JUDICIAL 

PROCEEDINGS 

PANEL

REPORT ON 

STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING 

MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF 

SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

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

Statistical Data Regarding Military 

Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses 

for Fiscal Year 2015

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 statistical data regarding military adjudication of 

sexual assault offenses for fiscal year 2015. This report builds upon the JPP’s previous 

analysis and report, issued in April 2016, of cases tried in fiscal years 2012 through 2014. 

The JPP makes three recommendations addressing best practices for the collection of 

adjudication data for sexual assault cases; the implementation of the new Article 140a, 

Uniform Code of Military Justice; and the need to continue analyzing sexual assault 

court-martial data after the JPP concludes in September 2017. 

 

To gather information for this report, the JPP obtained court-martial documents 

for sexual assault cases that were completed in fiscal year 2015. The JPP analyzed the 

adjudication information contained in these documents with the assistance of an 

independent criminologist and statistician. The JPP also reviewed the Department of 

Defense’s annual reports to Congress and appellate opinions issued by the Service 

Criminal Courts of Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The JPP held 

public meetings to hear from the Department of Defense regarding its data collection and 

reporting methods. The JPP expresses its sincere appreciation to everyone who 

contributed to this report. 

Elizabeth Holtzman

Chair

Barbara Jones

Victor Stone

Tom Taylor

Patricia Tracey

September 15, 2017
6

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

-2- 

Respectfully submitted, 

_______________________________ 

Elizabeth Holtzman, Chair

____________________________ _____________________________ 

Barbara S. Jones Victor Stone

___________________________ ____________________________ 

Thomas W. Taylor Patricia A. Tracey
1

Contents

Contents

Transmittal Letter 5

Table of Contents 1

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

RECOMMENDATIONS ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY 

ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 . . . 5

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

A. Congressional Tasks

B. The Military Justice System

II. OBTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL 

ASSAULT OFFENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A. Military Justice Information for Sexual Assault Cases Collected by the Department of Defense

B. Military Justice Information for Sexual Assault Cases Collected by the Judicial Proceedings 

Panel

C. Future Sexual Assault Data Collection and Analysis

D. Judicial Proceedings Panel Assessment and Recommendations

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL . . . 17

A. The Court-Martial Process

B. Military Justice Data

C. Judicial Proceedings Panel Assessment and Recommendation

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

A. Overview of the Military Appellate Process

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

APPENDICES:

A. Adjudication of Sexual Offenses Reported to the Military Services in 2015

B. Methodology

C. Judicial Proceedings Panel Authorizing Statutes and Charter

D. Judicial Proceedings Panel Member Biographies

E. Judicial Proceedings Panel Staff Members and Designated Federal Officials
2

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

F. Presenters on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses for 

Fiscal Year 2015 at Judicial Proceedings Panel Meetings

G. Acronyms and Abbreviations

H. Sources Consulted
3

Executive Summary

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

adjudication of adult sexual assault crimes in the military. Congress asked the JPP to review trends in 

sexual assault case dispositions, court-martial convictions and sentences, and appellate decisions. In 

April 2016, the JPP issued a report in response to this congressional tasking: the Judicial Proceedings 

Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses. This 

report builds on the data and information from the April 2016 JPP report.

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

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

the military Services for 738 sexual assault cases resolved in fiscal year 2015 in which at least one 

sexual assault charge was preferred. Just as it did with the 2016 data report, the JPP coordinated 

with a distinguished criminologist, Dr. Cassia Spohn, Foundation Professor and Director, School of 

Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, to analyze the fiscal year 2015 data and 

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

outcomes. Dr. Spohn’s complete report can be found at Appendix A. Cases in which the victim was 

the spouse or intimate partner of the accused account for 130 of the 738 cases reviewed by the JPP for 

fiscal year 2015, but these cases were not provided to the JPP for analysis of cases from fiscal years 

2012 through 2014. Therefore, the statistical data for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 are not directly 

comparable with the statistical data for fiscal year 2015.

To review appellate relief in military sexual assault cases, the JPP reviewed the opinions archived on 

the public websites of the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Armed Forces (CAAF) for fiscal year 2015. The JPP also separately obtained cases not available 

on the courts’ public websites that were summarily affirmed without an opinion from the military 

Services.

This report revisits the statutory tasks mentioned above and the JPP’s previous recommendations, 

drawing on the JPP’s review of new court-martial data, recent military appellate court decisions, 

and changes in military law contained in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year 2017.1

 This report does not address data concerning military disciplinary actions that take 

place outside the judicial process, or the available federal and state sentencing data on sexual assault 

crimes that were discussed in the JPP’s 2016 Report on Statistical Data. From the JPP’s review of 

the information available on those topics, and as noted in its initial report, the JPP lacked sufficient 

information to address certain aspects of its statutory tasks. This subsequent report therefore focuses 

on the JPP’s review of military sexual assault adjudication data for fiscal year 2015, which supplements 

its findings regarding adjudication data for fiscal years 2012 through 2014.

The JPP analyzed the procedural outcomes of sexual assault adjudications from fiscal year 2015. 

Statistical data obtained by the JPP effectively describe certain objective aspects of military cases in the 

aggregate, including the number of prosecutions conducted in the fiscal year, the procedural history 

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

1 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Pub. L. 114–328, [hereinafter FY17 NDAA], 130 Stat. 2000 

(2016). 

Executive Summary
4

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

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

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

provides the information gathered without offering specific recommendations.

The JPP does, however, make three recommendations regarding the collection of court-martial data. 

First, that the Secretary of Defense and the military Services should use a standardized, documentbased collection model for collecting and analyzing case adjudication data in order to implement 

Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (Case Management; Data Collection and Accessibility). 

Article 140a, which was enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, 

requires the establishment within four years of uniform standards and criteria for collecting military 

justice data across all of the military Services. This recommendation builds upon a recommendation 

from the JPP’s 2016 data report that the Department of Defense (DoD) collect and analyze case 

adjudication data using a standardized, document-based collection model similar to the systems used 

by the JPP or the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

Second, the new military justice data collection system should be designed so as to become the 

exclusive source of sexual assault case adjudication data for the DoD Sexual Assault Prevention 

and Response Office (DoD SAPRO) annual report to Congress. DoD SAPRO’s data collection and 

reporting on the legal disposition of adult-victim sexual assault cases do not describe the results of 

sexual assault reports made within DoD with sufficient clarity or thoroughness for Congress or DoD 

to understand how these cases are handled within the military justice system. The JPP believes that 

military justice personnel should be involved in providing the information collected pursuant to Article 

140a, and that DoD SAPRO should rely solely on the Article 140a data in preparing its reports to 

Congress. This change would improve the accuracy and level of detail currently contained in DoD’s 

reports on sexual assault cases.

Finally, the JPP’s successor panel, the Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, 

and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces, should consider continuing to analyze adultvictim sexual assault court-martial data on an annual basis as the JPP has done, and should consider 

analyzing the patterns detailed in this report that the JPP discovered in its analysis of fiscal year 2015 

court-martial data.
5

Recommendations on Statistical Data Regarding 

Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses 

for Fiscal Year 2015*

*

Recommendation 52: The Secretary of Defense and the military Services use a standardized, 

document-based collection model for collecting and analyzing case adjudication data in order to 

implement Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (Case Management; Data Collection 

and Accessibility). 

• Document-based case adjudication data collection is a best practice utilized and recommended by

the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The JPP’s document-based approach to data collection involves

obtaining relevant case documents from the military Services (e.g. charge sheet, report of result of

trial) and recording the relevant case history data into a centralized database for analysis.

• In its April 2016 report, the JPP recommended that the Department of Defense collect and

analyze case adjudication data using a standardized, document-based collection model similar to

the systems used by the JPP or the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

• Article 140a, enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, requires

the establishment within four years of uniform standards and criteria for collecting military

justice data across all of the military Services.

Recommendation 53: The new military justice data collection system required to be developed 

pursuant to Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (Case Management; Data Collection 

and Accessibility), should be designed so as to become the exclusive source of sexual assault case 

adjudication data for DoD’s annual report to Congress on DoD’s sexual assault prevention and 

response initiatives.

• DoD SAPRO’s data collection and reporting on the legal disposition of adult-victim sexual assault

cases do not describe the results of sexual assault reports made within DoD with sufficient clarity

or thoroughness for Congress or DoD to understand how these cases are handled within the

military justice system.

* 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 3–4 (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 (June 2017), available at http://jpp.whs.

mil/Public/docs/08-Panel_Reports/07_JPP_VictimsAppRights_Report_Final_20170602.pdf. JPP Recommendations 47–51

are included in the Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Sexual Assault Investigations in the Military 3–6 (Sep. 2017).

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

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

• Military justice personnel should be involved in providing the information collected pursuant to 

Article 140a, which would improve the accuracy and level of detail currently contained in DoD’s 

reports on sexual assault cases.

• DOD SAPRO should rely solely on the Article 140a data for its sexual assault case adjudication 

data when developing the DoD SAPRO annual report to Congress.

• To the extent possible, DoD should avoid developing a source of data under Article 140a that 

does not communicate with other sources of data within DoD, such as DoD SAPRO’s sexual 

assault incident database.

Recommendation 54: The successor federal advisory committee to the JPP, the Defense Advisory 

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

should consider continuing to analyze adult-victim sexual assault court-martial data on an annual 

basis as the JPP has done, and should consider analyzing the following patterns that the JPP 

discovered in its analysis of fiscal year 2015 court-martial data:

a. Cases involving military victims tend to have less punitive outcomes than cases involving 

civilian victims; and

b. The conviction and acquittal rates for sexual assault offenses vary significantly among the 

military Services.

c. If a Service member is charged with a sexual assault offense, and pleads not guilty, the 

probability that he or she will be convicted of a sexual assault offense is 36%, and the 

probability that he or she will be convicted of any offense (i.e., either a sex or a non-sex 

offense) is 59%.

• Because the data required to meet the JPP’s congressional tasks were not available or collected 

by any entity within DoD, including the annual DoD SAPRO report, the JPP independently 

collected the needed information directly from case files maintained by the military Services. 

• The JPP heard testimony from civilian experts from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the U.S. 

Sentencing Commission on best practices for collecting accurate and reliable information about 

case adjudication.

• In 2014, the JPP, in collaboration with the Washington Headquarters Service, developed a 

document-based database containing information on more than 2,500 military sexual assault 

cases adjudicated in fiscal years 2012 to 2015.

• In order to understand the data collected, the JPP retained a nationally recognized 

criminologist who was not affiliated with DoD or any military Service to perform an in-depth 

statistical analysis of the data.

• The JPP’s charter ends on September 30, 2017, and no similar project or method currently 

exists to continue this in-depth study of sexual assault cases in the military justice system once 

the JPP concludes. 
7

Introduction I.

A. CONGRESSIONAL TASKS

In the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress directed the Judicial Proceedings 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically, Congress tasked the JPP to

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

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

administrative actions based on the facts of individual cases.

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

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

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

punishments rendered by federal and state criminal courts.

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

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

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

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

The JPP initially addressed these issues in its April 2016 Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military 

Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses (hereinafter the “2016 Report on Statistical Data”).2

 For 

its initial report, the JPP drew on information gathered at seven JPP public meetings from August 

2015 to April 2016, testimony from 16 witnesses at these meetings, and information from JPP staff 

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

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

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

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

Recommendations 37 and 38, recommending that

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

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

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

and categories across all of the military Services; and

2 The Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses

(Apr. 2016) [hereinafter April 2016 JPP Report on Statistical Data], available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/08-Panel_

Reports/05_JPP_StatData_MilAdjud_SexAsslt_Report_Final_20160419.pdf.

I. Introduction
8

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

The Department of Defense include legal disposition information related to all adult 

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

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

Prevention and Response Office reports.3

In order to supplement its April 2016 Report on Statistical Data with additional information and 

analysis, the JPP enhanced its previous research with additional information gathered from DoD and 

the military Services, as well as expert testimony and deliberation at JPP public meetings from April 

2017 to June 2017. The information received and considered by the JPP is available on its website at 

http://jpp.whs.mil. The JPP is grateful to all presenters and to others who provided information and 

assistance as part of this review and assessment.

This report revisits the statutory tasks above and the JPP’s previous recommendations, drawing on 

the JPP’s review of new court-martial data, recent military appellate court decisions, and changes in 

military law contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.4

 This report 

does not address data concerning military disciplinary actions that take place outside the judicial 

process, or the available federal and state sentencing data on sexual assault crimes that were discussed 

in the JPP’s 2016 Report on Statistical Data. From the JPP’s review of the information available 

on those topics, and as noted in its initial report, the JPP lacked sufficient information to address 

certain aspects of its statutory tasks. This subsequent report therefore focuses on the JPP’s review of 

military sexual assault adjudication data for fiscal year 2015, which supplements its findings regarding 

adjudication data for fiscal years 2012 through 2014.

B. THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM

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

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

systems. The military justice system is designed to “promote justice, to assist in maintaining good order 

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

and thereby to strengthen the national security of the United States.”5 All Service members (including 

National Guard in federal service and Reserve Component members on inactive-duty training) are 

subject to the UCMJ, which sets forth both substantive military criminal law and procedures for 

disposing of criminal offenses. 

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

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

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

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

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

3 Id. at 5–6.

4 FY17 NDAA, supra note 1. 

5 Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016 ed.), Preamble ¶ 3 [hereinafter MCM].
9

I. INTRODUCTION

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

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

punishment, administrative discharge, or other adverse administrative action.6

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

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

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

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

administrative) means.

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

III of this report.

6 MCM, supra note 5, Rule for Courts-Martial [hereinafter R.C.M.] 306(c) (Updated Rules for Courts-Martial, June 2016, 

are available at http://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/RCMsUpdatedJune2016.pdf?ver=2016-07-05-111946-407); 

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

672 (2013), limits court-martial jurisdiction over the offenses of rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, and attempts to 

commit these offenses to trial by general court-martial.
10

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
11

Obtaining Information Regarding 

Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses II.

A. MILITARY JUSTICE INFORMATION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES 

COLLECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

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

(SAPRO)

Section 563 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2009 required the 

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

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

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

outcome of any legal proceedings in connection with the assault.”7

 The Department of Defense was 

required by January 14, 2010, to implement the database, which was to “be used to develop and 

implement congressional reports.”8

To meet this requirement, DoD developed the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID).9

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

sexual assault prevention and response policy. DSAID is administered by the DoD Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), which is responsible for establishing policy and evaluating 

DoD’s efforts to address sexual assault in the military. DoD SAPRO officials coordinate with sexual 

assault response coordinators and Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Managers 

from the military Services in order to provide information for DSAID. DSAID has three primary 

functions: (1) to serve as a case management system to maintain data on sexual assault cases and to 

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

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

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

for congressional reporting is entered into DSAID by legal officers from the military Services.10

DoD began using DSAID to produce detailed statistics for DoD’s annual reports to Congress in 2014. 

Before 2014, DoD relied on the Services’ separate case management systems to provide information 

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

improved the consistency and reliability of the information that DoD reports to Congress: “In the 

years 2013 and before . . . we didn’t have any way to kind of dig into the data, and clean it, and make 

sure that it was being reported in a standardized way across all four Services.”11

7 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 110–417 [hereinafter FY09 NDAA], § 563, 122 

Stat. 4356 (2009).

8 Id.

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

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

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

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

11 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 223–24 (Apr. 7, 2017) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Deputy Director, DoD 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office).
12

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

The JPP found that SAPRO information on case adjudication is deficient because it cannot be used to 

thoroughly assess how sexual assault crimes are resolved through the military justice system.12 Despite 

recent improvements in the amount of case information collected, DSAID omits several important 

case characteristics. It does not include details on all sexual assault offenses alleged and charged, the 

outcome of each charge, the pleas of the accused, whether the accused was tried by a military judge or 

jury, the specific findings and sentence adjudged, and the convening authority action taken on the case 

in accordance with plea agreement terms or clemency requests.

2. Cases Not Included in DoD SAPRO’s Data

Another difficulty the JPP encountered in examining DoD’s data on sexual assault is that intimate 

partner sexual assault cases that fall outside SAPR’s data collection policy are not included in DSAID 

or reported by DoD in its annual or other reports.13 Spouse and intimate partner cases are the 

responsibility of the DoD Family Advocacy Program (FAP).14 FAP provides important social work 

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

it receives against Service members.15 However, FAP does not collect case adjudication information for 

the cases covered by its policies.

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

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

in the military. The JPP noted in its April 2016 Report on Statistical Data that DSAID should include 

sexual assault case disposition and adjudication information for all adult victim sexual assault cases, 

regardless of whether the DoD SAPR program or the Family Advocacy Program claims responsibility 

for monitoring the case and providing victim services. Specifically, in April 2016 the JPP issued 

Recommendation 38, that

The Department of Defense include legal disposition information related to all adult 

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

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

Prevention and Response Office reports.16

On April 5, 2017, DoD responded to the JPP’s recommendation that legal disposition information 

for all sexual assault cases should be included in one annual report to Congress. DoD said that cases 

covered by FAP policy would not be included in DoD SAPRO’s reports, and provided the following 

explanation: “Given that FAP’s mission is clinical in nature with a mission towards rehabilitation, FAP 

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

12 See April 2016 JPP Report on Statistical Data, supra note 2, at 12.

13 This was noted by the Response Systems Panel in its report and was the subject of RSP’s Recommendation 66. Report

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

http://responsesystemspanel.whs.mil/Public/docs/Reports/00_Final/RSP_Report_Final_20140627.pdf. The Response 

Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel was established to “conduct an independent review and assessment of the 

systems used to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses . . . for the

purpose of developing recommendations regarding how to improve the effectiveness of such systems.” National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112–239, § 576(a)(1), 126 Stat. 1632 (2013).

14 Dep’t of Def. Instr. [hereinafter DoDI] 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures

¶2.b (Mar. 28, 2013) (Incorporating Change 3, Effective May 24, 2017).

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

Manager, DoD Office of Family Readiness Policy).

16 JPP Recommendation 38, April 2016 JPP Report on Statistical Data, supra note 2, at 6.
13

II. OBTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

Responsibility for collecting information on alleged offender accountability and associated outcomes 

(including legal disposition, if appropriate) remains with the Office of the Judge Advocate General 

within each military Department.”17

DoD further explained that Section 544 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 201718 requires that the DoD 

SAPRO and FAP annual reports be released simultaneously to Congress; however, DoD also noted 

that neither report would include information on the legal or disciplinary outcome of sexual assault 

cases covered by FAP policy.19 Finally, DoD indicated it has been considering ways to include this 

information in future reports; it declined to elaborate further on the means or time frame for doing so, 

explaining “the means for collecting and reporting legal disposition information pertaining to these 

allegations in the future remains pre-decisional.”20

Both the JPP and its predecessor, the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel, 

recognize that the exclusion of FAP cases data from DoD’s case data management system presents a 

systemic and fundamental problem in DoD’s collection and reporting of sexual assault data that has 

not been fully addressed. The JPP urges DoD to implement JPP Recommendation 38 mentioned above 

in order to account for the number of sexual assault cases actually processed in the military justice 

system.

Notably, the Services collect and manage information on all sexual assault cases regardless of whether 

SAPR or FAP policies apply, but in accordance with DoD policy, they provide DoD with disposition 

information on cases only covered by SAPR policy. Unfortunately, the information collected by each 

Service varies. As the JPP observed in its April 2016 Report on Statistical Data, neither DoD’s nor 

the Services’ systems could provide the JPP with sufficient information or detail to fulfill the JPP’s 

congressional tasks to examine how sexual assault crimes are resolved in the military justice system. 

B. MILITARY JUSTICE INFORMATION FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES 

COLLECTED BY THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL

To conduct the analysis necessary to fulfill the tasks assigned by Congress, the JPP sought information 

from individual court records and case documents that the military’s existing electronic management 

systems do not contain.21 The JPP modeled its approach to data collection on the work of the U.S. 

17 DoD Response to JPP Request for Information 164B (Apr. 5, 2017), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/03_TopicAreas/07CM_Trends_Analysis/20170407/20170407_JPP_RFI_164_165_DoD.pdf.

18 FY17 NDAA, supra note 1, § 544.

19 DoD Response to JPP Request for Information 164B (Apr. 5, 2017), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/03_TopicAreas/07CM_Trends_Analysis/20170407/20170407_JPP_RFI_164_165_DoD.pdf.

20 Id. See also Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 211–17 (Apr. 7, 2017) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath) (acknowledging 

that this issue of combining SAPRO and FAP case data in one report has been under review since the Response Systems 

Panel issued its report in June 2014). See supra note 13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

things are wrong or missing, and then that affects the reliability of your data.”).
14

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

Sentencing Commission (hereinafter “Sentencing Commission”), which conducts large-scale case 

document data collection, entry, and analysis for federal criminal convictions. The Sentencing 

Commission, which is an independent agency of the judicial branch, is responsible for establishing 

sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, advising Congress about the impact of federal 

criminal laws and policies, and collecting information on, analyzing, and researching a wide array of 

federal crime and sentencing issues.22

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

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

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

analysis necessary for the Commission’s work. Document-based data collection enables the Sentencing 

Commission to accurately analyze federal criminal convictions and sentences.23 For the JPP to examine 

the adjudication of sexual assault crimes in the military, the Panel determined that a similar approach 

to obtain information directly from military justice case records was necessary.

The JPP requested access to specified court documents in order to obtain information about the judicial 

processing and resolution of all sexual assault cases completed in fiscal year 2015. In total, the JPP 

received access to case documents in 738 cases.24 The JPP then screened case records provided by the 

Services to identify duplicate cases, cases with incomplete documentation, cases of sexual assault that 

did not involve an adult victim, cases that did not involve a sex offense, and cases whose reported year 

of case completion was not correct.

After screening, case information was entered into an electronic database that an independent 

criminologist, Dr. Cassia Spohn, Foundation Professor and Director, School of Criminology and 

Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, then analyzed. Dr. Spohn’s complete statistical report 

concerning military sexual assault adjudication is provided at Appendix A.

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

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

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

the JPP identified opinions issued by the courts in fiscal year 2015 regarding adult sexual assault 

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

the decisions obtained were for cases tried in fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014, and they do not 

correspond to the courts-martial completed in fiscal year 2015.

