You so much. Were going to give a very brief update on the case review. We have now completed the review of the investigative case files in the preliminary hearing reports that were available where 32 was held. We have the inputting process of the information that was released from the investigation. We had this process and will continue to work on the other services and how the data produced and hand over the questions i was here today of all probable cause and whether or not there was an acquittal and overturned and have the data complete and would then have for analysis would have on site visits which would be drafting questions which would answer any of the questions on the data as raised for you. Have you any questions thats it for my interview today. Well put. Before we start our next match that a working group presentation, is there anybody its been proposed that they members of the ipad to site visits and they have a general idea of seeing no opposition then we can go ahead and start planning for those. Its also being proposed at an earlier meeting that article 32 of working group and i think we already voted in favor of that so i know the judge couldnt be here today but if other people are interested in what were aware and let them know that theyre interested in participating. Great. Mr. Mason and dr. Wells the floor is yours. Only get oppression station up to move up to that i just want to clarify that the question was raised on it for looking at a conviction of contested cases versus those that were just preferred and referred. We have and are in the appearance that weve done for the past three years and for the breaking of it out. Those slides for the report had in the data report audience and were going to go back in. We will have them. We did a little bit differently this time around and in the big picture just off the top i can tell you that with the military judge with a contested trial it will go to the sex offense and convicted of a non sex offense or acquitted of all charges 90 of the time. Deep flat out rate is 21. 6. Thats very similar to what we are seeing when there plea deals are included. The presentation is spinning so we will continue for having to show you the one thing that weve been discussing is the cases of how much they are falling here from here. Thats why 15 weve seen 780 cases are in the database and the most recently we have 574 cases. That is a steep decline over the past four years and as for penetrative Sexual Assault that were preferred. 574 cases and we talked this morning about the fact that other cases were receiving when we duty our fbi and we talk about the 75 of the cases are up from this past year another 25 or because they were the wrong fiscal year or there was some other reason that we couldnt added to our list. Take away from that is that we rely on services that tell us what your cases are at the information that we do from them is not 100 percent accurate. Pardon me for interrupting but trial 74 is the 75 percentage or the 75 of five 74 . Its 75 of 574. The actual case this year is 507. Its a valid case . Yes sir. Of the 754 we dont know we track. We have a tracking sheet and are down to the line if he was a duplicate case or have 90 of getting into the database and in the line and numbers of how it breaks up and with respect to one service there was no documents to support so we dont know what happened on how that got on the list but leniency that look the other services. The drop from last year this year is two questions. Do we have less Sexual Assaults in the military . Number two, are there less victims coming forward . Unfortunately, what the data is going to tell you is cases were seen that go through a system does not tell us if theres less happening or if there is less victims who are not coming forward and doesnt tell us any of that. The conclusion that we can draw is at the distribution of big contact offense as remained consistent over the last three years. Even a number of cases are falling so we can reasonably say and doctor wells can correct me if im wrong that we are not focusing our attention just on the contact cases are still 25 of whats going forward. We have the contract because it still 75 . You can see that there is a decline and nothing really has changed. Whole apologize for the presentation behind you but the slide tells you that the percentage of cases within our database. When you look at the fourth column or the fyi 2018 you see 40. 4 of our cases and our database or july 18. The column next to that tells you that there percentage of that is 35 . The obvious case in our database are overrepresentation over what the services. You can go by looking across the years you see out the services a bounce back and the coach guard is consistent and we genuinely see the same number of cases and just in the side last year they had 15 cases. Its a much smaller sample that we work with. We discussed as yesterday a bit. The change this year from what we do in the past is changing the way that we represent. You look top to bottom and 2018 will be at the top of the tables and we included the numbers as well as presented just. We have not received anything so for sex of the accused in 2018, bails were 99. 7 of the accused and 0. 3 were female which works out to two females accused of Sexual Assault in the services that had a preferred penetrative or contact offense last year. That number has buried and are always looking at 99 and less than 1 . This chart here represents the pay grade of the accused was for east case and their preferred 18. In the report youll see that this chart as been replicated four times for each fiscal year from 15 to now. Why its an interesting chart this year compared to the others is previously the peak for the unlisted and the peak for officers would be the oh three pay grade. We dont know why this is happened but these pieces shifted to the left. The issue you have this year is easy three and oh two four officers. Its something that as the data are a look at will see if this is a new trend that might have been something with training and people are getting in more trouble and the issue will try to drag down going forward. But again, we cant tell you right now why that is the case. Just so im clear, the four is a proportion of the surface . He three, he for a, five or 26 of the images that peak should be in that area. However, this year its shifting a lot. To go at what the chair said. You have a lover, you could be part of the four and we can absolutely do that now. Any text of the report it does have a break out of 80 percentages on it and we dont have in decisional detail. The next slide is a representation of the victims and 91 or female. This number as been very close over the last few years and is a massive variation. With the total number of cases being five 74. That means cases of multiple victims. We categorize out of the presentation that its in the report that we know how many cases with bone victims and how many cases were to victims and how many were three or four or more as a percentage. In the last year, the highest victim account that we have in a case is 13 or 15 victims. It was a all female victim. Stacey just provided to me. In 4 of the cases as pure victims and 10 of the cases the two victims and 86 had one victim. But that will be in the actual report. The next slide is status of the victims and we tried to put it into the representation and im not sure why we had in the past and wanted to include it this year to show that 60. 