JUDICIAL 

PROCEEDINGS 

PANEL

REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT 

INVESTIGATIONS

IN THE MILITARY

September 2017

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL

CHAIR

The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman

MEMBERS

The Honorable Barbara S. Jones

Mr. Victor Stone

Professor Thomas W. Taylor

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

STAFF DIRECTOR

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

DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR

Lieutenant Colonel Patricia H. Lewis, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Army

CHIEF OF STAFF

Mr. Dale L. Trexler

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

Ms. Maria Fried

Report of the Judicial Proceedings 

Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel

Sexual Assault Investigations

in the Military

September 2017

5

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

 

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

 

 

The Honorable John McCain The Honorable Jack Reed

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States Senate United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Mac Thornberry The Honorable Adam Smith

Chair, Committee Ranking Member, Committee

on Armed Services on Armed Services

United States House of United States House of

Representatives Representatives

Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable James Mattis

Secretary of Defense

1000 Defense Pentagon

Washington, DC 20301-1000

Dear Chairs, Ranking Members, and Mr. Secretary:

We are pleased to submit this report of the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 

2012 Amendments Panel (JPP) on sexual assault investigations in the military. This 

report includes five recommendations on the topics of investigative resources, initial 

interviews of sexual assault victims, the thoroughness of investigative interviews of 

sexual assault victims, the collection of cell phone and other digital evidence, and 

forensic laboratory resources and procedures.

To assess the effects of numerous changes in law and policy on sexual assault 

offenses in the military, the JPP tasked the JPP Subcommittee with conducting site visits 

to military installations in the United States and Asia. From June through September 

2016, members of the JPP Subcommittee heard from panels of more than 280 individuals 

from all of the military Services involved in the investigation, prosecution, and defense of 

sexual assault offenses. The JPP Subcommittee reviewed the information gathered from 

these site visits, as well as information on this topic received by the JPP in public 

meetings, and submitted its findings and recommendations to the JPP. After hearing 

testimony from the JPP Subcommittee members who attended the installation site visits, 

and deliberating on the Subcommittee’s report and recommendations, the JPP makes five

Elizabeth Holtzman

Chair

Barbara Jones

Victor Stone

Tom Taylor

Patricia Tracey

September 7, 2017
6

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

-2-

recommendations concerning the issues identified by the JPP Subcommittee. The JPP 

expresses its sincere appreciation to the members of the JPP Subcommittee and everyone 

who contributed to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________________

Elizabeth Holtzman, Chair

____________________________ _____________________________

Barbara S. Jones Victor Stone

___________________________ ____________________________

Thomas W. Taylor Patricia A. Tracey
1

Contents

Contents

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

JPP RECOMMENDATIONS ON SEXUAL ASSAULT 

INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

APPENDICES:

A. Subcommittee of the Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Sexual Assault Investigations 

in the Military

B. Judicial Proceedings Panel Authorizing Statutes and Charter

C. Judicial Proceedings Panel Committee and Subcommittee Member Biographies

D. Judicial Proceedings Panel Staff Members and Designated Federal Officials

E. Presenters on Sexual Assault Investigations in the Military at Judicial Proceedings 

Panel Public and Subcommittee Meetings

F. Acronyms and Abbreviations

G. Sources Consulted

Table of Contents
2

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY
3

Executive Summary

In order to assess the effects of numerous changes in law and policy on the investigation, prosecution, 

and defense of sexual assault offenses in the military, the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) tasked the 

Subcommittee of the JPP with conducting site visits to military installations to talk to the men and 

women who work in the military justice system. The JPP had previously received information on many 

of the changes to law and policy, and wanted to determine how these changes were being carried 

out and perceived at military installations by investigators, prosecutors, defense counsel, and others 

involved in sexual assault investigation, litigation, or victim support.

From July through September 2016, members of the JPP Subcommittee visited military installations 

in the United States and Asia. They met with panels of more than 280 individuals from 25 military 

installations and all of the military Services, including prosecutors, defense counsel, special victims’ 

counsel/victims’ legal counsel, paralegals, commanders, investigators, sexual assault response 

coordinators and other victim support personnel. These individuals spoke without attribution so that 

the Subcommittee could gain an unfiltered, candid assessment of how changes in sexual assault laws 

and policies have, in their view, affected the military justice system. 

On the basis of information from these site visits, the Subcommittee elected to issue reports on several 

topics. The Subcommittee issued its first report to the JPP—the Report on Military Defense Counsel 

Resources and Experience in Sexual Assault Cases—on December 9, 2016. The JPP subsequently made 

recommendations based on the issues identified by the JPP Subcommittee and issued its Report on 

Military Defense Counsel Resources and Experience in Sexual Assault Cases in April 2017. The JPP 

received the Subcommittee’s second report to the JPP—the Report on Sexual Assault Investigations 

in the Military—on February 17, 2017. The JPP deliberated on the information presented by the 

Subcommittee and had the opportunity to question the JPP Subcommittee members who attended the 

installation site visits. As a result of this deliberation and review of the Subcommittee report, included 

as Appendix A, the JPP issues five recommendations.1

In its report, the JPP Subcommittee identified a number of issues in military sexual assault 

investigations that it discovered during its site visits: (1) the strain on resources experienced by military 

criminal investigative organizations (MCIOs) that are responsible for investigating all allegations of 

sexual assault, (2) delays in the initial interview of sexual assault victims by MCIO investigators, (3) 

impediments to thorough interviews of sexual assault victims by MCIO investigators, (4) difficulties 

experienced by MCIO investigators in obtaining evidence from sexual assault victims, and (5) delays 

in the receipt of forensic laboratory test results in sexual assault cases. The Subcommittee made 

recommendations in each of these areas. The JPP recognizes that its report and recommendations 

are based on specific anecdotes from individuals who participated in the site visits, and that these 

individuals’ views are not necessarily universally shared. Individual experiences may depend in some 

measure on the military Service, location, and level of experience of the participants; however, the 

1 Both this JPP report and the JPP’s Report on Military Defense Counsel Resources and Experience in Sexual Assault Cases 

address the adequacy of investigative resources. However, given that the Services’ criminal investigative branches are 

stovepiped organizations with responsibilities that differ in many respects from those of the Service defense organizations 

that represent Service members in the military justice system, the JPP chose to address issues related to investigations in 

two separate reports.

Executive Summary
4

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

views addressed in this report were brought to the Subcommittee’s attention during every installation 

site visit, were supported by specific examples, and were also informed by the Subcommittee’s 

subsequent research into related policies and statutes, as well as by testimony before the JPP and the 

Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel. Taken together, these considerations suggest 

that the issues could be systemic and should be addressed.

The JPP makes five recommendations to deal with the issues affecting the proper investigation of 

sexual assault cases. One of these issues is the inadequacy of investigative resources available for the 

most serious sexual assault cases. This concern is addressed in a new Department of Defense (DoD) 

policy that allows the MCIOs to use non-MCIO resources to investigate some sexual assault cases.2

The JPP concurs with DoD’s implementation of this policy as a way to alleviate the immense strain 

on investigative resources for sexual assault cases, with one important caveat: the JPP recommends 

that the advisory committee that follows the JPP, the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, 

Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces, monitor the effects of this DoD 

policy to see if it improves the MCIOs’ ability to focus on the most serious sexual assault cases, and 

make findings and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense as it deems appropriate. The JPP 

also recommends that the Secretary of Defense identify and remove barriers to prompt initial victim 

interviews in sexual assault cases, identify and remove barriers to thorough questioning of sexual 

assault victims by MCIO investigators or other law enforcement agencies, examine and remove 

impediments to MCIO access to tangible evidence in the possession of sexual assault victims, and 

review the resources, staffing, procedures, and policies at forensic laboratories within the Department 

of Defense to ensure expeditious testing of evidence by forensic laboratories. 

2 Dep’t. of Def. Instruction 5505.18, Investigation of Adult Sexual Assault in the Department of Defense, ¶ 1.2 (March 

22, 2017) (“Other DoD law enforcement activity (LEA) resources, as defined in the Glossary, may assist MCIOs while 

MCIOs investigate offenses of adult sexual assault provided they meet the training requirements established in Paragraph 

3.3.”). Previous versions of this regulation did not expressly permit other military law enforcement agencies to assist 

MCIOs in sexual assault investigations.
5

JPP Recommendations on Sexual Assault 

Investigations in the Military*

*

*

Recommendation 47: In order to ensure that MCIOs can focus investigative resources on the 

most serious sexual assault cases, the advisory committee that follows the JPP, the Defense 

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

Forces, monitor the effects of the DoD policy that allows Service law enforcement agencies to 

assist the MCIOs with sexual assault investigations, and make findings and recommendations to 

the Secretary of Defense as it deems appropriate.

• MCIOs have substantial and sophisticated expertise in the investigation of sexual assault cases.

• According to site visit feedback provided to the JPP Subcommittee, the MCIOs are spread too 

thin, and their ability to investigate the penetrative and other cases requiring more investigative 

expertise is seriously hampered—largely because of policies that required them to investigate 

every case of sexual contact, as well as sexual assault.

• Because of the MCIOs’ lack of time and resources, MCIO investigators are not always able to 

conduct the additional investigative steps needed to prepare a case for prosecution.

• Under new policy guidance for the MCIOs issued by the Department of Defense Office of 

Inspector General on March 22, 2017, Service law enforcement agencies are allowed to assist the 

MCIOs with sexual assault investigations, under the supervision of the MCIOs.

• One year after its implementation, the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General should 

assess whether this new policy has been effective in ensuring that the MCIOs focus on the most 

serious sexual assault cases. As part of its assessment, the DoD Office of Inspector General should 

conduct site visits at several installations and seek information, preferably on a non-attribution 

basis, directly from special agents in the field.

* JPP Recommendations 1–11 are included in the Judicial Proceedings Panel Initial Report 11 (Feb. 2015), available at

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

included in the Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Restitution and Compensation for Military Adult Sexual Assault

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

Web.pdf. JPP Recommendations 18–23 are included in the Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Article 120 of the

Uniform Code of Military Justice 5–7 (Feb. 2016), available at jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/08-Panel_Reports/JPP_Art120_

Report_Final_20160204_Web.pdf. JPP Recommendations 24–36 are included in the Judicial Proceedings Panel Report

on Retaliation Related to Sexual Assault Offenses 5–10 (Feb. 2016), available at jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/08-Panel_

Reports/04_JPP_Retaliation_Report_Final_20160211.pdf. JPP Recommendations 37–38 are included in the Judicial

Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses 5–6 (Apr. 

2016), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/08-Panel_Reports/05_JPP_StatData_MilAdjud_SexAsslt_Report_

Final_20160419.pdf. JPP Recommendations 39–42 are included in the Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Military

Defense Counsel Resources and Experience in Sexual Assault Cases 5–6 (Apr. 2017), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/

docs/08-Panel_Reports/06_JPP_Defense_Resources_Experience_Report_Final_20170424.pdf. JPP Recommendations 

43–46 are included in the Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Victims’ Appellate Rights 5–6 (June 2017), available at

http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/08-Panel_Reports/07_JPP_VictimsAppRights_Report_Final_20170602.pdf.
6

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

Recommendation 48: The Secretary of Defense take the necessary steps to ensure that special 

victims’ counsel and victims’ legal counsel (1) have the resources to schedule and attend the initial 

victim interview promptly after a report of sexual assault, and (2) receive the training necessary 

to recognize the importance of a prompt initial victim interview by the MCIO to an effective and 

just prosecution.

• It is helpful to MCIO investigators to have the initial interview of the victim be conducted 

promptly after MCIOs receive a report of sexual assault.

• According to site visit feedback provided to the JPP Subcommittee, the MCIOs’ initial victim 

interviews are substantially delayed, often because special victims’ counsel (SVCs) or victims’ 

legal counsel (VLCs) are unavailable to attend the interview. 

• A delay in the initial victim interview could cause MCIO investigators to lose valuable physical 

or digital evidence, as well as impair a victim’s ability to clearly remember important details. 

Moreover, other avenues of investigation cannot, for practical reasons, be identified and pursued 

until this initial interview is conducted.

Recommendation 49: The Secretary of Defense identify and remove barriers to thorough 

questioning of a sexual assault victim by the MCIOs or other law enforcement agencies.

• Current MCIO policies and practices discourage or prohibit investigators from asking any 

question that could be perceived as “confrontational” during either the initial or the follow-up 

interview of a sexual assault victim, even when, in their professional judgment, such questions 

are vital to address conflicting statements given by the victim or other evidence contradicting the 

victim’s account. 

• MCIO policies and/or practices require a supervisor’s approval before an investigator can conduct 

a subsequent interview of a sexual assault victim, which is perceived by investigators as a barrier 

to questioning a victim after the initial interview.

• Some SVCs/VLCs who attend investigative interviews limit the scope of questioning, and 

sometimes object to investigators’ requests for any follow-up interviews with the victim.

• As a result of the barriers to thorough questioning by MCIOs, investigators lose rapport-building 

opportunities, as well as important details about the reported offense, since details about an 

incident are commonly gathered over time after a traumatic event such as sexual assault. 

Recommendation 50: The Secretary of Defense remove impediments to MCIOs’ obtaining 

tangible evidence from a sexual assault victim, particularly information contained on a cell 

phone or other digital devices, and develop appropriate remedies that address victims’ legitimate 

concerns about turning over this evidence to ensure that sexual assault investigations are complete 

and thorough.

• MCIO investigators have reported difficulties voluntarily obtaining a cell phone or other digital 

device from sexual assault victims. While the opportunity exists to obtain a military search 

authorization, there are practical and timing difficulties that impede both the ability to obtain 

a search authorization and the investigation as a whole. Furthermore, obtaining access to cell 

phones or other digital devices involuntarily may create an adversarial relationship between the 
7

JPP RECOMMENDATIONS ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

victim and the investigator, and between the victim and the prosecutor, which would ultimately 

inhibit the effective prosecution of a case.

• Victims’ cell phones may contain a wealth of evidence in sexual assault cases. When a victim 

refuses to turn over relevant evidence—such as photographs, text messages, or social media 

information contained on his or her cell phone—investigators and prosecutors make decisions 

about investigating and charging without possessing all available evidence. 

• Many victims’ concerns about providing their cell phone to investigators center on the financial 

loss to the victim when investigators retain the phone for forensic analysis, as well as the loss 

of the use of the phone. In addition, victims have concerns related to the disclosure of the vast 

amount of personal, confidential, privileged, or potentially self-incriminating information that 

may be contained on a smartphone.

