This Army lieutenant colonel has built a playbook to kill the ‘cancer’ of sexual assault in the...

What does the FBI have to do with the military?

The Feres Doctrine prevents SM's injured on active duty from suing the government. Not individuals. It was created to prevent those injured in combat from suing -now they apply it to every injury even non-combat. There's been elected officials trying to change that. I think something did get changed with Feres. I can't remember.

Not every sexual assault case has evidence to collect. For there to be physical evidence collected, one has to report within 72 hours at the most. Outside that you won't be able to get semen, etc. As a SARC I had people come report things 2 weeks later or longer. Hell - when I reported my ex to the police the first time he hit me, I only waited one day and it turned into he said/she said and I dropped it after 2 months.

I feel like that a SM could sue another SM in civil court for a sexual assault if it didn't end in criminal charges. I don't know of anything that would stop that.

I'm sorry but this just doesn't make a lot of sense to me at all.

SFC Kelly FuerhoffI have a feeling that a service member cannot sue another service member in court for injury from an assault for civil damages because of the Feres doctrine.
The FBI is just another federal branch federal employee getting the same federal paycheck as a military member and because of that reason there should be a similar justice system that can protect our members equally civilly for damages from assaults.
It is my understanding that FBI agents can go to civil court and sue for damages against another FBI agent directly for the assault etc.

But again I have learned the feres doctrine is used widely and broadly beyond the original intent, to keep military cases out of any court system for damages an injury.
I am forecasting what would happen if a service member or as a veteran I did attempt a civil court case for damages against their perpetrator. another service member.
The court would throw it out based on the feres doctrine claiming that there is insurance service connection VA disability program for injury of any sort. So the government is left with the bag

But again this is my premise that if a perpetrator were to feel personally at risk a civil justice and a lawsuit taking all their personal property they would think twice.

I believe this is the reason other federal employees and other federal departments fbi cia dea do not have the same sexual assault problem because they are personally liable for their personal assault on another member.


One thing to learn as a victim I have found out is be aware of your surroundings and also be prepared to collect evidence if you are at risk of being a victim due subordination.
My assaults as a victim started directly after the Navy when I was really really really really Sadly depressed and dealing with struggles of non diagnosed PTSD ( a word that was not even known back then) and men gay men in general would befriend me in public and then attempt to drug me or get me drunk and it only takes one or two of those instances happening to wise it’s no different I suppose a straight man who likes girls who sees a depressed girl walks up and sees someone they can twist up. This scenario happened consistently which really challenges all my beliefs systems and what’s really going on there’s no rainbow to hide behind when that’s happening.


Both federal and state laws for Housing tenant laws protect tenants from sexual abuse from the landlord. Private civilian employment also protects from assaults from the employer. In fact any industry that works with the subordinate manager type role has protections against assault and can go to the civil justice system for punitive damages
I believe this is the only reason that you don’t hear about the same problem and other federal branches of government as rampant as it’s reported in the military consistently it must be the difference in justice systems and a personal liability

PO3 Aaron Hassay - The Feres Doctrine has been to prevent SMs from seeking compensation against the government.

"As set forth below, the Feres Doctrine, prior to the enactment of the NDAA, barred claims by military personnel under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) seeking compensation for injury or death suffered “incident to service” caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government."

"The sovereign immunity of the US was largely curtailed in 1946 with the passage of the FTCA, which renders the US liable

for money damages … for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.

The plain text of the FTCA does not proscribe claims by military personnel and, to the contrary, expressly renders the US liable to all persons suffering a personal injury or death as a result of a “negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government…” (italics added). None of the exceptions to the FTCA generally preclude claims brought by military personnel and, in fact, one exception demonstrates that the legislature considered, and expressly provided provisions to address, the special nature and requirements of the military, by excluding: “Any claim arising out of the combatant activities of the military or naval forces, or the Coast Guard, during time of war.” (italics added).

