This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-579
entitled 'Military Justice: Oversight and Better Collaboration Needed
for Sexual Assault Investigations and Adjudications' which was
released on June 22, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Committee on Armed
Services, House of Representatives:
June 2011:
Military Justice:
Oversight and Better Collaboration Needed for Sexual Assault
Investigations and Adjudications:
GAO-11-579:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-579, a report to the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The crime of sexual assault has serious consequences for both the
aggrieved and the accused. The severity of these consequences
underscores the importance of impartially administering justice in
order to promote accountability and confidence that such allegations
are taken seriously. GAO was asked to address the extent to which (1)
the Department of Defense (DOD) conducts oversight of the military
services’ investigative organizations and (2) the services provide
resources for investigations and adjudications of alleged sexual
assault incidents. GAO also identified an issue relating to the military
’s criminal code during this review. GAO analyzed relevant DOD and
service policies and procedures; reviewed applicable laws, including
provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice; and interviewed
senior DOD and service officials, including a total of 48 judge
advocates and DOD civilian lawyers, at the headquarters level and at
five selected military installations.
What GAO Found:
Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) developed a policy
on sexual assault prevention and response. In June 2006, OSD published
DOD Instruction 6495.02, which specifies that the DOD Inspector General’
s Office shall develop policy and oversee sexual assault
investigations and related training for the DOD criminal investigative
organizations. However, the Inspector General’s Office has not
performed these responsibilities, primarily because it believes it has
other, higher priorities. For example, GAO found no evidence of
Inspector General oversight at the service level for any of the 2,594
sexual assault investigations that DOD reported the services completed
in fiscal year 2010. Without a policy and plan for conducting
oversight, the Inspector General’s Office will remain limited in its
ability to help ensure consistency and accountability, and that
training is being conducted in the most effective manner.
Consistent with the Secretary of Defense’s priorities for sexual
assault prevention and response, each service provides various
resources to support investigations and adjudications of alleged
sexual assault incidents. Specifically, each service has provided
personnel who advise and assist on investigations and adjudications of
sexual assault incidents. Each service’s investigative and legal
organizations also received funding, above their operating budgets,
for efforts to enhance investigations and adjudications of sexual
assault. For example, in fiscal year 2009, Army investigators received
$4.4 million to redesign training on sexual assault investigations.
However, the services’ investigative and legal organizations are not
fully capitalizing on opportunities to leverage each other’s expertise
and limited resources. For example, the Secretary of Defense, as part
of the Base Realignment and Closure process, recommended that the
services’ investigative organizations co-locate to achieve operational
synergies. However, the services currently have no plan for using
opportunities such as the co-location—-a move that has cost over $426
million and reportedly saved about $53 million for infrastructure
support from fiscal years 2006 through 2011—-to better leverage
expertise and limited resources. Judge advocates also collaborate on
some initiatives, but do not have a plan for leveraging resources
either. Without a plan, the services cannot help ensure that resources
are sustained and efficiencies are maximized.
GAO met with judge advocates who consistently expressed concerns,
similar to those noted in a 2009 Defense Task Force report, that a
2007 amendment to Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
complicates sexual assault prosecutions and may be causing unwarranted
acquittals. Specifically, judge advocates stated that there is a lack
of clarity with regard to the meaning of certain terms in the amended
article, which makes it more difficult to prosecute these cases.
Further, recent opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces addressed constitutional issues that may arise related to the
burden of proof in certain situations. For fiscal year 2012, DOD
proposed revisions to Congress intended to remedy some of these issues.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that DOD develop policy and provide oversight for
sexual assault investigations and related training, and for the
services to develop a plan to better leverage expertise and limited
resources. DOD and the Inspector General concurred with the
recommendations, although the Inspector General disagreed with the
characterization of its performance. GAO believes its findings are
accurate, as addressed more fully in the report.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-579] or key
components. For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202)
512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
DOD Inspector General's Office Has Not Performed Its Designated Policy
Development and Oversight Responsibilities for Sexual Assault
Investigations:
The Services Are Not Maximizing Opportunities to Leverage Resources
Provided for Investigations and Adjudications of Sexual Assault
Incidents:
DOD Has Expressed Concerns with Article 120 Revisions:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of the DOD Inspector General:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: Status of Service Efforts to Augment Sexual Assault
Investigative Expertise (as of June 2011):
Figure:
Figure 1: Comparison of Selected Elements of Military Service
Investigative Policies and Procedures That Relate to Sexual Assault
Incidents:
Abbreviations:
AFOSI: Air Force Office of Special Investigations:
CID: Army Criminal Investigation Command:
DOD: Department of Defense:
OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:
NCIS: Naval Criminal Investigative Service:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 22, 2011:
The Honorable Joe Wilson:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan A. Davis:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Military Personnel:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Sexual assault is a crime that can lead to serious physical,
emotional, and psychological consequences for the aggrieved and severe
punishment for the accused. The military services' handling of alleged
sexual assault incidents is particularly important because it promotes
good order and discipline, demonstrates a commitment to
accountability, and helps to engender confidence that such allegations
are taken seriously. According to judge advocates from each of the
military services,[Footnote 1] the administration of justice in sexual
assault cases is often complicated by the limited availability of
forensic evidence and by conflicting testimonial accounts by the
parties involved. In light of the unique challenges that arise while
investigating and adjudicating these types of cases, a vigilant
approach is vital in order to help ensure the proper administration of
justice and to send the appropriate message to servicemembers
regarding sexual assault prevention and response in the military
services.
Since 2004, Congress has passed various legislative provisions related
to the military services' investigation and adjudication of sexual
assault incidents. For example, provisions in the Ronald W. Reagan
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 required the
Department of Defense (DOD), among other things, to develop a
comprehensive policy that covers topics such as the investigation of
alleged sexual assault incidents,[Footnote 2] and to conduct a review
of how sexual assault offenses are covered by the Uniform Code of
Military Justice.[Footnote 3] Additionally, we have conducted a number
of reviews to help inform congressional deliberations on issues
related to sexual assault in the military. In 2008, we issued two
reports that generally address the prevention of and response to
sexual assault: the first, issued in January,[Footnote 4] addresses
sexual assault at the DOD and Coast Guard academies, and the second,
issued in August,[Footnote 5] addresses sexual assault in the military
and Coast Guard services. In February 2010[Footnote 6] we reported on
DOD and Coast Guard efforts to strengthen the implementation and
oversight of their respective sexual assault prevention and response
programs, and on the status of their efforts to implement the
recommendations made in our August 2008 report.[Footnote 7] As a
supplement to these reports, we testified three times before the
Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, on our findings. A list of these
and other related GAO products is included at the end of this report.
In October 2009, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010[Footnote 8] included a mandate for GAO to review various
aspects of the military services' investigations and adjudications of
alleged sexual assault incidents involving servicemembers. In October
2010, we satisfied our mandate by providing the House and Senate
Committees on Armed Services with a briefing that detailed our
observations. The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military
Personnel requested that we build on the observations in our briefing
to include an assessment of how the military services' investigative
and legal policies and procedures are being implemented at military
installations. This report responds to the Subcommittee's request and
expands on our observations of the military services' investigations
and adjudications of alleged sexual assault incidents. Specifically,
it addresses the extent to which (1) DOD is conducting oversight of
the military services' investigative organizations and (2) the
military services provide resources for investigations and
adjudications of alleged sexual assault incidents. During the course
of our review, we identified an additional issue regarding revisions
to the Uniform Code of Military Justice that may be complicating the
adjudication of alleged sexual assault incidents.
For our first objective, we reviewed and analyzed Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) and DOD Inspector General policies,
guidance, and procedures to identify department-level oversight
responsibilities for the military criminal investigative
organizations. We also reviewed and analyzed each of the service's
investigative policies and procedures to identify the extent to which
similarities and differences exist in their respective processes for
conducting sexual assault investigations. Further, we interviewed
senior officials in OSD, the DOD Inspector General's Office, and the
military services to gain their perspectives on responsibilities for
and oversight of the military criminal investigative organizations,
and how the services' investigative policies and procedures compare.
For our second objective, we reviewed OSD, DOD Inspector General, and
the military services' policies to identify responsibilities and
processes for providing personnel and fiscal resources for
investigations and adjudications of alleged sexual assault incidents.
