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

SPC Patrick Caldwell — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 05:02:02 -0400

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

SFC Michael Hasbun — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 05:48:36 -0400

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

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 08:06:31 -0400

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

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 08:26:30 -0400

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

SGT Dave Tracy — Fri, 02 Jun 2017 10:15:43 -0400

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

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 04 Jun 2017 02:23:19 -0400

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

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Sep 2017 05:24:36 -0400

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

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Feb 2019 23:42:51 -0500

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.