What to do about false SHARP complaintaints?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:56:30 -0500

If someone files a SHARP complaint what I have seen is the accuser is always seen as a victim and the accused is automatically biased as guilty until proven innocent.  But if the investigation finds that the SHARP complaint is unfounded and that the accuser was filing a complaint just to get back at or ruin the career of the accused, what do y'all think should be done about the false accuser?

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Feb 17 at 2014 1:59 AM

SSG Robert Burns — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 01:59:55 -0500

The punishment for a false complaint should be the same as a guilty verdict.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2014 2:23 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 02:23:27 -0500

The same pushinshment that would have happened to the accused if he/she was found guilty

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2014 3:32 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 03:32:44 -0500

LTC Gary D.

The filing of any accusation by a woman in a hierarchical political organization like the military where men often close ranks to protect other men is daunting at best. This is why we have strong anti-retaliation rules to protect the most vulnerable complainants from being directly attacked and/or indirectly penalized for the filing of a completely truthful accusation.

While I can appreciate the motivation behind wanting to penalize some complainants for the filing of any complaint that is ultimately determined to be inadequate to support conviction, the problem is that neither the military legal system or the civilian legal system are perfect, and guilty parties routinely get away with their crimes.

Therefore, regardless of the truth of the complaint, the victims of sexual predators may be inhibited from filing a perfectly truthful complaint if it appears (1) the system routinely fails to effectively prosecute and secure appropriate sanctions against obvious sexual predators and/or (2) these systemic failures may under some new rule result in wholly inappropriate prosecution of vulnerable complainants who may be completely honest.

In the end, the appropriate procedure would be to prosecute any complainant and/or witnesses who can be proven on the basis of clear and convincing evidence to be lying. This could take the form of prosecution for contempt of court and/or criminal perjury. There is no reason to create any new rule to prosecute truthful witnesses or complainants while predators evade conviction.

The last thing we need to do is to inhibit anyone from coming forward with the truth.

The CID/Judge Advocate need to do a better job of investigation before prosecution.

Warmest Regards, Sandy

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2014 4:14 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 04:14:37 -0500

Sir,<div><br></div><div>I support UCMJ.</div><div><br></div><div>V/R</div><div><br></div><div>1SG Haro</div>

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 17 at 2014 11:47 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:47:24 -0500

I would consider it the same as lying under oath, with the same punishments. 

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 17 at 2014 7:19 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 17 Feb 2014 19:19:51 -0500

The law, which is "False Official Statement" under the UCMJ.  Maximum punishment in a courts martial: <span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: 18px;">Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.<br><br>I think that is fair and a valid deterrent.  I find punishing accusers doubly harsh as the accused would have been punished creates a climate of fear that deters reporting in situations that are questionable.  Which are almost all of them in a "he said, she said" case.</span>

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2014 10:44 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:44:58 -0500

If it can be proven that a person made a a false complaint, regardless of the gender of the person it should fall under Art 107 of the UCMJ. Because a false complaint takes away from when a crime occurs. <br>

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2014 11:51 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 23:51:14 -0500

I have to completely side with 1LT Sandy Annala here for many reasons. I joined the military 'late in the game' for a few reasons. One of those, was to seek financial help to finish my studies in college. I felt my life experiences would guide me throughout basic training and I could mentor other females. I observed many things in basic training all the way through AIT that truly disturbed me. <div><br></div><div>I have yet to see a female ' cry wolf'.  I am not saying it doesn't happen though. I will tell you what I did see though...</div><div><br></div><div>Female soldiers being taken advantage of by company commanders to senior platoon sergeants. Oh and if you want to even think about speaking up, good luck. As 1LT said, to punish soldiers (Male or Female) for false accusations would be justified if we went about it the right way. What would happen is true 'victims' might be even more hesitant to speak up. Fear of punishment? Fear of being 'a career killer' perhaps? </div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand... I have to say, I see far too many female soldiers putting themselves in the wrong situations. Or perhaps they come to formation with too much make-up, their nails done etc... Whatever the case may be, we are in the Army. There is a time and place for that. </div><div><br></div><div>That's just my humble opinion though. </div><div><br></div><div>SPC Monaco <br><div><br></div></div>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2014 3:17 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 03:17:24 -0400

Before I comment on this very sensitive issue, I want to preface this with: I am and have always been a supporter of any initiative the army takes on protecting the soldiers in it's ranks. Sexual assault or harassment is a despicable crime and those guilty are worthy of a punishment far worse than the legal system provides. But this thread asked about false claims.

My thoughts: I think that much of the army has pushed the fight against sexual harassment with good cause. It is a systemic issue that is clearly unacceptable and erodes the readiness of our force. I am concerned though that in an effort to wipe it out, that we are not doing enough to protect due process... That is, ensuring the validity of a claim.
I that an article 107 is not enough. The punishment should be equal in severity to the punishment carried from sexual assault. It is a career ruining, life altering subject and should be treated as such for false claims.

