Blue Angels XO?

[superhornet1015]

I served in the C.G. for 5 yrs and the Mi.A.N.G for 3 yrs. Yea being CO he should have known better, I don't think the guy needs to be burned at the stake. Would it be any different if it was a female CO, would she have been given the same treatment or would things have been swept under the carpet so to speak.Women can be just as raunchy as us guys. Porn in the military is always going to be there,it's never going to go away,including the sexual talk,gestures and so forth.

[TaiidanTomcat]

d. Opinion 32: Modify Opinion 32 to read: “The Blue Angels'

command structure has a significant gap in seniority and experience

between the Commanding Officer and his next senior officer. The

Commanding Officer is not only alone at the top, but he has no peer or

near-peer advisor to provide private command level feedback. In the

Fleet, this role is filled by the Executive Officer, who may or may

not "fleet up" to Commanding Officer, depending on the command. There

is no Executive Officer billet assigned to the Blue Angels. In the Blue Angels, this role is typically filled by the #5 pilot, who is a

junior pre-Department Head Lieutenant Commander. The Commanding

Officer’s isolation at the top is further exacerbated by the time and

focus required to learn the demonstration (even though, in this case

when Captain McWherter returned for his second command tour with the

Blue Angels, he knew how to fly the demonstration well). The OPTEMPO

and nature of the command’s detachment modus operandi make this

leadership structure all the more problematic. It creates an

environment with limited programmatic, administrative, and personnel

oversight. The Commanding Officer must delegate a great deal of his

authority to inexperienced subordinates in order to ensure that the

business of the squadron is conducted. This can easily lead to single

point failures and excursions from policy. In my opinion, creating a

true Executive Officer billet will fill this void and align the Blue

Angels’ leadership (Commanding Officer, Executive Officer, and Command

Master Chief) with the traditional, highly effective, and proven Fleet

"Command Triad" structure. [Findings of Fact: 27, 36-39, 211, 216]”

Report also makes sure to note that the Previous Blues Commander asked to be relieved and was viewed negatively by the squadron, When McWherter arrived he received a standing ovation from the squadron. McWherter also had no complaints his first tour with the Blues.

Captain McWherter had a successf ul and unmar red tour as the

Commanding Off i cer o f the Blue Angel s f rom 2008 to 201 0 . He was

popular and we ll- l i ked by h is Ready Room . In November 20 1 0, at the

scheduled concl usion of t his two- year tour, Commander David Koss

became the next Command ing Of fi cer of the Bl ue Angels . On 21 May

2011, Commander Koss commi tted a saf ety of f l ight violation du r i ng an

airshow in Lynchbu rg, Vi rginia . Subsequent l y , an airshow wa

cancelled and the team conducted a safety stand down. Through

deliberation and consultation with the Chief of Naval Air Training,

Commander Koss asked to be relieved of command of the Blue Angels.

Captain McWherter returned to the Blue Angels and re-assumed command

in May 2011, and remained in command until November 2012. Upon his

return, Captain McWherter received a "hero’s welcome" from his Ready

Room. I believe he subsequently became susceptible to hubris and

arrogance, blinding him to the common sense judgments expected of all

service members, but especially those entrusted with command.

“When Captain McWherter

was brought back to relieve Commander Koss in May 2011, he attempted

to reestablish the trust of the pilots through a similar approach as

in 2008. This was in marked contrast to how CDR Koss led the team,

which was a more traditional "fleet-style" Ready Room approach. Due

to concerns related primarily to flight safety, this time Captain

McWherter inherited a Ready Room with trust issues and a lack of

cohesiveness. The poor demonstration performances resulted in

increased tension, as well as a rise in personality conflicts within

the Ready Room. In his efforts to reestablish trust amongst the team,

Captain McWherter allowed his Ready Room to follow the will of the

majority -- often determined by Ready Room voting by the 8 Blue Angel

pilots (including the #8 Events Coordinator who was a Naval Flight

Officer) -- even when the path chosen was the wrong one. Minority

views were often ignored or disregarded -- even when these views

comported with Navy standards and policies. In doing so, Captain

McWherter abdicated the scope of his duties and the full range of

responsibilities inherent to command.

While hazing may not currently exist at the Blue Angels,

there are indications that it may have occurred in the recent

past, and without intervention and training, the possibility

exists that hazing could reemerge. The unique nature of the

Blue Angels mission and the heavy reliance on teamwork to

achieve success necessitates training requirements outside the

scope of a typical fleet squadron. In the past, many of the

practices associated with becoming a crest-wearing Blue Angel,

while value added, lacked supervision and transparency. These

shortcomings have undoubtedly allowed some deviations from the

Navy’s hazing policy. This issue is currently a focal point of

Blue Angels command leadership. No evidence of current

violations were discovered.

Officers of the Blue Angels during the 2011 and 2012

airshow seasons who hold the opinion that "there was nothing

inappropriate or sexually offensive in the Ready Room" (or words

to that effect) were either blind to the standard of what

constitutes sexual harassment, oblivious to the things around

them at the time, or otherwise biased towards support of CAPT

McWherter at all costs. Their inability to understand and act

according to the appropriate standard does not diminish or

refute the reality that such conditions did in fact exist.

Interesting finding. Anyone who saw otherwise was ignorant or lying?

