often to summary court-martial (15%). 
74

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CASE DISPOSITION: PENETRATIVE OFFENSE PREFERRED

General 

Court-Martial

Special

Court-Martial

Summary 

Court-Martial

3.3% 2.5% 2.9% 3.2% 4.3% 4.2%

94.2% 92.8% 92.6%

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

CASE DISPOSITION: CONTACT OFFENSE PREFERRED

General 

Court-Martial

Special

Court-Martial

Summary 

Court-Martial

20.0%

14.5%

11.2%

40.0%

41.9%

55.2%

40.0%

43.6%

33.6%

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

D. Adjudication Outcomes

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

the military justice system. The following charts illustrate case outcomes for cases according to how the case was 
75

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL 

CASE ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

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

Convicted of

Contact

Offense

Convicted of

Non-Sex

Offense

Acquitted 

of All

Charges

25.3%

19.9% 19.2%

1.8% 2.1% 2.3%

43.4%

48.9%

52.3%

29.5% 29.1%

26.2%

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

OUTCOMES FOR CONTESTED PENETRATIVE OFFENSE TRIALS:

ADJUDICATED BY PANEL OF MILITARY MEMBERS

Convicted of

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of

Contact

Offense

Convicted of

Non-Sex

Offense

Acquitted 

of All

Charges

34.9%

28.3%

31.9%

1.8% 3.3% 3.0%

24.3%

14.1%

18.5%

39.1%

54.3%

46.7%

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
76

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

Convicted of

Contact

Offense

Convicted of

Non-Sex

Offense

Acquitted

of All

Charges

9.5%

5.0% 3.6%

71.6%

90.0%

92.9%

18.9%

5.0% 3.6%

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

OUTCOMES FOR CONTESTED CONTACT OFFENSE TRIALS:

ADJUDICATED BY PANEL OF MILITARY MEMBERS

Convicted of

Contact

Offense

Convicted of

Non-Sex

Offense

Acquitted

of All

Charges

37.5%

41.9%

51.4%

31.3%

22.6%

27.0%

31.3%

35.5%

21.6%

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

In FY17, among cases charged with a penetrative offense, non–intimate partner victim cases were more likely to 

end in acquittal (21%) than intimate partner victim cases (17%), and intimate partner victim cases were more 

likely to end in a conviction for a non–sexual assault offense (36% compared to 17%). 
77

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL 

CASE ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

ACCUSED CHARGED WITH PENETRATIVE OFFENSE

VICTIM: SPOUSE OR INTIMATE PARTNER

Convicted of

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of

Contact

Offense

Convicted of

Non-Sex

Offense

Acquitted 

of All

Charges

Alternative

Disposition

Dismissed

Without

Judicial Action

25.0%

17.3%17.4%

2.7%

0.6% 0.0%

20.5% 20.5%

25.0%

18.3%

23.8%

35.8%

23.2%

8.0%

13.7%

11.9%

19.6%

16.5%

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

ACCUSED CHARGED WITH PENETRATIVE OFFENSE

VICTIM: OTHER RELATIONSHIP

Convicted of

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of

Contact

Offense

Convicted of

Non-Sex

Offense

Acquitted 

of All

Charges

Alternative

Disposition

Dismissed

Without

Judicial Action

26.1%

18.7%

15.6%

21.0%

2.4%

5.6%

4.3%

16.5%

13.2%

15.6% 15.4%

21.8% 20.8%

15.8%

18.2%

21.8%

26.3%

21.0%

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

The small numbers of intimate partner victim cases with a contact offense charge make it difficult to have draw 

any statistical conclusions. In FY17 there were 3 cases involving a charged contact offense and an intimate 
78

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

partner, representing a decline from 6 cases in FY16 and 18 cases in FY15. When cases are combined across the 

charged offense (penetrative and contact), intimate partner cases were more likely to end in a conviction (54%) 

than non–intimate partner cases (46%), but dismissal rates were also higher for intimate partner victim cases 

(19%) than for non–intimate partner cases (13%). 

ACCUSED CHARGED WITH CONTACT OFFENSE

VICTIM: SPOUSE OR INTIMATE PARTNER

Convicted 

of Contact

Offense

Convicted 

of Non-Sex

Offense

Acquitted 

of All

Charges

Alternative

Disposition

Dismissed

Without

Judicial Action

50.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

16.7% 16.7%

33.3% 33.3%

66.7%

61.1%

11.1% 11.1%

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017

ACCUSED CHARGED WITH CONTACT OFFENSE

VICTIM: OTHER RELATIONSHIP

Convicted 

of Contact

Offense

Convicted 

of Non-Sex

Offense

Acquitted 

of All

Charges

Alternative

Disposition

Dismissed

Without

Judicial Action

19.5%

15.8%

13.5%

8.7%

25.9%

12.9%

22.6%

12.0%

25.7%

7.1%

40.6%

37.7%

3.7%

13.2%

5.8%

FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
79

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL 

CASE ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

IV. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

A. Summary of the Multivariate Analyses – Fiscal Year 2015

In most analyses, the strongest predictor of outcome was whether the accused was charged with or convicted 

of at least one count of a penetrative offense. Those who were charged with penetrative offenses were less 

likely than those charged with contact offenses to be convicted of at least one charge, were more likely to be 

acquitted of all charges, and were more likely to have the case dismissed without further judicial action. On 

the other hand, if the accused was convicted of a penetrative offense, he or she was more likely to be sentenced 

to confinement, was more likely to receive a punitive separation, and faced a substantially longer sentence 

than those convicted of non-sex offenses. By contrast, neither the rank of the accused nor the sex of the victim 

affected any of the outcomes examined.

Service Branch

• The chances of a conviction for a penetrative offense were more likely if the accused was in the Army 

than if the accused was in the Air Force or the Marine Corps.

• The chances of conviction for at least one charge were more likely if the accused was in the Coast Guard 

than if the accused was in any of the other Services.

• Cases were less likely to result in an acquittal at trial if the accused was serving in the Army or Coast 

Guard than if the accused was serving in the Air Force or Navy.

• Cases were less likely to be dismissed without further judicial action if the accused was in the Air Force 

rather than the Marine Corps or the Navy.

• Members of the Army were more likely than those in the Coast Guard to receive a punitive separation. 

Number of Charges

• The chances of a conviction increased as the number of charges increased.

• The chances of acquittal and dismissal declined as the number of charges increased.

• The severity of sentences increased as the number of charges increased.

Number of Victims

• The chances of conviction increased as the number of victims increased.

• The chances of a confinement sentence increased as the number of victims increased.

Status of Victims

• The chances of conviction were lower for cases in which the victim was a member of the military rather 

than a civilian. 

• The chances of acquittal were higher for cases in which the victim was a member of the military rather 

than a civilian. 
80

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

• The chances that the accused would receive either a sentence of confinement or a punitive separation 

were lower if the victim was a member of the military rather than a civilian.

Victim–Accused Relationship

• The chances of conviction were lower if the victim was a spouse or intimate partner of the accused.

• The chances of case dismissal were greater for intimate partner cases than for cases with other 

relationships between the victim and the accused.

• The confinement sentence was almost three years longer if the victim was the spouse or intimate partner. 

B. Summary of the Multivariate Analyses – Fiscal Year 2016

Consistent patterns emerge from the multivariate analyses. The following variables have relatively consistent 

effects on the conviction and sentencing outcomes: service branch of the accused, number of charges, and 

charged/conviction offense. 

Service Branch

• The chances of a conviction were lower in Air Force cases than in the other Service branches.

• Cases were more likely to end in acquittal in the Air Force than in the Marine Corps. 

• Cases were more likely to be dismissed in the Marine Corps and Navy than in the Army.

• Members of the Marine Corps who were convicted faced more severe sanctions than convicted members 

of the Air Force and Navy.

Number of Charges

• The chances of a conviction increased as the number of charges increased.

• The chances of acquittal and dismissal declined as the number of charges increased.

• The chances of a punitive separation sanction became greater as the number of charges increased.

• The severity of sentences increased as the number of charges increased.

Charged Offense / Conviction Offense

• Those charged with a penetrative offense were less likely to be convicted of any offense.

• Those charged with a penetrative offense were more likely to be acquitted.

• Those convicted of a penetrative offense faced more severe sanctions (confinement, punitive separation, 

and sentence severity) when compared to those convicted of a contact offense or a non–sexual assault 

offense.

• Those convicted of a contact offense faced more severe sanctions (confinement, punitive separation, and 

sentence severity) when compared to those convicted of a non–sexual assault offense.
81

CHAPTER 2. SEXUAL ASSAULT COURT-MARTIAL 

CASE ADJUDICATION TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 

Victim–Accused Relationship

• The chances of case dismissal were greater for intimate partner cases than for cases with other 

relationships between the victim and the accused.

C. Summary of the Multivariate Analyses – Fiscal Year 2017

Consistent patterns emerge from the multivariate analyses. The following variables have relatively consistent 

effects on the conviction and sentencing outcomes: service branch of the accused, number of charges, and 

charged/conviction offense. 

Service Branch

• The chances of a conviction for a penetrative offense were greater in the Army than in the Air Force.

• The chances of any conviction were lower in the Air Force in comparison to all other service branches.

• The chances of an acquittal were greater in the Air Force than in the Army; the chances of a dismissal 

were greater in the Air Force than in the Army and Navy.

• Convicted members of the Marine Corps face a greater chance of punitive separation than their 

counterparts in the Coast Guard.

• Convicted members of the Air Force and Marine Corps faced more severe sentences, on average, than 

convicted members of the Army and Coast Guard.

• Convicted members of the Marine Corps faced more severe sentences, on average, than convicted 

members of the Navy.

Number of Charges

• The chances of a conviction for any offense, of punitive separation, and of a more severe sentence 

increased when the number of charges was higher.

• The chances of acquittal and the chances of dismissal both decreased when the number of charges was 

higher.

Charged Offense / Conviction Offense

• The chances of acquittal and the chances of dismissal both declined as the number of charges increased.

• The chance of a confinement sentence was greatest when the conviction was for a penetrative offense. 

Convictions for a contact offense were more likely to result in a confinement sentence than convictions 

for non–sexual assault offenses.

• The likelihood of a punitive separation sentence was greater when the conviction was for a sexual assault 

offense rather than a non–sexual assault offense.

• Sentence severity was greatest, on average, for penetrative offense convictions. Sentence severity, on 

average, was greater for contact-offense convictions than for non–sexual assault convictions.
82

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Victim Variables

• A greater number of victims in a case was associated with an increased chance of a conviction for a 

penetrative offense.

• Military-only victim cases were linked to reduced chances that the case would result in a confinement 

sentence, compared to civilian-only victim cases and those with military and civilian victims.

• Female-only victim cases were linked to increased chances that the case would result in a punitive 

separation sentence, compared to male-only victim cases and those with female and male victims.

V. DATA PROJECT WAY FORWARD

The DWG will continue the data collection and analysis project in the coming months. Future analyses 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, the relationship between the victim and the accused and the resulting outcome of the case, and the 

timeliness of the court-martial processes among the Services. 
83

CHAPTER 3. CHANGES TO MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT DATA COLLECTION AND 

CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW ARTICLE 140a, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

CHAPTER 3.

CHANGES TO MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT DATA 

COLLECTION AND CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW 

ARTICLE 140a, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Military Justice Act of 2016, enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2017 (FY17 NDAA),160 significantly updated and revised various substantive and procedural provisions of the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). These changes were implemented on the recommendation of the 

Military Justice Review Group, a Department of Defense–established committee of military justice experts 

formed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2015 to undertake the first comprehensive and holistic 

review of the UCMJ and Manual for Courts-Martial in 30 years.161 Most of the act’s new provisions took effect on 

January 1, 2019.162

Section 5504 of the FY17 NDAA establishes a new Article 140a, UCMJ, Case management; data collection and 

accessibility, which calls for the Secretary of Defense to prescribe uniform standards and criteria to be used at all 

stages of the military justice process, incorporating, insofar as practicable, the best practices of federal and state 

courts. The standards and criteria are required to address four key areas of military justice practice: 

(1) Collection and analysis of data concerning substantive offenses and procedural 

matters in a manner that facilitates case management and decision making 

within the military justice system, and that enhances the quality of periodic 

reviews under section 946 of this title (article 146).163

(2) Case processing and management.

(3) Timely, efficient, and accurate production and distribution of records of trial 

within the military justice system.

(4) Facilitation of access to docket information, filings, and records, taking into 

consideration restrictions appropriate to judicial proceedings and military 

records.164

160 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. No. 114-328 [hereinafter FY17 NDAA], 130 Stat. 2000 (2016), as further amended 

by section 1081(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, Pub. Law. No. 115-91, 131 Stat. 1283 (2017).

161 See Secretary of Defense Memorandum, October 18, 2013, available at http://ogc.osd.mil/images/mjrg_secdef_memo.pdf; see also Report of the 

Military Justice Review Group, Part I 5 (Dec. 22, 2015) [hereinafter MJRG Report], available at http://ogc.osd.mil/images/report_part1.pdf.

162 FY17 NDAA, supra note 160.

163 10 U.S.C. § 946 (2019). Article 146 requires analysis of sentencing data from general and special courts-martial and periodic reviews of the UCMJ.

164 FY17 NDAA, supra note 160, § 5504.
84

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

In recommending that Congress enact Article 140a, the Military Justice Review Group addressed a fundamental 

problem: the Service-specific case management, data access, and data collection practices currently in use 

make it difficult to collect and analyze military justice data within and across the Services.165 Moreover, the lack 

of offense-specific sentencing data hinders a meaningful comparison of sentencing outcomes in military and 

civilian courts.166

The goals of Article 140a—to achieve greater efficiency and transparency in the processing of cases in the 

military justice system and to facilitate periodic reviews of the UCMJ and Manual for Courts-Martial—touch on 

an issue of great importance to this Committee: the lack of comprehensive and meaningful information about 

the military justice response to sexual assault in the Armed Forces. This concern was previously highlighted by 

the Judicial Proceedings Panel in three separate reports issued in 2016 and 2017 to the Secretary of Defense.167

The JPP found that the Department of Defense does not collect sufficient data to fully assess how adult sexual 

assault cases are resolved through the military justice system, and recommended that DoD adopt one uniform 

system for the collection and analysis of sexual assault case documents and data. The DAC-IPAD fully supports 

the JPP’s assessment and believes that gaining a better understanding of these cases, which are frequently 

complex and have an enormous impact on the lives of both the victim and the accused, can help shed light on 

the effects of numerous recent sexual assault–related reforms in the military and highlight areas for further study 

and improvement.

The Committee further recognizes that data collected under the auspices of Article 140a have great potential 

value both for military practitioners seeking ways to improve their practice and for policymakers who will 

rely, pursuant to Article 146, UCMJ,168 on case data analysis as they evaluate military law and procedure in 

the future. The data that undergird these policy decisions, particularly decisions that lead to Service members 

being deprived of their liberty following a court-martial, must be accurate and comprehensive. Therefore, the 

Committee’s review of this statute and recommendations for its implementation aim to guide the establishment 

of a common data collection system across the Department of Defense in order to produce accurate, meaningful 

information about adult-victim sexual assault and other offenses.

The FY17 NDAA required that the Secretary of Defense issue the uniform standards and criteria for military 

justice data collection and case management by January 1, 2019. The Committee therefore provided its 

analysis and recommendations for implementing Article 140a in a letter submitted to the Secretary of Defense 

on September 13, 2018, so that DoD could consider the Committee’s input as it developed this policy. The 

Committee’s letter to the Secretary of Defense, encompassing its recommendations and supporting enclosures, 

is provided at Appendix J. This chapter provides an expanded discussion of the information gathered by the 

Committee in its study of military justice data collection processes currently in place in the military and civilian 

justice systems, the rationale behind its recommendations, and a restatement of the recommendations made to 

165 MJRG Report, supra note 161, at 1012.

166 Id. (quoting the RSP Report, supra note 45, at 136–37).

167 JPP Report on Statistical Data, supra note 47; Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military 

Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses for Fiscal Year 2015 (Sept. 2017) [hereinafter JPP Report on FY15 Statistical Data], available 

at http://jpp.whs.mil/public/docs/08-Panel_Reports/09_JPP_CourtMartial_Data_Report_Final_20170915.pdf; and Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Report on Panel Concerns Regarding the Fair Administration of Military Justice in Sexual Assault Cases (Sept. 2017) [hereinafter 

JPP Report on Fair Administration of Military Justice], available at http://jpp.whs.mil/public/docs/08-Panel_Reports/10_JPP_Concerns_

Fair_MJ_Report_Final_20170915.pdf.

168 10 U.S.C. § 946 (2019).
85

CHAPTER 3. CHANGES TO MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT DATA COLLECTION AND 

CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW ARTICLE 140a, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

the Secretary of Defense on this issue in September 2018. The chapter concludes by summarizing the response 

that the Committee received from the DoD Office of General Counsel regarding the Committee’s Article 140a 

recommendations, which is included in its entirety at Appendix K. The response included a copy of the uniform 

standards and criteria issued by DoD to the Secretaries of the Military Departments on December 17, 2018, in 

compliance with the statutory deadline, included here at Appendix L.

II. INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE DAC-IPAD CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF 

SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE DATA 

Article 140a directs the military to adopt best practices used by federal and state criminal courts for data 

collection and case management, to the extent practicable.169 Given this statutory directive, the Committee 

invited experts from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the United States Sentencing 

Commission to explain to the Committee at a public meeting how the federal courts developed their modern 

and efficient system—known as the Case Management Electronic Case Filing System (CM/ECF)—for managing 

cases and analyzing data. This system, which has been in place since 2001, is used by all federal district, 

appellate, and bankruptcy courts to manage every step in the processing of a federal criminal or civil case from 

its inception. The CM/ECF system enables judges, attorneys, clerk’s office staff, and the parties to electronically 

file motions, file briefs, and access other case-related documents.170 The Judicial Electronic Public Access 

Program works in conjunction with CM/ECF to facilitate access to court records and court information by 

parties and the general public.171 The public-facing component of the judiciary’s case management system is 

called Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER), which in broad terms balances the public’s right to 

access the federal courts with the courts’ obligation to protect sensitive information in conformity with national 

policies, rules, and procedures for safeguarding individuals’ private and identifying information.172 Collectively, 

these programs manage and uniformly track the processing of hundreds of thousands of cases each year across 

94 distinct federal districts. 

The United States Sentencing Commission (or “Sentencing Commission”) is an independent agency within the 

federal judiciary that establishes sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, advises Congress and 

the executive branch on developing crime policy, and researches and distributes a broad array of information 

and statistics on federal crime and sentencing issues.173 Its members, known as commissioners, are appointed by 

the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, and they include federal appellate and district court 

judges, professors, and representatives from the Office of the Attorney General for the United States and the 

United States Parole Commission. Central to the Sentencing Commission’s work is its research on sentences 

imposed by the federal courts, and that research is facilitated by a sophisticated system for collecting and 

169 The DAC-IPAD did not review best practices for Art. 140a(3), which requires “timely, efficient, and accurate production and distribution of records 

of trial within the military justice system.”

170 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 9 (Apr. 20, 2018) (testimony of Ms. Margaret McCaleb, Project Director for the Next Generation of the 

Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts).

171 Id. at 42 (testimony of Mr. Wendell Skidgel, Senior Attorney for the Electronic Public Access Program at the Administrative Office of the United 

States Courts). See also https://www.pacer.gov/.

172 Id.

173 See Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 28 U.S.C. §§ 991–98 (2018). See also Written Remarks to the DAC-IPAD from Mr. Glenn Schmitt, Director, 

Office of Research and Data, United States Sentencing Commission 1 (Apr. 20, 2017) [hereinafter Schmitt Written Remarks], available at

https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/02_DACIPAD_Mtg_Materials/DACIPAD_Meeting_Materials_20180420.pdf.
86

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

analyzing data elements from court documents. From the court documents generated in every federal criminal 

case, the Sentencing Commission extracts information about felony defendants, the statutes of conviction, the 

applicable provisions of the federal sentencing guidelines, and the type and length of the sentence imposed.174

The Sentencing Commission’s comprehensive, document-driven research methods generate valuable, 

verifiable, and accurate data that are regularly utilized by policymakers and academics undertaking social 

science research and crafting criminal law and policy. Thus its research methods illustrate best practices for 

collecting and analyzing criminal case data. First, as a result of the statutory mandate that courts provide certain 

case documents directly to the Sentencing Commission, its data derive from the universe of federal felony 

convictions and sentences, rather than from a sample set or selective submissions from the courts. Second, 

the data are extremely accurate because they are captured directly from court documents and entered into an 

electronic database by highly trained Sentencing Commission staff, whose full-time occupation is data entry 

and analysis, and because rigorous quality control is maintained. Third, the Sentencing Commission’s data are 

thorough because Congress has specifically and continuously funded its extensive research efforts. Fourth, the 

staff are experts with advanced degrees in criminology and research methods, so the data are collected with a 

view toward anticipating questions and issues from the commissioners, the courts, and Congress.175

The Committee also heard testimony from each of the Services concerning their current case management 

practices and received written responses to requests for information regarding how they document, aggregate, 

and analyze military justice case data. Each Military Service uses an independent electronic case management 

system to manage active cases and aggregate data involving its own military justice actions. Trial counsel and 

paralegals with knowledge of individual cases are primarily responsible for personally entering information into 

these systems, and military justice managers in the field rely on that information to manage caseloads in each 

jurisdiction. Notably, these systems vary in the scope and detail of the data gathered—some collect information 

on every active sexual assault investigation, while others monitor cases through the appellate process, and yet 

others do neither. The Services may use different terms to describe and implement the same provision of the 

UCMJ, and in most cases they do not upload documents to their systems for reference. They were unanimous, 

however, in attesting to the cumbersome process of responding to ad hoc queries regarding sexual assault cases 

from various stakeholders, including DoD, Congress, and the public—a process in which their case management 

systems may be of limited benefit, depending on the specificity and breadth of the request for information.

III. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

A fundamental component of the Sentencing Commission’s approach is its reliance on standardized case 

documents for information. These documents are created to reflect, or effect, the very process that they 

describe—for example, the initiation of a criminal investigation, the formal charging document, or the outcome 

of a court-martial. The Committee recognizes that there may be limitations to collecting data solely from select 

standard investigative and procedural case documents, which may not contain some information that is useful 

to know about a sexual assault case. However, this approach makes it possible to gather accurate, verifiable data 

on many important aspects of the military justice system in a way that does not make excessive demands on 

military justice personnel. Relying on procedural case documents, analysts can effectively identify specific topic 

174 Schmitt Written Remarks, supra note 173, at 2.

175 Id.
87

CHAPTER 3. CHANGES TO MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT DATA COLLECTION AND 

CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW ARTICLE 140a, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

areas for further investigation, and a more targeted review of other documents or sources of information can 

follow, as needed. 

Centralizing the document collection within a single organization, and placing one team of experts in charge 

of data entry and analysis, helps foster both accountability for producing documents and consistency in the 

interpretation of those documents across all of the Services. Producing analyses from case documents on a 

recurring basis throughout the year, as the Sentencing Commission does, would serve two purposes for the 

military: provide transparency to stakeholders and avoid the overly cumbersome and lengthy document or data 

searches often involved in annual and ad hoc reviews.

The Article 140a standards and criteria should include information about every sexual assault allegation 

made against a Service member under the military’s jurisdiction that is investigated by the military criminal 

investigative organizations (MCIOs). For purposes of data collected under Article 140a, “sexual assault cases” 

should include offenses involving both adult and child victims, and should encompass unwanted sexual act 

and contact offenses, so that DoD, lawmakers, and the public can better understand the nature of sexual 

violence occurring in the military. Of significant note, the DAC-IPAD’s review of sexual assault cases indicates 

that annually, a majority of the cases involving allegations of penetrative sexual assault are not selected for 

prosecution.176 Therefore, it is extremely important that data collection efforts include cases resolved outside 

the court-martial process as well as those in which charges are preferred or tried by court-martial. Failing to 

include the cases that do not result in courts-martial would omit a considerable amount of information about 

how most sexual assault cases progress through the military justice system and about the factors that influence 

their outcomes. Moreover, the Committee appreciates the significant impact of a criminal investigation on 

the lives and careers of both the victim and the accused, regardless of the ultimate disposition of the case, 

and recognizes that having comprehensive data regarding the investigative process in all such cases can 

contextualize those effects.

Collecting information about sexual assault cases that are investigated and closed without action may present 

more challenges than analyzing only information in court-martial documents. However, those difficulties should 

not deter DoD from systematically collecting reliable information about cases that do not result in disciplinary 

action. Failing to do so would leave a substantial void in any analysis of the processing of all cases that include an 

MCIO investigation.

Although there are differences among the Service MCIOs, each MCIO has a routine method of recording details 

about the initial complaint of sexual assault received by law enforcement and documenting the commander’s 

decision as to the disposition of the sexual assault case. The Committee sees in these documents an opportunity 

for DoD to capture descriptive data useful for the purposes of Article 140a, and recommends that DoD explore 

ways to record such information consistently across all the Services in order to streamline the documents 

needed to collect information under Article 140a.177

The Committee notes that the experience of the federal district courts and many other jurisdictions illustrates 

the benefits of operating a common data collection system, which make it well worth overcoming the inherent 

challenges faced by an organization undertaking any large-scale transition. 

176 DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 23.

177 FY19 NDAA, supra note 5, § 535.
88

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

IV. DAC-IPAD RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ARTICLE 140a, UCMJ PROVIDED TO 

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2018

After hearing testimony and reviewing extensive written information regarding best practices for implementing 

Article 140a, UCMJ, on September 13, 2018, the Committee made the following recommendations to the 

Secretary of Defense:178

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 8: The uniform standards and criteria developed to implement Article 140a, 

UCMJ, should reflect the following best practices for case data collection:

a. Collect all case data only from standardized source documents (legal and investigative documents) 

that are produced in the normal course of the military justice process, such as the initial report of 

investigation, the commander’s report of disciplinary or administrative action, the charge sheet, the 

Article 32 report, and the Report of Result of Trial.

b. Centralize document collection by mandating that all jurisdictions provide the same procedural 

documents to one military justice data office/organization within DoD.

c. Develop one electronic database for the storage and analysis of standardized source documents, and 

locate that database in the centralized military justice data office/organization within DoD.

d. Collect and analyze data quarterly to ensure that both historical data and analyses are as up-to-date as 

possible.

e. Have data entered from source documents into the electronic database by one independent team of 

trained professionals whose full-time occupation is document analysis and data entry. This team should 

have expertise in the military justice process and in social science research methods, and should ensure 

that the data are audited at regular intervals.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 9: The source documents referenced in DAC-IPAD Recommendation 8 

should contain uniformly defined content covering all data elements that DoD decides to collect to meet the 

requirements of Articles 140a and 146, UCMJ.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 10: The data produced pursuant to Article 140a, UCMJ, should serve as the 

primary source for the Military Justice Review Panel’s periodic assessments of the military justice system, which 

are required by Article 146, UCMJ, and as the sole source of military justice data for all other organizations in 

DoD and for external entities.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 11: Article 140a, UCMJ, should be implemented so as to require collection of the 

following information with respect to allegations of both adult-victim and child-victim sexual offenses, within 

the meaning of Articles 120, 120b, and 125, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 920b, and 925 (2016)):

a. A summary of the initial complaint giving rise to a criminal investigation by a military criminal 

investigative organization concerning a military member who is subject to the UCMJ, and how the 

complaint became known to law enforcement;

178 See Appendix J, Letter from DAC-IPAD to the Secretary of Defense Regarding Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (Sept. 13, 2018). 

The recommendations here have been renumbered in conformity with this annual report.
89

CHAPTER 3. CHANGES TO MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT DATA COLLECTION AND 

CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW ARTICLE 140a, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

b. Whether an unrestricted report of sexual assault originated as a restricted report;

c. Demographic data pertaining to each victim and accused, including race and sex;

d. The nature of any relationship between the accused and the victim(s);

e. The initial disposition decision under Rule for Court-Martial 306, including the decision to take no 

action, and the outcome of any administrative action, any disciplinary action, or any case in which one 

or more charges of sexual assault were preferred, through the completion of court-martial and appellate 

review;

f. Whether a victim requested an expedited transfer or a transfer of the accused, and the result of that 

request;

g. Whether a victim declined to participate at any point in the military justice process;

h. Whether a defense counsel requested expert assistance on behalf of a military accused, whether those 

requests were approved by a convening authority or military judge, and whether the government availed 

itself of expert assistance; and

i. The duration of each completed military criminal investigation, and any additional time taken to 

complete administrative or disciplinary action against the accused.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 12: The Services may retain their respective electronic case management systems 

for purposes of managing their military justice organizations, provided that

a. The Services use the same uniform standards and definitions to refer to common procedures and 

substantive offenses in the Manual for Courts-Martial, as required by Article 140a; and

b. The Services develop a plan to transition toward operating one uniform case management system across 

all of the Services, similar to the federal judiciary’s Case Management/Electronic Court Filing (CM/ECF) 

system.

V. DOD RESPONSE TO DAC-IPAD RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ARTICLE 140a, 

UCMJ

The Senior Deputy General Counsel and Deputy General Counsel for Personnel and Health Policy for the 

Department of Defense provided a response letter to the DAC-IPAD’s recommendations regarding Article 

140a, received on January 23, 2019, and provided at Appendix K. He noted that while the DAC-IPAD’s study 

and analysis helped inform the standards that were adopted, it would be inadvisable to adopt the DAC-IPAD’s 

proposal without first conducting a pilot program to assess the proposed standards’ operation and the personnel 

and fiscal requirements it would create. 

A key issue appeared to be the resource requirements for such a proposal and the potential for failure. The 

senior deputy general counsel relayed his calculation that if the Department were to adopt the model utilized by 

the Sentencing Commission, it would involve processing nearly the same volume of documents as is currently 

handled by the Sentencing Commission. He then looked at the U.S. Sentencing Commission as the model for 

resource requirements as well as the methodology to be followed. 
90

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DoD found that the Sentencing Commission employs a staff of 50 employees to manage all of the documents, 

data entry, and analysis it processes, compared to only 44 authorized attorney billets in the entire DoD Office 

of General Counsel. The senior deputy general counsel also expressed concern that DoD would require an even 

larger staff than the Sentencing Commission because of the lack of uniformity of case documentation across the 

Services, unlike the federal courts system, which has a very high degree of uniformity. 

Finally, he conveyed the concern expressed by the Services that the DAC-IPAD proposal would interfere with 

their ability to assess changes in the military justice system over time and conduct other analyses of military 

justice data. 

In spite of the current reservations, the senior deputy general counsel did leave the door open to reconsideration 

in the future. He advised that the sentencing data collection requirement of the soon-to-be-formed Military 

Justice Review Panel may provide an opportunity to assess on a smaller scale the personnel and fiscal demands 

that a system like the one proposed by the DAC-IPAD would create. He noted that once such information is 

obtained, it may be possible for DoD to evaluate the DAC-IPAD’s proposal for Article 140a, UCMJ, with a better 

understanding of the resources it would require and the likelihood of its success or failure.

VI. ARTICLE 140a STANDARDS AND CRITERIA ISSUED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL OF 

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ON DECEMBER 17, 2018 

In a memorandum to the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Judge Advocate General of the Coast 

Guard dated December 17, 2018, the DoD General Counsel officially promulgated the Department’s uniform 

standards and criteria for the military justice system, to be implemented no later than December 23, 2020. The 

complete memorandum, including the standards for accessibility and data points to be collected, is provided at 

Appendix L. 

Most notably, the new standards direct each Service to maintain and operate a military justice case processing 

and management system that will track every case opened by military law enforcement in which a Service 

member is identified as a subject until completion through the final disposition within the military justice 

system, including direct appellate review. The Services are allowed but not required to operate their systems 

in conjunction with one another. The systems are required to maintain all data collected indefinitely to ensure 

complete and accurate reporting. 

In addition to prescribing standards, the DoD General Counsel issued 155 specific data points and certain 

uniform definitions that each case processing and management system must utilize and track. The uniform 

data points include identifying criminal offenses by the appropriate Defense Incident-Based Reporting System 

(DIBRS) Codes utilized by law enforcement in reporting crime data to federal databases and following the Office 

of Management and Budget Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 (OMB 15), Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal 

Statistics and Administrative Reporting. 
91

CHAPTER 3. CHANGES TO MILITARY SEXUAL ASSAULT DATA COLLECTION AND 

CASE MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW ARTICLE 140a, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

VII. ASSESSMENT OF DOD RESPONSE TO DAC-IPAD RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

ARTICLE 140a, UCMJ

DAC-IPAD Assessment: The Committee is very pleased that DoD is open in the future to further evaluation 

and consideration of its recommendation of a centralized, document-based military justice data collection 

system. The Committee will continue to collect and analyze sexual assault case adjudication data until its term 

ends and is hopeful that the Military Justice Review Panel required to be established in accordance with Article 

146, UCMJ will continue and expand the sexual assault case adjudication data project. 
92

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
93

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

I. INTRODUCTION 

In its March 2018 Annual Report, the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense 

of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD) provided an overall assessment of the Department 

of Defense (DoD) expedited transfer policy. The Committee found that the policy is an important sexual 

assault response initiative offered by the military and strongly recommended that it be continued and further 

improved.179

The Committee also analyzed two issues associated with the expedited transfer policy: (1) many Service 

members have a mistaken perception that victims abuse the policy, and (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. The Committee made four recommendations addressing these issues.180

The Committee made interim assessments of six other issues related to the expedited transfer policy and asked 

the Policy Working Group (PWG), a working group consisting of seven DAC-IPAD members, to continue to 

review them:181

Issue 1: The expedited transfer option is not available to Service members who make restricted sexual 

assault reports.

Issue 2: Inadvertent disclosures by victims to their commands of sexual assaults and reports of sexual 

assault made by third parties deny Service members the opportunity to make a restricted report and 

protect their privacy, if they so desire.

Issue 3: The approval standard and the purpose of DoD’s expedited transfer policy are not sufficiently 

clear or comprehensive.

179 See DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 66.

180 Id. at 68–69, 71. The four recommendations are

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.

DAC-IPAD 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.

DAC-IPAD 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.

181 Id. at 71–74 (differently ordered).
94

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Issue 4: The expedited transfer policy includes temporary or permanent intra-installation moves as well 

as moves to new installations or locations.

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 or may equally benefit 

from moves to a new location.

Issue 6: 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.

The PWG reviewed one additional issue: 

Issue 7: The Department of Defense and Services collect only limited expedited transfer data on victims 

of sexual assault and collect no data on transfers of subjects.182

These seven issues, as well as a discussion of expedited transfers at the Service academies and in the Reserves 

and National Guard, are reviewed in Sections IV to XI, below.

II. METHODOLOGY

During the October 2017 DAC-IPAD public meeting and the December 2017 and May 2018 PWG preparatory 

sessions, numerous presenters from DoD and the Services provided information about the expedited transfer 

policy and perspectives on its benefits and limitations. The DAC-IPAD and PWG received information 

and perspectives from mid-level commanders and senior enlisted leaders, special court-martial convening 

authorities, two panels of experienced special victims’ counsel (SVCs) and victims’ legal counsel (VLCs) 

and SVC and VLC program managers, representatives of the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Office (SAPRO) and Service Sexual Assault and Response (SAPR) program managers, experienced special 

victim prosecutors, sexual assault response coordinators (SARCs), defense counsel organization chiefs or their 

representatives, and military criminal investigative organization (MCIO) representatives. Importantly, the PWG 

also heard from a panel of active duty sexual assault victims who had received expedited transfers and who were 

willing to share their experiences. 

In addition, in response to a request for information (RFI), the DAC-IPAD received information and data from 

each of the Services on all expedited transfer requests submitted in fiscal year 2016 as well as sexual assault–

related transfers of accused Service members.183

182 See id. at 68. This issue is related to DAC-IPAD Recommendation 2 from the DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report: “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.” 

183 See Service responses to 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_Amended.pdf.
95

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

III. OVERVIEW OF THE EXPEDITED TRANSFER POLICY

The current DoD expedited transfer policy is found in DoD Instruction (DoDI) 6495.02, “Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures”:184 it implements 10 U.S.C. § 673, which applies to 

all active duty Service members who are victims of sexual assault. The DoD 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.185

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.186 The intent behind the policy is to assist the victim’s recovery by moving him or her to a new 

location, where no one knows of the sexual assault.187

The DoD expedited transfer policy also

1. Applies only when an eligible service member files a credible report, and 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. “Credible information” is defined as information that, 

when the source and nature of the information and the totality of the circumstances are considered, is 

sufficiently believable that the fact or facts in question can be presumed to be true.

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.

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. 

Those 10 additional factors are (1) the reason for the request, (2) the potential transfer of the subject 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 the disposition of the offense (after consultation with the MCIOs), (8) the location of the subject, (9) 

whether the subject is civilian or military, and (10) “other pertinent circumstances or facts.”188

184 See generally DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, at encl. 5.

185 Id. at encl. 5, ¶ 6.b(2). 

186 Id. at encl. 5, ¶ 6.a(2). Dr. Nate Galbreath and Ms. Dianna Rangoussis from DoD SAPRO explained in testimony to the DAC-IPAD that emergency 

safety transfers are available for those who are at risk of imminent harm. 

187 Id. 

188 Id. at encl. 5, ¶ 6b(8).
96

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

The DoD expedited transfer policy also requires the CO to ask for and take into consideration the Service 

member’s input before making a decision about the transfer and determining its location, if granted. Further, it 

notes that “in most circumstances, transfers to a different installation should be completed within 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.”189

IV. EXPANSION OF EXPEDITED TRANSFER TO RESTRICTED REPORTS

A. DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment 

In its March 2018 annual report, the DAC-IPAD made the following interim assessment of this issue:

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.190

B. Background and Testimony 

Under current DoD policy, sexual assault victims have the choice of filing a restricted or an unrestricted report. 

DoD policy, not the statute, requires that in order to request and receive an expedited transfer, the victim must 

file an unrestricted report.191 The act of filing an unrestricted report, or electing to unrestrict a previously filed 

restricted report, triggers an investigation by the Service’s MCIO. The victim may decline to participate in the 

investigation or prosecution of the case, though the investigation may continue, regardless of whether the victim 

participates.192 During the course of the investigation, investigative agents may interview the victim’s family 

members, friends, or co-workers, even in cases in which the victim wishes the assault to remain private.

In its June 2014 report to Congress and DoD, the Response Systems Panel—a federal advisory committee that 

preceded the DAC-IPAD in studying sexual assault in the Services—recommended that the Secretaries of 

the Military Departments create a means by which a sexual assault victim who filed a restricted report could 

request an expedited transfer without making the report unrestricted.193 Referring to this recommendation, the 

Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness sent an October 21, 2015, memorandum to 

the Secretaries of the Military Departments allowing them to make an exception to policy that would permit 

victims who file restricted reports to receive expedited transfers.194 To date, none of the Services has sought to 

exercise this option and DoD has not affirmatively implemented a policy allowing sexual assault victims who file 

restricted reports to request expedited transfers.

189 Id. at encl. 5, ¶ 6b(4).

190 DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 71.

191 See 10 U.S.C. § 673; DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, at ¶ 4(o). 

192 DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, at encl. 4, ¶ 1.c(1).

193 Response Systems Panel Recommendation 69: “Service Secretaries create a means by which sexual assault victims who file a restricted report may 

request an expedited transfer without having to make their report unrestricted.” RSP Report, supra note 45, at 34.

194 See Memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense on Exception to Policy Allowing the Military Services the Option to Provide Expedited 

Transfers to Adult Sexual Assault Victims Who File Restricted Reports (Oct. 21, 2015). 
97

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

DoD and Service personnel who testified before the PWG had mixed reactions to the idea of allowing expedited 

transfers after a restricted report. A Coast Guard member who had received an expedited transfer told the PWG, 

“Overall, I think the expedited transfer was a good thing. I think that it should be an option for anyone that 

has a sexual assault case, whether it is restricted or unrestricted.”195 This sentiment was echoed by several other 

members who spoke to the PWG, including an Air Force senior prosecutor and a SARC from the Coast Guard; 

the latter emphasized that having different reporting options benefits victims.196

But many of the presenters, from SARCs to prosecutors, SVCs and VLCs, and SAPR and FAP personnel, were 

opposed to the idea of expanding the expedited transfer policy in this way. One presenter mentioned the 

preference in DoD policy that victims file unrestricted reports so that judicial or other action could be pursued 

against the subjects, enabling the military to “stamp out” sexual assault.197 One SARC argued that expedited 

transfer should remain a benefit only for those who file unrestricted reports. She also expressed concern that 

members who file restricted reports and receive expedited transfers might “slip through the cracks” upon 

transferring to a new installation and not make contact with the SARC or pursue mental health counseling.198

Several presenters also argued that opening up expedited transfers to those who file restricted reports will 

strengthen the perception among military members that the policy is being abused by members who file false 

reports to obtain transfers to locations they view as more favorable.199 Ms. Diana Rangoussis, DoD SAPRO 

Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor, mentioned the DAC-IPAD’s recommendation from its March 2018 annual 

report that DoD and the Services provide training to military members to address the misperception that there 

is widespread abuse of the policy.200

Many presenters agreed that the current practice of having the victim unrestrict his or her report and then sign a 

statement declining to participate in the investigation works well for most victims.

Arguing that there is little demand for expedited transfers among those who make restricted reports, the Navy 

SAPR Program Director noted that to evaluate this issue, his office had reviewed data on victims who convert 

from restricted to unrestricted reports; it found that a smaller percentage of those victims requested expedited 

transfers than of victims who initially made unrestricted reports. In the Navy, about 30% of victims who file 

unrestricted reports request expedited transfers, while only about 15% of victims who convert from restricted to 

unrestricted reports request them.201

195 See Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 305 (Dec. 1, 2017).

196 See id. at 263–64 (testimony of Major Pete Havern, Senior Trial Counsel, U.S. Air Force); see also Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 186–87 

(May 24, 2018) (testimony of Mx. Angela Lakey, National Capital Region Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, U.S. Coast Guard).