We obtained and analyzed budget information from OSD and the military
services to determine the extent and consistency of funding that has
been provided to enhance investigations and adjudications of alleged
sexual assault incidents. We also interviewed OSD, DOD Inspector
General, and senior military service officials to obtain their
perspectives on the provision of resources for investigations and
adjudications of alleged sexual incidents. To address the additional
issue regarding a 2006 revision to Article 120 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, we reviewed the text of the statute and the
corresponding sections of the Manual for Courts-Martial that were
effective before and after the amendment. We also reviewed DOD's
fiscal years 2011 and 2012 legislative proposals for amending Article
120 in order to understand DOD's concerns with the current version of
Article 120. We also interviewed senior officials from OSD and a total
of 48 judge advocates and DOD civilian lawyers at the services'
headquarters and at five selected installations to gain their
perspectives on the impact of the amended Article 120 on adjudications
of sexual assault cases. Further information on our scope and
methodology can be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2010 through June 2011
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
The Military Justice System:
The military justice system is governed by a collection of statutes
and regulations, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which
is codified in Title 10 of the United States Code.[Footnote 9]
According to the Manual for Courts-Martial, the purpose of military
law is 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.[Footnote 10] All members
of the armed forces are subject to the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, including the punitive articles that define specific
offenses. The punitive articles include offenses similar to those
found in civilian criminal law (e.g., murder, rape, wrongful use of
controlled substances, larceny, and drunken driving) as well as other
offenses that specifically affect good order and discipline in the
military (e.g., absence without leave, disrespect toward superior
commissioned officer, or dereliction of duty).
When a servicemember is accused of an offense such as sexual assault,
military criminal investigators, commanding officers, and military
lawyers--known as judge advocates--have responsibilities related to
the investigation and adjudication of the alleged criminal conduct. An
investigation is usually conducted by one of the three military
criminal investigative organizations--the U.S. Army Criminal
Investigation Command, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service,
[Footnote 11] or the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. Each
organization has criminal investigators who are responsible for
interviewing witnesses, alleged victims, and suspects, and gathering
physical evidence. These investigators present the results of the
completed investigation to the commanding officer of an accused
servicemember for disposition. Military commanding officers are
responsible for good order and discipline in their commands, and they
have a number of judicial and administrative options at their
disposal. Commanding officers have access to judge advocates who may
advise throughout the process of determining an appropriate
disposition for an alleged offense, but ultimately, commanding
officers are accountable for disposing of allegations of offenses in a
timely manner and at the lowest appropriate level of disposition using
one of the following options:
* No action: A commanding officer may decide to take no action.
* Administrative action: A commanding officer may elect to take
administrative actions, which include corrective measures such as
counseling, admonition, reprimand, exhortation, disapproval,
criticism, censure, reproach, rebuke, extra military instruction, the
administrative withholding of privileges, or any combination of the
above.
* Nonjudicial punishment: Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice allows for a number of disciplinary actions, or "nonjudicial
punishments," that are more serious than corrective measures taken in
an administrative action, but less serious than a trial by court-
martial. Nonjudicial punishments include admonition, reprimand,
reducing a member's grade, forfeiture of pay, adding extra duty, and
imposing restrictions on freedom.
* Court-martial: This option provides for the most severe punishments,
including death, prison time, forfeiture of pay and allowances,
reduction in rank, and punitive separation from military service.
Commanders may choose from three types of courts-martial--summary,
special, or general. While commanders have access to judge advocates
who may advise them throughout the process of determining the
appropriate disposition for an alleged offense, other judge advocates
serve as trial and defense counsel in both special and general courts-
martial.
Investigative and Judge Advocate Guidance and Procedures:
The military services' guidance addressing investigative procedures
along with the Uniform Code of Military Justice are generally
applicable to criminal activity involving servicemembers. Further,
each service provides sexual assault-specific guidance as well as
standard operating and reporting procedures for responding to alleged
sexual assault incidents. Guidance for each military criminal
investigative organization[Footnote 12] specifically provides details
on how sexual assault incidents should be investigated, and stipulates
that investigative personnel must respond to all reported sexual
assault complaints.
DOD and military service policies and procedures for investigating and
adjudicating alleged sexual assault incidents also apply to combat
areas of interest.[Footnote 13] DOD Directive 6495.01[Footnote 14]
notes that it is DOD's policy to provide an immediate, trained
response capability for each report of sexual assault in all
locations, including deployed locations, and it charges the
secretaries of the military departments with programming appropriate
resources to enable the combatant commands to achieve compliance with
the policies set forth in the directive. Each military service also
deploys investigators and conducts sexual assault criminal
investigations in combat areas of interest and investigations in
multiservice environments, and these investigations often cross
service lines. Given the preponderance of Army personnel among
servicemembers in theater, however, most sexual assault criminal
investigations involving personnel from any service are initiated by
the Army. Each military service also provides legal support in combat
areas of interest, but the availability of judge advocates and the
conduct of criminal justice proceedings in combat areas of interest
vary, according to service component and operational needs. Service
policies for military operations describe ways in which legal support
is provided to the deployable force, sourced either through the
deployment of personnel or by personnel situated at another location.
Roles and Responsibilities of the DOD Inspector General:
The DOD Office of the Inspector General was established by the
Department of Defense Authorization Act of 198[Footnote 15]3 to, among
other things, serve as the principal adviser to the Secretary of
Defense on matters relating to the prevention and detection of fraud,
waste, and abuse, and to be an independent organization responsible
for conducting and supervising audits and investigations of the
programs and operations of the department. DOD Directive 5106.
[Footnote 16]01 specifies that the DOD Inspector General shall
establish policy and provide guidance on all DOD activities relating
to criminal investigations and law enforcement programs, which include
activities of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Naval
Criminal Investigative Service, and the Air Force Office of Special
Investigations. The DOD Inspector General's Office is divided into the
following areas, each of which is headed by a deputy, assistant, or
special inspector general: auditing; investigations; policy and
oversight; intelligence; administration and management; communications
and congressional liaison; general counsel; office of professional
responsibility; special plans and operations; administrative
investigations; and southwest Asia.
DOD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program:
Within OSD, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
has the responsibility for developing the overall policy and guidance
for the department's sexual assault prevention and response program
except for criminal investigative policy matters assigned to the DOD
Inspector General. Under the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
for Personnel and Readiness, OSD's Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office (within the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Plans) serves as the department's single point of
responsibility for most sexual assault policy matters.[Footnote 17]
DOD guidance defines sexual assault, for purposes of specified
guidance and sexual assault prevention and response awareness training
and education, as intentional sexual contact, characterized by the use
of force, threats, intimidation, or abuse of authority, or by
situations in which the victim does not or cannot consent. Sexual
assault includes rape, forcible sodomy (oral or anal sex), and other
unwanted sexual contact that is aggravated, abusive, or wrongful (to
include unwanted and inappropriate sexual contact), or attempts to
commit these acts. The definition generally encompasses offenses
classified under Articles 120 and 125 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.
The Secretary of Defense is required by law to implement a
centralized, case-level database for the collection and maintenance of
information regarding sexual assaults involving members of the armed
forces, and to make that database available to the Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office.[Footnote 18] The law specifies that
the database include information, if available, about the nature of
the assault, the victim, the offender, and the outcome of any legal
proceedings associated with the assault. In February 2010, we reported
[Footnote 19] on and testified[Footnote 20] that although the office
had taken preliminary steps to develop this database, it had not been
implemented by the statutorily mandated deadline of January 2010.
Further, we made a number of recommendations in our February 2010
report[Footnote 21] pertaining to DOD's adherence to key system
acquisition best practices when developing this database. DOD
concurred with all of these recommendations. In March 2011, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided Congress
with a status report of the department's efforts to implement the
database. Specifically, the status report noted that a contract was
awarded in August 2010 for the development, implementation, and
maintenance of the database, and that the database was expected to be
functional by August 2012. The report also highlighted the
department's adherence to key information technology management
practices, and that its actions were consistent with the
recommendations in our own February 2010 report.