The OPTEMPO and schedule of the Blue Angels are

contributing factors to the lack of oversight. Blue Angels

Sailors, officers and enlisted alike, are relied on for their

versatility and teamwork. Many individuals are dual-hatted and

“one deep,” limiting their ability to focus beyond their own

tasks at hand. The pace of the schedule and limited number of

personnel severely reduces training opportunities, internal

oversight, and bystander intervention. Additionally, they do

not fall under Type Wing cognizance and their Immediate Superior

In Command (ISIC) is not co-located, limiting external support

and oversight. [Findings of Fact: 21, 209-211, 218]

35. The Blue Angels officer application process lacks

transparency. Traditional Navy detailing has no resemblance to

this process, including the "rush" and finalist phases. Finding

the highly skilled and socially adept personnel the Blue Angels

require could be better accomplished by incorporating basic

detailing principles and increased oversight without eliminating

or devaluing the team's input. [Findings of Fact: 2-3, 213]

For some reason the other officers found in the report who made the remarks, posted the pictures, made the painting, and were committing the crimes, have had their names withheld from the report... Which is odd given the whole zero tolerance policy and all. Do they not deserve to be thrown out as well? Would ARC like to weigh in on what should happen to the people who actually committed the heinous acts but are getting away without the public ridicule? Why aren't all the offenders in the headlines?

Read it all here:

http://www.cpf.navy.mil/foia/reading-room/2014/06/blue-angels.pdf

Not surprisingly the USN figured out that its simply a horse too tough for one man to ride (21 century and all)

[fulcrum1]

Meanwhile the military is still reluctant to act about actual sexual assault within the unit. A little porn and crass joking will get you hammered and displayed in front of the whole service (a modern day hang, draw, and quarter on your reputation?), but sexual assault and rape is something you may get away with, or patted on the back for.

That's not true. Most assailants get away with sexual assault and/or rape whether they're in the military or not. The increase you see within the military of both female and male victims is due to the access the individual has for reporting the offense, female and males working in closer environments they previously did not, and a change in attitude towards sexual habits amongst younger people. Statistically, our college campuses are ground zero for sexual assault/rape, but how much do you actually hear about that? Sexual Assault and prevention is currently the boss’s number one priority which means it is our number one priority from higher down to the boot level within both the Marines and Army.

[fulcrum1]

When I was in, I flew the jet and did my ground duties. For fun, I went out and played basketball and flag football, went to movies, took college classes, played chess, raced my dirt bike, read good books, built models, responsibly dated girls, and eventually got married and had kids.

I'm of the same mold, but in Command you can’t build a tight cohesive unit without trust. How you build that trust is in my opinion your worth as a Commander, but in this era of service coming down from 12 years in combat, force shaping, the integration of homosexuals, women into combat roles, and soon transgender individuals it becomes a daunting task. Playing games, having BBQs, and doing family functions are all great, but that doesn’t build a team up like training hard and seriously spending time with those under your command in less than ideal conditions where you get to know one another and sacrifice with each other. I’m not excusing his actions, but I understand them, and I also understand how quickly something can go wrong when you let comfortable.

[fulcrum1]

I also love the "You've never served in the military" line. Always nice that as soon as someone questions the "just let the boys be boys" mentality, he get's grilled about his service.

I don’t think someone can’t understand the culture unless you’ve been a part of it. How can you understand Command if you’ve never done it? Trying to build cohesiveness is not going to be accomplished through BBQ’s, FRG meetings, and softball. It comes through mutual sacrifice, training, and focus. A byproduct of building close knit groups is you find out what makes one another tick, vices and all. I’m not excusing his actions as he did cross the line, but somebody in his organization threw him under the bus. Instead of handling this in house it went around the change of command. The person who was offended should have had the moral courage and fortitude to tell the Commander their feelings before dropping an IG complaint first. I’m not defending his actions, but I’m also not one to condemn them and jump on moral bandwagon.

http://www.wtoc.com/story/26114039/night-stalkers-3rd-battalion-picnic-on-tybee-island

Another non-elite unit, doing something for morale. How lame. Can't imagine what these guys were thinking. They should have been painting the roofs of their hangers and handing out porn during formation.

Mother of Mary, those dudes are the purveyor of sin.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I'm of the same mold, but in Command you can’t build a tight cohesive unit without trust. How you build that trust is in my opinion your worth as a Commander, but in this era of service coming down from 12 years in combat, force shaping, the integration of homosexuals, women into combat roles, and soon transgender individuals it becomes a daunting task. Playing games, having BBQs, and doing family functions are all great, but that doesn’t build a team up like training hard and seriously spending time with those under your command in less than ideal conditions where you get to know one another and sacrifice with each other. I’m not excusing his actions, but I understand them, and I also understand how quickly something can go wrong when you let comfortable.

Yep. Military commanders are dealing with issues that have never been dealt with before and certainly not all of it at once, and along with the steep learning curve, there are seriously harsh penalties if someone goes to far, or not far enough. The friction and stress at all levels is enormous. Its the antithesis to the military way: subtlety, individuality, double standards and special treatment are not normal military virtues. In fact a large part of basic training is trying to eliminate and limit those traits as soon as possible. But now commanders are being told to celebrate these things, when the tradition was to bury it because we are all "green" or "blue" and shouldn't get hung up on stupid things like that with a mission to accomplish. A lot of this stuff was supposed to be long gone in bootcamp, and troops beyond it but now it is in the regular units who have to find ways thru or around it, but they don't have the benefit of highly structured training command with lots of authority near by.