Response by Cadet 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 9 at 2014 12:14 PM

Cadet 2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:14:32 -0400

I have a false SHARP complaint and need guidance on a particular situation. Please refer to the letter that I wrote to my PMS at my ROTC Battalion

First and foremost, it is with much regret that I am writing you this letter due to the current circumstances of what happened at Leader’s Training Course. I understand that it is ultimately your decision as to whether I continue in the Army ROTC Program and that you have the report of what happened at Ft. Knox. However, I wish to present my side of story as the basis as to why I should continue in your program. I firmly believe that this incident has damaged and defamed my character with both the UCF Army ROTC Program and Cadet Command. Secondly, I was falsely accused of a SHARP (Sexual Harassment Assault and Rape Prevention) offense for accidently bumping into a fellow male cadet. Listed below is a detailed account of what happened:

Around 1800 hours Tuesday June 17th, I was in the DFAC for dinner when I accidently bumped into a fellow cadet twice by accident due to my fatigue and my hunger from doing numerous activities beforehand. The first time I bumped into the cadet, he asserts that he looked back at me as a warning that I was standing too close. The second time I bumped into the cadet, a verbal altercation ensued about me being too close and with me apologizing that I did not notice that I accidentally bumped into him and asserted that since he was supposed to be a mentor to the cadets in training, his attitude is unfit for one in such a position. Afterwards, he told me to stop talking in an expletive manner. After dinner, I waited outside the DFAC to explain my reasoning and try to resolve the issue. However, the event escalated into another argument with me attempting to end it with a handshake. Although we shook hands, the cadet asserted that I still had an attitude problem after I repeatedly denied that I did not. Later on that night, while doing my laundry, I was ordered to go down to the Company Quarters to talk to my Platoon Leader. When I entered her office, I was asked about what happened today in the DFAC and about me being in the latrine (bathroom) for using my mobile device (the latrine was the only place where I could receive cellular reception). After telling her that the latrine was the only place where I can receive reception and telling the aforementioned story in the DFAC, she left the office in order for the SHARP advocate to speak to me about the incident(s). After explaining the same story to him, and the regimental commander and sergeant major, I was told to go to my room to go to sleep.
The next morning (18th), at the first formation of the day, I was called out to go back to the company quarters with orders to go to the regimental office for follow on orders. After waiting for about an hour or so, I was driven (unknowingly) to the Ft. Knox’s CID for questioning. When the questioning started, the investigator repeatedly asked questions between the incident in the DFAC and my mobile phone usage in the latrine. Moreover, they asserted that they had the incident in the DFAC on camera, in which I asserted that they do not have a video (since there are no security cameras in there) and if they did have a video, I want to see it so I can defend any allegations against my character (Also, during this time I listed people who would vouch for me as a character who would not commit any sexual behavior unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman). When I realized that they were going to ask me the same questions over and over to get some sort of “confession” out of me. I requested to speak to a lawyer. After leaving CID I was returned to my training platoon that evening for my peer evaluations and a situation report of my training progress at Leader’s Training Course. During the evaluations, I was told that two cadets had came forth in my defense to defend my character and they asserted that the cadet who filed the SHARP investigation against me consistently violated his integrity and threatened to have one of the cadets who came forth in my defense to have his scholarship cut from him.
On Thursday the 19th, I was called off the rifle qualification range and informed that I was to pack all my CIF gear and that I would be going home. I was determined to stay at Ft. Knox, since I was not able to plead my case, wasn’t given an opportunity to see a lawyer (after I requested one the day prior), or have CID investigate the cadets that I listed during the interrogation that would defend my character. After driving back to the barracks and packing my stuff. I was told that at 1600 hours that a board of officers is going to review incident and allow me to plead my case. 15 minutes prior to the review board, I was informed that I would not be meeting them and they would make a decision without me being present. 3 hours later I was informed that I was to be disenrolled out of the Army ROTC program. However, I was told that there would be a chance for an appeal if I wanted it the following day, in which I requested one.
When Friday the 20th came around, I asked my platoon leader if she would vouch for me as a character witness, in which she agreed. I also had in my possession a list of cadets who would defend my character, and a written statement from a cadet stating that when I was in latrine, I was only there to use my mobile phone or to actually utilize the latrine(s). When the results of the appeal came back, I was informed that the Task Force Commander wanted me to leave. During the appeals process, not once did they look at the written statement, interview my platoon leader or the cadets that I listed.
To surmise, I understand that the decision is ultimately up to you sir as to whether or not I continue in the UCF Army ROTC Program. However, I also wish to emphasize that while I was at LTC, I was ranked number one in my squad and received an overall E on my leadership abilities as squad leader. Moreover, CID and my command did not do a proper investigation due to them not investigating the names of fellow cadets that I listed in the interrogation or speaking to my platoon leader, who said she would volunteer her services as a witness to my character. Also, if I am allowed to stay in the Army ROTC Program, it is my goal to be commissioned as an Infantry Officer. The reason being, when the United States Military liberated the island of Grenada (the birthplace of my mother), it allowed the rest of her family to emigrate to the United States and have a chance at the American Dream. The conduit for that means was mainly through the use of infantry.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 29 at 2014 9:59 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 21:59:57 -0500

http://www.nsvrc.org/publications/articles/false-reports-moving-beyond-issue-successfully-investigate-and-prosecute-non-s

2-8% of reported sexual assaults are false. The above links you to a meta-study that combs through other studies on false reports.

