On May 1, 2017, The Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office released its Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military (available here). The report provides lots of data ripe for misinterpretation. Two things caught my attention.

First is the failure to provide a clear definition of sexual assault:

In this report, DoD uses the term “sexual assault” to refer to a range of crimes, including rape, sexual assault, forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact, and attempts to commit these offenses, as defined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Report at 6 (emphasis added). This definition is ambiguous enough to include more than just the listed offenses; a definition limited to just the listed offenses wouldn’t mention a range of crimes but would instead just list the included offenses.

But even if the definition is limited to the listed offenses, the plain language of the statutes is remarkably broad. The statutory definition of sexual contact, for example, is so broad that it includes throwing a dodgeball at a person with the intent to abuse, humiliate, or degrade that person, if the dodgeball hits the other person in the buttocks. See United States v. Schloff, 74 M.J. 312 (C.A.A.F. Jul 16, 2015) (CAAFlog case page). And the statutory definition of rape is broad enough to include a situation like this:

(discussed here).

The second thing that caught my attention is this text found on the first page of the report:

I can only assume that this refers to the estimated cost of this report or study, since report and study are singular.

37 Responses to “DoD Releases FY16 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military (that lacks a clear definition of sexual assault)”

  1. Brian Bouffard says:

    [insert picture of Robert Downey Jr. exasperatedly rolling his eyes here]

  2. k fischer says:

    And no mention of another 35% false allegation rate.

  3. stewie says:

    Have no idea what the correct false allegation rate is, suspect it’s lower than 35% but certainly much, much higher than 2%.
    Regardless, we are our own worst enemy when it comes to properly labeling our stats in sex assault, because we magnify the problem by effectively labeling everything as sex assault.  I mean this isn’t Gilibrand or the media doing this, it’s us.

  4. Lieber says:

    We’ll never have a number on the false allegation rate because the definitions are too variable.
    Is it a false allegation when:
    a. it’s not true in any way whatsoever?
    b. some parts are true
    c. mostly but not completely true?

  5. k fischer says:

    Stewie,
     
    You suspect it’s lower than 35%?  Based on what?  Did you read Appendix B of this report?  That’s where I got the 35% figure.
     
    And, it is actually based on charges that were made, but were dismissed prior to trial because of lack of evidence or the allegation failed to state an offense.  This does not include where the alleged vic doesn’t know the identity of the assailant, the assailant was a foreign national or civilian, or where the alleged vic stops participating.  This is simply that we have an alleged vic, we know the man who he/she is accusing, and she is saying that he/she was sexually assaulted.  And, these are only the cases where there was such a lack of evidence, knowing all those things, that the military did absolutely NOTHING.  I didn’t consider cases where some schlep got a GOMOR for a brutal forcible sodomy and rape, or a Chapter 10.  I’ve seen a few administrative actions for those kind of really bad crimes, and they all strongly appeared to be false.
     
    So, where do you have to dig to find these statistics?  Here at Appendix B.  Go down to page 15.  In 2016, there were 4,044 unrestricted cases for which investigations were completed.  (See point F, pg 15)  Look at point G.  In 174 cases, someone said, “I got sexually assaulted!!!!”  But, they didn’t get sexually assaulted because what they described did not meet the elements of sexual assault.  Those cases are false.  Page 16 has a bunch of dismissed cases, but they are more jurisdictional issues, or maybe the accused died, so I don’t count those.
     
    Go to page 18.  You got 2,892 cases that were sent to Commanders for action where there is a known accused in the Commander’s unit and a known accuser.  In 1,027 of those cases, nothing was done when it went to the commander.  72 of them did not survive a legal review, and 670 of them did not have evidence that supported any offense, both sexual and nonsexual offenses.  If there is a live person saying they were assaulted, then wouldn’t everyone agree who actually practices courts-martial prosecution or defense that the allegations are going to have some kind of action on them?
     
    Now interestingly, in 534 cases the accused faced command action on everything, but the sexual assault allegation.  Anybody who practices military justice knows that if an allegation has some add-ons or there is any evidence whatsoever to support a sexual assault allegation when the accused is facing adverse action for another non-sexual misconduct related crime, that you are not going to see the command dismiss the sexual stuff.  Unless, of course, it is so patently false that you would like an idiot arguing that it happened. 
     