DOD Inspector General's Office Has Not Performed Its Designated Policy
Development and Oversight Responsibilities for Sexual Assault
Investigations:
The DOD Inspector General's Office has not carried out its
responsibilities pursuant to DOD Instruction 6495.02,[Footnote 22]
which was required by statute.[Footnote 23] The instruction directs
that office to develop policy for the DOD criminal investigative
organizations, to oversee sexual assault investigations, and to
provide oversight over sexual assault training within the DOD
investigative community. Specifically, the DOD Inspector General's
Office has developed some guidance on the general conduct of criminal
investigations, but it has not developed a policy specifically for
investigations of sexual assault incidents. Further, the DOD Inspector
General's Office is not monitoring or evaluating the services'
investigations of sexual assault and the related training of
investigators.[Footnote 24]
DOD Inspector General's Office Has Not Developed a Policy for Sexual
Assault Investigations:
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 required
the Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive policy for sexual
assault prevention and response that addresses, among other things,
command and law enforcement personnel's investigation of such
complaints.[Footnote 25] In response to this requirement, in June
2006, OSD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office published
DOD Instruction 6495.02, in which it specifies that the DOD Inspector
General's Office shall develop sexual assault-related policy for the
services' criminal investigative organizations. While the DOD
Inspector General's Office has developed some guidance on the general
conduct of criminal investigations, it has not developed policy that
specifically addresses sexual assault, as required by DOD's
instruction. For example, the DOD Inspector General's Office has
developed an instruction that outlines responsibilities and
requirements for collecting DNA in criminal investigations[Footnote
26] and another that prescribes procedures for reporting offender
criminal history data.[Footnote 27]
These instructions and other guidance from the DOD Inspector General's
Office have relevance to investigations of sexual assault, but neither
is tailored to the unique circumstances that are typically associated
with this crime. For example, the DOD Inspector General's instruction
on DNA collection generically delineates requirements for consulting
with a judge advocate before testing evidence, where evidence should
be sent for testing, and that Privacy Act information must be provided
to any individual providing a DNA sample. However, the instruction
does not identify procedural differences associated with evidence
collection in cases of sexual assault. Senior officials from the DOD
Inspector General's Office stated that when the services' military
investigative organizations notify their office of a concern regarding
investigative practices, the office then takes action, which has in
the past resulted in guidance being issued. The officials also
confirmed, however, that there is no DOD-level policy or guidance
specifically addressing how sexual assault investigations should be
conducted.
Absent DOD-level guidance, the services have individually developed
and implemented their own guidance, and in some cases they take
different approaches in conducting their investigations. Specifically,
we determined that the services differed in their approaches with
regard to six out of nine elements of investigative policies and
procedures, which we selected based on their applicability to sexual
assault investigations and the consistency with which they were
discussed by agency officials.[Footnote 28] For example, the Army's
Criminal Investigation Command will assess a case as founded or
unfounded[Footnote 29]--that is, whether the alleged criminal offense
is substantiated by an investigation--prior to forwarding it for
adjudication. In contrast, the Navy's and Air Force's investigative
organizations told us that they do not make a similar determination
because they believe that it would conflict with their role as
independent fact finders. Additionally, each service has experts
available for consultation during a sexual assault investigation, but
only the Air Force requires its investigators to consult with such
experts. See figure 1 for more examples of the variances that we
identified in the military services' investigative policies and
procedures.
Figure 1: Comparison of Selected Elements of Military Service
Investigative Policies and Procedures That Relate to Sexual Assault
Incidents:
[Refer to PDF for image: table]
Investigative guidance with sexual assault-specific provisions:
Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID): Yes;
Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI): Yes;
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)[A]: Yes.
Determining a case founded or unfounded:
Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID): CID agents make the
determination on whether a case is founded or unfounded, in
consultation with a judge advocate, before closing a case;
Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI): Founded and
unfounded determinations are not applicable for cases investigated by
AFOSI agents;
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)[A]: Founded and unfounded
determinations are not applicable for cases investigated by NCIS
agents.
Titling of subjects[B]:
Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID): While CID’s guidance is not
specific in timing, agents told us they title subjects as soon as
there is credible evidence to support an alleged crime occurred;
Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI): A subject is
titled when it is determined that he/she is a logical suspect based on
credible information;
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)[A]: A subject is titled
when the investigator determines that there is credible evidence to
support an alleged crime occurred.
Responsibility for and frequency of updating victim on investigation:
Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID):
* CID agent: Once every 30 days during investigation;
* Battalion commander: Once every 30 days until final disposition;
Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI):
* No specific requirement for AFOSI agents to provide victim with case
updates;
* Victim’s unit commander charged with ensuring that victim receives,
at a minimum, monthly updates on the status of all related
investigative, medical, legal, and command proceedings until final
disposition;
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)[A]:
* NCIS agent: Monthly updates on the status of the investigation until
the active investigation is complete;
* Commanders charged with ensuring victim receives monthly updates on
the case.
Requirement to provide victim with formal notification of rights:
Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID): Agents are required to
provide all victims with DD Form 2701, “Initial Information for
Victims and Witnesses of a Crime.”
Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI): Agents are
required to provide all victims with DD Form 2701, “Initial
Information for Victims and Witnesses of a Crime.”
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)[A]: Guidance suggests that
agents should provide victims with a Victim Witness Assistance Program
pamphlet, which outlines the rights of crime victims.
Forensic evidence maintenance standards:
Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID):
Unrestricted cases[C]:
* Unsolved rapes and aggravated sexual assaults: Evidence retained
indefinitely;
* Solved rapes: Evidence retained until disposition approval;
Restricted cases[D]:
* Evidence stored by the installation law enforcement authority for 1
year[E];
Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI):
Unrestricted cases:
* AFOSI’s guidance does not specify timeframes for maintaining
evidence in these cases, but officials told us that evidence is
disposed of when no longer required, after a judge advocate approves
the disposition;
Restricted cases:
* Evidence is stored for at least 1 year, then destroyed if victim
does not convert to an unrestricted report after being notified of the
expiration of the storage period[E];
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)[A]:
Unrestricted cases:
* Unsolved rape cases: Evidence will be held for a minimum of 50 years;
Restricted cases:
* Forensic examination kits are stored for 12 months, then destroyed
if victim does not convert to an unrestricted report[E].
Expert consultation requirements:
Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID): Guidance does not require
expert consultation, but in FY 2009 CID authorized positions for seven
highly qualified experts who will advise and train agents on sexual
assault investigations;
Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI): Any rape
investigation must be coordinated with a forensic science consultant
to provide guidance on evidence collection;
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)[A]: Policy does not
require expert consultation, but NCIS maintains a cadre of
investigators whose primary responsibility is to conduct sexual
assault investigations.
Requirement for initial and refresher Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response training:
Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID): Yes;
Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI): Yes;
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)[A]: Yes.
Requirement for specialized training on investigating sexual assault
incidents:
Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID): Yes;
Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI): Yes;
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)[A]: Yes.
Source: GAO analysis of the military services' investigative
organizations' policies and procedures.
[A] The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) has responsibility
for investigating alleged sexual assault incidents that occur in the
Navy and Marine Corps.
[B] Titling of a subject is the process of placing a subject's name in
the title block of a related criminal investigative report.
[C] Unrestricted reporting option entails the notification of the
chain of command and may trigger a criminal investigation.
[D] Restricted reporting option allows victims of sexual assault to
disclose a sexual assault incident to specific individuals and receive
medical care and other victim advocacy services without initiating a
criminal investigation.
[E] The services' standards for maintaining restricted evidence are
based upon a requirement contained in DODI 6495.02, which states that
evidence shall be stored until a victim changes to unrestricted
reporting, but may not exceed one year from the date of the victim's
restricted report of the sexual assault.
[End of figure]
We discussed the services' investigative policies and procedures with
senior officials in the DOD Inspector General's Investigative Policy
and Oversight Office who told us that a DOD-level policy on criminal
investigations is unnecessary, since each of the service's criminal
investigative organizations has developed and implemented its own
policy. These officials further stated that they do not believe the
quality or the outcome of the services' criminal investigations to be
substantively affected by the differences that we identified. However,
senior officials from the services' investigative organizations told
us that there is no one person in charge of the services' criminal
investigative organizations at the DOD level, and noted that it may be
a problem at the DOD level because it limits, if not eliminates, the
execution of centralized oversight. Without a DOD-wide investigative
policy, the DOD Inspector General's Office does not have a foundation
on which it can base such a determination and help assure decision
makers that sexual assault investigations are being consistently
conducted.
The DOD Inspector General's Office Is Not Conducting Oversight of
Sexual Assault Investigations or Related Training:
In addition to its responsibilities for developing policy, DOD
Instruction 6495.02 also specifies that the DOD Inspector General's
Office shall oversee sexual assault investigations and related
training within the DOD investigative community.[Footnote 30] However,
the DOD Inspector General's Office is not performing these
responsibilities primarily due to its reported focus on other, higher
priorities.[Footnote 31] For example, DOD reported[Footnote 32] that
in fiscal year 2010, the services' criminal investigative
organizations collectively completed 2,594 investigations of alleged
sexual assault.[Footnote 33] However, we found no evidence that the
DOD Inspector General's Office conducted oversight of any of these
investigations--a finding with which senior officials in the Inspector
General's Office concurred. We also found that the DOD Inspector
General's Office is not conducting its designated oversight
responsibilities for the services' sexual assault-specific training
programs. For example, each of the services has developed and
implemented sexual assault-specific training for its respective
investigators, but the DOD Inspector General's Office has not worked
with the services to assess the content or the effectiveness of the
training that is being provided. Further, the DOD Inspector General's
Office has not assessed the training that is provided by the services
on sexual assault investigations, such as evaluating how many agents
are currently meeting a minimum standard of competency. (For a
discussion of the services' sexual assault-specific training
initiatives, see a later section of this report.)
