Posted on Jun 2, 2017
Is SHARP effective? If not, how can it be improved? Are some cases allowed to be swept under the rug?
13.9K
22
18
1
1
0
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.
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.
Posted in these groups: 
SHARP
Sexual Assault
Sexual Harassment
Sexual Harassment and Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP)
SHARP Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Sexual Harassment and Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP)
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 7
7
7
0
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.
There is no amount of training that will undo 17 + years of bad parenting.
(7)
(0)
SPC Patrick Caldwell
I agree wholeheartedly that men and women are conditioned to know core values that exhibit strong moral conduct. Identification of the warning signs of intolerable behavior such as sexual harassment/assault is crucial in maintaining a safer work environment and a stronger unit cohesion.
(0)
(0)
MSG Laura Washington
In my humble opinion, and not wanting to point fingers . . . the formative years of an individual are critical to their belief system and knowledge of right an wrong. Parenting is critical to this development and safeguarding their children from the potential abuses and harms that can be inflicted. I raised 4 children as a single parent, usually working three jobs (MilTech, Reservist, and a part time job to make ends meet), and always found time to be involved as a room mother, attending their extra curricular events, even as an assistant coach to my Son's 7th grade basketball team. The only time my instilled values where not followed to a "T" was during a deployment when I had to settle for a not perfect choice on who would be their guardian while I was absent. I am thankfully to God that my children are all employed productive adults, and now grateful for the parenting provided that they did not always understand, nor agreed with.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
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.
(5)
(0)
SPC Patrick Caldwell
Absolutely right, 1SG (Join to see). Even though I knew the relationship was mutual and that Sarah would likely be upset with me, I knew it was not only a legal abomination but a moral one as well and had to report it. It disgusted me that it was my recruiter who entered into the relationship. That gave me an added sense of responsibility to make sure that something was done.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
As long as chain of command has input, sharp will be limited, chain of command places the mission before anything
(1)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
SGT (Join to see) "chain of command places the mission before anything"
Had you left it at that thought you would have been correct.
Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (Sharp) Program is part of the mission.
Unit cohesiveness , trust, honor are all vital to a well functioning unit. No functioning unit chain of command is ignoring SHARP, as if they are they are both a failure and NOT accomplishing the mission.
Had you left it at that thought you would have been correct.
Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (Sharp) Program is part of the mission.
Unit cohesiveness , trust, honor are all vital to a well functioning unit. No functioning unit chain of command is ignoring SHARP, as if they are they are both a failure and NOT accomplishing the mission.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I can find a multitude of cases where leadership didn't want to ruin a persons career over what they thought was a, he said/she said, thing and tried to sweep it away
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) yup seen that happen many times. Girl gets out with mental issue she didnt have before joining and perp gets transfered.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
"SSG (Join to see) there are no cases of sharp that can be swept under the rug."
I think that's a bit naïve at the least.
It is a program run by humans with biases and preconceived notions.. so yes, there are injustices done, with malice, and by mistake.
As there are false allegations that have punitive effects wrongly heaped upon the true victim.
One need look no further than the SHAPE program leader at Fort Hood who was charged and convicted for various violations of SHARP, never mind being a pimp, ect.
An Army noncommissioned officer who admitted Wednesday that he betrayed his role as an advocate for victims of sexual abuse by organizing a prostitution ring at Fort Hood has been sentenced to 24 months of confinement.
Convicted of..
• Four specifications of attempt to pander.
• Three specifications of conspiracy to patronize or solicit a prostitute.
• Three specifications of failure to obey a lawful order or dereliction of duty.
• Two specifications of cruelty and maltreatment.
• Three specifications of adultery or pandering and prostitution.
• One specification of assault consummated by a battery
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/article/Suspect-in-Fort-Hood-sex-scandal-identified-4520332.php
http://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2015/03/11/sfc-sentenced-for-organizing-fort-hood-prostitution-ring/
I think that's a bit naïve at the least.
It is a program run by humans with biases and preconceived notions.. so yes, there are injustices done, with malice, and by mistake.
As there are false allegations that have punitive effects wrongly heaped upon the true victim.
One need look no further than the SHAPE program leader at Fort Hood who was charged and convicted for various violations of SHARP, never mind being a pimp, ect.
An Army noncommissioned officer who admitted Wednesday that he betrayed his role as an advocate for victims of sexual abuse by organizing a prostitution ring at Fort Hood has been sentenced to 24 months of confinement.
Convicted of..
• Four specifications of attempt to pander.
• Three specifications of conspiracy to patronize or solicit a prostitute.
• Three specifications of failure to obey a lawful order or dereliction of duty.
• Two specifications of cruelty and maltreatment.
• Three specifications of adultery or pandering and prostitution.
• One specification of assault consummated by a battery
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/article/Suspect-in-Fort-Hood-sex-scandal-identified-4520332.php
http://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2015/03/11/sfc-sentenced-for-organizing-fort-hood-prostitution-ring/
Suspect in Fort Hood sex scandal identified
A Fort Hood sexual assault prevention coordinator accused of abusive sexual contact and pandering was identified by multiple military sources Wednesday as Sgt. 1st Class Gregory McQueen. Investigators continued their probe but hadn't filed charges against McQueen, who was removed from Fort Hood's Sexual Harassment Assault Response & Prevention program. A scandal at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland involving 33 basic training instructors and 63...
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I think you need to pull your head out of the sand. It happen more than the perp getting what he deserves. I saw during one of my assignments over 15 cases dismissed as he said she said, even with 3 or 4 of them violent that the victim showed up bruised.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
You're right; if it's consensual, it falls under the Fraternization portion of the Army Command policy AR 600-20 Ch 4, as I saw someone else mentioned.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google