5 or 61 were all military victims and 36 were all civilian entering a percent and if you look at the previous years, its another issue an instance of that and the number of cases are being fairly consistent to 1 are all military. You would think that there might be shifts but its not happening its all across the same way. Victim relationship and why this is important is because weve talked about the sec row in getting information and we are not reporting all of this as we have different pending but if you look there are 82 pieces that are spells our intimate partner and each case will not make it in the report cars they were falling in effect. It is unique because we talk about all of the Sexual Assault that we know. This is some damage done already. The penetrate are versus contact resolution and 25 or contact and its the same percentage for 18, 17 and 16. Cases dropping and percentages saying the same. Chair, you brought up article 42 today and once again you can see a number of ways that were held and 373 last year and 432 the year before and there are 104 last year but when you look at the percentages and 70 present and 21 once again the declining of what are the chances that is the exact same percentages. 2015 and you can see it comes to 16 and the number shifts to you. This is a new version of a conviction rate that when a 32 was waived what was the ultimate conviction rate. Im giving you something and in the last year 32 were found guilty of not the easy offense and only in four cases that was 3. 8 and the penetrate offense which is 30. 8 . It gives you an idea of when theyre getting convicted of something which is the only wave of 32. They decide it wasnt going to for whatever reason and thats what weve seen. Its possible there congested. But these are pleas in a contest case. The 32 was waived and it was in the can fiction and we can tell you thats not a way that we looked at the numbers. Were looking at yes sir. This chart will tell you how our audiences are being resolved and its a penetrate of offense thats preferred and ultimately resolved in court. Wait i had the removal from this chart and its going to trial and we ran into this issue last year and drawing attention to it now and we should not be seen with the administrative offense with the Court Martial. And there are two cases where that allegedly is in reality what has happened in those two cases is that charges were preferred for penetrative offense which is ultimately resolved which was not a penetrative offense. It was assault and battery and any penetrated offense fell off and was not resolved. But they have preferred the charge and in order to the miscommunication of any problems have included the appendix report that specifically lays out these cases and tells you these are the charges that were preferred and this is what the sja two the authority was and the pretrial agreement was the tells you what happens or what deal they were making and what was referred to the police and the finance. Weve done that in some of these cases that were penetrative so if somebody wants to see whats going on they can look and see and it shows the services are not resolving these cases at a violation of the law. My problem is i would agree that the offense is resolved in Court Marshals so there were two penetrative offensives. I would recommend that we think about if there were an adjective that was getting resolved and they were dismissed with Something Else and to some report maybe they shouldnt be on the trial. We had that conversation we tried to go back and forth and change in the report last year and havent found the right way to word it and will go back and revisit it and the defence is initially referred and charges were dropped and when you get the report in a couple of weeks were of you, all Pay Attention to where i put it. That will be the case under next charge which has the courts resolved which is ultimately a contact offense and whether the contact move forward or not this is how the case is being resolved. I will figure out the wording for that as well. That is the snapshot view of the data and as i said, we clarify earlier that the appendix to the report is going to be 100 pages and will have every doubt a point that you could want interpretation of it. When you go to the service of all the information that we got from me to be that is a basis of a benchmark which is a data point that we give in that period. It explains the results. Mr. Mason, before a transition. I believe youve shared this before im sorry but is one of the data points that had an spca or beale sea . We cant tell if they are on record at some point. We have documents saying that Victims Counsel was involved and we will located. Its just like looking at the record trial would stacey and if she comes across that you scat it but were not think that were hundred percent confident on that but we do have it as a data point. It could be part of the analysis to see what happened to a place in what it did or did not have. The new format for the air force was outlining the portion of whether or not it would be label to them or not. I dont know if it was before or not but the 574 cases with data comparing that in all the reports for penetrative or all of the reports that came in that year. No we dont. The case review will look at the investigations and we can take their movers for fyi 17 and articles of cases that were resolved. But the problem is, they are saying that it was closed and investigation was closed and the Court Martial can try to put this together i didnt mean that. I met the reports across the service in that there were 2000 reports and 574 cases. Or are we not able to do that. We can try to