    So, that brings from the bottom to the top:
    534–Cases where sex assault allegation went away prior to preferral
    670–Cases where no evidence supported an offense happened, so the command took no action.
    72–Cases unfounded by Command/Legal Review
    174–Cases where allegation was made, but did not allege elements of sexual assault
    ___________________
    1,450 cases where cooperating alleged vic, known accuser, and sexual assault allegation with no action taken at all on sexual assault charge.  1,450/4,044=35.85% false allegation rate.
     
    Now, notice I did not take into account the cases where the alleged vic declines participation, or there was an “unknown” assailant, or the dismissals of charges after Courts-martial charges were preferred. I think you could probably look through a lot of those and see some that are patently false.
     
    Here’s another thing.  Notice that not one of the services Law Enforcement deemed that an allegation was unfounded for lack of evidence or baseless after conducting an investigation.  there was always a jurisdictional issue or the allegation itself did not meet the element.  It only got unfounded after the charges went to the Commander.  Says to me that NCIS, AFOSI, and CID are founding everything, then sending it to the Command to figure it out and dismiss.  But, that might be the new policy that an O6 has to decline to take action on a SA charge.
     
    So, that is where I get my 35% number.  I’m pretty sure that it is at 35%, but I suspect if I looked into some acquittals, post referral dismissals, and cases where the alleged vic declined to participate, then I would find that it is actually higher.  What the DoD ought to do is investigate false allegations the way they investigated the military sexual assault crisis.  Get a bunch of advocates to look over these cases to see if they could be categorized false.  In this case, get a bunch of MRA’s to review these cases confidentially.  Get Cassie Jaye, producer of “The Red Pill”, actor/comedian Bill Burr, me, and a respectable former prosecutor who is known for doing the right thing and recommending that a case be dismissed after referral to look over these cases and write a report based on our professional opinion whether a report of sexual assault was likely false.  Pay us $1 million each to sit around and discuss these 1,450 cases and their crazy facts, then draft our opinion with a tldr summary of the most relevant facts that drove us to the opinion that the allegations were likely false.

  6. Former SJA says:

    DoD’s 2007 SAPR report to Congress was 37 pages.  This year’s report is 1,677 pages, including 10 appendices, 4 Service enclosures, and 2 annexes.  A BB’s worth of information encased in impenetrable layers of indecipherable statistical data, nonsensical definitions and bureaucratic gobbledygook.  It’s been successful though, since no one ever reads or talks about anything beyond SAPRO’s slick 1-page statistical highlights graphic.

  7. DCGoneGalt says:

    If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with ($4.479M worth of) bu!!sh!t.

  8. Concerned Defender says:

    Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Dollars…. 
    At some point these people should be prosecuted for fraud, waste, and abuse.   They’re not even delivering a useful or good work product, as Zach points out.   These “studies” are so inherently flawed.  I always get a kick when I hear “35% of rapes are never reported.”  Well, if they’re never reported, where does that number originate from???  This whole topic just gets me so perplexed at how the entire thing is so badly handled and mismanaged.  
    The military also does absolutely NOTHING to punish any females who fabricate about sex assaults.  I have never personally seen an acquittal result in any perjury charges against the female, and may have read of one or two in my career.  When there is literally no risk to fabricate, and a lot to gain (VA disability, clearing your name, exonerating from your own crimes, etc.) there’s going to be a spike in false reporting.  You want to fix the problem and only get legit reporting, prosecute the liars. 

  9. TC says:

    Acquittals should result in perjury charges against the victims.  More unfathomable pinheadery from CD.

  10. DCGoneGalt says:

    Fargo insult reference.  I smile.

  11. J.M. says:

    TC, When it can be proven that an accuser lied under oath or on a sworn statement, they absolutely should be prosecuted. My accuser admitted to lying in her statement to the police and under oath at the Art 32. No action taken. A Soldier in one of my former units lied under oath at TWO Art 32s (she claimed rape after being told she was getting an Art 15) and it was proven by video that she lied. Was she charged? No, she got a PCS to work in a MEPS station in her hometown. So when a accuser says that two men dragged her into a barracks room, held her down, and raped her as she screamed for help and the cell video (taken with her knowledge) shows her on top screaming for more, then a failure to prosecute for perjury sends a message that the military doesn’t care if you’re falsely accused.
    BTW, both Soldiers got art 15’d for adultery, despite her being a geobachelor and never seen wearing a wedding ring. That’s justice? 
    CD gets a little hyperbolic, but he’s not wrong. There are females not only making false accusations, but teaching others to do the same thing. I had a SPC in my old platoon that slept with a NCO, then after she got in trouble, blackmailed him with the threat to go to the CoC and report him for rape if he didn’t bail her out. The NCO stepped up and reported it to the 1SG. He got a art 15 for his troubles, she was sent to the SGT board 4 months later. The SPC that made that threat is now a CID agent. I have walked in on a conversation between two female Soldiers. A SGT telling a SPC getting an Art 15 that if she claims rape, she’ll skate on it. I reported it, my CoC told me to shut up and stay in my lane. So I went down to TDS and gave them the names, date of the conversation and subject so that they would at least know, because nobody else cared. 