C. FUTURE SEXUAL ASSAULT DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 

The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2017 established Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (Case 

Management; Data Collection and Accessibility). Article 140a requires the establishment within four 

years of uniform standards and criteria for collecting military justice data across all of the military 

Services. The data collection is intended to serve four distinct purposes:

22 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 184–85 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Mr. Glenn Schmitt). See also the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission website at http://www.ussc.gov/about.

23 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 186–87 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Mr. Glenn Schmitt).

24 See Appendix B, Methodology, for an accounting of the cases initially requested from the military Services.
15

II. OBTAINING INFORMATION REGARDING ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES

(1) Collection and analysis of data concerning substantive offenses and procedural matters 

in a manner that facilitates case management and decision making within the military 

justice system, and that enhances the quality of periodic reviews under section 946 of 

this title (article 146).

(2) Case processing and management.

(3) Timely, efficient, and accurate production and distribution of records of trial within the 

military justice system.

(4) Facilitation of access to docket information, filings, and records, taking into 

consideration restrictions appropriate to judicial proceedings and military records.25

One reason for creating Article 140a is that in practice, the separate case management, data access, 

and data collection practices currently in use by the Services make it difficult to collect and analyze 

military justice data on a system-wide basis.26 The system created pursuant to Article 140a would thus 

eliminate the current disparities in the information and level of detail that the Services collect on all 

cases brought under the UCMJ, including cases involving sexual assault crimes. 

The statute requires that case data collection methods rely on the best practices in use in federal and 

state courts.27 As the JPP has found through its review of the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s best 

practices and its own data collection efforts, a document-based method for collecting case adjudication 

information produces the kind of accurate and comprehensive data needed to properly analyze case 

dispositions and outcomes. 

The JPP has also made a specific recommendation to DoD regarding best practices for case data 

collection. In the April 2016 JPP Report on Statistical Data, JPP Recommendation 37 provides that

The Department of Defense (DoD) collect and analyze case adjudication data using a 

standardized, document-based collection model similar to the systems used by the JPP or 

the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

DoD has not implemented this recommendation, and explained to the JPP that “new requirements 

set forth in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 pertaining 

to the collection and analysis of military justice data will influence our way forward on these 

recommendations.”28

D. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As DoD has not yet developed the contours of Article 140a, the JPP believes that this statute provides 

the means to remedy deficiencies in DoD’s sexual assault data collection and reporting. DoD has 

already responded to JPP Recommendation 37 by recognizing that the system that will be developed 

25 FY17 NDAA, supra note 1, § 5504.

26 Report of the Military Justice Review Group 1011 (Dec. 22, 2105), available at http://ogc.osd.mil/images/report_part1.pdf.

27 FY17 NDAA, supra note 1, § 5504.

28 DoD Response to JPP Request for Information 164A (Apr. 5, 2017), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/ docs/03_TopicAreas/07-CM_Trends_Analysis/20170407/20170407_JPP_RFI_164_165_DoD.pdf.
16

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

pursuant to Article 140a will influence how and whether to implement the JPP’s recommendations 

regarding sexual assault data collection. Therefore, the JPP builds upon the conclusions in its April 

2016 Report on Statistical Data in recommending that the Secretary of Defense and the military 

Services use a standardized, document-based collection model for collecting and analyzing case 

adjudication data in order to implement Article 140a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (Case 

Management; Data Collection and Accessibility).

DoD SAPRO is charged with making important policies for DoD, but its data collection and reporting 

on the legal disposition of adult-victim sexual assault cases do not describe the outcomes of sexual 

assault reports made within the military with sufficient clarity or thoroughness for Congress or DoD 

to understand how these cases are handled within the military justice system. The JPP believes that 

military justice personnel should be involved in providing the information collected pursuant to Article 

140a, and that this new system should collect information on all sexual assault cases in the military 

Services. Using Article 140a would thus end the exclusion of spouse and intimate partner cases from 

Service and DoD-level data analysis, thereby improving the reliability and clarity of DoD’s reports on 

sexual assault cases. In sum, the JPP recommends that the new military justice data collection system 

should be designed so as to become the exclusive source of sexual assault case adjudication data for the 

DoD SAPRO annual report to Congress.
17

Sexual Assault Cases Resolved 

Through Courts-Martial III.

The JPP examined the judicial response to sexual assault crimes in 738 cases that were completed in 

fiscal year 2015 in which one or more sexual assault charges were preferred.29 These cases represent a 

substantial portion, but not all, of the sexual assault courts-martial tried by the military Services.30 The JPP 

asked Dr. Cassia Spohn to analyze the procedural history and outcomes for all cases. Her statistical report, 

provided in Appendix A, informs the JPP’s presentation of data about military judicial proceedings. 

A. THE COURT-MARTIAL PROCESS

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

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

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

court-martial.

29 Most (93%) of the cases analyzed involve offenses charged under the current sexual assault statute, Article 120, UCMJ, 

which covers offenses committed on or after June 28, 2012. In general, the sexual assault offenses analyzed span three 

versions of Article 120, UCMJ, and other statutes. They include: 

Pre-Oct. 2007 Article 120(1) – Rape

Pre-Oct. 2007 Article 134 – Assault - Indecent

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

Article120(c) – Aggravated Sexual Assault 

Article 120(e) – Aggravated Sexual Contact 

Article 120(h) – Abusive Sexual Contact

Article 120(m) – Wrongful Sexual Contact

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

Article 120(b) – Sexual Assault

Article 120(c) – Aggravated Sexual Contact

Article 120(d) – Abusive Sexual Contact

Article 125(1) Forcible Sodomy

Article 80 Attempts to commit the above offenses

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

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

analysis. 

III. Sexual Assault Cases Resolved through Courts-Martial

Alternate 

Disposition/ 

Dismissal

Preferral 

of Charges

Decision 

to Refer to 

CourtMartial

Adjudged 

Sentence

Approved 

Findings and 

Sentence by 

Convening 

Authority

Appellate 

Review

Findings by 

Judge or 

Panel

Article 32 

Preliminary 

Hearing 

(if required)

Arraignment 

(Plea)

The Court-Martial Process
18

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

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

court-martial convening authority (SPCMCA) for the initial decision on disposition.31 Should the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

provided that they have appropriate authority under the UCMJ to do so.32 The UCMJ provides for 

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

court-martial.33

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

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

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

are limited to no more than one month of confinement and do not allow for separation from service.34

In addition, a finding of guilt at a summary court-martial does not result in a federal conviction. A 

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

special or general court-martial.35

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

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

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

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

once a member is found guilty at a court-martial the court immediately moves into the sentencing 

proceedings. Another difference in military courts-martial is the wide range of available punishments 

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

member may receive a punitive discharge, forfeiture of pay, a fine, reduction in pay grade, hard labor 

without confinement, restriction to specified limits, or a reprimand.36

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

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

greater than one year.37 In addition, because a dismissal is not an authorized punishment, officers are 

generally not tried by special court-martial.38

31 See U.S. Dep’t of Defense, Memorandum from the Secretary of Defense on Withholding Initial Disposition Authority

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in Certain Sexual Assault Cases (Apr. 20, 2012). The SPCMCA is a senior 

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

32 See MCM, supra note 5, R.C.M. 504.

33 10 U.S.C. § 816 (UCMJ, art. 16).

34 10 U.S.C. § 820 (UCMJ, art. 20). The limits of a summary court-martial sentence are confinement for one month, hard 

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

month’s pay. 

35 Id.

36 MCM, supra note 5, R.C.M. 1003(b).

37 10 U.S.C. § 819 (UCMJ, art. 19). The limits of a special court-martial are a bad conduct discharge, confinement for one 

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

38 Id.
19

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

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

are the maximum sentences authorized for the offenses of which the member is convicted.39 Congress, 

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

forcible sodomy, or attempts to commit these acts) to trial by general court-martial.40

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

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

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

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

investigated “the truth and form of the charges.”41 In sexual assault cases the victim, if he or she was 

a military member, was typically required to appear and give testimony and was subject to crossexamination by the defense counsel.42

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

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

hearing.43 Under the new process, the Article 32 preliminary hearing is limited to determining whether 

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

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

offense and the accused, considering the form of the charges, and recommending the disposition that 

should be made of the case.44 At the completion of the Article 32 hearing, the hearing officer, who is 

a judge advocate, prepares a report of the proceedings and forwards the report, along with his or her 

recommendation as to disposition, through command channels, to the general court-martial convening 

authority (GCMCA).

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

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

written pretrial advice of the GCMCA’s staff judge advocate.45

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

on the charges and presides over the court-martial proceedings.46 The trial process that follows largely 

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

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

39 10 U.S.C. § 818 (UCMJ, art. 18).

40 FY14 NDAA, supra note 6, § 1705. The NDAA provision applies to offenses committed on or after June 24, 2014. A 

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

only type authorized for these offenses is a general court-martial.

41 10 U.S.C. § 832 (UCMJ, art. 32); MCM, supra note 5, R.C.M. 405(a) and (e).

42 MCM, supra note 5, R.C.M. 405(g)(2)(A) and (h)(1)(A).

43 FY14 NDAA, supra note 6, § 1702(a). National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. 113–291, 

[hereinafter FY15 NDAA] § 531(g), 128 Stat. 3292 (2014) makes this change effective for all preliminary hearings 

conducted on or after December 26, 2014.

44 FY14 NDAA, supra note 6, § 1702(a).

45 Id.; 10 U.S.C. §§ 833, 834 (UCMJ, art. 33 and art. 34).

46 10 U.S.C. § 936 (UCMJ art. 36) (rules prescribed by the President “shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the 

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

courts, but which may not be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter.”). See also MCM, supra note 5, R.C.M. 904; 

Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 1102.
20

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

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

role in approving the results of a court-martial.

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

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

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

of the charges, from the prosecutor to the judge.47 The judge is not bound by this recommendation, 

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

circumstances the judge may be required to release the defendant from the plea agreement.48

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

including any specific limits on confinement, are binding on the convening authority.49 Unlike civilian 

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

convening authority before deciding on a sentence.50 The defendant in a military court ultimately 

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

other contained in the plea agreement).51

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

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

of guilt and sentence announced by the court-martial panel or judge are not final and must be 

forwarded to the convening authority for approval. Historically, convening authorities had broad 

powers under Article 60 of the UCMJ to set aside or modify findings of guilt or provide clemency with 

regard to the sentence.52 However, in the FY14 NDAA, Congress significantly restricted the postconviction authority of convening authorities in serious sexual assault offenses by precluding them 

from setting aside or commuting findings of guilt.53 The NDAA also significantly curtailed the ability 

of convening authorities to provide clemency from the adjudged sentence.54

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

48 Id.

49 MCM, supra note 5, R.C.M. 705(a) and (b). See also id. R.C.M. 705(d)(4) “Withdrawal.” (A) By accused. The 

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

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

respectively. See id., R.C.M. 705(d)(4)(B) “By convening authority. The convening authority may withdraw from a pretrial 

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

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

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

the agreement is held improvident on appellate review.”

50 MCM, supra note 5, R.C.M. 910(f)(3).

51 MCM, supra note 5, R.C.M. 705(b)(2).

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

53 FY14 NDAA, supra note 6, § 1702(b). This provision applies to offenses committed on or after June 24, 2014, and states 

that the convening authority may affect findings only for “qualifying offenses,” defined as those for which the maximum 

sentence of confinement that may be adjudged does not exceed two years, and the sentence adjudged does not include 

dismissal or a punitive discharge, or confinement for more than six months. Id. In effect, this provision prevents convening 

authorities from modifying the findings or sentence for adult-victim sexual assault convictions under Articles 120 or 125, 

except where the accused enters into a pretrial agreement with the government that addresses certain offenses or provides 

for a limitation on sentence.

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

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

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

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

mandatory minimum sentence except to reduce a dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge. 
21

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

B. MILITARY JUSTICE DATA

1. Court-Martial Case Characteristics

The JPP received 738 court-martial records from the Services for cases that involved the preferral of an 

adult-victim sexual assault offense and were completed in fiscal year 2015. Among the Services, the Army

generated the most cases. Courts-martial records indicated that the accused was usually male and the 

victims were most often female. In addition, the vast majority of the courts-martial involved one military 

victim; however, there were several that involved multiple victims. In 72% of cases, the most serious 

charge that was preferred was a penetrative offense. Almost all cases involved an offense charged under 

the most current version of Article 120, UCMJ, the military’s sexual assault statute, which covers offenses 

committed on or after June 28, 2012. Specific details regarding the characteristics of the data retrieved 

from court-martial records for fiscal year 2015 are described below in sections (a) through (d).55

The JPP notes that a number of characteristics are similar across the groups of cases analyzed for this 

JPP report and the April 2016 Report on Statistical Data involving cases completed in fiscal years 2012 

through 2014:56

• the proportion of cases from each Service, 

• the characteristics of the accused and the victim, 

• the proportion of cases involving a penetrative offense, 

• the proportion of cases tried by court-martial, and 

• the proportion of general courts-martial are nearly the same for fiscal year 2015 as for fiscal 

years 2012 through 2014 (combined). 

a. Overview of Total Cases Received

The JPP reviewed case data for 738 cases that were completed in fiscal year 2015. The data include

certain cases that were not contained in the JPP’s review of cases for years 2012 through 2014. Cases 

in which the victim was the spouse or intimate partner of the accused account for 130 cases (18%) of 

the 738 cases reviewed by the JPP for fiscal year 2015, but these cases were not provided to the JPP for 

analysis of cases fiscal years 2012 through 2014. DoD does not collect information on the legal outcome 

of cases in which the victim is the spouse or intimate partner of the accused; those cases are handled by 

the DoD Family Advocacy Program (FAP). Therefore, the statistical data for fiscal years 2012 through 

2014 are not directly comparable with the statistics for fiscal year 2015. Of the total number of cases 

reviewed for the JPP’s April 2016 Report on Statistical Data, 426 (24%) were from fiscal year 2012, 662 

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

55 Throughout this report, percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number based on the figures contained in 

Appendix A, Adjudication of Sexual Offenses Reported to the Military Services in 2015 by Dr. Cassia Spohn, Professor 

and Director, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University. 

56 In its April 2016 Report on Statistical Data, supra note 2, the JPP reviewed 1,761 sexual assault cases completed in fiscal 

years 2012 through 2014. The JPP did not receive the complete universe of cases in which a sexual assault charge was filed 

throughout the military for this report. The data were also limited to cases in which a complete set of disposition records 

could be identified and retrieved for analysis. 
22

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

Of the 738 cases reviewed by the JPP for fiscal year 2015, the Army generated the most cases (44%), 

followed by the Air Force (23%), Navy (16%), Marine Corps (13%), and Coast Guard (4%). 

Cases Reviewed by the JPP (FY 2012–2015)

FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

673

738

662

426

Army

44%

Air Force

23%

Marine 

Corps

13%

Navy

16%

Coast Guard

4%

Army

46%

Air Force

19%

Marine 

Corps

14%

Navy

17%

Coast Guard

3%

Military Service of the Accused (FY 2012–2015)

Fiscal Years 2012–2014 Fiscal Year 2015
23

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

To provide additional context for the number of cases analyzed by the JPP from each military Service, 

the table below shows the active duty population in each military Service in fiscal year 2015, and the 

proportion each military Service constitutes of the overall active duty military population. 

Table 1. Fiscal Year 2015 Active Duty Population by Military Service with 

Number of Sexual Assault Cases Analyzed by the JPP

Size of the Active 

Duty Population*

Percentage of 

Total Active Duty 

Population

Number of FY15 

Cases Analyzed 

by the JPP

Percentage of 

Cases Analyzed 

by the JPP

Army 491,300 36.4% 322 43.6%

Air Force 311,300 23.1% 170 23.1%

Navy 327,900 24.2% 121 16.4%

Marine Corps 183,500 13.6% 94 12.7%

Coast Guard 36,000 2.7% 31 4.2%

Total 1,350,000 100% 738 100%

*Figures obtained from the DoD Defense Manpower Data Center website, https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/

dwp/dwp_reports.jsp, and the Defense Manpower Requirements Report for Fiscal Year 2017. These figures do 

not include the number of Guard and Reserve Component members who were on active duty and were also 

subject to the UCMJ in fiscal year 2015. Therefore, these figures should not be used to compare the proportion 

of courts-martial in the Army relative to the other Services.
24

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

b. Accused Characteristics

The accused in nearly all cases (99%) was male. Only 5 cases involved a female accused. Most of the 

accused were enlisted Service members (93%) rather than officers (7%).

Gender of the Accused (FY 2015)

Rank of the Accused (FY 2015)

Male

99%

Female

1%

0

50

100

150

200

OFFICER

E-1

30

E-2

39

E-3

149

E-4

179

E-5 

151

E-6

80

E-7

43

E-8

8

E-9

5

Cadet/

Midshipman 

3

W-1

2

W-2

1

W-3

1

W-5

1

O-6

1

O-1

3

O-2

11

O-3

17

O-4

12

O-5

2

W-4

0

ENLISTED
25

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

c. Victim Characteristics

In 91% of the cases reviewed by the JPP, the victim was female. Sixty-eight percent of the cases 

involved victims who were in the military. Most cases reviewed involved one (83%) or two (12%) 

victims. In 18% of the cases, the victim was the spouse or intimate partner of the accused.

Victim Characteristics (FY 2015)

Female

91%

Male

9%

Gender of the Victim(s)

One Victim

83%

Two 

Victims

12%

Three or 

More Victims

5%

Number of Victims per Case

Victim’s Relationship with the Accused

All Other 

Relationships 

82%

Spouse 

or Intimate 

Partner

18%
26

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

d. Characteristics Regarding the Nature of the Charges

A penetrative offense,57 as opposed to a contact offense, was the most serious charge preferred in 530 

of 738 cases (72%). Just 9% of the cases involved only a single charge, but more than half of the cases 

(56%) involved four or fewer charges.

2. Disposition Decisions

Using case data from fiscal year 2015, the JPP staff examined whether trial disposition decisions varied 

by the type of offense charged, or the military Service of the accused.

In the JPP’s data for fiscal year 2015, convening authorities referred a total of 526 cases to trial by 

general, special, or summary court-martial; thus, 71% of all preferred cases were referred to trial by 

court-martial. In contrast, convening authorities dismissed or resolved through alternate administrative 

means 212 cases, or 29% of preferred cases.58 Overall, 79% of referred cases in fiscal year 2015 were 

referred to trial by a general court-martial. 

57 The phrase “penetrative” offenses” refers to offenses under Article 120 and 125, UCMJ, involving rape, aggravated sexual 

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

58 The JPP notes that these statistics are very similar to the case disposition statistics for cases completed in fiscal years 2012

through 2014. On average, 72% of cases were referred to court-martial in FY 2012–2014. See April 2016 Report on

Statistical Data, supra note 2, at 25.

Sexual 

Contact 

Offense

28%

(208 

Cases)

Penetrative 

Offense

72%

(530 Cases)

Most Serious Charge Preferred (FY 2015)
27

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

Table 2 below illustrates case dispositions by military Service of the accused and by the most serious 

offense sent to trial.

Table 2a. Case Disposition by Military Service of the Accused

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

Army 199 88% 16 7% 11 5%

Air Force 102 89% 11 10% 2 2%

Navy 59 63% 27 29% 7 8%

Marine Corps 46 69% 10 15% 11 16%

Coast Guard 10 40% 7 28% 8 32%

TOTAL 416 71 39

General 

Court-Martial

79%

(416 Cases)

Special 

Court-Martial

14%

(71 Cases)

Summary 

Court-Martial

7%

(39 Cases)

Case Disposition by Court-Martial Type (FY 2015)

Case Disposition by Military Service of the Accused (FY 2015)
28

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

The severity of offense charged influences the type of court-martial to which a charge is referred. 

Among cases completed in fiscal year 2015, 94% of penetrative offenses were referred to trial by 

general court-martial,59 while sexual contact offenses were referred more evenly among the three types 

of court-martial. The graph below illustrates case dispositions by court-martial type according to the 

most serious charged sexual assault offense.

Table 2b. Case disposition by Most Serious Sex Offense Referred (Sent) to Trial (FY 2015)

3. Adjudication Outcomes 

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

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

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

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

all cases sent to trial by court-martial.60

59 The FY14 NDAA established that penetrative sexual assault offenses may be tried only at a general court-martial. This 

provision applies to offenses committed on or after June 24, 2014. See supra note 40 and accompanying text. The JPP 

noted in its April 2016 Report on Statistical Data, supra note 1, that in practice, penetrative sexual assault cases were 

almost uniformly tried at a general court-martial before this statute was enacted. In fact, case data obtained by the JPP 

for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 indicate that the vast majority (92%) of penetrative offenses tried in fiscal years 2012 

through 2014 were referred to general court-martial.

60 See David A. Schlueter, Military Criminal Justice: Practice and Procedure § 6-1 (9th ed. 2015) (“The first formal step 

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

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

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

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

Summary Court-Martial

Special Court-Martial

General Court-Martial

Penetrative Contact

94% 42%

4%

2%

38%

20%

Case Disposition by Most Serious Sex Offense Referred to Trial (FY 2015)

60
29

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

Table 3 and the accompanying figure illustrate case outcomes for those cases in which a sexual assault 

charge was preferred. The analysis of the 738 cases reviewed by the JPP is divided according to 

whether the most serious initial charge was either a penetrative offense or a contact offense. For each 

offense category, the table indicates whether cases resulted in conviction for a sexual offense or other 

offenses, acquittal, alternate disposition, or dismissal prior to trial.

The JPP considered a case to be resolved by alternate disposition when a Service member was 

discharged or allowed to resign in lieu of facing court-martial. Discharge or resignation in lieu of trial 

is possible only in cases in which charges have been preferred, at least one of those charges authorizes 

a punitive separation as punishment, and the Service member requests to be discharged or to resign. 