In August 2010, the DOD Inspector General's Office published its
Requirements Plan for Increased Oversight Capabilities, in which it
noted that proactive evaluations of the services' criminal
investigative organizations had been lacking for several years because
of other, higher priorities, such as an increase in demand for
Inspector General services to support the department's overseas
contingency operations. The Requirements Plan includes a general
outline of program objectives and funding that the DOD Inspector
General's Office estimates are needed to augment its oversight
capabilities, but it does not specify plans for conducting oversight
of sexual assault investigations, including goals, implementation
steps, key milestones, or performance standards. Our prior work has
demonstrated that substantive planning is necessary to establish clear
goals and objectives as well as performance data that are needed for
gauging program progress and identifying weaknesses.[Footnote 34]
However, senior officials in the DOD Inspector General's Office told
us that they had no plans to expand its oversight of the services'
investigative efforts, including those related to sexual assault,
because they do not expect to receive any additional resources, given
the current fiscal challenges of the federal government. Until the DOD
Inspector General's Office develops and implements an action plan,
which includes a process or standards by which it can evaluate the
performance of the services' investigative organizations, it will
remain limited in its ability to oversee and initiate any needed
corrective action, and to help ensure consistency and accountability.
The Services Are Not Maximizing Opportunities to Leverage Resources
Provided for Investigations and Adjudications of Sexual Assault
Incidents:
Consistent with the Secretary of Defense's priorities for sexual
assault prevention and response, the military services provide various
resources to support their investigations and adjudications of alleged
sexual assault incidents. Specifically, the services have provided
experts who advise and assist personnel in the investigation and
adjudication of sexual assault incidents, as well as fiscal resources
to enhance investigators' and judge advocates' response to such
incidents. However, the services' investigative organizations and
judge advocate offices are not fully capitalizing on available
opportunities to leverage each other's expertise and limited resources.
The Military Services Provide Personnel Who Advise and Assist on
Investigations and Adjudications of Sexual Assault:
The military services' investigative and judge advocate offices are
largely organized and resourced according to their general
responsibilities for investigating and adjudicating all criminal
activity involving servicemembers. But each service has provided its
investigators and judge advocates with additional resources that are
specifically designed to enhance investigations and adjudications of
alleged sexual assault incidents. In fiscal year 2008, the Secretary
of Defense identified four priorities for sexual assault prevention
and response programming, including one to help ensure investigator
training and resourcing and another to help ensure trial counsel
training and resourcing.[Footnote 35] In accordance with these
priorities, the military services have provided personnel who support
investigators' and judge advocates' handling of alleged incidents of
sexual assault. Specifically, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force
have authorized additional positions within their respective
investigative organizations for personnel who will focus primarily on
handling sexual assault cases. See table 1 for details on the
services' efforts to augment sexual assault investigative expertise.
Table 1: Status of Service Efforts to Augment Sexual Assault
Investigative Expertise (as of June 2011):
Service: Army;
Status of positions authorized:
* Twenty-five of 30 special victim unit investigator billets have been
filled;
* Seven of 7 highly qualified expert[A] billets have been filled;
* Thirty-three of 35 laboratory examiner and technician positions have
been filled;
* Twenty-one of 21 forensic science specialists;
Purpose of positions:
* To focus exclusively on sexual assault cases;
* To advise Army leadership on and support the coordination of
training in sexual assault investigations;
* To focus on sexual assault forensic examinations, including DNA
examinations and processing;
* To provide forensic science support to field investigators.
Service: Navy;
Status of positions authorized:
* Fifty-six of 56 family and sexual violence agent billets have been
filled;
* Seven of 7 forensic consultant agent positions have been filled;
Purpose of positions:
* To focus exclusively on sexual assault and family violence cases;
* To provide specialized forensic science support to field
investigators.
Service: Air Force;
Status of positions authorized:
* Eighteen of 22 sexual offense investigators have been hired (the
other four are projected to be hired by the end of fiscal year 2011);
* Twelve of 12 forensic science specialists;
* One of 2 sexual assault specialists have been hired (the second is
projected to be hired by the end of fiscal year 2011);
Purpose of positions:
* To focus primarily on sexual assault offenses at Air Force
installations with the highest historical sex crimes caseloads;
* To provide specialized forensic science support to field
investigators;
* One to train investigators on sex crime cases, and another to
provide worldwide support to major or especially complex sexual
assault investigations.
Source: GAO summary of the military services' personnel data.
[A] According to a memo published in 2006 by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness, a "highly qualified expert" is
defined as an individual who possesses uncommon and recognized
knowledge, skills, and experience in an occupational field and
judgment that is accorded authority and status by peers or the public.
Such an individual has substantive experience, education, or both; is
generally credentialed; and has proven ability in a particular field
or fields.
[End of table]
Senior officials at each of the service's investigative organizations
provided positive perspectives on the addition of sexual assault-
specific positions. For example, senior Army officials at Fort
Jackson, South Carolina, told us that the civilian special
investigators are especially important in that they provide continuity
at the installation's criminal investigation offices, whereas military
investigators typically rotate in and out every 2 years. We met with
Navy investigators in the Family and Sexual Violence Program at Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina, who told us that their senior-level
investigators share their expertise with junior investigators by
serving as mentors, which ultimately enhances their sexual assault
investigative skills. Further, the Air Force employs forensic science
consultants and requires its investigators to work with a consultant
immediately after being notified of a sexual assault incident.
Investigators at Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas told us that the
consultants have attained master's degrees in forensic science, and
that these consultants provide valuable insights on conducting sexual
assault investigations.
The military services' judge advocate offices have also taken steps to
enhance the expertise of counsel assigned to sexual assault cases.
Specifically, each military service has created positions within its
respective trial counsel office for personnel who specialize in the
prosecution of sexual assault cases. For example, in fiscal year 2009,
the Secretary of the Army directed that 15 special victim prosecutor
positions be authorized--all of which have been filled--to enhance the
Army's focus on the litigation of sexual assault and family violence
cases. Senior officials in the Army's Judge Advocate General's Office
and at Army installations we visited told us that the personnel
filling these positions are high-demand assets in the prosecution of
sexual assault cases, and that the Army has authorized 8 additional
special victim prosecutor positions because of the program's success.
In addition, the Army hired a total of seven civilian highly qualified
experts to provide assistance and training to both trial and defense
counsel. The Navy hired two civilian sexual assault litigation
specialists who provide support to Navy trial counsel handling sexual
assault cases at installations worldwide. The Marine Corps' judge
advocate division was denied its request for a sexual assault
litigation expert in fiscal year 2011 because of funding limitations;
however, senior Marine Corps judge advocate officials told us that
they have access to and utilize the Navy's experts. The Air Force
established a group of 16 senior trial counsel who travel to
installations to assist junior litigators in prosecuting sexual
assault cases. These are positive examples of the services' continued
efforts to address sexual assault. It is too early to assess their
effectiveness, however, as the services are still in the process of
funding these initiatives and, as we have previously reported,
performance measures for sexual assault prevention and response
programs are still being developed.[Footnote 36]
Investigative and Legal Organizations Receive Fiscal Resources to
Enhance Investigations and Adjudications of Sexual Assault Incidents:
In addition to personnel, the services' investigative and legal
organizations have received fiscal resources, beyond their regular
operating budgets, for initiatives to enhance investigations and
adjudications of alleged sexual assault incidents. These funds are
provided through multiple sources and vary annually relative to other
programmatic priorities. According to the Army Sexual Harassment/
Assault Response and Prevention Program Manager, in fiscal year 2009,
the Army's Criminal Investigation Command received $4.4 million above
its general operating budget to redesign investigator training. The
Naval Criminal Investigative Service received approximately $22,000 in
fiscal year 2010 from the Department of the Navy's Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Office, to send its investigators to a class,
put on by its Mobile Training Team, related to sexual assault
investigations.[Footnote 37] Additionally, the Naval Criminal
Investigative Service funded an 8-day advanced family and sexual
violence training course, which was attended by 42 investigators.