Militaries do not celebrate diversity, they celebrate uniformity. Thats why that slide makes no sense to me. Rank should be the only thing you have to take into account, not gender and race. Rank is recognized, color and gender blind is how it should be...but its not.

Its needs to be remembered that even the civilian world is trying to come to grips with all this, and with varying levels of success. One problem is when you are caught in close quarters there is no neighborhood or bar that one group goes to and the other group goes to another bar or neighborhood. The civilian population for as much as it talks about "diversity" and "melting pots" and such does a wonderful job of keeping away from each other. The military has to actually make it work, and its really not easy. especially without trust.

Even adding females to a unit changes the dynamic and complicates logistics. Thats not me being sexist, that just the reality of it. Unless you want the ladies showering with the men, doing the same PT, and sleeping in the same areas. you have to start making different accommodations. it complicates things. Now I'm not saying throw women out, but its just a matter of reality. Units change when females get mixed in, because nature. It does change the trust level. I have no problem speaking with a male 1 v 1. I am terrified to speak to a female alone, history tells me thats not unreasonable.

I don’t think someone can’t understand the culture unless you’ve been a part of it. How can you understand Command if you’ve never done it? Trying to build cohesiveness is not going to be accomplished through BBQ’s, FRG meetings, and softball. It comes through mutual sacrifice, training, and focus. A byproduct of building close knit groups is you find out what makes one another tick, vices and all. I’m not excusing his actions as he did cross the line, but somebody in his organization threw him under the bus. Instead of handling this in house it went around the change of command. The person who was offended should have had the moral courage and fortitude to tell the Commander their feelings before dropping an IG complaint first. I’m not defending his actions, but I’m also not one to condemn them and jump on moral bandwagon.

Exactly. As people are quick to demonize the CO, its worth noting that his troops got well out of line. This was not a one man operation and I think there seems to be this notion that he was the ONE guy painting, posting, and showing inappropriate things and that was simply not the case. For as much as posters here have been quick to say "anyone knows this is wrong, especially a pilot with a college degree" I wonder why so many people did the "obviously wrong" thing. Strange. Even more strange, with a loose command and everyone being ethical intelligent people who "ought to know better", the CO not being by the book should not have had much effect right? since everyone is a boy scout?

He deserves blame because he is responsible for that unit, but to put all that on him is ridiculous. I hope ARC is calling for all the other culprits heads as well. There were a lot of offenders, and that report makes it pretty clear that he didn't do a lot of what happened personally. The buck still stops with him, but there are other people who should be punished as well, and they aren't being named. So many officers and leaders filling that amoral vacuum should be just as disturbing if not more so to the outraged.

Mother of Mary, those dudes are the purveyor of sin.

No Brian, didn't you read the press release? If the press reports nothing, then nothing is wrong. Just like the Angels in 2011:

Wow!! What an excellent unit!! I'm going to join right now!! They even said all the right things!!

Edited July 28, 2014 by TaiidanTomcat

[Exhausted]

That's not true. Most assailants get away with sexual assault and/or rape whether they're in the military or not. The increase you see within the military of both female and male victims is due to the access the individual has for reporting the offense, female and males working in closer environments they previously did not, and a change in attitude towards sexual habits amongst younger people. Statistically, our college campuses are ground zero for sexual assault/rape, but how much do you actually hear about that? Sexual Assault and prevention is currently the boss’s number one priority which means it is our number one priority from higher down to the boot level within both the Marines and Army.

I'm calling you out on some points:

Since 2013 NPR has aired many segments about college sexual assault. Many of the contributors call upon colleges to address sexual assault and have even proposed doing away with frat houses. So to anyone with access to a radio, or public television, the issues colleges are facing are easy to dig up. The media practically does it for you. In addition, some states are proposing legislation that limits college funding if sexual abuse isn't effectively combated.

http://www.npr.org/2014/05/01/308607420/when-college-sexual-assault-panels-fall-short-and-when-they-help

Thursday, the federal government sent a message that it's taking sexual harassment on college campuses seriously. Education officials released the names of 55 schools facing investigation for their handling of sexual abuse allegations. This comes after the White House issued new guidelines for colleges on Tuesday.

Last week the University of Texas at Austin added two athletes to its roster of students tried for sexual assault. This came in short succession after other students were thrown out and charged earlier this year. They are banned from campus and all events the school participates in off campus. In addition, they are being held in Travis County Jail.

Regarding sexual assault in the military, here is why rapists are likely to get away with their crimes. Victims are more likely to be assault and ridiculed for reporting sexual assault than they are to get help, especially on deployments. Greater access to reporting has granted rise to reports, but less than one in five are documented since the push to grant more access to victims. Many victims don't trust their command to do the right thing, and what I know from personal experience (not a victim, but worked with some) is that many are punished for reporting and the C/O has the ultimate authority to grant investigation or not. There is actually more depth to this regarding restricted and unrestricted reporting, but Congress still allows the C/O to make the final call and that means that if one of their best workers has a reputation for sexual assault, then carry on sailor.