Enlisted Service members submit a request to be discharged in lieu of trial to the convening authority, 

while an officer’s request to resign from the Service must be approved by the Service Secretary. The 

Services document the approval or disapproval of these requests in each court-martial case file, and 

the JPP obtained these documents in order to analyze these case data. The JPP found that in cases 

completed in fiscal year 2015, almost all alternate dispositions (97%) involved enlisted Service 

members, while only 3% of alternate dispositions involved officers. Most of the enlisted Service 

members (75%) who were discharged in lieu of court-martial held the pay grades of E-3, E-4, or E-5.

Commanders may also seek to resolve less severe sexual assault complaints through disciplinary action 

outside the judicial process. Disciplinary action may include nonjudicial punishment proceedings under 

Article 15, UCMJ,61 initiating the process to involuntarily separate a military member from the Service 

for misconduct, or taking other adverse administrative action.62 These disciplinary actions most often 

occur in cases in which a commander determines that preferral of charges is inappropriate; however, 

a commander who has preferred charges against a Service member with a view toward court-martial 

may later decide that any of these lower-level disciplinary actions are more appropriate than courtmartial, and dismiss all charges in order to take other disciplinary action at some point in the future. 

The JPP did not collect information on disciplinary or separation actions taken in cases in which 

all charges were dismissed, but recognizes that these cases could have involved disciplinary action 

after charges were dismissed.63 Unlike data for courts-martial, which can be compiled from public 

documents, records of disciplinary actions are maintained as personnel records within each Service and 

protected under the Privacy Act, and, as a result, could not be reviewed by the JPP.64 Therefore, the JPP 

did not document disciplinary actions taken in cases that were not selected for prosecution.

61 10 U.S.C. § 815.

62 See MCM, supra note 5, R.C.M. 306(c)(2) (“Administrative actions include corrective measures such as counseling, 

admonition, reprimand, exhortation, disapproval, criticism, censure, reproach, rebuke, extra military instruction, or the 

administrative withholding of privileges, or any combination of the above.”).

63 See generally Latisha Irwin, Major, U.S. Army, Justice in Enlisted Administrative Separations, 225 Mil. Law Rev. 35, 36–

37 (2017) (noting that “administrative separations often occur as an alternative to courts-martial because administrative 

separation boards have a lower standard of proof and afford the respondent less due process than a trial by courtmartial.”). Disciplinary action may be based on sex-related or non-sex-related violations of the UCMJ, and these UCMJ 

violations may be unrelated to the original allegation of sexual misconduct.

64 April 2016 Report on Statistical Data, supra note 2, at 36. See also Service responses to JPP RFI Question 89 (Oct. 1, 

2015). The Services explained that disciplinary records are maintained according to Service-specific regulations, often at 

the installation level, and typically are destroyed within two to three years.
30

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

Table 3. Cases from Preferral (Initiation of Charges) by Most Serious 

Sex Offense Charged (FY 2015)65

65 In cases in which all charges were dismissed prior to trial, the accused might have faced other disciplinary action such as 

nonjudicial punishment proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ, separation from Service, or other adverse administrative 

action for misconduct (whether related or unrelated to the original accusation of sexual assault).

Outcomes from Preferral

Penetrative Offense Was 

the Most Serious Charge 

(530 total)

Sexual Contact Offense Was 

the Most Serious Charge 

(208 total)

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 26% N/A

Convicted of Contact Offense 3% 18%

Convicted of Non-sex Offense 22% 41%

Overall Conviction Rate 51% 59%

Acquitted of All Charges 21% 13%

Alternate Disposition 14% 22%

All Charges Dismissed 15% 6%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

26%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

22%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

21%

Alternate

Disposition

14%

All Charges

Dismissed

15%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

3%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

26%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

22%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

21%

Alternate

Disposition

14%

All Charges

Dismissed

15%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

3%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

41%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

13%

Alternate

Disposition

22%

All Charges

Dismissed

6%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

18%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

41%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

13%

Alternate

Disposition

22%

All Charges Dismissed

6%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

18%

Penetrative Offense Cases Contact Offense Cases

Outcomes of Sexual Assault Cases from Preferral
31

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

Table 4 and the accompanying figure illustrate case outcomes for those cases in which a commander 

directed a trial by court-martial, also known as “referral” to court-martial. A referral decision signifies a 

convening authority’s decision to prosecute a case in a specified court-martial forum. The JPP analyzed 

the outcomes in 526 cases in which convening authorities referred one or more sexual assault charges to 

trial by general, special, or summary courts-martial in fiscal year 2015. These cases were resolved in one 

of two ways: by an accused’s plea of guilty to one or more offenses, or by a contested trial in which the 

accused plead not guilty to all charges.

An examination of the trials in which a conviction resulted from a Service member’s plea of guilty to 

either a sex or non-sex related offense, as opposed to a finding of guilt at a contested trial, reveals that 

17% of the convictions obtained in penetrative cases were based on a Service member’s plea of guilty 

to a penetrative offense, and another 25% of convictions were based on a Service member’s plea of 

guilty to a non-sex offense. In comparison, 11% of the convictions obtained in contact offense cases 

were based on a plea of guilty to a contact offense, and 50% of the convictions were based on a plea of 

guilty to a non-sex offense.66

Table 4. Cases from Referral (Charges Sent to Trial) to Court-Martial by Most Serious 

Sex Offense Charged (FY 2015)

66 See infra Appendix A at 8–9.

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

36%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

30%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

36%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

31%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

30%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

3%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

36%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

30%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

57%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

18%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

25%

Penetrative Offense Cases Contact Offense Cases

Outcomes of Sexual Assault Cases from Referral

Outcomes from Referral 

Penetrative Offense Was the 

Most Serious Charged Sex 

Offense (377 cases)

Contact Offense Was the Most 

Serious Charged Sex Offense 

(149 cases)

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 36% N/A

Convicted of Contact Offense 3% 25%

Convicted of Non-sex Offense 31% 57%

Overall Conviction Rate 70% 82%

Acquitted of All Charges 30% 18%
32

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

Table 5 and the accompanying figure illustrate case outcomes for only those cases in which the accused 

pled not guilty to all charges at trial.67 By excluding those cases from Table 4 above that involved guilty 

pleas, the data provide conviction and acquittal rates for contested trials.

Table 5. Cases Tried at a Contested Court-Martial (FY 2015)

67 This analysis excludes the outcomes for mixed plea cases in which a Service member pled guilty to some charges and 

contested other charges.

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

36%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

31%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

30%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

3%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

36%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

19%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

43%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

2%

Penetrative Offense Cases

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

36%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

31%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

30%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

3%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

35%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

35%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

31%

Contact Offense Cases

Outcomes of Sexual Assault Cases Tried at a Contested Court-Martial (FY 2015)

Outcomes for Contested Trials 

Penetrative Offense Was the 

Most Serious Charged Sex 

Offense (262 cases)

Contact Offense Was the Most 

Serious Charged Sex Offense 

(78 cases)

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 36% N/A

Convicted of Contact Offense 2% 31%

Convicted of Non-sex Offense 19% 35%

Overall Conviction Rate 57% 66%

Acquitted of All Charges 43% 35%
33

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

Tables 6a and 6b and the accompanying figures illustrate case outcomes for cases adjudicated by a 

military judge or a panel of military members. This analysis includes cases that were tried at either a 

special or a general court-martial, but does not include cases in which a Service member pled guilty to 

any offense. In military courts, guilty pleas are received by a military judge, and thus the conviction 

rate would naturally be higher in cases tried by a military judge than in cases tried before members if 

guilty pleas were included in this analysis. The results indicate that overall, 38% of contested cases 

were tried by a military judge, and 62% were tried by a panel of military members. 68

Table 6a. Contested Trials for Penetrative Offense Cases by Trial Forum (FY 2015)

68 See infra Appendix A at 20. Dr. Spohn found that the difference in conviction rates for penetrative offenses was not 

statistically significant. Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

39%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

47%

Convicted

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

39%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

13%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

47%

Convicted 

of Contact 

Offense

2%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

39%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

13%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

47%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

34%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

24%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

40%

Convicted 

of Contact 

Offense

2%

Outcomes for Contested Trials by Most Serious Offense Charged and Trial Forum 

(Penetrative Offense Cases)

Outcomes for Contested Trials 

Involving Penetrative Offenses 

(265 cases)

Trial by a Military Judge 

(101 cases)

Trial by a Panel of Military 

Members (164 cases)

Convicted of Penetrative Offense69 39% 34%

Convicted of Contact Offense 2% 2%

Convicted of Non-sex Offense 13% 24%

Overall Conviction Rate 54% 60%

Acquitted of All Charges 47% 40%

Military Judge Panel of Military Members
34

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

Table 6b. Contested Trials for Contact Offense Cases by Trial Forum (FY 2015)

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

39%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

13%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

47%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

2%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

33%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

30%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

37%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

39%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

13%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

47%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

2%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

34%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

38%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

28%

Outcomes for Contested Trials by Most Serious Offense Charged and Trial Forum 

(Contact Offense Cases)

Outcomes for Contested Trials 

Involving Contact Offenses 

(74 cases)

Case Adjudicated by 

Military Judge 

(27 cases)

Case Adjudicated by 

a Panel of Military Members 

(47 cases)

Convicted of Contact Offense 37% 28%

Convicted of Non-sex Offense 33% 34%

Overall Conviction Rate 70% 62%

Acquitted of All Charges 30% 38%

Military Judge Panel of Military Members
35

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

26%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

22%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

21%

Alternate

Disposition

14%

All Charges

Dismissed

15%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

3%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

25%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

21%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

23%

Alternate

Disposition 8%

All Charges

Dismissed

21%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

3%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

26%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

22%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

21%

Alternate

Disposition

14%

All Charges

Dismissed

15%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

3%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

26%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

22%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

21%

Alternate

Disposition

16%

All Charges

Dismissed

13%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

2%

Relationship Between the Victim and the Accused (Penetrative Offense Cases)

Spouse or Intimate Partner Other Relationship

Table 7a. Penetrative Offense Cases According to the Relationship Between the Victim 

and the Accused (FY 2015)

The case data collected for fiscal year 2015 included 130 cases (out of 738 total) in which the victim 

was the spouse or intimate partner of the accused.69 In all other cases, the relationship between 

the victim and the accused fell into some other category, such as acquaintances, strangers, friends, 

co-workers, or a dating relationship. Tables 7a and 7b and the accompanying figures present the 

outcomes for these two groups of cases—spouses/intimate partners and all other relationships. Among 

cases involving penetrative offenses, the overall conviction rate for cases in which the accused and 

victim were spouses or intimate partners was almost equal to the conviction rate for cases involving 

other types of relationships (49% vs. 50%).

69 DoD defines “intimate partner” as “a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, or a person with whom 

the victim shares or has shared a common domicile.” Dep’t of Def. Manual 6400.01-V2, DoD Manual for Child

Maltreatment and Domestic Abuse Incident Reporting System, Glossary (Aug. 11, 2016).

Outcomes for Penetrative Cases 

(530 cases)

Spouse or Intimate Partner 

(112 cases)

Other Relationship 

(418 cases)

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 25% 26%

Convicted of Contact Offense 3% 2%

Convicted of Non-sex Offense 21% 22%

Overall Conviction Rate 49% 50%

Acquitted of All Charges 23% 21%

Alternate Disposition 8% 16%

All Charges Dismissed 21% 13%
36

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

Tables 8a and 8b and the accompanying figures illustrate the outcomes for all cases analyzed by the 

JPP according to the military Service of the accused. The results indicate that the conviction rate for 

penetrative offenses varied among the Services. There were not enough contact offense cases among 

the Services to assess the differences in the conviction rates for contact offenses. For penetrative offense 

cases, the Army had the highest conviction rate (33%) and the Marine Corps had the lowest (14%). In 

addition, the Air Force had the highest acquittal rate (30%) for penetrative offense cases and the Coast 

Guard had the lowest (5%).

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

22%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

21%

Alternate

Disposition

14%

All Charges

Dismissed

15%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense Acquitted 

of All 61%

Charges

11%

Alternate

Disposition

17%

All Charges

Dismissed

11%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

22%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

21%

Alternate

Disposition

14%

All Charges

Dismissed

15%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

3%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

39%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

21%

Alternate

Disposition

16%

All Charges

Dismissed

13%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

20%

Outcomes for Contact Cases 

(208 cases)

Spouse or Intimate Partner 

(18 cases)

Other Relationship 

(190 cases)

Convicted of Contact Offense 0% 20%

Convicted of Non-sex Offense 61% 39%

Overall Conviction Rate 61% 59%

Acquitted of All Charges 11% 21%

Alternate Disposition 17% 16%

All Charges Dismissed 11% 13%

Spouse or Intimate Partner Other Relationship

Relationship Between the Victim and the Accused (Contact Offense Cases)

Table 7b. Contact Offense Cases According to the Relationship Between the Victim and 

the Accused (FY 2015)
37

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

21%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

53%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

5%

Alternate

Disposition

11%

All Charges

Dismissed

11%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

2%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

14%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

30%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

21%

Alternate

Disposition

5%

All Charges

Dismissed

23%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

8% Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

33%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

22%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

16%

Alternate

Disposition

19%

All Charges

Dismissed

8%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

2%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

33%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

22%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

16%

Alternate

Disposition

19%

All Charges

Dismissed

8%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

2%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

21%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

53%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

5%

Alternate

Disposition

11%

All Charges

Dismissed

11%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

2%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

26%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

20%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

27%

Alternate

Disposition

4%

All Charges

Dismissed

21%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

1%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

20%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

Acquitted 13%

of All 

Charges

30%

Alternate

Disposition

16%

All Charges

Dismissed

20% Convicted

of Contact

Offense

2%

Military Service of the Accused (Penetrative Offense Cases)

Army

Coast Guard

Marine Corps

Air Force

Table 8a. Cases by Military Service of the Accused from Preferral of Charges (FY 2015)

Navy

Outcomes for Penetrative Cases 

(530 cases)

Army 

(241 cases)

Air 

Force 

(134 cases)

Navy 

(70 cases)

Marine 

Corps 

(66 cases)

Coast 

Guard 

(19 cases)

Convicted of Penetrative Offense 33% 20% 26% 14% 21%

Convicted of Contact Offense 2% 2% 1% 8% 0%

Convicted of Non-sex Offense 22% 13% 20% 30% 53%

Overall Conviction Rate 57% 35% 47% 52% 74%

Acquitted of All Charges 16% 30% 27% 21% 5%

Alternate Disposition 19% 16% 4% 5% 11%

All Charges Dismissed 8% 20% 21% 23% 11%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

21%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

5%

Alternate

Disposition

11%

All Charges

Dismissed

11%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

21%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

53%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

5%

Alternate

Disposition

11%

All Charges

Dismissed

11%

Convicted

of Contact
38

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

43%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

20%

Alternate

Disposition

12%

All Charges

Dismissed

8%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

18%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

43%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

20%

Alternate

Disposition

12%

All Charges 

Dismissed

8%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

18%

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

33%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

28%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

10%

Alternate

Disposition

33%

All Charges

Dismissed

4%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

25%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

28%

Acquitted 

of All Charges

10%

Alternate

Disposition

33%

All Charges Dismissed

4%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

25%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

36%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

22%

Alternate

Disposition

19%

All Charges

Dismissed

3%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

19%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

36%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

22%

Alternate

Disposition

19%

All Charges Dismissed

3%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

19%

Military Service of the Accused (Contact Offense Cases)

Outcomes for Contact Cases 

(208 cases)

Army 

(81 cases)

Air 

Force 

(36 cases)

Navy 

(51 cases)

Marine 

Corps 

(28 cases)

Coast 

Guard 

(12 cases)

Convicted of Penetrative Offense N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Convicted of Contact Offense 25% 19% 18% 4% 0%

Convicted of Non-sex Offense 28% 36% 43% 61% 83%

Overall Conviction Rate 53% 55% 61% 65% 83%

Acquitted of All Charges 10% 22% 20% 4% 0%

Alternate Disposition 33% 19% 12% 18% 8%

All Charges Dismissed 4% 3% 8% 14% 8%

Army

Marine Corps

Air Force

Table 8b. Cases by Military Service of the Accused from Preferral of Charges (FY 2015) 

Convicted

of Penetrative

Offense

33%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

28%

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

10%

Alternate

Disposition

33%

All Charges

Dismissed

4%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

25%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

61% Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

4%

Alternate

Disposition

18%

All Charges

Dismissed

14%

Convicted of 

Contact Offense

4%

Navy

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

Acquitted 

of All 

Charges

22%

Alternate

Disposition

19%

All Charges

Dismissed

3%

Convicted

of Contact

Offense

19%

Convicted

of Non-sex

Offense

83%

Alternate

Disposition

8%

All Charges Dismissed

8%

Coast Guard
39

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

Multivariate statistical analysis of case data identifies case characteristics that are associated with 

particular case outcomes. The multivariate research performed by Dr. Spohn used combined courtsmartial data for all Services in fiscal year 2015 in order to highlight the most influential factors 

associated with convictions, acquittals, or case dismissal. 

Cases involving multiple victims and multiple charges tended to have higher conviction rates than cases 

involving one victim or very few charges. When examining outcomes based on the military Service 

of the accused, conviction of a penetrative offense was more likely in the Army than in the Air Force 

or the Marine Corps. However, the overall conviction rate for any offense did not vary significantly 

among the military Services.

Notably, cases involving a military victim had a lower conviction rate than cases involving a civilian 

victim, and cases in which the victim was the spouse or intimate partner of the accused had a lower 

conviction rate than all other cases. Finally, penetrative offense cases were two and a half times more 

likely than contact offense cases to be dismissed before trial.

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

are not a fair or effective means of gauging the effectiveness of the justice system.70 Likewise, DoD 

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

the occurrence of sexual assault in the military.71 The JPP agrees that without knowing more about 

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

appropriateness of the outcome of case adjudications. Moreover, this information reflects adjudication 

outcomes for cases resolved in fiscal year 2015. The JPP has also collected case data combining 

information for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 in its initial report, but cannot identify significant 

trends in outcomes with data for four years. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

victims.”).

71 Dep’t of Def. Fiscal Year 2016 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military (May 1, 2017), Appendix C at 4, available at

http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY16_Annual/Appendix_C_Metrics_Section.pdf.
40

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

4. Punishments Rendered at Courts-Martial

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

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

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

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

maximum confinement that may be imposed.72 Second, convening authorities must review convictions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many offenses under the UCMJ authorize more than 12 months of confinement as punishment,73 but 

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

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

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

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

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

appropriate punishment.

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

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

likely than those convicted of contact offenses to receive a sentence that included confinement—90% 

versus 60%. A Service member convicted of a penetrative offense was also more likely to receive 

a punitive separation than one convicted of a contact offense—90% versus 62%. The average 

confinement sentence imposed on someone convicted of at least one penetrative offense was 66 

months, which was considerably longer than the average confinement sentence of 9 months imposed 

on one convicted of a contact offense.74

The number of victims, number of charges in a case, and the victim’s status—civilian versus military—

and relationship to the accused influenced sentence severity. Cases with military victims were less likely 

to have confinement adjudged, and tended to have much shorter sentences than cases with civilian 

72 MCM, supra note 5, R.C.M. 1003 and 1004. Additional punishment options include reduction in rank, forfeitures of pay 

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

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

13643, May 15, 2013, are as follows:

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

forfeiture of all pay and allowances

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

allowances

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

forfeiture of all pay and allowances

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

allowances

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

allowances

74 See infra Appendix A at 25.
41

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

victims (an average of 22 months of confinement versus 48 months of confinement). Cases involving 

victims who were the spouses or intimate partners of the accused had confinement sentences that were 

31 months longer than cases involving all other types of relationships. Cases sentenced by a panel 

of military members had an average confinement sentence length of 53 months, compared with an 

average length of 31 months in cases sentenced by a military judge. However, the JPP notes that the 

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

a. Reviewing Adjudged and Approved Sentences for Sexual Assault Cases

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

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

circumstances, within certain limits. A sentence modification approved by a convening authority in a 

sexual assault case most frequently reflects the sentence limitations contained in a pretrial agreement.

The following bar graph depicts the combined average length of confinement of adjudged sentences 

and the actual length of confinement according to the approved sentence for all cases reviewed by the 

JPP for fiscal year 2015.

While the average length of approved sentences was 7 months less than the average length of adjudged 

sentences, the JPP’s review indicated that in most cases, convening authorities made no changes 

or made relatively minor modifications to adjudged confinement based on plea agreement terms, 

clemency requests, or other reasons pursuant to their Article 60 powers of review over courts-martial. 

The majority of the JPP’s fiscal year 2015 case data involves offenses that occurred before Congress 

substantially restricted the discretion of convening authorities to grant clemency in sexual assault 

cases.75 Therefore the convening authority could have taken action in most of the fiscal year 2015 

cases, and the JPP cannot assess the affect that modifications to Article 60 will have on sentences in 

sexual assault cases.

b. Approved Sentences with Confinement and/or a Punitive Discharge

Congress modified the UCMJ in the FY14 NDAA to require imposition of a dismissal or dishonorable 

discharge for any Service member convicted of a rape or sexual assault that occurred on or after 

75 FY14 NDAA, supra note 6, § 1702.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Approved 

Sentence

Adjudged 

Sentence 43

Months

36

Months

Average Length of Confinement Sentence [Approved and Adjudged]
42

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

June 24, 2014. Prior to this modification, there was no mandatory minimum sentencing requirement 

for sexual assault cases. The majority of the case data from fiscal year 2015 reviewed by the JPP 

involves offenses that occurred before this change. The JPP reviewed 386 sexual assault cases with 

approved sentences. Of these cases, 275 defendants (71%) received confinement, and 201 defendants 

(52%) received both confinement and a punitive separation. In cases in which a Service member did 

not receive a punitive discharge as part of the court-martial sentence, the accused may have been 

subsequently separated from his or her Service, on the basis of the conviction at court-martial, through 

an administrative disciplinary process.

Types of Punishment Imposed According to the Approved Sentence (386 Total Cases)

Because the sentencing scheme under the UCMJ is unitary, it is not possible to assess how a particular 

sentence is apportioned when an accused is convicted of more than one offense. In addition, without 

more knowledge about the facts of individual cases and the circumstances in aggravation, mitigation, 

or extenuation that may have arisen in individualized sentencing proceedings, it is not possible to 

assess the appropriateness or consistency of punishments rendered at courts-martial.

C. JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION

The JPP has collected procedural data for cases adjudicated in fiscal year 2015 as well as previously 

gathered procedural case data for fiscal years 2012 through 2014. While the JPP’s task calls for an 

analysis of trends, the data analyzed for fiscal years 2012 through 2015 do not provide a sufficient basis 

to broadly assess trends or patterns in decisions and punishments in sexual assault cases. Moreover, the 

information from courts-martial and disciplinary actions reviewed by the JPP in this report cannot be 

compared directly with the case adjudication data that the JPP examined previously because the case data 

for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 were aggregated rather than analyzed by year.76

76 The JPP aggregated the data for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 for two reasons: (1) this approach maximizes the number 

of cases analyzed at one time, which improves both the clarity and the quality of the analysis, and (2) the JPP received cases

according to the year they were reported in the SAPRO report, and a review of case documents revealed that many of the 

cases that DoD SAPRO reports to Congress did not actually conclude (in a trial, dismissal, etc.) in the year in which they 

were reported; therefore, aggregating the fiscal years 2012 through 2014 data mitigates the effect of the inaccurate labeling of 

cases during the time frame of our study. For its fiscal year 2015 data, the JPP did not categorize cases according to the year 

a case was reported by SAPRO; it instead used only the date of trial, case dismissal, or approval of an alternate disposition as 

recorded in case documents to determine whether a case should be included in the fiscal year 2015 data analysis.

81 Did Not Include Confinement 

or Punitive Separation*

*Includes data from summary courts-martial, which 

are not authorized to impose a punitive separation.

Included Both

Confinement and

Punitive 

Separation

201

Included 

Only 

Punitive 

Separation 

30

Included 

Only 

Confinement

74
43

III. SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES RESOLVED THROUGH COURTS-MARTIAL

The JPP’s analysis of fiscal year 2015 adjudication data has improved on the previous case data 

analysis in two important respects. First, the JPP examined additional case characteristics for this 

report that it did not examine for its first Report on Statistical Data; second, the JPP included certain 

cases in its fiscal year 2015 analysis that have not been collected or analyzed by DoD. The JPP found 

that the additional, more detailed information on case characteristics enhanced its description of how 

cases are resolved in the military justice system. Specifically, the JPP’s analysis describes the precise pay 

grade of each accused, analyzes whether the accused was tried and/or sentenced by a military judge or 

panel of military members, and further dissects the conviction and acquittal rates by identifying both 

the proportion of guilty pleas and the outcomes for contested trials in sexual assault cases. Finally, the 

JPP’s criminologist used a complex, multivariate analysis to examine whether notable differences exist 

among the Services in how they dispose of sexual assault cases. The other enhancement to the JPP’s 

case analysis is the incorporation of cases involving victims who were the spouse and intimate partner 

of the accused into the JPP’s statistical data. Spouse and intimate partner cases tend to share a common 

set of characteristics that make them different from cases involving other types of relationships.77 These 

cases are also distinctive because DoD does not collect or report information on them; they therefore 

represent a subset of information—nearly 20% of all cases—that is routinely missing from DoD’s 

annual review of sexual assault cases in the military. 

The Panel is mindful that statistics may provide valuable information about the judicial process. 

Statistical data obtained by the JPP effectively describe certain objective aspects of military cases in 

the aggregate, including the number of annual prosecutions, the procedural history of cases, and the 

punishments imposed. However, individual case outcomes are the result of unique combinations of 

facts and evidence, and the appropriateness or consistency of disposition decisions or punishments 

cannot be evaluated solely by considering procedural data. For these reasons, the JPP provides the 

information gathered without assessing the underlying causes of or influences on these outcomes.

While the JPP does not wish to speculate on their causes, certain patterns in the fiscal year 2015 data 

warrant discussion and further study. First, the JPP’s data indicate that cases involving military victims 

tend to have less punitive outcomes than cases involving civilian victims. The accused in militaryvictim cases faced lower odds of conviction and greater likelihood of acquittal on all charges, and the 

sentences were less likely to include confinement or a punitive separation than in civilian victim cases. 

The same results were found for military-victim cases when all other variables, such as the number 

and type of charges, were taken into account. The data do not suggest why these patterns are present, 

and the criminologist who analyzed the data for the JPP recommended that additional research into 

this issue should involve both quantitative and qualitative data, such as surveys or interviews with 

practitioners, to determine what specific facts, case characteristics, or evidentiary issues might be 

influencing these outcomes.78

Second, the conviction rate for sexual assault offenses varies markedly among the military Services. 

Conviction of a penetrative offense is much more likely in the Army than in the Air Force or the 

Marine Corps. However, the overall conviction rate for any offense did not vary significantly among 

the Services. Because the laws and procedures applicable to courts-martial are consistent across the 

Services, further research is needed to explain these differences. Additional quantitative data gathered 

77 Most spouse and intimate partner cases analyzed by the JPP were penetrative offense cases, had higher rates of case 

attrition, and involved civilian victims. Dr. Spohn noted in testimony to the JPP that spouse and intimate partner cases are 

more likely than cases involving other types of relationships to have additional domestic abuse or child-victim offenses 

that are not present in a typical adult-victim sexual assault involving a single incident. See infra Appendix A at 16–17; 

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 126–27 (Apr. 7, 2017) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn).

78 See infra Appendix A at 36; Transcript of JPP Public Meeting, 153–57 (Apr. 7, 2017) (testimony of Dr. Cassia Spohn).
44

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

in future years would help explain whether these patterns remain consistent over time. Qualitative 

data, such as field interviews with practitioners and an analysis of Service-specific policies and 

practices, may also explain why these patterns exist. 

Finally, the JPP notes that when a Service member is charged with a sexual assault offense, the 

probability that he or she will be convicted of a sexual assault offense is 36%, and the probability 

that he or she will be convicted of any offense (i.e., either a sex or a non-sex offense) is 59%. The 

case adjudication data for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 produced conviction rate figures similar 

to those in the fiscal year 2015 data, indicating that the pattern has persisted for at least a few years. 

Given that nearly 30% of preferred cases are dismissed before trial or resolved by alternate disposition, 

further research is needed to understand why, in the remaining cases, the success rate in proving that 

a sexual assault offense occurred is low. The JPP cannot assess this finding as conclusively positive or 

negative, but believes it important to understand the systemic causes of these results so that they can be 

appropriately considered as one indicator of the health of the military justice system as a whole.

The JPP’s charter ends on September 30, 2017, and no similar project or method currently exists 

to continue this in-depth study of sexual assault cases in the military justice system once the JPP 

concludes. The JPP therefore recommends that the successor federal advisory committee to the JPP, 

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

Armed Forces, should consider continuing to analyze adult-victim sexual assault court-martial data 

on an annual basis as the JPP has done, and should consider analyzing the foregoing patterns that the 

JPP discovered in its analysis of fiscal year 2015 court-martial data, using additional quantitative and 

qualitative data as it finds appropriate.
45

Appellate Review of Sexual Assault 

Convictions IV.

The JPP was also tasked with reviewing and evaluating court-martial convictions for adult sexual 

assault offenses in the year covered by the most recent report of the Judicial Proceedings Panel and 

with examining the number and description of instances when punishments were reduced or set aside 

upon appeal and the instances in which the defendant appealed following a plea agreement, if such 

information is available.

For this report, the JPP reviewed the opinions archived on the public websites of the Service Courts of 

Criminal Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) for fiscal year 

2015. The JPP also separately obtained cases not available on the the courts’ public websites that were 

summarily affirmed without an opinion from the military Services.

A. OVERVIEW OF THE MILITARY APPELLATE PROCESS

Under the UCMJ, an accused convicted by a court-martial is entitled to an automatic review of his 

or her trial. Because there is no common law right to appeal, the accused’s right must derive from 

statutory or regulatory sources.80 In the military, the statutory provisions are contained in UCMJ 

Articles 64 through 76.81

Following a court-martial conviction, the case is first reviewed by the convening authority—that is, the 

commander who referred the accused’s case to trial.82 Until recently, the convening authority had broad 

clemency powers under Article 60 of the UCMJ to act on a case after trial, powers not always shared 

with military appellate courts. For example, the convening authority could, subject to some limitations, 

suspend all or a portion of the adjudged sentence, a power not possessed by either the Service Courts 

of Criminal Appeals or CAAF. However, as discussed in section III of this report, in the FY14 NDAA, 

Congress substantially restricted the convening authority’s powers and thus limited the ability of a 

convicted Service member to obtain relief from the convening authority.83

The military justice system features three levels of appellate review to which an accused may appeal a 

court-martial conviction. The first level consists of the four military Service Courts of Criminal Appeals 

(Army, Air Force, Navy-Marine Corps, and Coast Guard). The Courts of Criminal Appeals, which 

are located in the Washington, DC, area, consist of senior judge advocates, who are usually active 

duty officers or reserve officers on active duty.84 Under Article 66 of the UCMJ, all cases in which 

80 Schlueter, supra note 61, at § 17–1.

81 See generally 10 U.S.C. §§ 864–76 (UCMJ, arts. 64–76).

82 See 10 U.S.C. § 860 (UCMJ, art. 60).

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

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

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

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

a mandatory minimum sentence except to reduce a dishonorable discharge to a bad conduct discharge. FY14 NDAA 

§ 1702(b). Congress clarified these limitations on the convening authority’s post-trial actions in the FY17 NDAA. See 

FY17 NDAA, supra note 1, at §§ 5322 and 5323.

84 Schlueter, supra note 61, at § 17–15.

IV. Sexual Assault Cases Resolved Through Nonjudicial Punishment
46

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

the approved sentence includes death, a punitive discharge, or confinement for one year or more are 

forwarded to the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals for appellate review.85 The FY17 NDAA revised 

Article 66 so that automatic appellate review extends only to cases in which the approved sentence 

includes death, a punitive discharge, or confinement for two years or more.86 However, the revised 

Article 66 also includes an affirmative right to appeal an approved sentence to confinement of more 

than six months.87

The second level of appellate review is CAAF, which sits as a civilian appellate forum in Washington, 

DC, and is composed of five judges appointed by the President.88 CAAF reviews all cases involving a 

sentence to death and cases reviewed by the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals that are forwarded to 

CAAF by the Judge Advocates General. In all other cases reviewed by the Service Courts, CAAF review 

is discretionary.89 The third level of review is petition to the United States Supreme Court, though this 

review is subject to statutory limitations.90

Not all military members who receive a court-martial conviction are entitled to appellate review at 

the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals. For courts-martial convictions that don’t meet criteria for 

appellate review at the Service appellate courts under Article 66, the UCMJ provides for lesser forms of 

post-trial review.

Article 69(a) of the UCMJ provides for review by the Service Judge Advocate General for general 

courts-martial convictions that don’t meet the criteria for review by the Service appellate courts 

under Article 66.91 For these cases, the Judge Advocate General has the power to modify or set aside 

the findings, sentence, or both.92 In addition, the UCMJ also grants to the Service Judge Advocates 

General the power to modify or set aside the findings or sentence for summary, special, or general 

courts-martial convictions not reviewed by the Service appellate courts on grounds of newly discovered 

evidence, fraud on the court, lack of jurisdiction over the accused or offense, error prejudicial to the 

substantial rights of the accused, or the appropriateness of the sentence.93

Article 64 of the UCMJ provides for automatic review by a judge advocate in all summary courtsmartial convictions and special courts-martial convictions in which the approved sentence includes 

confinement for less than one year and does not include a bad conduct discharge.94 The judge advocate, 

in the written review, provides conclusions as to whether the court had jurisdiction over the accused 

and the offense, whether the charges and specifications stated an offense, and whether the sentence was 

85 10 U.S.C. § 866 (UCMJ, art. 66).

86 FY17 NDAA, supra note 1, § 5330. These changes will take effect not later than January 1, 2019.

87 Id.

88 Schlueter, supra note 61, at § 17–16.

89 See 10 U.S.C. § 867 (UCMJ, art. 67).

90 See 10 U.S.C. § 867a (UCMJ, art. 67a).

91 See 10 U.S.C. § 869(a) (UCMJ, art. 69(a)).

92 Id.

93 See 10 U.S.C. § 869(b) (UCMJ, art. 69(b)). But see FY17 NDAA, supra note 1, § 5333, which revises some aspects of 

Article 69.

94 See 10 U.S.C. § 864(a) (UCMJ, art. 64(a)). The FY17 NDAA amends Article 64 to apply only to the initial review of 

summary courts-martial. FY17 NDAA, supra note 1, § 5328. Article 65, as amended, would provide for review of general 

and special courts-martial that do not qualify for direct review by the Service appellate courts. FY17 NDAA, supra note 1, 

§ 5329.
47

IV. APPELLATE REVIEW OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTIONS

within the limits prescribed by law, and responds to each allegation of error made by the accused.95

If the judge advocate determines that corrective action should be taken, he or she then forwards the 

review to the general court-martial convening authority, who may disapprove the findings or sentence; 

remit, commute, or suspend the sentence; or order a rehearing on the findings or sentence.96

Finally, exhaustion of review through these channels does not necessarily end the review of a court-martial. 

There are additional avenues of review available to the convicted Service member, including internal 

military administrative review of the proceedings and external collateral review by the federal courts.97

B. APPELLATE ACTION ON COURTS-MARTIAL CONVICTIONS FOR SEXUAL 

ASSAULT OFFENSES

In fiscal year 2015, the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals reviewed 213 cases that included conviction 

on one or more charges of adult sexual assault offenses.98 Of these cases, the Service Courts of Criminal 

Appeals set aside an adult sexual assault charge or specification, or granted relief on the sentence of a 

case involving an adult sexual assault offense, in 26 cases.99 Table 9 shows these cases by military Service.

Table 9. Cases Reviewed by the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals (FY 2015)100

Military 

Service

Relief Granted 

(Conviction Set 

Aside or Sentence 

Reduced)

No Relief 

Granted

Total Sexual 

Assault Convictions 

Reviewed

Percentage of 

Cases in Which 

Relief Was Granted

Army 14 93 107 13%

Air Force 4 39 43 9%

Navy 5 33 38 13%

Marine Corps 3 20 23 13%

Coast Guard 0 2 2 0%

TOTAL 26 187 213

95 See 10 U.S.C. § 864(a) (UCMJ, art. 64(a)).

96 See 10 U.S.C. § 864 (UCMJ, art. 64).

97 Schlueter, supra note 61, at § 17–18.

98 This number includes the published and unpublished opinions that are publicly available on each of the military appellate 

court websites and the cases that are summarily affirmed without an opinion, which were requested separately by the 

JPP and are not available on the military appellate court websites. Service appellate court opinions can be accessed at 

the following websites: Army Court of Criminal Appeals, at https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/ACCA#; Air Force Court of 

Criminal Appeals, at http://afcca.law.af.mil/content/opinions.html; Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, at 

http://www.jag.navy.mil/courts/opinion_archive.htm; and Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals, at 

http://www.uscg.mil/legal/cca/Court_of_Criminal_Appeals_Opinions/Court_of_Criminal_Appeals_Opinions.asp.

99 This number includes cases in which the appellate court overturned a conviction for a sexual assault charge or reduced 

the sentence imposed for all offenses, including a sexual assault offense; however, where the appellate courts reduced 

a sentence or authorized a rehearing on sentence solely based on its decision to set aside a conviction for a non-sexual 

assault offense, then the case was not counted as granting relief on a sexual assault offense.

100 The numbers in the “No Relief Granted” column include the following number of summary affirmances in each Service: 

Army – 69; Air Force – 4; Navy – 13; Marine Corps – 7; Coast Guard – 0.
48

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

Of the cases in which relief was granted, most involved the courts setting aside a charge or specification 

of a sexual assault offense. The appellate courts’ reasons for granting relief in these cases varied. The 

most common justifications were unreasonable multiplication of charges (e.g., the court determined 

on appeal that an accused had unreasonably been charged in multiple ways for the same offense), 

factual insufficiency, a remedy available in military courts of criminal appeal, significant post-trial case 

processing delays, apparent unlawful command influence in trial counsel’s closing argument, and the 

improper admission of evidence under Military Rule of Evidence 413. There were only two cases—

both from the Army—in which the appellate courts granted relief following a guilty plea at trial, and in 

both cases relief was granted owing to post-trial processing delays.

Table 10 shows the number of cases in which the Service appellate courts set aside an adult sexual 

assault charge or specification, or granted relief on the sentence of a case involving an adult sexual 

assault offense in fiscal years 2012 through 2015.101

Table 10. Cases on Appeal: Conviction Set Aside or Sentence Reduced at Service Courts 

of Criminal Appeals (FY 2012–2015)

Military Service FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Total

Army 3 3 14 14 34

Air Force 0 2 3 4 9

Navy 1 1 0 5 7

Marine Corps 1 2 2 3 8

Coast Guard 0 2 0 0 2

TOTAL 5 10 19 26 60

The Service Courts of Criminal Appeals set aside convictions for adult sexual assault offenses, or 

reduced sentences in cases involving an adult sexual assault offense, in 26 cases in fiscal year 2015. 

Only 2 of these 26 cases in which relief was granted involved a guilty plea at trial. While the JPP 

was tasked with determining the number of times a defendant appealed following a plea agreement, 

it is important to note that under Article 66 of the UCMJ, appeal is automatic in cases in which the 

approved sentence includes a punitive discharge or one year or more of confinement: no action on the 

part of the Service member is required.

101 The total number of sexual assault convictions reviewed by the Service appellate courts for fiscal years 2012 through 2014 

does not include summary affirmances.
49

IV. APPELLATE REVIEW OF SEXUAL ASSAULT CONVICTIONS

Finally, Table 11 shows the number of cases from fiscal years 2012 through 2015 involving adult 

sexual assault offenses in which CAAF granted relief to the appellant. The relief granted by CAAF 

in the fiscal year 2015 case was based on the implied bias of a court-martial panel member. CAAF’s 

reasons for granting relief in the fiscal year 2012 through 2014 cases varied: two cases involved errors 

by the military judge in admitting witness testimony, one case involved multiplicity of charges, one case 

involved improper admission of prior misconduct by the defendant, and one case involved improper 

jury instructions. In each of these published opinions, relief consisted of setting aside a charge or 

specification.

Table 11. Relief Granted by United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) 

(FY 2012–2015)

Military Service FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Total

Army 0 0 1 0 1

Air Force 0 0 2 0 2

Navy 0 0 0 1 1

Marine Corps 1 1 0 0 2

Coast Guard 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 1 1 3 1 6
50

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
51

APPENDIX A: Adjudication of Sexual 

Offenses Reported to the 

Military Services in 2015

Appendix A: Statistical Report on Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault

Judicial	Proceedings	

Panel

Federal	Advisory	Committee	

Adjudication of Sexual Offenses 

Reported to the

Military Services in 2015

Cassia	Spohn, PhD

JPP	Staff	Member

Foundation Professor and	Director

School of Criminology	and	Criminal Justice

Arizona State University

Judicial	Proceedings	

Panel

Federal	Advisory	Committee	

Adjudication	of Sexual Assaults		

Reported in the	Military	

Services for Fiscal Year 2015

Cassia	Spohn, PhD

JPP	Staff	Member

Foundation Professor and	Director

School of Criminology	and	Criminal Justice

Arizona State University
52

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

2

The Judicial Proceedings Panel (JPP) is tasked with reviewing and evaluating the 

response to sexual assault cases in the military. In 2016, JPP staff requested that the 

military services provide documents for cases involving a preferred charge of sexual 

assault that were completed in fiscal year 2015. The database includes 738 cases, all of 

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

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

aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, wrongful sexual contact, and 

attempts to commit these offenses) sexual offense. There were 530 cases in which at 

least one charge for a penetrative offense was preferred; there were 208 cases in 

which the most serious charge was a contact offense. 

Case Characteristics, Case Dispositions, and Case Outcomes 

Case Characteristics 

The characteristics of the sexual assault cases, their dispositions, and outcomes are 

presented in Tables 1 and 2. As shown in Table 1, almost half (43.6%) of the cases 

were from the Army, 23% were from the Air Force, 16.4% were from the Navy, 12.7% 

were from the Marine Corps, and 4.2% were from the Coast Guard. Most of the accused 

were enlisted service members (92.7%) rather than officers (7.3%) and all but 5 (735 

or 99.3%) were male. In terms of pay grade, more than two thirds of the accuseds who 

were enlisted service members were E-3, E-4 or E-5; 40 of the 54 (74.9%) of the 

accuseds who were officers were O-2, O-3, or O-4. Most of the accused were assigned 

to units in the United States or its territories (81.3%) rather than units outside the 

United States (18.7%) when charges were preferred. 

The number of victims in the case ranged from 1 to 15; most cases involved either one 

(614 or 83.2%) or two (88 or 11.9%) victims, and, reflecting this, the mean number of 

victims was 1.28 . Although most victims (90.9%) were female, there were 64 cases 

(8.7%) in which the victim(s) were male and 3 cases (0.4%) in which there were both 

female and male victims. About two-thirds (67.6%) of the cases involved victims who 

were members of military services; there were 211 cases in which the victim(s) were 

civilians (28.6%) and 28 cases involving both members of the military services and 

civilians (3.8%). Most cases (82.4%) did not involve victims who were the spouse or 

intimate partner of the accused. In a majority of the cases that did involve spouses or 

intimate partners the victim was a civilian (63.1%) rather than a member of the 

military services (32.3%). 