Senior officials from the Air Force Office of Special Investigations
told us that they utilized a portion of their $1.1 million fiscal year
2010 advanced investigations training budget--including $300,000
received from the Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Program--to fund training courses related to the investigation of
sexual assault. These courses included two 2-week advanced general
crimes investigations courses that covered such topics as victim
sensitivity and how to process reports containing inconsistencies, as
well as a special agent laboratory training course that covered
advanced protocols for collecting physical and biological evidence in
sexual assaults cases and other crimes of violence.
Judge advocates, like military criminal investigators, have received
funding from multiple sources to conduct initial and periodic
refresher training on their responsibilities in responding to an
alleged sexual assault and for other advanced courses designed to
improve their ability to litigate sexual assault cases. For example,
OSD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office provided the Navy,
the Marine Corps, and the Air Force with nearly $3 million in fiscal
years 2009 and 2010 to support service efforts to enhance training for
trial counsel on the prosecution of sexual assault cases.[Footnote 38]
Each of the services used this and other service-level funding to
implement training initiatives for judge advocates handling sexual
assault cases. For example, the Army judge advocate office used the
$2.1 million it received from the Army's Sexual Harassment/Assault
Response and Prevention program in fiscal year 2010 for the
improvement of sexual assault litigation efforts, including conducting
seven conferences led by subject matter experts who trained Army
prosecutors on the litigation of special victim sexual assault cases.
The Navy's judge advocate office used a portion of the $350,000 that
it received from OSD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office
in fiscal year 2009 to provide a course at the Naval Justice School
for Navy and Marine prosecutors on handling complex sexual assault
cases. In addition, the Navy's judge advocate office used some of its
general program funds to send defense counsel to the defense-specific
portions of this sexual assault litigation course. The Air Force's
judge advocate office used nearly half of the $2.3 million provided to
the services by OSD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office in
fiscal year 2009 to develop joint training on sexual assault
prosecution for each of the service's trial counsel. Separate Air
Force funds were also applied to the development of this joint
training program, which includes modules on collaborating with
criminal investigators, case strategy, and working with victims, among
other topics.
Service Investigative Organizations and Judge Advocate Offices Are Not
Maximizing Opportunities to Leverage Expertise and Limited Resources:
The services have taken positive steps to enhance investigations and
adjudications of alleged sexual assault incidents, but they have not
fully capitalized on existing opportunities to leverage each other's
expertise and limited resources. Our prior work has shown that by
exploring ways to collaborate, including leveraging resources,
organizations can obtain additional benefits that would not have been
available if they were working separately.[Footnote 39] Recognizing
the potential to achieve such benefits, the Secretary of Defense
recommended, as part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure process,
that the services' investigative organizations colocate to Marine
Corps Base Quantico. According to the justification set out by the
Secretary of Defense in the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's
report, the co-location would produce operational synergies by
locating entities with similar or related missions in one place.
[Footnote 40] The Base Realignment and Closure Commission subsequently
adopted a modified version of the Secretary's recommendation.[Footnote
41] However, senior officials from each service's investigative
organization told us that there are currently no plans to use
opportunities such as this co-location to develop joint initiatives,
including advanced-level training on investigating sexual assaults,
that could allow the services to better leverage each other's
expertise and limited resources to achieve the operational synergies
noted by the Secretary of Defense. Further, the services reported in
their fiscal year 2012 budget justifications to Congress that the co-
location efforts have cost over $426 million,[Footnote 42] and
produced a total of about $53 million in savings from fiscal years
2006 to 2011, which were derived, in part, through the reduction in
costs to support infrastructure. An additional $5.6 million in net
annual recurring savings[Footnote 43] is projected after this co-
location is completed in fiscal year 2011. However, as we have
previously reported, we believe that DOD's net annual recurring
savings estimates may be overstated because they include savings from
eliminating military personnel positions without corresponding
decreases in end strength.[Footnote 44] The low amount of savings
estimated relative to the high cost of implementing the initiative
underscores the importance of continued efforts by the services to
maximize and extend the cost saving once the co-location is completed
by September 2011.
Like investigators, judge advocates perform similar responsibilities
that are based on a common set of legal principles. During our review,
senior officials in the judge advocate general offices told us that
the services' judge advocates regularly communicate on issues such as
sexual assault and collaborate, where appropriate. For example, in
fiscal year 2010, the services collaborated to develop an interactive
training program that uses a simulated court-martial trial for a
sexual assault offense to develop and test judge advocates' competence
at each stage of the trial. While this is a positive step toward
better leveraging of each other's expertise and resources, the
services have no formal plan to help ensure that such efforts will be
sustained. Without such plans for mutually leveraging resources, the
efficiencies to be achieved from efforts such as a co-location will be
limited.
DOD Has Expressed Concerns with Article 120 Revisions:
During the course of our review, service judge advocates consistently
told us that a 2007 revision to Article 120 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, the article encompassing most sexual assault crimes,
has complicated the process for adjudicating sexual assault incidents.
Concerns about the 2007 revision have also been raised by the 2009
Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services and the
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice.[Footnote 45]
Additionally, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has recently
issued opinions addressing issues with the application of Article 120.
The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 directed the Secretary of Defense to review the Uniform Code
of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial in order to
determine what changes were required to improve the ability of the
military justice system to address issues related to sexual assault,
and to conform those authorities more closely to other federal laws
and regulations that address such issues.[Footnote 46] The Secretary
of Defense subsequently submitted a report, as required, on the review
that included proposed revisions as well as the rationale for those
revisions. Following that review, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 amended Article 120, effective October 1,
2007.[Footnote 47] Among other things, the amendment brought certain
types of sexual misconduct into the category of sexual assault,
including indecent assault, indecent acts or liberties with a child,
indecent exposure, and indecent acts with another, which were
previously addressed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice's General
Article, Article 134.
In a December 2009 report, the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in
the Military Services recommended a review of the effectiveness of
Article 120 after learning that practitioners had concerns with the
revised article.[Footnote 48] According to the report, the task force
noted that significant issues had evolved related to lesser included
offenses as well as the Constitutionality of Article 120. The task
force also reported that practitioners consistently advised its
members that the new Article 120 is cumbersome and confusing, and
stated that prosecutors had expressed concern that the new Article may
be causing unwarranted acquittals. Although the task force did not
elaborate on these issues, judge advocates consistently expressed
similar concerns to us during the course of our work. For example,
service judge advocates told us that there is a lack of clarity with
regard to the meaning of certain terms in the amended article, which
makes it more difficult to prosecute these cases. Moreover, recent
opinions issued by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces addressed
issues that were raised in our discussions with judge advocates,
including constitutional issues that may arise related to the burden
of proof in certain situations.[Footnote 49]
Subsequently, the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, which
includes representatives from each of the military service's judge
advocate offices, completed a review in fiscal year 2010 in response
to the task force's 2009 recommendation and submitted to Congress
proposed amendments to Article 120 along with the rationale for the
proposed revisions. Among other changes, the revisions they proposed
would have split Article 120 into three parts: rape and sexual assault
of any person, rape and sexual assault of a child, and other sexual
misconduct. According to the committee's proposal, the suggested
language would have simplified the statutory treatment of consent,
simplified definitions overall, and reduced the number of offenses.
Section 561 of a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (S. 3454) contained language that would have amended
Article 120 consistent with the committee's proposal. However, that
bill was not enacted. In April 2011, DOD submitted a new proposal for
revisions to Article 120 as part of the legislative proposals provided
to Congress in conjunction with the department's fiscal year 2012
spending request.
Conclusions:
Given that sexual assault crimes undermine the core values of the
military services and degrade mission readiness, the effective and
efficient administration of military justice for addressing these
offenses is essential to the maintenance of good order and discipline
in the armed forces, and consequently contributes to the national
security of the United States. The inherent complexities of
administering justice in sexual assault cases requires the focused
attention of DOD and service personnel in order that the
investigations and adjudications are properly conducted. DOD and the
services have taken a series of positive steps toward enhancing the
investigations and adjudications of alleged sexual assault incidents.
