[Bull]

I'm not making a poster about this because I don't think it's the least bit funny but I thought maybe some of you might want to discuss it. Here's an article and the reference link.

Courts-martial set in Air Force sex scandal

The Air Force announced Wednesday that two training instructors at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas were referred to special courts-martial in a growing sexual misconduct scandal.

Master Sgt. Jamey Crawford was accused of wrongfully conducting a sexual relationship with a basic trainee and other offenses. Allegations against Tech. Sgt. Christopher Smith included wrongfully making sexual advances toward a trainee.

Their trial dates have not yet been set.

A dozen instructors have been suspected of assaulting female recruits.

Allegations of sexual misconduct between instructors and cadets began there last summer, and the Pentagon has ordered a comprehensive strategic review of the entire Air Force training community.

The widespread criminal investigation is looking into the possibility that cases of sexual misconduct extend beyond Lackland.

Investigators are looking at four Air Force bases in two states.

Since allegations of misconduct began, 35 military instructors have been removed from their posts. Four have been accused.

Sgt. Luis Walker, one of the accused instructors, pleaded not guilty and faces court-martial. He's charged with raping or sexually assaulting 10 recruits between October 2010 and January 2011.

The Air Force says it's being fully transparent.

"I want the public to know what's going on," said Lackland's Col. Glenn Palmer. "I don't want the possibility of someone saying, 'Well look - they're trying to cover it up.'"

The investigation comes as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced wider plans to deal with the issue.

In April, he said, "We will continue to develop our strategies. We'll continue to devote our energy and our intention to enforcing our department's zero-tolerance policy on sexual assault."

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers such as Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., want to investigate the matter further with a hearing of their own.

"Congress has known about this problem in the military for 25 years," she said in an interview broadcast on "CBS This Morning" Wednesday. "We've had lots of hearings, lots of reports. But are we willing to step up and do the right thing by taking it out of the chain of command so the victims really have the freedom to report these crimes and feel that they are not going to be marginalized and labeled and then dismissed from the military?"

This could be the worst sexual misconduct scandal to hit the military since a similar case involving the Army in Aberdeen, Md., in 1996.

On Wednesday, victims of military sexual assault planned to lobby members of Congress seeking support for legislation sponsored by Speier called the Stop Act. It would take probes of military sexual assault away from commanders and put them in the hands of a separate military unit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-574 ... x-scandal/

[KALKAM]

"raping or sexually assaulting 10 recruits"

That's a big "or"....what does that mean? Like they ordered them to have sex? Or the violently forced it?

I don't know if they have rules about instructors not having sex with them in the first place or not.


I think one of the members here would know...I really have no idea.

[Bull]

He's accused of raping one and sexually assaulting several other women. And yes, this is a BIG no-no.

United States Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 134 (The General Article)

Chapter 4: SEXUAL OFFENSES

A. Based on the revision to Article 120 (effective 1 October 2007), this section divides treatment
of sexual offenses under the UCMJ. Paragraph V(B) addresses the “new” Article 120, Rape,
Sexual Assault, and Other Sexual Offenses. Paragraph V(C) addresses the “old” Article 120,
Rape. Beginning with paragraph V(D), the range of other sexual offenses—some of which
survive the “new” Article 120 and some of which do not—are developed in sequence. As
practitioners navigate this section, they should remain cognizant of 1) the date the offense
occurred, and 2) the statute of limitations when deciding which offenses to research.
B. “New Article 120” Rape, Sexual Assault, and Other Sexual Offenses (post-1 October 2007).
MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 45; UCMJ art. 120 (2008).
1. Effective date: 1 October 2007. Implementing Executive Order signed 28 September
2007 (E.O. 13447).
2. Statute best considered in three parts: the “Big Four” offenses, the child sexual abuse
offenses, and the remaining sexual offenses:
a) The “Big Four” offenses: rape, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated sexual
contact, and abusive sexual contact.
(1) By adding “w/ a child” to each of these four, the titles for eight of the
statute’s fourteen offenses emerge.
(2) Consent and mistake of fact as to consent are affirmative defenses
only available to these “Big Four” offenses.
(3) Statutory definitions for “sexual act” and “sexual contact,” along with
the set of attendant circumstances identified in the statute, combine to
define each of the four offenses.
b) The Child Sexual Abuse Offenses: rape of a child, aggravated sexual assault
of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual contact with a
child, abusive sexual contact with a child, and indecent liberty with a child.
c) The four remaining sexual offenses include: indecent act, forcible pandering,
wrongful sexual contact, and indecent exposure.
3. The “Big Four” offenses:
- by Force
- by Causing GBH
- by Threatening Death / GBH - by Causing Bodily Harm
- by Rendering Unconscious - by Threatening ( < Death / GBH)
- by Administering Intoxicant - by Taking Advantage of Incapacity
▼ ▼
Sexual Act ► RAPE AGG. SEXUAL ASSAULT
Sexual Contact ► AGG. SEXUAL CONTACT ABUSIVE SEXUAL CONTACT
4 - 22

4. The “Big Four” offenses defined. As the chart above indicates, start with defining
whether or not a “sexual act” or a “sexual contact” has been committed, then determine
which set of attendant circumstances apply to arrive at the proper offense. The following
notes regarding the definitions and attendant circumstances are intended to assist in
navigating the chart.
a) “Sexual Act”. (MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 45a(t)(1)).
(1) The penetration described by “sexual act” excludes male-on-male
sexual activity.
(2) Broader conduct than merely sexual intercourse.
(3) If penetration accomplished by hand, finger, or any object, specific
intent requirement that must be alleged and proved: “with an intent to
abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person.”
b) “Sexual Contact”. (MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 45a(t)(2)).
(1) May encompass same conduct proscribed by Article 125, Sodomy,
including male-on-male sexual activity.
(2) Specific intent requirement for all sexual contacts that must be
alleged and proved: “with an intent to abuse, humiliate, or degrade any
person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
c) “Lewd Act”. (MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 45a(t)(10)).
(1) Requires intentional “skin-to-skin contact” with the genitalia of
another person.
(2) Requires the specific intent “to abuse, humiliate, or degrade any
person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
(3) Applies only to Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child (Art. 120(f)).
d) “Force”. (MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 45a(t)(5)).
(1) While “without consent” is no longer an element of any of the “Big
Four” offenses, “force” is defined using terms that nonetheless invoke the
concept of “consent.” Specifically, the statute says force means action to
compel submission of another or to overcome or prevent another’s
resistance. (emphasis added). These emphasized phrases may cause the
government to prove lack of consent as part of its “force” proof.
(2) The concept of “constructive force,” developed by case law prior to
the revision of Article 120, is defined out of the new Article 120’s
definition of “force” and appears elsewhere in other statutory definitions.
e) At this time, the difference between “rendering” another person unconscious
or “administering” an intoxicant to another person (for purposes of establishing
rape or aggravated sexual contact) and taking advantage of incapacitation (for
purposes of establishing an aggravated sexual assault or abusive sexual contact)
appears to be the extent to which the principal caused the victim’s incapacitation.
f) “Threatening or placing that other person in fear” of anything less than death
or grievous bodily harm is defined at MCM, pt. IV, ¶ 45a(t)(7) and National
4 - 23

Source: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... ok_V-2.pdf

[WTFO]

The Court Martial process will determine guilt and administer punishment as required. This happens once in a while at Lackland.

[arnnatz]

I don't know if they have rules about instructors not having sex with them in the first place or not.
I think one of the members here would know...I really have no idea.

The military has non-fraternization rules that would make it a punishable offense for, say an officer to have sex with an NCO or enlisted person, and for an military person in a supervisory position to have sex with a trainee or someone who is under them (no pun intended) I think it might fall under conduct unbecoming as well, but not sure of that one.