give an idea based on the report but we dont report that and we can pull that process. We have to say that we can give you statistics on what we saw in the department. The result that we have summarized is very similar to the estimated fyi 16 and 17 data doctor spawn estimated and we built models to understand the relationship between case characteristics and other aspects of that case. The dismissals, acquittals and conviction on penetrate a vents and conviction and we looked at sanctioning and getting it with some conviction. The celebration confinement length and they can pine censoring which will be part of those sanctions together. Its some of the key results from those models at the cut of the chase a lot, what we see here on fyi 18 is in 16 and 17. Nothing new jumps out here and we see that for predictor variables that are important across these models and a number of charges that were filed in the case and the defence if we see to the bubble attempt out is being important. They wouldve been a part of the discussion and we dont find any differences between the Service Branches and the likelihood of an acquittal in that case so theres no differences between it. In the f why 16 day that we saw the, different from the fyi 17 we saw the airport force differ and those are the only differences between those acquittals. The likelihood of being convicted as a little bit higher in the marines when they prepare in the air force and we saw the same thing or similar patterns in 16 17. In terms of the likelihood of being convicted on any charge its the highest in the army and in the navy. This is what statistically different in the air force so we see that and with regard to a sanction and the separation many highest army and we compare those to the navy. The second predictable burial is a number of charges in the connection to the defence that goes up and the charges increases and you read the acquittal or the dismissal which was at the number of charges are increase. Just to clarify, again, the charges against the number of Sexual Assaults and what it is for anything, is that correct . Is a false statement leaving the pace a little bit like that. We didnt separate out those all those different charges. And then of the charges increase its a more severe sanction given that there was some direction. The highest chances of a confinement sentence with penetrate of Sexual Assault conviction and theres no difference in the confinement between contact adventures and sexual salt which is a fence convictions. Do you do the separation and penetrative in contact convictions and the senate saying that we created is related to the type of effect so its higher for the contact defenses and all Sexual Assault and all three of those were significantly significant. We then see a couple of characteristics that are more observed that are 16 or 17 hand. This dismissal is higher when the parties involved were intimate and the current separation or lowered in cases that involve victims for military Service Members and compared to us later category. The dismissal of what stage . Post referral. Matt the separation for lowering cases only happens to members as opposed to civilians in the military and civilian victims. These are results for the f why 18 data. When you said that theres no significant difference between military service and whittles. The marine had a different level of screening and that is harsher and the military is the same as reserves. The conviction right retire. The conviction rate yes thats correct. How does that happen . Can you describe that . When you make these comparisons, were putting together a whole variety together into a comparing it to a single other category. The comparison is the likelihood of a quell compared to everything else. Dismissal, dismissive, conviction about contact attempts and the Sexual Assaults and we go to the convention its that category versus everything else. That might explain why not. Theres a secret related that conviction rates are being higher and with greater charges and are you able to know if there is a difference to any charges are happening across the services . We control for the service of our image. Its parsing out the effect on that outcome and isolating the number of charges and we could that analysis but the number of charges across the service prances they will have differential impacts and i dont know the numbers off the top of my head and the different kind of accommodations and policies by youre interested. I would just add that the appendix from last years report its for a 17 unsustainable. They accused charge in the charges between 18. 2 and convicted of a non sex offense is 43. 2 and the other services at 21. 5 so they were not convicted of a contact with those services but were much higher that they were guilty of. There was a guilt rate but the acquittal weight is can looked at through 16 and 17 as well. You know the population there . I do not but i can find out. A comparison in the air force is i would guess the marines are under well 10 . Its a great point. We have the data and we can show what we have which will go back to dod but i will get an answer for you. If you have any other questions thats all we have for dana. Thank you very much and keep of the great work and i better system. You know scheduled for deliberation on the misconduct. Do you know we are with that . Weve heard from the collateral misconduct and were able to ask questions deeper and deeper with the methodology. What i recommend what i recommend is that based upon they got as we get here today when we draft a letter to the secretary of defense and pointing out some of the problems that we saw today i would recommend that based upon the draft reports in the draft reports to us are not finalized and the opportunity to have him put into the final report which are done and what the arms services. One of my recommendations in went need to find some of these terms and the services will have consistent information and that way in the future and the reports will have consistent information across and one of the areas that we just heard from is that you can make comparisons between being acquitted here with the army or marine on this but its the basic information and right now we cant tell if weve committed misconduct or are likely in the navy or the marine corps and they definitely didnt use the same thing. One of the areas that has been discussed right off the bat is what wed like to do with the false reporting information that you received. That seemed to be an area that was a topic of conversation and i think part of this