However, the DOD Inspector General's Office has not instituted
oversight of criminal investigations or established comprehensive
guidance for conducting sexual assault investigations--both of which
are requirements specified in DOD's sexual assault prevention and
response policy. If these issues are not addressed, the DOD Inspector
General's Office will not be poised to help ensure that a consistent
and effective approach is being applied to sexual assault
investigations across the services. Further, the current budgetary
environment may jeopardize the sustainability of funding for DOD's and
the services' initiatives to enhance investigations and adjudications
of sexual assault, and until a plan is developed to leverage resources
and generate operational synergies among the respective offices, DOD
will not be in the best position to help support the continuation of
these efforts. Finally, concerns raised by judge advocates and others
related to Article 120 and their resolution will continue to be
important in the ongoing debate about the need for any future
revisions to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following three
actions:
* To provide oversight of the services' criminal investigative
organizations, direct the DOD Inspector General, in conjunction with
the military services, to develop and implement:
- a policy that specifies procedures for conducting sexual assault
investigations and:
- clear goals, objectives, and performance data for monitoring and
evaluating the services' sexual assault investigations and related
training.
* To help ensure the most efficient use of resources for
investigations and adjudications of alleged sexual assault incidents,
direct the service secretaries to develop a plan for leveraging each
other's resources and expertise for investigating and adjudicating
alleged sexual assault incidents, such as by consolidating training
programs and sharing resources, including highly qualified experts who
are used to advising criminal investigators and judge advocates.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense (OSD) for Personnel and Readiness concurred with
all three of our recommendations and provided technical comments,
which we addressed where appropriate. The DOD Inspector General's
Office also provided written comments on a draft of this report in
which the Inspector General concurred with the two recommendations
that are relevant to its organization. OSD's written comments are
reprinted in appendix II, and the DOD Inspector General's Office
comments are reprinted in appendix III.
In concurring with our first recommendation that the DOD Inspector
General, in conjunction with the military services, develop and
implement a policy that specifies procedures for conducting sexual
assault investigations, the DOD Inspector General's Office noted its
commitment to ensuring that the necessary policies are in place. The
DOD Inspector General's Office further added that it is currently
coordinating with the military services to develop overarching policy
guidance on sexual assault investigations that will address the
responsibilities of military commanders and the services' criminal
investigative organizations that are critical for successfully
responding to sexual assault investigations. We commend the DOD
Inspector General's Office for taking immediate steps to address our
recommendation, and encourage it to continue taking positive action
toward its full implementation.
In concurring with our second recommendation that the DOD Inspector
General, in conjunction with the military services, develop and
implement clear goals, objectives, and performance data for monitoring
and evaluating the services' sexual assault investigations and related
training, the DOD Inspector General's Office commented that it is
currently preparing its fiscal year 2012 oversight plans, which will
include initiatives that correspond to its newly developed policy on
sexual assault investigations that is currently in coordination with
the military services. Further, the DOD Inspector General's Office
noted that it is currently in discussions with the services to develop
a peer review-type process that will provide oversight of the
services' criminal investigative organizations, including sexual
assault investigations. In addition, the DOD Inspector General's
Office noted that during fiscal year 2012, it plans to initiate an
evaluation of sexual assault training provided to criminal
investigators within DOD.
However, while the DOD Inspector General's Office agreed with our
recommendations and described actions it plans to take in response, in
its comments it stated that our draft report mischaracterized its
performance of its responsibilities. We disagree with this statement
and believe our report accurately reflects oversight exercised by the
DOD Inspector General's Office. Our report is solely focused on the
DOD Inspector General's Office responsibilities for developing policy
and conducting oversight of sexual assault investigations.
Specifically, we reviewed DOD Inspector General's Office policies
related to criminal investigations, including the five it notes in its
comments, and our report credits the DOD Inspector General with
developing some guidance on the general conduct of criminal
investigations that has relevance to investigations of sexual assault.
Further, we recognize that the DOD Inspector General's Office
initiated other efforts related to sexual assault during our review,
including hosting forums, that it notes in its comments, facilitated
the development of standardized definitions for sexual assault
investigation reporting requirements. However, as we note in our
report and it concurs with in its response, the DOD Inspector
General's Office has not developed a policy or a process to monitor
and evaluate sexual assault investigations and related training, as is
specified in DOD guidance. Further, we disagree with the DOD Inspector
General's Office comment that investigative policies and procedures
are the same for all criminal investigations, including those
conducted on incidents of sexual assault. DOD has established policies
specific to sexual assault incidents, such as restricted reporting,
which necessitates that first responders, including criminal
investigators, distinguish how they respond to sexual assault
incidents. Additionally, we reiterate that Congress, in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, directed the
development of a comprehensive policy to address sexual assault-
specific matters in a variety of areas, to include investigations of
sexual assault complaints.[Footnote 50] Finally, the DOD Inspector
General's Office is correct in noting that it completed five
evaluations from 2003 through 2011 related to sexual assault in the
military; however, none of these evaluations were self-initiated but
rather were conducted at the direction of others, such as Congress.
For all of these reasons, we maintain that our report accurately
reflects the extent to which the DOD Inspector General's Office has
performed its designated policy development and oversight
responsibilities for sexual assault investigations.
In concurring with our third recommendation that the service
secretaries develop a plan for leveraging each other's resources and
expertise for investigating and adjudicating alleged sexual assault
incidents, DOD noted that representatives from each service's criminal
investigative organization currently meet on a regular basis to share
best practices, collaborate, and leverage each other's expertise. The
department further noted that as part of the co-location of the
services' criminal investigative organizations at Quantico, Virginia,
the Army's Criminal Investigation Command has volunteered to lead this
working group in the development of a plan for leveraging each
service's resources and expertise for investigating sexual assaults.
We commend the department for taking immediate steps in response to
our recommendation, and encourage it to continue taking positive
actions toward helping to ensure the most efficient use of resources
for investigations and adjudications of alleged sexual assault
incidents.
We are sending copies of this report to interested members of
Congress; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness; the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and
the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the DOD
Inspector General. The report also is available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Brenda S. Farrell:
Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) is
conducting oversight of the military services' investigative
organizations, we reviewed and analyzed relevant Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD) and DOD Inspector General policies,
guidance, and procedures to identify department-level policy
development and oversight responsibilities for the services' military
criminal investigative organizations. We also reviewed and analyzed
each service's investigative policies and procedures to identify the
extent to which similarities and differences exist in their respective
processes for conducting sexual assault investigations. To supplement
our analyses, we interviewed senior officials in OSD, the DOD
Inspector General's Office, and the military services to gain their
perspectives on responsibilities for and oversight of the military
criminal investigative organizations, and the extent to which the
services' investigative policies and procedures compare.
To determine the extent to which the military services provide
resources for investigations and adjudications of alleged sexual
assault incidents, we reviewed OSD, DOD Inspector General, and the
military service investigative and legal policies to identify
responsibilities and processes for providing personnel and fiscal
resources to initiatives that relate to investigations and
adjudications of alleged sexual assault incidents. We also obtained
information on personnel and fiscal resources from OSD and the
military services to determine the extent and consistency of funding
that has been identified and provided to enhance investigations and
adjudications of alleged sexual assault incidents. For the purposes of
our report, we found that data on the military criminal investigative
organizations' status of efforts to augment sexual assault
investigative expertise were sufficiently reliable to report. To
supplement our analyses, we interviewed senior-level officials in
OSD's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office about previous and
current efforts to provide the services with funding to support
initiatives to enhance investigations and adjudications of alleged
sexual assault incidents. We also interviewed senior officials in the
DOD Inspector General's Office and in the military services to gain
their perspectives on the extent to which such initiatives are
provided the resources necessary to investigate and adjudicate alleged
sexual assault incidents and the impact of fiscal challenges on
current and planned initiatives.
To address the additional issue regarding a 2007 revision to Article
120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, we reviewed the prior
version of Article 120 as well as the current version adopted in 2007
in order to better understand how the two versions differ. We also
reviewed proposed legislative amendments to Article 120 and the
accompanying analysis in the fiscal year 2010 report of the Joint
Service Committee on Military Justice to further inform our
understanding of the issues arising from the 2007 revision that were
intended to be addressed by the proposed legislative amendments from
fiscal year 2010. To supplement our analyses, we interviewed senior
officials from OSD and spoke with a total of 48 judge advocates and
DOD civilian lawyers, between the services' headquarters and at
selected installations, to gain their perspectives on the impact of
the revisions made in 2007 to the Uniform Code of Military Justice as
well as their recommendations for any suggested modifications.
The installations that we visited during our review were selected
based on multiple criteria, including the number of sexual assaults
reported at each installation, the size of its military population,
its function (i.e., training base), and its geographical location.
Using these criteria, we identified and subsequently visited the
following five installations: Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Fort
Jackson, South Carolina; Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia; Marine Corps
Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; and Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas.