For these reasons you have your facts mixed up. Every college is different, but sexual assault is being more effectively combated at many universities, such as the University of Texas, then it is at the unit level in the US Military. Like Tomcat said, this is the Navy attempting to highlight a case to *appear* tough on sexual abuse without actually tackling its true problems.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Exhausted

[DutyCat]

I'm very curious to find out just how often all this stuff happened and how much of it was behind closed doors.

Well, I can say that in the wee hours, our shop, once and awhile, would load up the old VHS tapes that someone has snuck aboard and have a training film screening. It wasn't all the time, and I think I was only in the room once for it. I just wasn't into watching and cheer leading with a bunch of other dudes.

Also, the Intel O would put some nice shots in his recce slide show to keep everyone awake, but that was pretty harmless. They probably can't even do that now, unless they want to go equal time and show a slide of some guy swinging his johnson for the splits in the room. Shame.

Translation for those who have never heard it: split=a truncation of split tail; a "crack" aviator; female.

Edited July 28, 2014 by DutyCat

[DutyCat]

Yep. Military commanders are dealing with issues that have never been dealt with before and certainly not all of it at once, and along with the steep learning curve, there are seriously harsh penalties if someone goes to far, or not far enough. The friction and stress at all levels is enormous. Its the antithesis to the military way: subtlety, individuality, double standards and special treatment are not normal military virtues. In fact a large part of basic training is trying to eliminate and limit those traits as soon as possible. But now commanders are being told to celebrate these things, when the tradition was to bury it because we are all "green" or "blue" and shouldn't get hung up on stupid things like that with a mission to accomplish. A lot of this stuff was supposed to be long gone in bootcamp, and troops beyond it but now it is in the regular units who have to find ways thru or around it, but they don't have the benefit of highly structured training command with lots of authority near by.

Militaries do not celebrate diversity, they celebrate uniformity. Thats why that slide makes no sense to me. Rank should be the only thing you have to take into account, not gender and race. Rank is recognized, color and gender blind is how it should be...but its not.

Its needs to be remembered that even the civilian world is trying to come to grips with all this, and with varying levels of success. One problem is when you are caught in close quarters there is no neighborhood or bar that one group goes to and the other group goes to another bar or neighborhood. The civilian population for as much as it talks about "diversity" and "melting pots" and such does a wonderful job of keeping away from each other. The military has to actually make it work, and its really not easy. especially without trust.

Even adding females to a unit changes the dynamic and complicates logistics. Thats not me being sexist, that just the reality of it. Unless you want the ladies showering with the men, doing the same PT, and sleeping in the same areas. you have to start making different accommodations. it complicates things. Now I'm not saying throw women out, but its just a matter of reality. Units change when females get mixed in, because nature. It does change the trust level. I have no problem speaking with a male 1 v 1. I am terrified to speak to a female alone, history tells me thats not unreasonable.

I think, at the force level, they can play the PC game and talk about diversity all they want.

The reality is that soldiers/sailors since after WWII have worked with others of different backgrounds. Sure, celebrate your diversity, be proud of your heritage. But there is only one official Navy way to do something, and it does not matter whether you are black, white, female, male, transgender, or whatever. Just act professionally at all times while on duty. The boundaries are clear enough, and if you have doubts, then back off a notch. I really don't think it is that difficult on a personal level, day to day. You do not have to hang out with a person you do not particularly like, but you may have to work with them.

Far more difficult to deal with are the practical matters when it comes to females in the unit...habitation, fraternization, combat effectiveness of the unit in the field, sexual harassment allegations, etc.

Edited July 29, 2014 by DutyCat

[Don]

Since 2013 NPR has aired many segments about college sexual assault. Many of the contributors call upon colleges to address sexual assault and have even proposed doing away with frat houses. So to anyone with access to a radio, or public television, the issues colleges are facing are easy to dig up. The media practically does it for you....

Not that I really care to be dragged into this (because I don't), and this is kinda straying off topic...but honestly...do you (or anyone here) really and truly trust what the media says and does? Really? In this day and age of misinformation/disinformation, selective reporting/downright ignoring and fabrication etc the media really isn't close to being a completely trustworthy source of information. By media I include NPR in that along with the rest. They ALL have an agenda, and that agenda is politically driven (most often by the Politically Correct hypersensitive police). So, personally I don't want the media (any media) doing anything for me whatsoever. Also (and I couldn't care less about frat houses), if frat houses go does this also mean that sorority houses go as well? What about the organizations/clubs/houses for LGBT(add in whatever letter to that that you wish nowadays I suppose)? Not all frat houses are evil dens of ill repute...anymore then LGBT(....yatta yatta yatta) or sorority houses are either. Or, is this yet another attack on the seemingly never ending attacks on straight males in today's society? Now, don't get me wrong. Sexual abuse when proven to have taken place should be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law regardless of what gender/organization has committed said crime. Period! But we also don't need witch hunts (a la Duke Lacrosse...) or crack down on young men getting up to LEGAL shenanigans that young men have been doing forever simply because they are targets of choice in today's society (key word there was "legal").

[Exhausted]

If you don't trust the media then why didn't this comment come up sooner in a thread about a Facebook post and a Navy Times article?

Every point you brought up is frequently brought up when someone reports a sexual assault. That's part of the stigma victims, both female and male, deal with just to get someone to do something about the bad guys.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Exhausted

[Don]

If you don't trust the media then why didn't this comment come up sooner in a thread about a Facebook post and a Navy Times article?

