Can Chain of Command launch an investigation on a dropped SHARP charge that was also restricted reported?

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:23:27 -0400

7 months ago, I had a friend that had an alcohol related incident that ended up in a SHARP case. The soldier that filed it against him elected to go with a restricted report, and after 2 weeks the situation was resolved. He was recommended to ASAP and the soldier dropped the SHARP charge. Last week, he was moved to another unit because of the incident and his Chain of Command, maybe even higher, is trying to launch an investigation on him for not having all the details on the SHARP incident. He's 2 months away from PCS/ETS, I say that because he has to reenlist for a COT approved duty station request, but he doesn't want to lose the duty station if he reenlists and then gets flagged. His ETS is also less than 2 months away and is worried about being held in because of the investigation. He has no pending flags or prior flags as of right now. Is Chain of Command allowed to launch an investigation on a SHARP case that was restricted and was dropped by the other soldier? He's still attending the ASAP course and has had no incidents since then. Is this allowed or should be going to IG or JAG about this?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 10 at 2020 10:45 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:45:31 -0400

The instant a mandatory reporter becomes aware of the circumstances and notifies the authorities, a restricted report is no longer an option.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2020 11:21 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:21:08 -0400

Once the CoC knows they are Legally Obligated to report the incident. They will notify MPs/CID they will be the investigators. The restricted report is no longer restricted and will be used in the investigation.

If the incident was dropped/Resolved why was the Soldier Moved at all. There is something missing here. Once the Investigation was initiated he will be flagged and barred.

Final note the IG will never look at this it is a Clearly criminal matter now

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 10 at 2020 11:46 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 11:46:25 -0400

Oh, unofficially, be careful about who you vocally advocate for. You don't want to get caught in the crossfire.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2020 12:43 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:43:39 -0400

(I left out a couple of details by mistake) The potential investigation is unclear on what/who because there was little to no admin paperwork from the platoon on the incident despite corrective action being emplaced. It seems strange to see someone get punished twice for the one incident. Wouldn't it make sense if it was my unit that's under investigation, unless that's the reason he might get flagged, so CID can have all parties involved for answers?

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jul 10 at 2020 1:23 PM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:23:30 -0400

The military is obligated to investigate. All to often people are pressured to drop cases, change star
Recents etc. the system is in place to protect victims and ensure that just investigations are performed, sometimes in spite of individuals dropping charges.

If he has not done anything wrong, nothing to worry about.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2020 1:41 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 13:41:02 -0400

sounds like double jeopardy

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2020 4:40 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:40:31 -0400

A Soldier can’t be retained in service against their will for an investigation, they can only be held past their ETS for a court martial. Unless this SHARP investigation is leading to a rape conviction, there will be no court martial. If it is leading to that, reenlistment is not something to be concerned with.
The Soldier can request to extend to the end of the investigation. Because they are flagged for investigation they will not be able to PCS. Once the investigation closes and the flag lifts the Soldier will be able to reenlist for a duty station of choice.

Response by LTC Jason Mackay made Jul 10 at 2020 10:21 PM

LTC Jason Mackay — Fri, 10 Jul 2020 22:21:36 -0400

If the report was restricted, no one would know who the assailamt was. If it were unrestricted, then a law enforcement and chain of command investigation would have started immediately. Now if a restricted report was filed and the person who filed it went and told others, especially in the chain of command, it becomes unrestricted.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2020 7:52 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2020 19:52:19 -0400

This doesn't make sense...something happened that made that restricted report go unrestricted. Generally it means the person who made the report told someone who is not granted confidentiality - as in someone not a SARC, VA, chaplain or medical personnel. If they told anyone in their unit or command, that goes straight to unrestricted. Or if they told a family member who told someone else and it got back to the command, unrestricted.

When I was a SARC I had leaders who would try to find out about a restricted report and I told them to bug off. Respectfully.

He can go to JAG for any reason he feels he needs legal counsel and should probably go to JAG to find out his options. But someone "let the cat out of the bag" with that SHARP complaint.

How do you know a restricted complaint was filed at all? Or who are you in this? You probably shouldn't be posting about this on a public forum if an active investigation is ongoing.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jul 14 at 2020 10:14 AM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Tue, 14 Jul 2020 10:14:33 -0400

I am not trying to be confrontational here, however, it does take two, never shall alcohol be the excuse. Should two parties play ignorant then so be it. I have known of cases where the victim makes false testimony, but leaders and investigators can’t go into it believing one party over another, nor asserting automatically that because alcohol was involved that the it takes two theory is applicable. Bottom line is that it takes an investigation and testimony. I am concerned that leaders would openly assert the it takes two theory as gospel. I am hopeful and confident that we take all things into consideration before punishing anyone. This is an open forum.