• Some SVCs/VLCs reported that they advise victims that they should not voluntarily turn over 

their cell phone to investigators. This advice is intended to preserve victims’ legitimate and wellestablished privacy rights and privileges in the information on their cell phone, regardless of 

whether the cell phone or other device is likely to contain potential evidence that could be used 

against the accused or help prepare victim testimony at trial.

• Modern forensic techniques for imaging and searching cell phones, coupled with the use of wellcrafted consent forms, may minimize, if not eliminate, victims’ legitimate concerns about cell 

phone searches, and they therefore should be fully explored.

Recommendation 51: The Secretary of Defense review the resources, staffing, procedures, and 

policies at forensic laboratories within the Department of Defense to ensure expeditious testing of 

evidence by forensic laboratories.

• Forensic evidence such as that obtained from DNA testing and digital device examination can 

yield critical information, particularly in sexual assault cases, and can further guide MCIOs’ or 

other law enforcement agencies’ investigations as well as a prosecutor’s charging decisions.

• The length of time it takes to obtain results from forensic laboratories’ testing of evidence 

impedes the timely completion of sexual assault investigations.

• DoD laboratories generally prioritize cases that are pending court-martial, but notifying the 

laboratory that a court-martial is pending does not, in the view of some interviewees, necessarily 

result in expeditious testing. 
8

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY
9

APPENDIX A: Subcommittee of the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel Report on 

Sexual Assault Investigations 

in the Military 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF 

THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL

REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT 

INVESTIGATIONS IN 

THE MILITARY

February 2017
10

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL

CHAIR

The Honorable Barbara S. Jones

MEMBERS

Ms. Lisa Friel

The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman

Ms. Laurie Kepros

Dean Lisa Schenck, Colonel (Retired), U.S. Army

Professor Lee Schinasi, Colonel (Retired), U.S. Army

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

Ms. Jill Wine-Banks

STAFF DIRECTOR

Captain Tammy P. Tideswell, JAGC, U.S. Navy

DEPUTY STAFF DIRECTOR

Lieutenant Colonel Patricia H. Lewis, Deputy Staff Director, JAGC, U.S. Army

CHIEF OF STAFF

Mr. Dale L. Trexler

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

Ms. Maria Fried
11

APPENDIX A: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 
12

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

1

Executive Summary

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 

From July through September 2016, members of the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) Subcommittee, at 

the request of the JPP, spoke to more than 280 individuals—all involved in the military justice process, 

from 25 military installations in the United States and Asia—about the investigation, prosecution, and 

defense of sexual assault offenses.

On the basis of information received at the site visits, the Subcommittee identified several topics to 

present to the JPP and a need to conduct additional research on some of those topics. Therefore, the 

Subcommittee decided to issue separate reports on each of the identified subjects. The Subcommittee 

issued its first report in December 2016 on the subject of military defense counsel resources and 

experience in sexual assault cases.

This second report focuses on military sexual assault investigations and on Department of Defense 

(DoD) policies that place responsibility for all sexual assault investigations with the military criminal 

investigative organizations (MCIOs).1

 It reflects both comments made to Subcommittee members 

during site visits and the Subcommittee’s independent research. The Subcommittee reviewed relevant 

statutes, DoD policies, the Report of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (the 

RSP), and witness testimony provided to the JPP. The Subcommittee also collected information from 

DoD and the military Services through formal requests for information and received testimony from a 

Supervisory Criminal Investigator within the DoD Office of Inspector General in order to fully inform 

its recommendations to the JPP. The Subcommittee met in September, October, and December of 2016 

and in January 2017 to review and deliberate on the information that it had received on the topic of 

investigations. The Subcommittee will continue to meet in 2017 and will publish additional reports 

based on information received at the site visits.

While the Subcommittee was formulating this report and its recommendations, the DoD Office 

of Inspector General provided the Subcommittee with an excerpt of a proposed policy change to 

DoD investigative policies that directly affects one of the recommendations we were reviewing. If 

implemented as expected in early 2017, the change would allow the MCIOs to obtain the assistance 

of other military law enforcement agencies in conducting sexual assault investigations, something not 

currently permitted but identified as an issue during the Subcommittee’s site visits. The Subcommittee 

therefore considered the DoD proposal in making its recommendation below, with the understanding 

that the revised policy provided to the Subcommittee in draft will be adopted and published in the very 

near future.

The Subcommittee makes five recommendations about military sexual assault investigations.

1 MCIOs are the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and Air Force Office 

of Special Investigations. These organizations, which are typically responsible for investigating more serious crimes, also 

perform other force protection or intelligence-gathering missions.

Executive Summary
13

APPENDIX A: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 

2

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

Recommendation 1: Allow MCIOs to use non-MCIO resources for some sexual contact and 

sexual assault cases. MCIOs have substantial and sophisticated expertise in the investigation of 

sexual assault cases. The Subcommittee heard, however, that the MCIOs are spread too thin and 

their ability to investigate the penetrative and other cases requiring more investigative expertise 

is seriously hampered—largely because of policies that require them to investigate every case of 

sexual contact as well as sexual assault.

The Subcommittee believes this policy should be changed in order to ensure that MCIOs can 

focus on the most serious sexual assault cases. Under new policy guidance for the MCIOs 

developed by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, Service law enforcement 

agencies would be allowed to assist the MCIOs with sexual assault investigations, under the 

supervision of the MCIOs.

Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends that the policy guidance be implemented as soon 

as possible and that one year after its implementation, the Department of Defense Office of 

Inspector General assess whether this policy has been effective in ensuring that the MCIOs focus 

on the most serious sexual assault cases. As part of its assessment, the DoD Office of Inspector 

General should conduct site visits at several installations and seek information, preferably on a 

non-attribution basis, directly from special agents in the field.

The Subcommittee also recommends that the advisory committee that follows the JPP, the 

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

Armed Forces, monitor the effects of this DoD policy and make findings and recommendations to 

the Secretary of Defense as it deems appropriate.

Recommendation 2: Ensure prompt initial victim interviews. It is critical that the initial interview 

of the victim by MCIOs or other law enforcement agencies be conducted promptly after MCIOs 

receive a report of sexual assault. Yet the Subcommittee heard frequent complaints that the 

MCIOs’ initial interviews were being substantially delayed, often because special victims’ counsel 

or victims’ legal counsel were unavailable to attend the interview.

The Subcommittee recommends that the Secretary of Defense take the necessary steps to ensure 

that special victims’ counsel and victims’ legal counsel (1) have the resources to schedule and 

attend the initial victim interview promptly after a report of sexual assault and (2) receive the 

training necessary to recognize the importance of a prompt victim interview by the MCIO to an 

effective and just prosecution.

Recommendation 3: Remove impediments to thorough victim interviews. The Subcommittee 

heard complaints from all MCIO special agents interviewed that various impediments prevented 

or discouraged them from conducting victim interviews that were as thorough as they consider 

necessary. Specifically, they felt procedures and policies discouraged or prohibited investigators 

from asking any question that could be perceived as “confrontational” during either the initial 

or the follow-up interview even when, in their professional judgment, such questions were vital 

to address conflicting statements given by the victim or other evidence contradicting the victim’s 

account. They also felt investigations were impeded by policies and procedures that discouraged 

them from conducting follow-up interviews. The Subcommittee accordingly recommends that 

the Secretary of Defense identify and remove these and any other identified barriers to thorough 

questioning of the victim by MCIOs or other law enforcement agencies.
14

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

3

Recommendation 4: Examine and remove impediments to MCIO access to tangible evidence. The 

Subcommittee heard numerous complaints that investigators have difficulties obtaining evidence 

from the victim, particularly information on cellular phones or other digital devices. Investigators 

said the reasons that victims and/or their attorneys gave for not turning over cellular and digital 

devices included the financial loss to the victim when investigators retain the phone for forensic 

analysis and privacy concerns over the vast amount of personal information typically contained 

on a smartphone. These concerns, while legitimate, can be minimized or eliminated by modern 

forensic techniques for imaging and searching digital devices. Therefore, the Subcommittee 

recommends that the Secretary of Defense examine these problems and develop appropriate 

remedies that address victims’ legitimate concerns and ensure that sexual assault investigations 

are complete and thorough.

Recommendation 5: Reduce delays at forensic laboratories. The Subcommittee heard complaints 

from MCIOs and prosecutors that the length of time it takes to obtain results from forensic 

laboratories’ testing of evidence impedes the timely completion of sexual assault investigations. 

Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends that the Secretary of Defense review the resources, 

staffing, procedures, and policies at forensic laboratories within the Department of Defense to 

ensure more expeditious testing of evidence by forensic laboratories.
15

APPENDIX A: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 

1

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

Sexual Assault Investigations 

in the Military

From July through September 2016, members of the Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) Subcommittee, 

at the request of the JPP, spoke to more than 280 individuals from 25 military installations in the 

United States and Asia involved in the military justice process; these conversations focused on the 

investigation, prosecution, and defense of sexual assault offenses.2 Discussions were held without 

attribution so that Subcommittee members could hear candid perceptions of the military’s handling 

of sexual assault cases from the men and women who are investigating and litigating those cases. 

The Subcommittee spoke to groups of military prosecutors, defense counsel, special victims’ counsel/

victims’ legal counsel, paralegals, and investigators, as well as commanders, sexual assault response 

coordinators, victim advocates, and victim-witness liaisons from all military Services. 

On the basis of the information received during these site visits, the Subcommittee determined that 

it would have to conduct further research into several topic areas so that its recommendations to the 

JPP would be fully informed. The Subcommittee held meetings in September, October, and December 

of 2016, and in January 2017 in order to develop the information and research needed to report on 

issues identified at the site visits. In December 2016, the Subcommittee completed its research on 

the subject of military defense counsel resources and experience in sexual assault cases and issued 

its first report. The Subcommittee will continue to meet in 2017 to examine other issues and publish 

additional reports. This report summarizes site visit comments and the Subcommittee’s research into 

military sexual assault investigations and Department of Defense (DoD) policies affecting sexual 

assault allegations, including policies that place responsibility for all sexual assault investigations with 

the military criminal investigative organizations (MCIOs).3

I. MCIO INVESTIGATORS LACK NECESSARY DISCRETION AND RESOURCES 

IN HANDLING SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS

A. Site Visit Information 

Investigators in every military Service explained that a number of factors have stretched their resources 

and eliminated their discretion in investigating alleged cases of sexual assault. Perhaps the most often 

cited problem is that MCIOs are no longer able to refer the less serious cases to other military law 

enforcement agencies, even when the MCIO investigators say those other agencies have adequate 

training for doing so. Prior to January 2013, sexual contact offense cases, as opposed to penetrative 

offense cases, were generally handled by military police investigators, with some variation among the 

Services. With the DoD policy change in 2013, MCIOs have been required to investigate every sexual 

assault allegation, regardless of the severity of the alleged offense.4

 The pre-2013 approach allowed 

2 A list of the installations visited and Subcommittee members participating in each site visit is enclosed with this report.

3 MCIOs include the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and Air Force 

Office of Special Investigations. These organizations, which are typically responsible for investigating more serious crimes, 

also perform other force protection or intelligence-gathering missions.

4 See Glossary, Dep’t. of Def. InstructIon 5505.18, InvestIgatIon of aDult sexual assault In the Department of Defense

[hereinafter DoDI 5505.18], January 25, 2013 (incorporating Change 2, June 18, 2015) (“It is DoD policy that . . . 

II. Obtaining Information Regarding Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses
16

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

2

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

MCIO special agents discretion to determine which offenses were more appropriately handled by 

military police investigators or by the accused’s unit, depending on the severity of the allegation and on 

the victim’s desire to participate in an investigation. MCIO investigators almost universally felt that the 

2013 policy change has severely strained MCIO resources and undermined their ability to investigate 

more serious sex offenses effectively and thoroughly. At several installations, special agents reported 

that these difficulties have lowered morale within their organizations. 

A majority of agents emphasized that investigations involving sexual contact offenses, though often 

less complex than a rape case, must be given the same emphasis, time, and resources as the most 

serious sexual assault offenses. Sexual contact cases include such cases as a touching of the shoulder or 

the buttocks, or an attempted kiss on the mouth.5

 Investigators within the MCIOs also noted that even 

when the reported facts of what allegedly took place make prosecution of these sexual contact offenses 

unlikely, they are still required to devote significant time and resources to investigate them. Further, as 

sexual offenses make up an increasing share of MCIOs’ caseloads—investigators at one installation 

stated that 60%–80% of their cases involve sexual assault allegations—the bulk of their work involves 

intensive, lengthy investigations.

The investigators from each Service also identified other situations in which they felt that their 

specialized training and experience in sexual assault investigations were diverted from the most serious 

sex offenses. As one example, they pointed to some cases referred to MCIOs by a sexual assault 

response coordinator (SARC).6

 They said that if a SARC reports an allegation to an MCIO, the MCIO 

must treat the allegation as a sexual assault even if the alleged facts do not meet all of the elements of 

the crime (e.g., what occurred was actually a simple assault or no crime at all). Once reported by a 

SARC, investigators stated, it is very difficult for investigators to reclassify these incidents as non-sex 

offenses or noncriminal behavior, and these incidents must be fully investigated.

Another example of their lack of discretion involved sexual assaults reported by a third-party 

witness rather than the putative victim. In some instances, the MCIO investigators told the 

Subcommittee members, a third party reports an incident as a possible sexual assault and the 

apparent victim disagrees with this assessment, disputing either the facts alleged or the need for a 

criminal investigation. Special agents from the MCIOs told the Subcommittee that they are required 

to vigorously pursue all of these third-party reports, even if the victim does not want to cooperate or 

disagrees with the alleged facts. One agent highlighted a case in which he had to interview the victim’s 

friends and family despite her express desire that the complaint not be investigated at all and that 

neither her friends nor family be contacted. 

Military Criminal Investigative Organizations (MCIOs) will initiate investigations of all offenses of adult sexual assault 

of which they become aware, as listed in the Glossary, that occur within their jurisdiction regardless of the severity of 

the allegation.” “Sexual assault” is defined in the Glossary as “An intentional sexual contact characterized by the use of 

force, threats, intimidation, abuse of authority, or when the victim does not or cannot consent.” The term “sexual assault” 

includes aggravated sexual contact and abusive sexual contact in violation of Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice [UCMJ].). 