LTC Private RallyPoint Member, you stated on this thread: "On another note, I think the only way to be proactive is to subject all personnel to psychological testing to determine whether they are potential predators or not."

Predators operate by testing the waters with less-than-politically-correct comments, gestures, and behaviors. When around groups of people that permit that type of behavior, they blend in quite well. On the other hand, often times predators can be very charismatic. There was a post in this thread regarding males closing-ranks when a cohort is accused of sexual assault.

I suggest two things. First, always listen to your troops if they have a problem. It may not be the real problem, but listening lets them know you believe. Second, do not permit around you off-color humor, sexually suggestive comments, or most things your mother-would-have-smacked-you-on-the-back-of-your-head if you did. Most often a simple, "I'd appreciate if you didn't use that type of language/joke/comment/remark/gesture/etc," is enough to let those in the environment around you know you don't tolerate that kind of thing and it lets those around you who may be thinking the same thing know they're not alone.

Back to the heart of the topic. Being accused of sexual assault can ruin your reputation with anyone around you. So if someone is accused falsely (2-8% of reports) that person ought to have access to the same victim services any other slander victim has access to. If you don't think that does enough...perhaps we need to look at victims' rights across the board.

False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger...

The article begins by reviewing up-to-date research suggesting that the rate of false reporting for sexual assault is in the range of 2-8%. It also critiques prior research suggesting that the rate of false reporting is far higher, and explores the reasons why this issue is so challenging for professionals in the field. Questions addressed in the article include the following:* How many sexual assault reports are false? * What is the actual...

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2014 10:25 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 22:25:15 -0500

Re-posted with permission from Michael Yon:
"USA: False criminal accusations against law enforcement and other citizens

This subject has been on my mind for years. People who accuse others of criminal activity, and then are proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be lying, should face the same penalty that accompanies the crime.

In other words, if the officer were facing -- for sake of argument -- two years in prison for this alleged crime, the accuser should face two years for any perjury.

Experts should consider if the accuser should also face criminal defamation charges -- which we do not have in the USA. Sticks and stones do more than break bones, they send people to the electric chair. Lying about crimes should carry penalties equal to what the falsely accused would suffer.

When someone steps onto a witness stand and commits perjury that could cost another human serious grief, the accuser should face the same penalty."

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3592956.shtml#.VHtHRIsfuiX

Lapel cam captures woman trying to frame APD officer for sexually assaulting her

Arrested for drunk driving, an Albuquerque woman tried to flip the script on an Albuquerque Police officer, accusing him of sexual assault. Cops say 23-year-old Deanna Griego padded her bra with something extra as she was placed under arrest for DWI earlier this month.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 11:56 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:56:22 -0400

Great question sir. I am a Victims Advocate and basically there is no reprisal for any complaint filed. This is because if they punish there is a fear of victims being bullied into not reporting. It also has to do with perception if someone perceives they are being harassed they are assumed to be regardless of the true intentions. So essentially It is not about the act comment or gesture its is how it is received by the complainant. I agree there should be consequences for the false statements but the question is how do you prove it? I have seen SHARP used as a tool to tarnish reputations by a command with zero consequences for making such allegations. One would hope that at one point there would be intervention from the SARC in reference to these types of individuals, unfortunately from what i have seen, this has yet to be a course of action taken.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2017 3:55 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:55:12 -0500

Sir, I'm currently being wrongfully accused of a SHARP violation, and the flag prevents me from gaining employment, and obviously any positive actions. I didn't mind at first, because it also stopped me from having to go through QRB this year, which is another less than perfect Army practice, but I digress. I would say it's fair that both Soldiers are flagged until the matter is resolved. I have reason to believe this particular Soldier may have even been the root cause of not only my prevention of career progression (I was promoted to E7 while on active duty, and I'd accepted a promotion to E8 that was offered by a new admin NCO), but also my demotion to Staff Sergeant after requesting reassignment IAW AR 135-91 para 5-5. Instead, I was ordered to report for "accountability" over 400 miles from my home, such that I wouldn't be paid, housed, fed or allowed to perform duty, in direct violation of at least AR 40-501, and simple Soldier care. Answering your question though, mutual flagging action during the determination process, and then complete UCMJ processing for "intentionally" false reporting allegations, conduct unbecoming, and what ever else an objective JAG would come up with.