The unambiguous text of the FTCA, and intent of the legislature, was augmented by the Supreme Court in Feres v. US. In an act of heedless, unwarranted judicial activism based on conjecture and speculation of what the legislature intended, despite the clear meaning of what it actually enacted, the Supreme Court disregarded the plain text of the FTCA by creating an exception, which precludes Government liability “under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.”"

The 2020 NDAA added limited exception to Feres...

"The NDAA created a limited exception to the Feres Doctrine “for personal injury or death incident to the service of a member of the uniformed services that was caused by the medical malpractice of a Department of Defense health care provider,” provided that the “act or omission constituting medical malpractice occurred in a covered military medical treatment facility.” The term “Department of Defense health care provider” means “a member of the uniformed services, civilian employee of the Department of Defense, or personal services contractor of the Department [of Defense] …” while a “covered military treatment facility” includes certain military medical treatment facilities maintained by the Secretary of Defense."

https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/03/daniel-perrone-feres-doctrine-ndaa/#:~:text=FTCA%20%26%20The%20Feres%20Doctrine&text=The%20plain%20text%20of%20the,%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D%20(italics%20added).

I have seen nothing that says SMs can't sue other SMs in civil court. It seems the SCRA offers some legal protections to active duty servicemembers but it doesn't say someone can't sue.

https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/im-a-servicemember-and-im-being-sued-what-can-i-do-if-i-cant-make-it-to-court-to-defend-myself-or-a-default-judgment-is-entered--because-i-didnt--appear-in-court-en-1499/

A veteran can sue another veteran or someone on AD, Reserves, NG. And someone on AD can sue a veteran, AD, Reserves, NG. There's nothing out there I can find that says it can't happen. Feres Doctrine only protects the government, specifically the DoD, from being sued.

No a perpetrator would not "think twice" about sexual assault if they thought someone could sue them in civil court. If a damn criminal charge and potential PRISON time doesn't deter them, what makes you think civil court will? C'mon.



But again I have learned the feres doctrine is used widely and broadly beyond the original intent, to keep military cases out of any court system for damages an injury.
I am forecasting what would happen if a service member or as a veteran I did attempt a civil court case for damages against their perpetrator. another service member.
The court would throw it out based on the feres doctrine claiming that there is insurance service connection VA disability program for injury of any sort. So the government is left with the bag

But again this is my premise that if a perpetrator were to feel personally at risk a civil justice and a lawsuit taking all their personal property they would think twice.

I believe this is the reason other federal employees and other federal departments fbi cia dea do not have the same sexual assault problem because they are personally liable for their personal assault on another member.

Who said the agencies don't have sexual misconduct issues?

https://apnews.com/article/fbi-sexual-misconduct-investigation-a0d33e4770acef8ff5f4a48f0267202c

https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/06/15/prosecute-cia-interrogators-sexual-assault

I would bet it happens in all the agencies too not just FBI and CIA.

One's sexual orientation has nothing to do with them being a sexual predator fyi.

Why are you comparing the civilian world to the military? We have UCMJ and civilian laws to follow. And under UCMJ we get prosecuted for things civilians don't - like adultery.

You don't hear about it in agencies because it doesn't get picked up by the media or someone doesn't make a big deal of it. And despite the fact sometimes military sexual assault is in the media, it hasn't stopped it.

Other branches of the government have had sexual misconduct, up to legislative and executive branches.

The things you're saying just make no sense. That's how I see it.

SFC Kelly Fuerhoff -Thanks for the feedback

Honestly there is no direct answer I am trying to propose to curing sexual assault across all humanity and in the miltiary. I have simply added some conjecture for debate.

So to get back to the idea that I think I understood from the post was that there is a Army Officer so fed up with Military Sexual Assault that he wrote a manifesto on how to cure it. But I turn to the Judicial Branch and equal Protection of the Legislative branch for military members

I applaud him, if generally I am getting the overarching idea down correctly.