5 10 U.S.C. § 920 (UCMJ, art. 120). See infra note 10. Sexual contact cases represent a wide range of criminal behavior and 

may be disposed of in a variety of ways, from a general court-martial—typically reserved for more serious offenses—to 

non-judicial punishment or a written admonition.

6 See u.s. Dep’t of Def. DIrectIve 6495.01, sexual assault preventIon anD response (sapr) program, ¶ 4e(1) (Jan. 23, 

2012) (Incorporating Change 2, Effective January 20, 2015) (“The SARC shall serve as the single point of contact for 

coordinating appropriate and responsive care for sexual assault victims. SARCs shall coordinate sexual assault victim care 

and sexual assault response when a sexual assault is reported.”).
17

APPENDIX A: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 

3

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

In addition, investigators noted an ever-growing number of administrative requirements for sexual 

assault investigations, which contribute to the strain of having to investigate every reported sexual 

contact offense. The burdensome administrative tasks described by investigators included additional 

requirements for documenting investigative activity, retaining evidence, and generating duplicative 

internal reports within the MCIO. 

B. Other Sources of Information 

1. Revisions to the definition of sexual contact in Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ). 

As noted by participants on the site visits, changes made to the definition of sexual contact under 

Article 120 of the UCMJ in 2012 expanded the number and type of potential offenses that now fall 

under the purview of the MCIOs.7

 The 2012 version of Article 120 made the touching of any body 

part for sexual gratification a sexual offense. All offenses under this statute are punishable with up to 

seven years’ confinement and a dishonorable discharge.8

 Previous versions of the statute limited sexual 

contact crimes to the touching of certain areas of the body—the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner 

thigh, or buttocks of any person; an unwanted touching of other areas of the body was treated as a 

simple assault, which is a less serious, non-sex offense.9 In 2016, just four years after expanding the 

definition of sexual contact offenses, Congress passed legislation that will once again narrow the range 

of conduct considered a sexual offense.10 While this law may reduce the number of sexual contact cases 

that the MCIOs investigate, the reduction will take place very gradually, and all offenses occurring 

prior to the new legislation’s effective date (June 2017, at the earliest) would be governed by the broad 

definition now in effect. In addition, the new legislation will not solve the primary problem identified 

by the MCIOs: the diversion of their specialized expertise and experience from more serious sexual 

assault cases.

2. Report of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel.

The Response Systems Panel (RSP), an advisory panel succeeded by the JPP, also commented in its June 

2014 report on the impact of the January 2013 DOD policy change, explaining how it significantly 

increased MCIOs’ caseloads: 

Historically, Army Criminal Investigation Command (Army CID) investigated all 

adult sexual assault cases for the Army, while the Naval Criminal Investigative Service 

(NCIS) and Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) often referred some nonpenetrative (e.g., unwanted touching) sexual assault offenses to Marine Corps Criminal 

7 Appendix 23, Analysis of Punitive Articles, Paragraph 45, Article 120—Rape and Sexual Assault Generally, manual for

courts-martIal, unIteD states (2012). This change was effective for all offenses committed on or after June 28, 2012.

8 Exec. Order No. 13740, 81 Fed. Reg. 65,175 (Sept. 22, 2016).

9 10 U.S.C. § 920(t) (Act of Jan. 6, 2007, effective Oct. 1, 2007–June 27, 2012).

10 Section 5430 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 defines sexual contact as “touching, or 

causing another person to touch, either directly or through the clothing, the vulva, penis, scrotum, anus, groin, breast, 

inner thigh, or buttocks of any person, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse 

or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Touching may be accomplished by any part of the body or an object.” This 

legislative provision incorporates proposed statutory language authored by the JPP Subcommittee and adopted by the JPP 

in its report on artIcle 120 of the unIform coDe of mIlItary JustIce (February 2016). The effective date for this change 

will be designated by the President, and shall occur no later than two years after enactment of the legislation. National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. 114-328, § 5430, 130 Stat. 2000 (2016). 
18

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

4

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

Investigation Division (Marine Corps CID) agents and Air Force Security Forces 

investigators, respectively. Since the January 2013 policy change requiring that all adult 

sexual assault cases be investigated by the MCIOs, cases previously investigated by 

Marine Corps CID and Air Force Security Forces investigators have shifted to NCIS 

and AFOSI, significantly increasing their case loads.11

After finding that the various military law enforcement agencies other than the MCIOs are also 

qualified to investigate sexual assault offenses, and particularly “touching offenses,” the RSP 

recommended (in RSP Recommendation 89) that 

The Secretary of Defense direct the commanders and directors of the military criminal 

investigative organizations to authorize the utilization of Marine Corps Investigation 

Division, military police investigators, and/or security forces investigators to assist 

in the investigation of some non-penetrative sexual assault cases under the direct 

supervision of a special victim unit investigator to retain oversight.12

On December 15, 2014, DoD approved this recommendation in part, referring the matter for further 

examination to the DoD Office of Inspector General (DoD IG), which is responsible for establishing 

law enforcement policies. Meanwhile, as reported above, MCIOs currently have to investigate both 

penetrative and contact cases, and they continue to feel that the addition of these non-penetrative 

(contact) cases to their already large caseloads overburdens them and reduces their ability to investigate 

the most serious sexual assault cases. 

3. Information presented to the JPP in April 2016.

At its public meeting on April 8, 2016, the JPP heard testimony on the implementation of a Special 

Victim Capability within each of the military Services.13 The chiefs in charge of the MCIOs testified 

before the JPP that they continue to investigate all reports of sexual assault, referring none of their 

cases to the military police or security forces.14 The witnesses also described how the MCIOs have 

ensured that an increasing number of special agents have the training and expertise to investigate 

sexual assault cases.15 According to a senior official in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations 

11 report of the response systems to aDult sexual assault crImes panel [hereinafter rsp report] 117–18 (June 2014), 

available at http://responsesystemspanel.whs.mil/Public/docs/Reports/00_Final/RSP_Report_Final_20140627.pdf. Note 

that Army CID’s policy, in existence prior to DoD’s 2013 directive, still allowed them to refer less serious offenses to the 

military police investigators, at their discretion.

12 Id. at 40. In a footnote, the RSP report explains that “special victim unit” is a “generic term for any unit designated 

to handle sexual assault and other crimes with a more vulnerable victim; police agencies use a variety of terms for these 

specialized units.” Id. at 118, n.495.

13 In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 573, 126 Stat. 1632 (2013), 

Congress required DoD and the Services to implement a “Special Victim Capability”: it called for the Services to provide 

specially trained prosecutors, MCIO investigators, victim witness assistance personnel, paralegals, and administrative 

legal support personnel to collaborate in the handling of sexual assault reports. In response, DoD mandated that all 

sexual assault crimes (i.e., both penetrative and contact offenses) be investigated by the MCIOs, not by any other law 

enforcement agencies. 

14 See Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 210, 216 (April 8, 2016) (testimony of Mr. Guy Surian, U.S. Army, Deputy Chief of 

Investigative Operations, Investigative Policy and Criminal Intelligence, Headquarters, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation 

Command (CID)) (testimony of Mr. Kevin Poorman, U.S. Air Force, Associate Director, Criminal Headquarters, Air Force 

Office of Special Investigations.) (“We open [an investigation] on all sexual assaults falling within our jurisdiction.”).

15 Id. at 209–10, 217 (testimony of Mr. Guy Surian, U.S. Army, Deputy Chief of Investigative Operations, Investigative 

Policy and Criminal Intelligence, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID), and Mr. Jeremy Gauthier, U.S. Navy, 
19

APPENDIX A: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 

5

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

(AFOSI), the quality of sexual assault investigations has improved in recent years, and AFOSI is 

completing investigations faster than in previous years.16 This assessment may be inconsistent with the 

reports of strained investigative resources repeated at every site visit; however, because the testimony 

relies in part on the DoD Inspector General’s review of MCIO investigations conducted from 2012 to 

2013, it may not reflect current trends.17

4. Forthcoming changes in DoD investigative policies.

On December 28, 2016, the Subcommittee received a letter from the DoD Acting Inspector General 

explaining that the Office of Inspector General has proposed revisions to DoD’s policies concerning 

sexual assault investigations, and that DoD is in the final stages of reviewing and updating existing 

policies.18 The Acting Inspector General did not list all of the policy changes under consideration by 

DoD. However, he provided a relevant excerpt from the proposed modifications: the new policy would 

allow law enforcement agencies to “assist MCIOs while MCIOs investigate offenses of adult sexual 

assault.” This policy, in draft form, states:

a. Only the MCIOs will conduct the formal victim interview.

b. The investigation will be considered an MCIO investigation and the responsible MCIO 

will provide direct supervision of all investigative work conducted by the DoD LEA [law 

enforcement agency] resources.

c. Under no circumstances may an MCIO refer an adult sexual assault investigation to an 

installation LEA regardless of the severity of the offense.

d. When LEA resources assist MCIOs with sexual assault investigations, the MCIO investigator 

will maintain full responsibility for the investigation and assign tasks. Before assisting the 

MCIOs, the LEA resources will receive training on the topics required in Paragraph 3.3 [of 

this instruction] by a certified MCIO sexual assault investigator. Ideally the LEA resources 

will receive the same training and certification as outlined in DoDI 5505.19 [Establishment 

of Special Victim Investigation and Prosecution (SVIP) Capability within the Military 

Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Investigations and Operations Directorate, Naval Criminal Investigation Service 

Headquarters).

16 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 228–29 (April 8, 2016) (testimony of Mr. Kevin Poorman, U.S. Air Force, Associate 

Director, Criminal Headquarters, Air Force Office of Special Investigations.) (“As verified in the DoD IG 2015 assessment 

of the MCIO investigations in which 99 percent of our investigations collectively were found to be—that the investigations 

were sufficient. In the last two years we’ve also improved the median timeliness of our investigations from about 130 

days on median to75 days on median. And we’ve sustained that median 75-day turnaround time for over a year now.”) 

(Referring to the Dep’t of Def. Inspector gen., report No. DODIG-2015-094, evaluatIon of mIlItary crImInal

InvestIgatIve organIzatIons’ aDult sexual assault InvestIgatIons (March 24, 2015) [Final], infra note 17.).

17 See Dep’t of Def. Inspector gen., report No. DODIG-2015-094, evaluatIon of mIlItary crImInal InvestIgatIve

organIzatIons’ aDult sexual assault InvestIgatIons 1 (March 24, 2015) [Final], available at http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/

report_summary.cfm?id=6310. (“We evaluated 536 Military Criminal Investigative Organization (MCIO) investigations of 

sexual assaults with adult victims opened on or after January1, 2012, and completed in 2013....”).

18 See Letter to the Chair of the Judicial Proceedings Panel from Mr. Glenn A. Fine, Acting Inspector General, Department 

of Defense Office of Inspector General to the Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, Chair, JPP (Dec. 28, 2016) (providing the 

JPP with DoD’s response to RSP recommendation 89 that alternate military law enforcement agencies should be allowed 

to assist with the investigation of non-penetrative sexual assault cases. DoD explained that it would implement RSP 

recommendation 89 by changing its existing policy on sexual assault investigations, DoDI 5505.18, supra note 4).
20

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

6

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

Criminal Investigative Organizations (MCIOs)], which is required for MCIO sexual assault 

investigators.19

This policy proposal implements RSP Recommendation 89 (quoted above), and includes two 

requirements that were not specified in the RSP recommendation: that only the MCIOs will conduct 

the formal victim interview and that the assisting law enforcement agencies must receive the requisite 

training on sexual assault investigations before they can assist the MCIOs. 

C. SUBCOMMITTEE ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The changes in 2012 to Article 120 of the UCMJ and the changes in 2013 to DoD’s policies concerning 

sexual assault investigations have significantly increased the volume of investigations for which the 

MCIOs are solely responsible. Collectively, these changes and other administrative policies have 

generated a flood of investigative activity for strong and weak, serious and less serious cases alike. 

Special agents at the site visits stressed that the increase in their caseload has severely strained their 

investigative resources and harmed their ability to pursue the most serious sex crimes in the manner 

they feel is appropriate. These individuals all concurred that the increase in their workload is primarily 

due to DoD’s mandate that MCIOs investigate all reports of sexual contact—cases that may involve a 

relatively simple, onetime touching of the leg or buttocks rather than more serious and violent conduct. 

The Subcommittee recommends implementing the December 2016 draft changes to DoD’s sexual 

assault investigations policy. The proposal, if implemented, will provide the MCIOs with access 

to needed additional resources. Although MCIOs will remain responsible for all sexual assault 

investigations, permitting other law enforcement agencies to assist with those investigations should 

ease the current strain on MCIO resources and allow the MCIOs to focus on the most serious cases. 

The Subcommittee further recommends that the new policy be closely monitored and thoroughly 

reviewed one year after it takes effect, and that the DoD Inspector General assess the effects of the 

new policy on the MCIOs’ ability to focus their time and effort on the most serious cases of sexual 

assault. Because the Subcommittee found that its field interviews of investigators were essential to 

understanding the effects of statutory and policy changes, it also recommends that DoD’s review 

should similarly incorporate site visits at several installations and interviews with special agents as well 

as military justice practitioners. During its field interviews, DoD should allow interview participants to 

speak without attribution in order to fully inform DoD’s evaluation of the policy’s effects.

Should the DoD review find that MCIOs continue to experience strains on their resources and the 

diversion of their expertise from the most serious sexual assault cases, then the DoD IG might consider 

allowing MCIOs to transfer full responsibility for some less serious sexual assault offenses, with the 

approval of a supervisor, to alternative military law enforcement agencies to address the problem. 

The Subcommittee does not make this recommendation now, in recognition that there are inherent 

difficulties in such transfers, including but not limited to accurately determining the seriousness of 

some offenses in the early stages of an investigation. The Subcommittee believes that it is prudent 

to give the IG’s proposed policy changes a chance to be implemented before suggesting that more 

extensive policy changes are needed.

The JPP, together with its Subcommittee, will reach the end of its statutory term in September 2017. 

Therefore, it will not be able to monitor the effects of this policy or make additional recommendations 

19 Id.
21

APPENDIX A: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 

7

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

about it to the Secretary of Defense. Congress has created a successor panel—the Defense Advisory 

Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces20—

which, the Subcommittee respectfully recommends, should continue to monitor this issue.