I believe it did come up here at some point (but I haven't been following this thread particularly closely as others have). If not, then I to am surprised as media bumbling/bungling/ineptitude/sensationalizing/omitting/fabricating and its driving of political agendas certainly DOES come into question frequently on many topics here on ARC and elsewhere (one need not look any farther then the F-35 thread ;) ). Regardless, my questions still stand and are completely valid. Yes, I don't blindly trust the media and I suspect that I am not alone in that either. Trusting everything you see/read or hear from the media (any outlet, from anywhere) without questioning it or doing your own research is folly... in my personal opinion. But hey...each to their own.

[TaiidanTomcat]

But there is only one official Navy way to to something, and it does not matter whether you are black, white, female, male, transgender, or whatever.

So who is going to tell the navy? "Official Navy way" is saying that it does matter. hence the CMEO, and the office of diversity and inclusion. And there can't be one way to do something when there are multiple standards.

Its really easy to stand back and say "well just act professionally and get along" actually making that happen in a high stress environment and close quarters that demands cohesion and trust is not easy especially when the only constant is change. And What has happened is officers and NCOs have had to be there where the rubber meets the road, and all the PC and cliches and platitudes don't help them one bit. The SOP has basically been "well figure it out" and the military is still trying to figure it out, and not getting a lot of positive help from the people who make the demands and then wash their hands of the problems that arise.

[fulcrum1]

Last week the University of Texas at Austin added two athletes to its roster of students tried for sexual assault. This came in short succession after other students were thrown out and charged earlier this year. They are banned from campus and all events the school participates in off campus. In addition, they are being held in Travis County Jail.

That school has roughly 50K post grads and undergrads. Two athletes although high profile are a drop in the bucket compared to the larger issues at hand just within that school. Lets take a look at Kandahar Air Base which closely mirrors the post graduate size of that Campus, we haven’t had an anonymous report in several months of any sexual assault, did one probably occur? Yes, but the fact that we’re seeing a positive trend of reporting and then a drop shows that through education and avenues of approach that keeps the complaint/accusation confidential is a start.

The problem with prosecuting an assault/rape is and will always be burden of proof, which often times comes down to a he said she said. Where the military has a leg up on the Civilian side is even though there isn’t enough evidence to bring forth Justice or the statement the victim has written has fabrications in it, the Commander has Article 134 and some other tools in which you can charge an individual and begin the paperwork into chaptering that individual out of the military. Are there Commanders out there who’ve failed? Yes! But a few bad apples is not representative of the entire whole.

Regarding sexual assault in the military, here is why rapists are likely to get away with their crimes. Victims are more likely to be assault and ridiculed for reporting sexual assault than they are to get help, especially on deployments. Greater access to reporting has granted rise to reports, but less than one in five are documented since the push to grant more access to victims. Many victims don't trust their command to do the right thing, and what I know from personal experience (not a victim, but worked with some) is that many are punished for reporting and the C/O has the ultimate authority to grant investigation or not. There is actually more depth to this regarding restricted and unrestricted reporting, but Congress still allows the C/O to make the final call and that means that if one of their best workers has a reputation for sexual assault, then carry on sailor.

They got the 1 in 5 from sensing sessions done at the Company level, so yes, it is documented. I also agree that trust is lost in Command, but that’s an entirely different issue that has always plagued leadership within militaries.

A Commander in the Army or the Marines does not have the choice whether to investigate or not, they must appoint another officer to start the investigation. In regards to sexual crimes those are usually differed through the appropriate investigators outside the Chain of Command, and by outside I mean not even attached to the Division, think CID and NCIS.

For these reasons you have your facts mixed up.

Within the military? Not at all, but on the civilian side that is my opinion and experience having been in Law Enforcement and having dealt with this issue working with the University of California in 2005 which on average has 250K students.

Every college is different, but sexual assault is being more effectively combated at many universities, such as the University of Texas, then it is at the unit level in the US Military.

How so? On average Soldiers are required to attend over 80 hours of training on this subject. During every safety brief on Friday it is reiterated, during every in processing you’ll spend 10-15 minutes just on this topic, all new Soldiers have sponsors assigned, barracks room are checked, and rechecked nightly for infractions. It has been for the past year and is now the number one priority within the military. You show me a technique that the UoT is doing and can be applied to the military and I’ll see if we can implement something similar at my level, I’m serious.

[Exhausted]

A great tactic would be not having your officers and NCOs retaliate on you for pursuing a sexual assault charge. One statistic that cannot be accounted for are how many sexual assault reports are disregarded/ignored. Maybe it's worth noting that in 2011 the House classified rape as an occupation hazard of military service. This latest round of the witch-hunt that ended with Blues' XO being fired is just for show.

For a young or unpopular military member trying to meet the burden of proof, the runaround is frequently a marathon with no definite end. Here is a movie that helped influence the Senate Defense Committee to pursue sexual assault more aggressively. Clearly , if you don't trust the media then now would be a good opportunity to return under your rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbImcfXCNTQ

Edited July 30, 2014 by Exhausted

[fulcrum1]

A great tactic would be not having your officers and NCOs retaliate on you for pursuing a sexual assault charge.

So you have no solutions that show where the UoT has excelled?