  12. TC says:

    Yes, when it can be proven that an accuser lied under oath and falsely claimed she was sexually assaulted, she should be prosecuted.  That’s not even in the same universe as viewing an acquittal as proof of perjury.

  13. k fischer says:

    TC,
    Viewing an acquittal as proof of perjury, you say?  I’m pretty sure that would be stronger of perjury than the proof in some rape cases I have seen go to a GCM.  And, it’s at least enough to get titled or even open an investigation under today’s standard, not that I recommend that in every case.  It’s just the absurdity 120 cases have become that frustrates people.

  14. k fischer says:

    And CD did not say acquittals should result in perjury charges against the accuser.  He lamented how none have because I’m sure he’s had cases where the accuser was caught lying on the stand.   Certainly one acquittal was a result of the accuser being caught in perjury.
     
    But, twist what he/she said so you can use your clever Fargo reference you neomaxizoomdwebie……

  15. DCGoneGalt says:

    Come on, be honest, an acquittal isn’t even proof of actual innocence.  It’s innocence according to the law but it only means threat the allegation couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  
     
    False allegations happen.  However, an acquittal may be one indicator of falsity but it sure as hell isn’t proof.

  16. Isaac Kennen says:

    k Fischer said:
     

    Viewing an acquittal as proof of perjury, you say?  I’m pretty sure that would be stronger of perjury than the proof in some rape cases I have seen go to a GCM.  And, it’s at least enough to get titled or even open an investigation under today’s standard, not that I recommend that in every case.  It’s just the absurdity 120 cases have become that frustrates people.
     

    If that’s true, and our standard for preferral in Art 120 cases has truly fallen that low, then that’s an argument to reform the handling of Art 120 cases – maybe by amending the RCMs to give Art 32 PHO proceedings some sharper teeth.  But, lax charging standards in one class of cases is not an argument to let that error spread to other classes of cases.  We should fight a cancer, not help it metastasize.

  17. stewie says:

    kf you fail statistics I’m sorry. Taking one year, and then taking a host of DIFFERENT reasons why cases didn’t end up prosecuted and then declaring a false accusation rate based on that is not remotely scientific.

  18. Ed says:

    Isaac Kennen
    I suggest the way 120’s are prosecuted need chemo, radiation and surgery. Take a Saturday session to tell us how to make it better.
    Reading some recent Air Force opinions makes me believe a lot of treatment is necessary. 
     

  19. k fischer says:

    DCCG,
     
    In the military, I would say an acquittal is more proof of actual innocence than in a trial with civilian jurors.  However, your point is made and I agree.  I don’t think DC meant every acquittal should result in the preferral of charges.  He was lamenting that it NEVER has, and I am sure that there have been a few alleged vics caught in a lie on the stand at some point in the past 7 years.
     
    Isaac,
     
    I agree.  Preferring charges upon an acquittal would be dumb.  But what if the rules for findings were changed to allow a finding of Innocent beyond a reasonable doubt if 2/3’s voted on it, kind of like the Australian system?  If an accused was found innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, then would that be proof that the alleged vic was lying?
     