Recommendation 1: Allow MCIOs to use non-MCIO resources for some sexual contact and 

sexual assault cases. MCIOs have substantial and sophisticated expertise in the investigation of 

sexual assault cases. The Subcommittee heard, however, that the MCIOs are spread too thin and 

their ability to investigate the penetrative and other cases requiring more investigative expertise 

is seriously hampered—largely because of policies that require them to investigate every case of 

sexual contact as well as sexual assault. 

The Subcommittee believes this policy should be changed in order to ensure that MCIOs can 

focus on the most serious sexual assault cases. Under new policy guidance for the MCIOs 

developed by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, Service law enforcement 

agencies would be allowed to assist the MCIOs with sexual assault investigations, under the 

supervision of the MCIOs. 

Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends that the policy guidance be implemented as soon 

as possible and that one year after its implementation, the Department of Defense Office of 

Inspector General assess whether this policy has been effective in ensuring that the MCIOs focus 

on the most serious sexual assault cases. As part of its assessment, the DoD Office of Inspector 

General should conduct site visits at several installations and seek information, preferably on a 

non-attribution basis, directly from special agents in the field. 

The Subcommittee also recommends that the advisory committee that follows the JPP, the 

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

Armed Forces, monitor the effects of this DoD policy and make findings and recommendations to 

the Secretary of Defense as it deems appropriate.

II. CURRENT POLICIES AND PRACTICE RENDER INVESTIGATIONS LESS 

THOROUGH AND LESS EXPEDITIOUS THAN THEY SHOULD BE

A. Site Visit Information 

Participants in the Subcommittee’s site visits raised a number of other issues that they felt collectively 

hamper an investigator’s ability to conduct thorough investigations. The Subcommittee recognizes 

that the comments it heard depend in some measure on the military Service, location, and level of 

experience of the participants, and that a single anecdote does not necessarily indicate a broader trend 

or a widespread problem. However, the general themes identified below were raised at every site visited 

by the Subcommittee and were often supported by specific examples, suggesting that some systemic 

problems may exist that can and should be addressed.

20 The Secretary of Defense, pursuant to Section 546 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, as 

modified by section 537 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, established this nondiscretionary 

advisory committee. Section 546 of the FY15 NDAA provides that it shall review, on an ongoing basis, cases involving 

allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct involving members of the Armed Forces.
22

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

8

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

1. The initial investigatory interview of a sexual assault victim is often delayed, to the detriment of 

the case.

It is important to note that since the establishment of SARCs, military investigators and military police 

are no longer the first people to receive sexual assault reports. MCIO investigators in all Services told 

the Subcommittee that today the vast majority of sexual assault reports from Service members are 

made to the SARC office, which then informs the MCIO of the allegation. They said that this is a 

relatively recent development. Most site visit participants noted that in the past, victims contacted their 

command, the military police (or other Service equivalent), or the MCIO to report an alleged sexual 

assault. While the option of reporting to MCIOs remains, the agents said that they typically do not 

hear from victims directly. 

Investigators uniformly reported that the first interview of a victim must be scheduled through the 

special victims’ counsel or victims’ legal counsel (SVC/VLC), if the victim has already obtained counsel. 

If the complaining witness has not yet retained counsel and reports a sexual assault directly to the 

MCIO, MCIOs must notify victims of their right to SVC/VLC representation before beginning the 

interview.21 MCIO investigators at site visits reported that victims almost always elect to meet with 

counsel before agreeing to be interviewed; as a result, the initial investigatory interview is delayed 

until an SVC/VLC can be assigned and the initial interview can be scheduled.22 Several special agents 

indicated that finding a time when the SVC/VLC can attend the initial interview can delay the interview 

by weeks, or in some cases months, depending on the attorney’s availability.23 A majority of the agents 

expressed concern that this passage of time could cause them to lose valuable physical or digital 

evidence, as well as impair a victim’s ability to clearly remember details. Moreover, other avenues 

of investigation cannot, for practical reasons, be identified and pursued until this initial interview is 

conducted.24

2. Investigators feel discouraged from asking sexual assault victims questions that might be seen as 

“confrontational.”

Many senior investigators expressed a concern that they are no longer interviewing the victim in 

a manner that is best suited to eliciting all the facts and circumstances necessary to discover what 

occurred. The Subcommittee was told that investigators are now taught not to probe too deeply into 

21 See DoDI 5505.18, supra note 4, encl. 2.11 (requiring an MCIO investigator assigned to conduct an adult sexual assault 

investigation to inform a sexual assault victim of availability of legal assistance); see also Dep’t of Def. InstructIon

6495.02, sexual assault preventIon anD response (sapr) program proceDures, encl. 2, para. 6(m) (Feb. 12, 2014) 

(requiring Service Secretaries to “[e]stablish procedures that require, upon seeking assistance from a SARC, SAPR VA, 

MCIO, the Victim Witness Assistance Program (VWAP), or trial counsel, that each Service member who reports that he 

or she has been a victim of a sexual assault be informed of and given the opportunity to . . . [c]onsult with legal assistance 

counsel . . .”).

22 See also Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 215 (April 8, 2016) (testimony of Mr. Guy Surian, U.S. Army, Deputy Chief 

of Investigative Operations, Investigative Policy and Criminal Intelligence, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command 

(CID)) (“The requirement to notify the SVC prior to interviewing the victim along with the SVC’s primary duty to best 

represent their client’s interests have on occasion been problematic. We have an example recently in which two soldiers 

both arrived at a CID office and both claimed to have been sexually assaulted. So we had to notify two SVCs. After the 

victims had talked to their SVCs they declined to make any statements to the CID which was problematic.”).

23 Prosecutors who spoke to the Subcommittee expressed the same frustration with their attempts to schedule interviews with 

victims. This topic will be addressed in subsequent reports issued by the JPP Subcommittee.

24 A few investigators at the site visits noted that the vast majority of sexual assault cases they deal with involve “delayed” 

reports (witnesses did not specify the length of the delay), and that in such cases the loss of access to potential evidence 

could be attributed to delayed reporting rather than to the schedule of the SVC/VLC.
23

APPENDIX A: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 

9

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

the details of a sexual assault victim’s account. In addition, they are discouraged from “confronting” a 

complaining witness with aspects of his or her account that do not make logical sense or that conflict 

with other evidence, including the victim’s own inconsistent statements. The investigators stated that, 

when done appropriately, such questioning is not insensitive and indeed is a crucial investigative 

practice. As one senior agent explained, in investigative circles “confrontation” is a term of art 

and does not entail the hostility connoted by the common use of the word. A confrontational, or 

clarifying, interview involves questions that invite a witness to explain new or inconsistent evidence 

and statements. While it is clear from the site visits that the Services differ in their approach to this 

technique, MCIO training, internal practices, or both give many agents the impression that they have 

to accept the complainant’s account at face value, without thoroughly exploring discrepancies or 

seeking more detail in the complainant’s account. One MCIO investigator described being trained to 

investigate the sexual assault “that did happen” and not the possibility that it did not happen. This 

approach was problematic, the special agent implied, because it could lead them to overlook important 

facts and evidence, obscuring the reality of what had occurred. 

Internal MCIO policies may likewise discourage thorough questioning of sexual assault victims. 

Many agents explained that they are required to obtain a supervisor’s approval before conducting 

any interview subsequent to the initial victim interview. The imposition of bureaucratic obstacles to 

interviewing a victim was widely viewed as a deterrent, and field agents felt dismayed that their MCIO 

leadership would question their determination that a subsequent interview was a critical investigative 

step.

3. SVCs/VLCs limit contact with the victim and the scope of victim interviews.

In addition, a number of agents told Subcommittee members that SVCs/VLCs who attend the 

investigative interviews sometimes object to certain necessary and relevant questions or advise 

the victim not to answer them. Other investigators reported that the mere presence of the SVC/

VLC dissuades them from asking probing questions out of fear that they will be accused of being 

inappropriate or being too hard on the victim. The Subcommittee heard at one site visit that an SVC/

VLC objected every time an agent asked a victim what sort of resolution of the case he or she wanted, 

even though his training courses had taught the agent that this was an important and routine question 

to ask. The SVC/VLC’s position was that the client’s answer could later be exploited by a defense 

attorney on cross-examination.25

The Subcommittee was told that some SVCs/VLCs request that investigators who want to do follow-up 

interviews with a victim provide the questions in writing in advance of the interview, while others 

object to any follow-up interviews at all. Some investigators indicated that if inconsistencies in the 

victim’s statement arise during the course of the investigation, they must ask the SVC/VLC to speak 

with the client to clarify the points because the SVC/VLC do not permit investigators to speak directly 

with the victim. The SVCs/VLCs then relay back the responses. The Subcommittee heard from SVCs/

VLCs that they wanted their clients to be interviewed only one time so that defense counsel cannot 

claim at trial that the victim made inconsistent statements.26 Investigators almost universally lamented 

the resulting loss of rapport-building opportunities, as well as the potential loss of information, since 

details about an incident are commonly gathered over time after a traumatic event such as sexual 

25 The Subcommittee notes that while a defense attorney might portray a victim’s statement to investigators in a light most 

favorable to the defense for various reasons, this is not a reason to curtail appropriate questioning of a victim.

26 This is a summary of the most common explanation provided at site visits by SVCs/VLCs for advising clients to agree to 

only one interview. The Subcommittee recognizes that other concerns, such as a victim’s potential liability for collateral 

misconduct, may also influence the SVC’s/VLC’s advice to clients, if applicable to the case. 
24

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

10

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

assault. Indeed, they also pointed out that follow-up interviews are the norm in the private sector 

during sexual assault investigations.27

4. Investigators experience difficulties in obtaining needed and relevant evidence from victims who 

file unrestricted reports of sexual assault. 

At several site visit locations, trial counsel and investigators recounted cases in which victims, on 

the advice of their SVC/VLC, declined to turn over potential evidence to investigators. Some SVCs/

VLCs openly acknowledged that they advise clients not to turn over their cell phones to investigators 

even when it is likely to contain potential evidence.28 Among the reasons offered for this advice were 

the financial loss to the victim when investigators retain the phone for forensic analysis and privacy 

concerns over the vast amount of personal information typically contained on a smartphone. Both 

of these problems can be minimized if not eliminated by modern forensic techniques for imaging and 

searching cell phones. None of the SVCs/VLCs interviewed expressed a concern that their advice or 

advocacy could hamper the investigation or prosecution of the case. Some SVCs/VLCs explained that 

their paramount concern is the victims’ privacy, and they view the possibility that their advice might 

lower the chances for a successful prosecution as of little consequence. 

Investigators stressed that the issue of searching a victim’s cell phone or other digital devices for 

evidence frequently arises, because the victim and accused are often acquaintances who may have 

communicated by phone or social media around the time of the alleged offense. A victim may also 

have contacted a friend shortly after the incident, and those communications with an outcry witness—

the person who first hears an allegation of abuse—can be critical to corroborating a complaint. 

In the instance of a delayed report, a witness’s digital footprint often assumes greater importance 

because other physical evidence, such as DNA, may degrade or disappear over time. Photographs 

and online activity can assist agents in establishing a timeline of relevant events and provide the only 

corroboration of a victim’s allegation. Still, investigators acknowledged that the amount and value of 

the evidence contained on a cell phone will vary greatly from one case to the next, depending on the 

facts. 

Investigators explained that they continue the investigation without access to evidence on cell phones, 

at times with negative consequences. One agent described a case in which an SVC informed a victim 

that she did not have to disclose text messages she exchanged with the accused. The victim took this 

advice and refused to give the investigator or the prosecutor the text messages. The accused predictably 

gave these texts to his attorney, who confronted the victim with them while she was on the witness 

stand at trial. The prosecutor, having never seen these texts, had not prepared the victim for this line of 

cross-examination and, as a result, the victim’s testimony was seriously undermined. 

27 A number of MCIO special agents were familiar with civilian criminal investigative practice through their prior experience 

working for civilian law enforcement agencies, and through the training they routinely receive at federal law enforcement 

training centers.

28 Investigators generally need to have credible information establishing probable cause to believe that an item such as a 

cell phone contains evidence that corroborates a victim’s statement or bears on the guilt or innocence of the accused. 

Investigators may obtain the item with the victim’s consent or by obtaining a warrant, known in the military as a “search 

authorization,” to seize and search the item. Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 315, Probable Cause Searches, provides 

that a commander, military magistrate, or military judge may issue a search authorization of persons or property under 

military control. M.R.E. 315(c) specifically states “a search authorization may be valid under this rule for a search of (1) 

the physical person of anyone subject to military law or the law of war wherever found; (2) military property of the United 

States or of nonappropriated fund activities of an Armed Force of the United States wherever located; (3) persons or 

property situated on or in a military installation, encampment, vessel, aircraft, vehicle, or any other location under military 

control, wherever located; or (4) nonmilitary property within a foreign country.” manual for court-martIal, unIteD

states (2016 ed.), mIl. r. evID. 315.
25

APPENDIX A: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 

11

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

5. Despite recent improvements in prosecutor-MCIO relationships, tensions persist and impair the 

thoroughness of investigations.

Prosecutors and investigators repeatedly described tensions in their working relationships with one 

another. Trial counsel generally agreed that coordination on sexual assault investigations has improved, 

but many complained that investigators all too often decline to follow up on important leads. For their 

part, investigators expressed the view that many requests for additional investigative activity from 

trial counsel are unnecessary or are difficult for an investigative unit that is already overburdened and 

understaffed to execute. Some prosecutors ventured that these difficulties may be the result of internal 

MCIO protocols that stress timely completion of investigative tasks and pressure agents to close a case 

quickly. In the same vein, prosecutors noted, investigators are reluctant to reopen a closed case except 

to document newly received lab results or a similarly significant event. 

Internal MCIO policies were not clearly defined in site visit discussions, but some agents mentioned 

internal deadlines of six months to close a case in one Service, and 90 days in another Service. 

Anecdotally, the investigators clarified that despite these guidelines, they have seen instances in which 

sexual contact offense investigations take one year to complete. Both investigators and trial counsel 

stated that before agents close a case, they have to consult with a prosecutor and a commander to 

make a probable cause determination and document the final decision on case disposition; thus 

prosecutors do have input before a case is closed. However, should subsequent developments in a case 

reveal the need for additional investigative steps, prosecutors described real difficulties in getting this 

additional investigative work completed.