The number of charges and specifications per case ranged from 1 to 43; very few cases 

(69 or 9.3%) involved only a single charge but more than half of the cases (55.6%) 

involved four or fewer charges. The mean number of charges and specifications was 

5.7. In 71.8% (N = 530) of the cases the most serious charge was a penetrative offense 

and in 28.2% (N = 208) of the cases the most serious charge was a contact offense. Of 

the 530 individuals charged with a penetrative offense, 137 (25.8%) were convicted of 

a penetrative offense. Of the 208 individuals charged with a contact offense, 37 

(17.8%) were convicted of a contact offense. 
53

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

3

TABLE 1 

CASE CHARACTERISTICS: 2015 DATA

N %

Military Service of the Accused

 Air Force

 Army

 Coast Guard

 Marine Corps

 Navy

170

322

 31

94

121

23.0

43.6

 4.2 

12.7

16.4

Rank of Accused 

 Enlisted

 Officer

684

 54

92.7

7.3

Pay Grade of Accused

 Enlisted

 E-1 

 E-2 

 E-3 

 E-4 

 E-5 

 E-6 

 E-7 

 E-8 

 E-9 

 

 Officer 

 Cadet/Midshipman 

 O-1 

 O-2 

 O-3 

 O-4 

 O-5 

 O-6 

 W-1 

 W-2 

 W-3

 W-5

30

39

149

179

151

80

43

8 

5 

3 

3 

11

17

12

2 

1 

2 

1 

1

1

4.4 

5.7 

21.8

26.2

22.1

11.7

6.3 

1.2 

0.7 

5.6 

5.6 

20.4

31.5

22.2

3.7 

1.9 

3.7 

1.9 

1.9

1.9

Sex of Accused

 Male

 Female

733

 5

99.3

 0.7

Location of Unit to which Accused Assigned when Charges Preferred

 United States or Its Territories

 Outside of the United States

600

138

81.3

18.7

Number of Victims (mean) [range: 1 – 15} 1.28

Sex of Victim(s)

 All Female

 All Male

 Female and Male

671

64

 3

90.9

 8.7

 0.4

Status of Victim(s)

 All Military

 All Civilian

 Military and Civilian

 499

 211

 28

67.6

28.6

 3.8
54

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

4

Table 1, continued

Victim Spouse or Intimate Partner

 Yes

 No

 Victim Was Spouse or Intimate Partner 

 Military Victim

 Civilian Victim

 Both Military and Civilian Victims

130

608

42

82

6

17.6

82.4

32.3 

63.1 

4.6

Number of Charges and Specifications (mean) [range: 1 – 43] 5.70

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offensea

 Yes

 No

 530

 208

71.8

28.2

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense

 Yes

 No

 [Not Charged with Penetrative Offense]

137

393

[208]

25.8

74.2

Accused Charged with Contact Offenseb

 Yes

 No

 208

 530

28.2

71.8

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense

 Yes

 No

 [Not Charged with Contact Offense]

 37

 171

[530]

17.8

82.2

aAccused was charged with at least one count of rape, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault, forcible 

sodomy, and attempts to commit these offenses.

bThe most serious offense with which the accused was charged was aggravated sexual contact, abusive 

sexual contact, wrongful sexual contact, and attempts to commit these offenses.

Case Dispositions and Outcomes

Descriptive data on the dispositions and outcomes of the sexual offense cases are 

presented in Table 2. Most (79.1%) of the cases that went to a court martial 

proceeding were disposed as a result of a general court martial; 13.5% were disposed 

as a result of a special court martial and 7.4% were disposed as a result of a summary 

court martial. In terms of the type of trial forum, 52.5% of the cases were adjudicated 

by a military judge, 40.1% were handled by a panel of military members, and 7.4 

percent were adjudicated by a summary court martial officer. Article 32 hearings were 

held in most (69.7%) of the cases; the accused waived the hearing in 7.2% of the cases 

and an Article 32 hearing was not required in 23.1% of the cases. 

For each type of case (i.e., penetrative and contact offenses) we determined whether 

the accused was convicted of at least one charge of that type, was convicted of another 

charge, received an alternative disposition of some type, was acquitted of all charges, 

or whether all charges were dismissed without further action. 
55

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

5

TABLE 2

CASE DISPOSITIONS AND CASE OUTCOMES: 2015 DATA 

N %

Type of Court Martial

 General Court Martial

 Special Court Martial

 Summary Court Martial

 Not Applicable

 416

 71

 39

 [212] 

79.1

13.5

 7.4

Type of Trial Forum

 Military Judge

 Panel of Military Members

 Summary Court Martial Officer

 Not Applicable 

276

 211

39

[212]

52.5

40.1

7.4

Article 32 Hearing Held

 Yes

 Waived

 No/Not Applicable

 [Unknown]

513

 53

170

[2]

69.7

 7.2 

23.1

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense (N = 530]

 Convicted of Penetrative Offense

 Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense

 Convicted of Non-Sex Offense

 Alternative Disposition

 Acquitted of All Charges

 All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action

 (After Article 32 Hearing) 

137

 13

114

 75

113

 78

63

25.8

 2.5 

21.5

14.2

21.3

14.7

Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense (N = 208)

 Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense

 Convicted of Non-Sex Offense

 Alternative Disposition

 Acquitted of All Charges

 All Charges Dismissed Without Further Action

 (After Article 32 Hearing)

37

85 

46

27

13

8

17.8

40.9

22.1

13.0

6.3

Outcomes for Cases Referred to Trial

 Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense (N = 377)

 Convicted of Penetrative Offense

 Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense

 Convicted of Non-Sex Offense

 Acquitted of All Charges

 Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense (N = 149)

 Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense

 Convicted of Non-Sex Offense

 Acquitted of All Charges

137

13

114

113

37

85

27

36.3

3.4 

31.2

30.0

24.8

57.0

18.1

Outcomes for Contested Trials 

 Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense (N = 262)

 Convicted of Penetrative Offense

 Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense

 Convicted of Non-Sex Offense

 Acquitted of All Charges

 Accused Charged with Sexual Contact Offense (N = 78)

 Convicted of Sexual Contact Offense

 Convicted of Non-Sex Offense

 Acquitted of All Charges 

94

5 

50

113

24

27

27

35.9

1.9 

19.1

43.1

30.8

34.6

34.6
56

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

6

Table 2, continued

Adjudicated Sentence Included Confinement

 Yes

 No

 [Not convicted, dismissed, alternative disposition]

293

93

[352]

75.9

24.1

Approved Sentence Included Confinement

 Yes

 No

 [Not convicted, dismissed, alternative disposition]

275

111

[352]

71.2

28.8

Approved Sentence Included Punitive Separation

 Yes 

 No

 [Not convicted, dismissed, alternative disposition]

231

155

[352]

59.8

40.2

Approved Sentence Included Confinement + Punitive Separation

 Yes

 No

 [Not convicted, dismissed, alternative disposition}

201

185

[352]

52.1

47.9

Length of Adjudged Confinement Sentence, in Months (mean) [range = .057 to 

1000.00 (i.e., life in prison, with parole)] 43.04

Length of Approved Confinement Sentence, in Months (mean)

[range = 0.57 to 1000.00 (i.e., life in prison with parole] 36.08

Among individuals charged with penetrative offenses, 25.8% were convicted of at 

least one penetrative offense, 2.5% were convicted of at least one count of a sexual 

contact offense, and 21.5% were convicted of a non-sex offense only. The overall 

conviction rate for those charged with at least one penetrative offense was therefore 

49.8% (25.8% + 2.5% + 21.5%). Among those charged with a penetrative offense who 

were not convicted, 14.2% received an alternative disposition, 21.3% were acquitted 

of all charges, and 14.7% had all charges dismissed without further action. The case 

outcomes for those charged with contact offenses were somewhat different. For 

example, 58.6% of these individuals were convicted of a sexual contact offense 

(17.8%) or a non-sex offense (40.9%). Of those who were not convicted, 22.1% 

received an alternative disposition, 13.0% were acquitted of all charges, and 6.3% had 

all charges dismissed without further action. For both penetrative and contact 

offenses, the most common types of alternative dispositions were nonjudicial 

punishment and either a resignation or discharge in lieu of a trial. 

Comparing the two types of cases, the conviction and alternative disposition rates 

were higher for cases involving contact offenses, but the likelihoods of acquittal and 

case dismissal were higher for cases involving penetrative offenses. 

We also calculated conviction and acquittal rates for cases that were referred to trial

(these calculations did not include cases that resulted in alternative dispositions or 

dismissal of all charges). Among individuals referred to trial for penetrative offenses 

(N = 377), 36.3% were convicted of penetrative offenses, 3.4% were convicted of 

sexual contact offenses, 30.2% were convicted of non-sex offenses, and 30% were 

acquitted of all charges. Among those referred to trial for sexual contact offenses 
57

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

7

(N = 149), 24.8% were convicted of sexual contact offenses, 57% were convicted of 

non-sex offenses, and 18.1% were acquitted of all charges. The overall conviction rates 

for cases referred to trial were therefore 70% for penetrative offenses and 81.9% for 

contact offenses. These rates include both individuals who were found guilty at 

contested trials and those who pled guilty to all charges. Finally, we calculated 

conviction and acquittal rates for cases that involved contested trials (these 

calculations did not include cases that resulted in alternative dispositions or dismissal 

of all charges or cases that involved guilty pleas). There were 262 contested trials in 

which the most serious charge was a penetrative offense; 35.9% of these cases 

resulted in a conviction for a penetrative offense, 1.9% resulted in a conviction for a 

contact offense, 19.1% resulted in a conviction for a non-sex offense, and 43.1% 

resulted in an acquittal on all contested charges. Thus, the overall conviction rate for 

contested trials involving penetrative offenses was 56.9%. There were 78 contested 

trials in which the most serious charge was a contact offense; 30.8% of these cases 

resulted in conviction for a contact offense, 34.6% resulted in conviction for a non-sex 

offense, and 34.6% resulted in an acquittal on all contested charges. For contact 

offenses, the overall conviction rate for contested trials was therefore 65.4%. 

Table 2 also presents data on the type and length of the sentence imposed on those 

who were convicted. Focusing on the approved sentence, 71.2% were sentenced to 

confinement, 59.8% received a punitive separation, and 52.1% received both 

confinement and a punitive separation. The mean sentence (approved sentence) of 

confinement was 30.56 months; the range was from less than one month to 1000 

months (i.e., life in prison). 

Case Disposition Type and Type of Conviction Charge 

To further assess the outcomes of sexual assault cases, we focus on the type of 

disposition and the conviction charge for individuals in cases that were referred to 

trial and that resulted in a conviction. Table 3 presents, for these cases only, data 

on whether the accused pled guilty or pled not guilty but was found guilty at a 

contested trial. There also were some cases where the accused pled guilty to some 

counts and pled not guilty to other counts but was found guilty of these counts at trial. 

Among those for whom the most serious conviction charge was a penetrative offense 

and who were convicted of at least one count (N = 264), 42.4% pled guilty, 51.9% pled 

not guilty but were found guilty at trial, and 5.6% pled guilty to some counts and were 

found guilty of other counts at trial. Among those for whom the most serious 

conviction charge was a sexual contact offense and who were convicted of at least one 

count (N = 122), 58.2% pled guilty, 36.1% pled not guilty but were found guilty at trial, 

and 5.7% pled guilty to some counts and were convicted of other counts at trial. 

Guilty pleas, then, were somewhat more common in cases involving individuals 

charged with contact offenses than in cases involving individuals charged with 

penetrative offenses; by contrast, the case was more likely to be resolved via a 
58

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

8

contested trial if the accused was charged with a penetrative rather than a contact 

offense. 

TABLE 3 

Case Dispositions: Individuals Referred to Trial and Convicted 

N %

 Charged with Penetrative Offense and Convicted of At Least One Count (N = 264)

 Guilty Plea

 Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial

 Pled to some counts, found guilty at trial on others

 Charged with Contact Offense and Convicted of At Least One Count (N = 122)

 Guilty Plea

 Not Guilty Plea but Found Guilty at Trial

 Pled to some counts, found guilty at trial on others

 

112

137

15

71

44

7

42.4

51.9

5.7 

58.2

36.1

5.7

A more detailed breakdown of the type of disposition and the type of conviction charge 

for those who either entered a guilty plea or a not guilty plea to all charges is 

presented in Figure 1 (this excludes the 15 individuals who pled guilty to some counts 

and were found guilty at trial of other counts). Of the 249 individuals who were 

initially charged with a penetrative offense and who were convicted of at least one 

count, 42 (16.9%) pled guilty to a penetrative offense, 8 (3.2%) pled guilty to a contact 

offense, 62 (24.9%) pled guilty to a non-sex offense, 83 (33.3%) were found guilty at a 

contested trial of a penetrative offense, 5 (2.0%) were found guilty at a contested trial 

of a contact offense, and 49 (19.7%) were found guilty at a contested trial of a non-sex 

offense. 

 Of the 115 individuals for whom the most serious initial charge was a contact offense, 

13 (11.3%) pled guilty to a contact offense, 58 (50.4%) pled guilty to a non-sex offense, 

21 (18.2%) were found guilty at contested trials of a contact offense, and 23 (20.0%) 

were found guilty at contested trials of a non-sex offense. 

As these data illustrate, over half of the referred cases involving individuals charged 

with penetrative offenses resulted in either a guilty verdict for a penetrative offense 

following a contested trial (33.3%) or a guilty plea to a non-sex offense (24.9%). By 

contrast, half (50.4%) of the referred cases involving individuals charged with contact 

offenses resulted in a guilty plea to a non-sex offense. 
59

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

9

Another way to conceptualize these data is to calculate the percentage of guilty pleas 

and the percentage of contested trials that resulted in convictions for penetrative 

offenses, contact offenses, and non-sex offenses (these data are shown in Figure 2). 

There were 112 individuals who were initially charged with penetrative offenses who 

pled guilty; of these 112 individuals, 42 (37.5%) pled guilty to a penetrative offense, 8 

(7.1%) pled guilty to a contact offense, and 62 (55.4%) pled guilty to a non-sex offense. 

There were 137 individuals who were initially charged with penetrative offenses who 

were found guilty at contested trials; of these 137 individuals, 83 (60.6%) were found 

guilty of a penetrative offense, 5 (3.6%) were found guilty of a contact offense, and 49 

(35.8%) were found guilty of a non-sex offense. Individuals charged with penetrative 

offenses, in other words, were substantially more likely to be convicted of a 

penetrative offense following a contested trial than as a result of a guilty plea (60.6% 

versus 37.5%). 

16.9

3.2

11.3

24.9

50.4

33.3

2

18.2 19.7 20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Charged with Penetrative

Offense

Charged with Contact

Offense

Percentage

Figure 1: Type of Disposition and 

Conviction Charge

Plea to Penetrative Offense

Plea to Contact Offense

Plea to Non-Sex Offense

Guilty Verdict-Penetrative

Offense

Guilty Verdict Contact Offense

Guilty Verdict Non-Sex Offense
60

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

10

The pattern is very similar for individuals for whom the most serious initial charge was 

a contact offense. There were 71 individuals charged with contact offenses who pled 

guilty; of these 71 individuals, 13 (18.3%) pled guilty to a contact offense and 58 

(81.7%) pled guilty to a non-sex offense. There were 44 individuals charged with 

contact offenses who were found guilty at contested trials; of these 44, 21 (47.7%) 

were found guilty of a contact offense and 23 (52.3%) were found guilty of a non-sex 

offense. 

Combining cases involving individuals charged with penetrative and contact offenses, 

there were 183 cases in which the accused pled guilty; of these, 63 (34.4%) pled guilty 

to a sex offense and 120 (65.6%) pled guilty to a non-sex offense. There were 181 

cases in which the accused pled not guilty but was found guilty after a contested trial; 

of these, 109 (60.2%) were found guilty of a sex offense and 72 (39.8%) were found 

guilty of a non-sex offense. Thus, individuals whose cases were resolved via a 

contested trial were substantially more likely than those whose cases were resolved 

via a guilty plea to be convicted of a sex offense. 

37.5

7.1

18.3

55.4

81.7

60.6

3.6

47.7

35.8

52.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

 Penetrative

Offense_Plea

Penetrative

Offense-Trial

Contact

Offense-Plea

Contact

Offense-Trial

Percentage

Figure 2: Type of Conviction Charge for 

Guilty Pleas and Contested Trials

Plea to Penetrative Offense

Plea to Contact Offense

Plea to Non-Sex Offense

Guilty of Penetrative Offense

Guilty of Contact Offense

Guilty of Non-Sex Offense
61

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

11

Analyzing Dispositions, Outcomes, and Sentences

Descriptive data on case dispositions and case outcomes provide information 

regarding what happened in these sexual assault cases. In order to understand why 

cases were disposed as they were, it is necessary to conduct bivariate and multivariate 

analyses of the factors associated with case dispositions and case outcomes. Bivariate 

analysis is designed to determine if two variables are related (or correlated); it 

attempts to determine if one variable (the independent variable—for example, the 

accused’s military service) is a statistically significant predictor of another variable 

(the dependent variable—for example, whether the accused was convicted). If there is 

a statistically significant relationship between the variables, we can conclude that the 

independent variable is related to, associated with, or predictive of the dependent 

variable. In multivariate analysis, one controls for several independent variables 

simultaneously. With this type of analysis, one can isolate the effect of one variable 

(e.g., the military service of the accused) while controlling for or holding constant 

other theoretically relevant variables (e.g., the, the seriousness of the offense, and the 

characteristics of the case, the accused, and the victim). 

In that sections that follow, we examine bivariate relationships between relevant 

independent variables and the type of case disposition and several indicators of case 

outcomes. 

Factors Associated with Case Dispositions and Case Outcomes: 

Results of the Bivariate Analyses

Type of Disposition 

We begin by focusing on the disposition of Art. 120 sexual offenses, asking whether the 

type of disposition (i.e., the type of court martial) varied by the type of offense charged, 

the accused’s military service, or the rank of the accused. As shown in Table 4, there 

are statistically significant differences in dispositions based on all three of these 

factors. Cases in which the accused was charged with a penetrative offense were more 

than twice as likely as those in which the accused was charged with a contact offense 

to be disposed at a general court martial; by contrast, cases involving contact offenses 

were substantially more likely than those involving penetrative offenses to be 

disposed at a special or summary court martial. Cases from the Army and Air Force 

were more likely than cases from the Coast Guard, Marine Corps or Navy to be 

disposed at a general court martial. There also were differences across the military 

services in the use of special and summary courts-martial. All 43 cases involving 

officers were disposed via a general court martial; by contrast, the type of disposition 

was more varied for cases involving enlisted members of the services, with 77.2% of 

the cases disposed at a general court martial, 14.7% at a special court martial, and 

8.1% at a summary court martial.
62

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

12

TABLE 4

TYPE OF TRIAL BY OFFENSE TYPE, SERVICE AND RANK OF ACCUSED: 2015 DATA 

General 

Court

Martial

Special Court 

Martial

Summary 

Court Martial

Most Serious Type of Offense Charged N % N % N %

 Accused charged with penetrative offense 354 94 14 4 9 2

 Accused charged with contact offense only 62 42 57 38 30 20

Differences in trial type by type of offense statistically significant; P < .05 

General Court Martial Special Court Martial Summary Court Martial

Military Service N % N % N %

 Air Force 102 88.7 11 9.6 2 1.7

 Army 199 88.1 16 7.1 11 4.9

 Coast Guard 10 40.0 7 28.0 8 32.0

 Marine Corps 46 68.7 10 14.9 11 16.4

 Navy 59 63.4 27 29.0 7 7.5

Differences in trial type by military service statistically significant; P < .05. 

General 

Court

Martial

Special Court 

Martial

Summary 

Court Martial

Rank of Accused N % N % N %

 Officer 43 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

 Enlisted 373 77.2 71 14.7 39 8.1

Differences in trial type by rank of accused statistically significant; P < .05. 

The next issue addressed is whether there were differences in the outcomes of sexual 

offenses based on the military service of the accused, whether the accused was an 

enlisted member or an officer, the gender and status of the victim, the relationship 

between the accused and the victim, and the accused’s location. Because preliminary 

analyses revealed that outcomes varied depending on whether the accused was 

charged with a penetrative or contact offense, we conducted separate bivariate 

analyses for each type of offense. 

Military Service of the Accused 

The results of the analysis of the relationship between case outcomes and the military 

service of the accused are presented in Table 5. As these results show, there were 

significant differences in outcomes by military service for penetrative offenses 

(because of small cell sizes, we could not calculate statistical significance for cases 

involving contact offenses). For cases in which the most serious charge was a 

penetrative offense, the overall conviction rate (i.e., convicted of a penetrative offense 

+ convicted of a contact offense + convicted of a non-sex offense) was 73.7% for the 

Coast Guard, 56.5% for the Army, 51.5% for the Marine Corps, 47.1% for the Navy and 

35% for the Air Force. The odds of being convicted of a penetrative offense were 
63

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

13

highest for the Army (32.8%) and lowest for the Marine Corps (13.6%). The likelihood 

that the accused would be acquitted of all charges was lowest for the Coast Guard 

(5.3%) and highest for the Air Force (29.9%) and Navy (27.1%); by contrast, the 

likelihood that the case would be dismissed without further action was lowest for the 

Army (8.3%) and highest for the Marine Corps (22.7%) and Navy (21.4%). The 

services also differed in their use of alternative dispositions; these dispositions were 

more common in the Army and Air Force than in the Coast Guard, Marine Corps, or 

Navy. 

TABLE 5 

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY MILITARY SERVICE OF ACCUSED: 2015 

DATA 

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 530)

Convicted 

of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted 

of Sexual 

Contact

Offense

Convicted 

of NonSex 

Offense

Acquitted 

of all 

Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action

Army

(N = 241)

32.8%

(79)

1.7%

(4)

22.0%

(53)

16.2%

(39)

19.1%

(46)

8.3%

(20)

Air Force

(N = 134)

20.1%

(27)

2.2%

(3)

12.7%

(17)

29.9%

(40)

15.7%

(21)

19.4%

(26)

Coast 

Guard

(N = 19)

21.1%

(4)

0.0%

(0)

52.6%

(10)

5.3%

(1)

10.5%

(2)

10.5%

(2)

Marine 

Corps

(N = 66)

13.6%

(9)

7.6%

(5)

 30.3%

(20)

21.2%

(14)

4.5%

(3)

22.7%

(15)

Navy

(N = 70)

25.7%

(18)

1.4%

(1)

20.0%

(14)

27.1%

(19)

4.3%

(3)

21.4%

(15)

Differences in outcomes by military service statistically significant; P < .05 

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) Only (N = 208) 

Convicted 

of Contact

Offense

Convicted 

of Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted 

of all 

Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case Dismissed 

without Further 

Action

Army

(N = 81)

24.7%

(20)

 28.4%

(23)

 9.9%

(8)

33.3%

(27)

3.7%

(3)

Air Force

(N = 36)

19.4%

(7) 

36.1%

(13)

22.2%

(8)

19.4%

(7)

2.8%

(1)

Coast Guard

(N = 12)

0.0%

(0)

83.3%

(10)

0.0%

(0)

8.3%

(1)

8.3%

(1)

Marine Corps

(N = 28)

3.6%

(1)

60.7%

(17)

3.6%

(1)

17.9%

(5)

14.3%

(4)

Navy

(N = 51)

17.6%

(9)

43.1%

(22)

19.6%

(10)

11.8%

(6)

7.8%

(4)
64

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

14

Cannot calculate statistical significance due to cells with counts less than 5. 