Well I can tell you where the Army has made strides in this area and that is through educating every single individual regardless of rank the avenues they have for reporting said offense. We have between a 50-70% increase in reporting so I think the “fear” has subsided some. Regardless of the offense, the fear or retaliation will always hinder many areas of the military, which is due to the nature of small, close knit units, not necessarily the crime involved. However, the fear of retaliation from family members, friends, or in the work place is common for victims and if you look at the percentage rates which are a google away you’ll find our College campuses still lead the way in this area.

One statistic that cannot be accounted for are how many sexual assault reports are disregarded/ignored.

You don’t understand, every report unless it’s restricted must be investigated by an officer outside of the organization in what we call a 15-6. Depending on the nature of the offense it is often times handed over to military police, but it’s still investigated. Now if said service member went to their lower level leadership then it is upon that leader to report it, which is an area we’ve failed. To mitigate this, there are multiple methods of reporting said crime outside and within the organization that can evaluate and ensure the offenses is logged and at that point all levels of Command are informed and within minutes action is taken. You read that right, minutes. Now if that NCO or 1/2LT is found to have ignored the issue or put the report on the backburner, they will face UMCJ action and their career is over. At the Command level, all accusations of sex crimes will be investigated. There is no more discrepancy in this area, the way we conducted business ten years ago in Garrison and in Iraq are over.

For a young or unpopular military member trying to meet the burden of proof, the runaround is frequently a marathon with no definite end.

Brother, it’s the same for all sexual crimes regardless of the uniform you wear.

Here is a movie that helped influence the Senate Defense Committee to pursue sexual assault more aggressively. Of course, if you don't trust the media then now would be a good opportunity to return under your rock.

Under my rock? Argue and debate the topic not the person. Use facts not outlined in a sensational documentary that gets its own facts wrong. However, the film being a sensational piece did drive education within the ranks and caused the issue to be elevated on all levels. This is necessary due to what the military will be facing in the coming years with the integration of women into combat arms. Back to the film though, neither the individuals nor those made the film have a clear understanding of UCMJ nor what authority at which level the Commander has. It assumed that a CPT (O3) has the same authority that is held at the COL (O6) level. Restricted reports are not shunted or pushed off to the side, rather it’s the victims choice based off of many factors. How many young men want to admit they were victimized? How many of the victims are married? How many of the victims don’t want it reported they were using drugs at the time? There are a variety of reasons for restricted reports, but even if it is restricted a SHARP rep is still assigned and along with another person who can provide confidential assistance outside the Chain of Command. Now, as happened before with me when a service member approaches me to tell me what happened I stop them and inform them exactly what will happen if it is unrestricted, an investigation will occur and there is no stopping it once you make the statement.

Where the film lost all creditability with me was when the statement that rape is an occupational hazard of military service was made. I’ve read the case, nowhere is it mentioned nor can anyone produce any court case stating such. Another point to consider is why only white women were portrayed when the majority of victims are not white and 1/3 to 40% are men? Or the fact the rise in sexual offenses can be attributed to the changing roles and integration of females in an asymmetric battlefield?

[TaiidanTomcat]

This is necessary due to what the military will be facing in the coming years with the integration of women into combat arms...

... Or the fact the rise in sexual offenses can be attributed to the changing roles and integration of females in an asymmetric battlefield?

This makes me queasy just to think about. We still don't have this under control in the state that its in (It didn't surprise me that the gov. report I posted made sure to mention the 94 tailhook scandal), and now we are looking at upping the ante. :wacko:

We have been at this 20 years, and its failing in the exact ways that many people predicted and specified and outlined 20 years ago.

Bee Tee Dubs, finding the exchange between Exhausted and Fulcrum interesting-- learning from both of you two

[82Whitey51]

Don't forget about the Transgender service men and woman too...that is the Pentagon's latest agenda.

What the military needs is a good ol' fashioned war...

Whenever I hear about these "issues" within out military this line from "Apocalypse Now" always comes to mind for some reason:

Charlie didn't get much USO. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat.

[82Whitey51]

Don't forget about the Transgender service men and woman too...that is the Pentagon's latest agenda.

What the military needs is a good ol' fashioned war...

Whenever I hear about these "issues" within our military this line from "Apocalypse Now" always comes to mind for some reason:

Charlie didn't get much USO. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat.

[Don]

...Clearly , if you don't trust the media then now would be a good opportunity to return under your rock.

LOL...or, if you are easily lead and misguided then just keep on being the good little sheep and blindly go along with what the media is feeding you without question or verification. By all means, believe everything you hear, everything you see...it must be true, it must be fact, it could not possibly have some political angle or agenda, it couldn't be sensationalized whatsoever. I mean, it's the media...they never ever get things horribly wrong, they never overreact, nor have they ever been used to grind political or social agenda axes. Never. Complete saints they are. Please...

[TaiidanTomcat]

Don't forget about the Transgender service men and woman too...that is the Pentagon's latest agenda.

What the military needs is a good ol' fashioned war...

Whenever I hear about these "issues" within our military this line from "Apocalypse Now" always comes to mind for some reason:

Charlie didn't get much USO. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat.

I agree, and without distracting the topic further with regards to the transgen, i am just amazed that so much hooplah is being generated for what has to be such a small percentage of military personnel that would fit into that category. Even females only make up 14 percent of the US Armed Forces, but we have seen a massive institutional challenge to the 86 percent of males to accommodate that small percentage of females and you have seen the huge amount of fallout to essentially cater to a very small percentage of the armed forces.