6. Cases are delayed by the length of time taken by forensic labs to test potential evidence.

Several prosecutors and investigators raised the issue of delays caused by the time it takes for forensic 

lab analysis of evidence. At one installation, prosecutors reported that they typically wait six months 

for DNA test results. The Subcommittee members were told that DoD labs generally prioritize 

cases that are pending court-martial, but notifying the lab that a court-martial is pending does not 

necessarily result in expeditious testing. Trial counsel at one installation said that they will sometimes 

charge an accused just to hasten the receipt of digital or DNA evidence from the lab, even when the 

sum total of existing evidence may not support a successful prosecution. 

Experiences at other installations varied: one location reported that a Service-specific lab could test 

evidence in less than 60 days, while at another, agents stated that they wait more than 90 days for lab 

results, and for that reason they are unable to close their cases expeditiously. By comparison, a civilian 

detective who participated in one site visit said that he has to wait 12–16 months for forensic testing in 

his civilian jurisdiction, and afterward collects a DNA swab from the defendant to confirm the results; 

in his observation, civilian sexual assault investigations take longer than comparable military criminal 

investigations.

B. Other Sources of Information 

1. MCIO structure.

The MCIOs are generally responsible for investigating the most serious offenses committed by 

members of the military Services. Each Service maintains a stovepiped organization that does not 

answer to a military commander or to a commander’s staff judge advocate (SJA). These independent 

law enforcement organizations receive investigative policy and guidance from the Department of 
26

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

12

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

Defense Office of the Inspector General, and the MCIO in each Service establishes its own policies and 

protocols consistent with DoD IG directives. 

2. Information presented to the JPP in April 2016.

The JPP examined how MCIOs and other stakeholders in the military justice process interact with 

SVCs/VLCs and addressed some of the issues identified above. The JPP heard testimony in its April 

2016 public meeting from senior officials within each MCIO regarding the impact of SVC/VLC 

representation and corresponding policies on sexual assault investigations. The witnesses echoed the 

concerns heard by the Subcommittee members at the site visits regarding investigative delays caused by 

SVCs/VLCs and noted that policies continue to evolve to accommodate SVC/VLC representation.29 As 

one senior MCIO official testified: 

In regards to special victim counsel, we consider the introduction of the special victim 

counsel to still be a work in progress in some respects. The agents have been provided 

extensive guidance on how to work with the SVC. The agent has the responsibility 

of notifying the victim of their right to an SVC representation. The victim’s SVC is 

allowed to be present during the interviews. The requirement to notify the SVC prior 

to interviewing the victim along with the SVC’s primary duty to best represent their 

client’s interests have on occasion been problematic.30

Another senior MCIO official suggested that trends in his organization are similar, explaining:

The special victim counsel program has come a long way since its inception. . . . The 

advent of this service has had an impact on our investigations. The coordination 

required to ensure all victim service personnel can attend interviews oftentimes delays 

the interview process. Collateral misconduct in service can impact victim disclosure 

and evidence collection. In some instances the victim has elected not to meet with NCIS 

at all which negates our ability to explain the investigative process and ensure the 

victim is making a fully informed decision as to their level of participation. We have 

maintained positive relationships, engaged early and often, and in most instances can 

quickly address the issues.31

JPP presenters also acknowledged that it is difficult to assess the impact of these delays on the overall 

quality of the investigation, and that these issues have become less pronounced over time.32

29 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 220–21 (April 8, 2016) (testimony of Mr. Jeremy Gauthier, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant 

Director, Criminal Investigations and Operations Directorate, NCIS Headquarters). Id. at 225–27 (testimony of Mr. Kevin 

Poorman, U.S. Air Force, Associate Director, Criminal Headquarters, Air Force Office of Special Investigations).

30 Id. at 215 (testimony of Mr. Guy Surian, U.S. Army, Deputy Chief of Investigative Operations, Investigative Policy and 

Criminal Intelligence, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID)).

31 Id. at 220–21 (testimony of Mr. Jeremy Gauthier, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal Investigations and 

Operations Directorate, NCIS Headquarters).

32 Id. at 257–58.
27

APPENDIX A: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 

13

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

3. RSP Findings and Recommendations in 2014.

In its June 2014 report the RSP made the following recommendation, which Congress enacted in part 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16 NDAA):33

RSP Recommendation 62: The Secretary of Defense develop and implement policy 

that, when information comes to military police about an instance of sexual assault by 

whatever means, the first step in an investigation is to advise the victim that she or he 

has the right to speak with a special victim counsel before determining whether to file a 

restricted or unrestricted report, or no report at all.34

The FY16 NDAA specifically requires that MCIO agents advise victims of their right to an SVC or 

VLC before the initial interview. Congress did not adopt the portion of RSP Recommendation 62 

regarding victims’ being advised of the right to a SVC/VLC prior to their electing to file an unrestricted 

or restricted report. MCIOs ensure that investigators speak to a victim only with his or her attorney 

present, subject to exceptions for exigent circumstances.35

In addition to reviewing how MCIOs safeguard victims’ rights and interests in the investigative 

process, the RSP examined the thoroughness of sexual assault investigations. On this subject, the 

RSP heard testimony in 2013 and 2014 from prosecutors who voiced concerns similar to those 

raised during the JPP Subcommittee’s site visits in 2016 about the premature closing of sexual assault 

investigations. The RSP noted the disagreements between trial counsel and MCIOs, stating: 

According to MCIO agents, investigators complete thorough investigations, following 

all logical leads prior to reaching any conclusions. Military prosecutors, however, 

provided mixed reviews of the quality of MCIO investigations and often felt additional 

investigation was necessary. Military prosecutors also conveyed that investigations are 

considered closed when they are passed to the commander for review and that it is 

difficult to “reopen” cases for further investigation.36

On the basis of this information, the RSP recommended the following:

Recommendation 94-A. The Secretary of Defense should direct MCIOs to standardize 

their procedures to require that MCIO investigators coordinate with the trial counsel 

to review all of the evidence, and to annotate in the case file that the trial counsel 

agrees all appropriate investigation has taken place before providing a report to the 

appropriate commander for a disposition decision. Neither the trial counsel, nor the 

investigator, should be permitted to make a dispositive opinion whether probable cause 

exists.37

33 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 [hereinafter FY16 NDAA], Pub. L. No. 114-92, § 534, 129 Stat. 

726 (2015).

34 rsp report at 32.

35 See Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 215–25 (April 8, 2016) (testimony of Mr. Jeremy Gauthier, U.S. Navy, Deputy 

Assistant Director, Criminal Investigations and Operations Directorate, NCIS Headquarters).

36 rsp report at 123.

37 rsp report at 42.
28

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

14

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

Recommendation 94-B. To ensure investigators continue to remain responsive 

to investigative requests after the commander receives the case file, the MCIO 

commanders and directors should continue to ensure investigators are trained that all 

sexual assault cases remain open for further investigation until final disposition of the 

case.38

DoD did not adopt these recommendations, but they have been referred to various working groups 

within the military Services. At present, MCIOs have to include in each investigative report the 

commander’s decision whether probable cause exists to believe an offense was committed, as well as 

the appropriate disposition for the case—and to include this information, they must either leave open 

or reopen cases. 

Finally, the RSP’s Comparative Systems Subcommittee (CSS) examined processing times at military 

and civilian crime lab facilities. The military’s primary laboratory, the Defense Forensic Science 

Center (formerly the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Laboratory), located in Forest Park, Georgia, 

informed the CSS that in 2014, the turnaround time for a laboratory request—the time from when 

the lab receives the evidence until the lab completes its analysis and sends a report to the requesting 

agent—was 77 days.39 Witnesses noted that this time frame is dependent on several factors, such as lab 

resources, current caseload, and the amount of evidence to be examined in response to a request.40 The 

JPP Subcommittee did not seek specific, updated information from military lab facilities to supplement 

the RSP and site visit information.

C. Subcommittee Assessment and Recommendations 

In the wake of Congress’s emphasis on sexual assault cases, DoD and the MCIOs have written 

numerous policies designed to enhance the quality of sexual assault investigations. Unfortunately, 

most MCIO-specific policies are not publicly available, owing to the sensitive nature of investigative 

methods. However, the Subcommittee repeatedly received comments during site visits to the effect that 

investigators today have reduced access to evidence and to victims but are responsible for investigating 

a broader spectrum of misconduct than ever before. Their investigations also carry more administrative 

burdens, such as duplicative reports and forms, but contain less evidence, owing in part to their own 

internal policies and practices regarding victim interviews. Because of the strain on investigative 

resources, and for all of the reasons stated above, some investigators resist undertaking or are simply 

unable to do the additional investigative work needed to fully prepare a case for prosecution. 

Further complicating the completion of a thorough investigation is a method of SVC/VLC advocacy 

that restricts the information that investigators and prosecutors can gather from victims. Investigators 

are likely to be the second or third person victims speak with about the offense, and they can talk only 

in the presence of the victim’s attorney, who may limit the breadth of the inquiry or advise victims 

not to speak with investigators more than once. A victim’s decision to act on the advice of his or her 

counsel is not inherently problematic. Rather, the problems occur when, on the advice of counsel or 

on their own, victims limit their participation and fail to provide investigators with evidence relevant 

to the investigation. Even when the SVC/VLC provides the investigator’s question to the victim and 

communicates the response back to the investigator, the investigator loses valuable information because 

38 Id.

39 rsp report, annex a, report of the comparatIve systems subcommIttee 101 (May 2014), available at http://

responsesystemspanel.whs.mil/Public/docs/Reports/00_Final/RSP_Report_Annex_Final_20140627.pdf. 

40 Id.
29

APPENDIX A: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 

15

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

he or she is unable to personally observe a victim’s demeanor or reaction to an investigator’s question. 

Moreover, investigators may not fully comprehend, or may have additional questions based on the 

written or verbal responses of an SVC/VLC who does not allow the victim to be questioned directly 

after the initial interview. Denying follow-up interviews therefore prevents investigators from fully 

exploring and understanding what could potentially become very important issues in a case.

When a victim either declines subsequent investigative interviews, or refuses to turn over relevant 

evidence—such as photographs, text messages, or social media information contained on the victim’s 

cell phone—investigators and prosecutors make decisions about investigating and charging without 

possessing all available evidence. There is a general sense among the investigators and prosecutors 

interviewed at the site visits that they must press forward without a victim’s full cooperation, an 

approach that raises concerns about not just the fairness of an investigation, but also the overall 

fairness of a prosecution. 

The Subcommittee heard a number of reasons why victims might not cooperate with requests for 

evidence from the victim’s cell phone, from concerns they would not have access to their phones for 

extended periods of time to concerns about the privacy of information in their phones not related 

to their case. However, the Subcommittee heard from the investigators and others that these kinds 

of concerns are somewhat misguided as the technology for imaging and searching cell phones has 

advanced to the point that both the time it takes to image a phone and the intrusion into irrelevant 

information have been minimized or altogether eliminated.41

Case delays take many forms, and waiting on forensic laboratory analysis was one raised by 

investigators and prosecutors alike during the site visits. Forensic evidence such as DNA testing and 

digital device examination can yield critical information, particularly in sexual assault cases, and can 

further guide MCIOs’ investigation as well as a prosecutor’s charging decisions. The Subcommittee 

cautions that while labs may prioritize cases pending court-martial, prosecutors should not prefer 

charges in order to prioritize a case for laboratory testing if the evidence already available does not 

support such a decision. 

Recommendation 2: Ensure prompt initial victim interviews. It is critical that the initial interview 

of the victim by MCIOs or other law enforcement agencies be conducted promptly after MCIOs 

receive a report of sexual assault. Yet the Subcommittee heard frequent complaints that the 

MCIOs’ initial interviews were being substantially delayed, often because special victims’ counsel 

or victims’ legal counsel were unavailable to attend the interview. 

The Subcommittee recommends that the Secretary of Defense take the necessary steps to ensure 

that special victims’ counsel and victims’ legal counsel (1) have the resources to schedule and attend 

the initial victim interview promptly after a report of sexual assault and (2) receive the training 

necessary to recognize the importance of a prompt victim interview by the MCIO to an effective 

and just prosecution.

41 See Service Responses to JPP Request for Information Set 9, Question 162 (Dec. 30, 2016). Options include requesting 

that the victim provide only limited consent for specific items of evidence such as photos, text messages, call logs, or app 

data. MCIOs can photograph text messages or make a forensic copy of select information before returning the phone to 

the victim. RFI responses also indicated that the MCIOs possess the expertise and technology to perform data extraction 

on-site using Cellebrite technology. Only if further data extraction is needed will the MCIO send the cell phone to the 

Defense Computer Forensic Laboratory for examination. 
30

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

16

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

Recommendation 3: Remove impediments to thorough victim interviews. The Subcommittee 

heard complaints from all MCIO special agents interviewed that various impediments prevented 

or discouraged them from conducting victim interviews that were as thorough as they consider 

necessary. Specifically, they felt procedures and policies discouraged or prohibited investigators 

from asking any question that could be perceived as “confrontational” during either the initial 

or the follow-up interview even when, in their professional judgment, such questions were vital 

to address conflicting statements given by the victim or other evidence contradicting the victim’s 

account. They also felt investigations were impeded by policies and procedures that discouraged 

them from conducting follow-up interviews. The Subcommittee accordingly recommends that 

the Secretary of Defense identify and remove these and any other identified barriers to thorough 

questioning of the victim by MCIOs or other law enforcement agencies.

Recommendation 4: Examine and remove impediments to MCIO access to tangible evidence. The 

Subcommittee heard numerous complaints that investigators have difficulties obtaining evidence 

from the victim, particularly information on cellular phones or other digital devices. Investigators 

said the reasons that victims and/or their attorneys gave for not turning over cellular and digital 

devices included the financial loss to the victim when investigators retain the phone for forensic 

analysis and privacy concerns over the vast amount of personal information typically contained 

on a smartphone. These concerns, while legitimate, can be minimized or eliminated by modern 

forensic techniques for imaging and searching digital devices. Therefore, the Subcommittee 

recommends that the Secretary of Defense examine these problems and develop appropriate 

remedies that address victims’ legitimate concerns and ensure that sexual assault investigations 

are complete and thorough.

Recommendation 5: Reduce delays at forensic laboratories. The Subcommittee heard complaints 

from MCIOs and prosecutors that the length of time it takes to obtain results from forensic 

laboratories’ testing of evidence impedes the timely completion of sexual assault investigations. 

Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends that the Secretary of Defense review the resources, 

staffing, procedures, and policies at forensic laboratories within the Department of Defense to 

ensure more expeditious testing of evidence by forensic laboratories.
31

APPENDIX A: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REPORT ON 

SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY 

17

This report is prepared by the JPP Subcommittee, and the observations and recommendations herein are those of the Subcommittee. 

The contents of the Subcommittee report have not yet been considered or deliberated on by members of the JPP.

Sexual Assault Investigations 

in the Military

Dates Installations Represented Subcommittee Members

July 11–12, 2016 Naval Station Norfolk, VA49

Joint Base Langley-Eustis, VA

Hon. Elizabeth Holtzman

Dean Lisa Schenck

BGen (R) James Schwenk

July 27–28, 2016 Fort Carson, CO

Peterson Air Force Base, CO

Schriever Air Force Base, CO

U.S. Air Force Academy, CO

Ms. Lisa Friel

Ms. Laurie Kepros

Professor Lee Schinasi

Ms. Jill Wine-Banks

August 1–2, 2016 Fort Bragg, NC

Camp Lejeune, NC

Ms. Laurie Kepros

Professor Lee Schinasi

BGen (R) James Schwenk

August 8–9, 2016 Naval Station San Diego, CA

Marine Corps Recruiting Depot San 

Diego, CA

Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, CA

Camp Pendleton, CA

Hon. Barbara Jones

Ms. Laurie Kepros

Ms. Jill Wine-Banks

August 22–23, 2016 Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA

Joint Base Andrews, MD

U.S. Naval Academy, MD

Navy Yard, Washington, DC

Dean Lisa Schenck

BGen (R) James Schwenk

Ms. Jill Wine-Banks

September 12–14, 2016 Osan Air Base, South Korea

Camp Humphreys, South Korea

Camp Red Cloud, South Korea

Camp Casey, South Korea

U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan, 

South Korea

Camp Butler, Japan

Camp Zama, Japan

Kadena Air Base, Japan

Yokota Air Base, Japan

Hon. Elizabeth Holtzman

Ms. Jill Wine-Banks

42

42 Installations in bold type are the actual meeting locations for the site visits.

ENCLOSURE: Installation Site Visits Attended by Members of the JPP Subcommittee

ENCLOSURE Installation Site Visits 

Attended by Members of 

the JPP Subcommittee
32

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY
33

APPENDIX B: Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Authorizing Statutes and 

Charter

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

SECTION 576. INDEPENDENT REVIEWS AND ASSESSMENTS OF UNIFORM 

CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF SEXUAL 

ASSAULT CASES.

(a) INDEPENDENT REVIEWS AND ASSESSMENTS REQUIRED.—

(2) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SINCE FISCAL YEAR 2012 AMENDMENTS.—The Secretary 

of Defense shall establish a panel to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial 

proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice involving adult sexual 

assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the Uniform Code of Military Justice 

by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 

112–81; 125 Stat. 1404) for the purpose of developing recommendations for improvements to 

such proceedings.

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANELS. 

(1) COMPOSITION.

(B)JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—The panel required by subsection (a)(2) shall be 

appointed by the Secretary of Defense and consist of five members, two of whom must have 

also served on the panel established under subsection (a)(1).

(2) QUALIFICATIONS.—The members of each panel shall be selected from among private United 

States citizens who collectively possess expertise in military law, civilian law, the investigation, 

prosecution, and adjudication of sexual assaults in State and Federal criminal courts, victim 

advocacy, treatment for victims, military justice, the organization and missions of the Armed 

Forces, and offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and other adult sexual assault crimes.

(3) CHAIR.—The chair of each panel shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense from among 

the members of the panel.

(4) PERIOD OF APPOINTMENT; VACANCIES.—Members shall be appointed for the life of the 

panel. Any vacancy in a panel shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.

(5) DEADLINE FOR APPOINTMENTS.—

(B)JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—All original appointments to the panel required by 

subsection (a)(2) shall be made before the termination date of the panel established under 

subsection (a)(1), but no later than 30 days before the termination date.

(6) MEETINGS.—A panel shall meet at the call of the chair.
34

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

(7) FIRST MEETING.—The chair shall call the first meeting of a panel not later than 60 days after 

the date of the appointment of all the members of the panel.

(c) REPORTS AND DURATION.—

(2) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—

(A)FIRST REPORT.—The panel established under subsection (a)(2) shall submit a first report, 

including any proposals for legislative or administrative changes the panel considers 

appropriate, to the Secretary of Defense and the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives not later than 180 days after the first meeting of 

the panel.

(B) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS.—The panel established under subsection (a)(2) shall submit 

subsequent reports during fiscal years 2014 through 2017.

(C)TERMINATION.—The panel established under subsection (a)(2) shall terminate on 

September 30, 2017.

(d) DUTIES OF PANELS.—

(2) JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—The panel required by subsection (a)(2) shall perform 

the following duties:

(A)Assess and make recommendations for improvements in the implementation of the reforms 

to the offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct under the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice that were enacted by section 541 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112– 81; 125 Stat. 1404).

(B) Review and evaluate current trends in response to sexual assault crimes whether by courtsmartial proceedings, non-judicial punishment and administrative actions, including the 

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

punishments, and administrative actions based on the facts of individual cases.

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

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

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

case compared with the punishments rendered by Federal and State criminal courts.

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

the most-recent report required by subsection (c)(2) and the number and description of 

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

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

(E) Review and assess those instances in which prior sexual conduct of the alleged victim was 

considered in a proceeding under section 832 of title 10, United States Code (article 32 of 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice), and any instances in which prior sexual conduct was 

determined to be inadmissible.
35

APPENDIX B: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND CHARTER

(F) Review and assess those instances in which evidence of prior sexual conduct of the alleged 

victim was introduced by the defense in a court-martial and what impact that evidence had 

on the case.

(G)Building on the data compiled as a result of paragraph (1)(D), assess the trends in the 

training and experience levels of military defense and trial counsel in adult sexual assault 

cases and the impact of those trends in the prosecution and adjudication of such cases.

(H)Monitor trends in the development, utilization and effectiveness of the special victims 

capabilities required by section 573 of this Act.

(I) Monitor the implementation of the April 20, 2012, Secretary of Defense policy 

memorandum regarding withholding initial disposition authority under the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice in certain sexual assault cases.

(J) Consider such other matters and materials as the panel considers appropriate for purposes 

of the reports.

(3) UTILIZATION OF OTHER STUDIES.—In conducting reviews and assessments and preparing 

reports, a panel may review, and incorporate as appropriate, the data and findings of applicable 

ongoing and completed studies.

(e) AUTHORITY OF PANELS.—

(1) HEARINGS.—A panel may hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such 

testimony, and receive such evidence as the panel considers appropriate to carry out its duties 

under this section.

(2) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.—Upon request by the chair of a panel, a 

department or agency of the Federal Government shall provide information that the panel 

considers necessary to carry out its duties under this section.

(f) PERSONNEL MATTERS.—

(1) PAY OF MEMBERS.—Members of a panel shall serve without pay by reason of their work on 

the panel.

(2) TRAVEL EXPENSES.—The members of a panel shall be allowed travel expenses, including per 

diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I 

of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 

business in the performance or services for the panel. 

(3) STAFFING AND RESOURCES.—The Secretary of Defense shall provide staffing and resources 

to support the panels, except that the Secretary may not assign primary responsibility for such 

staffing and resources to the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.
36

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

SEC. 1731. INDEPENDENT REVIEWS AND ASSESSMENTS OF UNIFORM CODE 

OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT 

CASES.

(b) ADDITIONAL DUTIES FOR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.—

(1) ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS SPECIFIED.—The independent panel established by 

the Secretary of Defense under subsection (a)(2) of section 576 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 1758), known as the 

“judicial proceedings panel”, shall conduct the following:

(A)An assessment of the likely consequences of amending the definition of rape and sexual 

assault under section 920 of title 10, United States Code (article 120 of the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice), to expressly cover a situation in which a person subject to chapter 47 

of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice), commits a sexual act 

upon another person by abusing one’s position in the chain of command of the other person 

to gain access to or coerce the other person.

(B) An assessment of the implementation and effect of section 1044e of title 10, United States 

Code, as added by section 1716, and make such recommendations for modification of such 

section 1044e as the judicial proceedings panel considers appropriate.

(C)An assessment of the implementation and effect of the mandatory minimum sentences 

established by section 856(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 56(b) of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice), as added by section 1705, and the appropriateness of statutorily 

mandated minimum sentencing provisions for additional offenses under chapter 47 of title 

10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

(D)An assessment of the adequacy of the provision of compensation and restitution for victims 

of offenses under chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice), and develop recommendations on expanding such compensation and restitution, 

including consideration of the options as follows:

(i) Providing the forfeited wages of incarcerated members of the Armed Forces to victims of 

offenses as compensation.

(ii) Including bodily harm among the injuries meriting compensation for redress under 

section 939 of title 10, United States Code (article 139 of the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice).

(iii)Requiring restitution by members of the Armed Forces to victims of their offenses upon 

the direction of a court-martial.

(2) SUBMISSION OF RESULTS.—The judicial proceedings panel shall include the results of the 

assessments required by paragraph (1) in one of the reports required by subsection (c)(2)(B) of 

section 576 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
37

APPENDIX B: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND CHARTER

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

SEC. 545. ADDITIONAL DUTIES FOR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL.

(a) ADDITIONAL DUTIES IMPOSED.—The independent panel established by the Secretary of 

Defense under section 576(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 

(Public Law 112–239; 126 Stat. 1758), known as the “judicial proceedings panel”, shall perform 

the following additional duties:

(1) Conduct a review and assessment regarding the impact of the use of any mental health records 

of the victim of an offense under chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice), by the accused during the preliminary hearing conducted under section 

832 of such title (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), and during court-martial 

proceedings, as compared to the use of similar records in civilian criminal legal proceedings.

(2) Conduct a review and assessment regarding the establishment of a privilege under the Military 

Rules of Evidence against the disclosure of communications between—

(A)users of and personnel staffing the Department of Defense Safe Helpline; and

(B) users of and personnel staffing of the 26 Department of Defense Safe Help Room.

(b) SUBMISSION OF RESULTS.—The judicial proceedings panel shall include the results of the 

reviews and assessments conducted under subsection (a) in one of the reports required by section 

576(c)(2)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112–239; 

126 Stat. 1760).

SEC. 546. DEFENSE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATION, 

PROSECUTION, AND DEFENSE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE ARMED FORCES

(f) DUE DATE FOR ANNUAL REPORT OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL – Section 576(c)(2)

(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 112-239; 126 Stat. 

1760) is amended by inserting “annually thereafter” after “reports”.
38

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

CHARTER

Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel

1

1. Committee’s Official Designation: The committee shall be known as the Judicial

Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (“the Judicial Proceedings 

Panel”). 

2. Authority: The Secretary of Defense, as required by section 576(a)(2) of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (“the FY 2013 NDAA”) (Public Law 

112-239), as modified by section 1731(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2014 (“the FY 2014 NDAA”) (Public Law 113-66), and in accordance with 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) 

and 41 C.F.R. § 102-3.50(a), established the Judicial Proceedings Panel. 

3. Objectives and Scope of Activities: The Judicial Proceedings Panel will conduct an 

independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses since 

the amendments made to the UCMJ by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (“the FY 2012 NDAA”) (Public Law 112-81) for the purpose of 

developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. 

4. Description of Duties: Section 576(d)(2) directs the Judicial Proceedings Panel to perform 

the following duties, with additional duties as added by section 1731(b)(1) of the FY 2014 

NDAA: 

a. Assess and make recommendations for improvements in the implementation of the 

reforms to the offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct 

under the UCMJ that were enacted by section 541 of the FY 2012 NDAA. 

b. Review and evaluate current trends in response to sexual assault crimes whether by 

courts-martial proceedings, non-judicial punishment and administrative actions, 

including the number of punishments by type, and the consistency and 

appropriateness of the decisions, punishments, and administrative actions based on 

the facts of individual cases. 

c. Identify any trends in punishments rendered by military courts, including general, 

special, and summary courts-martial, in response to sexual assault, including the 

number of punishments by type, and the consistency of the punishments, based on the 

facts of each case compared with the punishments rendered by Federal and State 

criminal courts. 

d. Review and evaluate court-martial convictions for sexual assault in the year covered 

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

description of instances when punishments were reduced or set aside upon appeal and 

the instances in which the defendant appealed following a plea agreement, if such 

information is available. 

e. Review and assess those instances in which prior sexual conduct of the alleged victim 

was considered in a proceeding under section 832 of title 10, United States Code 

(article 32 of the UCMJ), and any instances in which prior sexual conduct was 

determined to be inadmissible.
39

APPENDIX B: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND CHARTER

CHARTER

Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel

2

f. Review and assess those instances in which evidence of prior sexual conduct of the 

alleged victim was introduced by the defense in a court-martial and what impact that 

evidence had on the case.

g. Building on the data compiled as a result of the assessment conducted by the 

Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (“the Response Systems 

Panel”), a Federal advisory committee established pursuant to section 576(a)(1) of the 

FY 2013 NDAA and in accordance with FACA, of the training level of military 

defense and trial counsel, assess the trends in the training and experience levels of 

military defense and trial counsel in adult sexual assault cases and the impact of those 

trends in the prosecution and adjudication of such cases.

h. Monitor trends in the development, utilization and effectiveness of the special victims 

capabilities required by Section 573 of the FY 2013 NDAA. 

i. Monitor the implementation of the April 20, 2012, Secretary of Defense policy 

memorandum regarding withholding initial disposition authority under the UCMJ in 

certain sexual assault cases. 

j. Assess the likely consequences of amending the definition of rape and sexual assault 

under section 920 of title 10, United States Code (article 120 of the UCMJ), to 

expressly cover a situation in which a person subject to the UCMJ commits a sexual 

act upon another person by abusing one’s position in the chain of command of the 

other person to gain access to or coerce the other person.

k. Assess the implementation and effect of the Special Victim’s Counsel for victims of 

sex-related offenses established by the Secretary of Defense on August 14, 2013 and 

codified in Section 1044e of title 10, United States Code, by the enactment of Section 

1716 of the FY 2014 NDAA on December 26, 2013. The panel shall make such 

recommendations for modifications of section 1044e as the Judicial Proceedings 

Panel considers appropriate.

l. Assess the implementation and effect of the mandatory minimum sentences 

established by section 856(b) of title 10, United States Code (article 56(b) of the 

UCMJ), as added by section 1705 of the FY 2014 NDAA, which requires at a 

minimum, that upon a finding of guilt for the offenses of rape, sexual assault, rape 

and sexual assault of a child, forcible sodomy, and attempts to commit such acts, the 

punishment include dismissal or dishonorable discharge, except as provided for by 

Article 60 of the UCMJ, and the appropriateness of statutorily mandated minimum 

sentencing provisions for additional offenses under chapter 47 of title 10, United 

States Code (the UCMJ). 

m. Assess the adequacy of the provision of compensation and restitution for victims of 

offenses under chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the UCMJ), and develop

recommendations on expanding such compensation and restitution, including 

consideration of the options as follows:

i. Providing the forfeited wages of incarcerated members of the Armed 

Forces to victims of offenses as compensation.

ii. Including bodily harm among the injuries meriting compensation for

redress under section 939 of title 10, United States Code (article 139 of the

UCMJ). 
40

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

CHARTER 

Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel 

3

iii. Requiring restitution by members of the Armed Forces to victims of their 

offenses upon the direction of a court-martial. 

n. Consider such other matters and materials as the Judicial Proceedings Panel considers

appropriate for purposes of the reports.