deliberation on how lovely draft need to cover that area. Its the staff where we stand on that. It seems to me either struggling with that and how they came up with this and i think it would be much easier if we recommend the limited category from the analysis of collateral misconduct. Its a truly false report and its a collateral and its impossible to see of people left it out and much easier to know if they left it out. Id like to say i agree but i do want to make sure that this committee is somehow hiding and that there may be false reports by having taken out and i think we need to address the fact that they were brought up and it doesnt appear to be collateral misconduct because of this account. This knowledge of the existence of that category in some way shape or form that we have ever gotten that information so we just pretended we never would be beneficial that the definition of collateral misconduct is that what they mean like lateral misconduct . I dont know if we would be hiding the fact that were not really sure it was the committee which would have the statement made by the people of whether was not it was a falsehood. There are a number of issues related to how are they fighting it and who was being where the false allegation was actually falling within the cross complaint or was it the victim coming forward and there are a number of issues related to the false allegation components. There are a number of reasons not new my only caution and all of this is to see it for not just running away from the false allegations and if they exist at all and i would refer to not just pretend like it never existed whatsoever if that makes sense and after a long day if im not making sense im happy. I agree with that. One of johns concerns dissatisfied by the fact that were expressed they going to address false reporting as a category which is a public letter and you can read it. To be clear, or not sweeping it under the rug theres a consistency and all of these areas and its false reporting. There is a consistency and here is our negotiation and as i understand it, and im usually wrong but i scientist and it the misconduct concern stems years and years ago from the deterrent effect on Sexual Assaults. If i say i got sexually assaulted im going to get hammered. If that is true, all of the definition should be focused on the collateral misconduct and clearly in the first report it is not one of those things. So its not collateral misconduct so i think we can solve that. The basic problem and this panel is the inconsistency. The areas in which they are the greatest consistency is in this reporting. Since thats the tone and tenor of the likely propose response. That should be highlighted that the congress and committee should rely on that and they were the point was made is that the initial victim reporting was by the initial suspect and there was zero consistency. That is the most egregious example of the uniform definition. Even after listening to the panel, i still dont really have a firm grasp on what they meant by false report. I think thats part of the problem here. I dont know if we ever got a definition of what falls report actually is to find in any service which is potentially another topic altogether. Ill just leave it at that. Theres something significant happening and i dont know it is a witch service it was but its somebody who sees somebody that oversees as an assault of what we would normally see as the false way in how false the way that word is. There was a third party report that the witness saw and here she perceived to be a Sexual Assault and reported it. When then, when the alleged victim was a question about that assault, we dont know whether its he or she and the fact that it was an assault and it was consensual and they encountered that which was a false report. A way to handle this would be to come up with for us as a staff and talking about collateral misconduct and the case review work through in which we have set on that is a pretty good idea about misconduct which is some conduct which is prior to or after ordering the Sexual Assault. For example underage drinking victims underage drinking and their Sexual Assault and that is rattled that misconduct. There is a fraternization and disparity and ranks between individuals. Adultery is another one. The violation of the article 92 where the victim can sign the suspect into their four is guilty of the violation. If they were smoking marijuana right before they had sex and the Sexual Assault could be considered collateral misconduct because it was very close to the deal in it. I dont know how many weeks went by before the subject and the false official statement cases made that allegation. I think what we can do is drafty definition of collateral misconduct and point out in the latter about the false swearing cases that were received and. Make a recommendation that was not included in the report to congress. Because they say themselves are not going to find and it opens up to more questions and they have answers. We can drafted and when it comes out to you all you can change and comment on it. But i think youre absolutely right, and needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed in a way that we know its there and as the committee know its there and also dont think it should be included in collateral was conduct. The definition that you all approved and i think we can handle it that way. Although im not sure there decisionmakers were going to the next report which is the same types of cases and whether it penetrative or sexual cases where its the same definition. I think it could really help by suggesting whether its just penetrative and sexual contact and if we could provide them suggested definitions of the terms that we would use. Its up to you but i dont want to misstate what you said but you think it should be penetrated and contact defenses and count all those . If youre looking at collateral i think you should look at the big universe of what they are reporting them being linked to. What we can do is put together the recommendations the recommendation that they should be the definition of the services followed across the board. Once collateral misconduct and another question is some of the services used in the case and some used in the open and close case is another definition that you can only be up for debate but you can only count those collateral misconduct cases where a case has been closed or its been taking on and there needs to be some services which counted theyre misconduct. I believe it was the air force that wasnt a completed case. That is