197 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 79 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Lieutenant Amanda Styles, Central Assignments Coordinator for the 

Aviation, Communication, and Prevention Career Fields, U.S. Coast Guard); DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, at encl. 4, ¶ 1.

198 Id. at 81 (testimony of Ms. Erinn Izykowski, Section Head, Plans, Policy and Oversight, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, 

U.S. Marine Corps).

199 Id. at 85 (testimony of Ms. Kimberly Lahm, Policy Branch Chief, Interpersonal Self-Directed Violence Response Program, U.S. Air Force); id. at 88 

(testimony of Ms. Charlotte Cluverius, Deputy Chief of Staff, Victims’ Legal Counsel Program, U.S. Navy); Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session

264–65 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Lieutenant Commander Amanda Lee, Legal Service Command, Norfolk, VA, U.S. Coast Guard).

200 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 30 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Ms. Diana Rangoussis, Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor, Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense).

201 Id. at 89–90 (testimony of Mr. Paul Rosen, Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, U.S. Navy).
98

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

C. Discussion

DoD policy should be consistent with applicable law. 10 U.S.C § 673, the statutory basis for the expedited 

transfer policy, applies to Service members who are victims of sexual assault, not solely to Service member 

victims who file unrestricted reports. DoD policy limiting eligibility for expedited transfers to victims who file 

unrestricted reports is inconsistent with this law. 

Military sexual assault victims are frequently placed in the position of having to choose between filing a 

restricted report, which enables them to maintain their privacy but forces them to face the offender at work 

or on the installation, or unrestricting their report, which enables them to receive an expedited transfer away 

from the offender but makes it impossible to maintain their privacy if the MCIO interviews their friends and 

co-workers in the course of the investigation, as often occurs. Providing victims with the option of receiving 

an expedited transfer while filing a restricted report would alleviate this concern for victims who choose this 

option.

SVC and VLC program managers, SAPR personnel, and SARCs emphasized their overarching concern that 

allowing victims who file restricted reports to receive expedited transfers would strengthen the perception 

among Service members that the policy is being abused. The DAC-IPAD identified this misperception as a 

problem and made a recommendation to dispel it in the March 2018 DAC-IPAD Annual Report.202 Today 

the misperception is based solely on reactions to victims who file unrestricted reports and request expedited 

transfers. Allowing victims who file restricted reports to request expedited transfers would do little to increase 

this misperception, because of the relatively small number of victims likely to be involved and the relatively 

small likelihood that other Service members would be aware of the restricted report.

In addition, many of these representatives felt that unrestricted reporting should be encouraged so that offenders 

could be held accountable. The DAC-IPAD believes that DoD should continue to afford victims the options of 

filing restricted or unrestricted reports without expressing a preference, including by encouraging a specific 

choice. The choice between the two options should rest completely with the victim. The DoD policy allowing 

restricted reporting, as well as the overwhelming support that witnesses before the DAC-IPAD have expressed 

for retaining that option, indicates a clear acceptance that the benefits of offering restricted reporting outweigh 

the disadvantage of not being able to hold the perpetrators in those cases accountable. The DAC-IPAD concurs.

Another concern expressed by some witnesses is that allowing victims who file restricted reports to receive 

expedited transfers could do them unintended harm. When a victim chooses restricted reporting, his or her 

chain of command and co-workers remain unaware of the assault, and thus rumors, ostracism, or retaliation 

within the unit is less likely. When a victim files an unrestricted report and requests an expedited transfer, he 

or she may face rumors at the gaining command about reasons for the transfer out of cycle and for frequent 

absences to keep various appointments, but the new commander and senior enlisted advisor can provide 

support, as they would be aware of the assault and the circumstances of the transfer. However, a victim who 

receives an expedited transfer after filing a restricted report might encounter the same problems without the 

possibility of support from the gaining commander or senior enlisted advisor, who would be unaware of the 

assault. The leadership at the new unit would expect the victim to be fully capable of performing his or her 

duties, including being deployment ready. This expectation may be unrealistic for some victims, who may still be 

processing the trauma of sexual assault.

202 DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 68.
99

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

This unintended harmful consequence already exists, however. A victim who files a restricted report under 

current policy and a victim who might file a restricted report and receive an expedited transfer under a new 

policy would be similarly situated with their commands. Because no one in their commands would know they 

were sexual assault victims, their command leadership would not be able to provide the direct support available 

to a victim filing an unrestricted report. But if current policy is changed, a victim who files a restricted report 

would be able to receive an expedited transfer to a location removed from the perpetrator of the assault and 

closer to family and friends.

Moreover, it is possible that a victim who requests an expedited transfer after filing a restricted report might 

also request that more people be made aware of the assault. One option might be for the installation SARC to 

transmit the restricted expedited transfer request to the Service headquarters office responsible for assignment 

actions, from which the request would be forwarded to a designated commander at the headquarters for a 

decision. That decision authority would then contact the victim’s commander to get input on the request and its 

effect on command, disclosing the assault only to the victim’s commander and his or her senior enlisted advisor. 

No requirement that the commander report the incident to the MCIO would be triggered. Should the request 

be approved, the victim’s commander and senior enlisted advisor at the gaining installation would also be made 

aware of the assault and the nature of the victim’s transfer so that the victim would have the support needed to 

receive counseling. Again, the MCIO would not be informed. This option expands the number of people who 

are aware of the assault but does so by applying the same principle that governs current restricted reporting 

policy: notifying only those who can directly help the victim recover from the assault. 

In this scenario, the facts of the case—including the identity of the subject—could remain restricted and not 

be provided to commanders and senior enlisted advisors at either installation. Therefore, the provision in DoD 

policy that allows a commander to consider moving the subject rather than the victim would not be available 

(although that provision could be made part of the designated commander’s decision-making process). 

However, some additional information might have to be provided to the decision authority at the Service 

headquarters so that he or she could make a judgment based on more than the victim’s assertion that a sexual 

assault has occurred, unless that assertion is considered sufficient to deem a report credible. Currently, a mere 

assertion is considered sufficiently credible to trigger restricted reporting, assistance by a SARC and victim 

advocate (VA), and medical assistance as needed.

One significant factor that would have to be understood and weighed by victims who file restricted reports and 

are considering requesting an expedited transfer is that the more people who know about the expedited transfer, 

the more likely it is that others will realize that the victim suffered a sexual assault. Indeed, the public aspects 

of an expedited transfer—its speed and often the victim’s absence from the gaining command while receiving 

help in recovering from the trauma of the assault—will lead others to suspect its cause. To enable the victim to 

make a fully informed choice, his or her SVC or VLC, or the SARC, would have to fully explain the inherent 

limitations as well as the benefits of such a policy. 

D. Findings and Recommendation

Finding 26: 10 U.S.C § 673, the statutory basis for the expedited transfer policy, applies to Service members who 

are victims of sexual assault, not solely to Service member victims who file unrestricted reports. DoD policy 

limiting eligibility for expedited transfers to victims who file unrestricted reports is inconsistent with this law. 
100

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Finding 27: Under current DoD policy, a sexual assault victim who files a restricted report and wants to transfer 

to a location closer to family and friends, or who wants to get away from the Service member who assaulted him 

or her, has no way to request a transfer that will help in the healing process except after filing an unrestricted 

report. Filing an unrestricted report to request an expedited transfer may lead to the victim’s suffering the same 

negative consequences, such as the loss of privacy, that he or she sought to avoid by initially filing a restricted 

report.

Finding 28: Filing an unrestricted report in order to request an expedited transfer triggers a full investigation of 

the allegation even if the victim does not want the case investigated or prosecuted. A sexual assault victim may 

elect not to participate in the investigation or prosecution of the case after unrestricting his or her report, but the 

case may proceed regardless of the victim’s wishes.

Finding 29: The Response Systems Panel, in its June 2014 report, recommended that the Secretaries of the 

Military Departments create a means by which a sexual assault victim who filed a restricted report could request 

an expedited transfer without making that report unrestricted. 

a. In an October 21, 2015, Exception to Policy memo to the Secretaries of the Military Departments, 

the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness allowed the Services to proceed 

with such an exception to the current expedited transfer policy set forth in DoDI 6495.02. This memo 

expresses support for allowing sexual assault victims who file restricted reports to request expedited 

transfers, but does not change DoD policy to allow for it or provide the implementing procedures for 

how to accomplish this goal.

b. In the three years since this memo was released, none of the Services has requested such an exception to 

policy, and it seems increasingly unlikely that they will do so without explicit direction from DoD.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 13: The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with 

respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) expand the expedited transfer policy 

to include victims who file restricted reports of sexual assault. The victim’s report would remain restricted and 

there would be no resulting investigation. The DAC-IPAD further recommends the following requirements: 

a. The decision authority in such cases should be an O-6 or flag officer at the Service headquarters 

organization in charge of military assignments, rather than the victim’s commander.

b. The victim’s commander and senior enlisted leader, at both the gaining and losing installations, 

should be informed of the sexual assault and the fact that the victim has requested an expedited 

transfer—without being given the subject’s identity or other facts of the case—thereby enabling them to 

appropriately advise the victim on career impacts of an expedited transfer request and ensure that the 

victim is receiving appropriate medical or mental health care.

c. A sexual assault response coordinator, victim advocate, or special victims’ counsel (SVC) / victims’ legal 

counsel (VLC) must advise the victim of the potential consequences of filing a restricted report and 

requesting an expedited transfer, such as the subject not being held accountable for his or her actions 

and the absence of evidence should the victim later decide to unrestrict his or her report.
101

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

V. VICTIMS’ OPTIONS REGARDING SEXUAL ASSAULT REPORTS MADE BY THIRD 

PARTIES

A. DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment 

In its March 2018 annual report, the DAC-IPAD made the following interim assessment of this issue:

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.203

B. Background and Testimony

Under DoD policy, an adult victim of sexual assault who chooses to report the assault has two options: 

making a restricted report or making an unrestricted report. An unrestricted report triggers an investigation 

by the MCIO, while a restricted report does not.204 A member who files a restricted report may later elect an 

unrestricted report, but an unrestricted report may not later be changed to restricted. 

Under DoD policy, a victim can disclose his or her sexual assault to a roommate, family member, or friend 

and still make a restricted report. However, if the victim discloses the assault to someone in his or her chain 

of command or to a DoD law enforcement member, that person must report the assault to the MCIO and the 

victim no longer has the option of filing a restricted report.205 In addition, if a third party discloses the assault 

to a member of law enforcement or to someone in the victim’s chain of command, even without the victim’s 

consent, that individual must report the assault to the MCIO and the victim will no longer have the option of 

filing a restricted report.206 Once informed of the allegation, the MCIO will initiate an investigation. In most 

cases, the victim has the option of declining to participate in the investigation or prosecution of the case but 

cannot stop the case from proceeding.207

Unlike DoD policy, Coast Guard policy mandates that when a Service member or Coast Guard civilian 

employee who is not an individual designated to receive a restricted report—that is, who is not a SARC, VA, 

or health care professional—becomes aware that a sexual assault has or may have occurred, that information 

is unrestricted and the individual must notify his or her chain of command or SARC within 24 hours.208 There 

203 DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 74.

204 DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, at encl. 4, ¶ 1.a–b.

205 Id. at encl. 4, ¶ 1.e(1).

206 Id. at encl. 4, ¶ 1.f (If the victim has already filed a restricted report prior to the third-party report, the victim’s report will remain restricted; 

however, the MCIO will begin an investigation based on the independent report.).

207 Id. at encl. 4, ¶ 1.c(1).

208 U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Instruction (COMDTINST) M1754.10E, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program

(Dec. 2016), Chap. 4, ¶ B.1.
102

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

is no exception for disclosure to a friend, roommate, or family member. Like DoD policy, Coast Guard policy 

allows a victim to decline to participate in the investigation but states that the investigation may continue.209

At the October 2017 DAC-IPAD public meeting, two commanders serving as special court-martial convening 

authorities told the Committee that they would change the system to enable sexual assault victims who have 

lost the ability to make restricted reports, whether because of third-party reports or because of their inadvertent 

disclosure of the assault to a mandatory reporter, to restrict further disclosure or investigation of the incident.210

Service MCIO representatives testified about this issue at the PWG preparatory session held on May 24, 2018. 

The MCIO representatives stated that in a scenario in which the victim did not want to cooperate with the 

investigation, such as an investigation triggered by a third-party report, they would continue to investigate their 

leads to a logical conclusion. They agreed that if they lacked the name of the subject and had few other facts 

about the case, the investigation would likely not go very far.211

Mr. Kevin Poorman, Associate Director of Criminal Investigations for the Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations (AFOSI), told the PWG that about one year ago, the AFOSI developed a process that allows it, 

in certain limited circumstances, to accede to the victim’s request to not investigate a sexual assault offense. 

AFOSI agents can exercise this discretion only when they don’t know the identity of the subject or the location 

of the offense; the victim must also have met with an SVC and signed a statement declining to participate in the 

investigation.212 Mr. Poorman described the SVC community as supportive of this policy, but added that if agents 

are provided the name of the subject or other leads to pursue, they will continue the investigation.213 Noting that 

the victim’s desire for privacy must be balanced against society’s need to pursue justice,214 he observed that he 

would be extremely reluctant to drop an investigation involving a named offender, knowing that the individual 

might reoffend and that this risk would be unacceptable to commanders.215

Testimony provided by MCIO agents to the DAC-IPAD’s Case Review Working Group during its March 2018 

preparatory session confirmed the Service policies that allow them to close a case if there is no identifiable 

offender and no other leads to follow.216 One MCIO agent said he was torn between wanting to investigate every 

case to its full extent and wanting to respect the victim’s wish for privacy. He wondered whether they were doing 

the victim a disservice by possibly causing additional trauma in pursuing the investigation, but he also declared 

209 Id. at Chap. 4, ¶ B.5.a.

210 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 214–15 (Oct. 20, 2017) (testimony of Captain John Bushey, Commander, Naval Installations 

Command, Director of Public Safety, U.S. Navy); id. at 217 (testimony of Captain Brett Millican, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Base 

Boston, U.S. Coast Guard).

211 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 320–22 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Mr. Michael DeFamio, Division Chief, Family and Sexual Violence 

Division, U.S. Naval Criminal Investigative Service); id. at 323 (testimony of Ms. Beverly Vogel, Sex Crimes Program Manager, U.S. Coast Guard 

Criminal Investigative Service); id. at 339–40 (testimony of Mr. Guy Surian, Deputy Chief, Investigative Operations, Investigative Policy, and 

Criminal Intelligence, U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division).

212 Id. at 325–28 (testimony of Mr. Kevin Poorman, Associate Director, Criminal Investigations, U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations).

213 Id. at 328.

214 See id.

215 Id. at 329, 331. 

216 Transcript of CRWG Preparatory Session 157 (Mar. 6, 2018) (testimony of Special Agent Ernest Slatinsky, Chief of Quality Assessments, 

U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations).
103

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

that if they don’t investigate the case when it is reported, important details may be lost.217 Another MCIO agent 

stated, “I think we need to entertain allowing that victim still, irrespective to who they spoke to, a cop or not or 

a friend, to make a decision as to being restricted or unrestricted.”218 Two other MCIO agents offered a contrary 

view, observing that the decision to pursue all leads to their logical conclusion is helpful when a victim decides, 

often after some time has passed, that he or she wants to have the case investigated and prosecuted. Because the 

MCIO has interviewed witnesses relatively soon after the commission of the alleged offense, the information 

gathered is more accurate.219

The Service MCIOs also expressed reluctance to allow their field agents too much discretion regarding how 

thoroughly they conduct their investigations.220 They worried about going back to a time when investigators 

could make an independent judgment that a case is not worth pursuing or that the victim is lying, leaving them 

open to later criticism.221

Several SAPR representatives mentioned the “You Have Options” program initiated by the Ashland, Oregon, 

police department and now implemented by a number of police departments throughout the country. This 

program allows varying levels of sexual assault reporting, from an anonymous report to a full report leading to 

a complete investigation.222 A victim can speak to a law enforcement officer anonymously in order to discuss 

reporting options; after a report is made, he or she can reverse that decision and request that the suspect and 

witnesses not be interviewed.223

A number of presenters expressed frustration that even in cases in which the victim declines to participate in the 

investigation, the MCIO conducts a full investigation,224 which includes interviewing the victim’s co-workers, 

friends, or family members. This often happens in cases in which a third party reports without the victim’s 

consent to the disclosure and the victim wishes to maintain his or her privacy. Without the victim’s cooperation, 

these cases typically result in no action being taken against the subject.

217 Id. at 159.

218 Id. at 161 (testimony of Special Agent Clarence Joubert III, Supervisory Special Agent and Program Manager for the Special Victim Unit, 

U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division).

219 Id. at 163 (testimony of Special Agent Lisa Medrano, Chief, Special Victim Team, U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division); Transcript of PWG 

Preparatory Session 384 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Ms. Marta Sivert, Chief, Violent Crimes, U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations).

220 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 381 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Mr. Guy Surian, Deputy Chief, Investigative Operations, Investigative 

Policy, and Criminal Intelligence, U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division); id. at 382–83 (testimony of Mr. Kevin Poorman, Associate Director, 

Criminal Investigations, U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations).

221 Id. at 381 (testimony of Mr. Guy Surian, Deputy Chief, Investigative Operations, Investigative Policy, and Criminal Intelligence, 

U.S. Army Criminal Investigative Division).

222 “You Have Options Program,” information available at https://www.reportingoptions.org.

223 Id.

224 See Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 215 (Oct. 20, 2017) (testimony of Captain John Bushey, Commander, Naval Installations Command, 

Director of Public Safety, U.S. Navy); id. at 216 (testimony of Colonel Kevin Stewart, Executive Assistant to the Deputy Commandant, Installation 

and Logistics, U.S. Marine Corps); Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 88 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Ms. Charlotte Cluverius, Deputy Chief 

of Staff, Victims’ Legal Counsel Program, U.S. Navy). 
104

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

C. Discussion

This issue, like that of expedited transfers with restricted reporting, centers on giving sexual assault victims more 

control over their cases—in this instance, over how their cases are reported and investigated.

The wishes of the victim to maintain his or her privacy must be balanced against the interests of command 

and society in pursuing a subject. If the MCIO knows the name of the subject or if the individual is readily 

identifiable and the case is not investigated, then some may hold the command and the MCIO accountable 

for future crimes committed by him or her. The need for good order and discipline in the military is acute, 

and failing to hold a perpetrator of sexual assault accountable by complying with the victim’s request not to 

investigate may ultimately undermine good order and discipline. Thus, there appear to be good reasons to argue 

that MCIOs should investigate allegations of sexual assault when commands or MCIOs become aware of them. 

However, similar concerns were raised when restricted reporting was being considered as an option for victims, 

and few problems have in fact developed. Today, restricted reporting is recognized as extremely beneficial to 

victims, without having caused a decline in good order and discipline or a noticeable increase in the number of 

serial rapists who evade detection. 

Another area of concern is that a sexual offender who occupies a position of authority over the victim—such as 

a drill instructor or supervisor—might coerce or intimidate a victim into requesting that further investigation be 

restricted. Such cases should be exempt from this proposed policy.

Finally, such a policy might send a damaging message to a third party who reports a sexual assault, in an effort 

to do the right thing, and then sees that the allegation is not investigated. He or she might conclude that the 

offense is being swept under the rug—especially if the subject is someone in a position of authority, such as a 

drill instructor. Any study of instituting such a policy must therefore consider possible effects on third-party 

reporters in such instances.

D. Findings and Recommendation

Finding 30: Under current DoD sexual assault policy, a victim’s communication with another person (e.g., 

roommate, friend, family member) does not, in and of itself, prevent the victim from later electing to make a 

restricted report. However, if the person to whom the victim confided is in the victim’s chain of command—

whether an officer or a noncommissioned officer—or is DoD law enforcement, the allegation must be reported 

to the MCIO and is therefore treated as an unrestricted report, regardless of the victim’s wishes or intent.

Finding 31: DoD policy further states that if information about a sexual assault comes to a commander’s 

attention, even if from a source other than the victim, that commander must immediately report the matter to 

an MCIO and an official investigation based on that independently acquired information may be initiated.

Finding 32: DoD policy specifies that a victim’s decision to decline to participate in an investigation should be 

honored; however, the victim cannot change a report from unrestricted to restricted, and the investigation may 

continue regardless of the victim’s participation.

Finding 33: Several commanders indicated in their testimony to the DAC-IPAD that the one change they would 

make to the system is to allow victims who have lost the ability to make a restricted report—whether because 

of third-party reports or because they were unaware of this consequence of reporting to a member of their 
105

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

chain of command—to restrict any further disclosure or investigation of the incident, if they so desire. Some 

representatives from the MCIOs testified in support of such a policy; others testified in opposition.

Finding 34: Additional information is needed in order to fully evaluate the effects of such a policy change. Issues 

that should be considered include the impact on the accused and the unit of closing an investigation, potential 

liability for future sexual misconduct by the accused, and the potential loss of evidence of the alleged offense.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 14: The Secretary of Defense (in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 

Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) establish a working group 

to review whether victims should have the option to request that further disclosure or investigation of a sexual 

assault report be restricted in situations in which the member has lost the ability to file a restricted report, 

whether because a third party has reported the sexual assault or because the member has disclosed the assault to 

a member of the chain of command or to military law enforcement. The working group’s goal should be to find 

a feasible solution that would, in appropriate circumstances, allow the victim to request that the investigation be 

terminated. The working group should consider under what circumstances, such as in the interests of justice and 

safety, a case may merit further investigation regardless of the victim’s wishes; it should also consider whether 

existing safeguards are sufficient to ensure that victims are not improperly pressured by the subject, or by others, 

to request that the investigation be terminated. This working group should consider developing such a policy 

with the following requirements:

a. The victim be required to meet with an SVC or VLC before signing a statement requesting that 

the investigation be discontinued, so that the SVC or VLC can advise the victim of the potential 

consequences of closing the investigation.

b. The investigative agent be required to obtain supervisory or MCIO headquarters-level approval to close 

a case in these circumstances.

c. The MCIOs be aware of and take steps to mitigate a potential perception by third-party reporters that 

allegations are being ignored when they see that no investigation is taking place; such steps could 

include notifying the third-party reporter of the MCIO’s decision to honor the victim’s request.

d. Cases in which the subject is in a position of authority over the victim be excluded from such a policy. 

e. If the MCIO terminates the investigation at the request of the victim, no adverse administrative or 

disciplinary action may be taken against the subject based solely on the reporting witness’s allegation of 

sexual assault.
106

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

VI. APPROVAL STANDARD AND PURPOSE OF THE EXPEDITED TRANSFER POLICY 

A. DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment

In its March 2018 annual report, the DAC-IPAD made the following interim assessment of this issue:

DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment: The DAC-IPAD believes 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.225

B. Background and Testimony

A thorough discussion of DoD’s expedited transfer policy is provided above in Section III, “Overview of the 

Expedited Transfer Policy.”

In its March 2018 Report, the Committee concluded that the expedited transfer policy is working well and is 

achieving its mission of enabling sexual assault victims to leave environments where they may be subject to 

rumors, ostracism, or retaliation. The policy also enables victims to avoid contact with the subject and move 

closer to family or others who can support them. While not without problems, the expedited transfer policy 

has been lauded by many groups who have testified before the DAC-IPAD and PWG—commanders, SVCs and 

VLCs, SARCs, SAPR personnel, and, most importantly, the victims themselves. But various aspects of the policy 

have caused some confusion, particularly among commanders and others charged with administering it. 

Commanders expressed frustration at having to decide whether an expedited transfer request is based on 

a credible report despite often having very little information. One told the Committee that it is difficult to 

determine if a report is credible without a full investigation, adding that commanders essentially must take the 

victim’s allegation at face value in approving the request.226 Given the requirement to render a decision within 72 

hours and the presumption in favor of granting the request, commanders sometimes feel pressured to approve 

requests even when they believe they don’t have all of the information necessary to meet the “credible report” 

standard. One special court-martial convening authority told the DAC-IPAD that though he “didn’t fully agree 

to all” the expedited transfer requests he received, he felt “at risk” if he didn’t approve them.227

Several presenters told the PWG that they have seen commanders grapple with their decision in cases in which 

little information was available. One VLC expressed the concern that in trying to ensure that the credible 

report standard is met, some commanders are requesting additional information from victims.228 Such requests 

are problematic not only because a victim may be uneasy about providing additional details but also because 

commanders are prohibited from conducting independent investigations of sexual assault cases.229 Ms. Diana 

Rangoussis, DoD SAPRO Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor, stated that when members of DoD SAPRO 

225 DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 72.

226 Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting 111 (Oct. 20, 2017) (testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Erin Miller, Assistant Chief of Staff, G4, 

Chief of Sustainment for 101st Airborne Division, Fort Campbell, KY, U.S. Army).

227 Id. at 193 (testimony of Colonel Erik Gilbert, Chief of Staff to the Director, Joint Future Force Development, Joint Staff, U.S. Army).

228 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 35 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Ms. Charlotte Cluverius, Deputy Chief of Staff, Victims’ Legal Counsel 

Program, U.S. Navy).

229 DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, at encl. 2, ¶ 6.k(1).
107

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

drafted the policy, their aim was to balance the needs of the victim against the need to ensure the credibility 

of the program. To avoid the perception that any request would be automatically granted, they introduced the 

credible report standard; on the other hand, the presumption in favor of the victim suggested that absent a 

suspicion that the victim has filed a false report, the request should be granted.230

Several presenters supported extending the time allowed for making a decision (currently 72 hours), with some 

suggesting five days as a reasonable period.231 In the view of one presenter, this change would ease the pressure 

on commanders and also help combat the misperception common among Service members that the policy is 

being abused.232 The decision-making process would be, and would be perceived to be, more deliberative. In 

addition, increasing the time frame for the commander’s decision would enable the commander and senior 

enlisted advisor to work with the assignments personnel to provide more comprehensive career counseling 

advice to victims.233

C. Discussion

It is clear from the testimony of commanders, SARCs, and SVCs and VLCs that commanders want to do the 

right thing and what is in the best interests of the victims to help them heal. However, their attempts to satisfy a 

number of sometimes competing interests—ensuring that the credible report standard is satisfied, acting in the 

best interest of the victim, and making a decision very quickly—often lead to frustration. The decision on an 

expedited transfer can be especially difficult when the victim submitting the request has also declined to make 

a statement to the MCIO or participate in the investigation. It is clear from the statistics that most expedited 

transfer requests are approved—in fiscal years 2016 and 2017, the approval rate was 97%.234

More guidance should be given to commanders on the central question with which they grapple in deciding 

whether to approve an expedited transfer request: is the policy intended to operate in the best interests of the 

victim, the best interests of command, or both? The high approval rate indicates that commanders are largely 

basing their decisions on the best interests of the victim; this emphasis appears to be appropriate, given that the 

policy includes a presumption in favor of granting the victim’s request.

The two stated intents of the expedited transfer policy are (1) to address situations in which a victim feels safe, 

but uncomfortable, and (2) to assist in the victim’s recovery by moving him or her to a new location where 

230 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 37–39 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Ms. Diana Rangoussis, Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor, 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of Defense).

231 See id. at 44–45 (testimony of Ms. Kimberly Lahm, Policy Branch Chief, Interpersonal Self-Directed Violence Response Program, U.S. Air Force); 

id. at 143 (testimony of Ms. Kathleen Schofield, Lead Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA, U.S. Navy); 

id. at 144 (testimony of Ms. Deborah Allen, Operations Branch Chief, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Falls Church, VA, U.S. Air 

Force); id. at 148 (testimony of Sergeant First Class Lisa Vaughn, Lead Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, TX, 

U.S. Army).

232 See id. at 44–45 (testimony of Ms. Kimberly Lahm, Policy Branch Chief, Interpersonal Self-Directed Violence Response Program, U.S. Air Force).

233 See id. at 19 (testimony of Mr. Paul Rosen, Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, U.S. Navy); id. at 143 (testimony of 

Ms. Kathleen Schofield, Lead Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA, U.S. Navy); id. at 144 (testimony of 

Ms. Deborah Allen, Operations Branch Chief, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Falls Church, VA, U.S. Air Force); id. at 148 

(testimony of Sergeant First Class Lisa Vaughn, Lead Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, TX, U.S. Army).

234 See Dep’t of Def., Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military: Fiscal Year 2016, 

Appendix B: Statistical Data on Sexual Assault 36 (May 1, 2017); Dep’t of Def., Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Annual 

Report on Sexual Assault in the Military: Fiscal Year 2017, Appendix B: Statistical Data on Sexual Assault 37 (Apr. 27, 2018) 

[hereinafter FY17 SAPRO Report]. Reports are available at http://sapr.mil/reports.
108

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

no one knows of the sexual assault. However, after speaking with numerous DoD and Service presenters, the 

Committee is certain that the policy’s overarching purpose is to assist in the recovery of the victim—mentally, 

physically, and emotionally. Providing a clear purpose statement to that effect, followed by examples of such 

assistance—allowing the victim to move closer to family or other support structures; allowing the victim to get 

away from the subject, the scene of the sexual assault, and a situation in which he or she is subject to rumors, 

ostracism, or retaliation; and so on—would help clarify the policy. 

If the policy is intended to operate in the best interests of the victim—which is in line with the purpose of 

assisting in the victim’s recovery—perhaps the credible report standard should be discarded in favor of a 

standard more in keeping with that purpose. One suggestion supported by a number of presenters was that 

the signature of the victim on the DD Form 2910 making an allegation of sexual assault should satisfy the 

requirement of a credible report. Absent indications of a false allegation, the expedited transfer request would 

then be approved for any victim who formally reports a sexual assault in this manner. Another option would be 

to delete the requirement that a commander determine that a report be credible, adding instead to the criteria 

that commanders must consider in making a decision on an expedited transfer request “any evidence that the 

victim’s report is not credible.” This option would support the current policy’s presumption in favor of approving 

expedited transfer requests and would affirm a presumption in favor of the credibility of victims’ reports (which 

is consistent with investigative results), yet would alert commanders of the need to consider any potential 

evidence to the contrary.

D. Findings and Recommendations

Finding 35: The stated purposes of the current DoD expedited transfer policy are (1) to address situations in 

which a victim feels safe, but uncomfortable, and (2) to assist in the victim’s recovery by moving the victim to 

a new location where no one knows of the sexual assault. The expedited transfer policy does not address safety 

issues, which are the focus of other policies.

Finding 36: Many Service presenters testified that the primary purpose of the expedited transfer program is to 

assist victims in their recovery.

Finding 37: The standard that commanders must follow to reach a decision regarding an expedited transfer 

request is not clearly stated in DoD policy. According to DoD policy, a commander must find that a “credible 

report” has been made before approving an expedited transfer request, and the commander must consider a list 

of up to 10 additional criteria. However, DoD policy does not specify whether a commander should base his or 

her decision on what is in the best interests of the command, in the best interests of the victim, or both.

Finding 38: Determining whether an expedited transfer request is based on a “credible report” is often 

problematic for commanders because they only have 72 hours to make such a determination, are prohibited 

from conducting their own investigation, and frequently have little information to consider beyond the victim’s 

report.
109

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 15: The Secretary of Defense (and the Secretary of Homeland Security with 

respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) revise the DoD expedited transfer 

policy (and the policy governing the Coast Guard with respect to expedited transfers) to include the following 

points:

a. The primary goal of the DoD expedited transfer policy is to act in the best interests of the victim. 

Commanders should focus on that goal when they make decisions regarding such requests. 

b. The single, overriding purpose of the expedited transfer policy is to assist in the victim’s mental, physical, 

and emotional recovery from the trauma of sexual assault. This purpose statement should be followed 

by examples of reasons why a victim might request an expedited transfer and how such a transfer would 

assist in a victim’s recovery (e.g., proximity to the subject or to the site of the assault at the current 

location, ostracism or retaliation at the current location, proximity to a support network of family or 

friends at the requested location, and the victim’s desire for a fresh start following the assault).

c. The requirement that a commander determine that a report be credible is not aligned with the core 

purpose of the expedited transfer policy. It should be eliminated, and instead an addition should be 

made to the criteria that commanders must consider in making a decision on an expedited transfer 

request: “any evidence that the victim’s report is not credible.”

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 16: Congress increase the amount of time allotted to a commander to process an 

expedited transfer request from 72 hours to no more than five workdays.

VII. INCLUSION OF TEMPORARY, PERMANENT, INTRA- AND INTER-INSTALLATION 

TRANSFERS IN THE EXPEDITED TRANSFER POLICY

A. DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment

In its March 2018 annual report, the DAC-IPAD made the following interim assessment of this issue:

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.235

B. Background and Testimony

DoD policy allows a victim to request a temporary or permanent expedited transfer either within the same 

installation or command or to a different installation or command.236 Several counsel described scenarios in 

which a victim requested a transfer within the installation but continued to run into the subject at various 

locations on base, making it necessary for the victim to then request another expedited transfer to a different 

235 DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 73.

236 DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, at encl. 5, ¶ 6.b.
110

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

installation. Some counsel expressed concern that victims who request more than one expedited transfer may be 

viewed less favorably by supervisors and commanders and that multiple moves may harm a victim’s career.237

However, subsequent testimony from Service presenters indicated that these damaging consequences rarely 

occurred. Presenters did not view as unusual or problematic a situation in which a victim requests a transfer first 

within the installation and later to a different installation because the first move had not resolved the victim’s 

concerns. They explained that each request is evaluated on its own merits.238

C. DAC-IPAD Final Assessment

Having spoken to numerous presenters from the Services and DoD—SVCs and VLCs, SARCs, SAPR personnel, 

assignments personnel, prosecutors, and defense counsel—the Committee has determined that with regard to 

this issue, the current expedited transfer policy is working for both victims and command.

VIII. EXPANSION OF THE EXPEDITED TRANSFER POLICY TO CIVILIAN SPOUSES AND 

CHILDREN OF SERVICE MEMBERS

A. DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment

In its March 2018 annual report, the DAC-IPAD made the following interim assessment of this issue:

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.239

B. Background and Testimony

By statute and DoD policy, expedited transfers are available only to active duty Service members who are victims 

of sexual assault.240 However, it is sometimes the case that when a Service member’s spouse or other family 

member is sexually assaulted by another military member, that Service member or his or her family member 

may face some of the same problems as would a Service member victim. 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 so that the victim or Service member 

can avoid contact with the subject or ostracism or retaliation by others within the community. In addition, 

237 See Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 190 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Captain Brandon K. Regan, Complex Trial Team, Legal Services 

Support Section–East, Camp Lejeune, NC, U.S. Marine Corps); id. at 191–92 (testimony of Major Jennifer Venghaus, Plans Officer, Personnel, 

Plans, and Training Office, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Washington, DC, U.S. Army).

238 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 105–06 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Ms. Erinn Izykowski, Section Head, Plans, Policy, and Oversight, 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program, U.S. Marine Corps); id. at 107 (testimony of Ms. Charlotte Cluverius, Deputy Chief of Staff, 

Victims’ Legal Counsel Program, U.S. Navy); id. at 108 (testimony of Colonel James Key III, Chief, Special Victims’ Counsel Program, 

U.S. Air Force); id. at 110 (testimony of Mr. Nathan Evans, Branch Chief, SHARP Program Management and Reporting, U.S. Army).

239 DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 74.

240 10 U.S.C. § 673; DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, at encl. 5, ¶ 6.b.
111

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

family member victims of sexual assault, like Service member victims, may benefit from a support network 

available at a new duty station or location. 

Several Service presenters informed the PWG that their Service policies address such situations through 

humanitarian or compassionate reassignments.241

C. DAC-IPAD Final Assessment

Following the DAC-IPAD’s initial review of this issue in its March 2018 Annual Report, Congress enacted a 

provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 that expands the expedited 

transfer policy to include Service members whose dependents are victims of sexual assault by other Service 

members, thereby effectively resolving this issue. This section states:

The Secretary of Defense shall establish a policy to allow the transfer of a member of the 

Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps whose dependent is the victim of sexual assault 

perpetrated by a member of the Armed Forces who is not related to the victim.242

IX. COLLECTION OF DATA REGARDING EXPEDITED TRANSFERS

A. Previous DAC-IPAD Recommendation

In its March 2018 annual report, the DAC-IPAD made the following recommendation related to collecting data 

on expedited transfers:

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.243

B. Background and Testimony

Transfers of Victims. Each fiscal year, in its annual report to Congress, DoD SAPRO publishes the number of 

intra-installation and inter-installation expedited transfer requests received, approved, and denied.244

On September 11, 2017, the DAC-IPAD Chair sent a written request for information to the Secretaries of the 

Military Departments, asking that they provide specific information on all sexual assault–related expedited 

transfer requests made by victims in fiscal year 2016—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 

241 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 115–16 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Colonel James Key III, Chief, Special Victims’ Counsel Program, 

U.S. Air Force); id. at 117 (testimony of Major Jessica Martz, Deputy Officer-in-Charge, Victims’ Legal Counsel Program, U.S. Marine Corps); 

id. at 120 (testimony of Colonel Peter Yob, Special Victims’ Counsel Program Manager, U.S. Army).

242 FY19 NDAA, supra note 5, § 536(b).

243 DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 68.

244 See Service Enclosures to DoD SAPRO Annual Report: Fiscal Year 2017 (Apr. 27, 2018), supra note 234.
112

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

related to transfers of the accused.245 The information that the DAC-IPAD received from the Services on 

expedited transfers for FY16 was not readily available or easily accessible to the Services and had to be compiled 

from various sources. 

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 at Appendix H. 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%.246

According to Service SVCs and VLCs, SARCs, and SAPR representatives who spoke to the PWG, once victims 

transfer to new locations, it is difficult to track them to determine if they have accessed services at the new 

location or separated from service, or to gauge how their career is progressing. The Navy and Coast Guard 

representatives said that they are currently in the process of analyzing those data.247

Transfers of Subjects. By statute and DoD policy, military commanders have the option of transferring the 

subject instead of the Service member who has requested an expedited transfer.248 But neither DoD nor the 

Services are required to track or collect data on transfers of subjects under these provisions, and indeed they 

do not do so.249 Service defense representatives were unable to provide information to the PWG regarding the 

number of subjects transferred under these provisions (whether the transfers were within the installation or to 

different installations) or the circumstances surrounding the transfers.250

C. Discussion

In its March 2018 report, the DAC-IPAD found that the expedited transfer policy is an important tool for aiding 

the recovery of sexual assault victims and that it should be continued and improved upon.251 The DAC-IPAD 

also sought to dispel the misperception among many Service members that the expedited transfer policy is being 

abused by Service members who wish to relocate to more favorable locations. 

245 See Appendix E, DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4, Questions 5 and 6 (Sept. 11, 2017).

246 See Appendix H, Aggregated Service Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4, Question 5, Attachment A, Table 1 (Sept. 11, 2017).

247 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 18 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Major Jessica Martz, Deputy Officer-in-Charge, Victims’ Legal Counsel 

Organization, U.S. Marine Corps); id. at 18 (testimony of Lieutenant Amanda Styles, Central Assignment Coordinator, Aviation, Communication 

and Prevention Career Fields, U.S. Coast Guard); id. at 20 (testimony of Mr. Paul Rosen, Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Program, U.S. Navy); id. at 131, 139 (testimony of Sergeant First Class Lisa Vaughn, Lead Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, 1st Armored 

Division, Fort Bliss, TX, U.S. Army); id. at 139–40 (testimony of Ms. Elizabeth Johnson, Command Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, 2nd 

Marine Logistics Group, Camp Lejeune, NC, U.S. Marine Corps); id. at 140 (testimony of Ms. Deborah Allen, Operations Branch Chief, Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Office, Falls Church, VA, U.S. Air Force).

248 10 U.S.C. § 674; DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, at encl. 5, ¶ 6b(8)(b).

249 See Appendix H, Service Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information 4, Question 6 (Sept. 11, 2017).

250 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 217 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Mary Ann Bowery, Chief, Defense Counsel Assistance 

Program, U.S. Army); id. at 217 (testimony of Commander Chad Temple, Director, Defense Counsel Assistance Program, U.S. Navy); id. at 217 

(testimony of Major Christopher Capasso, Officer-in-Charge, Defense Counsel Assistance Program, U.S. Marine Corps); id. at 218 (testimony of 

Colonel Thomas Rodrigues, Chief, Trial Defense Division, U.S. Air Force); id. at 218 (testimony of Commander Shanell King, Chief of Defense 

Services, U.S. Coast Guard).

251 DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 66.
113

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

During the Judicial Proceedings Panel Subcommittee installation site visits in 2016, numerous military 

personnel expressed their sense that the expedited transfer policy was widely abused by military members 

seeking to move to more desirable duty stations, such as Hawaii or California. But SVCs and VLCs, 

commanders, Service prosecutors, SARCs, and SAPR personnel testified that they have not encountered 

widespread abuse of the policy. To the contrary, data on the numbers of transfers and the locations from and to 

which victims are transferring reveal little abuse. For example, according to data collected by DoD SAPRO, in 

fiscal years 2016 and 2017, only about 20% of eligible victims requested expedited transfers, meaning that 80% 

remained in their units.252

The expedited transfer data provided by the Services show that by and large, victims are not requesting transfers 

to locations such as Hawaii or California; instead, the requests involve locations where transfers can be easily 

accommodated, such as Fort Hood, Texas.253

In addition, while Service prosecutors and SVCs/VLCs have anecdotally discussed whether a victim who 

receives an expedited transfer is more likely to cooperate with the investigation and prosecution of the case than 

a victim who does not receive a transfer, collecting offender disposition data for the two groups would provide 

more insight into this question. DoD does not currently compile these data.