The outcomes for cases in which the most serious charge was a contact offense were 

somewhat different. The overall conviction rates for these cases ranged from 53.1% 

(Army) to 55.5% (Air Force) to 60.7% (Navy) to 64.3% (Marine Corps) to 83.3% 

(Coast Guard, but note that there were only 12 contact cases from the Coast Guard). 

The use of alternative dispositions was more common and acquittals and dismissals 

were less common in cases involving contact offenses, regardless of the service of the 

accused. 

Rank of the Accused 

The results of the analysis of case outcomes by the rank of the accused are presented in 

Table 6. Although the results are not identical for either type of offense, the 

differences by the rank of the accused are not statistically significant. (This may reflect 

the relatively small number of cases involving accused individuals who were officers, 

especially for contact offenses.) For offenders charged with penetrative offenses, the 

overall conviction rates were 69.2% for officers and 48.3% for enlisted members; 

acquittals and alternative dispositions were more common in cases involving enlisted 

members than in cases involving officers, but the dismissal rates were similar. 

TABLE 6 

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY RANK OF ACCUSED: 2015 DATA

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 530) 

Differences in outcomes by status of accused not statistically significant 

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) only (N = 208) 

Convicted 

of Contact 

Offense

Convicted 

of NonSex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

all Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action

Officer

(N = 15)

33.3%

(5)

13.3%

(2)

6.7%

(1)

20.0%

(3)

6.7%

(1)

Enlisted

(N = 193)

16.6%

(32)

27.5%

(53)

13.5%

(26)

22.3%

(43)

6.2%

(12)

Differences in outcomes by status of accused not statistically significant 

Convicted 

of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted 

of Sexual 

Contact 

Offense

Convicted 

of NonSex

Offense

Acquitted 

of all 

Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further Action

Officer

(N = 39)

33.3 %

(13) 

5.1%

(2)

30.8%

(12)

12.8%

(5)

0.0%

(0)

17.9%

(7)

Enlisted

(N = 491)

25.3%

(124)

2.2%

(11)

20.8%

(102)

22.0%

(108)

15.3%

(75)

14.5%

(71)
65

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

15

Gender and Status of the Victim 

Table 6 reports the results of the analysis of the relationship between outcomes of 

sexual offenses and the gender and status of the victim. Because many cases involved 

more than one victim, there were some cases in which the victims were both females 

and males and both members of the military services and civilian. However, there 

were too few cases involving both female and male victims to analyze. 

As shown in Table 7, there were no significant differences based on the gender or 

status of the victim for either penetrative or contact offenses. For cases in which the 

accused was charged with a penetrative offense, the overall conviction rate was 

somewhat higher for cases involving male victims (57.1%) than for cases involving 

female victims (49.1%). For these more serious cases, the overall conviction rate was 

substantially higher for cases involving both military and civilian victims (80%) than 

for cases involving only civilian victims (55.2%) or only military victims (45.2%); this 

may be a reflection of the fact that cases with military and civilian victims by definition 

involved more than one victim. 

TABLE 7 

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY GENDER AND STATUS OF VICTIM: 2015 

DATA 

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 530) 

Differences in outcomes by gender and status of victim not statistically significant 

Convicted 

of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted 

of Sexual 

Contact 

Offense

Convicted 

of NonSex

Offense

Acquitted 

of all 

Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action

Victim 

Gender

All Females

(N = 493)

25.2

(124)

2.2

(11)

21.7

(107)

21.3

(105)

14.2

(70)

15.4

(76)

All Males

(N = 35)

37.1

(13)

5.7

(2)

14.3

(5)

22.9

(8)

14.3

(5)

5.7

(2)

Victim 

Status

All Military

(N = 336)

23.5

(79)

1.5

(5)

20.2

(68)

22.6

(76)

15.8

(53)

16.4

(55)

All Civilian

(N = 174)

28.2

(49)

4.0

(7)

23.0

(40)

20.1

(35)

12.1

(21)

12.6

(22)

Military and 

Civilian

(N = 20)

45.0

(9)

5.0

(1)

30.0

(6)

10.0

(2)

5.0

(1)

5.0

(1)
66

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

16

Table 7, continued 

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) only (N = 208) 

Convicted 

of Contact 

Offense

Convicted 

of NonSex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

all Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action

Victim Gender

All Females

(N = 178)

16.9

(30)

41.0

(73)

12.9

(23)

22.5

(40)

6.7

(12)

All Males

(N= 29)

24.1

(7)

41.4

(12)

10.3

(3)

20.7

(6)

3.4

(1)

Victim Status

All Military

(N = 163)

16.6

(27)

40.5

(66)

14.7

(24)

23.9

(39)

4.3

(7)

All Civilian

(N = 37)

18.9

(7)

37.8

(14)

8.1

(3)

18.9

(7)

16.2

(6)

Military and Civilian

(N = 8)

37.5

(3)

62.5

(5)

0.0

(0)

0.0

(0)

0.0

(0)

Differences in outcomes by gender and status of victim not statistically significant 

Relationship between Accused and Victim 

The results of the bivariate analysis of case outcomes and the relationship between 

the accused and the victim are shown in Table 8. There were no statistically significant 

differences in case outcomes based on this factor for either penetrative or contact 

offenses (however, there were only 18 contact offense cases in which the victim was 

the spouse or intimate partner of the accused). Among cases in which the accused was 

charged with a penetrative offense, the overall conviction rate was 48.2% for cases in 

which the accused and victim were spouses or intimate partners and 50.3% for cases 

involving other types of relationships (or no prior relationship). 
67

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

17

TABLE 8 

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACCUSED AND 

VICTIM: 

2015 DATA 

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 530) 

Differences in outcomes by accused/victim relationship not statistically significant 

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) only (N = 208) 

Convicted 

of Contact 

Offense

Convicted 

of NonSex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

all Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action

Spouse or Intimate 

Partner

(N = 18)

0.0%

(0)

61.1%

(11)

11.1%

(2)

16.7%

(3)

11.1%

(2)

Other Relationship

(N = 190)

19.5%

(37)

38.9%

(74)

13.2%

(25)

22.6%

(43)

5.8%

(11)

Differences in outcomes by accused/victim relationship not statistically significant 

Convicted 

of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted 

of Sexual 

Contact 

Offense

Convicted 

of Non-Sex

Offense

Acquitted 

of all 

Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action

Spouse or 

Intimate 

Partner

(N = 112)

25.0%

(28)

2.7%

(3)

20.5%

(23)

23.2%

(26)

8.0%

(9)

20.5%

(23)

Other 

Relationship

(N = 418)

26.1%

(109)

2.4%

(10)

21.8%

(91)

20.8%

(87)

15.8%

(66)

13.2%

(55)
68

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

18

Accused’s Location

The next factor examined with respect to its relationship to case outcomes is the 

accused’s location at the time that charges were preferred. We differentiated between 

cases in which the accused was in the United States or its territories and cases in which 

the accused was on a base outside of the United States. As shown in Table 9, the 

accused’s location did not affect case outcomes for either penetrative or contact 

offenses. 

TABLE 9 

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY ACCUSED’S LOCATION: 2015 DATA 

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) (N = 530) 

Differences in outcomes by accused’s location not statistically significant

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) only (N = 208) 

Convicted 

of Contact 

Offense

Convicted 

of NonSex 

Offense

Acquitted of 

all Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further 

Action

United States or 

Territories

(N = 168)

17.3%

(29)

43.5%

(73)

13.1%

(22)

20.2%

(34)

6.0%

(10)

Outside of United 

States

(N = 40)

20.0%

(8)

30.0%

(12)

12.5%

(5)

30.0%

(12)

7.5%

(3)

Differences in outcomes by accused’s location not statistically significant

Convicted 

of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted 

of Sexual 

Contact 

Offense

Convicted 

of NonSex

Offense

Acquitted 

of all 

Charges

Alternative 

Disposition

Case 

Dismissed 

without 

Further Action

United 

States or 

Territories

(N = 432)

27.3%

(118) 

1.9%

(8)

20.8%

(90)

21.8%

(94)

13.2%

(57)

15.0%

(65)

Outside of 

United 

States

(N = 98)

19.4%

(19)

5.1%

(5)

24.5%

(24)

19.4%

(19)

18.4%

(18)

13.3%

(13)
69

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

19

Trial Forum 

The final factor examined with respect to its relationship to case outcomes is the type 

of trial forum—that is, whether the case was adjudicated by a military judge or a panel 

of military members. For this analysis, we included only cases that were referred to 

trial and we excluded cases that were decided by a summary court martial officer. 

TABLE 10 

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM: 2015 DATA 

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N = 368) 

Differences in outcomes by type of trial forum statistically significant (P < .05)

Accused Charged with Contact Offense(s) and Case Referred to Trial (N = 129) 

Convicted of 

Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of all 

Charges

Case Adjudicated by Military 

Judge (N = 72)

20.8%

(15) 

68.1%

(49)

11.1%

(8)

Case Adjudicated by Panel of 

Members (N = 47)

27.7%

(13)

34.0%

(16)

38.3%

(18)

Differences in outcomes by type of trial forum statistically significant (P < .05)

As shown in Table 10, the type of trial forum had a significant effect on case outcomes 

for both penetrative and contact offenses. Although there was only a small difference 

in the percentages of individuals who were convicted of a penetrative offense, 

penetrative offense cases adjudicated by military judges were much less likely than 

those adjudicated by a panel of military members to result in an acquittal on all 

charges. Combining the three types of conviction charges, penetrative offense cases 

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of all 

Charges

Case Adjudicated 

by Military Judge

(N = 204)

39.2%

(80) 

4.9%

(10)

32.8%

(67)

23.0%

(47)

Case Adjudicated 

by Panel of 

Members

(N = 164)

34.1%

(56)

1.8%

(3)

23.8%

(39)

40.2%

(66)
70

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

20

adjudicated by military judges had a conviction rate of 77%, compared to a rate of 

59.8% for cases adjudicated by a panel of military members. There was a similar 

pattern for contact offenses: cases adjudicated by panel members were substantially 

more likely than those adjudicated by military judges to result in an acquittal on all 

charges (38.3% versus 11.1%). The conviction rates for contact offenses were 88.9% 

for cases handled by military judges and 61.7% for cases adjudicated by a panel of 

military members. 

TABLE 11 

OUTCOMES OF SEXUAL OFFENSES BY TYPE OF TRIAL FORUM FOR CASES IN 

WHICH THE ACCUSED PLED NOT GUILTY: 2015 DATA 

Charged with Penetrative Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty (N = 265) 

Differences in outcomes by type of trial forum not statistically significant 

Charged with Contact Offense(s), Referred to Trial and Pled Not Guilty (N = 74) 

Convicted of 

Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of all 

Charges

Case Adjudicated by Military 

Judge (N = 27)

37.0%

(10) 

33.3%

(9)

 29.6%

(8)

Case Adjudicated by Panel of 

Members (N = 47)

27.7%

(13)

34.0%

(16)

38.3%

(18)

Differences in outcomes by type of trial forum not statistically significant 

We also ran the analysis excluding cases in which the accused pled guilty; thus, we 

include only those cases in which the accused pled not guilty and the case was 

adjudicated either by a military judge or a panel of military members at a contested 

trial. The results of this analysis, shown in Table 11, reveal that the type of trial forum 

did not affect case outcomes for either penetrative offenses or contact offenses in 

Convicted of 

Penetrative 

Offense

Convicted of 

Sexual Contact 

Offense

Convicted of 

Non-Sex 

Offense

Acquitted of all 

Charges

Case Adjudicated 

by Military Judge 

(N = 101)

38.6%

(39)

2.0%

(2)

12.9%

(13)

46.5%

(47)

Case Adjudicated 

by Panel of 

Members 

(N = 164)

34.1%

(56)

1.8%

(3)

23.8%

(39)

40.2%

(66)
71

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

21

which the accused pled not guilty and there was a contested trial. (The data presented 

in Tables 10 and 11 also reveal that all of the cases involving penetrative offenses that 

were adjudicated by a panel of military members were cases in which the offender 

pled not guilty (164 in Table 10 and 164 in Table 11) and that all of the cases involving 

contact offenses that were adjudicated by a panel of military members were cases in 

which the offender pled not guilty (47 in Table 10 and 47 in Table 11). Stated another 

way, none of the penetrative or contact offenses handled by a panel of military 

members were guilty pleas to all charges. This reflects the fact that when an accused 

pleads guilty to an offense, only a military judge can hear and accept the plea.) 

Factors Associated with Sentences: 

Results of the Bivariate Analyses 

The results of the bivariate analyses of sentences are presented in Tables 9 through 14. 

The dependent variables analyzed are whether the offender was sentenced to a term of 

confinement, whether the offender received a punitive separation, and the length of 

the confinement sentence. 

Beginning with the factors associated with an approved sentence of confinement 

(Table 9), the likelihood of confinement was not affected by the military service of the 

accused, the rank of the accused, the gender of the victim, the relationship between the 

victim and the offender, the number of counts preferred, or the number of victims. By 

contrast, the likelihood of confinement was affected by the status of the victim, the 

type of conviction charge, the type of court martial, and the type of trial forum. A 

sentence that included confinement was more likely in cases involving civilian (82.1%) 

and military and civilian (79.2%) victims than in cases involving military victims only 

(65.3%). Not surprisingly, confinement sentences also varied by the type of conviction 

charge. Those who were convicted of penetrative offenses were significantly more 

likely than those convicted of contact or other offenses to receive a confinement 

sentence (90.4%, 60% and 61.5%, respectively). Finally, confinement sentences were 

more likely following general (76.6%) or special (73.7%) than summary court martials 

(26.3%) and following procedures involving military judges (83.7%) or a panel of 

military members (64%) than summary court martial officers (26.3%). 
72

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

22

TABLE 12 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH APPROVED SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT: 

2015 DATA 

No Confinement Confinement

N % N %

Military Service of Accused (NS)

 Army

 Air Force 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps

 Navy

46

14

10

22

19

25.7

20.9

41.7

42.3

29.7

133

53

14

30

45

74.3

79.1

58.3

57.7

70.3

Rank of Accused (NS)

 Officer

 Enlisted

12

99

32.4

28.4

25

250

67.6

71.6

Gender of Victim(s) (NS)

 All Females

 All Males

98

13

28.4

33.3

247

26

71.6

66.7

Status of Victim(s) (P < .05)

 All Military

 All Civilian

 Military and Civilian

85

21

5

34.7

17.9

20.8

160

96

19

65.3

82.1

79.2

Relationship between Accused and Victim(NS)

 Spouse or Intimate Partner

 Other Relationship

18

93

27.3

29.1

48

227

72.7

70.9

Type of Conviction Charge (P < .05)

 Penetrative Offense

 Contact Offense

 Other Offense

13

20

77

9.6

40.0

38.5

122

30

123

90.4

60.0

61.5

Number of Counts Preferred (mean) [NS] 6.79 7.80

Number of Victims (mean) [NS] 1.29 1.45

Type of Court Martial (P < .05)

 General Court Martial

 Special Court Martial

 Summary Court Martial

68

15

28

23.4

26.3

73.7

223

42

10

76.6

73.7

26.3

Type of Trial Forum (P < .05)

 Military Judge

 Panel of Military Members

 Summary Court Martial Officer

36

47

28

16.3

37.0

73.7

185

80

10

83.7

63.0

26.3
73

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

23

TABLE 13 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH APPROVED SENTENCE 

OF PUNITIVE SEPARATION: 2015 DATA 

No Separation Separation

N % N %

Military Service of Accused (P < .05)

 Army

 Air Force 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps

 Navy

53

28

17

27

30

29.6

41.8

70.8

41.9

46.9

126

39

7 

25

34

70.4

58.2

29.2

48.1

53.1

Rank of Accused (NS)

 Officer

 Enlisted

12

143

32.4

41.0

25

206

67.6

59.0

Gender of Victim(s) (NS)

 All Females

 All Males

138

17

40.0

43.6

207

22

60.0

56.4

Status of Victim(s) (P < .05)

 All Military

 All Civilian

 Military and Civilian

112

35

8

45.7

29.9

33.3

133

82

16

54.3

70.1

66.7

Relationship between Accused and Victim (NS)

 Spouse or Intimate Partner

 Other Relationship

25

130

37.9

40.6

41

190

62.1

59.4

Type of Conviction Charge (P < .05)

 Penetrative Offense

 Contact Offense

 Other Offense

13

19

122

9.6

38.0

61.0

122

31

78

90.4

62.0

39.0

Number of Counts Preferred (mean) [NS] 6.67 8.08

Number of Victims (mean) [NS] 1.23 1.52

Type of Court Martial (P < .05)

 General Court Martial

 Special Court Martial

 Summary Court Martial

80

37

38

27.5

64.9

100.0

211

20

0

72.5

35.1

0.0

Type of Trial Forum (P < .05)

 Military Judge

 Panel of Military Members

 Summary Court Martial Officer

69

48

38

31.2

37.8

100.0

152

79

0

68.8

62.2

0.0

The results of the analysis of punitive separations (see Table 13) are, with one 

exception, very similar. In contrast to the results for confinement, the likelihood of a 

punitive separation was affected by the military service of the accused. The 

percentages of sentences involving punitive separations ranged from 70.4% for the 

Army to 58.2% for the Air Force to 53.1% for the Navy to 48.1% for the Marine Corps 
74

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

24

to 29.2% for the Coast Guard. A sentence involving punitive separation was much 

more likely if the accused was convicted of a penetrative (90.4%) rather than a contact 

(62%) or other (39.1%) offense, if the case was resolved via a general court martial 

(72.5%, compared to 35.1% for cases resolved via a special court martial and 0% for 

cases resolved via a summary court martial), and if the sentence was imposed by a 

military judge (68.8% versus 62.2% for sentences imposed by a panel of military 

members and 0% for sentences imposed by a summary court martial officer). The 

likelihood of punitive separation also was greater if at least one of the victims was a 

civilian (70.1% for cases involving all civilians and 66.7% for cases involving civilian 

and military victims) than if all victims were members of the military (54.3%) 

The results of the analysis of the length of the confinement sentence, which are shown 

in Table 14, reveal a very similar pattern. Sentence length was not affected by the 

military service of the accused, the rank of the accused, or the gender of the victim; it 

was affected by the status of the victim, the relationship between the accused and the 

victim, the type of conviction charge, the type of court martial, and the type of trial 

forum. Mean sentences varied significantly in the following types of cases: 

 There were both military and civilian victims (89.46 months) rather than only 

civilian (48.25 months) or only military (22.44 months) victims 

 The victim was the accused’s spouse or intimate partner (78.44 months) versus 

some other relationship or no prior relationship (27.13 months) 

 The accused was convicted of a penetrative offense (65.96 months) rather than 

a contact offense (9.45 months) or a non-sex offense (12.94 months) 

 The case was resolved via a general court martial (43.69 months) rather than 

through a special court martial (4.06 months) or a summary court martial (0.72 

months) 

 The sentence was imposed by a panel of military members (52.8 months) 

rather than a military judge (30.77 months) or a summary court martial officer 

(0.72 months). 
75

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

25

TABLE 14 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH LENGTH OF CONFINEMENT SENTENCE: 

2015 DATA 

Mean Sentence

Military Service of Accused (NS)

 Army

 Air Force 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps

 Navy

42.37

48.43

22.52

22.30

16.36

Rank of Accused (NS)

 Officer

 Enlisted

47.42

34.95

Gender of Victim(s) (NS)

 All Females

 All Males

36.99

29.90

Status of Victim(s) (P < .05)

 All Military

 All Civilian

 Military and Civilian

22.44

48.25

89.46

Relationship between Accused and Victim (P < .05)

 Spouse or Intimate Partner

 Other Relationship

78.44

27.13

Type of Conviction Charge (P < .05)

 Penetrative Offense

 Contact Offense

 Other Offense

65.96

9.45

12.94

Type of Court Martial (P < .05)

 General Court Martial

 Special Court Martial

 Summary Court Martial

43.69

4.06

0.72

Type of Trial Forum (P < .05)

 Military Judge

 Panel of Military Members

 Summary Court Martial Officer

30.77

52.80

0.72
76

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

26

Factors Associated with Case Outcomes: 

Results of the Multivariate Analysis 

We used logistic regression to analyze several binary outcome variables (that is, 

variables, such as whether the accused was convicted of a penetrative offense (coded 

1) or not (coded 0)), that are coded 1 or 0. We used ordinary least squares (OLS) 

regression to analyze the length of the confinement sentence, which is an interval 

variable. These types of analysis are used to identify the statistically significant 

predictors of the outcomes. The analysis simultaneously controls for all of the 

variables in the analysis; therefore, if a particular variable affects the outcome, it does 

so while holding all of the other variables in the model constant.1 For example, the 

number of victims is a significant predictor of whether an offender who was charged 

with a penetrative offense was convicted of a penetrative offense; this is net of the 

effects of the military service of the accused, the accused’s rank, the relationship 

between the victim and the accused, whether all victims were female, whether all 

victims were military, and the number of charges. 2 

For the categorical variable (military service of the accused), the values for the 

included categories are compared to the reference category (Army). The negative 

coefficient for “Air Force” in Table 15 indicates that offenders who were in the Air 

Force were significantly less likely than those from the Army to be convicted of a 

penetrative offense. As a further test for service-related differences in outcomes, we 

ran the analyses with each of the services as the reference category. 