    Stewie,
     
    I aced both of my statistics classes.  Where did you gather your suspicion that false allegations are less than 35%?  You are correct that my experience is anecdotal and tells me that if there is a complaining witness who is willing to cooperate and the accused is known and her allegations are not demonstrably false with some kind of smoking gun evidence, then that charge is going to be preferred.  (I recall reading a poster on this blog who said as much, Stewie)  So, when NOTHING HAPPENS AT ALL, i.e. no GOMOR, no Admin sep, no Article 15, then I would imagine that in those cases there was evidence that indicated the sexual assault allegations were demonstrably false.  Unless of course, the military is chock full of Commanders and their SJA’s or SVP’s who are willing to commit career suicide to dismiss a sexual assault allegation without having a smoking gun reason as to why the allegation is false.  I don’t think there are.  And, I know this isn’t a hard, fast rule, but after quite a few studies where this rate has hovered between 30 and 40%, I wonder why there isn’t a study undertaken to find out why in 30-40% of the complaints NOTHING HAPPENS.  If it is because SJA’s and Commanders are sweeping sexual assault under the carpet, then something needs to be done because that is unacceptable!!!!  But, nobody in the military or Congress is really talking about this.  Why?  Because they know the allegations are most likely false.  If they make a big stink about it, then someone might make someone do a study, and even the most stacked panel will probably say the allegations are false.  I mean, does anyone have a different experience than me where Commanders are taking cases that CID sent them and dismissing for lack of probable cause in contravention of their SJA’s advice?
     
     

  20. Publius says:

    A northern California Air Force base preferred charges (two, under Art. 107) for a false accusation for sexual assault to a Special Court-Martial in November 2016.  While it quickly went away with a Chapter 4 for a UOTHC, it appeared to be one of those rare cases where there was overwhelming evidence that the allegation was fabricated.  But even then, the AFOSI would not close the initial allegation as unfounded.  Kudos to every one in that chain who had the courage to do the right thing.  It would have been interesting to see that case litigated, and if there was a conviction – what such a case is worth in sentencing.

  21. k fischer says:

    Publius,
     
    So, essentially, there is still an Airman who shows up as being arrested for sexual assault in NCIC, even though his accuser had charges preferred against her.
     
    One more point on the preferral of charges after an acquittal.  You are never going to see that, and here’s why:  Do you really think that a TC/SVP who points at the Accused and breaks out with the typical Jeckyll/Hyde comparison calling the Accused a monster, is then going to do an about face and advise a Commander to Court-martial a military false accuser? Because the question I would have is, why did you argue to the panel to convict the Accused if you thought she is a liar?
     
    Truth is, that will never happen, just like you will never see an SVP exercise candor in front of the tribunal and make this argument in closing: “She’s not credible.  I don’t know how any reasonable person could believe her beyond a reasonable doubt.  She lied 14 times during the Article 32 hearing.  Her story doesn’t match her mom’s story.  There is no independent physical evidence.  No pictures when there should be.  In fact, the only evidence in this case that shows abuse is what he provided in surreptitious recordings where he was the one being abused.  This is simply a she said/he said case, and she is not credible.  I wouldn’t trust her any farther than I could throw her.  The fact that she said it happened doesn’t make it true.  I can’t disprove beyond a reasonable that she is not fabricating these allegations to get sole custody of her daughter.  The Government has failed to make it’s burden, and I recommend that you find him not guilty.”
     
    Maybe if you saw an SVP or TC with that kind of integrity with a Servicemember false accuser, then you might see someone get prosecuted.  But, you are never going to see a perjury case after an acquittal where the TC or SVP argued that the panel should believe her beyond a reasonable doubt.  And, the time to exercise that kind of courage and integrity would ideally be prior to referral.  Although, an SVP who made that argument in closing would be legendary.

  22. DCGoneGalt says:

    My favorite false allegation case is [read in order . . . sadly, but unsurprisingly, the Daily Beast “journalist” never wrote the final part of the trilogy to let the readers know the non-victim’s allegation was false):
     
    Daily Beast – Spies, Lies, and Rape in the Air Force: An Undercover Agent’s Story – 4 Mar 14
     
    Daily Beast – Air Force Charges Ex-Informant With Lying About Her Rape – 1 May 14
     
    Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals – US v Neubauer – 10 Mar 16

  23. DCGoneGalt says:

    And last, but not least:
     
    CAAFLOG Post on Neubauer Case

  24. Concerned Defender says:

    Yes, while a bit hyperbolic, I clearly meant that it rarely-to-never occurs where a lying (usually female) accuser faces ramifications for even the most obvious fabrications.  
    I’m thinking of one case in particular where you can simply compare/contrast her 5 various recorded or typed sworn statements – dozens of material lies that cannot co-exist in reality.  Client got prosecuted, imprisoned, BCD, and lost on appeal.  Bewildered does not do it justice. 
    No honest non-biased or non-brainwashed person could review her statements and come to a conclusion of guilt; conversely, if read/reviewed in a vacuum not knowing their gender, you’d charge the accuser with at least lying or perjury.  That’s removing all emotion.  There’s no two-ways about it.  Her material SWORN statements leading to a rape allegation and conviction simply cannot co-exist in reality, they cannot be based on confusion…. the only explanation is knowing fabrication.
    Yet she’s likely happily doing whatever in her life or career, and a totally innocent man had his life ruined by that little black widow after a voluntary sexual encounter.

  25. TC says:

    If you fail to get an acquittal with such overwhelmingly favorable facts, you might as well blame it on the members being brainwashed. 

  26. stewie says:

    There are all sorts of reasons why a case might not go forward to trial AND the alleged victim is not making a false allegation (aka knowingly lying). I’m fairly certain you are more than smart enough to come up with at least three examples kf.

  27. Tami a/k/a Princess Leia says:

    There is a difference between an intentionally false allegation of sexual assault, and a false allegation based on a mistaken, but honest, belief that what occurred was a sexual assault.  With all the misinformation put out these days, not just the military, but also the federal and state governments (such as affirmative consent and blacked out = sexual assault), is it any wonder why there are so many false accusations.
     
    I also believe in prosecuting intentionally false allegations.  Anyone subject to the UCMJ can prefer charges under RCM 307, and you don’t need a trial counsel to administer the oath.  So a client who has been the victim of a false allegation can turn around and prefer charges against the AV (if the AV is still subject to the UCMJ) for false official statement, perjury, etc.  All it takes is personal knowledge or investigation of the matters.  I would say personal knowledge that the AV lied is sufficient.

  28. Throwaway says:

    What about a AV who was asked under oath, during an interview for a Commander’s Directed Investigation, if she ever had sex with the accused, who states no, then the next day goes the SARC and tell them she lied, told to go to OSI and tell them the “truth”, then claims she was sexually assaulted the first time she had sex with the accused, not the second time they had sex?
    The accused is acquitted of the sexual assault, but found guilty of lesser charges (Dereliction of Duty) for being senior in rank to the AV and Maltreatment of the AV (for telling dirty jokes to the AV Shen they were having a sexual relationship) because now he’s the Accused and under investigation and those private dirty jokes turned into sexual harassment since he outranked her.
    The accused is sentence to a demotion and reprimand, no confinement nor BCD/DD. However his CO then successfully separates him via a Admin sep board with a General Under Honorable discharge.
    The AV never gets in trouble for initially lying, helps deny the accused clemency with a victim impact statement saying how he’s ruined her life by having consensual sex with her and saying inside jokes to her that were private before the investigation happened. She then gets an Expedited Transfer four months after trial, since she filed an instructed report, even though the accused was acquitted. The AV also committed perjury during the motions hearing by lying, however the government/command didn’t want to persue disciplinary action against her.
    Easiest way to get out of making a false official statement? Accused someone of some Art 120 crime. You’ll most likely never be punished and can swing a nice assignment out of the deal.

  29. K fischer says:

    Stevie,
     
    I’m not that smart.  Enlighten me.
     
    Tami,
     
    There might be a difference in the culpability of the false accuse, but the trauma of being falsely accused is no different to the victim of the false allegation.  And if training is the problem, then looking at these 1,450 cases would address and fix it.

  30. stewie says:

    Really if?
     
    Alleged victim is raped by boyfriend.  They have had a long relationship with plenty of consensual sex, she waits months to report. There’s no evidence. I’ve seen that case not go to trial.
     
    Alleged victim is raped. She’s got a history of dishonesty. She’s a bad soldier. The accused is a good soldier.  I’ve seen that case not go to trial.
     
    I’ve had a case where I thought the evidence was there but the alleged victim simply did not want to go through a trial.
     
    I’m sure you and others can come up with other examples.

  31. Philip D Cave says:

    There might be a difference in the culpability of the false accuse, but the trauma of being falsely accused is no different to the victim of the false allegation. 