In conducting reviews and assessments and preparing reports, the Judicial Proceedings 

Panel may review, and incorporate as appropriate, the data and findings of applicable 

ongoing and completed studies. The Judicial Proceedings Panel may hold such hearings, 

sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence as it

considers appropriate to carry out its duties. Upon request by the Chair of the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel, a department or agency of the Federal Government shall provide 

information that the Judicial Proceedings Panel considers necessary to carry out its duties. 

5. Agency or Official to Whom the Committee Reports: The Judicial Proceedings Panel

shall provide its first report, including any proposals for legislative or administrative

changes it considers appropriate, to the Secretary of Defense through the Department of

Defense (DoD) General Counsel (GC), and the Committees on Armed Services of the

Senate and the House of Representatives, not later than 180 days after its first meeting.

The Judicial Proceedings Panel shall submit subsequent reports during fiscal years 2014

through 2017.

6. Support: The DoD, through the DoD Office of General Counsel (DoD OGC), the

Washington Headquarters Services, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for

Personnel and Readiness, shall provide staffing and resources as deemed necessary for the

performance of the Judicial Proceedings Panel’s functions, and shall ensure compliance

with the requirements of the FACA, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (“the

Sunshine Act”) (5 U.S.C. § 552b, as amended), governing federal statutes and regulations,

and established DoD policies and procedures. Primary responsibility for such staffing and

resourcing may not be assigned to the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office.

7. Estimated Annual Operating Costs and Staff Years: The estimated annual operating cost,

to include travel, meetings, and contract support, is approximately $4,000,000 and 15 fulltime equivalents.

8. Designated Federal Officer: The Designated Federal Officer (DFO), pursuant to DoD

policy, shall be a full-time or permanent part-time DoD employee, and shall be appointed

in accordance with governing DoD policies and procedures.

In addition, the Judicial Proceedings Panel’s DFO is required to be in attendance at all 

meetings of the Panel and its subcommittees for the entire duration of each and every 

meeting. However, in the absence of the DFO, the Alternate DFO, duly appointed to the 

Judicial Proceedings Panel according to DoD policies and procedures, shall attend the 

entire duration of the Judicial Proceedings Panel and any subcommittee meetings. 
41

APPENDIX B: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND CHARTER

CHARTER

Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel

4

The DFO, or the Alternate DFO, shall approve all of the meetings of the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel as called by the Chair; shall call all meetings of its subcommittees, in 

coordination with the Chair; prepare and approve all meeting agendas for the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel and any subcommittees; and adjourn any meeting when the DFO or the 

Alternate DFO determines adjournment to be in the public’s interest or required by 

governing regulations or DoD policies and procedures.

9. Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings: Consistent with sections 576(b)(6) and 

(7) of the FY 2013 NDAA, the Judicial Proceedings Panel shall meet at the call of the 

Chair, and the Chair shall call the first meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel not later 

than 60 days after the date of the appointment of all the members of the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel. The Judicial Proceedings Panel shall meet at a minimum once per 

year. 

10. Duration: The Judicial Proceedings Panel shall remain in effect until terminated, as 

provided for and as required by section 576(c)(2)(C) of the FY 2013 NDAA; however, the 

charter is subject to renewal every two years.

11. Termination: According to section 576(c)(2)(C) of the FY 2013 NDAA, the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel shall terminate on September 30, 2017. 

12. Membership and Designation: Pursuant to sections 576(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2), the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense and consist of five 

members, two of whom must have served on the Response Systems Panel. 

The members shall be selected from among private United States citizens who collectively 

possess expertise in military law, civilian law, the investigation, prosecution, and 

adjudication of sexual assaults in State and Federal criminal courts, victim advocacy, 

treatment for victims, military justice, the organization and missions of the Armed Force, 

and offenses relating to rape, sexual assault, and other adult sexual assault crimes. The 

Chair shall be appointed by the Secretary of Defense from among the members of the 

Judicial Proceedings Panel. 

Members shall be appointed for the life of the Judicial Proceedings Panel, subject to 

annual renewals. Any vacancy on the Judicial Proceedings Panel shall be filled in the 

same manner as the original appointment. Panel members shall be appointed as experts or 

consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3109 to serve as special government employee (SGE) 

members. With the exception of reimbursement of official travel and per diem, Judicial 

Proceedings Panel members shall serve without compensation. 

The DoD GC, according to DoD policies and procedures, may select experts and 

consultants as subject matter experts under the authority of 5 U.S.C. § 3109 to advise the 

Judicial Proceedings Panel or its subcommittees; these individuals do not count toward the 

Judicial Proceedings Panel’s total membership nor do they have voting privileges. In 

addition, these subject matter experts shall not participate in any deliberations dealing with 
42

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

CHARTER

Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel

5

the substantive matters before the Judicial Proceedings Panel or its subcommittees nor 

shall they participate in any voting.

13. Subcommittees: The Department, when necessary and consistent with the Judicial 

Proceedings Panel’s mission and DoD policies and procedures, may establish 

subcommittees, task groups, or working groups to support the Judicial Proceedings Panel. 

Establishment of subcommittees will be based upon a written determination, to include 

terms of reference, by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the 

DoD GC. 

These subcommittees shall not work independently of the Judicial Proceedings Panel and 

shall report all of their recommendations and advice to the Judicial Proceedings Panel for 

full deliberation and discussion. Subcommittees have no authority to make decisions and 

recommendations, verbally or in writing, on behalf of the Judicial Proceedings Panel. No

subcommittee or any of its members may update or report directly to the DoD or any 

Federal officers or employees. 

The Secretary of Defense shall appoint subcommittee members even if the member in 

question is already a member of the Judicial Proceedings Panel. All subcommittee 

appointments shall be subject to annual renewal. Such individuals, if not full-time or parttime government personnel, shall be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. § 3109 to serve as SGE members. Those individuals who are full-time or 

permanent part-time Federal employees shall be appointed pursuant to 41 C.F.R. § 102-

3.130(a) as RGE members. Subcommittee members shall serve for the life of the 

subcommittee. With the exception of reimbursement of official travel and per diem, 

subcommittee members shall serve without compensation.

All subcommittees operate pursuant to the provisions of FACA, the Sunshine Act, 

governing Federal statutes and regulations, and established DoD policies and procedures.

14. Recordkeeping: The records of the Judicial Proceedings Panel and its subcommittees 

shall be handled according to section 2, General Records Schedule 26, and appropriate 

Department of Defense policies and procedures. These records shall 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: June 24, 2014
43

APPENDIX C: Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Committee and Subcommittee 

Member Biographies

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL MEMBERS

THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN — CHAIR OF THE JPP

Elizabeth Holtzman is counsel with the law firm Herrick, Feinstein LLP. Ms. Holtzman served for eight 

years as a U.S. representative (D-NY, 1973–81). While in office, she authored the Rape Privacy Act. 

She then served for eight years as District Attorney of Kings County, New York (Brooklyn), the fourthlargest DA’s office in the country, where she helped change rape laws, improve standards and methods 

for prosecution, and develop programs to train police and medical personnel. In 1989 Ms. Holtzman 

became the only woman ever elected Comptroller of New York City. Ms. Holtzman graduated from 

Radcliffe College, magna cum laude, and received her law degree from Harvard Law School.

THE HONORABLE BARBARA S. JONES 

Barbara Jones is a partner at the law firm Bracewell, LLP. She served as a judge in the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of New York for 16 years and heard a wide range of cases relating to 

accounting and securities fraud, antitrust, fraud and corruption involving city contracts and federal 

loan programs, labor racketeering, and terrorism. Before being nominated to the bench in 1995, 

Judge Jones was the Chief Assistant to Robert M. Morgenthau, then the District Attorney of New 

York County (Manhattan). In that role she supervised community affairs, handled public information, 

and oversaw the work of the Homicide Investigation Unit. In addition to her judicial service, she 

spent more than two decades as a prosecutor. Judge Jones was a special attorney of the United States 

Department of Justice (DOJ) Organized Crime & Racketeering, Criminal Division, and the Manhattan 

Strike Force Against Organized Crime and Racketeering. Previously, Judge Jones served as an Assistant 

U.S. Attorney, as chief of the General Crimes Unit, and as chief of the Organized Crime Unit in the 

Southern District of New York.

MR. VICTOR STONE

Victor Stone represents crime victims at the Maryland Crime Victims Resource Center, Inc. Previously, 

Mr. Stone served as Special Counsel at the United States Department of Justice. He spent 40 years with 

the Department of Justice in numerous positions, including as Chief Counsel, FBI Foreign Terrorist 

Task Force, and as Assistant U.S. Attorney in Oregon and the District of Columbia. He has experience 

working on victims’ and prisoners’ rights, serving on committees that resulted in the enactment of the 

Crime Victims’ Rights Act and updates to the ABA Standards for Prisoner Rights. After graduating 

from Harvard Law School, he clerked on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
44

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

PROFESSOR THOMAS W. TAYLOR

Tom Taylor teaches graduate courses at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy. Previously, 

he served as a decorated and distinguished Army officer, civil servant, and member of the Senior 

Executive Service. During a 27-year career in the Pentagon, he advised seven secretaries and seven 

Chiefs of Staff of the Army, and as the senior leader of the Army legal community he worked on a wide 

variety of operational, personnel, and intelligence issues. He graduated with high honors from Guilford 

College, Greensboro, N.C., and with honors from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law 

school, where he was a Morehead Fellow, a member of the law review, and a member of the Order of 

the Coif. 

VICE ADMIRAL PATRICIA A. TRACEY, U.S. NAVY (RETIRED)

Pat Tracey was most recently the Vice President of Homeland Security and Defense for Hewlett 

Packard Enterprise Services, U.S. Public Sector, developing dynamic strategies and providing support to 

various agencies including the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. 

Department of State, and U.S. Department of Defense. She completed a distinguished 34-year naval 

career in 2004, retiring as a vice admiral and the most senior woman officer in the history of the U.S. 

Navy. As chief of the Navy’s $5 billion global education and training enterprise, Admiral Tracey led 

a successful revolution in training technology to improve the quality, access, effectiveness, and cost of 

Navy training. She graduated from the College of New Rochelle and the Naval Postgraduate School, 

with distinction, and completed a Fellowship with the Chief of Naval Operations’ Strategic Studies 

Group.
45

APPENDIX C: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS

THE HONORABLE BARBARA S. JONES — CHAIR OF THE JPP SUBCOMMITTEE

Barbara Jones is a partner at the law firm Bracewell, LLP. She served as a judge in the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of New York for 16 years and heard a wide range of cases relating to 

accounting and securities fraud, antitrust, fraud and corruption involving city contracts and federal 

loan programs, labor racketeering, and terrorism. Before being nominated to the bench in 1995, 

Judge Jones was the Chief Assistant to Robert M. Morgenthau, then the District Attorney of New 

York County (Manhattan). In that role she supervised community affairs, handled public information, 

and oversaw the work of the Homicide Investigation Unit. In addition to her judicial service, she 

spent more than two decades as a prosecutor. Judge Jones was a special attorney of the United States 

Department of Justice (DOJ) Organized Crime & Racketeering, Criminal Division, and the Manhattan 

Strike Force Against Organized Crime and Racketeering. Previously, Judge Jones served as an Assistant 

U.S. Attorney, as chief of the General Crimes Unit, and as chief of the Organized Crime Unit in the 

Southern District of New York.

THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN — CHAIR OF THE JPP

Elizabeth Holtzman, who took office as the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, served in the 

House of Representatives from 1973 to 1981, representing New York’s 16th Congressional District. 

While in Congress, she served on the House Judiciary and Budget Committees and chaired the 

Immigration and Refugees Subcommittee. She co-founded the Congressional Women’s Caucus and 

was elected its first Democratic chair. She subsequently was elected Brooklyn District Attorney (where 

she pioneered new strategies for the prosecution of rape cases)—the only woman ever elected DA in 

New York City. She was then elected New York City Comptroller, the only woman ever to hold that 

position. Ms. Holtzman was appointed by President Bill Clinton to the Interagency Working Group 

(on declassifying secret Nazi war crimes files), and by Secretary Hagel to the Response Systems to 

Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel. She has also been appointed to the Department of Homeland 

Security Advisory Committee. Ms. Holtzman is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Harvard 

University’s Radcliffe College, magna cum laude. She practices law in New York City with the firm 

Herrick, Feinstein, LLP.
46

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

MS. LISA FRIEL

Lisa Friel is an internationally recognized expert on sexual assault. Ms. Friel has investigated and 

supervised complex cases involving sexual assault and harassment, human trafficking, workplace 

violence, child pornography, Internet predators, unlawful surveillance, theft, and fraud. Ms. Friel 

began her professional career at the New York County District Attorney’s Office, specializing in 

sexual assault cases. She was the Chief of the Sex Crimes Prosecution Unit for nearly a decade and the 

Deputy Chief for 11 years. Supervising more than 40 assistant district attorneys, support staff, and 

investigators, she typically managed 300 cases and investigations at any one time. 