The Services were inconsistent in their ability to produce information regarding transfers of Service members 

accused of sexual assault–related offenses. While the Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard provided the 

DAC-IPAD with information responding to most of the requested data points, the Army and Navy did not and 

reported that they are not able to centrally track this information,254 even though commanders are required to 

consider transferring the accused offender rather than the victim.

The DAC-IPAD also believes it important for the Services to track information on career progression and 

retention rates for victims following an expedited transfer; these data should then be compared to corresponding 

data both for victims who do not receive expedited transfers and for Service members of the same grade who do 

not report having been victims of sexual assault. Because the Services invest considerable money and resources 

into recruits, they have a strong interest in determining the best way to protect their investment and retain their 

assets. In addition, mishandling these cases and the treatment of victims may lead those victims to leave the 

military and harm recruitment efforts by describing their experiences in the military in starkly negative terms. 

To fully assess the effects and efficacy of the expedited transfer policy, and to help shape future policy, the DACIPAD believes it important to have access to more information related to sexual assault victims who receive 

expedited transfers and to accused who are transferred because of sexual assault allegations made against them.

D. Findings and Recommendation

Finding 39: Currently, DoD and the Services track and report the number of expedited transfer requests 

(within an installation and between installations) made by Service member victims and the number denied and 

approved, as specifically required by Congress.

252 Id. at 59.

253 See Appendix H, Service Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4, Question 5 (Sept. 11, 2017).

254 See Appendix H, Service Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4, Question 6 (Sept. 11, 2017).
114

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Finding 40: Currently, there is no consistent method of tracking other data related to victims who receive 

expedited transfers, such as career progression or retention in the military.

Finding 41: Currently, there is no requirement that DoD and the Services track or report the number of subject 

transfers made in accordance with DoDI 6495.02.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 17: The Services track and report the following data in order to best evaluate the 

expedited transfer program:

a. Data on the number of expedited transfer requests by victims; the grade and job title of the requester; 

the sex and race of the requester; the origin installation; whether the requester was represented by 

an SVC/VLC; the requested transfer locations; the actual transfer locations; whether the transfer was 

permanent or temporary; the grade and title of the decision maker and appeal authority, if applicable; 

the dates of the sexual assault report, transfer request, approval or disapproval decision and appeal 

decision, and transfer; and the disposition of the sexual assault case, if final.

b. Data on the number of accused transferred; the grade and job title of the accused; the sex and race of the 

accused; the origin installation; the transfer installation; the grade and title of the decision maker; the 

dates of the sexual assault report and transfer; whether the transfer was permanent or temporary; and 

the disposition of the sexual assault case, if final.

c. Data on victim participation in investigation/prosecution before and after an expedited transfer.

d. Data on the marital status (and/or number of dependents) of victims of sexual assault who request 

expedited transfers and accused Service members who are transferred under this program.

e. Data on the type of sexual assault offense (penetrative or contact) reported by victims requesting 

expedited transfers.

f. Data on Service retention rates for sexual assault victims who receive expedited transfers compared with 

sexual assault victims who do not receive expedited transfers and with other Service members of similar 

rank and years of service.

g. Data on the career progression for sexual assault victims who receive expedited transfers compared with 

sexual assault victims who do not receive expedited transfers and with other Service members of similar 

rank and years of service.

h. Data on victim satisfaction with the expedited transfer program.

i. Data on the expedited transfer request rate of Service members who make unrestricted reports of sexual 

assault.
115

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

X. TRANSITIONAL ASSISTANCE TO FACILITATE RECOVERY FOR CERTAIN SERVICE 

MEMBERS AFTER A SEXUAL ASSAULT

A. DAC-IPAD Interim Assessment

In its March 2018 annual report, the DAC-IPAD made the following interim assessment of this issue:

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.255

B. Background and Testimony

At the December 2017 PWG meeting, the mother of a medically retired Service member who was violently 

sexually assaulted by two Service members while in the Army provided powerful testimony describing her 

daughter’s experience and the need for a period of transitional care for sexual assault victims who require 

it.256 The DoD expedited transfer policy does not address such transitional care. Victims who testified at the 

December PWG meeting agreed that a program of transitional care would greatly benefit those sexual assault 

victims who need it.257

At the May 2018 PWG meeting, a Navy SARC stated that in a few cases, her command has arranged for Service 

members who are sexual assault victims to be attached to a Navy medical facility for 12 to 18 months to provide 

those individuals the time and resources to heal before returning to their career field.258 Other presenters 

acknowledged that while many victims are able to heal and continue to perform their duties with or without 

an expedited transfer or mental health counseling, there may be some who need extra time to heal.259 The 

presenters all agreed that if such a policy were instituted, transitional care should not be mandatory but rather 

should be available at the request of the victim.260

In addition to major military or civilian medical facilities that may be able to accommodate sexual assault 

victims who need more intensive treatment, the Air Force just announced the opening of its first Invisible 

Wounds Center at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.261 This facility will serve as a treatment center for military 

members who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and associated conditions.

255 DAC-IPAD 2018 Annual Report, supra note 4, at 73.

256 See Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 305–22 (Dec. 1, 2017) (testimony of Ms. Amanda Hagy, DAC-IPAD Paralegal).

257 See id. at 330; 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). 

258 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 168–69 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Ms. Kathleen Schofield, Lead Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, 

Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA, U.S. Navy).

259 Id. at 177–78 (testimony of Ms. Bette Inch, Senior Victim Assistance Advisor, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, U.S. Department of 

Defense); id. at 175 (testimony of Ms. Deborah Allen, Operations Branch Chief, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Falls Church, VA, 

U.S. Air Force); id. at 178–80 (testimony of Mx. Angela Lakey, National Capital Region Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, Washington, DC, 

U.S. Coast Guard). 

260 Id.

261 Ilke Cole, Air Force’s First Invisible Wounds Center Opens, Defense Visual Information Distribution Service, Sept. 4, 2018, available at

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/291382/air-forces-first-invisible-wounds-center-opens.
116

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

An Air Force SARC also mentioned a policy allowing an airman who has experienced a traumatic event, such 

as sexual assault, to request that there be a span of time—perhaps 90 days—in which he or she is not rated for 

purposes of a performance report.262 This allows the individual time to recover and receive treatment during a 

period when he or she may not be performing at optimal level.

A 2016 report from the DoD Inspector General reveals that one-third of active duty sexual assault victims are 

separated from the military within one year of reporting a sexual assault.263

C. Discussion

For many victims, the chance to start over at a new installation without having to fear running into the subject, 

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 SVCs and VLCs 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.264

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 wounded in action—may enable 

them to return to full duty status as healthy, functioning members of their units.

D. Findings and Recommendation

Finding 42: The expedited transfer policy and existing out-patient mental health, medical, and other resources 

that assist sexual assault victims in the recovery process are not sufficient for all sexual assault victims. Some 

victims may need extra time and resources to heal before resuming their regular duties.

Finding 43: Existing arrangements, such as military medical facility in-patient programs or Wounded Warrior 

programs, provide effective treatment to those victims who require it prior to returning to their regular duties. 

However, these resources are not being sufficiently utilized by the Services to treat those sexual assault victims 

who require additional mental health or medical treatment beyond the out-patient care that may be available at 

their local installation.

DAC-IPAD Recommendation 18: The Secretaries of the Military Departments (and the Secretary of Homeland 

Security with respect to the Coast Guard when not operating as a service in the Navy) incorporate into policy, 

for those sexual assault victims who request it, an option to attend a transitional care program at a military 

medical facility, Wounded Warrior center, or other facility in order to allow those victims sufficient time and 

resources to heal from the trauma of sexual assault.

262 Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 170–71 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Ms. Lisa Surette, Training Branch Chief, Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office, Falls Church, VA, U.S. Air Force).

263 Department of Defense Inspector General Report on Evaluation of the Separation of Service Members Who Made a Report of 

Sexual Assault, Report No. DODIG 2016-088 (May 9, 2016).

264 See Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 330 (Dec. 1, 2017).
117

CHAPTER 4. THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPEDITED 

TRANSFER POLICY AND RELATED ISSUES

XI. EXPEDITED TRANSFER IN THE NATIONAL GUARD AND THE RESERVE COMPONENTS 

AND AT THE SERVICE ACADEMIES

The PWG received information regarding expedited transfers in the Reserve components and in the Service 

academies. 

Representatives from the National Guard Bureau informed the PWG that expedited transfers in the Guard are 

generally handled through changes in drilling locations and times within a Guard unit, but noted that the Guard 

has the ability to transfer a victim to another Guard or Reserve unit, if necessary.265 Similar procedures are in 

place for other reservists.266

With regard to the Service academies, Service SAPR representatives said that these requests are generally 

handled by allowing the victim a leave of absence or allowing the cadet to switch companies/squadrons within 

the Service academy, issuing military protective orders, ensuring that the victim does not have classes with 

the subject, and so on.267 In addition, they reported not having received any requests by victims at the Service 

academies to transfer from one academy to another.268

XII. CONCLUSION

It is clear to the Committee that the DoD expedited transfer policy has greatly helped victims. Now that 

the policy is several years old and has become widely accepted by commanders and others charged with 

administering it, it is time for DoD SAPRO to review the policy and make appropriate changes to its language 

and its scope, as well as to the collection of data used to evaluate the program. Expanding the policy to include 

Service members who file restricted reports of sexual assault as well as to Service members whose dependents 

have been sexually assaulted by another military member may be two ways to allow more Service members 

access to the program’s benefits.

The Committee also believes that it is important to collect relevant data on transfers of victims and subjects, 

which could help DoD and the Services in changing existing policies in this area or drafting new ones. Tracking 

data on victim retention rates and career progression may be especially useful as DoD seeks to determine how 

best to retain quality Service members following the trauma of a sexual assault.

Finally, the Committee believes that victims can be given the option of requesting that a sexual assault not 

be further disclosed or investigated after it has been reported by a third party or inadvertently disclosed by 

the victim to a mandatory reporter. It is important, however, that a victim’s wish for privacy be appropriately 

balanced against the military community’s need to hold offenders accountable.

265 See Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 51–52 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Tyler Buckley, Program Manager, Special 

Victims’ Counsel Program for the National Guard) (discussing Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 1303.01A, Expedited Transfer, 

Reassignment, or Removal of National Guard Members Due to an Unrestricted Report of Sexual Assault (Aug. 6, 2014)).

266 DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, at encl. 5, ¶ 6.b(13).

267 See Transcript of PWG Preparatory Session 98 (May 24, 2018) (testimony of Ms. Christa Specht, Chief, Member Advocacy Division, U.S. Coast 

Guard); id. at 99–100 (testimony of Ms. Charlotte Cluverius, Deputy Chief of Staff, Victims’ Legal Counsel Program, U.S. Navy); id. at 101 

(testimony of Colonel Peter Yob, Special Victims’ Counsel Program Manager, U.S. Army); id. at 102 (testimony of Ms. Kimberly Lahm, Policy 

Branch Chief, Interpersonal Self-Directed Violence Response Program, U.S. Air Force).

268 See id. at 98–99 (testimony of Ms. Charlotte Cluverius, Deputy Chief of Staff, Victims’ Legal Counsel Program, U.S. Navy); id. at 102 (testimony of 

Ms. Kimberly Lahm, Policy Branch Chief, Interpersonal Self-Directed Violence Response Program, U.S. Air Force).
118

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
119

CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION OF REQUIRED STUDY ON COLLATERAL MISCONDUCT 

CHAPTER 5.

DISCUSSION OF REQUIRED STUDY ON 

COLLATERAL MISCONDUCT 

I. INTRODUCTION 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Congress included a provision requiring the 

Secretary of Defense, “acting through the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and 

Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces,” to prepare and submit biennial reports to Congress detailing 

the number of instances in which an individual who reports an incident of sexual assault is either investigated 

for or receives adverse action as a result of misconduct engaged in by that individual that is collateral to the 

investigation of the sexual offense.269

As of the date of this report, the DAC-IPAD has not received guidance or direction from the Secretary of 

Defense or the Department of Defense Office of the General Counsel regarding the obligations of the Committee 

with respect to this provision. In the absence of such guidance and mindful that the first report is due on 

September 30, 2019, the Committee discussed at its October 19, 2018, public meeting the requirements for the 

study and how the DAC-IPAD should proceed with respect to the study. 

II. INITIAL OBSERVATIONS

The Committee made four initial observations regarding the study. The first is that tracking and reporting 

on all instances of collateral misconduct for the two years preceding the study will require additional staffing 

and resources if it is to be undertaken by the DAC-IPAD. The Committee’s ongoing review of more than 

2,000 investigative case files closed in fiscal year 2017, along with its analysis and assessment of the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel recommendations referred to the DAC-IPAD in June 2018 by the DoD General Counsel, 

will fully consume the existing staff and resources over the next year. 

269 FY19 NDAA, supra note 5, § 547. This section, titled “Report on Victims of Sexual Assault in Reports of Military Criminal Investigative 

Organizations,” states:

(a) REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 2019, and not less frequently than once every two years thereafter, the Secretary of Defense, acting 

through the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces shall submit to 

the congressional defense committees a report that includes, with respect to the period of two years preceding the date of the submittal of the 

report, the following:

(1) The number of instances in which a covered individual was accused of misconduct or crimes considered collateral to the investigation of 

a sexual assault committed against the individual.

(2) The number of instances in which adverse action was taken against a covered individual who was accused of collateral misconduct or 

crimes as described in paragraph (1).

(3) The percentage of investigations of sexual assaults that involved an accusation or adverse action against a covered individual as described 

in paragraphs (1) and (2).

(b) COVERED INDIVIDUAL DEFINED.—In this section, the term “covered individual” means an individual who is identified as a victim of a 

sexual assault in the case files of a military criminal investigative organization.
120

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

The second observation of the Committee is that if performed by the DAC-IPAD, the study will require the 

Committee members and staff to be granted access to a substantial amount of sensitive personnel and legal 

records to identify instances of misconduct that may be connected to sexual assault allegations and military 

criminal investigative organization (MCIO) investigations. Third, the Committee noted that the due date of 

September 2019 for submission of the initial report to Congress will be challenging to meet in the absence of 

clear guidance from DoD on whether and how it will provide the DAC-IPAD with the necessary resources and 

access to records. Finally, the Committee observed that the requirement that it submit collateral misconduct 

reports to Congress every two years following the initial report’s due date of September 2019 will likely not be 

possible, since the DAC-IPAD will statutorily terminate by May 2021 if not renewed by the Secretary of Defense. 

III. DAC-IPAD INPUT FOR THE COLLATERAL MISCONDUCT STUDY

While uncertain as of the date of this report whether the DAC-IPAD will have the resources or access to 

documents needed to conduct the initial study itself, the members determined at the October 19, 2018, public 

meeting that they could make a first contribution by offering input regarding the appropriate parameters for the 

study. 

The Committee members agreed that the first step should be to define the study’s terms and limits. The 

members noted that only one term, “covered individual,” is defined in the provision itself. The term “collateral 

misconduct,” while not defined in the legislation, is defined in DoD Instruction 6495.02 (“Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures”) as follows: “victim misconduct that might be in 

time, place, or circumstance associated with the victim’s sexual assault incident.”270 The examples of collateral 

misconduct provided by the DoD instruction include underage drinking or other related alcohol offenses, 

adultery, fraternization, and other violations of certain regulations or orders.

The Committee members discussed focusing the study on active duty Service members who have made an 

unrestricted report of sexual assault against another active duty Service member in order to clearly define a 

baseline population whose military justice and personnel records will be identifiable. The Department of Defense 

Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military for Fiscal Year 2017 indicates that a study of these cases would 

require reviewing records pertaining to at least 2,486 unrestricted reports involving a sexual assault allegation by 

a Service member against a Service member.271

Members of the DAC-IPAD’s Case Review Working Group noted that the working group is currently collecting 

information on collateral misconduct, such as underage drinking or adultery, from the investigative case files 

they review, drawing on witness statements in the files; however, they also noted that the data collected are 

limited, because the working group is reviewing only penetrative sexual assault investigations. To the extent that 

they are determined to be meaningful, the Committee will report these data once the case reviews are complete. 

The Committee concluded that the DAC-IPAD staff should coordinate with the Services on how best to identify 

and report on collateral misconduct and that it should wait for further guidance from DoD regarding the 

Department’s interpretation of the NDAA provision and the DAC-IPAD’s role in the study.

270 DoDI 6495.02, supra note 53, at Glossary.

271 FY17 SAPRO Report, supra note 234, at Appendix B: Statistical Data on Sexual Assault 11. Because DoD’s published data do not include 

unrestricted reports of sexual assault involving spouses and intimate partners covered by DoD’s Family Advocacy Program, the DAC-IPAD would 

likely have to review more than 2,486 records. Id. at 4.
121

CHAPTER 6. ADDITIONAL ISSUES FOR THE DAC-IPAD’S REVIEW 

IDENTIFIED BY THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL 

CHAPTER 6.

ADDITIONAL ISSUES FOR THE DAC-IPAD’S REVIEW 

IDENTIFIED BY THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL 

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 7, 2018, the Acting General Counsel for the Department of Defense requested that the Committee 

review and analyze in its next annual report five recommendations made to the DAC-IPAD and the Secretary 

of Defense by its predecessor, the Judicial Proceedings Panel.272 They were among the recommendations made 

by the JPP in two separate reports issued in September 2017, the JPP Report on Panel Concerns Regarding the 

Fair Administration of Military Justice in Sexual Assault Cases and the JPP Report on Statistical Data Regarding 

Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses for Fiscal Year 2015.

273 In these reports, the JPP concluded 

that the combination of a less robust Article 32 pretrial hearing resulting from a significant statutory revision, 

perceived pressure on convening authorities to refer sexual assault charges to court-martial, and reliance 

on a low prosecution standard, probable cause, for referring cases to court-martial has led to sexual assault 

cases being prosecuted in which there is little chance for a conviction.274 The Panel further noted that the low 

conviction rate for sexual assault offenses prosecuted in the military (36%) and the proportion of sexual assault 

trials that result in full acquittals (43%) merit continued study.275 These data reinforce the concerns that military 

practitioners consistently brought to the attention of the JPP and the JPP Subcommittee, and are consistent with 

the JPP’s independent assessment of the military justice system. 

The Committee has reviewed the recommendations and begun examining the substantive issues addressed in 

each. JPP Recommendations 54 and 60, regarding the analysis of court-martial data, have been incorporated by 

the DAC-IPAD into its ongoing review of sexual assault cases prosecuted in the military and are addressed in 

Chapter 2 of this report.276 JPP Recommendations 55, 57, and 58, discussed in this chapter, concern the way in 

272 See Appendix M, Letter from Mr. William Castle, Acting General Counsel for the Department of Defense, to Ms. Martha Bashford, DAC-IPAD 

Chair (June 7, 2018).

273 During its three-year tenure, which concluded in September 2017, the JPP issued a total of 11 reports and 63 recommendations to the Secretary 

of Defense and Congress. As of this writing, DoD has not issued a formal response to many of these recommendations.

274 JPP Report on Fair Administration of Military Justice, supra note 167, at 23.

275 JPP Report on FY15 Statistical Data, supra note 167, at 6. The JPP analyzed the likelihood that an individual would be convicted of a 

penetrative sexual assault offense by reviewing official court-martial documents for trials completed in fiscal year 2015.

276 See supra Chapter 2.

JPP Recommendation 54. The successor federal advisory committee to the JPP, the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces, 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 less punitive outcomes than cases involving civilian victims; and

b. The conviction and acquittal rates for sexual assault offenses vary significantly among the 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%.”
122

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

which sexual assault cases are selected for prosecution in accordance with Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice.277 Among the many considerations pertinent to the Committee’s tasks are the historical 

evolution of these articles and their implementing rules, as well as the significant changes to military law and 

policy passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, known collectively as the 

Military Justice Act of 2016.278 These changes, which went into effect on January 1, 2019, will greatly influence 

how the Committee assesses the policies and concerns highlighted by the JPP. Therefore, the Committee will 

further evaluate these issues in future reports.

II. JPP RECOMMENDATION 55 REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ARTICLE 32, UCMJ, 

AND THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING INDEPENDENT DEFENSE INVESTIGATORS

JPP Recommendation 55 calls for an evaluation of the effectiveness of preliminary hearings conducted pursuant 

to Article 32, UCMJ. 

JPP Recommendation 55: The Secretary of Defense and the Defense Advisory 

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

Forces (DAC-IPAD) continue the review of the new Article 32 preliminary hearing 

process, which, in the view of many counsel interviewed during military installation 

site visits and according to information presented to the JPP, no longer serves a useful 

discovery purpose. This review should look at whether preliminary hearing officers 

in sexual assault cases should be military judges or other senior judge advocates with 

military justice experience and whether a recommendation of such a preliminary 

hearing officer against referral, based on lack of probable cause, should be given 

more weight by the convening authority. This review should evaluate data on how 

often the recommendations of preliminary hearing officers regarding case disposition 

are followed by convening authorities and determine whether further analysis of, or 

changes to, the process are required. 

In addition, because the Article 32 hearing no longer serves as a discovery mechanism 

for the defense, the JPP reiterates its recommendation—presented in its report on 

military defense counsel resources and experience in sexual assault cases—that the 

Services provide the defense with independent investigators.

This provision requires an independent inquiry into preferred charges before a convening authority may refer 

the charges to trial by a general court-martial. It also requires that an impartial preliminary hearing officer 

(PHO), who is typically a judge advocate, conduct a hearing focusing on the following issues: 

• Whether each specification alleges an offense 

Recommendation 60 states, 

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.

277 10 U.S.C. §§ 832–34 (2019) (UCMJ, Art. 32, 33, 34). 

278 FY17 NDAA, supra note 160.
123

CHAPTER 6. ADDITIONAL ISSUES FOR THE DAC-IPAD’S REVIEW 

IDENTIFIED BY THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL 

• Whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused committed the offense(s) 

• Whether there is jurisdiction over the accused and over the offense 

• The disposition that should be made of the case 

The preliminary hearing officer’s determinations are advisory, as is his or her recommendation as to the 

appropriate disposition of the charges. A defendant may waive his or her right to an Article 32 preliminary 

hearing. The staff judge advocate communicates the Article 32 preliminary hearing officer’s findings and 

recommendations to the convening authority, along with his or her own advice regarding referral of charges to 

court-martial. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14 NDAA), Congress changed Article 32 

proceedings from an investigation into the “truth and form” of the charges, and one that served as a discovery 

tool for the accused, to a more narrowly drawn preliminary hearing focused on an initial probable cause 

determination and on the disposition that should be made of the case.279 Congress also eliminated the hearing 

officer’s ability to compel a military member who is a sexual assault victim to testify at the Article 32 preliminary 

hearing.280 However, the revised Article 32 proceedings allow a preliminary hearing officer to consider other 

forms of evidence, such as written or recorded statements made by the victim to law enforcement.281 These 

changes went into effect for Article 32 preliminary hearings conducted on or after December 27, 2014. 

The Military Justice Act of 2016, which applies to Article 32 preliminary hearings conducted after January 1, 

2019, further amended Article 32, UCMJ, in three respects: (1) it better aligns Article 32 procedures with the 

standards and terminology used in the staff judge advocate’s written advice to convening authorities and in the 

standards for referral of charges to court-martial; (2) it allows a defendant after the hearing to submit to the 

PHO written matters that bear on the PHO’s recommendation as to the disposition that should be made of the 

case; and (3) it calls for the PHO to provide a more robust written analysis of the charges and the underlying 

evidence than previously required.

The Committee plans to consider the overarching issues identified by the JPP—Article 32’s effectiveness in 

ensuring that the convening authority is fully aware of the strengths and weaknesses of a case, and in ensuring 

fairness to the accused282—once it examines the full measure of recent changes to the law that were implemented 

in January 2019. A thorough analysis of Article 32, UCMJ, will consider whether an investigative subpoena 

power could potentially make more evidence available at a preliminary hearing, and whether other procedural 

reforms broaden the government’s discovery obligations and promote early disclosure of information to the 

defense.283 Finally, as discussed in the section that follows, nonbinding disposition guidance for judge advocates 

and commanders developed pursuant to Article 33, UCMJ, may also affect Article 32 proceedings.284 Therefore, 

the Committee plans to allow time for these numerous changes in law and policy to take effect before analyzing 

this issue. 

279 FY14 NDAA, supra note 45, § 1702.

280 Id. 

281 2019 MCM, supra note 131, R.C.M. 405.

282 JPP Report on Fair Administration of Military Justice, supra note 167, at 23.

283 See FY19 NDAA, supra note 5, § 5202 (UCMJ, Art. 30a); 2019 MCM, supra note 131, R.C.M. 701.

284 FY19 NDAA supra note 5, § 5204.
124

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

JPP Recommendation 55 also calls for the Services to employ full-time, independent defense investigators. 

These investigators are distinct and independent from the MCIOs, and are specifically trained to develop and 

discover evidence and witnesses in support of the defense case and to explore crucial extenuation and mitigation 

evidence invaluable during sentencing.285 According to the JPP’s analysis, there is an ever-greater need for the 

resources and skills of defense investigators because some well-intended reforms to the UCMJ may inadvertently 

have unfairly curtailed an accused’s ability to discover information about his or her case. 

In June 2018 DoD issued a report concerning the resourcing of trial defense service organizations within each 

of the Services.286 In that report, the Services (with the exception of the Marine Corps) announced their decision 

to provide their respective defense service organizations with full-time defense investigators. As the report 

notes, the Navy has employed independent defense investigators since 2016, and considers this to be a best 

practice that has resulted in numerous successes on behalf of Navy clients.287 The DAC-IPAD endorses the JPP’s 

recommendation that the Services employ defense investigators and applauds the Services on the progress they 

have made in implementing this reform. The DAC-IPAD will monitor the extent to which defense investigators 

increasingly become available to military defense counsel and comment on these initiatives in future reports.

III. JPP RECOMMENDATIONS 57 AND 58 REGARDING THE INFORMATION AND LEGAL 

ADVICE PROVIDED TO CONVENING AUTHORITIES IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES 

JPP Recommendations 57 and 58, both forwarded for the DAC-IPAD’s review and analysis, relate closely to the 

process by which cases are selected for prosecution in the military:

JPP Recommendation 57: After case disposition guidance under Article 33, UCMJ, 

is promulgated, the Secretary of Defense and DAC-IPAD conduct both military 

installation site visits and further research to determine whether convening authorities 

and staff judge advocates are making effective use of this guidance in deciding case 

dispositions. They should also determine what effect, if any, this guidance has had on 

the number of sexual assault cases being referred to courts-martial and on the acquittal 

rate in such cases. 

JPP Recommendation 58: The Secretary of Defense and the DAC-IPAD review whether 

Article 34 of the UCMJ and Rule for Court-Martial 406 should be amended to remove 

the requirement that the staff judge advocate’s pretrial advice to the convening authority 

(except for exculpatory information contained in that advice) be released to the defense 

upon referral of charges to court-martial. This review should determine whether any 

memo from trial counsel that is appended should also be shielded from disclosure to 

the defense. This review should also consider whether such a change would encourage 

the staff judge advocate to provide more fully developed and candid written advice to 

285 Department of Defense, Report on Review of Resourcing of Trial Defense Services Organizations 6 (June 2018), available at 

https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/10-Reading_Room/02_DACIPAD_Mtg_Materials/DACIPAD_Meeting_Materials_20181019_Final.pdf.

286 Id.

287 Id. at 5.
125

CHAPTER 6. ADDITIONAL ISSUES FOR THE DAC-IPAD’S REVIEW 

IDENTIFIED BY THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL 

the convening authority regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the charges so that 

the convening authority can make a better-informed disposition decision.288

These recommendations call for an analysis and assessment of the implementation of Articles 33 and 34, UCMJ, 

as amended by the Military Justice Act of 2016. Article 33, UCMJ, provides that

The President shall direct the Secretary of Defense to issue . . . non-binding guidance 

regarding factors that commanders, convening authorities, staff judge advocates, and 

judge advocates should take into account when exercising their duties with respect 

to disposition of charges and specifications in the interest of justice and discipline 

under sections 830 and 834 of this title (articles 30 and 34). Such guidance shall take 

into account, with appropriate consideration of military requirements, the principles 

contained in official guidance of the Attorney General to attorneys for the Government 

with respect to disposition of Federal criminal cases in accordance with the principle of 

fair and evenhanded administration of Federal criminal law.289

In January 2019, the Secretary of Defense issued the nonbinding disposition guidance implementing Article 33, 

UCMJ, that is the focus of JPP Recommendation 57. The guidance affirms the evidentiary standard of probable 

cause to convene a court-martial and sets out several considerations for disposing of sexual assault and all other 

cases “in the interests of justice and good order and discipline.”290 Among those considerations is whether the 

admissible evidence will likely be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction in a trial by court-martial, a factor 

not listed in previous disposition guidance.291

Article 34 of the UCMJ states that following an Article 32 preliminary hearing, a convening authority must 

obtain the advice of his or her staff judge advocate prior to referring charges to a general court-martial.292

The staff judge advocate must advise him or her in writing that the specification alleges an offense under the 

UCMJ, that there is probable cause to believe the accused committed the offense, and that a court-martial 

would have jurisdiction over the offense and the accused.293 In addition, the staff judge advocate must make 

a recommendation as to the appropriate disposition of the charges.294 According to Article 33, beginning 

January 1, 2019, the staff judge advocate should consider the nonbinding disposition guidance when making a 

disposition recommendation. If the convening authority refers the charges to trial by court-martial, the Article 

34 pretrial advice must be provided to defense counsel.295

288 JPP Report on the Fair Administration of Military Justice, supra note 167.

289 10 U.S.C. § 833 (2019) (UCMJ, Art. 33).

290 See DoD Joint Service Committee website, https://jsc.defense.gov/Military-Law/Current-Publications-and-Updates/. The disposition guidance 

applies to other decision points in the military justice process—for example, the initial disposition decision and the decision whether to enter 

into a plea agreement—not discussed here.

291 Id. See also Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.), Discussion to R.C.M. 306(b) and (e).

292 10 U.S.C. § 834 (2019) (UCMJ, Art. 34).

293 Id. 

294 Id.

295 2019 MCM, supra note 131, R.C.M. 701.
126

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

The Committee will examine in future reports the effectiveness of the mechanisms used to convey information 

and advice to convening authorities concerning sexual assault cases, focusing specifically on the issues 

highlighted by the JPP’s recommendations. As in its assessment of Article 32, UCMJ, the DAC-IPAD should 

consider the full spectrum of changes to the court-martial process before commenting on the implementation of 

Articles 33 and 34. 

The JPP also recommends visiting military installations in order to have candid discussions with practitioners 

regarding specific areas of their practice. This method of gathering information would benefit the Committee’s 

analysis of both Article 33 and Article 34. In addition, site visits would be helpful in ensuring that the 

Committee understands the combined effect of Congress’s changes to the UCMJ, while also enabling members 

to home in on the JPP’s specific policy recommendations. However, the Committee plans to visit military 

installations only after enough time has elapsed to allow for full implementation of the relevant statutory 

changes, and after the Committee studies further the policies designed to assist convening authorities in 

exercising their prosecutorial discretion. Therefore, the DAC-IPAD will examine and comment in future reports 

on the court-martial referral process as reflected in Articles 33 and 34 and their implementing rules.
A-1

APPENDIX A. DAC-IPAD AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND AMENDMENTS 

APPENDIX A.

DAC-IPAD AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND AMENDMENTS 

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. (Public Law 113–291; 128 

Stat. 3374; 10 U.S.C. 1561 note)

(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.
DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

A-2

(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).

(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.”.
A-3

APPENDIX A. DAC-IPAD AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND AMENDMENTS 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

SEC. 533. AUTHORITIES OF DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, 

PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES.

Section 546 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2015 (10 U.S.C. 1561 note) is amended—

(1) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection (d):

“(d) AUTHORITIES.—

“(1) HEARINGS.—The Advisory Committee may hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and 

places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence as the committee considers appropriate to 

carry out its duties under this section.

“(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Upon request by the chair of the Advisory 

Committee, a department or agency of the Federal Government shall provide information that the 

Advisory Committee considers necessary to carry out its duties under this section. In carrying out 

this paragraph, the department or agency shall take steps to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of 

personally identifiable information.”.

SEC. 547. REPORT ON VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN REPORTS OF MILITARY CRIMINAL 

INVESTIGATIVE ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) REPORT.—Not later than September 30, 2019, and not less frequently than once every two years thereafter, 

the Secretary of Defense, acting through the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, 

and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 

report that includes, with respect to the period of two years preceding the date of the submittal of the report, 

the following:

(1) The number of instances in which a covered individual was accused of misconduct or crimes considered 

collateral to the investigation of a sexual assault committed against the individual.

(2) The number of instances in which adverse action was taken against a covered individual who was 

accused of collateral misconduct or crimes as described in paragraph (1).

(3) The percentage of investigations of sexual assaults that involved an accusation or adverse action against a 

covered individual as described in paragraphs (1) and (2).

(b) COVERED INDIVIDUAL DEFINED.—In this section, the term “covered individual” means an individual 

who is identified as a victim of a sexual assault in the case files of a military criminal investigative 

organization.
DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

A-4
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 16, 2018
C-1

APPENDIX C. COMMITTEE MEMBERS

APPENDIX C.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

In Memoriam 

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. He went on to spend the next 30 years as 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 were 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 served as a volunteer guardian ad litem for CASA (Court 

Appointed Special Advocates), New Hampshire. A graduate of Leadership New Hampshire, he served 

on several arts, education, and community boards, including the Endowment for Health and the 

board of St. John’s College.

In addition to his many professional accomplishments, Dean Harrison was a dear friend, colleague, 

leader, father, and husband.

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 where 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. She 

is a Fellow in both the American College of Trial Lawyers and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
C-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

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.

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 women 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.
C-3

APPENDIX C. COMMITTEE MEMBERS

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.

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.
C-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

MS. JENNIFER GENTILE LONG

Jennifer Gentile Long (M.G.A., J.D.) is CEO and co-founder of AEquitas 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 

Fels School of Government.

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 employed with the Research 

Triangle Institute (RTI) located in Durham North as a Senior Law Enforcement Specialist. His work in the 

Applied Justice Research Unit includes assistance for the DOJ Bureau of Justice Assistance Sexual Assault Kit 

Initiative (SAKI), providing technical assistance and training to 54 SAKI grantees across the United States. He 

also developed and directs the SAKI – Sexual Assault Unit Assessment (SAUA) Team; this team has conducted 

independent and comprehensive reviews for four major police agencies, assessing a range of areas in their 

response to sexual assault. In addition to the DAC-IPAD, 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), 

Arizona Forensic Science Advisory Committee, and Massage Envy Franchising’s Safety Advisory Council. Jim 

continues to work as a trainer and facilitator in the area of sexual violence for the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the International Association of College Law Enforcement Administrators 

(IACLEA). 
C-5

APPENDIX C. COMMITTEE MEMBERS

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.

CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF THE AIR FORCE RODNEY J. MCKINLEY, U.S. AIR FORCE, 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.
C-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

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 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 sexual assault case 

processing decisions. 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-7

APPENDIX C. COMMITTEE MEMBERS

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.
C-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
D-1

APPENDIX D. COMMITTEE PROFESSIONAL STAFF 

APPENDIX D.

COMMITTEE PROFESSIONAL STAFF 

COMMITTEE STAFF

Colonel Steven B. Weir, USA, JAG Corps, 

 Staff Director

Ms. Julie K. Carson, Deputy Staff Director 

Mr. Dale Trexler, Chief of Staff

Dr. Janice Chayt, Investigator

Ms. Theresa Gallagher, Attorney-Advisor

Ms. Nalini Gupta, Attorney-Advisor

Ms. Amanda Hagy, Senior Paralegal

Ms. Patricia Ham, Attorney-Advisor

Mr. Glen Hines, Attorney-Advisor

Mr. R. Chuck Mason, Attorney-Advisor

Ms. Marguerite McKinney, Analyst

Ms. Meghan Peters, Attorney-Advisor

Ms. Stacy Powell, Senior Paralegal

Ms. Stayce Rozell, Senior Paralegal

Ms. Terri Saunders, Attorney-Advisor

Ms. Kate Tagert, Attorney-Advisor

COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS

Dr. Alice Falk, Editor

Ms. Laurel Prucha Moran, Graphic Designer

Dr. William Wells, Criminologist

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICERS

Mr. Dwight H. Sullivan, 

Associate Deputy General Counsel for

 Military Justice

U.S. Department of Defense

Designated Federal Officer

Mr. David J. Gruber, 

Associate Deputy General Counsel for

 Military Personnel, Readiness, and Voting

U.S. Department of Defense 

Alternate Designated Federal Officer

Major Israel King, USAF

Office of the General Counsel

U.S. Department of Defense

Alternate Designated Federal Officer
D-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
E-1

APPENDIX E. DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

APPENDIX E.

DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND THE MILITARY SERVICES

RFI Set 1: Request for Information from the Department of Defense (DoD) Sexual Assault and Response 

Office (SAPRO) and Service Judge Advocates General (JAG) Corps for Lists of Court-Martial Cases 

Completed in Fiscal Year 2016 (June 20, 2017)

RFI Set 2: Request for Information from DoD Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG) for DoD OIG Sexual 

Assault Investigation Evaluations (June 22, 2017)

RFI Set 3: Request for Information from Military Criminal Investigation Organizations (MCIOs) for Service 

MCIO Adult Sexual Assault Case Data for Fiscal Year 2016 (June 29, 2017)

RFI Set 4: Request for Information and Request for Meeting Presenters Regarding Legal and Sexual Assault 

Response Training for Commanders and Expedited Transfer Data for Fiscal Year 2016 (September 

11, 2017)

RFI Set 5: Request for Information from MCIOs for Service MCIO Adult Sexual Assault Case Data for Fiscal 

Year 2017 (October 30, 2017)

RFI Set 6: Request for Information from DoD SAPRO and Service JAG Corps for Court-Martial Cases 

Completed in Fiscal Year 2017 (January 10, 2018)

RFI Set 7: Request for Information from Service JAG Corps for Court-Martial Cases Completed in Fiscal Year 

2017 (January 25, 2018)

RFI Set 8: Request for Information from MCIOs for Service MCIO Policy Documents Related to Sexual 

Assault Investigations (April 18, 2018)

RFI Set 9: (Canceled)

RFI Set 10: Request for Information from Service JAG Corps for Court-Martial Cases Completed in Fiscal Year 

2018 (September 18, 2018)

Digital versions of the DAC-IPAD RFIs are available online at https://dacipad.whs.mil/. In accordance with the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the Department 

of Defense is the release authority for agency documents provided to the DAC-IPAD in response to the 

Committee’s information requests. 
E-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Request for Information from DoD SAPRO and Service JAG Corps

RFI Set 1, Questions 1–3

Date of Request: June 20, 2017

[Aggregated Data from RFI Set 1 Responses Are Provided in Appendix I, Below] 

I. Purpose 

A. The DAC-IPAD is a federal advisory committee established by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 

546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291), as amended. 

B. The mission of the Committee 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.

C. The DAC-IPAD requests the below information to facilitate its required review of cases involving allegations 

of sexual misconduct on an ongoing basis for purposes of providing advice to the Secretary of Defense. 

II. Summary of Requested Response Dates

Response 

Date Question(s) Department or Organization 

21 Jul 17 1 DoD SAPRO – Provide DSAID information to each Military Service.

11 Aug 17 2 Services – Provide list of cases meeting RFI criteria to the DAC-IPAD using the 

format in Attachment 1.

22 Sep 17 3

Services – Provide case documents for all cases to the DAC-IPAD via secure 

electronic file transfer. If an electronic record of trial (e-ROT) is available, the 

DAC-IPAD staff will obtain the desired documents from the e-ROTs received.

III. Court-Martial Cases Completed in Fiscal Year 2016 (FY 2016)

The DAC-IPAD requests case documents for all adult-victim sexual assault cases completed by the Military 

Services in FY16 that involved a preferred charge of sexual assault (the same criteria as in previous RFIs 

from the Judicial Proceedings Panel for FY12–14 and FY15 cases). This request is not limited to cases listed 

in the Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military (SAPRO Report). The DAC-IPAD seeks all preferred 

sexual assault cases that were resolved in FY16 at court-martial or through alternate means, regardless 

of whether the case was reported in the FY16 SAPRO Report or was categorized at any point as a Family 

Advocacy Program case. 

The DAC-IPAD requests the Services provide this information in two phases: 

1. Identify the cases by case name (e.g., U.S. v. John Doe) and, if the case was reported in the Services’ 

Unrestricted Report Case Synopses enclosed with the FY16 DoD SAPRO Report, provide the line number as 

identified in the SAPRO Report; and

2. Provide the documents requested in RFI Question 3 for every identified case. 
E-3

APPENDIX E. DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

Question 1 (DoD SAPRO and Services): The DAC-IPAD requests DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office (DoD SAPRO) assist the Services in identifying cases listed in each Service Enclosure 

(“Unrestricted Report Case Synopses”) to the FY16 SAPRO Report. 

The DAC-IPAD requests DoD SAPRO provide the Military Services with a copy of the unique DSAID 

Number and Subject Name for cases listed as involving at least one preferred charge of sexual assault, 

according to the Military Services’ Unrestricted Report Case Synopses in the FY16 SAPRO report.