Analysis of the Likelihood of Conviction 

The results of the analysis of two indicators of the likelihood of conviction—whether 

the accused was convicted of a penetrative offense and whether the accused was 

convicted of at least one charge (i.e., a penetrative offense, a contact offense, or a nonsex offense) are presented in Table 15. Only those who were charged with a 

penetrative offense are included in the analysis of conviction for a penetrative offense; 

 

1 Variables that are statistically significant predictors of outcomes are indicated with an asterisk. In the 

tables presenting the results of the logistic regression analyses, B is the logistic regression coefficient, SE 

is the standard error, and Exp(B) is the odds ratio. In the table (Table 14) presenting the results of the 

OLS regression, B is the unstandardized regression coefficient and can be interpreted as the change in 

the length of sentence due to a change in the independent variable. For example, the B-value for victim 

was a spouse or intimate partner is 31.42, which indicates that sentences averaged 31.42 months longer 

if the victim was a spouse or intimate partner than if the victim was not a spouse or intimate partner. 

Beta is the standardized regression coefficient and indicates the strength of the relationship between 

the length of the sentence and the independent variable. The T-value indicates whether the relationship 

is statistically significant. 

2At the request of the Judicial Proceedings Panel, we also ran the analysis with cases in which the victim 

was the spouse or intimate partner of the accused excluded from the analysis. The results of the 

analyses were essentially unchanged when these cases were excluded.
77

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

27

the analysis of conviction for any charge includes those charged with both penetrative 

and contact offenses. 

The statistically significant predictors of conviction for a penetrative offense are the 

military service of the accused, the number of victims and the number of counts. 

Conviction for a penetrative offense was less likely if the accused was in the Air Force 

or the Marine Corps rather than the Army. There were no differences in the likelihood 

of conviction for a penetrative offense between accused in the Army and those in the 

other military services. When we ran the analysis with the other services as the 

reference category, we found that (1) there were no differences between those in the 

Coast Guard and those in the other services, (2) there were no differences between 

those in the Navy and those in the other services, and (3) the only differences between 

those in the Air Force and the other services and those in the Marine Corps and the 

other services were the differences with the Army that were discussed above. To 

summarize, the only significant effect based on the military service of the accused was 

that conviction for a penetrative offense was more likely if the accused was in the 

Army rather than the Air Force or the Marine Corps. 

The number of victims and the number of charges also affected the likelihood of 

conviction for a penetrative offense; as the number of victims and the number of 

charges increased, the likelihood of conviction increased. Variables that did not affect 

the likelihood of conviction for a penetrative offense were the rank of the accused, the 

relationship between the accused and the victim, and the gender and status of the 

victim. 

The statistically significant predictors of conviction for at least one charge are the 

military service of the accused, the relationship between the accused and the victim, 

the status of the victim, the number of charges, and whether the accused was charged 

with a penetrative offense. Compared to those in the Army, those in the Air Force were 

less likely to be convicted while those in the Coast Guard had a higher likelihood of 

conviction. When we ran the analysis with the other military services as the reference 

category we found: 

 Compared to those in the Air Force, those in the Army and Coast Guard were 

more likely to be convicted 

 Compared to those in the Coast Guard, those in the Army, Air Force, Marine 

Corps, and Navy were less likely to be convicted 

 Compared to those in the Marine Corps those in the Coast Guard were more 

likely to be convicted 

 Compared to those in the Navy, those in the Coast Guard were more likely to be 

convicted. 

Overall, then, the likelihood of conviction was higher if the accused was in the Coast 

Guard rather than the other four military services; the likelihood of conviction also was 

higher if the accused was in the Army rather than the Air Force. 

Conviction for at least one offense also was less likely if the victim was a spouse or 

intimate partner and if the victim was a member of the military services. In addition, 

conviction was less likely if the accused was charged with a penetrative rather than a 
78

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

28

contact offense, and as the number of charges increased, the likelihood of conviction 

also increased. The likelihood of conviction for any charge was not affected by the rank 

of the accused, the gender of the victim(s), or the number of victims. 

TABLE 15

LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS: LIKELIHOOD OF CONVICTION 

 

Accused Convicted of a Penetrative Offense

B SE Exp(B)

Military Service of the Accused

 Army (reference) 

 Air Force 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps

 Navy

-.77

-.86

-1.15

-.48

.28

 .64

.39

.33

0.46* 

 0.42

0.32*

0.62

Accused Rank (Enlisted) -.14 .39 0.87

Victim was Spouse or Intimate Partner -.13 .31 0.88

Female Victim(s) -.54 .41 0.58

Military Victim(s) -.34 .25 0.71

Number of Victims .60 .18 1.82*

Number of Charges .06 .02 1.06*

Accused Convicted of At Least One Charge

B SE Exp(B)

Military Service of the Accused

 Army (reference category)

 Air Force 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps

 Navy

-.48

1.20

-.12

.003

.22

.51

.27

.24

0.61*

3.32* 

0.89

1.00

Accused Rank (Enlisted) -.56 .34 0.57

Victim was Spouse or Intimate Partner -.61 .26 0.55*

Female Victim(s) -.39 .30 0.68

Military Victim(s) -.44 .20 0.64*

Number of Victims .04 .11 1.04

Number of Charges .25 .03 1.28*

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense

-.38 .19 0.68*

* P < .05 
79

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

29

Analysis of Acquittals and Dismissals 

Table 16 presents the results of two additional indicators of case outcomes: (1) 

whether the accused was acquitted of all charges at trial and (2) whether all charges 

were dismissed without further action. Recall from Table 2 that 21.3% (N = 113) of 

those charged with penetrative offenses and 13% (N = 27) of those charged with 

contact offenses were acquitted of all charges; 14.7% (N = 78) of those charged with 

penetrative offenses and 6.3% (N = 13) of those charged with contact offenses had all 

charges dismissed without further action. 

TABLE 16 

LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF ACQUITTALS AND DISMISSALS 

Accused Acquitted of All Charges

B SE Exp(B)

Military Service of the Accused

 Army (reference) 

 Air Force 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps

 Navy

.94

-1.81

.30

.71

.29

 1.07

.38

.32

2.57*

0.16

1.36

2.04*

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .71 .49 2.03

Victim was Spouse or Intimate Partner .62 .35 1.85

Female Victim(s) .24 .42 1.28

Military Victim(s) .45 .27 1.56

Number of Victims -.36 .28 0.70

Number of Charges -.27 .04 0.76*

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense .94 .28 2.56*

Case Dismissed Without Further Action

B SE Exp(B)

Military Service of the Accused

 Army (reference category)

 Air Force 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps

 Navy

.56

.34

1.41

.96

.33

.72

.37

.36

1.74

1.41

4.10*

2.62*

Accused Rank (Enlisted) -.80 .46 0.45

Victim was Spouse or Intimate Partner .74 .32 2.10*

Female Victim(s) 1.00 .63 2.73

Military Victim(s) .13 .28 1.14

Number of Victims -1.28 .70 0.28

Number of Charges -.26 .06 0.77*

Accused Charged with Penetrative Offense .94 .34 2.56*

* P < .05 
80

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

30

As shown in Table 16, only three variables—the number of charges preferred, whether 

the accused was charged with a penetrative offense, and the military service of the 

accused affected the likelihood of acquittal at trial. Acquittal was less likely if there 

were more preferred charges but was more likely if the accused was charged with a 

penetrative rather than a contact offense. Acquittal was more likely if the accused was 

in the Air Force or the Navy than if the accused was in the Army. Running the analysis 

with the other services as the reference category revealed that: 

 Compared to those in the Air Force, acquittal was less likely for those in the 

Army or the Coast Guard 

 Compared to those in the Coast Guard, acquittal was more likely for those in the 

Air Force and the Navy 

 There were no differences in the likelihood of acquittal between the Marine 

Corps and any of the other services 

 Compared to those in the Navy, acquittal was less likely for those in the Army 

and the Coast Guard. 

These results, then, reveal that the likelihood of acquittal was higher if the accused was 

in the Air Force or Navy than if the accused was in the Coast Guard; the likelihood of 

acquittal also was higher if the accused was in the Air Force or Navy than if the accused 

was in the Army. 

By contrast, the likelihood that the case would be dismissed without further action was 

affected by the military service of the accused, whether the victim was a spouse or 

intimate partner (these cases had a higher likelihood of case dismissal), the number of 

charges (more preferred charges led to lower odds of case dismissal) and whether the 

most serious charge was a penetrative offense (these cases were two and half times 

more likely than cases involving contact offenses to result in dismissal of the case). 

Compared with cases involving those who were in the Army, cases involving those in 

the Marine Corps and Navy had a higher likelihood of case dismissal. Running the 

analysis with the other services as the reference category revealed that: 

 Compared to those in the Air Force, dismissal was more likely if the accused 

was in the Marine Corps 

 There were no differences in the likelihood of dismissal between the Coast 

Guard and any of the other services 

 Compared to those in the Marine Corps, dismissal was less likely if the accused 

was in the Air Force or Army 

 Compared to those in the Navy, dismissal was less likely if the accused was in 

the Army. 

These results reveal that the likelihood of case dismissal was higher if the accused was 

in the Marine Corps rather than the Army or Air Force; the likelihood of case dismissal 

also was higher if the accused was in the Navy rather than the Army. 

Analysis of Sentences 

The results of the logistic regression analysis of the likelihood that the approved 

sentence would include a period of confinement and the results of the ordinary least 
81

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

31

square regression analysis of the length of the approved confinement sentence are 

presented in Table 17. Only three variables—whether the accused was in the Air Force 

rather than the Marine Corps, whether the accused was convicted of a penetrative 

offense and the status of the victim—affected the likelihood that the accused would be 

sentenced to a term of confinement. Those who were in the Air Force were more likely 

than those who were in the Marine Corps to be sentenced to confinement. (There were 

no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of confinement between any of 

the other services.) Those who were convicted of a penetrative offense were 5.3 times 

more likely (Exp(B) = 5.31) than those convicted of non-sex offenses (which is the 

reference category) to be sentenced to confinement. Individuals convicted of crimes 

involving military rather than civilian victims had lower odds of receiving a 

confinement sentence. 

TABLE 17 

LOGISTIC AND OLS REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF CONFINEMENT 

AND LENGTH OF CONFINEMENT 

Approved Sentence Included Confinement

B SE Exp(B)

Military Service of the Accused

 Army (reference) 

 Air Force 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps

 Navy

.47

-.29

 -.57

.15

.38

.51

.36

.35

1.60

0.74

0.56

1.16

Accused Rank (Enlisted) .52 .42 1.67

Victim was Spouse or Intimate Partner -.65 .41 0.52

Female Victim(s) -.12 .41 0.88

Military Victim(s) -1.01 .34 0.36*

Number of Victims .13 .17 1.14

Number of Charges .036 .025 1.04

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense 1.68 .34 5.37*

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense -.20 .35 0.82

Length (in months) of Approved Confinement Sentence

B Beta T-value

Military Service of the Accused

 Army (reference) 

 Air Force 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps

 Navy

1.16

-10.80

-7.16

-15.01

.01

-.03

-.03

-.07

0.10

-0.53

-0.48

-1.19

Accused Rank (Enlisted) 5.08 .02 0.32

Victim was Spouse or Intimate Partner 31.42 .15 2.22*

Female Victim(s) -2.08 -.008 -0.13

Military Victim(s) -4.42 -.03 -0.42
82

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

32

Number of Victims 7.78 .10 1.67

Number of Charges 2.26 .18 2.84*

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense 55.16 .34 5.85*

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense 5.98 .02 0.70

*P < .05 

The only variables affecting the length of the approved confinement sentence were the 

type of conviction charge, the number of charges filed against the accused, and 

whether the victim was a spouse or intimate partner. As the B values in the table 

indicate, those convicted of penetrative offenses received sentences that were more 

than 55 months (B = 55.16) longer than the sentences imposed on offenders convicted 

of non-sex offenses. Sentences averaged 31 months (B = 31.42) longer if the victim 

was a spouse or intimate partner and every additional charge resulted in 

approximately a two-month (B = 2.26) increase in sentence length. The military 

service of the accused did not significantly affect the length of the confinement 

sentence. 

TABLE 18 

LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF PUNITIVE SEPARATION 

Approved Sentence Included Punitive Separation

B SE Exp(B)

Military Service of the Accused

 Army (reference)

 Air Force 

 Coast Guard 

 Marine Corps

 Navy

-.71

-1.46

 -.53

-.45

.36

.57

.37

.35

0.49

0.23*

0.59

0.64

Accused Rank (Enlisted) -.21 .44 0.81

Victim was Spouse or Intimate Partner -.23 .42 0.79

Female Victim(s) .08 .42 1.08

Military Victim(s) -.70 .32 0.49*

Number of Victims .38 .19 1.47*

Number of Charges .04 .03 1.04

Accused Convicted of Penetrative Offense 2.64 .34 14.03*

Accused Convicted of Contact Offense .83 .35 2.30*

*P < .05 
83

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

33

The final analysis focuses on the likelihood that the approved sentence would include 

punitive separation (Table 18). The strongest predictor of the odds of punitive 

separation (based on the odds ratio) is whether the accused was convicted of a 

penetrative offense; those who were convicted of a penetrative offense were 14 times 

more likely (Exp(B) = 14.03) than those convicted of non-sex offenses (which is the 

reference category) to receive a punitive separation. Those convicted of contact 

offenses also were more than twice as likely (Exp(B) = 2.30) than those convicted of 

non-sex offenses to receive punitive separation. In addition, individuals convicted of 

crimes involving military rather than civilian victims had lower odds of punitive 

separation, and the odds of a punitive separation sentence increased as the number of 

victims increased. Regarding the military service of the accused, individuals who were 

in the Coast Guard had lower odds of punitive separation than did individuals who 

were in the Army (there were no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of 

punitive separation between any of the other services.) 

Summary of Descriptive Data and Results of the Analyses 

Descriptive Data on Case Characteristics and Case Outcomes 

 The military service with the largest number of cases with preferred charges for 

sexual offenses during the 2015 fiscal year was the Army, followed by the Air Force, 

the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard. The typical accused was a male 

enlisted member who was located in the United States or its territories when charges 

were preferred, and the typical victim was a female member of the military services 

who was not the accused’s spouse or intimate partner. Most cases involved multiple 

charges and in almost three fourths of the cases the most serious charge was a 

penetrative offense. More than three fourths of the cases that went to a court martial 

went to a general court marital. 

The overall conviction rate for individuals charged with penetrative offenses was 

somewhat lower than the rate for individuals charged with contact offenses. Half of 

those charged with penetrative offenses and convicted of at least one count were 

convicted as a result of a guilty verdict at trial, compared to just over a third of those 

for whom the most serious charge was a contact offense. Those charged with contact 

offenses were more likely than those charged with penetrative offenses to be convicted 

as a result of a guilty plea. Moreover, individuals whose cases were resolved via a 

contested trial were substantially more likely than those whose cases were resolved 

via a guilty plea to be convicted of a sex offense. 

 Dismissal of the case without further action was more common for individuals 

charged with penetrative rather than contact offenses, but there were more alternative 

dispositions and acquittals in cases involving individuals charged with contact 

offenses. A large majority of those who were convicted received an approved sentence 

that included a term of confinement and the average approved confinement sentence 

was three years. 
84

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

34

Results of the Bivariate Analyses 

The results of the bivariate analyses, which addressed the relationships between case 

disposition and case outcomes and a single independent variable, revealed that the 

type of disposition (i.e., whether the case was disposed by general court martial, 

special court martial, or summary court martial) varied by the type of offense charged, 

and the military service and rank of the accused. Although there were some differences 

in case outcomes based on the military service of the accused (for penetrative offenses 

only), case outcomes did not vary by the status or location of the accused, the gender 

or status of the victim, or the relationship between the accused and the victim. Among 

cases that were referred to trial, the outcome of the case varied depending on the type 

of trial forum, with conviction more likely and acquittal less likely if the case was 

adjudicated by a military judge rather than a panel of military members. By contrast, 

the type of trial forum did not affect outcomes among cases in which the defendant 

pled not guilty and went to a contested trial, The type of conviction charge, the status 

of the victim, the type of court martial, and the type of trial forum consistently affected 

the type and length of the sentence. The relationship between the victim and the 

accused also affected the length (but not the type) of the sentence. 

Results of the Multivariate Analyses

Because the multivariate analyses control simultaneously for relevant characteristics 

of the case, the accused, and the victim, the results of these analyses provide more 

nuanced findings regarding the factors that affect case outcomes. In most analyses, the 

strongest predictor of outcome was whether the accused was charged with or 

convicted of at least one count of a penetrative offense. Those who were charged with 

penetrative offenses were less likely than those charged with contact offenses to be 

convicted of at least one charge, were more likely to be acquitted of all charges, and 

were more likely to have the case dismissed without further action. On the other hand, 

if the accused was convicted of a penetrative offense, he/she was more likely to be 

sentenced to confinement, more likely to receive a punitive separation, and faced a 

substantially longer sentence than those convicted of non-sex offenses. By contrast, 

neither the rank of the accused nor the gender of the victim affected any of the 

outcomes examined. 

 Other variables that had statistically significant effects on outcomes were: 

 the military service of the accused 

o conviction for a penetrative offense was more likely if the accused was in 

the Army than if the accused was in the Air Force or the Marine Corps 

o conviction for at least one charge was more likely if the accused was in 

the Coast Guard than if the accused was in any of the other four services 

and if the accused was in the Army rather than the Air Force 

o cases were less likely to result in an acquittal at trial if the accused was 

serving in the Army or Coast Guard than if the accused was serving in the 

Air Force or Navy 
85

APPENDIX A: ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL OFFENSES REPORTED TO THE MILITARY SERVICES IN 2015

35

o cases were less likely to be dismissed without further action if the 

accused was in the Air Force rather than the Marine Corps and if the 

accused was in the Army rather than the Marine Corps or the Navy 

o individuals serving in the Army were more likely than those in the Coast 

Guard to receive a punitive separation 

 the number of charges 

o the likelihood of conviction was higher for cases in which more charges 

were preferred 

o the likelihoods of acquittal and dismissal were lower for cases in which 

more charges were preferred 

o the length of the confinement sentence was longer for cases in which 

more charges were preferred 

 the number of victims 

o the likelihood of conviction was higher for cases in which there were 

more victims 

o the likelihood of a confinement sentence was higher for cases in which 

there were more victims 

 the status of the victim 

o the likelihood of conviction was lower for cases in which the victim was 

a member of the military rather than a civilian 

o the likelihood of acquittal was higher for cases in which the victim was a 

member of the military rather than a civilian 

o the likelihood that the accused would receive either a sentence of 

confinement or a punitive separation was lower if the victim was a 

member of the military rather than a civilian 

 the relationship between the victim and the accused 

o the likelihood of conviction was lower if the victim was the accused’s 

spouse or intimate partner 

o the likelihood that the case would be dismissed without further action 

was higher if the victim was the accused’s spouse or intimate partner

o the confinement sentence was almost three years longer if the victim 

was the accused’s spouse or intimate partner

Considered together, the results of the multivariate analyses highlight the fact that 

outcomes vary depending upon whether the accused was charged with or convicted of 

a penetrative offense rather than a contact offense (or convicted of a non-sex offense). 

These results suggest that cases involving penetrative offenses have higher rates of 

attrition; that is, they are more likely to result in dismissal, more likely to result in 

acquittal at trial, and less likely to result in a conviction. However, conviction for a 

penetrative offense results in harsher punishment—a higher likelihood of a 

confinement sentence, a higher likelihood of punitive separation, and a longer 

confinement sentence. 
86

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

36

The results also indicate that there are significant differences on many of the outcomes 

based on the military service of the accused. The most consistent difference is 

between cases involving those who were serving in the Army and cases involving those 

who were serving in the other services. If the accused was serving in the Army, the 

odds of conviction for a penetrative offense were higher (compared to those serving in 

the Air Force or Marine Corps), the odds of conviction for at least one charge were 

higher (compared to those serving in the Air Force), the odds of acquittal were lower 

(compared to those serving in the Air Force or Navy), the odds of dismissal were lower 

(compared to those serving in the Marine Corps or Navy), and the odds of a punitive 

separation were higher (compared to those in the Coast Guard). Future research 

should attempt to determine why these patterns exist and whether they can be traced 

to differences in policies and practices among the military services (and particularly 

between the Army and the other services). 

Other intriguing findings relate to the status of the victim (military versus civilian) and 

the relationship between the accused and the victim (spouse or intimate partner 

versus some other relationship or no prior relationship). Compared to cases with 

civilian victims, those with victims who were serving in the military had lower odds of 

conviction, higher odds of acquittal, and were less likely to result in either confinement 

or punitive separation. Cases involving victims serving in the military, in other words, 

had higher rates of case attrition and those who were convicted of crimes against 

members of the military services were treated more leniently at sentencing than were 

those convicted of crimes against civilians. There was a somewhat different pattern of 

results based on the relationship between the accused and the victim. Cases in which 

the victim was the accused’s spouse or intimate partner were less likely to result in a 

conviction and more likely to result in dismissal of all charges; however, these cases 

also resulted in substantially longer confinement sentences. Future research should 

attempt to tease out why cases involving military service victims are treated 

differently (i.e., more leniently) than those involving civilian victims and why cases 

involving spouses or intimate partners have higher rates of attrition but result in 

harsher punishment. Although additional quantitative data on the characteristics of 

these cases might be able to explain some of these differences, qualitative data from 

interviews with military justice personnel also is needed. 
87

APPENDIX B: Methodology

Appendix A: Statistical Report on Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault

This appendix discusses the methodology employed by the JPP to obtain and analyze court-martial 

data relating to sexual assault offense cases that were resolved in fiscal year 2015.

I. REVIEW OF DOD’S SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE TRACKING SYSTEMS 

A. Overview of Existing DoD Systems for Managing Military Justice Information

When the JPP initially approached the task of analyzing court-martial data for its April 2016 Report 

on Statistical Data, it identified and reviewed the systems that currently exist within DoD and the 

military Services for tracking sexual assault offense case information. A detailed description of the 

systems used by each military Service to manage military justice cases can be found in that report.1

 The 

JPP determined that it could not rely on the existing military justice tracking systems to fulfill its tasks 

for two overarching reasons. First, the systems do not uniformly track information across all of the 

military Services. Second, not all of the systems allow the complex search queries required to retrieve 

the information needed to accurately and completely analyze sexual assault court-martial trends. 