something for your consideration. It gets complicated i think because as we heard some of the victims who want collateral consequences and over time to report and will not wait until after determination of the case. What we dont want to do is have something where we have the consequence that comes way after the determination of the case and dont see it as it wasnt pulled. I dont know if you can attach anything around dont know what the solution is. Can i speak for a minute . As part of the first pool in order to identify the victims that we have to define with subject cases because everything is going to be by subject and in the file. When they closed the Law Enforcement investigation and you try to identify all the victims and those offensives in the field to say those victims in what happened so the first place will be consistent in the initial poll where were even identified. I think everyone would agree that we can give a guidance on that to. Its pretty clear what the service is going to report and when the committee looks at the draft report which is 1 its actually compared to the legislation requires in victims who committed collateral misconduct and then of those victims the number who perceived adverse punishment for that is conduct and what was that percentage. Clearly there wasnt specific guidance from congress on it and the specificity of we looked at those numbers and went from one person that you saw in the draft and we think the marine corps was 90 something percent of a victim committed risk conduct and was punished 90 of the time. Whats the collateral misconduct . I forget the exact term and im glad you brought that up but thats the definition of us in the military justice does not have a word for the charge sheet and that individual has committed and the officer assigned up when starts the process and a suspect suspected of collateral misconduct and the army will have evidence of the case which is the potential and admitted it now the recused and in the suspect that may have and accuse to me was if you accused the investigation and a charge see and we can help them out and not making general is not adverse to anything but really what adverse marshal and non punishment is the separation for the misconduct and whether it goes in your file or not it too many to count in the United States army and if it goes in a local file it stays in that file for a period of time and a non punitive letter because i didnt get to go to school eight months from now and you can pull the string off this and to me if i dont think i got what i should get i would recommend that we define adverse and depending upon what service you are in in a reprimand and we give adverse statements and youre underage drinking and if you do it again it adds consequences to you and not not the good counsel and you would think and united great job taking this foxhole. And you screwed up and dont screw up again. You use those counseling statements for the administrative separation and you throw a pack for misconduct and the military. I think we can help them with the definition and i dont believe in my experience and a lot of difference between the adverse action so we can help them with the results to make it clear what the adverse action is. I recommend that we request that the Services Specifically say of the ten victims who receive adverse the adverse punishment and this is what it was. Two article 15 in the letters another spread out and i dont know if he can get into the punishment but theres article 15 for underage drinking for the policy and we want to inform those people and look at this and the Armed Services committee because theres really few numbers and thats the recommendation and what we can poll information. Document based. I think that would be important to know what the punishment was that may help inform and you dont know and you might see the Court Marshals and the separation if that happens its fine but do you all have any questions . We should address the 1 48 because thats the overriding issue and this highlights what we have about in our referendum and if that gets taken care of we will not have the consistencies in the future and when youre working on it Congress Asks for being sort of unusual but sometimes we do and they dont ask for much but they asked for numbers and has more the numbers and especially if theyre going to ask the services with time and effort beyond what Congress Asked for and thats what we really want to do. Thats the adverse action but basically the report from the services didnt aspirate total number of Sexual Assault during this time period. They only asked for the number of victims in this time period in a misconduct. You all can debate how much little or information we have in the ministry of events. Im a great believer in more information is more information and if its susceptible for its interpretation and somebody has to choose between Sexual Assault and is going to be kicked out of the service which is reprimanded and will accomplishment that there is a whole variety of adverse things that happens and most of them seem to be on the lower end. We already have the information and for asking him all going out and looking for more stuff. I think the good story from the Services Perspective is that the percentage of victims who arent committing any misconduct. It kind of got lost in the shuffle and for every report is showing something in the 90 that is a story that dont have a lot of victims and clouds the whole prosecution and if you dont have that issue involved in the overwhelming majority of cases thats good to make sure that it out to the committee and the secretary of defense. You need the committee to approve the path forward and to pull and asking them that they not be adverse as it was . Once if thats the way youd like to go and vote on that then what will do is put together a draft and then provide the 12th of september you will have a meeting and prior to that its the draft and you cant discuss it amongst yourselves but you can send it back to our office and you can pile it on the 12th and will have all of the changes that will be recommended and will vote at that point on the final product. inaudible i second that. Anybody opposed . I see no opposition. Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Grubber. Madam chair, its interesting to see before the registered notice of the opportunity to do so and colonel as youre aware with that man and the matters for you i hope we can have any of that distinction . This meeting is now concluded, thank you
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.