Please provide a completed list to the Military Services by July 21, 2017

Question 2 (Services): Identification of Cases – The DAC-IPAD requests the Military Services use the 

information from the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID), provided by DoD SAPRO in 

response to Question 1, and the Services’ case management systems to identify ALL cases that involve 

a preferred charge of adult sexual assault and were tried to completion,* dismissed, or resolved by any 

alternate means in fiscal year 2016. 

*A “completed” case means any case tried to verdict, dismissed without further action, or dismissed and 

then resolved by non-judicial or administrative proceedings in FY16. This list includes cases in which a 

convening authority has taken, or has yet to take, action in FY16. Request the Services provide a copy of the 

Convening Authority Action once complete.

Please provide a completed list to the DAC-IPAD by August 11, 2017

Question 3 (Services): Court-Martial Records – For cases identified in Question 2 and Attachment 1, 

provide copies of the following documents (alternatively, you can provide the e-ROTs for these cases and 

the DAC-IPAD staff can extract the required documents). If your Service does not use the specified DD form, 

please provide Service-equivalent documents:

1. DD Form 458, Charge Sheet

2. DD Form 457, Preliminary Hearing Officer’s Report (include all continuation sheets, but do not 

include IO [investigating officer] exhibits)

3. Article 34 Pretrial Advice and/or SJA recommendations on alternate disposition 

4. If applicable, any document memorializing the Convening Authority’s referral or non-referral decision 

5. DD Form 490, Record of Trial

6. DD Form 491, Summarized Record of Trial

7. DD Form 2707-1, Report of Result of Trial

8. Pretrial Agreements (include both the Offer and Appendix A – Quantum)

9. Master Index of Exhibits

10. SJAR [staff judge advocate recommendation] and Addendum

11. Convening Authority Action

12. Victims’ input at pretrial, trial, and post-trial stages

For cases where court-martial charges were dismissed but were followed by non-judicial punishment (NJP) 

action or resignation/discharge in lieu of trial, please provide the discharge approval document and either 

the NJP form or the following information:

1. All specifications listed on the NJP form

2. All guilty specifications at NJP

Please provide case documents to the DAC-IPAD by September 22, 2017
E-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Request for Information from DoD OIG

RFI Set 2, Question 1

Request Date: June 22, 2017

1. Purpose

See page E-2.

II. Requested Response Date

Response 

Date Question(s) Department or Organization 

12 Jul 17 1 DoD OIG – Provide information on sexual assault investigation evaluations 

III. DoD OIG Sexual Assault Investigation Evaluations

Question 1 (DoD OIG): Please provide the DAC-IPAD with the following:

A. A copy of the current case evaluation protocol used to complete the DoD OIG “Evaluation of Military 

Criminal Investigative Organizations’ Adult Sexual Assault Investigations” (DoDIG-2017-054).

B. A copy of the “Data Call” memorandum used in the most recent “Evaluation of Military Criminal 

Investigative Organizations’ Adult Sexual Assault Investigations” (DoDIG-2017-054).

C. Database screenshots, including all of the relative data fields from the Microsoft Access program and 

other related tools used during the evaluation.

D. The template for the Microsoft Access program used to collect and analyze the data.

Please provide responses to the DAC-IPAD by July 12, 2017
E-5

APPENDIX E. DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

Request for Information from Military Criminal Investigation Organizations (MCIOs)

RFI Set 3, Questions 1–18

Request Date: June 29, 2017

[Aggregated Data from RFI Set 3 Responses Are Provided in Appendix H, Below]

1. Purpose

See page E-2. 

II. Summary of Requested Response Dates

Response 

Date Question(s) Department or Organization 

12 Jul 17 1–18 Service MCIOs – Provide adult sexual assault investigation data for cases 

closed in fiscal year 2016 (FY16)

III. Service MCIO Adult Sexual Assault (ASA) Case Data for FY 2016

Please provide the requested data for adult sexual assault allegation investigations and information files 

closed in FY16. 

• A “closed case” means the investigation, if conducted, is complete and a final action has been taken. 

• An “adult sexual assault allegation” means 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, as defined by DoDI 5505.18, 

Investigation of Adult Sexual Assault in the Department of Defense. 

• “Closed in FY16” means the investigation or information file was closed between October 1, 2015, and 

September 30, 2016, regardless of the date the allegation was made or investigation opened. 

Questions:

12

MCIO Adult Sexual Assault (ASA) Case Data for FY 2016

1. Total number of ASA cases closed by MCIO in FY16 (including cases not investigated).

MCIO ASA Investigations Closed in FY 20161

2. Total number of ASA investigations closed in FY16.

3. Number of ASA investigations closed in FY 16 with a military subject.2

4. Number of ASA investigations closed in FY 16 with a non-military subject.

5. Number of ASA investigations closed in FY 16 with an unknown subject.

6. Number of ASA investigations closed in FY16 with a non-participating victim witness.

1 Do not include cases not investigated (information files).

2 A “military subject” means an individual in Title 10 status at the time of the alleged incident.
E-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

MCIO ASA Cases Closed Without Investigation in FY 2016

7. Total number of ASA cases closed without MCIO investigation in FY16 (information files).

8. Number of non-investigated ASA cases closed in FY16 with a military subject.

9. Number of ASA investigations closed in FY 16 with a non-military subject.

10. Number of non-investigated ASA cases closed in FY16 with an unknown subject.

11. Number of non-investigated ASA cases closed in FY16 with a non-participating victim 

witness.

12. Number of non-investigated ASA cases closed in FY16 with a military subject prosecuted 

by a civilian jurisdiction for a sex offense.

Military Subject ASA Investigations Closed in FY 2016

13. Number of ASA investigations of military subjects in which at least one sex offense charge 

was preferred.

14. Number of ASA investigations of military subjects in which sex offense charges were not 

preferred but non–sex offense charge(s) were preferred.

15. Number of investigations of military subjects in which sex offense charges were not 

preferred but administrative or NJP action was taken for at least one sex offense.

16. Number of investigations of military subjects in which sex offense charges were not 

preferred but administrative or NJP action was taken for non-sex offense(s) only.

17. Number of investigations of military subjects in which sex offense charges were not 

preferred and no further action was taken for any offense.

18. Number of investigations with a military subject in which sex offense charges were not 

preferred and subject was prosecuted by a civilian jurisdiction for a sex offense.

Please provide responses to the DAC-IPAD by July 12, 2017
E-7

APPENDIX E. DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

Request for Information (RFI) and Request for Meeting Presenters

RFI Set 4, Questions 1–6

Request Date: September 11, 2017

[Aggregated Data from RFI Set 4 Responses Related to Expedited 

Transfers Are Provided in Appendix H, Below]

SUBJECT: Legal and Sexual Assault Response Training for Commanders and 

Expedited Transfer Data for Fiscal Year 2016

I. Purpose

See page E-2. 

II. Requested Response Dates

Response 

Date Question(s) Department or Organization 

5 Oct 17 Presenters Services and DoD – Provide names and contact information for nominated 

presenters for each panel.

5 Oct 17 1–3 Services and DoD SAPRO – Provide narrative responses and requested 

training materials.

5 Oct 17 4–6 Services – Provide requested expedited transfer policies and requested FY16 

data using the attached Excel spreadsheets (Attachments A and B).

III. Request for Meeting Presenters at the October 19–20, 2017, DAC-IPAD Public Meeting in Arlington, 

Virginia

October 19, 2017 – Panel 1 (Services and DoD): The DAC-IPAD requests a briefing on the Department of 

Defense (DoD) and Military Services’ expedited transfer policies.

• The Committee would like to hear from an authority from DoD on the expedited transfer policy 

promulgated by Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 6495.02, including the history of the policy, 

the request approval and transfer process, and the process for transfer of an accused.

• The Committee would like to hear from an authority from DoD on how the Family Advocacy Program 

handles expedited transfer requests related to adult sexual assault allegations and the policies that govern 

these transfers.

• The Committee would like to hear from a representative from each Service about the Service-specific 

policies regarding expedited transfers and the process for reassigning Service members under such 

policies.

• This panel will tentatively be held from 2:30 p.m. to 3:20 p.m. (EDT) on October 19 and will consist of 

6–7 presenters. Each presenter is requested to give a five-minute presentation followed by questions 

from the Committee.
E-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

• October 19, 2017 – Panel 2 (Services): The DAC-IPAD requests presentations from five experienced 

special victims’ counsel/victims’ legal counsel (SVCs/VLCs).

• The Committee would like to hear from an experienced SVC/VLC from each Service who has two years 

of current or very recent experience serving in this capacity, if possible, on their experience with the 

expedited transfer policy and serving as victims’ counsel.

• This panel will tentatively be held from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. (EDT) on October 19. Each presenter is 

requested to give a five- to seven-minute presentation followed by questions from the Committee.

October 20, 2017 – Panel 1 (Services): The DAC-IPAD requests presentations from five company/squadron 

or Service equivalent–level commanders and five first sergeants/senior enlisted advisors.

• The Committee would like to hear from a company/squadron or Service equivalent–level commander 

and his or her first sergeant/senior enlisted advisor from each Service with recent experience dealing 

with sexual assault allegations within the command. The Committee would like to hear about the legal 

and sexual assault response training received by the presenters and their personal experiences and 

perspectives dealing with sexual assault allegations and the expedited transfer policy.

• This panel will tentatively be held from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. (EDT) on October 20. Each presenter 

team is requested to give a five-minute presentation followed by questions from the Committee.

October 20, 2017 – Panel 2 (Services): The DAC-IPAD requests presentations from five special courtmartial convening authorities with recent experience dealing with sexual assault allegations.

• The Committee would like to hear from a special court-martial convening authority from each Service 

who has experience dealing with sexual assault allegations. The Committee would like to hear about 

the legal and sexual assault response training received by the presenters and their personal experiences 

and perspectives dealing with sexual assault allegations and the expedited transfer policy. [Note: The 

Committee will not ask the presenters to discuss specific sexual assault cases with which they’ve been 

involved, but will ask them to focus more generally on their experiences and training in handling sexual 

assault allegations.]

• This panel will tentatively be held from 12:30 p.m. to 2:20 p.m. (EDT) on October 20. Each presenter is 

requested to give a five- to seven-minute presentation followed by questions from the Committee.

IV. Request for Information Regarding Commander Legal and Sexual Assault Response Training

Question 1 (Services): The DAC-IPAD requests information regarding the type, duration, and frequency 

of formal, Service-wide UCMJ legal training provided to special and general court-martial convening 

authorities. What portion of this training is devoted to sexual assault and making appropriate disposition 

decisions in sexual assault cases? Provide training materials used in this legal training.

Question 2 (Services): The DAC-IPAD requests information regarding the type, duration, and frequency of 

UCMJ legal training provided to commanders below the level of special court-martial convening authority 

(i.e., company commanders, squadron commanders). What portion of this training is devoted to sexual 

assault? Provide training materials used in commander legal training. [Please provide information on formal, 

Service-wide training. However, if you have examples of informal, installation-level training (i.e., legal training 

seminars or classes), please include some of these, as well.]
E-9

APPENDIX E. DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

Question 3 (DoD SAPRO and Services): The DAC-IPAD requests information on the type and amount of 

formal, Service-wide training provided to commanders at all levels on sexual assault and supervising victims 

of sexual assault and accused Service members, to include the following types of training:

a. The different ways victims may respond to a sexual assault

b. How to respond to/treat a victim in the commander’s unit

c. How to respond when both the victim and alleged perpetrator are in the commander’s unit

d. Official and peer retaliation and ostracism

e. How to respond to expedited transfer requests

* Responses to questions 1–3 should address the following:

1. How many hours is the training and how often is it conducted?

2. At what point in the commander’s tenure is the training conducted? (e.g., prior to taking command, 

after assumption of command)

3. Where is the training conducted? (e.g., JAG school, installation)

4. How is the training conducted? (e.g., group setting, one-on-one, computer-based, scenario-based)

V. Request for Information Regarding Expedited Transfer Requests for Fiscal Year 2016

Question 4 (Services): Please provide copies of (or links to) all current Service-specific policies and 

procedures related to expedited transfers of adult sexual assault victims and accused. 

Question 5 (Services): Please provide a list of all sexual assault-related expedited transfer requests made by 

victims in FY16, including those made pursuant to DoDI 6495.02 or other policies such as transfers made 

within the purview of the Family Advocacy Program. Please include an identification number (DSAID 

number, if available) for each request that can be used by DoD and the Services to provide additional 

information about a specific request or the underlying sexual assault case if requested by the DAC-IPAD at a 

later date. 

For each sexual assault–related expedited transfer request, please provide the information listed below. So 

that the responses are uniform across the Services, please use Attachment A to provide the data to the DACIPAD. The label of each column in the spreadsheet corresponds to the numbered data points below.

1. Identification number (DSAID number for the underlying sexual assault allegation or other caseidentifying number if not in DSAID)

2. Requester rank at time of request

3. Requester gender 

4. Requester location/installation at the time of the request

5. Requester job title at the time of the request

6. Was the requester represented by an SVC/VLC?

7. Was the request approved or denied?

8. Rank of the decision-maker/approval authority for the request

9. Job title of the decision-maker/approval authority for the request
E-10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

10. Requested transfer location(s)/installation(s)

11. If transfer was approved, location/installation that requester transferred to

12. If transfer was approved, requester’s MOS/job title at new location

13. Was the transfer temporary or permanent?

14. Date of the underlying unrestricted sexual assault report

15. Date of the expedited transfer request

16. Date of the approval/denial of expedited transfer request

17. Date of the transfer of requester, if transfer occurred

18. Disposition of the sexual assault allegation if final

Question 6 (Services): Please provide a list of all sexual assault–related transfers of Service members accused 

of sexual assault in FY16, including an identification number (DSAID number, if available) for each transfer 

that can be used by DoD and the Services to provide additional information about a specific transfer or the 

underlying sexual assault case if requested by the DAC-IPAD at a later date.

For each sexual assault–related transfer of an accused, please provide the information listed below. So that 

the responses are uniform across the Services, please use Attachment B to provide the data. The label of each 

column in the spreadsheet corresponds to the numbered data points below.

1. Identification number (DSAID number for the underlying sexual assault allegation or other caseidentifying number if not in DSAID)

2. Accused rank at time of request

3. Accused gender

4. Accused location/installation at the time of the request

5. Accused job title at the time of the request

6. What was the rank of the decision-maker/approval authority?

7. What was the job title of the decision-maker/approval authority?

8. Location/installation that the accused was transferred to

9. Accused job title at receiving location/installation

10. Date of the underlying unrestricted sexual assault report

11. Date of transfer of accused

12. Was the transfer permanent or temporary?

13. Disposition of the sexual assault allegation if final
E-11

APPENDIX E. DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

Request for Information from Military Criminal Investigation Organizations 

RFI Set 5, Questions 1–2

Request Date: October 30, 2017

[Aggregated Data from RFI Set 5 Responses Are Provided in Appendix H, Below]

I. Purpose

See page E-2. 

II. Summary of Requested Response Dates

Response 

Date Question(s) Department or Organization 

15 Nov 17 1 Service MCIOs – Provide adult sexual assault statistics for cases closed in fiscal 

year 2017 (FY17).

15 Nov 17 2 Service MCIOs – Provide adult sexual assault (penetrative) investigation data 

for cases closed in FY17 with a military subject.

III. Service MCIO Adult Sexual Assault (ASA) Case Data for FY 2017

• MCIOs include Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), U.S. Army Criminal Investigation 

Command (CID), Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and Coast Guard Investigative Service 

(CGIS).

• “Adult sexual assault” means 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, as defined by DoDI 5505.18, Investigation of Adult 

Sexual Assault in the Department of Defense. 

• “Closed in FY17” means the investigation or information file was closed between October 1, 2016, and 

September 30, 2017, regardless of the date the allegation was made or investigation opened. 
E-12

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

IV. Information Requested for FY 2017

Question 1 (Service MCIOs): Provide the following data listed below. So that the responses are uniform 

across the Services, please use Attachment A, question 1, to provide the data.1

MCIO ASA Investigations Closed in FY 2017

a. Total number of ASA investigations closed in FY17

b. Number of ASA cases that were closed information only (SIR [serious incident report] only, 

Closed Only, Info File, and Record Only)

c. Number of ASA investigations closed in FY17 with a military subject1

d. Number of ASA investigations closed in FY17 with multiple military subjects

e. Number of ASA investigations closed in FY17 with a non-military subject

f. Number of ASA investigations closed in FY17 with an unknown subject

g. Number of ASA investigations closed in FY17 with a penetrative offense and a military 

subject

Question 2 (Service MCIOs):

Provide data2

 on the following for all FY17 sexual assault investigations3 for a penetrative sexual offense4

with a military subject and adult victim closed between October 1, 2016, and September 30, 2017, regardless 

of the date the allegation was made or the investigation opened. For each investigation, please provide the 

information listed below. So that the responses are uniform across the Services, please use Attachment A, 

question 2, to provide the data. 

a. Case Number

b. Service Branch of Subject(s) 

c. Status of Victim(s) (military or civilian)

d. Date Closed 

e. Type of Penetrative Offense 

f. Case Clearance Category in Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS)

g. Any disposition (include no action taken or unfounded)

Please provide responses to the DAC-IPAD by November 15, 2017

1 A military subject is an individual in Title 10 status at the time of the alleged incident, subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice. Do not include cases that were closed “information only” for question 1, sections c–g.

2 For multiple subjects, include separate entry for each accused with the same case number. For multiple offenses, include only the most aggravated 

penetrative offense. 

3 Include cases that were closed “information only.” 

4 “Penetrative sexual offense” means rape and sexual assault, in violation of Article 120; forcible sodomy, in violation of Article 125; and any attempt 

to commit such offenses, in violation of Article 80.
E-13

APPENDIX E. DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

Request for Information from DoD SAPRO and Service JAG Corps

RFI Set 6, Questions 1–3

Date of Request: January 10, 2018

[Aggregated Data from RFI Set 6 Responses Are Provided in Appendix I, Below]

I. Purpose

See page E-2. 

II. Summary of Requested Response Dates

Response 

Date Question(s) Department or Organization 

12 Feb 18 1 DoD SAPRO – Provide DSAID information to each Military Service.

12 Mar 18 2 Services – Provide list of cases meeting RFI criteria to the DAC-IPAD using the 

format in Attachment 1.

9 Apr 18 3

Services – Provide case documents for all cases to the DAC-IPAD via secure 

electronic file transfer. If an electronic record of trial (e-ROT) is available, the 

DAC-IPAD staff will obtain the desired documents from the e-ROTs received.

III. Court-Martial Cases Completed in Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17)

The DAC-IPAD requests case documents for all adult-victim sexual assault cases completed by the Military 

Services in FY17 that involved a preferred charge of sexual assault (the same criteria as in previous RFI from 

the DAC-IPAD for FY16 cases). This request is not limited to cases listed in the Annual Report on Sexual 

Assault in the Military (SAPRO Report). The DAC-IPAD seeks all preferred sexual assault cases that were 

resolved in FY17 at court-martial or through alternate means, regardless of whether the case was reported in 

the FY17 SAPRO Report or was categorized at any point as a Family Advocacy Program case. 

The DAC-IPAD requests the Services provide this information in two phases: 

1. Identify the cases by case name (e.g., U.S. v. John Doe) and, if the case was reported in the Services’ 

Unrestricted Report Case Synopses enclosed with the FY17 DoD SAPRO Report, provide the line number as 

identified in the SAPRO Report; and

2. Provide the documents requested in RFI Question 3 for every identified case. 

Question 1 (DoD SAPRO and Services): The DAC-IPAD requests DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office (DoD SAPRO) assist the Services in identifying cases listed in each Service Enclosure 

(“Unrestricted Report Case Synopses”) to the FY17 SAPRO Report. 

The DAC-IPAD requests DoD SAPRO provide the Military Services with a copy of the unique DSAID 

Number and Subject Name for cases listed as involving at least one preferred charge of sexual assault, 

according to the Military Services’ Unrestricted Report Case Synopses in the FY17 SAPRO report.

Please provide a completed list to the Military Services by February 12, 2018
E-14

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Question 2 / Identification of Cases (Services): The DAC-IPAD requests the Military Services use the 

information from the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID), provided by DoD SAPRO in 

response to Question 1, and the Services’ case management systems, to identify ALL cases that involve 

a preferred charge of adult sexual assault and were tried to completion,* dismissed, or resolved by any 

alternate means in fiscal year 2017. 

*A “completed” case means any case tried to verdict, dismissed without further action, or dismissed and 

then resolved by non-judicial or administrative proceedings in FY17. This list includes cases in which a 

convening authority has taken, or has yet to take, action in FY17. Request the Services provide a copy of the 

Convening Authority Action once complete.

Please provide a completed list to the DAC-IPAD by March 12, 2018

Question 3 / Court-Martial Records (Services): For cases identified in Question 2 and Attachment 1, 

provide copies of the following documents (alternatively, you can provide the e-ROTs for these cases and 

the DAC-IPAD staff can extract the required documents). If your Service does not use the specified DD form, 

please provide Service-equivalent documents:

1. DD Form 458, Charge Sheet

2. DD Form 457, Preliminary Hearing Officer’s Report (include all continuation sheets, but do not 

include IO exhibits)

3. Article 34 Pretrial Advice and/or SJA recommendations on alternate disposition 

4. If applicable, any document memorializing the Convening Authority’s referral or non-referral 

decision 

5. DD Form 490, Record of Trial

6. DD Form 491, Summarized Record of Trial

7. DD Form 2707-1, Report of Result of Trial

8. Pretrial Agreements (include both the Offer and Appendix A – Quantum)

9. Master Index of Exhibits

10. SJAR and Addendum

11. Convening Authority Action

12. Victims’ input at pretrial, trial, and post-trial stages

For cases where court-martial charges were dismissed but were followed by non-judicial punishment (NJP) 

action or resignation/discharge in lieu of trial, please provide the discharge approval document and either 

the NJP form or the following information:

3. All charges and specifications listed on the NJP form

4. All guilty specifications at NJP

Please provide case documents to the DAC-IPAD by April 9, 2018
E-15

APPENDIX E. DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

Request for Information from Service JAG Corps

RFI Set 7, Questions 1–2

Date of Request: January 25, 2018

[Aggregated Data from RFI Responses to RFI Set 7 Are Provided in Appendix I, Below]

I. Purpose

See page E-2. 

II. Summary of Requested Response Dates

Response 

Date Question(s) Department or Organization 

26 Feb 18 1 Services – Provide list of cases meeting RFI criteria to the DAC-IPAD using the 

format in Attachment 1.

26 Mar 18 2

Services – Provide case documents for all cases to the DAC-IPAD via secure 

electronic file transfer. If an electronic record of trial (e-ROT) is available, the 

DAC-IPAD staff will obtain the desired documents from the e-ROTs received.

III. Court-Martial Cases Completed in Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17)

The DAC-IPAD requests case documents for all adult-victim sexual assault cases completed by the Military 

Services in FY17 that involved a preferred charge of sexual assault (the same criteria as in previous RFI from 

the DAC-IPAD for FY16 cases). The DAC-IPAD seeks all preferred sexual assault cases that were resolved in 

FY17 at court-martial or through alternate means, regardless of whether the case was reported as a SAPR or 

FAP case. 

The DAC-IPAD requests the Services provide this information in two phases: 

1. Identify the cases by case name (e.g., U.S. v. John Doe); and

2. Provide the documents requested in RFI Question 1 for every identified case. 

Question 1 / Identification of Cases: The DAC-IPAD requests the Military Services use the information 

from the Services’ case management systems to identify ALL cases that involve a preferred charge of adult 

sexual assault and were tried to completion,* dismissed, or resolved by any alternate means in fiscal year 

2017. 

*A “completed” case means any case tried to verdict, dismissed without further action, or dismissed and 

then resolved by non-judicial or administrative proceedings in FY17. This list includes cases in which a 

convening authority has taken, or has yet to take, action in FY17. Request the Services provide a copy of the 

Convening Authority Action once complete.

Please provide a completed list to the DAC-IPAD by February 26, 2018.
E-16

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Question 2 / Court-Martial Records (Services): For cases identified in Question 1 and Attachment 1, 

provide copies of the following documents (alternatively, you can provide the e-ROTs for these cases and 

the DAC-IPAD staff can extract the required documents). If your Service does not use the specified DD form, 

please provide Service-equivalent documents:

1. DD Form 458, Charge Sheet

2. DD Form 457, Preliminary Hearing Officer’s Report (include all continuation sheets, but do not 

include IO exhibits)

3. Article 34 Pretrial Advice and/or SJA recommendations on alternate disposition 

4. If applicable, any document memorializing the Convening Authority’s referral or non-referral 

decision 

5. DD Form 490, Record of Trial

6. DD Form 491, Summarized Record of Trial

7. DD Form 2707-1, Report of Result of Trial

8. Pretrial Agreements (include both the Offer and Appendix A – Quantum)

9. Master Index of Exhibits

10. SJAR and Addendum

11. Convening Authority Action

12. Victims’ input at pretrial, trial, and post-trial stages

For cases where court-martial charges were dismissed but were followed by non-judicial punishment (NJP) 

action or resignation/discharge in lieu of trial, please provide the discharge approval document and either 

the NJP form or the following information:

1. All charges and specifications listed on the NJP form

2. All guilty specifications at NJP

Please provide case documents to the DAC-IPAD by March 26, 2018.
E-17

APPENDIX E. DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

ATTACHMENT 1 – Service Responses to DAC-IPAD RFI Set 7, Question 1

[Military Service] – FY17:

Case Number Case Name Location of Requested Documents 

(Example)

1 U.S. v. (Example: Installation, CCA [court of criminal 

appeals], Suitland . . . )

12 U.S. v. 

27 U.S. v. 
E-18

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Request for Information from Military Criminal Investigation Organizations (MCIOs)

RFI Set 8, Question 1

Request Date: April 18, 2018

1. Purpose

See page E-2. 

II. Summary of Requested Response Dates

Response 

Date Question(s) Department or Organization 

30 Apr 18 1 Service MCIOs – Provide policy documents

III. Service MCIOs 

MCIOs include Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), U.S. Army Criminal Investigation 

Command (CID), Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and Coast Guard Investigative Service 

(CGIS).

IV. Information Requested 

Question 1 (Service MCIOs): Provide a comprehensive list and either an electronic copy of or link to any 

Service Directives, Instructions, Policy Memoranda (by Service Secretaries, MCIO Commands, Service IGs, 

etc.), or service-specific Standard Operating Procedures pertaining to initiating and closing investigative 

activity, and any specific guidance regarding the investigation of sexual assault, including any Memoranda 

of Understanding with SJAs, civilian prosecutors, and law enforcement concerning investigations, 

prosecutions, and victims. (DoD issuances available through http://www.esd.whs.mil/DD/DoD-Issuances/ 

are not requested.)
E-19

APPENDIX E. DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

Request for Information from 

RFI Set 9

Date of Request: 

There was no RFI Set 9 submitted. 
E-20

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Request for Information from Service JAG Corps

RFI Set 10, Questions 1–2

Date of Request: September 18, 2018

[Responses for RFI Set 10 Are in Progress; 

Aggregated Data Will Be Provided in a Subsequent DAC-IPAD Report]

I. Purpose

See page E-2. 

II. Summary of Requested Response Dates

Response 

Date Question(s) Department or Organization 

15 Oct 18 1a Services – Provide list of cases meeting RFI criteria to the DAC-IPAD using the 

format in Attachment 1.

15 Oct 18 1b

Services – Provide narrative description identifying specific database(s) utilized 

and the steps necessary, including search terms/variables, to create the list of 

cases meeting RFI criteria.

15 Nov 18 2

Services – Provide case documents for all cases to the DAC-IPAD via secure 

electronic file transfer. If an electronic record of trial (e-ROT) is available, the 

DAC-IPAD staff will obtain the desired documents from the e-ROTs received.

III. Court-Martial Cases Completed in Fiscal Year 2018 (FY 2018)

The DAC-IPAD requests case documents for all adult-victim sexual assault cases completed by the Military 

Services in FY18 that involved a preferred charge of sexual assault. The DAC-IPAD seeks all preferred sexual 

assault cases that were resolved in FY18 at court-martial or through alternate means, regardless of whether 

the case was reported as a SAPR or FAP case. 

The DAC-IPAD requests the Services provide this information in two phases: 

1. Identify the cases by case name (e.g., U.S. v. John Doe); and

2. Provide the documents for each of the cases identified in RFI Question 1a. 

Question 1a / Identification of Cases: The DAC-IPAD requests the Military Services use the information 

from the Services’ case management systems to identify ALL cases that involve a preferred charge of adult 

sexual assault and were tried to completion,* dismissed, or resolved by any alternate means in fiscal year 

2018. 

*A “completed” case means any case tried to verdict, dismissed without further action, or dismissed and 

then resolved by non-judicial or administrative proceedings in FY18. This list includes cases in which a 

convening authority has taken, or has yet to take, action in FY18. 

Question 1b / Methodology: Provide a narrative description identifying specific database(s) accessed 

and the individual steps necessary, including search terms/variables, to create the list of cases meeting RFI 

criteria identified in Question 1a.

Please provide completed list and narrative to the DAC-IPAD by October 15, 2018.
E-21

APPENDIX E. DAC-IPAD REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION (SETS 1–10)

Question 2 / Court-Martial Records: For cases identified in Question 1a and Attachment 1, provide copies 

of the following documents (alternatively, you can provide the e-ROTs for these cases and the DAC-IPAD 

staff can extract the required documents). If your Service does not use the specified DD form, please provide 

Service-equivalent documents:

1. DD Form 458, Charge Sheet

2. DD Form 457, Preliminary Hearing Officer’s Report (include all continuation sheets, but do not 

include IO exhibits)

3. Article 34 Pretrial Advice and/or SJA recommendations on alternate disposition 

4. If applicable, any document memorializing the Convening Authority’s referral or non-referral 

decision 

5. DD Form 490, Record of Trial

6. DD Form 491, Summarized Record of Trial

7. DD Form 2707-1, Report of Result of Trial

8. Pretrial Agreements (include both the Offer and Appendix A – Quantum)

9. Master Index of Exhibits

10. SJAR and Addendum

11. Convening Authority Action

12. Victims’ input at pretrial, trial, and post-trial stages

For cases where court-martial charges were dismissed but were followed by non-judicial punishment (NJP) 

action or resignation/discharge in lieu of trial, please provide the discharge approval document and either 

the NJP form or the following information:

1. All charges and specifications listed on the NJP form

2. All guilty specifications at NJP

Please provide case documents to the DAC-IPAD by November 15, 2018.
E-22

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

ATTACHMENT 1 – Service Responses to DAC-IPAD RFI Set 10, Question 1a

[Military Service] – FY18:

Case Name Location of Requested Documents 

U.S. v. (Example: Installation, CCA, Suitland . . . )

U.S. v. 

U.S. v. 
F-1

APPENDIX F. INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

APPENDIX F.

INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

Sexual Assault Case Review 

DAC-IPAD Control Number:____________________ 

Reviewed by:________________________ Date______________

1

Report

1. MCIO Case Report Number

2. MCIO Office

3. Civilian Investigative Agency

Involvement

Incident Occurred On / Off Military Installation

Civilian Agency Involved: Yes / No

Agency Name: __________________________________

Civilian Lead: Yes / No

Civilian Prosecution: Yes / No

Comments: 

4. All Sexual Assault Offense(s)

Reported

5. Date(s) of Occurrence(s)

6. Date Reported to MCIO

*(Delayed Report = More than 

48 Hours after Incident)

Date: ______________________ 

If delayed report, was a reason provided? Yes / No / N/A 

Comments: 

7. Was Report Originally

Restricted

Yes / No / N/A

Date restricted report made: __________________ 

Appendix F. Investigative Case Review Data Form 
F-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

2 

8. Date MCIO Report Finalized

8a. Date MCIO Case Closed

Date: ______________________ (Report Finalized)

Date: _______________________ (Case Closed)

Comments: 

9. Reporting Person

*(To Law Enforcement)

Relationship:

 Victim

 Victim Authorized Representative (SARC, SVC/VLC, FAP)

 Reported by Command

 Third Party ______________________________

10. Location of Incident

*(Installation/City/State/Country) 

11. Location Type

*(Check all that apply)

CONUS / OCONUS / Vessel

Deployed Location: Yes / No

 Barracks/Dormitory

 On installation housing

 Private residence

 Office/Workplace

 Vehicle

 Hotel/Motel

 Club

 Medical/Hospital

 Unknown

Overall Comments/Summary on Reporting: 

 School

 Church/Chapel

 Park/Beach

 Wooded/Open area

 Swimming pool

 Daycare/CDC

 Retail store

 Other _____________
F-3

APPENDIX F. INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

3 

Subject 

Name (Last, First, Middle, Suffix)_____________________________________

12. Number of Subjects

________ (separate checklist for each subject)

13. Status, Grade, &

Branch of Service at

Time of Incident

 Active Duty Reserves National Guard

(Pay Grade): ____________________________ 

Service 

○ Army ○ Air Force

○ Navy ○ Marine Corps

○ Coast Guard

14. Subject Status at

Time Investigation

Initiated (If different

from time of incident)

DoD Civilian

 Reserve 

N/A

DoD Contractor

Civilian

National Guard Retiree 

15. Assigned Command

at Time of Incident

16. Gender  Male Female 

17. Date of Birth and

SSN (Last Six Only)

18. Race and Ethnicity

of Subject

 American Indian or Alaska Native

 Asian

 Black or African American

 Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin

 Middle Eastern or North African

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

 White

 Some other race, ethnicity, or origin

 Unknown

19. Relationship to

Victim(s)

*(Per Subject) 

 Not Provided Stranger

 Acquaintance Friend

 Roommate Supervisor 

 Subordinate Co-Worker 

 Intimate Partner Former Intimate Partner 

 Spouse Former Spouse 

 Boyfriend/Girlfriend Family Member (other than spouse)

 Doctor Patient 

 Classmate Other ________________________
F-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

4 

20. Subject Statement

to Law Enforcement

*(Check all that apply) 

Yes / No

Date: ______________________ (Invoked and/or statement)

 None (Invoked right to remain silent)

 Verbal Statement

 Written Statement

 Recorded Statement (audio/visual)

 Multiple Statements to law enforcement? Number _____________

21. Was Subject

Represented by

Counsel at Rights

Advisement?

Yes / No

Comments: 

22. Subject Statement

to Other than Law

Enforcement

(Oral, Written, Digital)

*(Check all that apply 

and comment on each) 

Yes / No

 Command

 Co-Worker

 Spouse

 Boyfriend

 Girlfriend

 Friend

 Victim

 Other

Comments: 

23. Subject’s General

Description of Incident

in His/Her Statement(s)

*(Check all that apply) 

 N/A Act was consensual

 Denies sexual activity No recollection

 Confessed to crime Partial recollection 

 Denies being the offender/Mistaken identity

 Other ___________________
F-5

APPENDIX F. INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

5 

24. Sexual Interaction

with Victim

 N/A

 None

 Prior consensual sexual contact

 Prior consensual penetrative acts

 Consensual sexual acts directly preceding the allegation of

rape/sexual assault

 Consensual sexual acts after the allegation of rape/sexual assault

 Communications of a sexual nature preceding incident (including

sexting, flirting, nude photos)

 Communications of a sexual nature following incident (including

sexting, flirting, nude photos)

Comments: 

25. Subject Consume

Alcohol/Drugs at Time

of Incident?

Alcohol: Yes / No

Basis (check all that apply):

 Self-Admission Victim(s) statement 

 Witness statement Other _______________________

Drugs: Yes / No

Basis (check all that apply):

 Self-Admission Victim(s) statement 

 Witness statement Other _______________________ 

Comments: 

Drug/Alcohol Test: Yes / No

Results: 
F-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

6 

26. Factors Affecting

Subject

Reliability/Credibility

*(Check all that apply) 

 None in file

 Collateral misconduct (Underage drinking, fraternization, conduct

unbecoming, drug use, adultery, other _____________________)

 Contradictory evidence

 Inconsistent statements

 Other misconduct (specify)_______________________

 Reported loss of consciousness

 Reported loss of memory

 M.R.E. 413 evidence (committed other sexual offense)

 M.R.E. 404(b) evidence (evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts

to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,

knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident)

 Corroboration (Physical tangible evidence, witness, medical

evidence)

 Reputation for or opinion on truthfulness or untruthfulness

 Motive to lie

 Other ____________________________________________

Comments: 

27. Behavioral Health

Issues Regarding

Subject

Yes / No

Before Incident 

 Inpatient Treatment

 Outpatient Treatment

 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

 Traumatic Brain Injury

 Drug Treatment

 Alcohol Treatment

 Other

After Incident

 Inpatient Treatment

 Outpatient Treatment

 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

 Traumatic Brain Injury

 Drug Treatment

 Alcohol Treatment

 Other
F-7

APPENDIX F. INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

7 

27. Continued Comments:

Overall Comments/Summary on Subject: 
F-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

8 

Victim

Name (Last, First, Middle, Suffix)_____________________________________

28. Number of Victim(s)

__________ (separate checklist for each victim)

29. Status, Grade, &

Branch of Service at

Time of Incident

(DoD Spouse = Spouse 

of Suspect & other DoD 

Spouses) 

 Active Duty Reserves National Guard

(Pay Grade): ____________________________ 

Service 

○ Army ○ Air Force

○ Navy ○ Marine Corps

○ Coast Guard

 DoD Spouse

 Other Family Member

 DoD Civilian

 DoD Contractor

30. Gender  Male Female

31. Date of Birth

32. Race and Ethnicity  American Indian or Alaska Native

 Asian

 Black or African American

 Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin

 Middle Eastern or North African

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

 White

 Some other race, ethnicity, or origin

 Unknown

33. Relationship to

Subject

*(Per Victim) 

 Not Provided Stranger

 Acquaintance Friend

 Roommate Supervisor 

 Subordinate Co-Worker 

 Intimate Partner Former Intimate Partner 

 Spouse Former Spouse 

 Boyfriend/Girlfriend Family Member (other than spouse)

 Doctor Patient 

 Classmate Other ________________________ 

 Civilian

 Foreign National

 Other____________
F-9

APPENDIX F. INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

9 

34. Sexual Interaction

with Subject

 N/A

 None

 Prior consensual sexual contact

 Prior consensual penetrative acts

 Consensual sexual acts directly preceding the allegation of

rape/sexual assault

 Consensual sexual acts after the allegation of rape/sexual assault

 Communications of a sexual nature preceding incident (including

sexting, flirting, nude photos)

 Communications of a sexual nature following incident (including

sexting, flirting, nude photos)

Comments: 

35. Evidence of Sexual

Behavior or

Predisposition (M.R.E.

412)

Specific instances to prove someone other than subject was the

source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence

Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior with the subject

to show consent

Constitutionally required

None reported 

Comments: 

36. Prior Allegation of

Sexual Assault by Victim

Yes / No

If yes, annotate case number(s) if available: ___________________ 

Comments: 

37. Victim Statement to

Law Enforcement

*(Check all that apply)

Yes / No

If yes, date: _________________

 None provided

 Verbal statement

 Written statement

 Recorded statement (audio/visual)

 Multiple statements to law enforcement? Number _________
F-10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

10

38. Circumstances of

Statement to Law

Enforcement

*(Check all that apply)

 N/A

 SVC/VLC present

 Other person present _____________________________

 Joint statement with military and civilian law enforcement

 Statement taken immediately, within 48 hours of report

 Statement taken after 48 hours of report

39. Did Statement to

Law Enforcement

Establish Probable Cause

Offense Occurred?

Yes / No / N/A

40. Victim Statement to

Other than Law

Enforcement

(Oral, Written, Digital)

*(Check all that apply 

and comment on each) 

Yes / No

Command

Co-worker

Spouse

Boyfriend

Girlfriend

Friend

Suspect

SANE

SARC

FAP

Other 

Comments: 

41. Did Victim

Participate in the

Investigation?

Yes / Declined

If victim declined, at what stage of the process did they stop

cooperating? 

 Reporting Investigation 

 Preliminary Hearing Court-Martial 

 Other _______________________________________

Comments: 
F-11

APPENDIX F. INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

11

42. Did Victim Provide

Input to the

Command/SJA?

Yes / No

What type of input?

 Pursue courts-martial Pursue non-judicial punishment 

 Pursue counseling statement Pursue administrative separation

 Other administrative action Take no action

 Refer to civilian court/authority

 Other _________________________________________

43. SVC/VLC

Representation?

Yes / No / N/A

SVC/VLC present at time of statement? Yes / No / N/A

Date of Notice of Representation_____________________

44. Did Victim Request

Expedited Transfer?

Yes / No / N/A

If yes, was it approved: Yes / No

Date: _________________

45. Victim Consume

Alcohol/Drugs at Time

of Incident?

Alcohol: Yes / No

Basis (check all that apply):

 Self-Admission

 Witness statement

 Subject(s) statement 

 Other _______________________ 

Drugs: Yes / No

Basis (check all that apply):

 Self-Admission

 Witness statement

 Subject(s) statement 

 Other _______________________ 

Comments: 

Drug/Alcohol Test: Yes / No

Results: 
F-12

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

12

46. Did Victim Report

Being Incapacitated?

Yes / No

 Blacked-out Asleep 

 Unconscious Passed-out

 Partial memory Drugged 

 No memory Other

Comments: 

47. Factors Affecting

Victim

Reliability/Credibility

*(Check all that apply)

 None in file

 Collateral misconduct (Underage drinking, fraternization, conduct

unbecoming, drug use, adultery, other _____________________)

 Contradictory evidence

 Inconsistent statements

 Other misconduct (specify)_______________________

 Reported loss of consciousness

 Reported loss of memory

 Corroboration (Physical tangible evidence, witness, medical

evidence)

 Reputation for or opinion on truthfulness or untruthfulness

 Motive to lie

 Other ____________________________________________

Comments: 

48. Behavioral Health

Issues Regarding

Victim

Yes / No

Before Incident 

 Inpatient Treatment

 Outpatient Treatment

 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

 Traumatic Brain Injury

 Drug Treatment

 Alcohol Treatment

 Other
F-13

APPENDIX F. INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

13

48. Continued After Incident

 Inpatient Treatment

 Outpatient Treatment

 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

 Traumatic Brain Injury

 Drug Treatment

 Alcohol Treatment

 Other

Comments: 

Overall Comments/Summary on Victim: 
F-14

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

14

Evidence

49. Victim Sexual Assault Kit

Collected?

Yes / No

Date collected: _____________ 

Date testing completed: _____________ 

50. Location of Victim Sexual

Assault Exam

 Military Health Care Facility

 Civilian Health Care Facility

 N/A

51. Who Conducted the

Victim’s Sexual Assault Exam?

 Military Examiner

 DoD Civilian

 Civilian Provider

 N/A

52. Subject Sexual Assault Kit

Collected?

Yes / No

Date collected: _____________ 

Date testing completed: _____________ 

53. Location of Subject Sexual

Assault Exam

 Military Health Care Facility

 Civilian Health Care Facility

 N/A

54. Who Conducted the

Subject’s Sexual Assault Exam?

 Military Examiner

 DoD Civilian

 Civilian Provider

 N/A

55. DNA Results

*(Both Subject & Victim) 

Yes / No

Comments: 
F-15

APPENDIX F. INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

15

56. Evidence of Use/Threat of

Force

*(Based on totality of file)

Yes / No

 Physical Weapon 

 Coercion Threat 

 Threat to Others

Physical injury – Yes / No

 Bruising Cuts

 Broken bones Redness

 Scrapes

Comments: 

57. Eyewitness(es) to Sexual

Activity

Yes / No 

Number of witnesses: 1--5 / 6--10 /

11+ Comments: 

58. Third-Party Witness(es)

*(To events or statements 

before, during, or after the 

assault) 

Yes / No 

Number of witnesses: 1--5 / 6--10 /

11+ Comments: 

59. Electronic Evidence Yes / No 

 Victim Subject Witness

o Cell phone

o Computer

o Social media

o Other

Comments: 

o Cell phone

o Computer

o Social media

o Other

o Cell phone

o Computer

o Social media

o Other
F-16

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

16

60. Other Evidence Yes / No

Comments: 

61. Pretext Communication Yes / No 

Type: 

 Phone call

 Text message

 Email

 In person

 Other

Results: 

Supports Victim’s Account

Supports Subject’s Account

Neither 

Comments: 

Overall comments/Summary on evidence:
F-17

APPENDIX F. INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

17

Case Information

62. Investigator Bias  No indication of bias

 Bias against victim

 Bias against suspect

63. Commander Disposition

*(Check all that apply)

 Action Taken Date: ______________________

 Preferral Non-judicial punishment

 Civilian authority Other administrative action

 Separation

○ Administrative

○ Resignation/Discharge in lieu of court-martial

○ Other Separation ______________________

 Other _________________________

 No Action Taken Date: _____________________ 

 No Reason Provided

 Unfounded

○ Baseless ○ False ○ Not specified

 Prosecution declined Insufficient evidence

 Victim uncooperative Lack of jurisdiction 

 No probable cause

 Other ___________________________________

 None Provided

Comments:

64. Any Legal Memoranda

Pertaining to

Investigation/Disposition

 None provided

 Judge Advocate explanation__________________

o Probable Cause Yes / No

 Prosecution Memorandum

o Probable Cause Yes / No

 Other ____________________________________

Comments: 
F-18

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

18

65. Probable Cause

Determination per DoDI

5505.11 and 5505.14 (FBI and

CODIS Submissions)

Yes / No

 Probable cause

 No probable cause

Comments: 

66. Commander Action Taken

for Collateral Misconduct

Suspect: Yes / No

Comments: 

Victim: Yes / No / N/A

Comments: 

**67. Is the Command Action 

Decision Reasonable Based on 

the Totality of the Investigative 

File?

Yes / No

Comments: 

**The reasonableness decision applies to the type of case being reviewed. In “no action 

taken” cases – Is the Commander’s decision to take “No Action” on the penetrative sexual 

assault offense reasonable? In “preferred” cases – Is the Commander’s decision to “Prefer”

on the penetrative sexual assault offense reasonable?

Additional Comments:
F-19

APPENDIX F. INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

19

Preferral

68. Post-Preferral Documents Article 32 Report: Yes/ No

Preliminary Hearing Officer find probable cause on the 

penetrative offense: Yes / No

Comments: 

SJA Advice: Yes / No

Comments: 

69. Based on the Totality of the

Investigative File:

Was There Probable Cause to

Believe an Offense Was

Committed and the Accused 

Committed It?

Was There Sufficient

Admissible Evidence Beyond a 

Reasonable Doubt to Obtain 

and Sustain a Conviction? 

Yes / No

Comments: 

Yes / No

Comments: 
F-20

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

20

**Is the Ultimate Command 

Action Decision Reasonable?

Yes / No

Comments: 

**The reasonableness decision applies after preferral. Is the ultimate decision to refer to

courts-martial, accept a plea, dismiss SA offenses, offer Administrative Separation, Nonjudicial Punishment, or some other administrative action on non-SA offenses reasonable?

Additional Comments:
F-21

APPENDIX F. INVESTIGATIVE CASE REVIEW DATA FORM

DAC-IPAD Control Number: __________________________ 

21

Staff Only

70. Case Clearance

Classification

MCIO DIBRS / NIBRS Classification:

 Unfounded Arrest or equivalent

Death of offender Prosecution declined 

 Extradition declined Juvenile

Victim declined to cooperate 

Case not cleared

Referred for Court-Martial 

Non-judicial punishment (Article 15)

 Not Applicable 

71. Is DIBRS/NIBRS Closure

Listed by MCIO Consistent with

Action Taken Reported by

MCIO?

Yes / No

Comments: 

Additional Comments:
F-22

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
G-1

APPENDIX G. STATISTICAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS 

CLOSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2017: RESULTS FROM A SAMPLE OF 164 CASES

APPENDIX G.

STATISTICAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT 

INVESTIGATIONS CLOSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2017: 

RESULTS FROM A SAMPLE OF 164 CASES

The sample of case file data was analyzed in order to provide an understanding of patterns of relationships 

between case characteristics. Through these analyses it is possible to better understand the nature of these cases 

and to better understand potential reasons why patterns of outcomes are observed. The analyses presented here 

represent an initial examination of variables believed to be of interest to the DAC-IPAD. The expectation is that 

after continued consideration of the case file data, the patterns presented here, and issues identified through 

other sources of information (expert testimony, policy discussions, proposed reforms, Committee deliberations, 

staff input, etc.), the Committee may recommend specific analyses to shed light on issues and questions.

CASE CLOSURE STATUS

A concern is that cases are being closed using categories that are inconsistent across decision points. Inconsistent 

categorization of closure reasons is problematic when reporting information, because information may not 

accurately characterize closure rationale. In addition, inconsistent reporting may indicate that decision makers 

are using different criteria when determining the reason for closing cases. Ascertaining the extent to which such 

inconsistencies are problems can begin with analysis of how closure categories are used across decision points. 

This will reveal the extent to which cases are closed consistently and inconsistently. The analysis below presents 

this information for 122 investigations in which the command did not take action on the case.

TABLE 1. NUMBER OF COMMAND DECISION REASONS PROVIDED

Number of Reasons n %

0a 36 29.5

1 64 52.5

2 21 17.2

3 1 1.0

a

 Includes the following categories: “no reason provided” and “none provided.”

Table 1 shows that commanders did not provide a reason in 36 cases (29.5%), provided one reason in 64 cases 

(52.5%), and provided multiple reasons for their “no action” decisions in 21 cases (17.2%).
G-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 2. COMMAND REASONS PROVIDED

Reason Provided na %b

Insufficient Evidence 47 43.1

Victim Uncooperative / Victim Declined 23 21.1

No Probable Cause 20 18.3

Prosecution Declined 6 5.5

Unfounded

Baseless 5 4.6

False 3 2.8

Not Specified 3 2.8

Other 2 1.8

No Reason Provided 36

Total 145 100

a

 Counts of reasons sum to 109 because in 22 cases, multiple reasons were provided.

b

 Percentages are based on 109 reasons provided.

Table 2 presents information about the reasons commanders provided for not taking action in a case. The most 

common reason given was the lack of sufficient evidence (43.1%, n = 47), followed by victim declination or 

refusal to participate (21.1%, n = 23), and then by the lack of probable cause (18.3%, n = 20). In 36 investigation 

case files, no reason was included. 

TABLE 3. JAG PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATIONS

Probable Cause Determination n %a

Yes 31 32.3

No 65 67.7

No Determination Provided 26

Total 122 100

a

 Percentages are based on 96 cases in which a determination was provided.

A comparison of command decision reasons (Table 2) and probable cause determinations by JAGs (Table 3) 

shows a substantial difference. JAGs reported that probable cause did not exist in 65 cases, while commanders 

indicated that there was no probable cause less frequently, in 20 cases.
G-3

APPENDIX G. STATISTICAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS 

CLOSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2017: RESULTS FROM A SAMPLE OF 164 CASES

TABLE 4. DIBRS CLEARANCEA

n %b

Prosecution Declined 41 33.9

Unfounded 36 29.8

Arrest or Equivalent 29 24.0

Victim Declined to Cooperate 15 12.4

Missing 1

Total 122 100

a

 The Coast Guard reports to NIBRS, not DIBRs, but their NIBRS submissions are captured in this table, 

with the exception of one case with no classification.

b

 Percentages are based on 121 cases in which a determination classification was provided.

Table 4 presents information about DIBRS closure classification in the sample of cases. “Prosecution declined” 

(33.9%, n = 41) and “unfounded” (29.8%, n = 36) were the two most commonly used categories. In contrast, 

commanders indicated that 11 cases were unfounded. Commanders were more likely to report that no action 

was taken because the victim declined (n = 23) than DIBRS indicates (n = 15).

TABLE 5. MCIO CLOSURE CATEGORIZATION 

Reason Provided n %a

No Action 58 55.2

Unfounded 27 25.7

Prosecution Declined 10 9.5

Victim Declined 6 5.7

Non-Judicial Punishment (Art. 15) 2 1.9

Insufficient Evidence 1 1.0

Referred to Courts-Martial 1 1.0

Unknown/Missing 17

Total 122 100

a

 Percentages are based on 105 cases in which a closure categorization was provided.

MCIO closure information is presented in Table 5 and shows inconsistencies when compared to the other 

decision points. For example, MCIOs reported that 27 cases were unfounded, a number smaller than what was 

found in DIBRS (n = 36) but greater than what was reported by commanders (n = 11). MCIOs provided the 

fewest reports of victims declining (n = 6). In 17 cases, no closure classification was reported.
G-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 6. CLOSURE CLASSIFICATION COMPARISON

Command Decisiona Probable Causeb DIBRSc MCIOd

No Probable Cause 20 (18.3%) 65 (67%) N/A N/A

Unfounded 11 (10.1%) N/A 36 (29.8%) 27 (25.7%)

Prosecution Declined 6 (5.5%) N/A 41 (33.9%) 10 (9.5%)

Victim Declined / 

Did Not Participate 23 (21.1%) N/A 15 (12.4%) 6 (5.7%)

Insufficient Evidence 47 (43.1%) N/A N/A 1 (1.0%)

a

 Percentages are based on 109 reasons commanders provided for the no action decision and mirror values in Table 2 above.

b

 Percentage is based on 96 cases in which a probable cause determination was made by a judge advocate.

c

 Percentages are based on 121 cases classified by DIBRS.

d

 Percentages are based on 105 cases classified by MCIOs.

Table 6 shows the percentage of closure disposition classifications made by commanders and investigators, as 

well as the probable cause determination by judge advocates and by the DIBRS categories. Every entry populates 

a different federal database. Not all closure classifications are used across the four decision points, so it is 

not possible to make direct comparisons; interpreting the differences is therefore complicated. For example, 

commanders employ the term “insufficient evidence” because DoD SAPRO uses it, but DIBRS does not. MCIOs 

do not use the “no probable cause” classification. Thus, it is unreasonable to expect case closure classifications 

to be consistent across all four decision points. However, the data allow for an understanding of the categories 

that are used in different combinations. For instance, it is possible to determine the ways in which commanders 

and MCIOs classify cases when it has been determined that no probable cause exists at the probable cause 

determination decision point. To take another example, it is possible to determine the DIBRS and MCIO 

classifications when commanders used the “insufficient evidence” classification.

No Probable Cause: Commanders reported that there was no probable cause in 20 cases, while JAGs 

reported no probable cause in 65 cases.

Unfounded: At the command decision point, 11 cases in the sample were classified as unfounded, while 

MCIOS classified 27 cases as unfounded and DIBRS classified 36 cases as unfounded. 

Prosecution Declined: The “prosecution declined” classification is used most often at the DIBRS 

decision point (41 cases), and in fewer cases by MCIOs (10 cases) and by commanders (6 cases). MICOs 

and commanders use this classification in similar numbers of cases.

Victim Declined / Did Not Participate: Commanders determined that victims declined or did not 

participate in the largest number of cases (23 cases), followed by DIBRS (15 cases) and MCIOs (6 cases). 

Table 6 shows that three classifications are consistent across the commander decision, the DIBRS classification, 

and the MCIO decision: unfounded, prosecution declined, and victim declined/victim did not participate. It 

is possible to determine the extent to which these classifications were used consistently by examining specific 

cases. 
G-5

APPENDIX G. STATISTICAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS 

CLOSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2017: RESULTS FROM A SAMPLE OF 164 CASES

Unfounded: Three cases were classified as unfounded at all three decision points: the commander, 

DIBRS, and MCIO decision points. Nineteen cases were classified as unfounded at the DIBRS and 

MCIO decision points.

Among the 11 cases in which the commander unfounded the case, DIBRS classified 6 as 

“prosecution declined” and 5 as “unfounded.” Among those 11 cases, MCIO classified 5 as “no 

action” and 5 as “unfounded,” and 1 was missing a classification.

Prosecution Declined: One case was classified as “prosecution declined” at all three decision points. 

Victim Declined/Did Not Participate: One case was classified as “victim declined / victim did not 

participate” at all three decision points. 

TABLE 7. JAG PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATIONS 

AND CLASSIFICATIONS AT OTHER DECISION POINTS

Probable Cause Determinationa

Probable Cause Existed Probable Cause Did Not Exist

31 (32.3%) 65 (67.7%)

Commander Decisionb

Unfounded 0 (0.0%) 10 (13.2%)

Prosecution Declined 2 (5.1%) 1 (1.3%)

Victim Declined / Victim Did Not Participate 14 (35.9%) 7 (9.2%)

No Probable Cause 1 (2.6%) 15 (19.7%)

Insufficient Evidence 15 (38.5%) 22 (28.9%)

Other Reasons / No Reason 7 (17.9%) 21 (27.6%)

DIBRS Classification

Unfounded 5 (16.1%) 28 (43.1%)

Prosecution Declined 5 (16.1%) 23 (35.4%)

Victim Declined to Participate 9 (29.0%) 5 (7.7%)

Arrest or Equivalent 12 (38.7%) 9 (13.8%)

MCIO Classification

Unfounded 2 (6.5%) 21 (32.3%)

Prosecution Declined 2 (6.5%) 1 (1.5%)

Victim Declined to Participate 3 (9.7%) 2 (3.1%)

No Action 20 (64.5%) 29 (44.6%)

Insufficient Evidence 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.5%)

Other Reasons / No Reason Provided 4 (12.9%) 11 (16.9%)

a

 No determination was provided in 26 (21.3%) of the sample of 122 no action cases.

b

 Because commanders provided multiple reasons within cases, counts within this decision point sum to more than 65 (probable cause did not exist 

cases) + 31 (probable cause did exist cases).
G-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Table 7 presents closure classifications for two groups of cases: those in which a JAG determined probable cause 

existed and those in which a JAG determined probable cause did not exist. Among the 65 “no probable cause” 

cases, commanders classified 15 (19.7%) as “no probable cause,” and the most commonly indicated reason for 

no action by the command was “insufficient evidence” (n = 22, 28.9%). Commanders did not provide a reason 

for their no action decision in 21 of the 65 cases in which a JAG determined that there was no probable cause 

(27.6%). DIBRS does not utilize a “no probable cause” classification. In the 65 “no probable cause” cases, the 

most commonly used DIBRS categories were “unfounded” (n = 28, 43.1%) and “prosecution declined” (n = 

23, 35.4%). Combined, the “unfounded” and “prosecution declined” categories were used in 78.5% of the “no 

probable cause” cases. In 9 (13.8%) of the “no probable cause” cases, the DIBRS classification indicated “arrest 

or equivalent.” The two most commonly used MCIO classifications within the 65 “no probable cause” cases were 

“no action” (n = 29, 44.6%) and “unfounded” (n = 21, 32.3%).

VICTIM-SUBJECT RELATIONSHIP

Determining the relationship between the victim and suspect is an important aspect of research on violence, 

including sexual assault. It is commonly assumed that the relationship between the parties involved will 

influence the decisions of justice system officials because of evidentiary factors and potential biases. For instance, 

evidence of a sexual assault may be more difficult to establish in cases in which two individuals have a close 

relationship and engage in consensual sex. It may be more difficult to overcome a consent defense in such cases 

than in a situation involving strangers. In addition, uninformed beliefs about so-called true victims—that is, 

those victimized by strangers or people they do not know well—may lead to the assumption that victims are 

not likely to be victimized by people close to them. If justice system personnel hold such beliefs, their decision 

making may be affected. Through data analysis, we can determine the extent to which the victim-suspect 

relationship may be influencing the progression of and decisions about cases.

Measuring the relationship between victims and suspects is more challenging than it might appear at first glance. 

In some situations it may not be clear whether two people are friends or acquaintances, or whether neighbors 

are friends or strangers. When researchers measure the relationship between a victim and suspect or offender, 

they typically code the information contained in police reports. This was done with the case file data.

The case file data showed that in some cases, multiple relationship categories were used by different data 

recorders. When more than one type of relationship was reported in the data file, a hierarchy rule was used to 

code the closest relationship. For example, if a case in the data file indicated “friend/acquaintance,” the case 

was coded as “friend.” If a case indicated “co-worker/friend,” the case was coded as “friend.” If a case indicated 

“co-worker/acquaintance,” the case was coded as “co-worker.” If a case indicated “intimate partner/friend,” the 

case was coded as “intimate partner.” The “intimate partner” category included all current and former spouses, 

boyfriend, girlfriends, people engaged to be married, and people in the process of getting divorced or separated. 

The victim-subject relationship can be measured using variables in the case file data that reflect the victim’s 

perspective and the subject’s perspective. A first step was to compare the relationship from the perspectives of 

the victim and of the subject. Doing so provides an understanding of consistencies and inconsistencies and can 

provide information to clarify ambiguities that may exist within the data. For instance, it may not be clear how 

to code a case when the victim indicated that the subject was a neighbor or a recruiter. Examining the subject’s 

perspective on the relationship may provide clarification. Table 8 below summarizes the consistency of the 

victim’s and subject’s perspectives on their relationship. 
G-7

APPENDIX G. STATISTICAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS 

CLOSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2017: RESULTS FROM A SAMPLE OF 164 CASES

TABLE 8. CONSISTENCY IN VICTIM’S AND SUBJECT’S REPORTED RELATIONSHIP TO THE OTHER

n %

Match (consistent) 132 80.5

Mismatch (inconsistent) 13 7.9

Only one perspective or neither 

perspective provided in the data 19 11.6

Table 8 shows that the two perspectives were mostly consistent (80.5%). Inconsistencies emerged in 7.9% of 

the cases. Among the cases with a mismatch, the victim indicated a closer relationship to the suspect than the 

suspect reported in 6 cases. The subject reported a closer relationship to the victim than the victim reported 

in the remaining 7 cases. In these 13 cases, the closest relationship is used to create the relationship variable. 

For example, when the suspect reported “online” as the relationship to the victim and the victim reported the 

relationship as being a “friend,” the case is coded as “friend.” When the victim reported the relationship to be 

“acquaintance” and the subject reported it to be “friend,” the case is coded “friend.” When only one perspective 

on the relationship is contained in the data, that information is used to create the relationship variable. When no 

perspective is provided and when no information about the relationship is contained in the data, the relationship 

is coded “unknown/unable to determine.” 

TABLE 9. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VICTIM AND SUBJECT

n %

Spouse/intimate partner/former intimate partner 39 23.8

Friend 49 29.9

Co-worker/classmate/roommate 17 10.4

Acquaintance 29 17.7

Online/met for the first time 9 5.5

Stranger 11 6.7

Othera 4 2.4

Unknown/unable to determine 6 3.7

a The “other” category includes “doctor-patient,” “recruiter,” “neighbor,” and “spouse’s best friend.”

Table 9 presents information about the relationships between the victims and suspects in the sample of cases. 

The most common relationship is “friend” (29.9%, n = 49), followed by “intimate partner/former intimate 

partner” (23.8%, n = 39). Together these categories represent over half of the cases and show the parties involved 

in most cases have had a close relationship. Cases involving acquaintances occurred 17.7% of the time (n = 29). 

Incidents between strangers were relatively rare, occurring 6.7% of the time (n = 11).
G-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

VICTIM IMPAIRMENT

Staff members reported that alcohol use by the individuals involved in sexual assaults, both victims and 

offenders, has been common. Victim impairment during the incident may affect case progression in some of the 

same ways that the relationship variable does. In cases that involve victims who used drugs or alcohol, decision 

makers may put at least partial blame on the victim for what occurred. In addition, victim impairment may limit 

the information and evidence that can be collected about the events. For instance, unclear memories may leave 

the victim unable to articulate details about events.

Incapacitation is captured from the victim’s personal statement(s) to law enforcement or a third party and not 

from the opinions of medical personnel, investigators, witnesses, or any other evidence within the case file. 

When information was collected from case files, data recorders indicated whether the victim was incapacitated 

during the event and then captured more specific details about the nature of the incapacitation. These details 

included, for example, “asleep,” “blacked out,” and “partial memory.” In addition, data collectors also recorded 

information about victim drug and alcohol use prior to and during the assault. These data provide the 

opportunity to begin exploring this variable. 

TABLE 10. THE NATURE OF VICTIM IMPAIRMENT

n %

Victim Reported Being Impaired

Yes 91 55.5

No 73 44.5

Nature of Impairmenta

Passed Out / Unconscious 39 42.9

Blacked Out / No Memory / 

Partial Memory 38 41.8

Asleep 10 11.0

Missing 4 4.4

a

 Data were available about the nature of the impairment in 87 cases. Multiple reasons were provided for the impairment in a majority (n = 59) 

of the 87 cases. To simplify the analyses of impairment reasons, a single variable was created to measure the reason for impairment. The categories 

for this variable are mutually exclusive. The “passed out / unconscious” category is considered to be the greatest level of impairment, followed by 

“blacked out / no memory / partial memory,” and finally “asleep.” If the case indicated “passed out” or “unconscious” AND “blacked out,” “partial 

memory,” or “asleep,” then the case was coded as “passed out / unconscious.” If the case indicated “blacked out,” “partial memory,” or “no memory” 

AND “asleep,” then the case is coded as “blacked out / no memory / partial memory loss.” 

Details about victim impairment are presented in Table 10. Over half of the cases involved a victim who 

experienced some level of impairment (55.5%). The data file captured information about the nature of 

impairment. The two most common forms of impairment characterize nearly 85% of all impairment cases: being 

passed out or unconscious (42.9%, n = 39) and being blacked out / memory loss (41.8%, n = 38). 
G-9

APPENDIX G. STATISTICAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS 

CLOSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2017: RESULTS FROM A SAMPLE OF 164 CASES

TABLE 11. VICTIM IMPAIRMENT AND VICTIM DRUG AND ALCOHOL USE

Victim Impaired (n = 91) Victim Not Impaired (n = 73)

Victim Used 

Alcohol

Victim Did Not 

Use Alcohol

Victim Used 

Alcohol

Victim Did Not 

Use Alcohol

Victim Used Drugs 11 4 0 1

Victim Did Not Use Drugs 73 3 22 50

Table 11 presents information about relationships between victim impairment and drug and alcohol use. Among 

the cases of victim impairment, 80.2% involved victims who used only alcohol (73/91), 4.4% involved victims 

who used only drugs (4/91), and 12.1% victims who used both (11/91). In three victim-impairment cases, the 

case files indicated that the victim did not use drugs or alcohol. In those three cases, one victim reported being 

asleep, one reported having partial memory and being in a “disassociated state,” and the third victim reported 

being hypnotized by the suspect.

Among the 73 cases in which the victim was not impaired, alcohol use was reported in 30.1% of the cases (n = 

22) and drug use was reported in one case. Drug and alcohol use was not reported in 68.5% of cases in which the 

victim was not impaired (n = 50).

MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM PROCESSING IN CASES WITH CIVILIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM 

INVOLVEMENT

The case file data can shed some light on a question about military case processing in cases in which civilian 

criminal justice agencies are involved. More specifically, it is possible to understand how the military justice 

system processes cases after a civilian prosecutor declines to pursue charges. The analysis below provides 

information about such cases and their outcomes.

A civilian police agency was involved in 51 cases, which is nearly one-third of the cases in the sample (31.1%). 

When the incident occurred away from a military installation (n = 80), a civilian police agency was involved 

61.3% of the time (n = 49). A civilian agency was involved in 2 cases that occurred on a military installation 

(2.4% of the 84 cases that occurred on a military installation). 

Table 12 below reports on the characteristics of 49 cases that occurred off of a military installation and involved 

a civilian police agency. Over half of the agencies involved were municipal police agencies; a civilian agency took 

the lead in 34 cases. When a civilian agency took the lead, a single case was prosecuted in a civilian court; the 

remaining 33 were not. The most common reason for lack of prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system 

was that the case was not presented to a prosecutor’s office by a police agency or a prosecutor’s office declined 

to file charges (n = 22, 45.8%). In 12.5% of the cases the victim declined to participate (n = 6), and the case was 

transferred to military jurisdiction in 14.6% of the cases (n = 7).
G-10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 12: CHARACTERISTICS OF CASES THAT OCCURRED OFF INSTALLATION 

AND INVOLVED CIVILIAN OR FOREIGN POLICE AGENCIES

n %

Agency Involveda

Municipal, United States 31 62.0

County Agency, United States 10 20.0

Other 9 18.0

Civilian Investigative Agency Took Lead

Yes 34 69.4

No 15 30.6

Civilian Prosecutor Prosecuted the Case

Yes 1 2.0

No 48 98.0

Reasons for Lack of Civilian Prosecution

Prosecutor Declined / Case Not 

Presented to Prosecutor 22 45.8

Case Transferred to Military 7 14.6

Victim Declined 6 12.5

Other / Unknown 13 27.1

a

 Counts sum to 50 because one case involved two civilian agencies.

Table 13 presents information about military case processing in the set of 22 cases that occurred away from a 

military installation, that involved a civilian agency, and that civilian agencies declined to prosecute. Probable 

cause was determined to exist in 22.7% of cases (n = 5) and to not exist in 27.3% of cases (n = 6); no probable 

cause determination was offered in half of the 22 cases. A commander took action in all 5 cases in which 

probable cause was determined to exist; all 5 cases resulted in a conviction for a sexual assault offense. These 

convictions represent 22.7% of the cases that occurred away from a military installation, that involved a civilian 

agency, and that civilian agencies declined to prosecute.
G-11

APPENDIX G. STATISTICAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS 

CLOSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2017: RESULTS FROM A SAMPLE OF 164 CASES

TABLE 13: MILITARY JUSTICE OUTCOMES AMONG CASES THAT OCCURRED OFF INSTALLATION, 

THAT INVOLVED CIVILIAN OR FOREIGN POLICE AGENCIES, AND THAT WERE NOT PRESENTED TO OR 

WERE DECLINED BY THE CIVILIAN PROSECUTOR (N = 22)

n %

Probable Cause

No Determination 6 27.3

Yes, PC Existed 5 22.7

No, PC Did Not Exist 11 50.0

Military Commander Action

Preferral/Referral 5 22.7

No Action 17 77.3

Military Trial Results 

No Action Taken 17 77.3

Conviction of Sexual Assault 3 13.6

Conviction of Sexual Assault 

and Non-Sexual Assault 2 9.1
G-12

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

COMMAND ACTION DECISIONS

The decision by a commander to take action or no action in a case is important for case progression. This 

decision determines which cases are screened out of justice processing and which proceed with increased 

chances of ending in the accused being sanctioned. Table 14 presents information about variables and their 

relationships to commanders’ decisions to take some action or no action.

TABLE 14. BIVARIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COMMAND ACTION DECISIONS AND VICTIM 

CHARACTERISTICS, SUBJECT CHARACTERISTICS, INCIDENT CHARACTERISTICS, AND EVIDENCE

No Command Action Command Action

n % n %

Incident Location (NS)

On Installation 61 72.6 23 27.4

Off Installation 60 75.9 19 24.1

Military Service of Subject (NS)

Army 56 76.7 17 23.3

Air Force 21 63.6 12 36.4

Coast Guard 3 60.0 2 40.0

Marine Corps 18 75.0 6 25.0

Navy 24 80.0 6 20.0

Rank of Subject (NS)

Officer 10 76.9 3 23.1

Enlisted 112 74.2 39 25.8

Subject Alcohol Use (p < .05)

Yes 71 68.9 32 31.1

No 51 83.6 10 16.4

Subject Drug Use (NS)

Yes 3 60.0 2 40.0

No 119 74.8 40 25.2

Sex of Victim (NS)

Female 110 73.3 40 26.7

Male 12 85.7 2 14.3

Status of Victim (NS)

Military 58 75.3 19 24.7

Civilian – Not DoD Spouse 29 63.0 17 37.0

Civilian – DoD Spouse 34 85.0 6 15.0

Relationship Between Victim and Subject (p < .05)

Spouse or Intimate Partner 35 89.7 4 10.3

Friend 36 73.5 13 26.5
G-13

APPENDIX G. STATISTICAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS 

CLOSED IN FISCAL YEAR 2017: RESULTS FROM A SAMPLE OF 164 CASES

No Command Action Command Action

n % n %

Acquaintance 21 72.4 8 27.6

Other Relationships 30 63.8 17 36.2

Victim Age (NS) 23.34 (sd = 5.47) 21.85 (sd = 5.66)

Victim Impairment (p < .05)

Not Impaired 58 79.5 15 20.5

Passed out / unconscious 22 56.4 17 43.6

Blacked out / memory loss 34 89.5 4 10.5

Asleep 4 40.0 6 60.0

Victim Physical Injuries (NS)

Yes 28 68.3 13 31.7

No 94 76.4 29 23.6

Subject Statement – Defense Offered (p < .05)

Confessed 3 17.6 14 82.4

Consensual 79 79.0 21 21.0

Denial 18 90.0 2 10.0

Other / Missing 22 81.5 5 18.5

Victim Participation (p < .05)

Yes 67 62.0 41 38.0

Declined 55 98.2 1 1.8

Sexual Assault Exam Performed on Victim (p < .05)

Yes 43 65.2 23 34.8

No 79 80.6 19 19.4

Victim SVC / VLC Representation (NS)

Yes 63 77.8 18 22.2

No 32 71.1 13 28.9

N/A 27 71.1 11 28.9

Probable Cause (p < .05)

No Determination Made 26 78.8 7 21.2

Probable Cause Existed 31 47.7 34 52.3

Probable Cause Did Not Exist 65 98.5 1 1.5

Table 14 shows that eight variables are related to the command action decision. The chances that a commander 

took action in a case were greater when the subject used alcohol, when the victim participated in the 

investigation, when the victim received a sexual assault medical examination, when a JAG determined that 

probable causes existed, when the subject confessed, when the victim was asleep or passed out/unconscious, 

and when the victim and subject were not intimate partners. Nine variables were unrelated to the command 

decision: the military service branch, the incident location (on- or off-installation), subject rank, subject drug 
G-14

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

use, victim sex and age, physical injuries to the victim, victim DoD status, and SVC/VLC representation. Future 

analyses will explore other outcomes in case processing that are identified as being important and will explore 

relationships between variables with multivariate models. These models isolate the relationships between 

outcome variables—in Table 14, the command decision—and the predictor variables. When predictor variables 

are related to one another, bivariate relationships, like those reported in Table 14, may be inaccurate and 

misleading. For example, the variables “relationship” and “victim status” overlap and are related to one another. 

A multivariate model would provide an improved understanding of the relationships between those variables 

and the command decision. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. William Wells is a Professor and Research Director for the Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas 

at Sam Houston State University. His research interests include police practices to prevent and reduce crime, 

police use of forensic evidence, and criminal justice responses to sexual assault crimes. Between 2011 and 2015, 

Dr. Wells served as the lead research partner on a National Institute of Justice–funded research project with 

the Houston Police Department that studied and reduced problems related to unanalyzed sex assault kits. In 

2014, he collaborated with the Houston Police Department on an experiment that tested different methods of 

administering photo spreads and lineups to witnesses. The experiment received the Gold Award for Excellence 

in Law Enforcement Research from the International Association of Chiefs of Police. His recent published 

research has appeared in such journals as Injury Prevention, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Journal 

of Interpersonal Violence, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, and American Journal of 

Public Health. In 2008, he served as President of the Midwestern Criminal Justice Association. Before joining 

SHSU, Dr. Wells worked for eight years in the Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections at 

Southern Illinois University Carbondale, where he served as Interim Director and Graduate Program Director.
H-1

APPENDIX H. AGGREGATED SERVICE RESPONSES TO DAC-IPAD RFI SETS 3, 4, AND 5

APPENDIX H.

AGGREGATED SERVICE RESPONSES TO 

DAC-IPAD RFI SETS 3, 4, AND 5

Service MCIO Responses to DAC-IPAD RFI Set 3

ADULT-VICTIM SEXUAL ASSAULT (ASA) INVESTIGATIVE CASE DATA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

Fiscal Year 2015 Active Duty

Population by Military Service

Army

491,300

(36%)

Air Force

311,300

(23%)

Navy 

327,900

(24%)

Marine Corps

183,500

(14%)

Coast Guard

36,000

(3%)

MCIO Adult Sexual Assault

(ASA) Case Data for FY16

Army

(CIDC)

Air Force

(AFOSI)

Navy/

Marine Corps

(NCIS)

Coast Guard

(CGIS)

1.

Total number of ASA cases closed 

by MCIOs in FY16 (including cases 

not investigated).

3,225 1,237 1,650 114

MCIO ASA Investigations 

Closed in FY16

Army

(CIDC)

Air Force

(AFOSI)

Navy/

Marine Corps

(NCIS)

Coast Guard

(CGIS)

2.

Total number of ASA cases closed by 

MCIOs in FY16 (including cases not 

investigated).

3,000 1,036 1,203 114a

3. Number of ASA investigations closed 

in FY16 with a military subject. 2,532 1,013b 949 80c

4. Number of ASA investigations closed 

in FY16 with a nonmilitary subject. 241 210 64 13

5. Number of ASA investigations closed 

in FY16 with an unknown subject. 227 88 190 23

6.

Number of ASA investigations closed 

in FY16 with a nonparticipating victim 

witness.

262 169 157h N/A

7.

Total number of ASA cases closed 

without MCIO investigation in FY16 

(information files).

225 201 447 N/A

8.

Number of non-investigated ASA 

cases closed in FY16 with a military 

subject.

2

(3rd-party 

misinterpretation)

197 35 N/A
H-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

MCIO ASA Investigations 

Closed in FY16

Army

(CIDC)

Air Force

(AFOSI)

Navy/

Marine Corps

(NCIS)

Coast Guard

(CGIS)

9.

Number of non-investigated ASA 

cases closed in FY16 with a nonmilitary 

subject.

106 137 61 N/A

10.

Number of non-investigated ASA 

cases closed in FY16 with an unknown 

subject.

117 73 7 N/A

11.

Number of non-investigated 

ASA cases closed in FY16 with a 

nonparticipating victim witness.

0 Unknowne N/A N/A

12.

Number of non-investigated ASA 

cases closed in FY16 with a military 

subject prosecuted by a civilian 

jurisdiction for a sex offense.

0 0 11d N/A

Military Subject ASA Investigations

Closed in FY16

Army

(CIDC)

Air Force

(AFOSI)

Navy/

Marine Corps

(NCIS)

Coast Guard

(CGIS)

13.

Number of ASA investigations of 

military subjects in which at least one 

sex offense charge was preferred.

482 Unknownf 181d 16

14.

Number of ASA investigations of 

military subjects in which sex offense 

charges were not preferred but nonsex offense charge(s) were preferred.

16 Unknown 21d 1

15.

Number of investigations of military 

subjects in which sex offense charges 

were not preferred but administrative 

or NJP action was taken for at least 

one sex offense.

1,045 Unknown 140d 37

16.

Number of investigations of military 

subjects in which sex offense charges 

were not preferred but administrative 

or NJP action was taken for non-sex 

offense(s) only.

9 Unknown 164d 0

17.

Number of investigations of military 

subjects in which sex offense charges 

were not preferred and no further 

action was taken for any offense.

907g

(182 

Non-participating)

Unknown 448d 26

18.

Number of investigations with a 

military subject in which sex offense 

charges were not preferred and 

subject was prosecuted by a civilian 

jurisdiction for a sex offense.

73

(8 other Service

Members)

Unknown 11d 0
H-3

APPENDIX H. AGGREGATED SERVICE RESPONSES TO DAC-IPAD RFI SETS 3, 4, AND 5

Source: Service MCIOs

a. CGIS Note: CGIS cases are classified as ‘closed-referred’ when the investigation is completed. Findings from investigations involving military 

subjects are forwarded, or ‘referred,’ to the accused member’s Command and the servicing Legal office for adjudication decisions. Once the 

Command makes that adjudication decision, the CGIS investigation is then classified as ‘closed.’ Naturally, if the Command desires additional 

investigation prior to making their adjudication decision, CGIS re-opens the case and conducts the needed investigative steps.

b. AFOSI Note: An investigation may be counted multiple times. Example: 1) A case may have been initiated as an unknown subject case but 

later resulted in a subject being identified. This would result in a case being counted in two different categories. 2) A case could be counted in all 

three categories when there were multiple subjects: one unknown subject, one civilian subject and military subject.

c. CGIS Note: # 3 - 5 = 116 (INCLUDES 2 INVESTIGATIONS W/1 MIL SUBJECT & 1 NON-MIL SUBJECT.)

d. NCIS Note: Information is derived from the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database and only includes cases of non-intimate partner adult 

sexual assaults.

e. AFOSI Note: Data for victim participation are not captured for AFOSI Informational Files in AFOSI’s investigation management system.

f. AFOSI Note: Data pertaining to charges and preferrals are not captured in AFOSI’s investigation management systems. This information is 

available for active duty suspects in the Air Force’s Automated Military Justice Analysis & Management System (AMJAMS). AFOSI can assist in 

providing case numbers, names and social security numbers of the suspects to help facilitate AMJAMS searches.

g. CIDC Note: There are various reasons for ‘no action taken,’ including: beyond the statute of limitations; victim declined to participate; 

insufficient evidence to meet the elements of proof; no probable cause determination; third party misinterpretation of the events, etc.

h. NCIS Note: Information is derived from the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database and only includes cases of non-intimate partner adult 

sexual assaults.

RFI Definitions:

• A closed case means the investigation, if conducted, is complete and a final action has been taken.

• An adult sexual assault allegation means 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 as defined by DoDI 5505.18, 

Investigation of Adult Sexual Assault in the Department of Defense.

• Closed in FY16 means the investigation or information file was closed between October 1, 2015, and 

September 30, 2016, regardless of the date the allegation was made or investigation opened.
H-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Consolidated Service Responses to DAC-IPAD RFI Set 4 Question 5, Attachment A

TABLE 1

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 Transfer Requests Denied 

or Withdrawn 12 5 8 3 1 29

% 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

% of Service Member Unrestricted Reports 

Requesting Transfers 17% 32% 22% 28% 16% 23%

TABLE 2

APPROVAL RATE FOR EXPEDITED TRANSFER REQUESTS IN FISCAL YEAR 2016

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Approved 263 95% Approved 292 97% Approved 90 92% Approved 203 99% Approved 17 94%

Approved/Delete 1 Disapproved 10 Denied 5 Disapproved 3 Disapproved 1

Disapproved 2 302 Rescinded 3 206 18

Intra Post Move 2 98

NOT CREDIBLE 6

NOT ELIGIBLE 1

Withdrawal 1

276
H-5

APPENDIX H. AGGREGATED SERVICE RESPONSES TO DAC-IPAD RFI SETS 3, 4, AND 5

TABLE 3

PERCENTAGE OF APPROVED EXPEDITED TRANSFERS RECEIVING REQUESTED LOCATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 2016

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

89% 78% 72% 90% 76%

TABLE 4

EXPEDITED TRANSFER APPROVAL DECISION MAKER

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Decision-Maker Rank Decision-Maker Rank Decision-Maker Rank Decision-Maker Rank Decision-Maker Rank

MG 235 CAPT 289 LtCol 4 O-6 165 O-6 17

COL 1 RDML 10 CDR 2 CV 19 O-7 1

UNK 40 CDR 3 CG 2 O-7 15 18

276 302 Col 1 GS-14 1

Blank 89 GS-15 2

98 O-8 3

N/A 1

206
H-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 5

SVC/VLC REPRESENTATION OF SERVICE MEMBERS REQUESTING EXPEDITED TRANSFER IN FISCAL YEAR 2016

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Y – Y 300 Y – Y – Y –

N – N 2 N – N – N –

Blank 276 302 Blank 98 Blank 206 Blank 18

276 98 206 18

TABLE 6

SEX OF INDIVIDUAL 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%

276 302 98 206 18
H-7

APPENDIX H. AGGREGATED SERVICE RESPONSES TO DAC-IPAD RFI SETS 3, 4, AND 5

TABLE 7

FISCAL YEAR 2016 EXPEDITED TRANSFER TIMELINES

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Time from Date of SA

Report to ET Request

Time from Date of SA

Report to ET Request

Time from Date of SA

Report to ET Request

Time from Date of SA

Report to ET Request

Time from Date of SA

Report to ET Request

0 - 3 Days 24 9% 0 - 3 Days 76 25% 0 - 3 Days 17 17% 0 - 3 Days 23 11% 0 - 3 Days 2 11%

4 - 30 Days 126 46% 4 - 30 Days 85 28% 4 - 30 Days 23 23% 4 - 30 Days 41 20% 4 - 30 Days 5 28%

31 - 180 Days 80 29% 31 - 180 Days 85 28% 31 - 180 Days 32 33% 31 - 180 Days 38 18% 31 - 180 Days 0 0%

180 - 365 Days 22 180 - 365 Days 38 180 - 365 Days 10 180 - 365 Days 10 296 - 343 Days 3

366 - 697 Days 10 366 - 578 Days 9 366 - 697 Days 9 366 - 641 Days 7 Blank/

UNK/N/A 8

906 - 1178 Days 2 712 - 1144 Days 3 Blank/

UNK/N/A 7 769 Days 1 18

Blank/

UNK/N/A 12 Blank/UNK/N/A 6 98 Blank/UNK/N/A 86

276 302 206

Time from ET Request 

to Approval Decision

Time from ET Request 

to Approval Decision

Time from ET Request 

to Approval Decision

Time from ET Request 

to Approval Decision

Time from ET Request 

to Approval Decision

0 - 3 Days 106 38% 0 - 3 Days 233 77% 0 - 3 Days 85 87% 0 - 3 Days 190 92% 0 - 3 Days 3 17%

4 - 6 Days 74 27% 4 - 6 Days 30 10% 4 - 6 Days 4 4% 4 - 6 Days 7 3% 4 - 6 Days 9 50%

7 - 10 Days 51 7 - 10 Days 15 7 - 10 Days 1 7 - 10 Days 2 7 - 10 Days 1

11 - 35 Days 43 11 - 36 Days 11 11 - 35 Days 2 11 - 35 Days 7 11 - 19 Days 5

Blank/

UNK/N/A 2 Blank/UNK/N/A 13 Blank/

UNK/N/A 6 206 18

276 302 98

Time from ET Approval

Decision to Transfer

Time from ET Approval

Decision to Transfer

Time from ET Approval

Decision to Transfer

Time from ET Approval

Decision to Transfer

Time from ET Approval

Decision to Transfer

0 - 3 Days 6 0 - 3 Days 154 0 - 3 Days 22 0 - 3 Days 7 0 - 3 Days 12

31 - 60 Days 91 31 - 60 Days 128 31 - 60 Days 56 31 - 60 Days 66 31 - 55 Days 4

61 - 90 Days 92 61 - 90 Days 10 61 - 90 Days 3 61 - 90 Days 113 Blank/

UNK/N/A 2

91 - 120 Days 3 91 - 120 Days 0 91 - 120 Days 0 91 - 120 Days 7 18

408 - 456 Days 30 147 - 170 Days 2 121 - 398 days 3 137 - 324 Days 4

Blank/

UNK/N/A 54 Blank/

UNK/N/A 8 Blank/UNK/N/A 14 Blank 9

276 302 98 206
H-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 8

FISCAL YEAR 2016 ORIGINATING INSTALLATIONS OF EXPEDITED TRANSFER REQUESTS

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

FT Campbell, KY 21 USS GEORGE 

BUSH (CVN 77) 14 Okinawa, Japan 24 RAMSTEIN 12 Locations with 2 transfers 1

FT Hood, TX 20 USS RONALD 

REAGAN (CVN 76) 9 Camp Lejeune, NC 19 ELLSWORTH 10 Locations with 1 transfer 16

FT Bragg, NC 19

USS GUNSTON 

HALL (LSD-44) 

HAMPTON RDS VA

7 Camp Pendleton, 

CA 13 DOVER 9 18

FT Bliss, TX 17 USS NIMITZ 7 Twentynine Palms, 

CA 5 HICKAM 9

FT Riley, KS 16 USS EISENHOWER 6 Locations with 

4 transfers 0 MALMSTROM 7

JBLM, WA 16 USS PEARL 

HARBOR (LSD 52) 6 Locations with 3 transfers 3 WRIGHT PATTERSON 7

FT Drum, NY 13 USS BONHOMME 

RICHARD (LHD-6) 5 Locations with 2 transfers 6 AVIANO 6

FT Carson, CO 12 Locations with 

4 transfers 4 Locations with 1 transfer 16 MINOT 6

Schofield Barracks, 

HI 11 Locations with 3 transfers 5 98 HOLLOMAN 5

Camp Humphreys, 

Korea 9 Locations with 2 transfers 27 LANGLEY 5

FT Polk, LA 7 Locations with 

1 transfer 163 LAUGHLIN 5

FT Sill, OK 7 302 MOODY 5

FT Stewart, GA 7 MOUNTAIN 

HOME 5

Camp Casey, 

Korea 6 Locations with 4 transfers 6

FT Irwin, CA 5 Locations with 

3 transfers 14

FT Knox, KY 5 Locations with 

2 transfers 11

Locations with 

4 transfers 3 Locations with 1 transfer 24

Locations with 

3 transfers 6 206

Locations with 

2 transfers 12

Locations with 

1 transfer 29

276
H-9

APPENDIX H. AGGREGATED SERVICE RESPONSES TO DAC-IPAD RFI SETS 3, 4, AND 5

TABLE 9

FISCAL YEAR 2016 DESTINATION INSTALLATIONS OF EXPEDITED TRANSFERS

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

FT Carson, CO 26 NAVMEDCEN 

SAN DIEGO CA 14 Camp Pendleton, CA 14 NELLIS AFB 11 Locations rec. 1 transfer 17

FT Hood, TX 22 NAVMEDCEN 

PORTSMOUTH 10 Camp Lejeune, NC 11 MACDILL AFB 11 N/A 1

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

JBLM, 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 Locations rec. 4 transfers 1 LANGLEY AFB 7

FT Lee, VA 8 USS HARRY S TRUMAN

NORVA 5 Locations rec. 3 transfers 1 HURLBURT FIELD 7

Hunter AAF, GA 8 Locations rec. 4 transfers 4 Locations rec. 

2 transfers 4 CHARLESTON AFB 7

FT Riley, KS 7 Locations rec. 3 transfers 11 Locations rec. 

1 transfer 18 TYNDALL AFB 6

FT Irwin, CA 6 Locations rec. 2 transfers 28 N/A 5 SHAW AFB 6

FT Knox, KY 6 Locations rec. 1 transfer 118 Blank 1 PATRICK AFB 5

FT Meade, MD 6 N/A 3 EDWARDS AFB 5

FT Benning, GA 5 DEMOBILIZED TO 

HOME 1 BEALE AFB 5

FT Bliss, TX 5 Blank 2 BARKSDALE AFB 5

Locations rec. 

4 transfers 5 Locations rec. 4 transfers 6

Locations rec. 

3 transfers 4 Locations rec. 3 transfers 4

Locations rec. 

2 transfers 2 Locations rec. 

2 transfers 14

Locations rec. 

1 transfer 13 Locations rec. 1 transfer 16

Local Move 26 Local Move 1

Req. Orders Deletion 1 Withdrew 1

Req. Redeploy/DEMOB 1 Blank 5

Approved Delete 1

ADVERSE ACTION 3

NotQualified to Move 1

N/A 11

UNK 2

Blank 6

Approved Delete 1
H-10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 10

FY 2016 EXPEDITED TRANSFER REQUESTS — RELATED SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE DISPOSITIONS

Army Navy 

Dispositions of Approved Requests Dispositions of Approved Requests 

Court-Martial Charge Preferred 62 Court-Martial Charges Preferred: Outcome Unknown 6 

Courts-Martial charge preferred for nonsexual assault 

offense 1 Court-Martial Charges Preferred: Convicted of SA Offense 2 

Non-Judicial Punishment 18 Court-Martial Charges Preferred: Convicted of Non SA Offense 8 

Non-judicial punishment for non-sexual assault offense 21 Non-Judicial Punishment - Article 120 Contact Offense 13 

Administrative Discharge 8 Non-judicial punishment for non-sexual assault offense 36 

Administrative discharge for non-sexual assault offense 5 Administrative Discharge 4 

Other Adverse Administrative Action 8 Other Administrative Action 6 

Other adverse administrative actions for non-sexual 

assault offense 3 Insufficient evidence 55 

Insufficient Evidence to Prosecute Any Offense 42 Unfounded 13 

Report was not substantiated 1 Victim declination 8 

Unfounded by Investigative Agency 15 Victim declination and Insufficient evidence 8 

Offender is Unknown 32 Unknown Subject 18 

Victim Declined to Participate in Military Justice Action 5 Victim declination and Unknown Subject 26 

Subject is a Civilian or Foreign National 5 Subject was convicted in civilian court of sexual battery 1 

A Civilian/Foreign authority is Prosecuting Service Member 4 Local civilian prosecutors declined to take action or charges 

dismissed 2 

Statute of Limitations Expired - No jurisdiciton 2 The Special Assistant U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute 1 

No investigation: Alleged perpetrator not subject to the UCMJ 2 Victim previously reported this misconduct and Subject had 

received NJP three years prior 1 

No DSAID Case 6 Left Blank 84 

No investigation listed in DSAID: Blank field 1 292 

No investigation: Other 4 Disposition of Denied Requests 

Subject from Other Service 2 Non-judicial punishment for non-sexual offense 1 

Investigation has not been completed 5 Victim declination and Unknown Subject 1 

Command action pending 12 Insufficient evidence 3 

264 Unknown Subject 1 

Disposition of Denied/Withdrawn Requests Unfounded 1 

Courts-Martial Charge Preferred 3 Left Blank 3 

Non-judicial punishment for non-sexual assault offense 1 10 

Other Adverse Administrative Action 1 

Offender is Unknown 5 

No investigation: Alleged perpetrator not subject to the UCMJ 1

No DSAID Case 1

12
H-11

APPENDIX H. AGGREGATED SERVICE RESPONSES TO DAC-IPAD RFI SETS 3, 4, AND 5

Marine Corps Air Force Coast Guard

Dispositions of Approved Requests Dispositions of Approved Requests Dispositions of Approved Requests

Court-Martial Charges Preferred 14 Court-Martial Charge Preferred 27 Charges Preferred - GCM 3

Courts-Martial charge preferred for nonsexual 

assault offense 5 Courts-Martial charge preferred for nonsexual assault offense 1 Charges Preferred - SPCM 4

Non-Judicial Punishment 1 Non-Judicial Punishment 6 NJP for non-sexual assault 2

Non-judicial punishment for non-sexual assault 

offense 13 Non-judicial punishment for non-sexual assault offense 4 Administrative Discharge 3

Non-judicial punishment for non-sexual assault 

offense/Insufficient Evidence of Any Offense 1 Non-Judicial Punishment; Victim Declined to Participate in Military Justice Action 1 SA-IDA determined not to prosecute

2

Administrative discharge 2 Administrative Discharge 1 No charges, victim 

declined to participate 1

Administrative discharge for non-sexual assault 

offense 1 Other Adverse Administrative Action 4 Civilian suspect, USAO declined prosecution 1

Other Adverse Administrative Action 2 Insufficient Evidence of Any Offense 9 Pending disposition 1

Other adverse administrative actions for nonsexual 

assault offense 2 Unfounded 3 17

Insufficient Evidence of Any Offense 11 Victim Declined to Participate in Military 

Justice Action 19 Disposition of Denied Requests

Unfound by Command 4 Offender is Unknown 4 No Suspect Identified 1

Victim declined to participate in military justic action 3 Subject Died or Deserted 1

No subject identified 2 Subject is a Civilian or Foreign National 4

No subject identified/Courts-Martial Charge 

Preferred 1 A Civilian/Foreign authority is Prosecuting Service Member 3

No Subject Information 4 Alleged perpetrator not subject to 

the UCMJ 1

No subject titled 1 Incident occurred prior to victim’s military 

service 1

Offender is Unknown 9 Case Pending or Information Not Available 114

Case is not managed by the Marine Corps 3 203

Subject is a Civilian or Foreign National 3 Disposition of Denied Requests

Pending 8 Non-judicial punishment for non-sexual 

assault offense 1

90 Offender is Unknown 1

Disposition of Denied/Withdrawn Requests Case Pending or Information Not Available 1

Other adverse administrative action for nonsexual 

assault offense 1 3

No Subject Disposition Information 1

Offender is Unknown 1

Subject is a civilian or foreign national 2

Case is not managed by the Marine Corps 2

Pending 1

8
H-12

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Combined Service Responses to DAC-IPAD RFI Set 4, Question 6

SEXUAL ASSAULT-RELATED TRANSFERS OF SERVICE MEMBERS ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ASSAULT

Question 6 (Services): Please provide a list of all sexual assault-related transfers of Service members accused 

of sexual assault in FY16, including an identification number (DSAID number, if available) for each transfer 

that can be used by DoD and the Services to provide additional information about a specific transfer or the 

underlying sexual assault case if requested by the DAC-IPAD at a later date.

Army Response:

The Army does not centrally track transfers of Soldiers accused of sexual assault 

and is unable to provide the requested data. Pursuant to Army policy, only victims 

are entitled to request expedited transfers. If a victim requests an expedited 

transfer, a commander may consider transferring an accused Soldier instead. 

Accused Soldiers are typically transferred within the same General Court-Martial 

Convening Authority to maintain jurisdiction under the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice. These transfers would occur locally on an installation without notice to 

Headquarters, Department of the Army.

Navy Response:

Navy is not required by higher authority to track sexual assault related transfers of 

Service members accused of sexual assault, nor does Navy does not currently have 

a mechanism for tracking such transfers. 

Marine Corps Response:

Commanders retain the discretion to transfer an accused Service Member within a 

unit but away from the victim out of safety concerns or to maintain good order and 

discipline. These moves are usually intra-unit so our people at Manpower would 

not track these moves. 

The Military Justice Branch compiled the response data by reviewing our SARR 

Forms. Some of the fields in the form are empty because our form does not track 

the accused job title, transfer installation, accused job title at new location, date of 

transfer, or if transfer was permanent or temporary.

[23 transfers of members accused of sexual assault in FY16]

Air Force Response:

[7 transfers of members accused of sexual assault in FY16]

Coast Guard Response:

[2 transfers of members accused of sexual assault in FY16]
H-13

APPENDIX H. AGGREGATED SERVICE RESPONSES TO DAC-IPAD RFI SETS 3, 4, AND 5

Service MCIO Responses to DAC-IPAD RFI Set 5, Question 1

ADULT-VICTIM SEXUAL ASSAULT (ASA) INVESTIGATIONS CLOSED BY MCIOS IN FISCAL YEAR 2017

Classification of Investigations and Subjects Army 

(CIDC)

Navy/

Marine 

Corps 

(NCIS)

Air Force 

(AFOSI)

Coast 

Guard 

(CGIS)

TOTAL 

(DoD and 

Coast 

Guard)

Percentage 

of Total 

Investigations

Total number of ASA investigations closed in FY17. 2,710 2,135 1,274 95 6,214 100%

Number of ASA cases that were closed as 

information only. 336 657 338 27 1,358 22%

Number of ASA investigations closed in FY17 with a 

military subject. 1,779 1,156 745 71 3,751 60%

Number of ASA investigations closed in FY17 with 

multiple military subjects. 86 38 22 – 146 2%

Number of ASA investigations closed in FY17 with a 

non-military subject. 252 100 164 3 519 8%

Number of ASA investigations closed in FY17 with 

an unknown subject. 257 184 69 19 529 9%

Number of ASA investigations closed in FY17 with a 

penetrative offense and a military subject. 828 708 415 35 1,986 32%
H-14

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
I-1

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

APPENDIX I.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF 

SEXUAL OFFENSES RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD 

CASE ADJUDICATION 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.

The following tables provide a general overview of data contained in the DAC-IPAD database for fiscal years 

2015–17 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.

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Tables 1 and 2 provide general description and demographic overview of the data contained in the database. 

BIVARIATE ANALYSES

Tables 4 through 18 present the results of analyses that estimate relationships between case characteristics and 

case-processing outcomes. These analyses provide the opportunity to better understand why patterns of case 

outcomes are observed. Tables 3 through 13 present patterns of relationships between two variables. These 

are known as bivariate relationships because the focus is on two variables: one is an outcome variable and the 

other is a predictor variable that can help explain the outcome. Tables 14 to 17 present patterns of relationships 

between multiple variables. These are known as multivariate relationships because the focus is on multiple 

variables: one is the outcome variable and several predictor variables help explain the outcome. Outcome 

variables are also known as dependent variables, and predictor variables are also called independent variables. 

The purpose of estimating bivariate relationships and multivariate relationships is to gain an understanding 

about why certain patterns of results are observed. 

Analyses of bivariate relationships provide an initial overview of relationships between key variables—for 

example, type of offense charge and conviction result. These examinations are limited because our outcomes 

of interest are complex and are affected by many variables. Multivariate models represent a second step, after 

bivariate relationships are estimated. Multivariate models allow for the inclusion of multiple variables in the 
I-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

model in order to examine relationships between one outcome, such as conviction, and several predictor 

variables, such a military service branch, the relationship between the accused and the victim, and the offense 

charge. Predictor variables may be related to our outcome of interest (i.e., conviction or not) and to the other 

predictor variable of interest; multivariate models are therefore useful, because they employ mathematical 

formulas to isolate the part of each predicator that is truly related to the outcome variable and not the other 

predictor variables. When a predictor variable is uniquely and strongly related to an outcome variable after being 

separated from its relationship with the other predictor variables in the model, we conclude that the relationship 

is “statistically significant.” That is, the relationship observed between a predictor and an outcome would likely 

be observed over different samples of cases; the relationship is not due to random chance. In other words, we 

conclude that the relationship truly exists and is not an artifact of the sample of data we examined. 

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES

Two types of multivariate regression models are used because the key outcome (dependent) variables of interest 

are of two types: dichotomous, with only two categories, or continuous, characterized by numerical values 

rather than categories. When dependent variables are dichotomous, logistic regression models are appropriate. 

Ordinary least squares (OLS) models are used when dependent variables are continuous. 

Several predictor variables of interest have attributes that are captured by categories, not numbers. An example is 

Service of the accused. This variable has five categories: Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy. 

Entering categorical variables into regression models requires that one category serves as the reference category 

against which all other categories are compared. It is necessary to change the reference category to make all 

relevant comparisons. In the model results presented below, Army serves as the first reference category for the 

accused’s Service branch. The models are then re-estimated as each of the other branches serves as the reference 

category and is compared to the others. 
I-3

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 1A. 

CASE CHARACTERISTICS (FY 2015)

n %

FY 2015 Total Cases 780

Military Service of the Accused

Army 347 44.5

Marine Corps 105 13.5

Navy 122 15.6

Air Force 174 22.3

Coast Guard 32 4.1

Rank of Accused

Enlisted 722 92.6

Officer 58 7.4

Pay Grade of Accused

Enlisted 722

E-1 30 4.2

E-2 43 6.0

E-3 159 22.0

E-4 187 25.9

E-5 156 21.6

E-6 87 12.0

E-7 46 6.4

E-8 8 1.1

E-9 6 0.8

Officer 58

Cadet/Midshipman 3 5.2

W-1 1 1.7

W-2 1 1.7

W-3 2 3.4

W-4 0 0.0

W-5 1 1.7

O-1 3 5.2

O-2 11 19.0

O-3 20 34.5

O-4 12 20.7

O-5 3 5.2

O-6 1 1.7

O-7 0 0.0

O-8 0 0.0

O-9 0 0.0

O-10 0 0.0
I-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Sex of Accused

Male 774 99.2

Female 6 0.8

Location of Unit to Which Accused Assigned When Charges Preferred

CONUS 532 68.2

OCONUS 195 25.0

Vessel 53 6.8

Sex of Victim(s)

All Female 708 90.8

All Male 69 8.8

Female and Male 3 0.4

Status of Victim(s)

All Military 526 67.4

All Civilian 223 28.6

Military and Civilian 31 4.0

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense

Yes 558 71.5

No 222 28.5

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense

Yes 147 26.3

No 411 73.7

Accused Charged with Contact Offense

Yes 222 28.5

No 558 71.5

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense

Yes 44 19.8

No 178 80.2
I-5

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 1B.

CASE CHARACTERISTICS (FY 2016)

n %

FY 2016 Total Cases 768

Military Service of the Accused

Army 278 36.2

Marine Corps 123 16.0

Navy 126 16.4

Air Force 218 28.4

Coast Guard 23 3.0

Rank of Accused

Enlisted 723 94.1

Officer 45 5.9

Pay Grade of Accused

Enlisted 723

E-1 22 3.0

E-2 48 6.6

E-3 154 21.3

E-4 196 27.1

E-5 141 19.5

E-6 90 12.4

E-7 49 6.8

E-8 17 2.4

E-9 6 0.8

Officer 45

Cadet/Midshipman 5 11.1

W-1 1 2.2

W-2 6 13.3

W-3 0 0.0

W-4 0 0.0

W-5 0 0.0

O-1 1 2.2

O-2 2 4.4

O-3 17 37.8

O-4 6 13.3

O-5 4 8.9

O-6 3 6.7

O-7 0 0.0
I-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

O-8 0 0.0

O-9 0 0.0

O-10 0 0.0

Sex of Accused

Male 764 99.5

Female 4 0.5

Location of Unit to Which Accused Assigned When Charges Preferred

CONUS 542 70.6

OCONUS 174 22.7

Vessel 52 6.8

Sex of Victim(s)

All Female 721 93.9

All Male 44 5.7

Female and Male 3 0.4

Status of Victim(s)

All Military 469 61.1

All Civilian 268 34.9

Military and Civilian 31 4.0

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense

Yes 579 75.4

No 189 24.6

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense

Yes 106 18.3

No 473 81.7

Accused Charged with Contact Offense

Yes 189 24.6

No 579 75.4

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense

Yes 29 15.3

No 160 84.7
I-7

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 1C.

CASE CHARACTERISTICS (FY 2017)

n %

FY 2017 Total Cases 658

Military Service of the Accused

Army 278 42.2

Marine Corps 73 11.1

Navy 125 19.0

Air Force 162 24.6

Coast Guard 20 3.0

Rank of Accused

Enlisted 607 92.2

Officer 51 7.8

Pay Grade of Accused

Enlisted 607

E-1 36 5.9

E-2 34 5.6

E-3 129 21.3

E-4 158 26.0

E-5 110 18.1

E-6 76 12.5

E-7 51 8.4

E-8 13 2.1

E-9 0 0.0

Officer 51

Cadet/Midshipman 10 19.6

W-1 1 2.0

W-2 4 7.8

W-3 2 3.9

W-4 1 2.0

W-5 0 0.0

O-1 1 2.0

O-2 8 15.7

O-3 16 31.4

O-4 2 3.9

O-5 5 9.8

O-6 1 2.0

O-7 0 0.0

O-8 0 0.0
I-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

O-9 0 0.0

O-10 0 0.0

Sex of Accused

Male 653 99.2

Female 5 0.8

Location of Unit to Which Accused Assigned When Charges Preferred

CONUS 477 72.5

OCONUS 126 19.1

Vessel 55 8.4

Sex of Victim(s)

All Female 613 93.2

All Male 40 6.1

Female and Male 5 0.8

Status of Victim(s)

All Military 400 60.8

All Civilian 231 35.1

Military and Civilian 27 4.1

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense

Yes 485 73.7

No 173 26.3

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense

Yes 98 20.2

No 387 79.8

Accused Charged with Contact Offense

Yes 173 26.3

No 485 73.7

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense

Yes 23 13.3

No 150 86.7
I-9

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 2A.

CASE DISPOSITIONS AND CASE OUTCOMES (FY 2015)

n %

FY 2015 Total Cases 780

Type of Court-Martial

General Court-Martial 438 78.6

Special Court-Martial 77 13.8

Summary Court-Martial 42 7.5

Not Applicable 223

Type of Trial Forum

Military Judge 295 53.1

Panel of Military Members 219 39.4

Summary Court-Martial Officer 42 7.6

Not Applicable/Unknown 224

Article 32 Hearing Held

Yes 540 69.2

Waived 58 7.4

No/Not Applicable 182 23.3

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 558

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 146 26.2

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 13 2.3

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 122 21.9

Alternative Disposition 80 14.3

Acquitted of All Charges 116 20.8

Dismissed Without Judicial Action 81 14.5

(After Article 32 Hearing) 64 79.0

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 222

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 44 19.8

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 90 40.5

Alternative Disposition 47 21.2

Acquitted of All Charges 26 11.7

Dismissed Without Judicial Action 15 6.8

(After Article 32 Hearing) 9 60.0

Outcomes for Cases Referred to Trial

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 397

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 146 36.8

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 13 3.3

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 122 30.7

Acquitted of All Charges 116 29.2
I-10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 160

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 44 27.5

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 90 56.3

Acquitted of All Charges 26 16.3

Outcomes for Contested Trials

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 345

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 101 29.3

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 6 1.7

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 122 35.4

Acquitted of All Charges 116 33.6

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 146

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 30 20.5

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 90 61.6

Acquitted of All Charges 26 17.8

TABLE 2B.

CASE DISPOSITIONS AND CASE OUTCOMES (FY 2016)

n %

FY 2016 Total Cases 768

Type of Court-Martial

General Court-Martial 399 81.1

Special Court-Martial 65 13.2

Summary Court-Martial 28 5.7

Not Applicable 276

Type of Trial Forum

Military Judge 249 50.6

Panel of Military Members 215 43.7

Summary Court-Martial Officer 28 5.7

Not Applicable/Unknown 276

Article 32 Hearing Held

Yes 496 64.6

Waived 133 17.3

No/Not Applicable 139 18.1

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 579

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 106 18.3

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 24 4.1

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 104 18.0

Alternative Disposition 98 16.9
I-11

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

Acquitted of All Charges 141 24.4

Dismissed Without Judicial Action 106 18.3

(After Article 32 Hearing) 76 71.7

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 189

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 29 15.3

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 72 38.1

Alternative Disposition 49 25.9

Acquitted of All Charges 16 8.5

Dismissed Without Judicial Action 23 12.2

(After Article 32 Hearing) 7 30.4

Outcomes for Cases Referred to Trial

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 375

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 106 28.3

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 24 6.4

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 104 27.7

Acquitted of All Charges 141 37.6

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 117

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 29 24.8

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 72 61.5

Acquitted of All Charges 16 13.7

Outcomes for Contested Trials

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 334

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 80 24.0

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 9 2.7

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 104 31.1

Acquitted of All Charges 141 42.2

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 106

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 18 17.0

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 72 67.9

Acquitted of All Charges 16 15.1
I-12

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 2C.

CASE DISPOSITIONS AND CASE OUTCOMES (FY 2017)

n %

FY 2017 Total Cases 658

Type of Court-Martial

General Court-Martial 328 76.6

Special Court-Martial 77 18.0

Summary Court-Martial 23 5.4

Not Applicable 230

Type of Trial Forum

Military Judge 232 54.2

Panel of Military Members 173 40.4

Summary Court-Martial Officer 23 5.4

Not Applicable/Unknown 230

Article 32 Hearing Held

Yes 400 60.8

Waived 115 17.5

No/Not Applicable 143 21.7

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 485

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 98 20.2

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 16 3.3

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 101 20.8

Alternative Disposition 95 19.6

Acquitted of All Charges 97 20.0

Dismissed Without Judicial Action 78 16.1

(After Article 32 Hearing) 62 79.5

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 173

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 23 13.3

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 71 41.0

Alternative Disposition 44 25.4

Acquitted of All Charges 22 12.7

Dismissed Without Judicial Action 13 7.5

(After Article 32 Hearing) 7 53.8

Outcomes for Cases Referred to Trial

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 312

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 98 31.4

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 16 5.1

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 101 32.4

Acquitted of All Charges 97 31.1
I-13

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 116

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 23 19.8

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 71 61.2

Acquitted of All Charges 22 19.0

Outcomes for Contested Trials

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense 273

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 68 24.9

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 7 2.6

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 101 37.0

Acquitted of All Charges 97 35.5

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense 104

Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense 11 10.6

Convicted of Non-Sex Offense 71 68.3

Acquitted of All Charges 22 21.2

TABLE 3A.

ARTICLE 32 WAIVER (FY 2015)

n %

FY 2015 Total Cases 780

Art. 32 Held 540 90.3

Art. 32 Waived 58 9.7

Waived Without Pretrial Agreement 30 51.7

Waived When Involving Contact Offense 11 19.0

Waived When Involving Penetrative Offense 47 81.0

Conviction Rate When Art. 32 Waived 46 79.3

TABLE 3B.

ARTICLE 32 WAIVER (FY 2016)

n %

FY 2016 Total Cases 768

Art. 32 Held 496 78.9

Art. 32 Waived 133 21.1

Waived Without Pretrial Agreement 92 69.2

Waived When Involving Contact Offense 21 15.8

Waived When Involving Penetrative Offense 112 84.2

Conviction Rate When Art. 32 Waived 62 46.6
I-14

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 3C.

ARTICLE 32 WAIVER (FY 2017)

n %

FY 2017 Total Cases 658

Art. 32 Held 400 77.7

Art. 32 Waived 115 22.3

Waived Without Pretrial Agreement 66 57.4

Waived When Involving Contact Offense 19 16.5

Waived When Involving Penetrative Offense 96 83.5

Conviction Rate When Art. 32 Waived 71 61.7

TABLE 4A.

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

374 94.2 13 3.3 10 2.5

Accused Charged with Contact 

Offense

64 40.0 64 40.0 32 20.0

Military Service

Army 221 88.8 17 6.8 11 4.4

Marine Corps 49 65.3 13 17.3 13 17.3

Navy 59 62.8 27 28.7 8 8.5

Air Force 98 86.7 13 11.5 2 1.8

Coast Guard 11 42.3 7 26.9 8 30.8

Rank of Accused

Officer 45 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Enlisted 393 76.8 77 15.0 42 8.2
I-15

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 4B.

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

348 92.8 16 4.3 11 2.9

Accused Charged with Contact 

Offense

51 43.6 49 41.9 17 14.5

Military Service

Army 187 92.6 11 5.4 4 2.0

Marine Corps 50 60.2 23 27.7 10 12.0

Navy 52 62.7 22 26.5 9 10.8

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 33 97.1 1 2.9 0 0.0

Enlisted 366 79.9 64 14.0 28 6.1

TABLE 4C.

TYPE OF TRIAL BY OFFENSE TYPE, SERVICE, AND RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2017)

General Court-Martial Special Court-Martial Summary Court-Martial

n % n % n %

Most Serious Type of Offense Charged

Accused Charged with Penetrative 

Offense

289 92.6 13 4.2 10 3.2

Accused Charged with Contact 

Offense

39 33.6 64 55.2 13 11.2

Military Service

Army 166 89.2 11 5.9 9 4.8

Marine Corps 27 50.0 21 38.9 6 11.1

Navy 54 61.4 30 34.1 4 4.5

Air Force 74 88.1 10 11.9 0 0.0

Coast Guard 7 43.8 5 31.3 4 25.0

Rank of Accused

Officer 36 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Enlisted 292 74.5 77 19.6 23 5.9
I-16

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 5A.

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

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 558)

Army

n = 264 88 33.3 4 1.5 60 22.7 44 16.7 50 18.9 18 6.8

Marine Corps

n = 72 11 15.3 5 6.9 21 29.2 14 19.4 4 5.6 17 23.6

Navy

n = 67 18 26.9 1 1.5 14 20.9 18 26.9 3 4.5 13 19.4

Air Force

n = 136 25 18.4 3 2.2 17 12.5 39 28.7 21 15.4 31 22.8

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 = 222)

Army

n = 83 20 24.1 25 30.1 8 9.6 27 32.5 3 3.6

Marine Corps

n = 33 2 6.1 22 66.7 0 0.0 3 9.1 6 18.2

Navy

n = 55 12 21.8 21 38.2 10 18.2 8 14.5 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 = 13 1 7.7 10 76.9 0 0.0 1 7.7 1 7.7
I-17

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 5B.

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

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 579)

Army

n = 222 58 26.1 15 6.8 43 19.4 50 22.5 30 13.5 26 11.7

Marine Corps

n = 85 13 15.3 4 4.7 23 27.1 14 16.5 13 15.3 18 21.2

Navy

n = 78 15 19.2 2 2.6 18 23.1 18 23.1 11 14.1 14 17.9

Air Force

n = 180 17 9.4 3 1.7 13 7.2 57 31.7 43 23.9 47 26.1

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 = 189)

Army

n = 56 12 21.4 18 32.1 6 10.7 16 28.6 4 7.1

Marine Corps

n = 38 3 7.9 24 63.2 2 5.3 4 10.5 5 13.2

Navy

n = 48 9 18.8 17 35.4 4 8.3 8 16.7 10 20.8

Air Force

n = 38 3 7.9 9 23.7 4 10.5 18 47.4 4 10.5

Coast Guard

n = 9 2 22.2 4 44.4 0 0.0 3 33.3 0 0.0
I-18

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 2017)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 485)

Army

n = 223 56 25.1 10 4.5 48 21.5 33 14.8 53 23.8 23 10.3

Marine Corps

n = 44 8 18.2 1 2.3 19 43.2 8 18.2 2 4.5 6 13.6

Navy

n = 73 12 16.4 5 6.8 17 23.3 19 26.0 9 12.3 11 15.1

Air Force

n = 134 20 14.9 0 0.0 12 9.0 36 26.9 29 21.6 37 27.6

Coast Guard

n = 11 2 18.2 0 0.0 5 45.5 1 9.1 2 18.2 1 9.1

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 173)

Army

n = 55 9 16.4 25 45.5 5 9.1 12 21.8 4 7.3

Marine Corps

n = 29 5 17.2 8 27.6 5 17.2 6 20.7 5 17.2

Navy

n = 52 4 7.7 27 51.9 4 7.7 16 30.8 1 1.9

Air Force

n = 28 3 10.7 7 25.0 6 21.4 9 32.1 3 10.7

Coast Guard

n = 9 2 22.2 4 44.4 2 22.2 1 11.1 0 0.0
I-19

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 6A.

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

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 558)

Officer 

n = 42 13 31.0 2 4.8 13 31.0 6 14.3 1 2.4 7 16.7

Enlisted

n = 516 133 25.8 11 2.1 109 21.1 110 21.3 79 15.3 74 14.3

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 222)

Officer 

n = 16 5 31.3 5 31.3 1 6.3 4 25.0 1 6.3

Enlisted

n = 206 39 18.9 85 41.3 25 12.1 43 20.9 14 6.8

TABLE 6B.

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

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 559)

Officer 

n = 34 5 14.7 1 2.9 11 32.4 11 32.4 2 5.9 4 11.8

Enlisted

n = 545 101 18.5 23 4.2 93 17.1 130 23.9 96 17.6 102 18.7

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 179)

Officer 

n = 11 2 18.2 3 27.3 1 9.1 3 27.3 2 18.2

Enlisted

n = 178 27 15.2 69 38.8 15 8.4 46 25.8 21 11.8
I-20

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 6C.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY RANK OF ACCUSED (FY 2017)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 485)

Officer 

n = 41 10 24.4 2 4.9 8 19.5 10 24.4 4 9.8 7 17.1

Enlisted

n = 444 88 19.8 14 3.2 93 20.9 87 19.6 91 20.5 71 16.0

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 173)

Officer 

n = 10 0 0.0 5 50.0 1 10.0 4 40.0 0 0.0

Enlisted

n = 163 23 14.1 66 40.5 21 12.9 40 24.5 13 8.0
I-21

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 7A.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY SEX AND STATUS OF VICTIM (FY 2015)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 558)

Victim Sex

All 

Females

n = 521

132 25.3 11 2.1 116 22.3 108 20.7 75 14.4 79 15.2

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 = 1

0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Victim Status

All Military

n = 351 81 23.1 5 1.4 73 20.8 81 23.1 57 16.2 54 15.4

All Civilian

n = 184 56 30.4 7 3.8 42 22.8 33 17.9 21 11.4 25 13.6

Military & 

Civilian

n = 23

9 39.1 1 4.3 7 30.4 2 8.7 2 8.7 2 8.7

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 225)

Victim Sex

All 

Females

n = 187

36 19.3 74 39.6 22 11.8 41 21.9 14 7.5

All Males

n = 33 8 24.2 15 45.5 3 9.1 6 18.2 1 3.0

Females & 

Males

n = 2

0 0.0 1 50.0 1 50.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Victim Status

All Military

n = 175 33 18.9 70 40.0 24 13.7 39 22.3 9 5.1

All Civilian

n = 39 8 20.5 15 38.5 2 5.1 8 20.5 6 15.4

Military & 

Civilian

n = 8

3 37.5 5 62.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
I-22

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 7B.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY SEX AND STATUS OF VICTIM (FY 2016)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 579)

Victim Sex

All 

Females

n = 559

99 17.7 19 3.4 102 18.2 138 24.7 97 17.4 104 18.6

All Males

n = 20 7 35.0 5 25.0 2 10.0 3 15.0 1 5.0 2 10.0

Females & 

Males

n = 0

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Victim Status

All Military

n = 327 57 17.4 16 4.9 49 15.0 83 25.4 64 19.6 58 17.7

All Civilian

n = 227 44 19.4 6 2.6 50 22.0 51 22.5 31 13.7 45 19.8

Military & 

Civilian

n = 25

5 20.0 2 8.0 5 20.0 7 28.0 3 12.0 3 12.0

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 189)

Victim Sex

All 

Females 

n = 162

24 14.8 66 40.7 11 6.8 39 24.1 22 13.6

All Males

n = 24 4 16.7 6 25.0 5 20.8 8 33.3 1 4.2

Females & 

Males

n = 3

1 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 66.7 0 0.0

Victim Status

All Military

n = 142 23 16.2 53 37.3 12 8.5 36 25.4 18 12.7

All Civilian

n = 41 5 12.2 15 41.5 4 9.8 10 24.4 5 12.2

Military & 

Civilian

n = 6

1 16.7 2 33.3 0 0.0 3 50.0 0 0.0
I-23

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 7C.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY SEX AND STATUS OF VICTIM (FY 2017)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 485)

Victim Sex

All 

Females

n = 461

92 20.0 15 3.3 96 20.8 94 20.4 89 19.3 75 16.3

All Males

n = 20 3 15.0 1 5.0 4 20.0 3 15.0 6 30.0 3 15.0

Females & 

Males

n = 4

3 75.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Victim Status

All Military

n = 268 48 17.9 12 4.5 47 17.5 58 21.6 59 22.0 44 16.4

All Civilian

n = 195 42 21.5 1 0.5 53 27.2 36 18.5 32 16.4 31 15.9

Military & 

Civilian

n = 22

8 36.4 3 13.6 1 4.5 3 13.6 4 18.2 3 13.6

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 173)

Victim Sex

All 

Females 

n = 152

21 13.8 65 42.8 21 13.8 34 22.4 11 7.2

All Males

n = 20 2 10.0 6 30.0 1 5.0 9 45.0 2 10.0

Females & 

Males

n = 1

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0

Victim Status

All Military

n = 132 20 15.2 53 40.2 16 12.1 34 25.8 9 6.8

All Civilian

n = 36 2 5.6 16 44.4 6 16.7 8 22.2 4 11.1

Military & 

Civilian

n = 5

1 20.0 2 40.0 0 0.0 2 40.0 0 0.0
I-24

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 8A.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACCUSED AND VICTIM (FY 2015)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 558)

Spouse or 

Intimate 

Partner

n = 110

26 23.6 2 1.8 28 25.5 25 22.7 7 6.4 22 20.0

Other 

Relationship

n = 448

120 26.8 11 2.5 94 21.0 91 20.3 73 16.3 59 13.2

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 222)

Spouse or 

Intimate 

Partner

n = 7

2 28.6 2 28.6 1 14.3 1 14.3 1 14.3

Other 

Relationship

n = 215

42 19.5 88 40.9 25 11.6 46 21.4 14 6.5

TABLE 8B.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACCUSED AND VICTIM (FY 2016)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 579)

Spouse or 

Intimate 

Partner 

n = 168

29 17.3 1 0.6 40 23.8 33 19.6 23 13.7 42 25.0

Other 

Relationship

n = 411

77 18.7 23 5.6 64 15.6 108 26.3 75 18.2 64 15.6

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 189)

Spouse or 

Intimate 

Partner

n = 6

0 0.0 3 50.0 0 0.0 2 33.3 1 16.7

Other 

Relationship

n = 183

29 15.8 69 37.7 16 8.7 47 25.7 22 12.0
I-25

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 8C.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACCUSED AND VICTIM (FY 2017)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 485)

Spouse or 

Intimate 

Partner 

n = 109

19 17.4 0 0.0 39 35.8 18 16.5 13 11.9 20 18.3

Other 

Relationship

n = 376

79 21.0 16 4.3 62 16.5 79 21.0 82 21.8 58 15.4

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 173)

Spouse or 

Intimate 

Partner

n = 3

0 0.0 2 66.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 33.3

Other 

Relationship

n = 170

23 13.5 69 40.6 44 25.9 22 12.9 12 7.1

TABLE 9A.

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

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 558)

CONUS

n = 386 101 26.2 8 2.1 75 19.4 90 23.3 53 13.7 59 15.3

OCONUS

n = 142 38 26.8 5 3.5 35 24.6 20 14.1 27 19.0 17 12.0

Vessel

n = 30 7 23.3 0 0.0 12 40.0 6 20.0 0 0.0 5 16.7

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 222)

CONUS

n = 146 29 19.9 56 38.4 22 15.1 28 19.2 11 7.5

OCONUS

n = 53 11 20.8 19 35.8 2 3.8 17 32.1 4 7.5

Vessel

n = 23 4 17.4 15 65.2 2 8.7 2 8.7 0 0.0
I-26

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 9B.

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

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 579)

CONUS

n = 421 77 18.3 18 4.3 70 16.6 103 24.5 71 16.9 82 19.5

OCONUS

n = 127 25 19.7 4 3.1 26 20.5 31 24.4 22 17.3 19 15.0

Vessel

n = 31 4 12.9 2 6.5 8 25.8 7 22.6 5 16.1 5 16.1

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 189)

CONUS

n = 121 21 17.4 47 38.8 9 7.4 31 25.6 13 10.7

OCONUS

n = 47 3 6.4 16 34.0 5 10.6 16 34.0 7 14.9

Vessel

n = 21 5 23.8 9 42.9 2 9.5 2 9.5 3 14.3

TABLE 9C.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY ACCUSED’S LOCATION (FY 2017)

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

All Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Dismissed 

Without Judicial 

Action

n % n % n % n % n % n %

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (n = 485)

CONUS

n = 353 76 21.5 11 3.1 68 19.3 61 17.3 73 20.7 64 18.1

OCONUS

n = 102 18 17.6 3 2.9 25 24.5 27 26.5 19 18.6 10 9.8

Vessel

n = 30 4 13.3 2 6.7 8 26.7 9 30.0 3 10.0 4 13.3

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) (n = 173)

CONUS

n = 124 14 11.3 46 37.1 18 14.5 36 29.0 10 8.1

OCONUS

n = 24 7 29.2 8 33.3 3 12.5 4 16.7 2 8.3

Vessel

n = 25 2 8.0 17 68.0 1 4.0 4 16.0 1 4.0
I-27

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 10A.

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 = 387)a

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge 

n = 215

84 39.1 10 4.7 72 33.5 49 22.8

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 171

61 35.7 3 1.8 41 24.0 66 38.6

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (n = 128)

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

n = 80

20 25.0 53 66.3 7 8.8

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 48

15 31.3 15 31.3 18 37.5

a In one case it could not be determined whether adjudication was by a military judge or by a panel of members.

TABLE 10B.

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 = 364)

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

n = 180

54 30.0 16 8.9 69 38.3 41 22.8

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 184

52 28.3 6 3.3 26 14.1 100 54.3

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (n = 100)

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

n = 69

12 17.4 54 78.3 3 4.3

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 31

11 35.5 7 22.6 13 41.9
I-28

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 (FY 2017)

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 = 302)

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

n = 166

54 32.5 10 6.0 68 41.0 34 20.5

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 136

44 32.4 4 2.9 25 18.4 63 46.3

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (n = 103)

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

n = 66

12 18.2 52 78.8 2 3.0

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 37

8 21.6 10 27.0 19 51.4

TABLE 11A.

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 = 336)a

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

n = 166

42 25.3 3 1.8 72 43.4 49 29.5

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 169

59 34.9 3 1.8 41 24.3 66 39.1

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (n = 122)

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

n = 74

14 18.9 53 71.6 7 9.5

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 48

15 31.3 15 31.3 18 37.5

a In one case it could not be determined whether adjudication was by a military judge or by a panel of members.
I-29

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 11B.

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 = 325)

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

n = 141

28 19.9 3 2.1 69 48.9 41 29.1

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 184

52 28.3 6 3.3 26 14.1 100 54.3

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (n = 91)

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

n = 60

3 5.0 54 90.0 3 5.0

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 31

11 35.5 7 22.6 13 41.9

TABLE 11C.

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM FOR 

CASES IN WHICH THE ACCUSED PLED NOT GUILTY (FY 2017)

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 = 265)

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

n = 130

25 19.2 3 2.3 68 52.3 34 26.2

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 135

43 31.9 4 3.0 25 18.5 63 46.7

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty to Sexual Assault Offense (n = 93)

Adjudicated by 

Military Judge

n = 56

2 3.6 52 92.9 2 3.6

Adjudicated by 

Panel of Members

n = 37

8 21.6 10 27.0 19 51.4
I-30

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 12A.

VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH ADJUDGED SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT (FY 2016)

No Confinement Confinement

n % n %

Military Service of Accused (NS)

Army 28 19.2 118 80.8

Marine Corps 15 22.4 52 77.6

Navy 15 24.6 46 75.4

Air Force 6 13.3 39 86.7

Coast Guard 5 31.3 11 68.8

Rank of Accused (NS)

Officer 5 22.7 17 77.3

Enlisted 64 20.4 249 79.6

Sex of Victim (NS)a

All Females 66 21.3 244 78.7

All Males 3 12.5 21 87.5

Females and Males 0 0.0 1 100.0

Status of Victim (NS)b

All Military 49 24.7 149 75.3

All Civilian 18 14.8 104 85.2

Military and Civilian 2 13.3 13 86.7

Relationship Between Accused and Victim (p < .05)

Spouse or Intimate Partner 7 9.6 66 90.4

Other Relationship 62 23.7 200 76.3

Conviction Offense (p < .05)

Penetrative Offense 4 3.8 102 96.2

Contact Offense 14 26.4 39 73.6

Non–Sexual Assault Offense 51 29.0 125 71.0

Number of Counts Preferred (NS) 6.59 (sd = 4.96) 7.87 (sd = 5.92)

Number of Victims (NS) 1.19 (sd = .58) 1.33 (sd = .80)

Type of Court-Martial (p < .05)

General Court-Martial 36 14.7 209 85.3

Special Court-Martial 15 24.2 47 75.8

Summary Court-Martial 18 64.3 10 35.7

Type of Trial Forum (p < .05)

Military Judge 22 10.7 183 89.3

Panel of Military Members 29 28.4 73 71.6

Summary Court-Martial Officer 18 64.3 10 35.7

a This non-statistically significant result remains when the “females and males” category is excluded from the analysis.

b When the “military and civilian” category is excluded from the analysis, the relationship is significant.
I-31

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 12B.

VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH ADJUDGED SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT (FY 2017)

No Confinement Confinement

n % n %

Military Service of Accused (NS)

Army 31 20.9 117 79.1

Marine Corps 7 17.1 34 82.9

Navy 12 18.5 53 81.5

Air Force 9 21.4 33 78.6

Coast Guard 3 23.1 10 76.9

Rank of Accused (NS)

Officer 7 28.0 18 72.0

Enlisted 55 19.4 229 80.6

Sex of Victim (p < .05)a

All Females 55 19.0 234 81.0

All Males 7 43.8 9 56.3

Females and Males 0 0.0 4 100.0

Status of Victim (p < .05)b

All Military 47 26.1 133 73.9

All Civilian 15 13.2 99 86.8

Military and Civilian 0 0.0 15 100.0

Relationship Between Accused and Victim (NS)

Spouse or Intimate Partner 7 11.7 53 88.3

Other Relationship 55 22.1 194 77.9

Conviction Offense (p < .05)

Penetrative Offense 5 5.1 93 94.9

Contact Offense 4 10.3 35 89.7

Non–Sexual Assault Offense 53 30.8 119 69.2

Number of Counts Preferred (p < .05) 5.97 (sd = 3.73) 7.48 (sd = 5.83)

Number of Victims (p < .05) 1.10 (sd = .35) 1.36 (sd = .88)

Type of Court-Martial (p < .05)

General Court-Martial 36 16.0 189 84.0

Special Court-Martial 9 14.5 53 85.5

Summary Court-Martial 17 77.3 5 22.7

Type of Trial Forum (p < .05)

Military Judge 15 7.7 181 92.3

Panel of Military Members 30 33.0 61 67.0

Summary Court-Martial Officer 17 77.3 5 22.7

a The relationship is statistically significant when the “male and female” category is excluded from the analysis.

b The relationship is statistically significant when the “military and civilian” category is excluded from the analysis.
I-32

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 13A.

VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH ADJUDGED SENTENCE OF PUNITIVE SEPARATION (FY 2016)

No Separation Separation

n % n %

Military Service of Accused (NS)

Army 43 29.5 103 70.5

Marine Corps 26 38.8 41 61.2

Navy 28 45.9 33 54.1

Air Force 15 33.3 30 66.7

Coast Guard 8 50.0 8 50.0

Rank of Accused (NS)

Officer 7 31.8 15 68.2

Enlisted 113 36.1 200 63.9

Sex of Victim (NS)a

All Females 114 36.8 196 63.2

All Males 6 25.0 18 75.0

Females and Males 0 0.0 1 100.0

Status of Victim (NS)b

All Military 79 39.9 119 60.1

All Civilian 39 32.0 83 68.0

Military and Civilian 2 13.3 13 86.7

Relationship Between Accused and Victim (NS)

Spouse or Intimate Partner 21 28.8 52 71.2

Other Relationship 99 37.8 163 62.2

Conviction Offense (p < .05)

Penetrative Offense 3 2.8 103 97.2

Contact Offense 22 41.5 31 58.5

Non–Sexual Assault Offense 95 54.0 81 46.0

Number of Counts Preferred (NS) 6.97 (sd = 5.39) 7.96 (sd = 5.93)

Number of Victims (NS) 1.26 (sd = .82) 1.33 (sd = .74)

Type of Court-Martial (p < .05)c

General Court-Martial 59 24.1 186 75.9

Special Court-Martial 33 53.2 29 46.8

Summary Court-Martial 28 100.0 0 0.0

Type of Trial Forum (p < .05)d

Military Judge 61 29.8 144 70.2

Panel of Military Members 31 30.4 71 69.6

Summary Court-Martial Officer 28 100.0 0 0.0

a This non-statistically significant result remains when the “females and males” category is excluded from the analysis.

b This non-statistically significant result remains when the “military and civilian” category is excluded from the analysis.

c

 This pattern remains statistically significant when summary courts-martial are excluded from the analysis.

d This pattern is not statistically significant when the summary court-martial officer category is excluded from the analysis.
I-33

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 13B.

VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH ADJUDGED SENTENCE OF PUNITIVE SEPARATION (FY 2017)

No Separation Separation

n % n %

Military Service of Accused (p < .05)

Army 46 31.1 102 68.9

Marine Corps 12 29.3 29 70.7

Navy 29 44.6 36 55.4

Air Force 10 23.8 32 76.2

Coast Guard 9 69.2 4 30.8

Rank of Accused (NS)

Officer 5 20.0 20 80.0

Enlisted 101 35.6 183 64.4

Sex of Victim (p < .05)a

All Females 94 32.5 196 67.5

All Males 11 68.8 5 31.1

Females and Males 1 25.0 3 75.0

Status of Victim (p < .05)b

All Military 72 40.0 108 60.0

All Civilian 33 28.9 81 71.1

Military and Civilian 1 6.7 14 93.3

Relationship Between Accused and Victim (NS)

Spouse or Intimate Partner 16 26.7 44 73.3

Other Relationship 90 36.1 159 63.9

Conviction Offense (p < .05)

Penetrative Offense 0 0.0 98 100.0

Contact Offense 9 23.1 30 76.9

Non–Sexual Assault Offense 97 56.4 75 43.6

Number of Counts Preferred (p < .05) 6.14 (sd = 4.25) 7.71 (sd = 6.00)

Number of Victims (p < .05) 1.13 (sd = .46) 1.40 (sd = .93)

Type of Court-Martial (p < .05)c

General Court-Martial 55 24.4 170 75.6

Special Court-Martial 29 46.8 33 53.2

Summary Court-Martial 22 100.0 0 0.0

Type of Trial Forum (p < .05)d

Military Judge 55 28.1 141 71.9

Panel of Military Members 29 31.9 62 68.1

Summary Court-Martial Officer 22 100.0 0 0.0

a The relationship is statistically significant when the “male and female” category is excluded from the analysis.

b The relationship is statistically significant when the “military and civilian” category is excluded from the analysis.

c

 This relationship is statistically significant when summary courts-martial are excluded from the analysis.

d This relationship is not statistically significant when summary court-martial officers are excluded from the analysis.
I-34

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 14A.

VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH SENTENCE SEVERITY (FY 2016)

Average Sentence Severitya

Military Service of Accused (p < .05)

Army 8.15

Marine Corps 7.73

Navy 5.74

Air Force 6.58

Coast Guard 6.27

Rank of Accused (NS)

Officer 6.83

Enlisted 7.37

Sex of Victim (NS)

All Females 7.33

All Males 7.41

Status of Victim (NS)

All Military 6.92

All Civilian 7.75

Military and Civilian 8.87

Relationship Between Accused and Victim (p < .05)

Spouse or Intimate Partner 8.3

Other Relationship 7.04

Conviction Offense (p < .05)

Penetrative Offense 10.56

Contact Offense 6.19

Non–Sexual Assault Offense 5.16

Type of Court-Martial (p < .05)b

General Court-Martial 8.4

Special Court-Martial 3.96

Type of Trial Forum (NS)c

Military Judge 7.26

Panel of Military Members 8.3

a See Table 19A, Adjudged Sentencing Severity Scale (FY 2016), for the scale.

b Summary courts-martial are excluded from this analysis because 18 of 28 summary courts-martial did not end in confinement or a punitive 

separation.

c

 Summary court-martial officer cases are excluded from this analysis because 18 of the 28 summary court-martial officer cases did not end in 

confinement or a punitive separation.
I-35

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 14B.

VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH SENTENCE SEVERITY (FY 2017)

Average Sentence Severitya

Military Service of Accused (p < .05)

Army 7.73

Marine Corps 8.15

Navy 6.18

Air Force 9.29

Coast Guard 3.9

Rank of Accused (NS)

Officer 7.78

Enlisted 7.48

Sex of Victim (NS)

All Females 7.53

All Males 6.11

Males and Females 9.0

Status of Victim (p < .05)

All Military 6.82

All Civilian 7.99

Military and Civilian 10.67

Relationship Between Accused and Victim (NS)

Spouse or Intimate Partner 8.55

Other Relationship 7.23

Conviction Offense (p < .05)

Penetrative Offense 10.82

Contact Offense 7.08

Non–Sexual Assault Offense 5.03

Type of Court-Martial (p < .05)b

General Court-Martial 8.56

Special Court-Martial 4.3

Type of Trial Forum (NS)c

Military Judge 7.39

Panel of Military Members 8.38

a See Table 19B, Adjudged Sentencing Severity Scale (FY 2017), for the scale.

b Summary courts-martial are excluded from this analysis because 17 of 22 summary courts-martial did not end in confinement or a punitive 

separation. 

c

 Summary court-martial officer cases are excluded from this analysis because 17 of the 22 summary court-martial officer cases did not end in 

confinement or a punitive separation.
I-36

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 15A.

LOGISTIC REGRESSION: VARIABLES RELATED TO CONVICTIONS (FY 2015)

B SE Exp(B)

Accused Convicted of a Penetrative Offense

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps −1.15 .39 .32*

Navy −.48 .33 .62

Air Force −.77 .28 .46*

Coast Guard −.86 .64 .42

Accused Rank (Enlisted) −.14 .39 .87

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner −.13 .31 .88

Female Victim(s) −.54 .41 .58

Military Victim(s) −.34 .25 .71

Number of Victims .60 .18 1.82*

Number of Charges .06 .02 1.06*

Accused Convicted of At Least One Charge

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps −.12 .23 .89

Navy .003 .23 1.00

Air Force −.48 .23 .61*

Coast Guard 1.20 .50 3.32*

Accused Rank (Enlisted) −.56 .36 .57

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner −.61 .24 .55*

Female Victim(s) −.39 .34 .68

Military Victim(s) −.44 .18 .64*

Number of Victims .04 .14 1.04

Number of Charges .25 .02 1.28*

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense .38 .20 .68*
I-37

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 15B.

LOGISTIC REGRESSION: VARIABLES RELATED TO CONVICTIONS (FY 2016) 

B SE Exp(B)

Accused Convicted of a Penetrative Offensea

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps −.71* .35 .49

Navy −.33 .33 .72

Air Force −1.20* .32 .30

Coast Guard −.37 .70 .69

Accused Rank (Enlisted) −.28 .51 .76

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner −.03 .29 .97

Female Victim(s) −.95 .51 .39

Military Victim(s) −.17 .25 .85

Number of Victims .33 .18 1.39

Number of Charges .02 .02 1.02

Accused Convicted of At Least One Chargeb

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps .04 .23 1.04

Navy −.02 .23 .98

Air Force −1.10* .23 .33

Coast Guard .56 .50 1.75

Accused Rank (Enlisted) −.11 .36 .90

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner −.32 .24 .73

Female Victim(s) −.36 .34 .70

Military Victim(s) −.18 .18 .83

Number of Victims −.11 .14 .90

Number of Charges .17* .02 1.19

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense −.39* .20 .68

a Analysis includes cases with a penetrative offense charge.

b Analysis includes cases with a penetrative offense charge or a contact offense charge.
I-38

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 15C.

LOGISTIC REGRESSION: VARIABLES RELATED TO CONVICTIONS (FY 2017) 

B SE Exp(B)

Accused Convicted of a Penetrative Offensea

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps −.45 .43 .64

Navy −.66 .37 .52

Air Force −.71* .31 .49

Coast Guard −.92 .86 .40

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .37 .40 1.45

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner −.56 .35 .57

Female Victim(s) .30 .56 1.35

Military Victim(s) .40 .26 .67

Number of Victims .78* .21 2.17

Number of Charges .01 .03 1.01

Accused Convicted of At Least One Chargeb

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps .01 .28 1.01

Navy −.05 .23

Air Force −.92* .23 .40

Coast Guard .51 .50 1.66

Accused Rank (Enlisted) −.07 .32 .94

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner .08 .27 1.08

Female Victim(s) .19 .35 1.21

Military Victim(s) −.14 .19 .87

Number of Victims −.12 .15 .89

Number of Charges .17* .03 1.18

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense −.38 .20 .69

a Analysis includes cases with a penetrative offense charge.

b Analysis includes cases with a penetrative offense charge or a contact offense charge.
I-39

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 16A.

LOGISTIC REGRESSION: VARIABLES RELATED TO ACQUITTALS AND DISMISSALS (FY 2015)

B SE Exp(B)

Accused Acquitted of All Charges

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps .30 .38 1.36

Navy .71 .32 2.04*

Air Force .94 .29 2.57*

Coast Guard −1.81 1.07 .16

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .71 .49 2.03

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner .62 .35 1.85

Female Victim(s) .24 .42 1.28

Military Victim(s) .45 .27 1.56

Number of Victims −.36 .28 .70

Number of Charges −.27 .04 .76*

Accused Charged with a Penetrative 

Offense .94 .28 2.56*

Dismissed Without Judicial Action

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps 1.41 .37 4.10*

Navy .96 .36 2.62*

Air Force .56 .33 1.74

Coast Guard .34 .72 1.41

Accused Rank (Enlisted) −.80 .46 .45

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner .74 .32 2.10*

Female Victim(s) 1.00 .63 2.73

Military Victim(s) .13 .28 1.14

Number of Victims −1.28 .70 .28

Number of Charges −.26 .06 .77*

Accused Charged with a Penetrative 

Offense .94 .34 2.56*
I-40

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 16B.

LOGISTIC REGRESSION: VARIABLES RELATED TO ACQUITTALS AND DISMISSALS (FY 2016)

B SE Exp(B)

Accused Acquitted of All Charges

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps −.45 .32 .64

Navy −.16 .29 .85

Air Force .23 .23 1.26

Coast Guard −.67 .78 .51

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .59 .38 1.81

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner −.32 .25 .73

Female Victim(s) −.23 .43 .79

Military Victim(s) −.11 .21 .90

Number of Victims −.06 .20 .94

Number of Charges −.10* .03 .90

Accused Charged with a Penetrative 

Offense 1.24* .29 3.46

Dismissed Without Judicial Action

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps .73* .31 2.08

Navy .64* .31 1.90

Air Force .50 .27 1.65

Coast Guard −.93 1.06 .39

Accused Rank (Enlisted) −.10 .48 .90

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner .91* .26 2.48

Female Victim(s) .96 .63 2.61

Military Victim(s) .09 .22 1.09

Number of Victims −.01 .23 .99

Number of Charges −.14* .04 .87

Accused Charged with a Penetrative 

Offense .21 .77 1.24
I-41

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 16C.

LOGISTIC REGRESSION: VARIABLES RELATED TO ACQUITTALS AND DISMISSALS (FY 2017)

B SE Exp(B)

Accused Acquitted of All Charges

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps .48 .37 1.61

Navy .43 .30 1.54

Air Force .62* .27 1.86

Coast Guard .26 .66 1.30

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .28 .37 1.33

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner −.07 .33 .94

Female Victim(s) .63 .55 1.88

Military Victim(s) .06 .23 1.06

Number of Victims −.28 .27 .76

Number of Charges −.11* .04 .90

Accused Charged with a Penetrative 

Offense .53* .27 1.70

Dismissed Without Judicial Action

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps .77 .40 2.15

Navy .08 .38 1.09

Air Force .83* .29 2.29

Coast Guard −.50 1.06 .61

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .21 .44 1.23

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner .51 .33 1.66

Female Victim(s) .03 .52 1.03

Military Victim(s) .07 .26 1.07

Number of Victims .17 .23 1.18

Number of Charges −.13* .04 .88

Accused Charged with a Penetrative 

Offense .74* .34 2.09
I-42

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 17A.

LOGISTIC REGRESSION: VARIABLES RELATED TO SENTENCE OF 

CONFINEMENT AND PUNITIVE SEPARATION (FY 2016)

B SE Exp(B)

Adjudged Sentence Included Confinement

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps .23 .40 1.26

Navy .19 .40 1.20

Air Force .53 .53 1.69

Coast Guard −.32 .63 .72

Accused Rank (Enlisted) −.36 .58 .70

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner .69 .52 2.00

Female Victim(s) −.90 .68 0.41

Military Victim(s) −.41 .35 0.66

Number of Victims .15 .25 1.16

Number of Charges .05 .03 1.05

Accused Convicted of a Penetrative 

Offense 2.44* .55 11.52

Accused Convicted of a Contact Offense .34 .39 1.40

Adjudged Sentence Included Punitive Separation

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps .11 .36 1.11

Navy −.30 .38 .74

Air Force −.13 .44 .88

Coast Guard −.63 .62 .53

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .27 .55 1.31

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner −.35 .42 .71

Female Victim(s) −.85 .56 .43

Military Victim(s) −.49 .32 .62

Number of Victims −.16 .20 .85

Number of Charges .08* .03 1.09

Accused Convicted of a Penetrative 

Offense 3.95* .62 51.85

Accused Convicted of a Contact Offense .69 .36 2.00
I-43

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 17B.

LOGISTIC REGRESSION: VARIABLES RELATED TO SENTENCE OF 

CONFINEMENT AND PUNITIVE SEPARATION (FY 2017)

B SE Exp(B)

Adjudged Sentence Included Confinement

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps .57 .52 1.78

Navy .71 .43 2.02

Air Force −.13 .50 .88

Coast Guard 1.08 .79 2.95

Accused Rank (Enlisted) −.93 .56 .39

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner .52 .53 1.68

Female Victim(s) 1.04 .65 2.82

Military Victim(s) −.84* .39 .43

Number of Victims .58 .40 1.79

Number of Charges .08 .04 1.08

Accused Convicted of a Penetrative 

Offense 2.48* .53 11.96

Accused Convicted of a Contact Offense 1.87* .60 6.50

Adjudged Sentence Included Punitive Separation

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps .76 .49 2.14

Navy −.01 .41 .99

Air Force .52 .50 1.68

Coast Guard −1.36 .90 .26

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .99 .66 2.70

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner .21 .45 .123

Female Victim(s) 2.31* .87 10.10

Military Victim(s) −.50 .35 .61

Number of Victims .57 .35 1.77

Number of Charges .11* .04 1.11

Accused Convicted of a Non–Sexual 

Assault Offensea −3.46* .44 .03

a The reference category is accused convicted of penetrative offense or a contact offense. These two conviction offense categories (penetrative and 

contact) were combined because all penetrative conviction cases ended in punitive separation (see Table 13B, Variables Associated with Adjudged 

Sentence of Punitive Separation (FY 2017), above).
I-44

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

TABLE 18A.

OLS REGRESSION: VARIABLES RELATED TO SENTENCE SEVERITY (FY 2016)

B Beta T-value

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps −.91 -.07 −1.41

Navy −.50 -.02 −.46

Air Force .93 .08 1.60

Coast Guard −1.13 -.10 −1.93

Accused Rank (Enlisted) −.27 -.02 −.32

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner −.17 -.02 −.28

Female Victim(s) −.24 -.02 .76

Male Victim(s) −.35 -.04 −.75

Number of Victims −.37 -.07 −1.62

Number of Charges 0.22* .29 5.26

Accused Convicted of a Penetrative 

Offense 5.98* .66 12.68

Accused Convicted of a Contact Offense 1.83* .15 2.85

TABLE 18B.

OLS REGRESSION: VARIABLES RELATED TO SENTENCE SEVERITY (FY 2017)

B Beta T-value

Military Service of Accused

Army (reference)

Marine Corps 1.35* .10 2.05

Navy −1.44 −.06 −1.25

Air Force 1.82* .14 2.71

Coast Guard .35 .03 .61

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .05 .00 .06

Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner .74 .07 1.20

Female Victim(s) 1.10 .05 1.07

Male Victim(s) −.71 −.08 −1.53

Number of Victims .03 .01 .12

Number of Charges .19* .25 4.27

Accused Convicted of a Penetrative 

Offense 6.36* .68 12.71

Accused Convicted of a Contact Offense 3.26* .25 4.76
I-45

APPENDIX I. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ADJUDICATION DATA OF SEXUAL OFFENSES 

RECORDED IN THE DAC-IPAD CASE ADJUDICATION DATABASE

TABLE 19A.

ADJUDGED SENTENCING SEVERITY SCALE (FY 2016)

Sentence n %

1. Confinement up to and including 2 months 32 11.5

2. Confinement greater than 2 months and up to 5 months 18 6.5

3. Confinement greater than 5 months and up to 8 months 7 2.5

4. Confinement 9 months to 12 months 5 1.8

5. Confinement 13 months to 18 months OR punitive separation 12 4.3

6. Punitive separation and confinement up to and including 2 months 11 4.0

7. Punitive separation and confinement greater than 2 months and up to 5 months 17 6.1

8. Punitive separation and confinement greater than 5 months and up to 8 months 37 13.3

9. Punitive separation and confinement 9 months to 12 months 26 9.4

10. Punitive separation and confinement 13 months to 18 months 16 5.8

11. Punitive separation and confinement 19 months to 24 months 12 4.3

12. Punitive separation and confinement 25 months to 36 months 22 7.9

13. Punitive separation and confinement 37 months to 60 months 23 8.3

14. Punitive separation and confinement 60 months to 120 months 21 7.6

15. Punitive separation and confinement greater than 120 months 19 6.8

TABLE 19B.

ADJUDGED SENTENCING SEVERITY SCALE (FY 2017)

Sentence n %

1. Confinement up to and including 2 months 28 10.8

2. Confinement greater than 2 months and up to 5 months 20 7.7

3. Confinement greater than 5 months and up to 8 months 8 3.1

4. Confinement 9 months to 12 months 0 0.0

5. Confinement 13 months to 18 months OR punitive separation 13 5.0

6. Punitive separation and confinement up to and including 2 months 12 4.6

7. Punitive separation and confinement greater than 2 months and up to 5 months 16 6.2

8. Punitive separation and confinement greater than 5 months and up to 8 months 26 10.0

9. Punitive separation and confinement 9 months to 12 months 17 6.6

10. Punitive separation and confinement 13 months to 18 months 21 8.1

11. Punitive separation and confinement 19 months to 24 months 14 5.4

12. Punitive separation and confinement 25 months to 36 months 19 7.3

13. Punitive separation and confinement 37 months to 60 months 17 6.6

14. Punitive separation and confinement 60 months to 120 months 32 12.4

15. Punitive separation and confinement greater than 120 months 16 6.2
I-46

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
J-1

APPENDIX J. SEPTEMBER 13, 2018, LETTER FROM DAC-IPAD TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

REGARDING ARTICLE 140a, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

APPENDIX J.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2018, LETTER FROM DAC-IPAD TO THE 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE REGARDING ARTICLE 140a, 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
J-2

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

September 13, 2018

The Honorable James Mattis 

Secretary of Defense 

1000 Defense Pentagon 

Washington, DC 20301-1000

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

As the Chair of the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and 

Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (the Committee or DAC-IPAD), a federal 

advisory committee established by section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law No. 113-291), I respectfully submit the advice and 

recommendations of the DAC-IPAD regarding the implementation of section 5504 of the 

Military Justice Act of 2016 (Public Law No. 114-328) (Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military 

Justice (UCMJ), Case management; data collection and accessibility) (hereinafter “Article 

140a”). Article 140a requires the Secretary of Defense to develop uniform standards and criteria 

across the Military Services, to be used at all stages of the military justice system, including the 

pretrial, trial, post-trial, and appellate processes, using, insofar as practicable, the best practices 

of federal and state courts.1

The goals of Article 140a—to achieve greater efficiency and transparency in the 

processing of cases in the military justice system and to facilitate periodic reviews of the UCMJ 

and Manual for Courts-Martial2

—touch on an issue of great importance to this Committee: the 

lack of comprehensive and meaningful information about the military justice response to sexual 

assault in the Armed Forces. This concern was previously highlighted by the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel (JPP) in three separate reports to the Secretary of Defense.3 The JPP found 

that the Department of Defense (DoD) does not collect sufficient data to fully assess how adult 

sexual assault cases are resolved through the military justice system, and recommended that DoD 

adopt one uniform system for the collection and analysis of sexual assault case documents and 

1 10 U.S.C. § 940a (2016). 2

 10 U.S.C. § 946 (2016). Article 146 requires the Military Justice Review Panel to conduct periodic reviews of the 

UCMJ and to gather and analyze sentencing data from general and special courts-martial. 

3 The Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (“Judicial Proceedings Panel” or “JPP”) was 

established by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as amended, Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 

576(a)(1), 126 Stat. 1632 (2013). JPP reports are available at https://jpp.whs.mil; see, in particular, JPP REPORT ON

STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES (April 2016), JPP

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2015 (September 2017), JPP REPORT ON PANEL CONCERNS REGARDING THE FAIR ADMINISTRATION OF 

MILITARY JUSTICE IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES (September 2017). 
2 

data.4 The DAC-IPAD fully supports the JPP’s assessment and believes that understanding these 

cases, which are frequently complex in nature and have an enormous impact on both the victim 

and the accused, can shed light on the effects of numerous recent reforms in the military and can

highlight areas for further study and improvement. 

As part of its mandate, the DAC-IPAD is currently reviewing thousands of case file 

documents spanning the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault offenses and is 

examining those case outcomes across a variety of factors.5 This review underscores the 

necessity of accurate, thorough, and complete data to achieve a greater understanding of how 

sexual assault cases are handled in the military. Article 140a offers a similar opportunity to 

generate uniform, thorough, and reliable data, for sexual assault and all other UCMJ offenses, 

over the long term, thereby benefiting the Military Services, DoD, and external stakeholders. 

Therefore, the DAC-IPAD members, on the basis of their collective experience and their 

ongoing review of sexual assault cases, offer the following recommendations to the Secretary of 

Defense about how to best implement Article 140a in the context of sexual assault crimes

committed by military members. 

Recommendation 1: The uniform standards and criteria developed to implement Article 140a, 

UCMJ, should reflect the following best practices for case data collection: 

a. Collect all case data only from standardized source documents (legal and

investigative documents) that are produced in the normal course of the military justice

process, such as the initial report of investigation, the commander’s report of

disciplinary or administrative action, the charge sheet, the Article 32 report, and the

report of result of trial;

b. Centralize document collection by mandating that all jurisdictions provide the same

procedural documents to one military justice data office/organization within DoD;

c. Develop one electronic database for the storage and analysis of standardized source

documents, and locate that database in the centralized military justice data

office/organization within DoD;

d. Collect and analyze data quarterly to ensure that both historical data and analyses are

as up-to-date as possible;

e. Have data entered from source documents into the electronic database by one

independent team of trained professionals whose full-time occupation is document

analysis and data entry. This team should have expertise in the military justice

process and in social science research methods, and should ensure that the data are

audited at regular intervals.

4 See Enclosure 1, Judicial Proceedings Panel Findings and Recommendations Regarding Military Justice Case Data 

for Sexual Assault Offenses, and Enclosure 2, Excerpt from Department of Defense Response to Judicial 

Proceedings Panel Recommendations. 

5 See Enclosure 3, Documents and Data Elements Collected by the DAC-IPAD for Cases in Which Sexual Assault 

Charges Have Been Preferred. 
3 

Recommendation 2: The source documents referenced in DAC-IPAD Recommendation 1 

should contain uniformly defined content covering all data elements that DoD decides to collect 

to meet the requirements of Articles 140a and 146, UCMJ. 

Recommendation 3: The data produced pursuant to Article 140a, UCMJ,6 should serve as the 

primary source for the Military Justice Review Panel’s periodic assessments of the military 

justice system, which are required by Article 146, UCMJ, and as the sole source of military 

justice data for all other organizations in DoD and for external entities. 

Recommendation 4: Article 140a, UCMJ, should be implemented so as to require collection of 

the following information with respect to allegations of both adult-victim and child-victim sexual 

offenses, within the meaning of Articles 120, 120b, and 125, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 920b, 

and 925 (2016)): 

a. A summary of the initial complaint giving rise to a criminal investigation by a

military criminal investigation organization concerning a military member who is

subject to the UCMJ, and how the complaint became known to law enforcement;

b. Whether an unrestricted report of sexual assault originated as a restricted report;

c. Demographic data pertaining to each victim and accused, including race and gender;

d. The nature of any relationship between the accused and the victim(s);

e. The initial disposition decision under Rule for Court-Martial 306, including the

decision to take no action, and the outcome of any administrative action, any

disciplinary action, or any case in which one or more charges of sexual assault were

preferred, through the completion of court-martial and appellate review;

f. Whether a victim requested an expedited transfer or a transfer of the accused, and the

result of that request;

g. Whether a victim declined to participate at any point in the military justice process;

h. Whether a defense counsel requested expert assistance on behalf of a military

accused, whether those requests were approved by a convening authority or military

judge, and whether the government availed itself of expert assistance; and

i. The duration of each completed military criminal investigation, and any additional

time taken to complete administrative or disciplinary action against the accused.

6

The data collected pursuant to Article 140a should include, at a minimum, the elements listed in Enclosure 3, 

Documents and Data Elements Collected by the DAC-IPAD for Cases in Which Sexual Assault Charges Have Been 

Preferred. 
4 

Recommendation 5: The Military Services may retain their respective electronic case 

management systems for purposes of managing their military justice organizations, provided that

a. The Military Services use the same uniform standards and definitions to refer to

common procedures and substantive offenses in the Manual for Courts-Martial, as

required by Article 140a; and

b. The Military Services develop a plan to transition toward operating one uniform case

management system across all of the Military Services, similar to the federal

judiciary’s Case Management/Electronic Court Filing (CM/ECF) system.

Rationale 

Article 140a provides that the “collection and analysis of data concerning substantive 

offenses and procedural matters” shall be done “at all stages of the military justice system,” in a 

manner that “facilitates case management and decision making within the military justice 

system, and that enhances the quality of periodic reviews under section 946 of this title (article 

146)” (emphasis added).7 This statute was a product of the comprehensive review of the UCMJ 

and Manual for Courts-Martial conducted in 2015 by the Department of Defense Military Justice 

Review Group (MJRG), led by a former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Armed Forces, the Honorable Andrew S. Effron. The MJRG found that the Services’ 

separate data collection and case management practices make it difficult to aggregate and

analyze military justice data on a system-wide basis.8

The DAC-IPAD lauds the objectives of Article 140a, and believes that the quality of the 

information collected pursuant to this statute will ultimately determine the success of this UCMJ 

reform. Article 140a data have great potential value for military practitioners and managers in 

the field seeking ways to improve their practice. Another important aim of this statute is to 

provide a foundation for future evaluations of military law and procedure.9 The data that 

undergird these policy decisions, particularly decisions that lead to Service members being 

deprived of their liberty following a court-martial, must be accurate and comprehensive. 

Therefore the Committee urges that quality assurance drive all aspects of Article 140a’s 

implementation. 

Recommendations 1 and 2 are based principally on the quality assurance measures used 

by the United States Sentencing Commission to produce data concerning federal criminal 

sentencing practices. They also derive from the experiences of the JPP and DAC-IPAD in 

maintaining a document analysis system that provides consistent information about sexual 

assault cases across all five Military Services. Standardized case documents are a reliable source 

of information because the documents are created to reflect, or effect, the very process that they 

describe—e.g., the initiation of a criminal investigation, the preferral of charges, or the outcome 

of a court-martial. Centralizing the document collection within a single organization, and placing 

7

 10 U.S.C. § 940a (2016). 8

 REPORT OF THE MILITARY JUSTICE REVIEW GROUP PART I: UCMJ RECOMMENDATIONS 1013 (Dec. 22, 2015), 

available at http://ogc.osd.mil/images/report_part1.pdf. 9 Id.
5 

one team of experts in charge of data entry and analysis, helps foster both accountability for 

producing documents and consistency in the interpretation of those documents. This arrangement 

is also intended to relieve military justice personnel of the responsibility for responding to 

numerous data queries. Producing analyses from case documents on a recurring basis throughout 

the year would serve two purposes: provide transparency to stakeholders and avoid the overly 

cumbersome and lengthy document or data searches often involved in annual and ad hoc 

reviews. 

The Committee recognizes that there may be limitations to collecting data solely from 

select standard investigative and procedural case documents, which may not contain some 

information that is useful to know about a sexual assault case. However, this approach makes it 

possible to gather accurate, verifiable data on many important aspects of the military justice 

system in a way that does not make excessive demands on military justice personnel. Relying on 

procedural case documents, analysts can effectively identify specific topic areas for further 

investigation, and a more targeted review of other documents or sources of information can 

follow, as needed. 

As Recommendation 4 states, Article 140a should require information about every sexual 

assault allegation made against a Service member under the military’s jurisdiction that is 

investigated by the MCIOs. For purposes of this statute, “sexual assault cases” should include 

offenses involving both adult and child victims, and should encompass unwanted sexual act and 

contact offenses so that DoD, lawmakers, and the public can better understand the nature of

sexual violence occurring in the military. The DAC-IPAD’s review of sexual assault cases 

indicates that annually, a majority of the cases involving allegations of penetrative sexual assault 

are not selected for prosecution.10 Therefore, any data collection efforts that do not include cases 

resolved outside the court-martial process would omit a significant amount of information about 

how cases progress through the military justice system and about the factors that influence those 

outcomes. Moreover, the Committee appreciates the significant impact of a criminal 

investigation on the lives and careers of both the victim and the accused, and having 

comprehensive data regarding the investigative process can contextualize those effects. 

In addition to reviewing annually the results of sexual assault courts-martial, the DACIPAD is also currently reviewing the entire investigative case file associated with each of the

penetrative sexual assault cases closed without action in fiscal year 2017. Collecting information 

about sexual assault cases that are investigated and closed without action may present more

challenges than analyzing information in court-martial documents. However, those difficulties

should not deter DoD from systematically collecting reliable information about cases that do not 

result in disciplinary action. Failing to do so would leave a substantial void in any analysis of the 

processing of all cases that include an MCIO investigation. 

Although there are differences among the Service MCIOs, each MCIO has a routine way

of recording details about the initial complaint of sexual assault received by law enforcement and 

documenting the commander’s decision as to the disposition of the sexual assault case. The 

10 DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE 

ARMED SERVICES ANNUAL REPORT 23 (March 2018), available at https://dacipad.whs.mil/images/Public/08-

Reports/DACIPAD_Report_02_Final_20180330_Web_Amended.pdf. 
6 

Committee recognizes in these documents an opportunity for DoD to capture descriptive data 

useful for the purposes of Article 140a, and recommends that DoD explore ways to record such 

information consistently across all the Military Services in order to streamline the documents 

needed to collect information under Article 140a. 

The Military Justice Act of 2016 directs DoD and the Military Services to develop a 

modern, unified system for collecting information about sexual assault and other criminal 

offenses. The Committee notes that the experience of the federal district courts and many other 

jurisdictions illustrates the benefits of operating a common data collection system, making it well 

worth overcoming the inherent challenges faced by an organization undertaking any large-scale 

transition. As you recently wrote in your memorandum on discipline and lethality,11 the military 

justice system preserves good order and discipline and consequently, it is essential to military 

readiness. Therefore, DoD must provide sufficient financial resources to maintain a military 

justice system that is fair, efficient, and effective. If the Military Services are required to 

implement Article 140a with existing resources alone, then future assessments of the military 

justice system will lack an adequate foundation, and thus will lack an adequate justification. 

 

Finally, while the Committee’s charter covers only sexual assault offenses and other 

sexual misconduct, we hope that our recommendations about when, in the military justice 

process, case data collection should start and end will be considered by those groups 

commenting on the other punitive articles of the UCMJ. 

Sincerely, 

 Martha Bashford 

Chair 

Enclosures: 

1. Judicial Proceedings Panel Findings and Recommendations Regarding Military Justice Case 

Data for Sexual Assault Offenses 

2. Excerpt from Department of Defense Response to Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Recommendations 

3. Documents and Data Elements Collected by the DAC-IPAD for Cases in Which Sexual 

Assault Charges Have Been Preferred

 

11 See “Secretary of Defense: Message to the Force” (August 17, 2018), https://www.marines.mil/News/PressReleases/Press-Release-Display/Article/1605285/secretary-of-defense-message-to-the-force/. 
ENCLOSURE 1
Enclosure 1

1 

Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) 

Findings and Recommendations Regarding Military Justice 

Case Data for Sexual Assault Offenses

The following JPP Findings and Recommendations have been excerpted from three 

published reports of the JPP, available at http://jpp.whs.mil.* 

Recommendation 37 [April 2016]: The Department of Defense collect and analyze case 

adjudication data using a standardized, document-based collection model, similar to 

systems used by the Judicial Proceedings Panel or U.S. Sentencing Commission, that

incorporates uniform definitions and categories across all of the military Services. 

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

assault cases are resolved through the military justice system.

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

DoD does not centrally collect and manage information about military justice

processing in sexual assault cases. The military Services, however, have Servicespecific systems, tailored to a decentralized, command-driven military justice

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

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

Sentencing Commission, for collecting and analyzing information from court-martial

case documents. This system was used to accumulate procedural information from

court-martial documents for the data analysis in this report.

• Collecting standard information from court-martial documents regarding

dispositions, charges, outcomes, and punishments imposed in adult sexual assault

cases could improve Service-level analysis and could be incorporated into DoD’s

reports to Congress.

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

the military Services, case adjudication data could be compiled and analyzed by the

Services in a manner compatible with DoD’s electronic database and congressional

reporting requirements.

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

military justice system would be improved by the collection of the following case

information:

o all sexual assault charges that were preferred and the outcome of each

charge, including whether the charge was referred to court-martial,

dismissed, or resolved by alternate means;

o type of court-martial held;

o pleas of the accused;

o trial forum;

o findings;
Enclosure 1

2 

o sentence; and

o convening authority action on the findings and sentence.

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

must be supplemented by potentially relevant case facts and evidentiary issues.

Such information may include characteristics of the victim, the relationship between

the accused and victim, whether the victim made a prompt report, whether the

victim was willing to cooperate, whether the victim engaged in any risk-taking

behavior around the time of the incident, and the presence of eyewitnesses or

physical evidence.

Recommendation 38 [April 2016]: The Department of Defense include legal disposition 

information related to all adult sexual assault complaints in one annual DoD report, 

changing its policy that excludes adult-victim cases that are handled by the Family 

Advocacy Program from Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office reports. 

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

unrestricted report of sexual assault covered by DoD’s sexual assault prevention and

response policy; however, that policy precludes reporting on adult sexual assault

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

family members over the age of consent under the UCMJ (16 years of age), for whom

the DoD Family Advocacy Program (FAP) provides victim advocacy services.

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

receives, even when FAP provides victim advocacy services through completion of a

court-martial for a sexual assault crime. Because these cases are excluded from

DoD’s reports on the legal resolution of sexual assault cases, it is not possible to

accurately determine how many sexual assault cases are handled through the

military justice system.

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

reported by DoD in its annual report to Congress would ensure a complete

accounting of all adult sexual assault cases involving a military member.

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

report to the Secretary of Defense, examined this issue and similarly recommended

it be corrected.

Recommendation 52 [April 2017]: The Secretary of Defense and the military Services use a 

standardized, document-based collection model for collecting and analyzing case 

adjudication data in order to implement Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(Case Management; Data Collection and Accessibility) 

• Document-based case adjudication data collection is a best practice utilized and

recommended by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The JPP’s document-based

approach to data collection involves obtaining relevant case documents from the
Enclosure 1

3 

military Services (e.g., charge sheet, report of result of trial) and recording 

the relevant case history data into a centralized database for analysis. 

• In its April 2016 report, the JPP recommended that the Department of Defense

collect and analyze case adjudication data using a standardized, document-based

collection model similar to the systems used by the JPP or the U.S. Sentencing

Commission.

• Article 140a, enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2017, requires the establishment within four years of uniform standards and criteria

for collecting military justice data across all of the military Services.

Recommendation 53 [April 2017]: The new military justice data collection system required 

to be developed pursuant to Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (Case 

Management; Data Collection and Accessibility), should be designed so as to become the 

exclusive source of sexual assault case adjudication data for DoD’s annual report to 

Congress on DoD’s sexual assault prevention and response initiatives.

• DoD SAPRO’s data collection and reporting on the legal disposition of adult-victim

sexual assault cases do not describe the results of sexual assault reports made

within DoD with sufficient clarity or thoroughness for Congress or DoD to

understand how these cases are handled within the military justice system.

• Military justice personnel should be involved in providing the information collected

pursuant to Article 140a, which would improve the accuracy and level of detail

currently contained in DoD’s reports on sexual assault cases.

• DOD SAPRO should rely solely on the Article 140a data for its sexual assault case

adjudication data when developing the DoD SAPRO annual report to Congress.

• To the extent possible, DoD should avoid developing a source of data under Article

140a that does not communicate with other sources of data within DoD, such as DoD

SAPRO’s sexual assault incident database.

Recommendation 54 [April 2017]: The successor federal advisory committee to the JPP, the 

Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault 

in the Armed Forces, 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 courtmartial data:

a. Cases involving military victims tend to have less punitive outcomes than cases involving

civilian victims;

b. The conviction and acquittal rates for sexual assault offenses vary significantly among

the military Services; and
Enclosure 1

4 

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%.

• Because the data required to meet the JPP’s congressional tasks were not available

or collected by any entity within DoD, including the annual DoD SAPRO report, the

JPP independently collected the needed information directly from case files

maintained by the military Services.

• The JPP heard testimony from civilian experts from the Bureau of Justice Statistics

and the U.S. Sentencing Commission on best practices for collecting accurate and

reliable information about case adjudication.

• In 2014, the JPP, in collaboration with the Washington Headquarters Service,

developed a document-based database containing information on more than 2,500

military sexual assault cases adjudicated in fiscal years 2012 to 2015.

• In order to understand the data collected, the JPP retained a nationally recognized

criminologist who was not affiliated with DoD or any military Service to perform an

in-depth statistical analysis of the data.

• The JPP’s charter ends on September 30, 2017, and no similar project or method

currently exists to continue this in-depth study of sexual assault cases in the

military justice system once the JPP concludes.

Recommendation 60 [September 2017]: 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. 

• Counsel on site visits reported high acquittal rates in sexual assault cases due to a

less robust Article 32 process, the standard of probable cause for referral of charges,

and pressure on convening authorities to refer cases to trial even when based on weak

evidence.

• Case documents provided by the Services for sexual assault cases tried by courtmartial in fiscal year 2015 show that for cases in which the most serious offense tried

was a penetrative offense, 39% resulted in convictions of a sexual assault offense, 31%

resulted in convictions of a non-sex offense only, and 30% resulted in acquittal of all

charges. For cases in which the most serious sex offense tried was a sexual contact

offense, 25% resulted in convictions of a sexual contact offense, 57% resulted in

convictions of a non-sex offense only, and 18% resulted in acquittal of all charges.
Enclosure 1

5 

*The published reports of the JPP are as follows:

1. The Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military

Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses (April 2016)

2. The Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military

Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses for Fiscal Year 2015 (September 2017)

3. The Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Panel Concerns Regarding the Fair

Administration of Military Justice in Sexual Assault Cases (September 2017)
ENCLOSURE 2
PERSONNEL AND

READINESS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-4000 

Elizabeth Holtzman, Chair 

Judicial Proceedings Panel 

One Liberty Center 

875 North Randolph Street 

Arlington, VA 22203-1995 

Dear Chairperson Holtzman: 

This letter is in response to your Request for Information, Set 11, dated March 6, 201 7. 

In Question 164A, you requested the status of implementation of Judicial Proceedings 

Panel (JPP) recommendations 37 and 38. New requirements set forth in the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 pertaining to the collection and analysis of 

military justice data will influence our way forward on these recommendations. As such, how 

we will implement the recommendations in light of the NOAA requirements remains predecisional. 

We continue to support and appreciate the work that the JPP is doing to improve military justice. 

Dr. Nate Galbreath, the Deputy Director of the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Office, and Ms. Kathy Robertson, Family Advocacy Program Director, will be my representatives 

at the meeting on April 7, 2017. 

A. M. Kurta

Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of

Defense for Personnel and Readiness

 [FOR CLARITY, UNRELATED CONTENT HAS BEEN REMOVED BY DAC-IPAD STAFF]

Enclosure 2 

Excerpt from original response
ENCLOSURE 3
Enclosure 3

Documents and Data Elements Collected by

the DAC-IPAD for Cases in Which Sexual 

Assault Charges Have Been Preferred

Case documents collected in preferred cases:

• Charge Sheet

• Article 32 Report, or waiver of Article 32 preliminary hearing

• Pretrial Advice

• Pretrial Agreement (includes a stipulation of fact)

• Record of Trial cover sheet

• Dismissal Order (when charge(s) are withdrawn & dismissed )

• Request for trial by Judge Alone or Panel of Military Members

• Exhibit Index

• Report of Result of Trial (findings and sentence; terms of a pretrial agreement)

• Staff Judge Advocate Post-trial Recommendation to Convening Authority

• Court-Martial Order (findings and sentence as approved by the Convening Authority)

• Resignation/Discharge Documents

• Victim Input on case disposition

• Special Victim's Counsel/Victim's Legal Counsel Notice of Appearance

• Appellate opinions or summary disposition
Enclosure 3

2 

Case data elements collected in preferred cases:

Administrative

- Military service of the accused

- Fiscal year of case disposition (one of the following):

- Date of adjudged sentence or acquittal at court-martial

- Date on which all court-martial charges were dismissed

- Date on which the accused’s request for administrative discharge or resignation in

lieu of court-martial was approved

- Case Number: Unique DAC-IPAD case number assigned to each adult sexual assault case

- Location where the case was processed: Charge Sheet, Block 5 (Unit, Organization, or

Ship Name)

- Location is CONUS, OCONUS, or Vessel (Alaska, Hawaii, Guam are OCONUS)

Demographics

- Accused Rank

- Accused Gender

- Victim(s) Gender (one of the following):

- All victims are females

- All victims are males

- Victims include females and males

- Victim(s) Military Status:

- All victims are military members

- All victims are civilians

- Victims include military members and civilians

Pretrial

- Victim has Special Victims’ Counsel or Victims’ Legal Counsel: Yes or No

- Accused ordered into pretrial confinement: Yes or No

- All offenses listed on the charge sheet (sex offenses and non-sex offenses)

- The offense occurred after June 24, 2014 (mandatory minimum sentence in effect for

penetrative offenses): Yes or No

- Most serious charged sex offense by type: Penetrative or Contact Offense

 - Article 32 hearing (one of the following):

- The hearing was held

- The accused waived the hearing

- Not applicable

- Article 32 hearing officer’s recommended disposition for every offense charged

- If the Article 32 hearing officer recommends dismissal of charges or alternate

disposition, note the rationale if available

- Whether the victim appeared at the Article 32 hearing

- Article 32 hearing or waiver occurred after December 26, 2014 (effective date for

current Article 32 preliminary hearing procedures)

- Staff Judge Advocate’s (SJA) pretrial advice applicable in this case (required for general

courts-martial): Yes or No
Enclosure 3

3 

- SJA’s advice as to the disposition of every offense charged

- If SJA recommends dismissal or alternate disposition, note rationale if available

- Pretrial Agreement (PTA): Yes or No

- Accused pleading guilty to one or more sex offenses: Yes or No

- Other terms of the PTA (limits on confinement/punitive separation/referral to a

specific forum for disposition/other)

- Disposition of all charges at the point of referral to court-martial or other decision on

case disposition

- Charges are referred to trial by court-martial (note type):

- General court-martial

- Special court-martial

- Summary court-martial

- Charges are dismissed (note whether before or after referral of charges to courtmartial)

- Reason for dismissal of charges, if known:

- Victim does not wish to participate in the court-martial process

- Other

- Information not available

- Charges are resolved by alternate disposition (i.e., nonjudicial punishment,

administrative separation or other administrative action)

Trial

- Trial forum: Military Judge / Panel Members / Summary Court-martial Officer

- Accused’s plea entered as to every offense referred to court-martial

- Note guilty plea to any sex offense

- If plea is guilty of a lesser included offense, choose from offense listing

- Court-Martial Outcome:

- Findings as to every offense tried

- Accused found guilty of any sex offense: Yes or No

- Accused found guilty of a lesser included offense: Yes or No

- Most serious sex offense for which the accused was found guilty: penetrative or

contact offense

- Accused acquitted of all charges: Yes or No

- Any charges dismissed by the military judge

- Any charges withdrawn by the government pursuant to a PTA

Sentence

- Sentenced adjudged (confinement and/or punitive separation/other type of punishment)

- Sentence approved by the convening authority pursuant to a PTA or clemency granted

(ex: forfeitures of pay and allowances deferred or waived)

Appellate Review

- Automatic appellate review required by Service Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA): Yes

or No

- Court-Martial findings/sentence affirmed
Enclosure 3

4 

- Court-martial findings/sentence relief granted

- Rehearing ordered/authorized

- Fiscal year of appellate decision

- Appellate issue(s) related to a sex offense

Dates

- Dates for the following:

- Preferral of charges

- Article 32 preliminary hearing

- Referral of charges

- Findings or sentence adjudged

- Convening Authority action on the court-martial

- CCA decision

- Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) decision

- U.S. Supreme Court decision
J-22

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
K-1

APPENDIX K. JANUARY 23, 2019, LETTER FROM MR. PAUL S. KOFFSKY, DOD SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL 

COUNSEL AND DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR PERSONNEL & HEALTH POLICY, TO DAC-IPAD CHAIR 

MARTHA BASHFORD RESPONDING TO DAC-IPAD’S RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING ARTICLE 140a

APPENDIX K.

JANUARY 23, 2019, LETTER FROM MR. PAUL S. KOFFSKY, 

DOD SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL AND 

DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL FOR PERSONNEL & HEALTH 

POLICY, TO DAC-IPAD CHAIR MARTHA S. BASHFORD 

RESPONDING TO DAC-IPAD’S RECOMMENDATIONS 

REGARDING ARTICLE 140a
K-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES



K-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
L-1

APPENDIX L. DECEMBER 17, 2018, MEMORANDUM FROM MR. PAUL C. NEY, JR., DOD GENERAL COUNSEL, 

TO SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS PROMULGATING ARTICLE 140a STANDARDS AND CRITERIA

APPENDIX L.

DECEMBER 17, 2018, MEMORANDUM FROM 

MR. PAUL C. NEY, JR., DOD GENERAL COUNSEL, TO 

SECRETARIES OF THE MILITARY DEPARTMENTS 

PROMULGATING ARTICLE 140a STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
L-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
























M-1

APPENDIX M. JUNE 7, 2018, MEMORANDUM FROM MR. WILLIAM S. CASTLE, 

ACTING DOD GENERAL COUNSEL, TO DAC-IPAD CHAIR MARTHA BASHFORD 

REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF JPP RECOMMENDATIONS 54, 55, 57, 58, AND 60

APPENDIX M.

JUNE 7, 2018, MEMORANDUM FROM MR. WILLIAM S.

CASTLE, ACTING DOD GENERAL COUNSEL, TO DAC-IPAD 

CHAIR MARTHA S. BASHFORD REGARDING ASSESSMENT 

OF JPP RECOMMENDATIONS 54, 55, 57, 58, AND 60
M-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

M-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES
N-1

APPENDIX N. DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS, PREPARATORY SESSIONS, AND PRESENTERS

APPENDIX N. DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS, PREPARATORY 

SESSIONS, AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS

MEETING DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC 

MEETING 7

April 20, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

 Arlington, Virginia

Best Practices for Case Management and Data Collection in Civilian 

Criminal Courts

• Mr. Glenn Schmitt, Director, Office of Research and Data, 

U.S. Sentencing Commission

• Dr. Allen Beck, Senior Statistical Advisor, Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice 

• Mr. Wendell Skidgel, Electronic Public Access Staff, Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts 

• Ms. Margaret Sheehan McCaleb, Project Director, 

Next Generation CM/ECF, Case Management Systems Office, 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Current Capabilities of the Military Services’ Case Management and 

Data Collection Programs

• Lieutenant Colonel Jason Coats, USA, Operations Branch Chief, 

Criminal Law Division, U.S. Army Office of the Judge Advocate 

General

• Captain Michael Luken, USN, Director, U.S. Navy Trial Counsel 

Assistance Program 

• Major Jesse Schweig, USMC, U.S. Marine Corps Trial Counsel 

Assistance Program, Judge Advocate Division – Military Justice 

• Major Noel Horton, USAF, Executive Officer, U.S. Air Force 

Judiciary Directorate, Air Force Legal Operations Agency

• Mr. Stephen McCleary, Senior Military Justice Counsel, 

U.S. Coast Guard Office of Military Justice

Updates for the Committee from the Data, Case Review, 

and Policy Working Groups
N-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS

MEETING DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC 

MEETING 8

July 20, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Military Services’ Perspectives on Best Practices for Implementing 

Article 140a, UCMJ, Case management; data collection and 

accessibility

• Ms. Janet Mansfield, Chief, Programs Branch, Criminal Law 

Division, U.S. Army Office of the Judge Advocate General 

• Major Wayne Shew, USMC, Deputy Branch Head, Military Justice, 

Judge Advocate Division, Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps 

• Lieutenant Commander Jeff Pietrzyk, USN, Deputy Director, 

Code 20, Military Justice Directorate, U.S. Navy Office of the Judge 

Advocate General 

• Mr. John Hartsell, Associate Chief, U.S. Air Force Military Justice 

Division, Air Force Legal Operations Agency

• Mr. Stephen McCleary, Senior Military Justice Counsel, 

U.S. Coast Guard Office of Military Justice

Committee Deliberations on Best Practices for Implementing Article 

140a, UCMJ, Case management; data collection and accessibility

Updates from the Staff Director, Data Working Group and Case 

Review Working Group

Public Comment

• Staff Sergeant Alyssa Rodriguez, USAF, Retired

• Ms. Kylisha Boyd

• Mr. Ryan Guilds, Attorney, Arnold & Porter
N-3

APPENDIX N. DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS, PREPARATORY SESSIONS, AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS

MEETING DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC 

MEETING 9

September 7, 2018

Telephonic Meeting

Public Access:

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Committee Deliberations on Best Practices for Implementing Article 

140a, UCMJ, Case management; data collection and accessibility

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC 

MEETING 10

October 19, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Effects of Sexual Assault Investigations on Accused Service Members

• Ms. Kate Coyne, Criminal Defense Highly Qualified Expert, 

U.S. Marine Corps

Perspectives of Civilian Sexual Assault Investigators 

• Sergeant Detective Kelley O’Connell, Boston, Massachusetts, 

Police Department

• Sergeant Amanda Wise, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

Police Department

• Major Steve Hohman, Baltimore, Maryland, Police Department

Case Review Working Group: Presentation and Deliberations on 

Initial Findings and Recommendations Related to Sexual Assault 

Investigative Case File Reviews

Committee Deliberations on Expedited Transfer – Final Assessment

Briefing and Committee Deliberations on Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Recommendations Referred to DAC-IPAD for Examination Related 

to Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Briefing by Deputy Staff Director and Committee Deliberations 

Regarding FY19 NDAA Collateral Misconduct Study 

Data Working Group Update
N-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS

MEETING DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC 

MEETING 11

January 25, 2019

Doubletree by Hilton

Crystal City

300 Army Navy Drive

Arlington, Virginia

Effects of Sexual Assault Investigations on Accused Service Members

• Lieutenant Colonel Joseph “Jay” Morse, USA, Retired 

• Colonel Doug James, USAF, Retired

• Colonel David “Wil” Riggins, USA, Retired 

Data Working Group: Criminologist Presentation and Committee 

Deliberations on Sexual Assault Court-Martial Data 

Case Review Working Group: Criminologist Presentation and 

Committee Deliberations on Investigative Case File Review Data 

Committee Deliberations on the 2019 DAC-IPAD Annual Report, 

Draft 1.0

DAC-IPAD PUBLIC 

MEETING 12

February 22, 2019

Telephonic Meeting

Public Access:

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Committee Deliberations on the 2019 DAC-IPAD Annual Report, 

Draft 2.0
N-5

APPENDIX N. DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS, PREPARATORY SESSIONS, AND PRESENTERS

CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP PREPARATORY SESSIONS 

SESSION DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Case Review Working 

Group Preparatory 

Session 9

March 6, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Perspectives of Service Prosecutors Regarding Sexual Assault 

Investigations

• Lieutenant Colonel Rebecca Farrell, USA, Special Victim 

Prosecutor, U.S. Army

• Lieutenant Commander Christopher Deerwester, USN, 

Senior Trial Counsel, U.S. Navy

• Major Clare Hodge III, USMC, Deputy Branch Head, 

Military Justice Branch, U.S. Marine Corps

• Colonel Christopher Brown, USAF, Chief, Military Justice Division, 

U.S. Air Force

• Colonel Matthew Jarreau, USAF, Staff Judge Advocate, 

U.S. Air Force

• Commander Cassie Kitchen, USCG, Chief, Military Justice and 

Command Advice, U.S. Coast Guard 

Perspectives of Military Investigators Regarding Sexual Assault 

Investigations

• Special Agent Clarence Joubert III, Supervisory Special Agent and 

Program Manager for the Special Victim Unit, U.S. Army 

• Special Agent Lisa Medrano, Chief, Special Victim Team, U.S. Army

• Mr. Robert Diederichsen, Program Management Analyst, U.S. Navy

• Special Agent Stephanie Winters, Family and Sexual Violence 

Investigator, U.S. Navy

• Special Agent Ernest Slatinsky, Chief of Quality Assessments, 

U.S. Air Force

• Special Agent Marta Sivert, Chief, Violent Crimes, U.S. Air Force

• Special Agent Barry Buck, Family and Sexual Violence Investigator, 

U.S. Coast Guard 
N-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP PREPARATORY SESSIONS 

SESSION DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Case Review Working 

Group Preparatory 

Session 9

(Continued)

Perspectives of Defense Counsel Regarding Sexual Assault 

Investigations

• Major Jamal Rhinehardt, USA, Senior Defense Counsel, U.S. Army

• Commander Chad Temple, USN, Director, Defense Counsel 

Assistance Program, U.S. Navy

• Major John Boyer, USMC, Senior Defense Counsel, 

U.S. Marine Corps

• Major Marquita Ricks, USAF, Senior Defense Counsel, 

U.S. Air Force

• Commander Shanell King, USCG, Senior Defense Counsel, 

U.S. Coast Guard

Deliberations on Potential April Presentations 

Case Review Working 

Group Preparatory 

Session 10

April 19, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Status Update on Case Review Project

Discussion on Plan for 2019 Report

Discussion on Briefing to the DAC-IPAD for April 20, 2018, Meeting

Case Closure Disposition Categories Discussion

Case Review Working 

Group Preparatory 

Session 11

July 19, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Status Update on Case Review Project

Discussion on Selection of Issues for Assessment and 

Recommendations in the March 2019 Report

Discussion on Checklist for Preferred Cases and Possible Speakers 

for October DAC-IPAD Public Meeting

Discussion on Briefing to the DAC-IPAD for July 20, 2018, Meeting
N-7

APPENDIX N. DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS, PREPARATORY SESSIONS, AND PRESENTERS

CASE REVIEW WORKING GROUP PREPARATORY SESSIONS 

SESSION DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Case Review 

Working Group

Staff Briefing

July 25, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Briefings on the FBI National Incident-Based Reporting System 

(NIBRS) and the Department of Defense Incident-Based Reporting 

System (DIBRS)

• Mr. Darrin A. Paul, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) 

Division, Crime Statistics Management Unit, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI)

• Mr. Scott E. Myers, CJIS Division, Crime Statistics Management 

Unit, FBI

• Mr. Michael S. Wise, CJIS Division, Crime Statistics Management 

Unit, FBI

• Ms. Shelley Verdejo, Director, Law Enforcement Policy, Office of the 

Under Secretary for Intelligence, U.S. Department of Defense

Case Review Working 

Group Preparatory 

Session 12

August 23, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Department of Justice Criminal Charging Standards

• Ms. Kate Buzicky, Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Minnesota

Staff Briefing to Working Group on NIBRS/DIBRS 

Planning for Working Group Presentation to DAC-IPAD at 

October 19, 2018, Meeting

Case Review Working 

Group Preparatory 

Session 13

October 18, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Deliberation on Working Group’s Proposed Findings and 

Recommendations for Presentation to DAC-IPAD at 

October 19, 2018, Public Meeting
N-8

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

POLICY WORKING GROUP PREPARATORY SESSIONS 

SESSION DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Policy Working Group 

Preparatory Session 5

April 19, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Review Materials and Information on Article 140a, UCMJ

Working Group Strategic Planning

Policy Working Group 

Preparatory Session 6

May 24, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Perspectives of DoD and Service Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response (SAPR) Managers and Special Victims’ Counsel Program 

Managers Regarding the Expedited Transfer Process and Policy

• Ms. Diana Rangoussis, Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor, Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), U.S. Department 

of Defense (DoD)

• Mr. Nathan Evans, Branch Chief, Sexual Harassment and Assault 

Response and Prevention (SHARP) Program Management & 

Reporting, U.S. Army

• Mr. Michael Slaven, Chief, Special Actions Branch, Human 

Resources Command, U.S. Army (telephonically)

• Colonel Peter Yob, USA, U.S. Army Special Victims’ Counsel 

Program Manager

• Ms. Charlotte Cluverius, Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S. Navy Victims’ 

Legal Counsel Program

• Mr. Paul Rosen, Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

(SAPR) Program, U.S. Navy

• Major Jessica Martz, USMC, Deputy Officer-in-Charge, 

U.S. Marine Corps Victims’ Legal Counsel Organization

• Ms. Erinn Izykowski, Section Head, Plans, Policy and Oversight, 

SAPR Program, U.S. Marine Corps

• Colonel James Key III, USAF, Chief, U.S. Air Force Special Victims’ 

Counsel Division

• Ms. Kimberly Lahm, Policy Branch Chief, U.S. Air Force 

Interpersonal Self-Directed Violence Response Program
N-9

APPENDIX N. DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS, PREPARATORY SESSIONS, AND PRESENTERS

POLICY WORKING GROUP PREPARATORY SESSIONS 

SESSION DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Policy Working Group 

Preparatory Session 6

(Continued)

• Ms. Shawn Blaine, Program Manager, SAPR Program, 

U.S. Coast Guard

• Ms. Christa Specht, Chief, U.S. Coast Guard Member Advocacy 

Division

• Lieutenant Amanda Styles, USCG, Central Assignment 

Coordinator, Aviation, Communication, and Prevention Career 

Fields, U.S. Coast Guard

• Lieutenant Colonel Tyler Buckley, National Guard Bureau, Program 

Manager, National Guard Special Victims’ Counsel Program

• Major Peter Williams, National Guard Bureau, Chief Policy Officer, 

National Guard Special Victims’ Counsel Program

Perspectives of DoD and Service Sexual Assault Response 

Coordinators (SARCs) Regarding the Expedited Transfer Process 

and Policy

• Ms. Bette Inch, Senior Victim Assistance Advisor, DoD SAPRO

• Sergeant First Class Lisa Vaughn, USA, Lead SARC, U.S. Army, 

1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss, TX

• Ms. Kathleen Schofield, Lead Sexual Assault Response Coordinator, 

Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA

• Ms. Elizabeth Johnson, Command Sexual Assault Response 

Coordinator, U.S. Marine Corps, 2nd Marine Logistics Group, 

Camp Lejeune, NC

• Ms. Deborah Allen, Operations Branch Chief, U.S. Air Force 

SAPR Office, Falls Church, VA

• Ms. Lisa Surette, Training Branch Chief, U.S. Air Force SAPR Office, 

Falls Church, VA

• Mx. Angela Lakey, U.S. Coast Guard National Capital Region SARC, 

Washington, DC

Perspectives of Defense Counsel Assistance Program Chiefs or 

Representatives Regarding the Expedited Transfer Process and Policy

• Lieutenant Colonel Mary Ann Bowery, USA, Chief, 

U.S. Army Defense Counsel Assistance Program

• Commander Chad Temple, USN, Director, U.S. Navy Defense 

Counsel Assistance Program
N-10

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

POLICY WORKING GROUP PREPARATORY SESSIONS 

SESSION DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Policy Working Group 

Preparatory Session 6

(Continued)

• Major Christopher Capasso, USMC, Officer-in-Charge, 

U.S. Marine Corps Defense Counsel Assistance Program

• Colonel Thomas Rodrigues, USAF, Chief, U.S. Air Force Trial 

Defense Division

• Commander Shanell King, USCG, Chief, U.S. Coast Guard 

Defense Services

Perspectives of Service Military Criminal Investigative Organizations 

Regarding the Expedited Transfer Process and Policy

• Mr. Guy Surian, Deputy Chief, Investigative Operations, 

Investigative Policy and Criminal Intelligence, U.S. Army Criminal 

Investigation Command

• Ms. T. L. Williams, Chief, Policy Branch, U.S. Army Criminal 

Investigation Command

• Mr. Michael DeFamio, Division Chief, Family and Sexual Violence 

Division, Naval Criminal Investigative Service 

• Mr. Kevin Poorman, Associate Director, Criminal Investigations, 

U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations

• Ms. Marta Sivert, Chief, Violent Crimes, U.S. Air Force Office of 

Special Investigations

• Ms. Beverly Vogel, Sex Crimes Program Manager, U.S. Coast Guard 

Criminal Investigative Service

Policy Working Group 

Preparatory Session 7

June 14, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Deliberations on Article 140a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
N-11

APPENDIX N. DAC-IPAD PUBLIC MEETINGS, PREPARATORY SESSIONS, AND PRESENTERS

POLICY WORKING GROUP PREPARATORY SESSIONS 

SESSION DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Policy Working Group 

Preparatory Session 8

July 19, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Deliberations on Article 140a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Policy Working Group 

Preparatory Session 9

September 18, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Review of Proposed Findings and Recommendations on 

DoD Expedited Transfer Policy

Policy Working Group 

Preparatory Session 10

October 18, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Review of Information for Presentation to the DAC-IPAD on 

October 19, 2018
N-12

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DATA WORKING GROUP PREPARATORY SESSION 

SESSION DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Data Working Group 

Preparatory Session

April 19, 2018

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Status of Criminologist Appointment

Overview of RFI Process and Data Collection Topics of Interest

Strategic Planning

DAC-IPAD PREPARATORY SESSION

MEETING DATE 

AND LOCATION TOPICS AND PRESENTERS

Committee 

Preparatory Session

January 24, 2019

One Liberty Center

875 N. Randolph St.

Arlington, Virginia

Presentation of DAC-IPAD Case Adjudication and Case Review 

Statistical Data by the Staff Criminologist, Dr. William Wells, and 

Review of Draft 1.0 of 2019 Annual Report
O-1

APPENDIX O. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APPENDIX O. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AFOSI U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations

AMJAMS Automated Military Justice Analysis & Management System

ASA adult sexual assault

BPD Baltimore Police Department

C.A.A.F. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

CCA Court of Criminal Appeals

CDC child development center

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

CGIS U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service 

CID U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command

CJIS Criminal Justice Information Services

CM/ECF Case Management/Electronic Court Filing System

CO commanding officer

CODIS Combined DNA Index System

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

DAVA domestic abuse victim advocate 

DD Department of Defense [form]

DIBRS Defense Incident-Based Reporting System

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid

DoD Department of Defense

DoDI Department of Defense Instruction

DoD OIG Department of Defense Office of Inspector General
O-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

DoD SAPRO Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response Office

DOJ Department of Justice

DSAID Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database

DWG Data Working Group 

e-ROT electronic record of trial

ET expedited transfer

FACA Federal Advisory Committee Act

FAP Family Advocacy Program

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FOIA Freedom of Information Act

FY fiscal year

GCM general court-martial 

IG inspector general

IO investigating officer

JAG judge advocate general

JPP Judicial Proceedings Panel (Judicial Proceedings Since 

2012 Amendments Panel)

MCIO military criminal investigative organization 

MCM Manual for Courts-Martial

MJRG Military Justice Review Group

MOA memorandum of agreement

N number

NCIC National Crime Information Center

NCIS Naval Criminal Investigative Service

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

NIBRS National Incident-Based Reporting System

NJP non-judicial punishment
O-3

APPENDIX O. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

NS not (statistically) significant

OCONUS outside the continental United States

OIG Office of Inspector General

OLS ordinary least squares

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PACER Public Access to Court Electronic Records

PHO preliminary hearing officer

PII personally identifiable information

PSA penetrative sexual assault

PWG Policy Working Group

R.C.M. Rule or Rules for Courts-Martial

RFI request for information

RSP Response Systems Panel (Response Systems to 

Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel)

SA sexual assault

SADR Sexual Assault Disposition Report

SANE sexual assault nurse examiner

SAPR Sexual Assault Prevention and Response

SAPRO Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office

SARC sexual assault response coordinator

SIR Serious Incident Report

SJA staff judge advocate

SJAR Staff Judge Advocate Recommendation

SPCM special court-martial

SVC special victims’ counsel

UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice

UCR Uniform Crime Report
O-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

UNK unknown

USA United States Army

USAF United States Air Force

USAO United States Attorney’s Office

U.S.C. United States Code

USCG United States Coast Guard

USMC United States Marine Corps

USN United States Navy

VA victim advocate

VLC victims’ legal counsel
P-1

APPENDIX P. SOURCES CONSULTED 

APPENDIX P.

SOURCES CONSULTED

1. 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. § 674 (Temporary administrative reassignment or removal of a member on active duty accused of 

committing a sexual assault or related offense)

10 U.S.C. §§ 801–946 (Uniform Code of Military Justice)

18 U.S.C. §§ 921 et seq. (Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended)

28 U.S.C. §§ 991 et seq. (Sentencing Reform Act provisions of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984)

34 U.S.C. § 41303 (Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act of 1988)

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)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-91, 131 Stat. 1283 (2017) 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, Pub. L. No. 115-232, 132 Stat. 1636 (2018)

b. Proposed Statutes

S. 1752, 113th Cong. (2013), Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013 

2. Judicial Decisions

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Pease, 75 M.J. 180 (C.A.A.F. 2016)
P-2

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

3. Rules and Regulations

a. Executive Orders

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 edition)

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 edition)

b. Rules and Regulations

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 28, Part 20, Criminal Justice Information Systems

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 32, Part 105, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program 

Procedures

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 

c. Department of Defense 

Department of Defense Directive 5400.11, Department of Defense Privacy Program (October 29, 2014)

Department of Defense Instruction 1315.18, Procedures for Military Personnel Assignments (October 28, 2015) 

(Incorporating Change 2, July 23, 2018)

Department of Defense Instruction 5505.03, Initiation of Investigations by Defense Criminal Investigative 

Organizations (March 24, 2011) (Incorporating Change 2, February 13, 2017)

Department of Defense Instruction 5505.11, Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submission 

Requirements (July 21, 2014) (Incorporating Change 2, March 30, 2017)

Department of Defense Instruction 5505.18, Investigation of Adult Sexual Assault in the Department of Defense

(March 22, 2017) (Incorporating Change 2, January 31, 2019)

Department of Defense Instruction 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures

(March 28, 2013) (Incorporating Change 3, May 24, 2017)

Department of Defense Instruction 7730.47, Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS) (January 23, 

2018) (Incorporating Change 1, June 29, 2018)

Department of Defense Manual 7730.47-M, Volume 1, Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS): Data 

Segments and Elements (December 7, 2010) (Incorporating Change 2, June 29, 2018)

d. Military Services

U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant Instruction M1754.10E, Coast Guard Investigation Service Roles and 

Responsibilities (December 2016) 
P-3

APPENDIX P. SOURCES CONSULTED 

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 (October 20, 2017)

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (April 20, 2018)

Transcript of DAC-IPAD Public Meeting (October 19, 2018)

b. Public Meeting of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel 

Transcript of Response Systems Panel Public Meeting (May 29, 2014)

c. Preparatory Sessions of the DAC-IPAD Working Groups

Transcript of the DAC-IPAD Case Review Working Group Preparatory Session (March 6, 2018) 

Transcript of the DAC-IPAD Case Review Working Group Preparatory Session (July 19, 2018) 

Transcript of the DAC-IPAD Case Review Working Group Staff Preparatory Session (July 25, 2018) 

Transcript of the DAC-IPAD Case Review Working Group Preparatory Session (August 23, 2018) 

Transcript of the DAC-IPAD Policy Working Group Preparatory Session (December 1, 2017) 

Transcript of the DAC-IPAD Policy Working Group Preparatory Session (May 24, 2018) 

5. Committee Member Submissions

Letter from Ms. Martha S. Bashford, Chair, DAC-IPAD, to the Secretary of Defense (September 13, 2018)

6. Military and Civilian Federal Policy 

a. Department of Defense

Memorandum from Secretary of Defense to Secretaries of Military Departments et al., subject: Withholding 

Initial Disposition Authority Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in Certain Sexual Assault Cases 

(April 20, 2012)

Memorandum from Secretary of Defense to Secretaries of Military Departments et al., subject: Comprehensive 

Review of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (October 18, 2013)
P-4

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Memorandum from Secretary of Defense to Secretaries of Military Departments et al., subject: Exception to 

Policy Allowing the Military Services the Option to Provide Expedited Transfers to Adult Sexual Assault 

Victim Who File Restricted Reports (October 21, 2015)

b. Military Services

Chief National Guard Bureau Instruction 1303.01A, Expedited Transfer, Reassignment, or Removal of National 

Guard Members Due to an Unrestricted Report of Sexual Assault (August 6, 2014) 

Memorandum of Agreement Between the Office of the Judge Advocate General and the U.S. Army Criminal 

Investigation Command (CID), Legal Coordination for CID Law Enforcement Reports (June 5, 2018)

c. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook, National 

Incident-Based Reporting System, Volume 1: Data Collection Guidelines (2000)

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division 

Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, Summary Reporting System (SRS) User Manual (2013)

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Guidelines for Preparation of Fingerprint Cards and 

Associated Criminal History Information (September 30, 2016)

7. Official Reports

a. DoD and DoD Agencies

Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, Report No. DODIG-2016-088, Evaluation of the Separation 

of Service Members Who Made a Report of Sexual Assault (May 9, 2016)

Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, Report No. DODIG-2018-035, Evaluation of Fingerprint 

Card and Final Disposition Report Submissions by Military Service Law Enforcement Organizations

(December 4, 2017)

Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, Report No. DODIG 2019-030, Report of Investigation 

into the United States Air Force’s Failure to Submit Devin Kelly’s Criminal History Information to the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (December 6, 2018)

Department of Defense, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Department of Defense Annual Report 

on Sexual Assault in the Military: Fiscal Year 2016 (May 1, 2017)

Department of Defense, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Department of Defense Annual Report 

on Sexual Assault in the Military: Fiscal Year 2017 (April 27, 2018) 

Department of Defense, Report on Review of Resourcing of Trial Defense Services Organizations (June 2018)

Military Justice Review Group, Report of the Military Justice Review Group, Part I: UCMJ Recommendations

(December 22, 2015)
P-5

APPENDIX P. SOURCES CONSULTED 

b. Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel 

Response Systems Panel, Report of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (June 2014) 

c. Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Judicial Proceedings Panel, Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses

(April 2016) 

Judicial Proceedings Panel, Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses 

for Fiscal Year 2015 (September 2017) 

Judicial Proceedings Panel, Report on Panel Concerns Regarding the Fair Administration of Military Justice in 

Sexual Assault Cases (September 2017) 

d. Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the 

Armed Forces Reports

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, 

Annual Report (March 2018)

8. DAC-IPAD Requests for Information and Responses

DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4 (September 11, 2017)

DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 5 (October 30, 2017)

Military Services’ Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 4 (September 11, 2017)

Military Services’ Responses to DAC-IPAD Request for Information Set 5 (October 30, 2017)

9. News Articles 

Ilke Cole, “Air Force’s First Invisible Wounds Center Opens,” Defense Visual Information Distribution Service 

(September 4, 2018)

Robert Draper, “The Military’s Rough Justice on Sexual Assault,” New York Times (November 26, 2014)

Craig Whitlock, “How the Military Handles Sexual Assault Behind Closed Doors,” Washington Post (September 

30, 2017)

10. Letters and Emails

Written Remarks to the DAC-IPAD from Mr. Glenn Schmitt, Director, Office of Research and Data, 

United States Sentencing Commission (April 20, 2017)

Memorandum from Mr. William Castle, Acting General Counsel for the Department of Defense, to the 

DAC-IPAD Chair Martha S. Bashford (June 7, 2018) 
P-6

DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, 

AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

Email from Steven A. Knight, Chief, Investigative Policy, Office of Inspector General, Department of Defense, to 

Jan Chayt, DAC-IPAD Investigator (December 17, 2018)

11. Internet Resources and Other Media 

Department of Defense Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, Current Publications, as of February 22, 

2019: https://jsc.defense.gov/Military-Law/Current-Publications-and-Updates/

Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Arrest Disposition Submission,” as of February 22, 2019: https://www.fbi.gov/

services/cjis/fingerprints-and-other-biometrics/arrest-disposition-submission

The Invisible War (Chain Camera Pictures 2012)

Military OneSource, “Demographic Profiles,” as of February 22, 2019: http://www.militaryonesource.mil//mos/

reports-and-surveys 

“You Have Options Program: Sexual Assault Reporting,” as of February 22, 2019: https://www.reportingoptions.org