IMHO the amount of pain and problems inflicted to get a such a low percentage is simply not worth it. And in the past when the military has been confronted with having to make huge changes to accommodate a small minority the military has balked and made rules that either ban it outright or curtail it for the good of the institution.

[Exhausted]

So you have no solutions that show where the UoT has excelled?

Well I can tell you where the Army has made strides in this area and that is through educating every single individual regardless of rank the avenues they have for reporting said offense. We have between a 50-70% increase in reporting so I think the “fear” has subsided some. Regardless of the offense, the fear or retaliation will always hinder many areas of the military, which is due to the nature of small, close knit units, not necessarily the crime involved. However, the fear of retaliation from family members, friends, or in the work place is common for victims and if you look at the percentage rates which are a google away you’ll find our College campuses still lead the way in this area.

You don’t understand, every report unless it’s restricted must be investigated by an officer outside of the organization in what we call a 15-6. Depending on the nature of the offense it is often times handed over to military police, but it’s still investigated. Now if said service member went to their lower level leadership then it is upon that leader to report it, which is an area we’ve failed. To mitigate this, there are multiple methods of reporting said crime outside and within the organization that can evaluate and ensure the offenses is logged and at that point all levels of Command are informed and within minutes action is taken. You read that right, minutes. Now if that NCO or 1/2LT is found to have ignored the issue or put the report on the backburner, they will face UMCJ action and their career is over. At the Command level, all accusations of sex crimes will be investigated. There is no more discrepancy in this area, the way we conducted business ten years ago in Garrison and in Iraq are over.

Brother, it’s the same for all sexual crimes regardless of the uniform you wear.

Under my rock? Argue and debate the topic not the person. Use facts not outlined in a sensational documentary that gets its own facts wrong. However, the film being a sensational piece did drive education within the ranks and caused the issue to be elevated on all levels. This is necessary due to what the military will be facing in the coming years with the integration of women into combat arms. Back to the film though, neither the individuals nor those made the film have a clear understanding of UCMJ nor what authority at which level the Commander has. It assumed that a CPT (O3) has the same authority that is held at the COL (O6) level. Restricted reports are not shunted or pushed off to the side, rather it’s the victims choice based off of many factors. How many young men want to admit they were victimized? How many of the victims are married? How many of the victims don’t want it reported they were using drugs at the time? There are a variety of reasons for restricted reports, but even if it is restricted a SHARP rep is still assigned and along with another person who can provide confidential assistance outside the Chain of Command. Now, as happened before with me when a service member approaches me to tell me what happened I stop them and inform them exactly what will happen if it is unrestricted, an investigation will occur and there is no stopping it once you make the statement.

Where the film lost all creditability with me was when the statement that rape is an occupational hazard of military service was made. I’ve read the case, nowhere is it mentioned nor can anyone produce any court case stating such. Another point to consider is why only white women were portrayed when the majority of victims are not white and 1/3 to 40% are men? Or the fact the rise in sexual offenses can be attributed to the changing roles and integration of females in an asymmetric battlefield?

I think your, erm, argument is taking on a life of its own. It's heavy and hard-hitting, but I'm not sure where it fits, or if you know where to put your focus. Concentrating this late in the game on UT's ability to pursue sex offenders to a degree that satisfies and helps victims isn't exactly relevant since your earlier post claims in error that colleges are worse at combating sexual assault than the military. This is wrong because it is easier for a student to report the assault and more likely that city or campus police will not only act swiftly to arrest the suspect, but also build a case to convict the correct offender than it is for military members, both enlisted and officer, to gain even a fraction of justice.

Your claim that my lack of, ahem, "evidence" that colleges haven't battled sexual trauma better than the military is preposterous because you haven't met the slightest burden of proof to the contrary. I've been on both sides, military and student, and I personally know females who have faced sexual abuse in the US Navy who are being punished by their commands and had their cases "lost" by command -- in 2014!

I understand how a UVA works in the military, and what restricted and unrestricted reporting means, however one of the claims made in the Invisible War is that restricted reporting exists not for the purpose of giving victims the support they need, but instead it exists as a means to continue protecting sex offenders in the military. These perps go on to pin on brass, and "member of the year" awards. The DoD has every incentive to keep suppress sexual assault claims, and I'll repeat that the House, in 2011, classified sexual assault as an occupational hazard of military service and thus denies victims the right to sue their rapists in civilian courts due to that classification.

Lastly, in the absence of actual statistics from every US college, and every US military branch, I offer this. When I search Google.com for NEWS regarding "college sexual assault arrests 2014" I get 81,000 returns. When I search Google.com for NEWS regarding "us military sexual assault arrests 2014" I get 57 returns.

Yes, Fulcrum1, the military looks like it is doing better to combat sexual abuse.... if you are observing from another galaxy.

[fulcrum1]

Concentrating this late in the game on UT's ability to pursue sex offenders to a degree that satisfies and helps victims isn't exactly relevant since your earlier post claims in error that colleges are worse at combating sexual assault than the military.

You brought UoT and how it punished two football players and how colleges do a better job soI asked for example of how colleges are doing a better job than the military. If you can tell me of a program that works, I’ll look into it and see how I can improve the situation from my foxhole. I’m all ears for working systems.