What follows is a summary of DoD’s approach to collecting and reporting data on sexual assault 

cases in the military since 2012, provided here because that information influenced the findings and 

recommendations contained in this JPP report.

The JPP gathered information concerning the Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database (DSAID), 

which was implemented by DoD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) in 

February 2014. DSAID is a centralized, case-level database for collecting and managing information on 

sexual assault cases within DoD.2

 DSAID contains data for each restricted and unrestricted report of 

sexual assault covered by DoD’s sexual assault prevention and response policy.3 However, it does not 

include data on sexual assault cases involving spouses, intimate partners, or dependents under the age 

of 18, as such cases are covered by the military’s Family Advocacy Program (FAP).4

Legal officers at each military Service headquarters record in DSAID the legal action taken in response 

to every unrestricted report of sexual assault. The legal officers obtain the information documented in 

DSAID from the electronic military justice case management systems maintained separately by each 

military Service and from periodic updates provided by individual legal offices in the field. The data 

1 The Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault Offenses

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

Final_20160419.pdf.

2 32 C.F.R. § 105.15.

3 U.S. Dep’t of Def. Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, Appendix B, Statistical Data on 

Sexual Assault, 3 (May 2, 2016) [hereinafter FY15 SAPRO Report], available at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/

FY15_Annual/FY15_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault_in_the_Military_Full_Report.pdf.

4 Id. The Coast Guard is not part of DoD, and its case adjudication data are not included in DSAID or in DoD SAPRO’s 

reports to Congress.
88

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

include the results of cases for each victim who made an unrestricted report of sexual assault; thus, if 

one court case involves multiple victims, the case outcome is repeated for every victim associated with 

that case. 

Since fiscal year 2014, DoD SAPRO has used the information entered in DSAID to generate data for 

its annual report to Congress. Each SAPRO Report contains case synopsis charts that provide general 

information on case disposition and adjudication for every unrestricted report of sexual assault made 

in the previous fiscal year.5

 In addition, DoD SAPRO aggregates the information provided by each 

Service into “waterfall” charts that illustrate the number of cases initiated or completed within the 

previous fiscal year. 

While the data contained in the fiscal years 2014 and 2015 DoD SAPRO reports are based on the 

information entered into DSAID, previous annual DoD reports were based on information collected 

directly from case lists or spreadsheets generated within each military Service. These lists were designed 

to fulfill specific DoD and congressional reporting requirements. The Services provided information 

using DoD’s reporting criteria, but the JPP staff observed differences from year to year in how each 

military Service interpreted or applied DoD’s reporting criteria. 

B. Limitations of DoD Statistical Reports on Sexual Assault Cases

Although the annual SAPRO reports contain the most comprehensive compilation of sexual assault 

court-martial data available, the JPP staff identified limitations and inaccuracies in their data. The 

SAPRO reports do not provide a full chronology of the cases initiated by every sexual assault report. 

Instead, they present a snapshot of the number of allegations that fell under SAPR policy in the 

previous fiscal year, the number of investigations pending from the current or any prior years, and the 

number of cases resolved by court-martial or other disciplinary measures within the same reporting 

period. 

The SAPRO reports also lack detailed information about case adjudications and dispositions.6

 Among 

other things, the reports do not contain:

• information about all offenses prosecuted;

• information about the accused’s plea;

• information about the forum (i.e., whether the accused was tried before a military judge or 

before a panel);

• information about the terms of plea agreements or requests for clemency, even when they result 

in a modification of the adjudged sentence;7

 or 

5 The fiscal year is the accounting period for the federal government that begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. 

6 FY15 SAPRO Report, supra note 3, Appendix B, at 3–4. The JPP reviewed the FY15 SAPRO Report because it contains 

data on sexual assault cases occurring in the same time frame as the cases that the JPP analyzed for fiscal year 2015, and 

because the DoD Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military was not released until May 1, 2017—a 

date that left the JPP with insufficient time to assess any updates to the statistical data in DoD’s annual report. See DoD 

SAPRO’s website, http://www.sapr.mil/index.php/reports/sapro-reports/fy16-annual-report.

7 But see Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 161 (Nov. 6, 2015) (testimony of Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Senior Executive 

Advisor, DoD SAPR Office) (explaining that DoD considers a case “closed” when the convening authority takes action on 

the court-martial findings and sentence), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/05-Transcripts/20151106_Transcript_

Final.pdf.
89

APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY

• statistical analysis of case sentences. 

In addition, in the SAPRO reports for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, case adjudication data were 

aggregated differently than in previous years’ reports. In the fiscal years 2012 and 2013 SAPRO 

reports, a court-martial case involving multiple victims was counted once. In the fiscal years 2014 and 

2015 reports, however, a case involving multiple victims in a single court-martial was counted multiple 

times. The way in which cases are associated with a particular military Service has also changed with 

the implementation of DSAID. Previously, case dispositions were associated with a particular military 

Service on the basis of the Service affiliation of the subject or victim. However, beginning in fiscal year 

2014, the Service affiliation of the sexual assault response coordinator who provides victim services 

determines which Service is associated with the case.8

 It is unclear how this change affects the Services’ 

reporting of adjudication data in their responses, called “enclosures,” to the DoD report. Because 

of these changes, data from the fiscal years 2012 and 2013 SAPRO reports cannot be accurately 

compared with more recent SAPRO reports.9

Finally, while reviewing the underlying case records, the JPP staff identified numerous inaccuracies 

in the court-martial data contained in the SAPRO reports. Several cases included in the fiscal years 

2012 through 2015 SAPRO reports involved only child-victim offenses, non-sexual assault offenses, 

cases pending trial or other disposition at the end of the fiscal year, or victims who were the spouses 

and intimate partners of the accused, which fall outside the scope of SAPR policy. Yet all of these 

cases were reported in the SAPRO reports as completed, adult-victim sexual assault cases; and in 

some instances, the final case results of pending trials were not included in subsequent years’ reports. 

Separately, many completed cases that were reported in fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2014 were 

repeated in the fiscal year 2015 report. The JPP also noted that more than 100 cases reported in 

fiscal year 2014 were actually completed in fiscal year 2015, according to the dates recorded in the 

case documents obtained by the JPP. Lastly, the JPP identified instances in which the SAPRO reports 

contained incorrect or inconsistent case information about the most serious sex offense charged, the 

disciplinary action received, or the number of victims involved in a case.

II. JPP METHODOLOGY FOR OBTAINING AND ANALYZING MILITARY 

JUSTICE CASE INFORMATION

A. Court-Martial Data

1. Identifying Documents to Request from the Services

Given the limitations of the existing systems and reports, the JPP concluded that it needed to collect 

sexual assault case records directly from the Services. The JPP drew on the work of the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission to help it determine what information it needed to request from the Services. Within 30 

days of entry of judgment on a case, the U.S. Sentencing Commission receives the following documents 

from federal district courts: 

8 Dep’t of Def. Fiscal Year 2014 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, Appendix A, at 7, Statistical Data on Sexual 

Assault (April 29, 2015) (“This shift provides valuable insight into the resources each Service expends to respond to 

reports of sexual assault.”).

9 Id. at 6, 10–11 (“Unrestricted reports were previously recorded as the number of sexual assault cases, as organized 

by the MCIOs [military criminal investigative organizations]. Thus, one case did not necessarily correspond to one 

victim’s report. Starting in FY 2014, DSAID accounts for each individual report of sexual assault, such that each report 

corresponds to one victim”).
90

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

• judgment and commitment order;

• Statement of Reasons form explaining the judge’s sentence;

• plea agreement, if any;

• indictment or other charging document;

• presentence investigation report; and

• any other information deemed helpful.10

The U.S. Sentencing Commission uses this information to conduct its analysis of federal criminal 

convictions and sentences.

The JPP decided to follow a similar approach to obtain information about military justice cases 

involving sexual assault offenses. Using the Sentencing Commission’s procedures as guidance, the 

JPP identified 11 pieces of information necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of military justice 

cases, along with 10 relevant case documents containing this information. That information and the 

documents from which it is drawn are listed in the following table:

Information Needed

1. All offenses charged

2. Article 32 investigating officer 

recommendation 

3. Staff judge advocate (SJA) pretrial advice 

4. Court-martial type (general, special, or 

summary)

5. Pleas to each charge

6. Motions (Military Rules of Evidence 412 

and 513)

7. Guilty and not guilty findings

8. Forum (judge alone or panel members)

9. Pretrial agreement (terms and sentence 

limitations)

10. Sentence

11. Clemency 

Documents

1. DD Form 458, Charge Sheet

2. DD Form 457, Preliminary Hearing 

Officer’s Report (including all continuation 

pages, but not exhibits)

3. Article 34 pretrial advice and/or SJA 

recommendation on alternate disposition

4. If applicable, any document memorializing 

the convening authority’s referral or nonreferral decision

5. DD Form 490, Record of Trial 

6. DD Form 491, Summarized Record of Trial 

7. Pretrial agreements 

8. Master index of exhibits

9. SJA recommendation and addendum

10. Convening authority action

The JPP also considered how the different trial processing requirements in different circumstances 

affect what information is available in trial records. First, there is no requirement to complete a 

verbatim court-martial transcript in cases in which the accused was acquitted or received a sentence 

10 Transcript of JPP Public Meeting 186 (Sept. 18, 2015) (testimony of Mr. Glenn Schmitt, Director of the Office of Research 

and Data, U.S. Sentencing Commission).
91

APPENDIX B: METHODOLOGY

that did not include a punitive discharge or confinement for longer than 12 months at a general courtmartial, or 6 months at a special court-martial.11 Such cases often include a shortened, summarized 

transcript. Second, because records of proceedings related to M.R.E. 412 and M.R.E. 513 are sealed by 

military judges, access to certain relevant facts or evidence is limited. Third, not all cases will contain 

the same documents, because the different forums are not uniform in their procedures and thus are not 

uniform in the documentation that they require. For example, an Article 32 hearing and a staff judge 

advocate’s written pretrial advice are not required in every case. 

2. Requesting and Collecting Court-Martial Case Documents

The JPP requested that the military Services provide documentation for all cases involving at least 

one adult-victim sexual assault charge tried, dismissed, or otherwise resolved in fiscal year 2015. This 

request encompassed cases covered by both DoD SAPR and FAP policies, enabling the JPP to identify 

and review cases that were not included in DoD’s annual SAPRO reports. 

While the Services could not independently identify the cases listed in the annual SAPRO Report for 

fiscal year 2015, the DoD SAPRO office was able to provide each Service with specific case-identifying 

information for the cases listed in DoD’s annual report. The Services also relied on information 

contained in their own military justice case management systems to identify additional cases not 

reported to SAPRO. Data for the U.S. Coast Guard are not included in annual DoD SAPRO reports, 

and therefore the JPP requested that the Coast Guard identify all cases with at least one preferred 

charge of sexual assault that were completed at the trial level, dismissed before trial, or resulted in an 

alternate disposition in fiscal year 2015.12

For all requested fiscal year 2015 cases, the JPP asked for access to several specified case documents.13

For cases whose record of trial was located at the installation, the military Services’ headquarters or 

field offices provided the available requested case documents. For cases whose record of trial was 

stored or archived within the National Capital Region, including records located at the National 

Archives and Record Administration in Suitland, Maryland, and at the Service Criminal Courts of 

Appeals, the military Services provided the JPP staff with access to the record, and the JPP staff copied 

the relevant case records. 

3. Documenting Information About Courts-Martial for Panel Analysis

The JPP staff reviewed each case file that it obtained to ensure that cases fell within the scope of the 

JPP’s mandate and could be included in the JPP’s analysis. The JPP eliminated cases that were tried 

in a previous fiscal year,14 cases that were duplicative of other cases already identified, cases in which 

11 Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2016), R.C.M. 1103. 

12 JPP Request for Information 156–58 (August 1, 2016).

13 The JPP sought the following information for every identified case, as applicable: (1) charge sheet; (2) Article 32 

investigating officer’s or preliminary hearing officer’s report; (3) staff judge advocate’s pretrial advice; (4) any document 

memorializing the convening authority’s referral or non-referral decision; (5) documentation indicating a verbatim record 

of trial was prepared; (6) documentation indicating a summarized record of trial was prepared; (7) the terms of any 

pretrial agreement; (8) master index of exhibits; (9) post-trial submissions to the convening authority from the staff judge 

advocate and the accused; and (10) convening authority action on a court-martial.

14 The JPP verified the case completion date using standard case documents (rather than relying on the case completion 

date listed in the annual SAPRO report) as follows: the date of trial as indicated in the official report of result of trial, the 

date on which an alternate disposition was approved by the convening authority, or the date on which all charges were 

dismissed, as indicated on the copy of the original charge sheet. 
92

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

the documents did not indicate a sexual assault offense was charged, and cases in which the needed 

documentation was missing or incomplete.

The JPP staff used an electronic database to record information for 738 cases from fiscal year 2015.15

The staff entered case information into the database for each case, including the Service, fiscal year, 

case number, case location, pay grade and gender of the accused, and status (civilian vs. military) and 

gender of all victims. The staff also entered specific procedural information, as applicable, including 

details about every charge preferred, the Article 32 proceeding, pretrial advice, pretrial agreement, 

referral of charges, the outcome for each offense, and forms of punishment that were imposed.

Using information contained in the JPP’s database, Dr. Cassia Spohn, Foundation Professor and 

Director of the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University, analyzed the 

procedural history and outcomes of all cases. Dr. Spohn’s statistical report is provided as Appendix A. 

The JPP staff tabulated additional court-martial data to inform the JPP’s analysis.

B. Appellate Cases

Congress also tasked the JPP to review and evaluate court-martial convictions for sexual assault cases 

whose appeal resulted in punishments being reduced or convictions being set aside. To address this 

task, the JPP reviewed the published and unpublished opinions on the public websites of the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the Service Courts of Criminal Appeals. The JPP also requested 

that the Services provide the JPP with the number of sexual assault convictions affirmed by short form 

affirmances from the Army, merits opinions from the Air Force, and summary dispositions from the 

Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, in order to determine the total number of sexual assault cases 

reviewed by the appellate courts. This information provided additional context for the number of 

sexual assault cases in which appellate courts granted relief, and thus improved on the JPP’s previous 

analysis of appellate decisions contained in its 2016 Statistical Data Report.

15 Because of limitations in DoD and Service-specific case management systems, the military Services could not identify with 

certainty the number of sexual assault cases completed in fiscal year 2015. Therefore, the 738 cases reviewed by the JPP 

represent a substantial sampling, but not all, of the cases tried in this time period.
93

APPENDIX C: Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Authorizing Statutes and 

Charter

Appendix A: Statistical Report on Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault

APPENDIX B: Judicial Proceedings Panel Authorizing Statutes and Charter 

1

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. 
94

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

APPENDIX B: Judicial Proceedings Panel Authorizing Statutes and Charter 

2

(6) MEETINGS.—A panel shall meet at the call of the chair. 

(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 

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 required by subsection (c)(2) and the number and 
95

APPENDIX C: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND CHARTER

APPENDIX B: Judicial Proceedings Panel Authorizing Statutes and Charter 

3

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. 

(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. 
96

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

APPENDIX B: Judicial Proceedings Panel Authorizing Statutes and Charter 

4

(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. 
97

APPENDIX C: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND CHARTER

APPENDIX B: Judicial Proceedings Panel Authorizing Statutes and Charter 

5

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. 
98

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

APPENDIX B. Judicial Proceedings Panel Authorizing Statutes and Charter 

6

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”.
99

APPENDIX C: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND CHARTER

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. 
100

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

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). 
101

APPENDIX C: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND CHARTER

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. 
102

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

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 
103

APPENDIX C: JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL AUTHORIZING STATUTES AND CHARTER

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 
104

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
105

APPENDIX D: Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Member Biographies

Appendix A: Statistical Report on Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault

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.
106

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

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.
107

APPENDIX E: Judicial Proceedings 

Panel Staff Members and 

Designated Federal Officials 

Appendix A: Statistical Report on Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault

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
108

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
109

APPENDIX F: Presenters on Statistical 

Data Regarding Military 

Adjudication of Sexual Assault 

Offenses for Fiscal Year 2015 

at Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Meetings

Appendix A: Statistical Report on Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS 

PANEL PUBLIC MEETINGS PRESENTERS

April 7, 2017 

Public Meeting of the JPP

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, VA

• Dr. Cassia Spohn, Professor and Director, School of 

Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University

• Ms. Meghan Peters, Staff Attorney, Judicial Proceedings Panel

• Dr. Nathan Galbreath, Deputy Director, Department of 

Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office

• Ms. Kathy Robertson, Licensed Clinical Social Worker, Family 

Advocacy Program Manager, Office of the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary, Military Community and Family Policy, Department 

of Defense

May 19, 2017

Public Meeting of the JPP

Holiday Inn Arlington at Ballston 

Arlington, VA

• Ms. Meghan Peters, Staff Attorney, Judicial Proceedings Panel

• Panel deliberations 

June 16, 2017

Public Meeting of the JPP

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, VA

• Panel deliberations and review of draft report

July 26-27, 2017

Public Meeting of the JPP

One Liberty Center 

Arlington, VA

• Panel deliberations, review, and approval of final report
110

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
111

APPENDIX G: Acronyms and Abbreviations

Appendix A: Statistical Report on Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault

CAAF United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

DoD Department of Defense

DSAID Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database

FAP Family Advocacy Program

FY fiscal year

GCMCA general court-martial convening authority

INSTR Instruction

JPP Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel 

(Judicial Proceedings Panel)

MRE Military Rule(s) of Evidence

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

RCM Rule(s) for Court-Martial

RSP Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel (Response Systems Panel)

SAPR sexual assault prevention and response

SAPRO Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office

SPCMCA special court-martial convening authority

UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice
112

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015
113

APPENDIX H: Sources Consulted

Appendix A: Statistical Report on Military Adjudication of Sexual Assault

1. LEGISLATIVE SOURCES

a. Enacted Statutes

10 U.S.C. §§ 801-946 (Uniform Code of Military Justice)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 110–417, 122 Stat. 4356 (2009) 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112–239, 126 Stat. 1632 (2013) 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-66, 127 Stat. 672 (2013)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-291, 128 Stat. 3292 (2014)

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. Code of Federal Regulations

32 C.F.R. § 105.15

c. Department of Defense 

Dep’t of Def. Instruction 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program

Procedures (March 28, 2013) (Incorporating Change 3, Effective May 24, 2017), available at

http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/649502p.pdf 

Dep’t of Def. Manual 6400.01-V2, DoD Manual for Child Maltreatment and Domestic Abuse

Incident Reporting System (August 11, 2016), available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/

corres/pdf/640001m_vol2.pdf

d. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c) and (d) 
114

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015

3. MEETINGS

a. Public Meetings of the Judicial Proceedings Panel 

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (November 14, 2014), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/public/ 

docs/05-Transcripts/20141114_Transcript_Final.pdf

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (September 18, 2015), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/public/ 

docs/05-Transcripts/20150918_Transcript_Final.pdf

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (October 9, 2015), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/public/docs/ 

05-Transcripts/20151009_Transcript_Final.pdf

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (November 6, 2015), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/ 

05-Transcripts/20151106_Transcript_Final.pdf

Transcript of JPP Public Meeting (April 7, 2017), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/ 

05-Transcripts/20170407_Transcript_Final.pdf

4. OFFICIAL POLICY STATEMENTS

Secretary of Defense Memorandum re Withholding Initial Disposition Authority Under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice in Certain Sexual Assault Cases (April 20, 2012), available at 

http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/03_Topic-Areas/09-Withholding_Authority/20160408/01_SecDef_

Memo_WithholdingAuthority_20120420.pdf 

5. 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. Report of the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel

Judicial Proceedings Panel Report on Statistical Data Regarding Military Adjudication of Sexual

Assault Offenses (April 2016), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/08-Panel_ Reports/ 

05_JPP_StatData_MilAdjud_SexAsslt_Report_Final_20160419.pdf 

c. Department of Defense Reports

Report of the Military Justice Review Group (December 22, 2015), available at http://ogc.osd.mil/

images/report_part1.pdf 

Dep’t of Def. Fiscal Year 2016 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military (May 1, 2017), available at 

http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY16_Annual/Appendix_C_Metrics_Section.pdf

Dep’t of Def. Fiscal Year 2015 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military (May 2, 2016), available at

http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY15_Annual/FY15_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault_

in_the_Military_Full_Report.pdf
115

APPENDIX H: SOURCES CONSULTED

Dep’t of Def. Fiscal Year 2014 Report on Sexual Assault in the Military (April 29, 2015), available 

at http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/reports/FY14_Annual/DoD_FY14_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_

Assault_in_the_Military.pdf

Dep’t of Def. Manpower Requirements Report for Fiscal Year 2017, available at 

http://www.people.mil/Portals/56/Documents/tfprq/FY17%20DMRR%20Final.pdf

6. OTHER REPORTS

Cassia Spohn, PhD, Adjudication of Sexual Offenses Reported to the Military Services in 2015 (May 

2017), available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/10-Reading_Room/20170519.pdf

7. RESPONSES TO JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL REQUESTS FOR 

INFORMATION

Department of Defense Response to JPP Request for Information 164A and B (April 5, 2017), 

available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/10-Reading_Room/20170519.pdf

Combined Responses from the Military Services to JPP Request for Information 89 (October 1, 2015), 

available at http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/07-RFI/Question_89/JPP_RFI_Q89_ServiceResponses.pdf

8. BOOKS

David A. Schlueter, Military Criminal Justice: Practice and Procedure (9th ed. 2015)

9. JOURNAL ARTICLES

Major Latisha Irwin, Justice in Enlisted Administrative Separations, 225 Mil. Law Rev. 35 (2017) 
116

REPORT ON STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING MILITARY ADJUDICATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OFFENSES 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015