Ms. Friel has directed thousands of investigations into allegations of sexual assault and other 

misconduct and has trained hundreds of law enforcement personnel throughout the world. In 

October 2011, following a distinguished 28-year career as a Manhattan prosecutor, Ms. Friel joined 

T&M Protection Resources as Vice President of the Sexual Misconduct Consulting & Investigations 

division. Ms. Friel and her staff developed policies and procedures, provided training workshops, and 

conducted sensitive investigations into a myriad of issues, including sexual misconduct (both sexual 

assault and sexual harassment) and domestic violence. In September 2014, Ms. Friel was appointed as 

T&M’s Special Advisor to the NFL Commissioner, consulting on domestic violence, child abuse, and 

sexual assault within the National Football League. In April 2015, Ms. Friel accepted a permanent 

position with the NFL: an appointment by Commissioner Goodell as the NFL’s Special Counsel for 

Investigations, where she is responsible for all investigations related to possible violations of the NFL’s 

Personal Conduct Policy.

MS. LAURIE ROSE KEPROS 

Laurie Rose Kepros is the Director of Sexual Litigation for the Colorado Office of the State Public 

Defender, where she trains and advises more than 700 lawyers and other staff statewide in their 

representation of adults and juveniles accused or convicted of sexual crimes. Ms. Kepros has personally 

represented thousands of criminal defendants, including many victims of sexual assault. She has tried 

and consulted on thousands of sexual offense cases across the state of Colorado. She has served on 

dozens of subcommittees of the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board and as a member of both 

the Sex Offense Task Force and the Sex Offense Working Group of the Sentencing Task Force of the 

Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. Ms. Kepros was on the Board of Directors of 

the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar for 10 years and currently serves on the board of the CCDB’s sister 

policy organization, the Colorado Criminal Defense Institute. She is a member of the Association for 

the Treatment of Sexual Abusers and an adjunct professor at the University of Denver School of Law. 

She has repeatedly testified before the Colorado legislature as a subject matter expert in sexual crime 

law and as an expert witness in Colorado sex offense law in federal district court. In 2012, the CCDB 

awarded her the Gideon Award for upholding and preserving the principles captured by Gideon v. 

Wainwright.
47

APPENDIX C: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES

DEAN LISA SCHENCK (COLONEL, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED)

Lisa Schenck became Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the George Washington University Law 

School in 2009 after serving in the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps for more than 25 years. She 

also has served as a judge, lawyer, and educator. While in the military, she was an appellate military 

judge on the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals in 2002 and received the 2003 Judge Advocates 

Association Outstanding Career Armed Services Attorney Award (Army). In 2005, Dean Schenck was 

the first woman appointed as a Senior Judge on that court, where she served until she retired. In 2007, 

the Secretary of Defense also appointed her to serve concurrently as Associate Judge on the U.S. Court 

of Military Commission Review. After retiring from the military as a colonel in 2008, Dean Schenck 

served as Senior Advisor to the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in Military Services.

PROFESSOR LEE SCHINASI (COLONEL, U.S. ARMY, RETIRED)

Lee Schinasi began his legal career as a trial attorney for the Office of Economic Opportunity before 

starting a 23-year career in the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps. His final assignment was 

as Dean of Academics and Vice Dean of the Army’s JAGC School. Professor Schinasi attended the 

resident Command and General Staff College and the resident Army War College. He has served as 

military legal advisor to the Army’s Chief of Staff for Intelligence and as Staff Judge Advocate of the 

3rd Infantry Division (in Germany) and United States Army South (in Panama). Professor Schinasi 

is co-author of several books on evidence and litigation, including The Military Rules of Evidence 

Manual, Military Evidentiary Foundations, The Florida Evidence Code Trial Book, Florida Evidentiary 

Foundations, Evidence in Florida, Emerging Problems under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and 

Lawyers Cooperative Practice Guide: Florida Evidence. He received a bachelor’s degree in economics 

and a J.D. degree from the University of Toledo. Before joining the Barry Law faculty, Professor 

Schinasi taught at the University of Miami School of Law. He currently teaches evidence, torts, civil 

procedure, and national security law.
48

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES SCHWENK, U.S. MARINE CORPS (RETIRED)

James Schwenk retired from the Marine Corps in 2000 and from civil service in 2014, after 49 years 

of federal service. As a Marine Corps judge advocate, he served as a trial counsel, defense counsel, 

Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, Staff Judge Advocate, Special Assistant to the General Counsel of the 

Navy, Head of Operational Law Branch at Headquarters Marine Corps, Deputy Director of Legal 

and Legislative Policy for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management and 

Policy, Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Navy for Military Law, and Military Assistant to the 

DoD General Counsel. Upon retiring from active duty, BGen Schwenk served for 14 years in the Office 

of the General Counsel of the Department of Defense as Senior Associate Deputy General Counsel, 

specializing in personnel policy, military justice, and civil support. He was the principal legal advisor 

for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the provision of benefits to same-sex spouses of military 

personnel. In addition, he was the principal legal advisor to numerous DoD working groups in the area 

of military personnel policy, working extensively with the White House and Congress. BGen Schwenk 

attended the Washington College of Law, American University, earning his J.D. in 1977. 

MS. JILL WINE-BANKS 

Jill Wine-Banks has a background as a corporate executive in manufacturing and telecommunications 

and as an attorney and not-for-profit and government leader. Ms. Wine-Banks started her career at 

the Department of Justice prosecuting organized crime and labor racketeering cases and then played 

a crucial role as an assistant special prosecutor investigating and trying the Watergate obstruction of 

justice case. Ms. Wine-Banks also served as the General Counsel of the United States Army. In that 

position, Ms. Wine-Banks dealt with environmental, procurement, Panama Canal, intelligence, military 

justice, and political issues, including the integration of women into basic training and West Point. 

After leaving the Pentagon, she was a litigation partner at Jenner and Block, the Solicitor General and 

Deputy Attorney General of Illinois, and later the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 

of the American Bar Association, the world’s largest legal publisher and professional association 

with almost 400,000 members. That experience led to her becoming a senior corporate executive at 

Motorola and then Maytag, handling international business development, global operations, alliance 

creation and management, and government relations in Pakistan, China, Ukraine, Russia, France, 

Germany, Japan, and Singapore. Recently, Ms. Wine-Banks was head of career and technical education 

for the Chicago Public Schools and a business consultant. Ms. Wine-Banks is currently writing a book 

about her life and career, with a special focus on her experiences during Watergate.
49

APPENDIX D: Judicial Proceedings 

Panel Staff Members and 

Designated Federal Officials

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS 

PANEL STAFF

Captain Tammy P. Tideswell, 

Judge Advocate General’s Corps,

U.S. Navy, Staff Director

Lieutenant Colonel Patricia H. Lewis, 

Judge Advocate General’s Corps,

U.S. Army, Deputy Staff Director

Mr. Dale Trexler, Chief of Staff

Ms. Julie Carson, Attorney

Dr. Janice Chayt, Investigator

Dr. Alice Falk, Editor

Ms. Theresa Gallagher, Attorney

Ms. Nalini Gupta, Attorney

Ms. Amanda Hagy, Senior Paralegal

Ms. Laurel Prucha Moran, 

Graphic Designer

Ms. Meghan Peters, 

Attorney and Lead Report Writer

Ms. Stayce Rozell, Senior Paralegal

Ms. Terri A. Saunders, Attorney

Ms. Tiffany M. Williams, 

Supervising Paralegal

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIALS

Ms. Maria Fried, 

Associate Deputy General Counsel (Personnel 

and Health Policy),

U.S. Department of Defense, 

Designated Federal Official

Mr. William Sprance, 

Associate Deputy General Counsel (Personnel 

and Health Policy), 

U.S. Department of Defense,

Alternate Designated Federal Official

Lieutenant Colonel Jacqueline M. Stingl, 

Judge Advocate General’s Corps, 

U.S. Air Force, Associate Deputy General 

Counsel (Personnel and Health Policy),

U.S. Department of Defense,

Alternate Designated Federal Official

Mr. Dwight Sullivan, 

Senior Associate Deputy General Counsel 

(Military Justice and Personnel Policy), 

U.S. Department of Defense,

Alternate Designated Federal Official
50

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY
51

APPENDIX E: Presenters on Sexual Assault 

Investigations in the Military 

at Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Public and Subcommittee 

Meetings

JUDICIAL 

PROCEEDINGS PANEL

PUBLIC 

MEETINGS

PRESENTERS

April 8, 2016

Public Meeting of 

the JPP

Holiday Inn Arlington 

at Ballston

Arlington, VA

• Mr. Guy Surian, U.S. Army, Deputy Chief of Investigative Operations, 

Investigative Policy and Criminal Intelligence

• Special Agent Jeremy Gauthier, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Director, 

Criminal Investigations & Operations Directorate, Naval Criminal 

Investigative Service Headquarters

• Mr. Kevin Poorman, U.S. Air Force, Associate Director, Criminal 

Headquarters, Air Force Office of Special Investigations

• Ms. Beverly Vogel, Sex Crimes Program Manager, U.S. Coast Guard 

Investigative Service

February 24, 2017

Public Meeting of 

the JPP

Holiday Inn Arlington 

at Ballston

Arlington, VA

• Ms. Lisa Friel, JPP Subcommittee Member

• Ms. Laurie Kepros, JPP Subcommittee Member

• Ms. Jill Wine-Banks, JPP Subcommittee Member

• Dean Lisa Schenck, Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired, JPP Subcommittee 

Member

May 19, 2017

Public Meeting of 

the JPP

Holiday Inn Arlington 

at Ballston

Arlington, VA

• Panel deliberations
52

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

JUDICIAL 

PROCEEDINGS PANEL

PUBLIC 

MEETINGS

PRESENTERS

June 16, 2017

Public Meeting of 

the JPP

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, VA

• Panel deliberations

July 26-27, 2017

Public Meeting of 

the JPP

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, VA

• Panel deliberations and approval of the JPP report and 

recommendations

JUDICIAL 

PROCEEDINGS PANEL

SUBCOMMITTEE 

MEETINGS

PRESENTERS

October 14, 2016

JPP Subcommittee 

Meeting

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, VA

• JPP Subcommittee deliberations and review of draft report

December 8, 2016

JPP Subcommittee 

Meeting

Telephonic

• JPP Subcommittee deliberations and review of draft report
53

APPENDIX E: PRESENTERS ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY AT 

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL PUBLIC AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS

JUDICIAL 

PROCEEDINGS PANEL

SUBCOMMITTEE 

MEETINGS

PRESENTERS

December 21, 2016

JPP Subcommittee 

Meeting

Telephonic

• JPP Subcommittee deliberations and review of draft report

December 23, 2016

JPP Subcommittee 

Meeting

Telephonic

• JPP Subcommittee deliberations and review of draft report

January 5, 2017

JPP Subcommittee 

Meeting

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, VA

• Mr. Steven Knight, Department of Defense Office of Inspector General

• JPP Subcommittee deliberations and review of draft report

January 24, 2017

JPP Subcommittee 

Meeting

Telephonic

• JPP Subcommittee deliberations and review of draft report

February 23, 2017

JPP Subcommittee 

Meeting

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, VA

• JPP Subcommittee discussion on presentation of Subcommittee report 

to JPP
54

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY
55

APPENDIX F: Acronyms and Abbreviations

AFOSI U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations

CID U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (Division)

CSS Comparative Systems Subcommittee of the Response Systems Panel

DoD Department of Defense

DODIG Department of Defense Office of Inspector General

FY Fiscal Year

JPP Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel 

(Judicial Proceedings Panel)

LEA law enforcement agency

MCIO military criminal investigative organization

MCM Manual for Courts-Martial

NCIS Naval Criminal Investigative Service

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

RFI request for information

RSP Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (Response Systems Panel)

SARC sexual assault response coordinator

SJA staff judge advocate

SVC special victims’ counsel

SVIP special victim investigation and prosecution capability

UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice

U.S.C. United States Code

VLC victims’ legal counsel
56

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY
57

APPENDIX G: Sources Consulted

1. LEGISLATIVE SOURCES

a. Enacted Statutes

10 U.S.C. §§ 801-946 (Uniform Code of Military Justice)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, 126 Stat. 1632 (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)

2. RULES AND REGULATIONS

a. Executive Orders

Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016), available at http://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/

Documents/MCM2016.pdf?ver=2016-12-08-181411-957

b. Department of Defense Directives 

U.S. Dep’t of Def. Directive 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program

(Jan. 23, 2012) (Incorporating Change 2, Effective January 20, 2015) 

c. Department of Defense Instructions

Dep’t. of Def. Instruction 5505.18, Investigation of Adult Sexual Assault in the Department of

Defense (March 22, 2017)

Dep’t of Def. Instruction 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program

Procedures (March 28, 2013) (Incorporating Change 2, Effective July 7, 2015) 

3. MEETINGS

a. Public Meetings of the Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (April 8, 2016), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/

05-Transcripts/20160408_Transcript_Final.pdf

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (February 24, 2017), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/05-

Transcripts/20170224_Transcript_Final.pdf
58

REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT INVESTIGATIONS IN THE MILITARY

4. OFFICIAL REPORTS

a. Report of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel 

Report of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (June 2014), available at

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

b. Reports of the Subcommittee of the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel

Subcommittee of the Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Sexual Assault Investigations in the

Military (February 2017), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/08-Panel_Reports/JPP_

SubcommReport_Investigations_Final_20170224.pdf

c. Department of Defense Reports

Dep’t of Def. Inspector Gen., Report No. DODIG-2015-094, Evaluation of Military Criminal

Investigative Organizations’ Adult Sexual Assault Investigations (March 24, 2015), available at

http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2015-094.pdf 

5. RESPONSES TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REQUESTS FOR 

INFORMATION

Department of Defense Office of Inspector General’s Response to JPP Request for Information 161 

(December 28, 2016)

Army’s Response to JPP Request for Information 162 (December 29, 2016)

Navy and Marine Corps’ Combined Response to JPP Request for Information 162 (January 4, 2017)

Air Force’s Response to JPP Request for Information 162 (December 30, 2016)

Coast Guard’s Response to JPP Request for Information 162 (January 3, 2017)

6. MEMORANDA

U.S. Dep’t of Def., Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense on Implementation of the 

Recommendations of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (December 15, 

2014)