Is SHARP effective? If not, how can it be improved? Are some cases allowed to be swept under the rug?

2017-06-02T05:02:02-04:00

A story to go along with this:

While I was on active duty, a friend of mine (we'll call her Sarah) wanted to enlist. She went to the recruiting station in Auburn, ME (same place I was recruited from). My recruiter was the one that dealt with her. Long story short, Sarah told me they had sex and that she wanted to pursue a relationship. I reported it, but I don't believe it was handled properly.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jun 2 at 2017 5:48 AM

2017-06-02T05:48:36-04:00

Sexual Harrasment/Assault is not an Army issue, it is a parenting issue. Good, decent, well raised human beings do not require training to know that these behaviors are wrong and morally reprehensible. If they need to be taught that at this stage, there is nothing we can do for them. Their formative years have been wasted. All we can do is identify them and remove them from the service.

There is no amount of training that will undo 17 + years of bad parenting.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2017 8:06 AM

2017-06-02T08:06:31-04:00

As long as chain of command has input, sharp will be limited, chain of command places the mission before anything

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2017 8:26 AM

2017-06-02T08:26:30-04:00

The Army has a regulation that specifically addresses this outside of standard SHARP policy, AR 600-20 para 4-15, which reads in part:
Recruiters and permanent party personnel assigned or attached to the U.S. Army Recruiting Command or National Guard recruiting program are also prohibited from establishing personal relationships with potential prospects, applicants, members of the Delayed Entry Program or members of the Delayed Training Program not required by the recruiting mission is prohibited.

Violation of this policy is chargeable under UCMJ, Article 92.
Entering into a personal relationship with a recruit is prohibited for a number of reasons:
1. The recruits are often underage when first contacted.
2. The recruits are in a situation where the recruiter can directly affect the contract and benefits they receive. A prototypical quid pro quo situation.
3. Recruits are vulnerable and can be coerced by a person in a position of trust.
4. Recruiters ARE the Army to a potential recruit. The damage lasts far longer than the relationship.

A recruiter in violation of this should be at minimum removed from duty as a recruiter and put in hock by his/her commander. NJP and other punitive actions to follow.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2017 9:49 AM

2017-06-02T09:49:45-04:00

Did she enlist or did she just go talk to this recruiter? Did she end up not continuing to try to enlist? This seems different than the stories of recruiters who actually sexually assault or rape recruits (I just Googled recruiters having sex with recruits army and all these articles about recruiters raping or assaulting recruits came up).

They're not supposed to have sex with recruits or I would think even potential recruits. The recruiter should have been reported yes. But we don't really have all the details of the investigation or what happened or didn't happen and this seems consensual. It kind of depends on what happened with her plans of enlisting if she did or not.

I was a SARC for 2 1/2 years. Most of that was at BN level. I was a BDE SARC for a few months only because I had to put in for a compassionate and PCSed after it got approved.

I think the SHARP program has improved slightly since it started but I think that it has a long way to go to be effective. This is the problem: we aren't going after the problem which is sexual predators. Sane, normal people know that rape and sexual assault are wrong. I would hope the majority of the Army are the sane, normal people who know this. I hope sexual predators are the minority. But you have those sexual predators where SHARP training is not going to stop them. They are going to do what they want to do and have likely been doing it for years.

The problem is that some commands SHARP is just lip service. In my last unit the BN and BDE leadership said it was priority but it really wasn't. I remember when it was this big deal in like 2012 or 2013. They had the SHARP survey and assessed the unit's SHARP program, etc. So when I was BN SARC I did that survey again a year later to assess where the BN was at - and one company holy cow. The lack of confidence in their leadership to address sexual assault, they didn't know who their company rep was (at the time they still had VAs at the company level), people wrote comments which went onto the back of the paper. The other companies mostly were "everything's great" but who knows how true that was.

I also sent those surveys out to the BNs as a BDE rep but I left before they all got sent back. I was in an infantry brigade too...at BN I was in the BSTB.

It really just depends on the leadership of the unit. That's what it comes down to is the leadership and the climate whether it's toxic or not. I have seen how reports have been swept under the rug. There were so many soldiers who reported it and got discharged on "personality disorders" and crap.

I think the attitude toward sexual assault and rape is better than it used to be but it has a way to go. The bystander intervention was a good idea to start putting in. But the Power Points are dumb. SHARP should be more discussion based. The bottomline to reduce sexual assault is that if you see something that looks wrong, it probably is wrong and step in and stop it. I think for basic and AIT they should get the "these are the definitions, regulations, UCMJ" slides. But not after that. It's a hard thing to stop because you can't screen for it. If someone has never been arrested or convicted of a sex crime you won't know if they did it. People get away with it for years sometimes.

Just look at when the post the court-martial results of people convicted. I went through them over a six month period last year. Of the sex crimes convictions I think most of them were actually against children. THAT needs to be addressed too. There are way too many convictions for possession or distribution of child porn and sexual abuse of children. Far too much.

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Jun 2 at 2017 10:15 AM

2017-06-02T10:15:43-04:00

He was in the wrong, but it probably won't stop your friend Sarah from being pissed off. Good luck with that, BTW. I don't believe this would fall under the purview of SHARP however.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2017 2:23 AM

2017-06-04T02:23:19-04:00

If youre good ol' boy, then yes your case already began under the rug.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2017 5:24 AM

2017-09-03T05:24:36-04:00

there are no cases of sharp that can be swept under the rug. in that circumstance that was relayed to us, the recruiter was in the wrong and should be delt with.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 3 at 2019 11:42 PM

2019-02-03T23:42:51-05:00

Majority of cases are stopped at unit level. The military is still very toxic in this topic because it gives the unit and command the power to make decisions on outcomes.