This is wrong because it is easier for a student to report the assault and more likely that city or campus police will not only act swiftly to arrest the suspect, but also build a case to convict the correct offender than it is for military members, both enlisted and officer, to gain even a fraction of justice.

How is it easier? Walk the dog with me. Show me what avenues a college student has the military does not. Police? We have them. Federal Agents, got those too. IG, CG, and Garrison Command all have hotlines. Likewise open policies with the BN CoC and BDE CoC along with half a dozen manned hotlines if you want to call in, the hospital has behavioral health specialist trained specifically in dealing with this so when the rape kit is done all decency and respect is given, we have Chaplains in and outside of the organization, and we also have senior NCOs who are on call to help and assist victims outside of their CoC in order to give support to the victim. The military will pay all expenses if treatment both mental and physical is needed with on or off post doctors and specialists. Most of the time the offense happened off post in which case the local and state Law Enforcement are involved and work hand in hand with the military installation. There is no justice in sexual crimes and the ones we can convict mirror the same issues the civilian courts face. The reason we do take the lead in many cases is because of UCMJ. No one thinks to ask the DA’s office how often they work with our JAG corps in these cases to bring some form of justice to the victim. The threshold for burden of proof is lower in the military than the civilian side for other articles within UCMJ you can get someone on.

Your claim that my lack of, ahem, "evidence" that colleges haven't battled sexual trauma better than the military is preposterous because you haven't met the slightest burden of proof to the contrary.

I just listed off the top of my head what the military offers. You made the claim, not me. Show me where I’m wrong and show me how we can do better and in what areas. If they make sense and I can facilitate I’ll do it.

I've been on both sides, military and student, and I personally know females who have faced sexual abuse in the US Navy who are being punished by their commands and had their cases "lost" by command -- in 2014!

I can’t fully speak to what the Navy has to offer, but they do have an IG system at various levels they need to contact. If the cases were “lost” they can be found and in doing so the CoC will have appropriate action taken.

I understand how a UVA works in the military, and what restricted and unrestricted reporting means, however one of the claims made in the Invisible War is that restricted reporting exists not for the purpose of giving victims the support they need, but instead it exists as a means to continue protecting sex offenders in the military.

The documentary didn’t do due diligence to present how the system works and where it actually fails. A restricted report allows a victim to receive medical treatment and support without triggering a criminal investigation. This affords victims additional time to weigh their options and see guidance about whether or not to participate in a criminal investigation at a later time. The only requirement is that Soldiers who are sexually assaulted and desire restricted reporting must report the assault to the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC), Victim Advocate, Chaplain or a Healthcare Provider. Both the SARC and Chaplain can be inside our outside the CoC depending on the victims preference. What restricted reporting allows is protection for the victim and her decision. If you know what restricted and unrestricted reporting is you would know the documentary painted an inaccurate picture.

These perps go on to pin on brass, and "member of the year" awards.

Sadly a few do. On the civilian side we call them doctors, school teachers, politicians, clergy, it’s not exclusive to the military. However, the thinking that perps go on to pin brass shows a prejudice similar to that of the documentary.

The DoD has every incentive to keep suppress sexual assault claims, and I'll repeat that the House, in 2011, classified sexual assault as an occupational hazard of military service and thus denies victims the right to sue their rapists in civilian courts due to that classification.

Then why has the DoD been trying to fix this issue since 2010? Most Navy Commanders who were relieved in the past six years were due to misconduct, not necessarily sexual, but misconduct. We are in a zero defect military where an accusation is enough currently to sink a career. I don’t know what Congress classifies as an occupational hazard, I just know the military has never and will never treat it as such.

Lastly, in the absence of actual statistics.

This is a start, http://chronicle.com/article/Is-Reporting-Campus-Sex/147327/

Yes, Fulcrum1, the military looks like it is doing better to combat sexual abuse.... if you are observing from another galaxy.

I ask again, please, let me know how they are.

[fulcrum1]

and I'll repeat that the House, in 2011, classified sexual assault as an occupational hazard of military service and thus denies victims the right to sue their rapists in civilian courts due to that classification.

I don't think so, but if I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. Where, when, and who specifically said this?

[Exhausted]

At this point I really think your sole intention is just to cloud the issue up. You are just stalling the issues by breaking them up so much, but that requires the other side to take the bait in order to be effective. Repeated stalling is part of the problem the military has when combating sexual abuse.

Your link doesn't offer the statistics your promised, in fact it doesn't contain a single one. I think your attempt a few pages back to equate the problems with sexual assault in colleges and in the military was a bad idea because it implies they are equal and run the same way -- they don't. Leadership and authority are broken up in many different ways. A closer comparison would have been higher education, and the military + private contractors, but even that is far off base for purposes of comparison. The facts remain: Both the US military and US colleges face credibility issues when it comes to protecting vulnerable members from sexual abuse, AND prosecuting the offenders. It is much harder for a victim to seek justice and see rapists prosecuted in the US military than it is in colleges due to the many breakdowns in the system of military justice.

This relates back to the original topic because the Blue Angels XO's firing was just an offering to the mainstream media as a show that the Navy is taking these issues more seriously. However, the discerning reader with experience and understanding of the systems in place easily places this in the pile of cases regarding scapegoats. This perpetuates sexual assault in the military because this isn't sending the correct message to those who need to receive it the most -- the victims.