Department of Defense:
* Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Arlington, Virginia:
* Department of Defense Inspector General's Office, Arlington,
Virginia:
Department of the Army:
* United States Army Criminal Investigation Command, Fort Belvoir,
Virginia:
* United States Office of The Judge Advocate General, Arlington,
Virginia:
* United States Army Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention
Program Office, Arlington, Virginia:
* Fort Bragg, North Carolina:
* Fort Jackson, South Carolina:
Department of the Air Force:
* Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Andrews Air Force Base,
Maryland:
* Air Force Office of the Judge Advocate, Arlington, Virginia:
* Air Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Arlington,
Virginia:
* Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas:
Department of the Navy:
* Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Washington Navy Yard,
Washington, D.C.
* United States Navy Office of the Judge Advocate, Washington Navy
Yard, Washington, D.C.
* Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, Washington, D.C.
* Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia:
United States Marine Corps:
* United States Marine Corps Office of the Judge Advocate to the
Commandant, Arlington, Virginia:
* United States Marine Corps Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Office, Quantico, Virginia:
* Camp Lejeune, North Carolina:
We conducted this performance audit from April 2010 through June 2011
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Under Secretary Of Defense:
Personnel And Readiness:
4000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, D.C. 20301-4000:
June 7, 2011:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street. NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, GA0-11-579, "Military
Justice. Oversight and Better Collaboration Needed for Sexual Assault
Investigations and Adjudications" dated May 11, 2011 (GAO-351553). I
appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the draft GAO
report.
The Department concurs with the recommendations and provides comments
concerning each of the recommendations for your consideration. In
addition, there were eight technical comments received from the Navy,
and five technical comments received from the Army that were forwarded
separately to the GAO staff.
We will keep the GAO and the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee apprised of our progress as requested. I appreciate the
opportunity to respond. My point of contact is Ed Rushin, Deputy
Director, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office. He may be
reached at 703-696-9429.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Clifford L. Stanley:
Enclosure: As stated.
[End of letter]
GAO Draft Report Dated May 11, 2011:
GAO-11-579 (GAO Code 351553):
"Military Justice: Oversight And Better Collaboration Needed For
Sexual Assault Investigations And Adjudications"
Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the DoD Inspector General, in conjunction with the Military
Services, to develop and implement a policy that specifies procedures
for conducting sexual assault investigations.
DoD Response: The Department concurs with Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the DoD Inspector General, in conjunction with the Military
Services, to develop and implement clear goals, objectives, and
performance data for monitoring and evaluating the Services' sexual
assault investigations and related training.
DoD Response: The Department concurs with Recommendation 2.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Service secretaries to develop a plan for leveraging each
others' resources and expertise for investigating and adjudicating
alleged sexual assault incidents, such as by consolidating training
programs and sharing resources, including highly qualified experts who
are used to advising criminal investigators and judge advocates.
DoD Response: The Department concurs with recommendation 3. The
Services' criminal investigative organizations regularly meet as a
Defense Enterprise Working Group to share best practices, collaborate
and leverage each other's expertise. With the collocation of all the
military criminal investigative agencies at Quantico, VA, the US
Army Criminal Investigation Command (CID) has volunteered to take the
lead in the Defense Enterprise Working Group to develop a plan for
leveraging each agency's resources and expertise for investigating
sexual assaults, especially in the area of consolidated training
programs and sharing of highly qualified experts.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of the DOD Inspector General:
Inspector General:
Department Of Defense:
400 Army Navy Drive:
Arlington, Virginia 22202-4704:
June 7, 2011:
Ms. Brenda S. Farrell:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Farrell:
This is the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) response
to the GAO draft report, GAO-11-579, "Military Justice: Oversight and
Better Collaboration Needed for Sexual Assault Investigations and
Adjudications," dated May 11, 2011 (GAO Code351533).
The DoD IG concurs with recommendations 1 and 2. Our detailed response
is enclosed. We disagree, however, with the characterization of the
GAO draft report that the DoD 10 has not performed its
responsibilities. In fact, the DoD IG has been working closely with
the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) and the
Military Services regarding SAPRO policy, training requirements for
sexual assault criminal investigations, restricted reporting
requirements for victims of sexual assault, and the preservation of
Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE) kits during restricted
reporting. The DoD IG also participated on the DoD Sexual Assault
Advisory Council and has hosted forums with the Military Criminal
Investigative Organizations (MCIOs), Military Service Legal Advisors,
and SAPRO to develop standardized definitions for sexual assault
investigation reporting requirements. The DoD IG also provided
feedback to recommendations of the Joint Task Force on Sexual Assault
in the Military Services, and currently participates in the Sexual
Assault Prevention Response Integrated Product Team.
Investigative policy and procedures for conducting sexual assault
investigations are the same as other types of investigations,
especially complaints concerning violent crimes. For example, the
collection and preservation of evidence, crime scene processing,
interview protocol, and preparation of sworn statements for sexual
assault investigations are similar to other types of investigations
such as homicide, robbery, or aggravated assault. These procedures are
mandated by standard investigatory practices and evidentiary
requirements under the Manual for Courts-Martial. In furtherance of
the Inspector General Act requirement for the DoD IG to provide policy
direction for investigations, the DoD IG has established and issued
policies that are applicable to all criminal investigations, including
sexual assault investigations. These policies include the following:
* DoDI 5505.03, "Initiation of Investigations by Defense Criminal
Investigative Organizations," March 24, 2011.
* DoDI 5505.7, "Titling and Indexing of Subjects of Criminal
Investigations in the Department of Defense," January 7, 2003
(currently being updated).
* DoDI 5505.8, "Defense Criminal Investigative Organizations and Other
Department of Defense Law Enforcement Organizations Investigations of
Sexual Misconduct," January 24, 2005.
* DoDI 5505.11, "Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report
Submission Requirements," July 9, 2010.
* DoDI 5505.14, "DNA Collection Requirements for Criminal
Investigations," May 27, 2010.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the report. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (703) 604-
8324.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
John R. Crane:
Assistant Inspector General:
Communications & Congressional Liaison:
Enclosure:
[End of letter]
DoD Office of Inspector General:
Response to Draft GAO Report No. 11-579, "Military Justice: Oversight
and Better Collaboration Needed for Sexual Assault Investigations and
Adjudications"
Recommendation 1. The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the DoD Inspector General (DoD IG), in conjunction with the
Military Services, to develop and implement "a policy that specifies
procedures for conducting sexual assault investigations."
DoD IG Response. The DoD 10 concurs with establishing policies to
enhance the current process for investigating sexual assaults. The DoD
IG recognizes the importance of its role in the oversight of sexual
assault investigations and is committed to ensuring necessary policies
are in place to accomplish this. The DoD IG, in coordination with the
Military Services, is currently developing overarching policy guidance
on sexual assault investigations conducted by the Military Services.
On June 15, 2011, the Deputy 1G for Policy and Oversight will host an
MCIO Commanders meeting to ensure the timely coordination of the
overarching policy. The proposed DoD policy will address
responsibilities of military commanders and MCIOs that are critical
for successfully responding to sexual assault investigations within
DoD. On June 24, 2011, the DoD IG will Chair the quarterly meeting of
the Defense Council on Integrity and Efficiency, which is in part
comprised of the Service Inspectors General, that will focus on issues
to directly confront the incidence of sexual assault in the DoD.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the DoD 1G, in conjunction with the Military Services, to
develop and implement "clear goals, objectives, and performance data
for monitoring and evaluating the Services' sexual assault
investigations and related training."
DoD IG Response: The DoD IG concurs with the need to develop clear
goals, objectives and performance data, and is currently preparing its
Fiscal Year 2012 Oversight plans. The criminal investigative oversight
plan will include future initiatives pursuant to the requirements of the
new instruction on "Investigation of Sexual Assault in the Department
of Defense" that is in coordination within the Department. We are also
in discussion with the MCIOs to develop a peer review-type process
that will provide oversight of the MCIOs, to include the area of
sexual assault investigations. Additionally, during fiscal year 2012,
we will plan and initiate an evaluation of sexual assault training
provided to DoD criminal investigators.
In addition to our policy work outlined in response to Recommendation
1, the DoD IG has conducted oversight of sexual assault-related
matters and continues to do so today:
* In 2003. the DoD IG evaluated the perceptions of female cadets at
the United States Air Force Academy regarding the academy's response
to sexual assault ("Interim Report on the United States Air Force
Academy," Project No. 2003C004).
* In 2004, the DoD TG evaluated the multidisciplinary response to
sexual assaults at the Air Force Academy over the previous 10 years
("Evaluation of Sexual Assault, Reprisal, and Related Leadership
Challenges at the United States Air Force Academy," Report No.