Interesting as it may be when you swore an oath to defend the constitution you also were swearing an oath to understand all the human rights it embodies generally found in the Constitution's Preamble “We The People”

I am sure you are aware the Constituiotn also created 3 branches of Government for checks and balances, The Executive The Legistlative and the Judicial Branch in 1776! Almost 250 years ago and many generations since.

1953 was the creation of the UCMJ a code or JUSTICE.

Did you know, something you can google and find a navy.mil link in the history section that in 1853 there was quite a battle in the Legistlative Branch to outlaw in the Navy “FLOGGING” with the Cat o 9 Tails as a form of corporal punishment to keep those unrully sailors in line, when deemed fit, by the CO. People died I am sure in some of these flogging episodes, and I am sure some sailors were actually framed or otherwise given a floggin when they never committed the crime of which they were punished. Still the Navy Brass at the time, fought the legislative branch until they lost, stating basically in summation, that the flogging was the only way they could actually control the crew

Oh how far we have come since then. I remember in bootcamp in the 1990s that the company commanders would tell the recruits jeez , someone made a new instruction and we can longer beat you, it was no so long ago we could lay hands on you, assault you, to get the point across. But, there were other ways to get the point across hence the GRINDER!

Hell my Master Chief missed that message and was the old school type from the 70s and would lay hands on you at sea, with no question if you were well or if he cared, on a guided missile frigate not even registering anything normal.

So when I go on a tangent, as in the last response, it has some thinking behind it on my cell phone without spell check and I upload it.

But now i am at a computer, and try to wax and wane philosophically a bit more effectively.

So then I think wow how did a 18 year old kids thoughts of success and American Dream when he enlisted be thrown all up in the air, only to land in federal court, and confront the FERES DOCTRINE

So did you know that the FERES DOCTRINE was used in my case to throw it out!

I was left without medical care confused in the streets, no va support, homeless getting abused by men who liked men, and loved a young Navy Sailor all to sad, and shaken up, to understand how to see if this guy had bad intentions, until he drugged and raped you.


A little background. I was simply trying to save my future. Imagine your medical disability paperwork was destroyed or mishandled and your boss was microsoft. I bet you would have a much easier time getting recognized in the judicial branch.

Anyways as you soon will see, I was “pro per” self represented with no lawyer, and documented as indigent. The case was thrown out, attempting to get access to disability support, as the VA was denying me all benefits, while that local jurisdiction, was being investigated by Congress OIG, for negligence in claims processing in 2015, which you can google and find all sorts of headlines


See I question a lot these days. It seems it may be easier to be an immigrant jumping the border of Mexico and lawyers will be lined up day and night trying to get you free support for citizenship. United States as a government and even in military operations or just as private citizens go all over the globe to pull off Humanitarian Missions for other countries, but will leave me in the street, deny me support of even a homeless housing voucher at the VA, getting abused by predatory men, without even equal access or equal protection of laws in the Judicial Branch, because it was a military case.

Here is direct quote from the case.

Second, to the extent Mr. Hassay seeks to assert a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), his claim is barred under the Feres doctrine. The FTCA gives the district courts "exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States . . . for personal injury . . . caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1). The FTCA "provides that the United States shall be liable `in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances' under applicable state law." Dugard v. United States, 835 F.3d 915, 918-19 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2674); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).
As a general matter, a claim may be brought against the United States under the FTCA so long as the plaintiff has met the administrative exhaustion requirements of the statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a),1 and the claim is timely, see 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b).2 In Feres v. United States, however, the Supreme Court carved out a judicial exception to the FTCA, holding that "the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service." 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). What is now referred to as the Feres doctrine essentially made the FTCA unavailable to members of the armed forces who "while on active duty and not on furlough, sustained injury due to negligence of others in the armed forces." Id. at 138.
"[T]he Feres doctrine has been criticized by `countless courts and commentators' across the jurisprudential spectrum." Ritchie v. United States, 733 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Persons v. United States, 925 F.2d 292, 295 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681, 700 (1987) (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("Feres was wrongly decided and heartily deserves the widespread, almost universal criticism it has received.") (citation omitted); Costo v. United States, 248 F.3d 863, 875 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The articulated `rational bases' for the Feres doctrine lead in this case, as in many cases, to inconsistent results that have no relation to the original purpose of Feres.")). Nonetheless, Feres remains the law and is binding upon this Court. It is rooted in three policy rationales:
(1) the distinctively federal nature of the relationship between the government and members of its armed forces, which argues against subjecting the government to liability based on the fortuity of the situs of the injury; (2) the availability of alternative compensation systems; and (3) the fear of damaging the military disciplinary structure.
Stencel Aero Eng'g Corp. v. United States, 431 U.S. 666, 671-72 (1977); Person, 925 F.2d at 294-95.
The "incident to service" standard under Feres includes incidents that occur during current military service or "within [an] existing military service obligation." Jackson v. Tate, 648 F.3d 729, 735 (9th Cir. 2011) (distinguishing between an order to recall a serviceperson—which falls under Feres since it implicates "military decisions, affairs, and discipline"—and an alleged forged signature to reenlist a serviceperson, which does not fall under Feres because a reenlistment decision is voluntary and outside an existing military obligation). Such immunity extends to "practically any suit that `implicates . . . military judgments and decisions.'" Persons v. U.S., 925 F.2d 292, 296 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681, 691 (1987)), including tort claims based on administrative errors of the sort that Mr. Hassay alleges occurred here. See Futrell v. United States, 859 F.3d 403, 404 (7th Cir. 2017) (dismissing negligence claims asserted against the United States under FTCA based on paperwork mix-up that resulted in serviceman failing to receive his salary for more than a year on the basis that Feres doctrine applied). Further, courts have found that "the Feres doctrine applies to reservists and not just to active military." Id. (citing Duffy v. United States, 966 F.2d 307, 312 (7th Cir. 1992)).3
Because Plaintiff's complaint challenges conduct that occurred while he was a member of the armed forces and is "inherently military" in nature, he has failed to establish that there has been a waiver of sovereign immunity as to his claim. Therefore, the Court dismisses his complaint with leave to amend.


I do not think there is much case precedence to a service member who attempts a civil lawsuit against another service member for assault damages.

Think Michael Jackson or Oj Simpson. Both estates were sued and paid damages to their victims. Both cases, the government lost the criminal case. So you see the standard for damages is better for the plaintiff in civil court for injury.

The way I read the Feres Doctrine, “In Feres v. United States, however, the Supreme Court carved out a judicial exception to the FTCA, holding that "the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service." 340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950). What is now referred to as the Feres doctrine essentially made the FTCA unavailable to members of the armed forces who "while on active duty and not on furlough, sustained injury due to negligence of others in the armed forces." Id. at 138.

So basically you can suffer due assaults “injury due to negligence of others in the armed forces.”, and not have any equal protection of the civil remedy that supported the victims in the Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson case.

Now imagine what kind of damages you might get if you could also prove that the entire Microsoft division was involved in a cover up to protect the sexual predator. It seems to me that you see a lot of headlines where commands are covering up and just simply transferring people around.

I think of that Catholic Priest or the Boycott scandal cover ups for sexual assaults by leadership. The victims would get damages for this not only against the person individually but the whole.

So also, I get called out on stating the word gay as if I might be against that group.
Well what I confront is this. Any group Gay, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Lesbian, African American, Female, Male, Bi Sexual, Transexual can each have their own country and land, and I bet each will develop a punishment and jail system for those in that special group who do bad things and victimize each other.

I do like to talk openly about sexuality. I consider myself straight.

I bet anyone can take a young man, give him no father, have him join the military at 18 have a near impossible time, get ill and not treated, and his fiance his first love dumps him, he waits a few more years for the enlistment to end honorably completely crushed put him in the streets ill, and get confused when a older man loving man approaches him and shows some empathy, fill his head up, almost like what might be hoped for if he had a dad, and this guy was actually having another scheme to take advantage and sexually assault and drug him.

I throw this into the universe and prey and say thank you