     
    Let’s remember something about false accusations.  In a significant number of cases the accused is married with children.  When they are falsely accused there is the immediate victim and then the other victims.  It’s kinda like dropping a big bomb.  Hopefully the target is directly under the nose.  But when the bomb explodes others get killed as well, including civilians–the so-called collateral damage.  With a false allegation they are:
    1. The spouse of the falsely accused.
    2. The parents of the falsely accused who have to read about it in their hometown paper, and perhaps explain it to friends and family.
    3. The children of the falsely accused who are asked on their DoD school playground about their daddy the rapist.
    4. Good order and discipline and real victims.  
    I don’t buy the idea that he deserved it by cheating.  People are being bullied and cajoled into being denialists.  Just as denialists are a danger to those living with HIV, the same concept here.  Remember.  Every time someone tells you that it’s OK to allow someone to falsely accuse in order to give space to real victims so they will complain, they are saying that it’s OK to punish the accused’s wife, children, parents, good order and discipline, and allow a culture in which it’s easy to say every “rape” is false.  So, the denialists are willing to ignore the impact on the accused as well as others.  There are false narratives that imply there is no such thing as a false rape accusation or that all allegations are false.  The unwillingness to acknowledge that false rapes happen and that the number may be more than Dr. Lisak’s 2-8%, feeds the false narrative.  Interesting that people focus on the 2% and not that he produced a range.  [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21164210]  Keep in mind that there appears to be some question about Dr. Lisak’s work.
     
    https://reason.com/blog/2015/07/28/campus-rape-stats-lisak-study-wrong
    http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/28/major-study-on-campus-sex-assault-debunked/
    https://reason.com/archives/2015/07/28/campus-rape-statistics-lisak-problem

  32. DCGoneGalt says:

    Campus Rape Frenzy
     
    Some question about Lisak’s work?  He’s the most “social” of social scientists.  On an equal par with the science of Dr. Peter Venkman.

  33. K fischer says:

    Stewie,
    youve seen those cases not going to trial in the past six years?  But nonetheless you are flipping the script.  The Vic not cooperating are not included in the 1,450 where NOTHING HAPPENED.  No preferral of charges, article 15, or admin sep.  heck you are the one who said unless there is overwhelming evidence that the accused didn’t do it that you’d recommend preferral of charges.  And I I would venture a guess that you didn’t even read the appendix, so you don’t know what I’m talking about.

  34. Vulture says:

    Does the definition consider this sexual assault: Horrible Bosses  I might.  At least harassment.  But people take it as comedy so there are a lot of reasons someone might not report it.  Creepy damn movie though.

  35. stewie says:

    kf the victim not cooperating can ABSOLUTELY lead to no preferral, and yes I’m talking last six years.

  36. stewie says:

    And actually kf, what I said was that if there was no evidence that the AV was clearly lying, that I would send it to a 32. Of course that was back when the 32 was an actual fair process for the accused.

  37. k fischer says:

    kf the victim not cooperating can ABSOLUTELY lead to no preferral, and yes I’m talking last six years.
     

    Stewie, please read appendix B.  You will notice that victim’s not cooperating was captured as to why the command was precluded from taking action.  252 victims refused to participate in prosecution.  Those 252 cases were not counted in my 1,450 cases of false allegations.  I understand that is a valid reason why a preferral did not occur, and does not indicate that the allegation was false, although it very well could be a false allegation.
     
    In the other two examples you cited, it appeared you had two alleged victims who wanted to cooperate, which means that they were willing to take the stand and testify to facts that would indicate they were raped.  There does not appear to be any evidence in those two examples that the AV was clearly lying, so under your policy, which appears to be the policy of virtually every JAG office, charges would be preferred. 
     
    So, if charges were preferred, then I did not count them as a false allegation.   I did not look at cases that “didn’t go to trial.”  I only took into account cases where there was an allegation, there was a cooperating alleged victim, and NOTHING HAPPENED criminal or administratively. If the accused received a GOMOR for a brutal rape allegation, I did not count that as a false allegation.  If the Accused was given an Article 15 for a brutal rape, then I did not count that as a false allegation.  If the Accused was facing a separation board because of a brutal rape, I didn’t count that.  I only counted the 670 cases where NOTHING HAPPENED AT ALL and the 534 cases where NOTHING HAPPENED regarding the sexual assault charge, but the accused faced adverse action for other misconduct.
     
    Once again, either there is an epidemic of cases being swept under the rug where nothing happens to a rapist, or there is an epidemic of false allegations where the rate of false allegations is 15 times higher in the military than in the civilian world.  Considering some of the stupid cases I’ve seen make it into the courtroom, I’d venture to guess that if nothing happened at all to the accused and the alleged victim is saying she was assaulted, then the TC believes the allegation to be very, very false.