IP02004C003, the report is marked "For Official Use Only").
* In 2005, the DoD IG conducted and published the first ever common
sexual assault survey of male and female cadets and midshipman
("Report on the Service Academy Sexual Assault and Leadership Survey,"
Report No. 1P02005E001).
* In 2009, the DoD IG evaluated the DoD response to sexual assault
involving DoD contractors in foreign country contingency operations
("Evaluation of DoD Sexual Assault Response in Operations Enduring and
Iraqi Freedom Areas of Operation," Report No. IP02010E001).
* In 2010 and 2011, the DoD IG evaluated the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine
Corps response to a sexual assault complainant, Lance Corporal Maria
Lauterbach, who was later murdered by the person she accused of the
sexual assault (report pending).
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this
report include Marilyn K. Wasleski, Assistant Director; Melissa
Blanco; K. Nicole Harms; Kim Mayo; Jeanett Reid; Norris Smith; Terry
Richardson; Cheryl Weissman; and Elizabeth Wood.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Military Personnel: DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Programs Need to Be Further Strengthened.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-405T]. Washington,
D.C.: February 24, 2010.
Military Personnel: Additional Actions Are Needed to Strengthen DOD's
and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-215]. Washington, D.C.:
February 3, 2010.
Military Personnel: Actions Needed to Strengthen Implementation and
Oversight of DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1146T]. Washington, D.C.: September
10, 2008.
Military Personnel: DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response Programs Face Implementation and Oversight
Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-924].
Washington, D.C.: August 29, 2008.
Military Personnel: Preliminary Observations on DOD's and the Coast
Guard's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1013T]. Washington, D.C.: July 31,
2008.
Military Personnel: DOD and the Coast Guard Academies Have Taken Steps
to Address Incidents of Sexual Harassment and Assault, but Greater
Federal Oversight Is Needed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/AO-08-296]. Washington, D.C.: January 17,
2008.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For purposes of this report, we use "military services" to refer
collectively to the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air
Force. While the Coast Guard is a military service, it generally falls
under the control of the Department of Homeland Security and not DOD.
We did not include the Coast Guard in the scope of this engagement.
[2] Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 577 (2004).
[3] Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 571 (2004).
[4] GAO, Military Personnel: The DOD and Coast Guard Academies Have
Taken Steps to Address Incidents of Sexual Harassment and Assault, but
Greater Federal Oversight Is Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-296] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 17,
2008).
[5] GAO, Military Personnel: DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response Programs Face Implementation and
Oversight Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-924] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29,
2008).
[6] GAO, Military Personnel: Additional Actions Are Needed to
Strengthen DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Programs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-215]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2010).
[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-924].
[8] Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 567 (2010).
[9] Chapter 47 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code.
[10] Manual for Courts-Martial United States (2008 Edition).
[11] The Naval Criminal Investigative Service has responsibility for
investigating alleged sexual assault incidents that occur in the Navy
and Marine Corps.
[12] DOD Instruction 5505.03, Initiation of Investigations by Military
Criminal Investigative Organizations (Mar. 24, 2011), defines military
criminal investigative organizations as the U.S. Army Criminal
Investigation Command, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and
the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
[13] DOD designates the following countries as "combat areas of
interest:" Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Egypt,
Djibouti, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates,
Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kyrgyzstan.
[14] DOD Directive 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
(SAPR) Program (Oct. 6, 2005).
[15] Pub. L. No. 97-252, codified at Appendix 3 of Title 5 of the
United States Code.
[16] Department of Defense Directive 5106.01, Inspector General of the
Department of Defense (Apr. 13, 2006).
[17] Except for legal processes provided under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice and Manual for Courts-Martial, and criminal
investigative policy matters that are assigned to the Judge Advocates
General of the military services and DOD's Inspector General,
respectively.
[18] The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (2008), Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 563 (2008).
[19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-215].
[20] GAO, Military Personnel: DOD's and the Coast Guard's Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response Programs Need to Be Further
Strengthened, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-405T]
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2010).
[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-215].
[22] DOD Instruction 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Procedures (June 23, 2006).
[23] Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 577 (2004).
[24] During the course of our review, we also found that the DOD
Inspector General's Office is not performing its responsibilities for
monitoring and evaluating program performance with respect to all DOD
activities relating to criminal investigation programs as required by
section 5.8 of DOD Directive 5106.01, Inspector General of the
Department of Defense (Apr. 13, 2006).
[25] Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 577 (2004).
[26] DOD Instruction 5505.14, Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Collection
Requirements for Criminal Investigations (May 27, 2010).
[27] DOD Instruction 5505.11, Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition
Report Submission Requirements (Jul. 9, 2010).
[28] The elements that we selected for our comparison do not represent
an exhaustive list of criminal investigative policies and procedures.
These elements are intended only as examples and to illustrate that
differences exist in how the services approach criminal investigations.
[29] "Founded" offenses are defined by the Army as criminal offenses
that the commission of which has been adequately substantiated by
police investigation. The determination that a founded offense exists
is made by the appropriate police agency and does not depend on
judicial decision. An offense is considered "unfounded" by the Army
when it is determined by its Criminal Investigation Command, based on
a review of the results of a criminal investigation, that the alleged
criminal offense did not occur.
[30] DOD Instruction 6495.02, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
Procedures, sec. 5.6 (Jun. 23, 2006).
[31] Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General, Department
of Defense Inspector General Requirements Plan for Increased Oversight
Capabilities Fiscal Years 2011-2016 (Aug. 31, 2010).
[32] Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report on Sexual
Assault in the Military (March 2011).
[33] In fiscal year 2010, DOD reported that the services' criminal
investigative organizations collectively completed 2,594
investigations of alleged sexual assault. Of these investigations,
1,614 investigations involved cases that were reported in fiscal year
2010, while the remaining 980 investigations completed originated
prior to fiscal year 2010.
[34] GAO, A Call for Stewardship: Enhancing the Federal Government's
Ability to Address Key Fiscal and Other 21ST Century Challenges,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-93SP] (Washington,
D.C.: December 2007).
[35] Department of Defense, Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2009
Annual Report on Sexual Assaults in the Military (Washington, D.C.:
March 2010). The other two priorities announced by the Secretary of
Defense were reducing stigma associated with sexual assault reporting
and ensuring sufficient commander training.
[36] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-215].
[37] According to Department of the Navy officials, the $22,000
provided in fiscal year 2010 was part of the $100,000 provided by the
Department of the Navy Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office
to fund the attendance of Navy and Marine Corps Trial Counsel and
Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents at this training.
[38] OSD officials said that the Army was also offered funding but
declined, noting that it had already fully funded its judge advocate
training in fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
[39] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21,
2005).
[40] Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission, 2005 Defense
Base Realignment and Closure Commission Report (Arlington, Va.: Sept.
8, 2005).
[41] While the Base Realignment and Closure Commission modified the
Secretary of Defense's recommendation, it substantially adopted the
proposal to co-locate the services' investigative organizations to
Quantico.
[42] The cost of the co-location spans a period from fiscal year 2006
to fiscal year 2011, and only includes costs associated with
colocating the services' investigative organizations. Further, these
costs include the construction of the new facility at Marine Corps
Base Quantico, the purchase of necessary equipment, and the
installation of the necessary information technology assets.
[43] The net annual recurring savings were calculated using OSD data.
[44] GAO, Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Faces
Challenges in Implementing Recommendations on Time and Is Not
Consistently Updating Savings Estimates, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-217] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30,
2009).
[45] Department of Defense Directive 5500.17, Role and
Responsibilities of the Joint Service Committee (JSC) on Military
Justice (May 3, 2003) establishes the role and mission of the Joint
Service Committee on Military Justice. Among its responsibilities, the
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice is required to conduct an
annual review of the Manual for Courts-Martial in light of judicial
and legislative developments in civilian and military practice. Under
the direction of the DOD General Counsel, the Joint Service Committee
consists of voting group members and working group members from the
judge advocate general offices of the Navy, Air Force, Army, and Coast
Guard and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine
Corps.
[46] Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 571 (2004).
[47] Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 552 (2006).
[48] The Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services
issued the report in response to section 576 of the Ronald W. Reagan
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.
[49] See, for example, U.S. v. Neal, 68 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2010); U.S.
v. Medina, 69 M.J. 462 (C.A.A.F. 2011); and U.S. v. Prather, 69 M.J.
338 (C.A.A.F. 2011).
[50] Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 577 (2004).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: