[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 112-122]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL HEARING
ON
HAZING IN THE MILITARY
__________
HEARING HELD
MARCH 22, 2012
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-794 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
TOM ROONEY, Florida MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
JOE HECK, Nevada DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
Craig Greene, Professional Staff Member
Debra Wada, Professional Staff Member
James Weiss, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2012
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, March 22, 2012, Hazing in the Military................. 1
Appendix:
Thursday, March 22, 2012......................................... 23
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012
HAZING IN THE MILITARY
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel..................... 2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 1
WITNESSES
Barrett, SgtMajMC Micheal P., USMC, Sergeant Major of the Marine
Corps.......................................................... 5
Chandler, SMA Raymond F., III, USA, Sergeant Major of the Army... 3
Leavitt, MCPOCG Michael P., USCG, Master Chief Petty Officer of
the Coast Guard................................................ 6
Roy, CMSAF James A., USAF, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force 6
West, MCPON Rick D., USN, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy. 4
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Barrett, SgtMajMC Micheal P.................................. 37
Chandler, SMA Raymond F., III................................ 29
Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 28
Leavitt, MCPOCG Michael P.................................... 45
Roy, CMSAF James A........................................... 42
West, MCPON Rick D........................................... 33
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 27
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Letter from Hon. Judy Chu to Chairman Joe Wilson and Ranking
Member Susan A. Davis, Dated March 22, 2012................ 58
Statement of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice. 55
Statement of the Organization of Chinese Americans........... 51
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Ms. Nydia M. Velazquez, a Representative from New York....... 63
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Ms. Judy Chu, a Representative from California, and Mr.
Michael M. Honda, a Representative from California......... 67
Mr. Coffman.................................................. 67
HAZING IN THE MILITARY
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Thursday, March 22, 2012.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m. in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome
you to a subcommittee meeting of the Military Personnel
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. Today, we
will be taking testimony regarding hazing in the military.
The committee will come to order.
Today, the Military Personnel Subcommittee will receive
testimony from the Services' senior enlisted advisors
concerning the Services' policies, training, and enforcement
with respect to hazing.
This is a topic that cannot be taken lightly. Hazing is a
degrading act that must not be tolerated in the military or in
our society. Unfortunately, it happens. The military services
do have policies on hazing to ensure its members understand it
is wrong and must not be tolerated. Hazing is contrary to the
values of our volunteer force and affects the morale of units.
It violates the professionalism achieved and expected by our
military.
The subcommittee will hear from the senior enlisted
leadership within the Services who are charged with keeping the
service chiefs informed. These leaders are also responsible for
ensuring the service member at the lowest level not only
understands these policies but also knows the courses of action
that service members should take to remedy the situation when
policies are violated.
This issue concerns me as a Member of Congress, as a
veteran myself of the Army National Guard and Reserves, but
especially as the father of four sons who are currently serving
in the military where what we want is the best environment for
what we know is an opportunity of military service.
I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses:
Sergeant Major of the Army Raymond F. Chandler, III; Master
Chief Petty Officer of the Navy Rick D. West; Sergeant Major of
the Marine Corps Micheal P. Barrett; Chief Master Sergeant of
the Air Force James A. Roy; and Master Chief Petty Officer of
the Coast Guard Michael P. Leavitt.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 27.]
Mr. Wilson. Mrs. Davis is our ranking member from
California. Would you like to make any opening remarks?
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Mrs. Davis. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am very pleased that the subcommittee is turning its
focus to the important issue of hazing in the military. Over
the past year, there has been a number of hazing incidents
across the Services that have been brought to the public's
attention.
I am sure that we would all agree that hazing is a serious
and deplorable crime. It disrupts unit cohesion and reduces the
morale of our men and women in uniform; and it can, as we know,
lead to tragic consequences. Hazing, particularly in light of
the current ongoing deployments and responsibilities that are
being asked of our men and women in uniform, is a very serious
matter.
I am aware that most of the Services have policies that
prohibit hazing and harassment, for that matter. But I am
interested to hear how the Services educate and train our
military personnel so that they know how to recognize hazing
and harassment and what they should do to stop it or prevent
its tolerance among the force. Do we even know how often these
incidents occur? If incidents are not tracked, how does the
Service even recognize that this is an isolated incident or an
epidemic?
Parents and families who send their son or daughter to
serve our Nation in uniform are already concerned about their
health and safety, given the operational requirements service
members are facing. They should not have to worry about whether
their child is being subjected to hazing or harassment as well.
So we need to restore the confidence in our families that the
Services are doing all that they possibly can to prevent hazing
from occurring among the force, and hopefully this hearing will
be one step toward that goal.
I want to welcome our witnesses. We thank you very much for
being here, and I certainly look forward to hearing our most
senior enlisted members of the Services present to us today.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the
Appendix on page 28.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Mrs. Davis.
Without objection, I ask that statements from the
Organization of Chinese Americans and the Asian American
Justice Center be included in the record of the hearing.
Hearing none, so ordered.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on pages 51 and 55, respectively.]
Mr. Wilson. I ask unanimous consent that other committee
and non-committee members--and I want to welcome Congresswoman
Judy Chu of California and Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez to be
present. Also, Congressman Honda, thank you for coming too, as
you are just entering--that the three of you be allowed to
participate in today's hearing after all subcommittee members
have had an opportunity to ask questions.
Is there any objection?
Without objection, non-subcommittee members will be
recognized at the appropriate time under the 5-minute rule that
each of us has applicable.
Sergeant Major Chandler, we will begin with your testimony.
As a reminder, please keep your statements to 3 minutes. We
have your written statements for the record.
STATEMENT OF SMA RAYMOND F. CHANDLER III, USA, SERGEANT MAJOR
OF THE ARMY
Sergeant Major Chandler. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this committee,
thank you for the invitation to address you on this issue which
concerns all of us associated with the United States Army.
Let me give you the bottom line up front. Hazing has no
place in our Army. We will not tolerate hazing in any form, and
we will hold those in violation of this policy accountable for
their actions.
I spend about 270 days out of the year traveling around to
post camps and stations throughout the world visiting with
soldiers and families and discussing a wide variety of topics.
My overall message to the force is the Army profession. I talk
about what it means to be a professional, how soldiers should
conduct themselves, and, more importantly, how they should
treat each other.
To be a professional, our soldier must possess the three
Cs: competence, commitment, and character. The first is easy to
spot. Competence means you are doing your job and doing it
well. Commitment and character are not so easy. A soldier who
is committed to the Army and has character lives the Army
values at all times, even in the absence of peers or
leadership. Soldiers who lack character, commitment, or
competence are not the type of individuals our Nation needs to
serve as part of our Army.
We have a duty as professional soldiers to maintain the
trust and confidence of the American people, not just to fight
and win our Nation's wars but also to maintain high
professional and ethical standards. So when a soldier behaves
inappropriately, Congress and the American people expect the
Army to hold that soldier accountable. For 237 years, the Army
has worked hard and successfully to strengthen that bond.
We must also continue to train and educate our soldiers and
Department of the Army civilians on the effects of hazing in
our ranks. The vast majority live the Army values and are truly
professional. However, even one incident of hazing means we are
not doing enough.
I can assure you the Army has taken a strong stance against
hazing. Hazing is not compatible with our Army values and will
not be tolerated. The American people trust we will hold
perpetrators of hazing accountable for their actions, and we
take that trust seriously.
I, along with the Army senior leaders, am committed to
fight hazing until there are no such incidents in our Army
anymore. Our soldiers, families, Department of the Army
civilians, and the American people deserve no less.
I appreciate your time and will answer any questions you
may have. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Sergeant Major Chandler can be
found in the Appendix on page 29.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And we will now proceed with the testimony of the Master
Petty Sergeant Rick West.
STATEMENT OF MCPON RICK D. WEST, USN, MASTER CHIEF PETTY
OFFICER OF THE NAVY
Master Chief Petty Officer West. Chairman Wilson, Ranking
Member Davis, and distinguished members of this subcommittee,
as a Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, I am honored to
have the privilege of representing more than 427,000 Active and
Reserve sailors who comprise the finest total force in the
history of the United States Navy.
People are absolutely our most precious asset. Their
individual success and the Navy's collective mission
accomplishment lie in our ability to provide an environment
that promotes inclusiveness and a validated sense of value to
the team. Maintaining a positive command culture that fosters
these ideas is a top priority of our chief of naval operations,
for me personally, and for leadership at all levels.
Hazing unequivocally destroys these ideas and is not
tolerated in your Navy. It is inconsistent with core values,
our core values of honor, courage, and commitment, and
detrimental to the individual esteem and unit cohesion.
The Secretary of the Navy's instruction on hazing is the
cornerstone of our approach to education, prevention,
enforcement, and accountability. Training on hazing, equal
opportunity, and core values begins with recruits at boot camp
and is reinforced regularly in a variety of forums throughout a
sailor's career. We also emphasize and actively train our force
on bystander intervention as an effective measure to prevent
numerous offenses, including hazing.
There is no plausible excuse for lack of awareness on the
Navy's hazing policy, nor any legitimate explanation for
violation of a policy explicitly intended to protect the health
and welfare of our people. Navy policy requires commanders to
formally report every suspected incident of hazing to the chain
of command as soon as possible. Every sailor has a
responsibility to make the appropriate authorities aware of
hazing. All reported incidents are fully investigated, while
the rights and needs of victims and witnesses are immediately
addressed by the chain of command. Those who commit violations
of the policy and those in leadership positions who may
tolerate such acts are held accountable.
We understand people are truly the singular measure of the
Navy's success. We appreciate your passionate interest in
protecting their welfare, and we stand committed to meeting
your expectations.
I look forward to your questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of Master Chief Petty Officer West
can be found in the Appendix on page 33.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And we proceed now to the Sergeant Major of the Marine
Corps Micheal P. Barrett.
STATEMENT OF SGTMAJMC MICHEAL P. BARRETT, USMC, SERGEANT MAJOR
OF THE MARINE CORPS
Sergeant Major Barrett. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, members of the
committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss the important matter of hazing in our
Armed Forces.
The individual marine is our greatest asset. So let me be
clear, hazing is not a part of our service culture or who we
are.
Our official policy states that hazing is contrary to our
ethos of taking care of our own. It violates the virtuous
conduct and soldierly repute earned by marines who have served
the corps honorably since its inception. Hazing fosters a
climate of maltreatment and cruelty, concepts inconsistent with
our core values.
As leaders, we naturally want marines to be successful and
maintain the desire to stay in our corps. As an institution,
the only way that the Marine Corps can exist, survive, and
thrive is through fostering a climate where marines have every
opportunity for participation and advancement in accordance
with their talents, backgrounds, culture, and skills.
The positive contributions of our marines bring us mission
success. The Marine Corps aims to transform our Nation's youth
not only into ethical warfighters but into better quality
citizens. As we do so, we expect to confront matters of hazing
arising sometimes from the indiscretions of youth.
The Marine Corps recruits from young demographics; and it
is well documented that the Marine Corps is the most youthful
of all the service branches, with 63 percent of the force aged
25 years or younger. Unfortunately, hazing can manifest
sometimes in organizations that conflate immaturity, youth, and
arduous responsibility. In such an environment, young people
sometimes might confuse hazing with the means for belonging or
a rite of passage.
As an institution of more than 202,000 personnel, the
Marine Corps is not perfect. No institution is. Yet we rely on
our 236-year legacy of honor, courage, and commitment to help
us address problems like hazing when they arise.
Hazing is a behavioral problem and a form of misconduct for
which we must remain vigilant. The Marine Corps works
diligently to change behaviors and mindsets into an effort to
foster better judgment, especially among our junior leaders.
As a sergeant major of the Marine Corps, I tell our marines
throughout the entire corps that every marine deserves to be in
a good unit, led morally, ethically, and professionally; and,
as such, marines are products of our leadership. Engaged,
dedicated leaders must display those enduring trust qualities:
competent, committed, consistently dependable, of the highest
moral and ethical character, and team mentality. There is no
greater compliment than one to say to another, I can count, I
can trust you always. That is our end state.
Hazing has nothing whatsoever to do with being a leader and
is not taught as a leadership tool in any period of instruction
in our schoolhouses. Those engaging in hazing do not act with
the Marine Corps' blessing. The commandant and I are disgusted
with that kind of behavior.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Sergeant Major Barrett can be
found in the Appendix on page 37.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Sergeant Major.
We now proceed to the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air
Force James A. Roy.
STATEMENT OF CMSAF JAMES A. ROY, USAF, CHIEF MASTER SERGEANT OF
THE AIR FORCE
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member
Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you
for an opportunity to speak on behalf of the more than 500,000
men and women who comprise the finest Air Force our Nation has
ever seen.
Today's airmen are highly motivated and better qualified to
conduct our missions across the globe than ever before.
Regardless of where they serve and what they do, none of our
airmen can complete this mission alone. Each of us needs a
wingman to help make sure this job gets done.
Our Service's most precious commodity is our airmen. To
protect them, we create and promote a culture of respect and
dignity. Airmen are exposed to human relations training early
and often, starting with recruitment, basic training,
continuing through separation and retirement. This training
makes it clear that activities like hazing will not be
tolerated.
The Air Force holds leaders responsible for creating a safe
work environment. However, we believe all of our airmen are
leaders; and, therefore, we hold all airmen accountable for
recognizing conflict and intervening as necessary, especially
in less formal settings.
Although the Air Force does not have its own policy on
hazing, the DOD's [Department of Defense] definition and
guidance is implemented through our subordinate commands. Our
accession sources have adopted the DOD's definition to appeal
to the targeted audiences. This allows us to impart on our
airmen that hazing will not be tolerated and serves as a
foundation for the culture and respect and dignity we build
starting at accession and continuing throughout an entire
career.
I would like to thank you again for your continued support
and concern for our airmen and their families.
[The prepared statement of Chief Master Sergeant Roy can be
found in the Appendix on page 42.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much for being here today.
And we conclude with the opening statements with Master
Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard Michael P. Leavitt.
STATEMENT OF MCPOCG MICHAEL P. LEAVITT, USCG, MASTER CHIEF
PETTY OFFICER OF THE COAST GUARD
Master Chief Leavitt. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson,
Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you to discuss issues related to military hazing.
I, along with all the leaders in the Coast Guard, am
responsible for ensuring our personnel are treated with dignity
and respect. Hazing serves no purpose and is contrary to our
core values of honor, respect, and devotion to duty.
The Coast Guard's hazing policy is found in a discipline
and conduct manual released in October of 2011. The policy
defines hazing and clearly states that consent does not
eliminate accountability. Hazing can be punished under
provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and in
severe situations may result in court-martial, fines,
reductions in rank, jail sentences, and/or punitive discharge
from the Coast Guard.
Hazing typically occurs in connection with unofficial,
unsupervised initiations for other informal rites of passage
and are not authorized in the Coast Guard or unit policy. In
those cases, offenders seem to target junior personnel.
Prevention of hazing can best be achieved through training
and strong leadership that is engaged and is involved at all
levels. This will help ensure the culture across the Coast
Guard is intolerant of hazing.
We are constantly striving to improve our organizational
culture and our workplace environment. For example, every 2
years, the Coast Guard conducts a comprehensive survey of the
workforce called the Organizational Assessment Survey. The
results consistently show the Coast Guard is rated strong in
several key areas, such as communications, diversity,
leadership and quality, supervision, team work, and work
environment. We will continue to monitor trends in these key
areas in order to prevent and eradicate inappropriate behaviors
such as hazing.
All personnel must understand that hazing will not be
tolerated, and no one may consent to being hazed, which is an
important part of our policy. Training of all Coast Guard
members occurs during recruit training and annually thereafter.
Awareness and support of hazing policy has been emphasized
by senior leadership. The commandant as well as Pacific and
Atlantic area commanders have recently released messages
regarding hazing, sending a strong and clear message to the
workforce. Leadership courses for our perspective commanding
officers and officer in charge as well as our boat force's
command cadre positions include training on hazing, thus
ensuring future leaders understand and enforce the policy.
So, as I close, let me emphasize that the Coast Guard
places the highest priority on preventing hazing. We have
strong and clear policy, extensive training, effective
leadership, and an environment within the Coast Guard to ensure
our members are treated with dignity and respect. It is
essential to eradicate hazing so all Coast Guard members may
fully contribute to mission success. The people of our great
Nation deserve nothing less from us.
So thank you again for the opportunity to testify today,
and I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Master Chief Leavitt can be
found in the Appendix on page 45.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, and thank each of you for
being here today.
This is a real honor for me to have not only members of our
subcommittee, but we have three other members who are very
interested, and rightly so, in this very, very important issue;
and so it is an opportunity to have very dedicated Members of
Congress here on this issue.
We will have a 5-minute rule. And I appreciate Mr. Craig
Greene, the professional staff, will be maintaining the time;
and we will be proceeding with each person of the subcommittee
and then our visiting welcomed members.
At this time, my first question is, I believe that hazing
contradicts, as has been stated, the Services' core values.
There are policies and training that attempt to prevent hazing.
I am interested to know, beginning--and we will start with the
Army and go to the Coast Guard--how you, as the senior enlisted
members of the Service, emphasize through the noncommissioned
officers [NCO] chain that hazing threatens the effectiveness of
your Service and will not be tolerated.
Sergeant Major Chandler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Recently, we have published a letter to all members of the
Service about hazing. The Secretary of the Army, the Chief, and
I have tri-signed a letter to reemphasize the Army's commitment
to prevention or elimination of hazing.
Within training, we do that within the initial military
training environment through basic training through the United
States Military Academy. The Army does not have a formal policy
or training program at the unit or individual level
specifically focused on hazing, and we are actually
reconsidering whether or not we need to make some adjustments
in our training program.
Sergeant Major Barrett. Throughout the life cycle of an
average marine, and we will say the average marine's is 4
years, because 75 percent of our cohort gets out every 4 years,
but in that 4-year timeframe every single marine will go
through not less than or a minimum of 11 times they will
receive value-based leadership and value-based training. From
the second they step on the yellow footprints at Parris Island
or San Diego, to the time they go to their infantry training
battalion for their Marine combat training, all the way to when
they step into their MOS [military occupational specialty]
school, and then when they get to their first unit, they are
welcomed aboard, and then they receive annual training, all the
way through to the Service or the rank appropriate EPME
[enlisted professional military education] academies that they
will attend. So through the life cycle of an average marine,
through 4 years, a minimum of 11 times, they will receive their
training.
We have also refreshed and reenergized our policy order
that more clearly delineates exactly what hazing is. That was
not in our old order, and we have reengaged and we reenergized
our leadership to take that forward and take it down to the
lowest level.
Master Chief Petty Officer West. Sir, thank you.
For the Navy, it is a continuum of training from the time
that individual starts into boot camp until that individual is
out of the Navy, essentially. But we reinforce that at all
levels, at all times. We do that through a variety of mixed
training, from the classroom-type training to individual-based
training, i.e. GMT, general military training.
We also have the levels of training associate at our
command leadership schools, which our COs [commanding
officers], our XOs [executive officers], department heads, and
our command master chiefs receive that training as well.
We check that as well throughout a sailor's career by
various means, such as a CMEO survey, or Command Managed Equal
Opportunity survey, or through various visits to the fleet,
which we receive feedback.
And, also, now as well social media is a powerful tool
which we are able to get indicators that are out there.
But it is a continuum, sir, and we will continue to press
forward on that. We do have a policy in place that is out
there. It is very clear to our leaders, and it is very clear to
our sailors.
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. Again, sir, thank you for the
question.
Just like others have stated, ours begins at accessions,
whether it be officer enlisted, begins at accession. It goes
through professional military education. It also touches on
those command billets. Every time that somebody gets prepared
for a command billet, it is touched on as well.
And then also one area that we do a little different maybe
is during expeditionary start-up training. We also provide it
there, and we do annual training as well.
Some of the ways that we measure its effectiveness is,
obviously, through the surveys of the IG [Inspector General]
and others, through travel of just visiting the units, commands
and such.
Master Chief Leavitt. Mr. Chairman, I would echo the same
as a lot of my other peers here.
Our training starts in recruit training, as I mentioned in
my oral statement. And then as we push through the Service, as
you know, there is a certain level of maturity that you
increase when you try to figure out what the core values mean.
When you come in at 18 years old, they might be a little bit
different as you are adjusting to the Coast Guard.
It is really important for the senior leadership to
understand what these values are and what they look like. And
so our training programs to look at our command cadre, take a
look at what your command climate is. And one of the key things
of that is really focusing on your leadership at all levels and
understanding what hazing, which is another one of the
behaviors, because you have other things out there too. But
hazing is definitely a detriment to your command climate,
identifying what those things are and training for that. At the
end of the day, training is a great thing.
We have all those things in place. It is what we do on the
front lines and how we take care of those things and then how
we hold those things accountable.
Mr. Wilson. And as we proceed to Mrs. Davis I would like to
point out that I always found it helpful at armories, at dining
facilities, to have posters identifying that hazing is not
tolerated. And what I would hope that it could indicate are the
chain of command of if you feel like you have been hazed what
to do and that there will be a follow-through. But I just--a
suggestion. I always found it very, very helpful.
Proceed to Mrs. Davis.
Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I wonder if we could just assume for now that a
majority of incidents are reported. And you can speak to that,
and perhaps that is really not the case.
But if we have a number of incidents how do you track that?
How do you really watch those incidents over time? Are there
any statistics that would indicate what happens as a result--
disciplinary action, punitive action, whether court-martial.
Are there stats to demonstrate that and how vigorously, I
guess, do you feel that that represents the situation that we
have before us?
Sergeant Major Chandler. I can go first.
From the Army perspective, the challenge for us is that
there is no punitive or statutory title for hazing. There are
many for other forms of misconduct, but there isn't one for
hazing.
So if you want to do a search, which the Army has started
to search through all of the previous records of judicial
punishment to determine, you know, we do have some statistics.
I am not comfortable with the quality of the statistics,
because you have to really drill down into each one of the
charges to see whether or not it was an assault which may have
been a fisticuffs or if it was an assault that you could then
turn to hazing.
However, what we do have is that, since 2006, we have 71
cases that meet the criteria for hazing, which involved 139
subjects and 123 victims. Of the 139 subjects, 65 received some
administrative, judicial, or non-judicial punishment; and 43
are still pending adjudication; 21 have no action taken.
So I am not positive that that is a final answer, but it is
a preliminary search of where we stand. And I think the titling
question, whether or not we have a specific specification for
hazing, may help us to better identify this.
Sergeant Major Barrett. We have just presently started with
the new order that has been delivered that has been sent out by
the commandant of the Marine Corps. We are now starting to
track in our case management system, in our SJs [summary of
judgments], hazing-specific any allegations or confirmed cases
of allegation are immediately reported to our operational
reporting systems, and they are reported directly to the
commandant of the Marine Corps. So we have now a tracking
system in place that we didn't have before.
And I concur with exactly what the Sergeant Major of the
Army said. When it comes down to the particular criteria, when
you look at article 92, disobey of a lawful order; or cruelty
or maltreatment for article 93; or 128, assault, you have to
drill down to find out those things that may have caused that
to lead to a hazing incident.
And I also concur with the Army with what he said that
maybe hazing as another element inside demand of court-martial
be specifically delineated as a way ahead.
Master Chief Petty Officer West. Ma'am, from a Navy
perspective, our Secretary of the Navy instruction of 2005 has
directed us to all substantiated incidents of hazing be
reported via OPREP [operations report] or SITREP [situation
report] to our CNO [Chief of Naval Operations].
Now, we also have recently started tracking all incidents
of hazing via a quarterly criminal activity report via our JAG
[Judge Advocate General]. With that, since 2009, we have had 46
reported hazing incidents, an average of 15 a year. Twenty of
those 46 resulted in punitive, administrative, or disciplinary
action.
Also with that we drilled a little deeper in it. We have
seen no injuries occur because of the incidents, no suicides or
suicide ideations was reported in association with those
incidents, and race was not a reason or cause for any of those
instances as well. The majority of these were physical
incidents where most of them were senior to junior,
characterized as horseplay activity associated with promotion
or qualification achievement.
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. Again, as others have stated,
inside the non-judicial punishment there is not really a label
per se to pull down. However, we do track through our IG
system. We have tracked, since 2005, 21 different incidents. Of
that, one being substantiated. The others, as we turn them to
command and they report back to us on which actions were taken,
again, one of them being substantiated.
Master Chief Leavitt. Ma'am, since 2009, we have had nine
court-martial cases that we keep track of, and seven of those
cases occurred at one unit. So there was conflict at one area,
and there are two others. Some of these cases are still
pending, so we are going to wait for that, but that is where
our numbers sit at right now, ma'am.
Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, and we now proceed with
Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I thank all of
you gentlemen for being here this afternoon.
I have just a couple of questions, and any of you please
feel free to comment for your respective Services.
We know that each Service seems to have a zero tolerance
for hazing, but it is still occurring. Can you tell me how
hazing has been dealt with in the past, the lessons that we
have learned over the years, and have you employed today more
effective ways to combat this type of behavior? How is it
different today than it was yesteryear?
We can begin with whoever would like to begin.
Master Chief Petty Officer West. Ma'am, I will tell you I
have been in the Navy since 1980, signed the papers, and I can
tell you from then to today it is night and day in comparison.
We helped put several corrective measures, as I previously
stated, into place. We are constantly talking about it. In
fact, this particular year I instituted a policy called CPO
365, and it goes back to the CPO or the chief petty officer
inductions that we have been doing for many years. Those of the
past were behind the closed doors and probably not a thing that
we would be proud of. Those today, it is a training
opportunity. It is more so of a training evolution, and we put
things in place that teach our sailors our core values and our
history and heritage.
Sergeant Major Barrett. We have also heightened our
awareness of the situation. In 31 years of service, I have seen
cases of hazing that have come before me as being in the
leadership position. I have seen them adjudicated. I have seen
those who wrongfully committed the violation. I have seen them
held accountable. I have seen it at the NJP [non-judicial
punishment] level. I have also seen it at the court-martial
level. And I have also seen it where it was something as simple
as a marine pushing a marine, where it was more of an
administrative counseling level.
So I have seen it at every single level, and I have seen
convictions, and I have seen the wrongdoers held accountable.
There is a heightened awareness in the United States Marine
Corps. We have changed our orders, and we have made it more--
like I said, we have made it more detailed to truly explain and
wash away gray area.
Mr. Bordallo. Thank you.
Sergeant Major Chandler. From an Army perspective, ma'am, I
came in the Army at roughly the same time as Master Chief Petty
Officer Rick West did.
And I stood on the back deck of my tank on Grafenwoehr,
Germany, in 1982 and was promoted to PV2 private. And at that
time it was a very common practice to have the backing taken
off of your rank and basically people punch it into your skin.
And that was a common practice throughout the Army. That is not
a common practice today. We call those blood stripes.
Another measure that used to happen in the past was a
gauntlet where soldiers from the platoon would line up on
either side and as a soldier walked by they would punch him or
her in the arm. We don't tolerate that anymore. And that really
started to change back in the mid-'90s really when we realized
that those types of behaviors were not in keeping with who we
say we are as professional soldiers.
I believe and my experience in the Army is that we do not
have large incidents of hazing throughout the Service, but we
still have incidents like have happened here recently that
cause great concern. So we have not completely eradicated it,
and our commitment--my commitment--is to see that that happens,
and until it is I am very concerned.
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. If I could just add to that,
ma'am.
I have only been in for 30 years. We haven't had the blood
stripes of sort that has been described. But I will tell you,
based on the culture of the United States Air Force, based on
the values that have been published and believed amongst all
airmen--and I think one other key point, and the Master Chief
said it earlier, is this idea of bystander training is so, so
important, that it is not just the member, but it is also those
that are around those members that should say something as well
should they see something. And that has really kind of capped
it off for us.
Master Chief Leavitt. I would like to answer up.
I think in the Coast Guard we just updated our discipline
and conduct manual which does a much better job of defining the
elements of hazing. I think that is a great tool for our
leadership to look at and for all our members in the Coast
Guard.
And then the second thing, as soon as the commandant and I
took over this job, the commandant updated all our policies to
reflect those elements, which hazing is one of those elements
and respecting our shipmates, one of his four principles. And
then he sent a clear message to the field on several other
issues of unethical behaviors, and hazing was one of those, and
talked about how those types of things undermine our morale,
which degrades our readiness and damages our mission
performance. I think those are critical elements pushing
forward on in regards to hazing.
Mr. Bordallo. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, in interest of time, if I could just--one
question, and one of you could answer this. It is important to
me.
Given the recent incidents with Asian Pacific Americans,
how are the Services learning from these unfortunate
experiences and applying lessons to avoid these problems as we
go forward in implementing ``don't ask, don't tell''?
If just one of you could perhaps answer.
Master Chief Petty Officer West. Ma'am, I will tell you
from a Navy perspective we constantly train to, one, the
policy. Two, we take incidents such as those and those that
happen in our Navy and we make them case studies.
I was just up in Newport, Rhode Island, where we teach our
commanding officers, our executive officers, and our senior
leaders, enlisted leaders. And they will basically walk through
an incident from A to Z to make sure, one, they understand it;
two, what would they do. So it is train to; and, more
importantly, it is enforced.
Mr. Bordallo. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo.
And we now proceed to Congressman Mike Coffman of Colorado.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am somewhat worried by the direction of the discussion
here. If we think that the problems that recently arose with
the two Asian Americans was a function of hazing and that was
all that we have to deal with, I think we have really missed
it. I think what we really fundamentally have at the end of the
day is a failure of small unit leadership, is a failure of NCO
[non-commissioned officer] leadership.
When you are in a ground combat team, there is no stronger
interdependent bond that happens. And so what we have is
really, in a sense, a soldier--and I am less familiar with the
case in the Marine Corps--but who was rejected by his fellow
soldiers. And you had an NCO, probably you had a squad leader--
I can't remember how the Army is organized that way--but you
had a squad leader, and you had a platoon sergeant, and you had
a first sergeant that either knew about it and did nothing or
should have known about it.
And it is for somebody who has never been in that
situation, who has never been a part of a ground combat team,
could never realize how difficult that is when you have been
rejected by that team and you are there, and you are there.
And so I think that if we say that we have corrected hazing
and we don't deal with the psychological component of this we
have really missed the mark. This is much more about physical
hazing. This is really about a fundamental failure of
leadership at the most basic levels. And so I mean I am just
really stunned by it all.
And I do have to ask the United States Navy a question, and
that is that I saw a media report about some sailors who were
recently disciplined for a hazing incident being deployed
aboard ship, and it was caught on some sort of observation
cameras, and they were discharged.
Master Chief Petty Officer West. Yes, sir.
Mr. Coffman. Am I correct in that?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. Sir, that is absolutely
correct. There were eight sailors that were charged, taken--as
a matter of fact, it was investigated, and they were charged.
The CO took them to mast. There was a battery of disciplinary
actions, one of which they were all discharged from the Navy,
yes, sir.
Mr. Coffman. I have to say that, you know, we are going to
find our way here, but I do think that is--let me tell you
where that is an overreaction. They should have been
disciplined. It should have been maybe article 15, maybe
summary court. I don't know the specific circumstances. But we
are going beyond correcting this problem and politicizing it by
saying to those sailors with one incident--if I understand the
article I read correctly--that we are going to--and what kind
of discharge did they receive for that incident?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. General discharge, sir.
I would also say that I rely on the chain of command. The
chain of command was there. They investigated. And those
leaders on the deck plate, which I wasn't there to see, they
applied the discipline as they seen fit on the deck plate.
Mr. Coffman. And that took place after all the
congressional concern that was expressed publicly. But, you
know, I question that. I just hope that, and particularly in
the Army and the Marine Corps--well, in all the Services. I
served in the Army and the Marine Corps, but in all the
Services that we have certainly better leadership that ought to
recognize this.
You know, we just had an incident in Afghanistan where a
staff sergeant went and killed 16 civilians, and it has
practically derailed our policy. Where was the leadership there
in recognizing this person was starting to, you know, go off-
kilter? You know, where was that leadership? Where was the
leadership for Private First Class [PFC] Chen? Where was the
leadership in Lance Corporal Lew?
It was missing. That is the fundamental issue. To me, it is
more about the lack of leadership by the NCOs than it is about
the conduct of the junior enlisted in these alleged hazing
incidents.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, and we proceed now to
Congresswoman Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to all of you, and I appreciate very much your
testimony, and I appreciate again the efforts that you all are
putting into this.
But I have to say, as I listen to it, there is a deja vu
quality to it. This subcommittee and the broader Armed Services
Committee has spent much time addressing the issue of sexual
assault in the military. And over the course of my tenure here
in Washington, which has not been that long, but I know even in
the years before there are many instances in which you all or
representatives of the Service came to talk about the policies
you were putting in place to address the issue, the training
you were putting in place to address the issue. But the reality
was that, despite all those good efforts, in returning visits
it has become clear that there are many, many shortcomings. So
as you deal with this issue I would encourage you to put in
place metrics, objective ways of measuring the outcomes of all
this hard work that you do.
And I support also what my colleague, Mr. Coffman, has
said, in that instance as well as in this one, it is clear that
the role, the leadership role, the role of the command
structure is very, very important and that there have to be
accountability measures built into that as well.
So really just to make a statement. I thank you for your
testimony. I appreciate the hard work, but it should not be
spinning your wheels, and we have to find ways to make sure
that that is not the case. But thank you for being here.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas; and we now proceed to
Congresswoman Judy Chu of California.
Ms. Chu. First, I want to thank Chairman Wilson and Ranking
Member Davis for allowing me to attend this hearing today. I
have been trying to get a hearing on this issue for many
months, and I am grateful that you are focusing on this
critical matter.
And the American people watching, in just a few days I have
received 2,097 letters and petitions from concerned citizens
calling on us to do something about hazing, and these are the
petitions right here. I ask unanimous consent to submit a
letter summarizing these petitions for the record.
Mr. Wilson. Without objection.
Ms. Chu. Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 58.]
Ms. Chu. Today's hearing is just a first step. I hope the
committee will continue to work together on this issue in the
coming months.
I have a personal reason for being here. My nephew was a
victim of hazing, and it killed him.
Hazing is a serious problem in the military, and though the
military has policies in place, they aren't being enforced, and
they aren't effective. Just last year, Private Hamson Daniels
McPherson, an African American stationed in Okinawa, facing
near-constant racist hazing by his fellow marines, finally, he
set himself on fire and died.
Last year, Private Danny Chen was hazed for 6 weeks. He was
dragged across gravel until his back bled. Rocks were thrown at
him to simulate artillery. He was called ``gook'' and
``chink.'' Finally, Danny shot himself to death.
In 2010, black Army Specialist Brushaun Anderson was pushed
to his physical limit for weeks. He was made to build a sandbag
wall with no purpose. He was called dirty and forced to wear a
plastic trash bag at all times. Finally, he could take no more.
He went to the latrine and shot himself to death.
And then there is my nephew Harry. The Harry that we knew
loved to joke and, in fact, was known for his skills in break
dancing.
At age 19, he enlisted in the Marines and was sent to
Afghanistan. On April 3rd, Harry was found asleep on duty. At
11:15 p.m., his sergeant cursed at Harry loud enough to wake up
the rest of the marines, announcing that peers should correct
peers.
At 12:01 a.m., the hazing onslaught began. Harry's peers
took it upon themselves to administer justice and corrective
training. They berated him and ordered him to dig a foxhole, to
do pushups, crunches and planks with his heavy full body armor
and a 25-pound sandbag. They stomped on his back, kicked and
punched him, and poured the entire contents of a sandbag onto
his face and in his mouth. It lasted a full three hours and 20
minutes.
Finally, 22 minutes after they stopped, at 3:43 a.m., Harry
climbed into a foxhole and killed himself with his own gun. He
was 21 years old.
And what punishment was given? Virtually nothing. In
Harry's case, three marines were charged. One marine was given
just one month in confinement. Two were found not guilty by a
jury of their peers, fellow marines.
The platoon just had a big celebration for beating the
charges, as we saw on their Facebook. All of them are free to
continue with their military careers, be promoted, and continue
their behavior. Even a jaywalker would get a worse punishment.
When I talk about Harry, the reaction from the outside
versus the inside is like night and day. The outside is
horrified. But, from the inside of the military, the top brass
usually says, we prohibit hazing, we do not tolerate hazing,
these are isolated incidents, we are perfect. But the rank-and-
file soldier almost to a person usually says, hazing is
necessary to correct bad behavior and keep soldiers strong.
Better one person die even at the hand of his fellow service
members than compromise the entire unit's safety.
Why do I know people say this? Because I heard them say it
at the jury trial over and over again as a defense for those
marines. And I saw it in the letters to the editors, and I saw
it in the blogs. This is the attitude that is in the military,
and it is pervasive.
So here is what I say. You cannot know if these are
isolated incidents, because none of you even keep records on
hazing. In Harry's unit alone there were six previous cases of
hazing within a year.
Do you think you can't do better, that losing a few
soldiers' lives here and there at the hands of their fellow
soldiers means you are doing everything perfectly? If there is
no culture that tolerates or encourages hazing, then why did
these men die for no reason? What are you doing, if anything,
to change the culture of hazing and institute what I think is
necessary, a zero tolerance policy on hazing that actually
holds soldiers accountable?
Mr. Wilson. If any would like to answer.
Sergeant Major Chandler. Well, first of all, I am
personally disturbed by hazing, okay. I am appalled, and I am
disgusted by the actions of soldiers who I, as the senior
enlisted leader for our Army, am here representing. I don't poo
poo this. I don't think that it is something that should be
cast off or given any kind of, you know, wash away or hand
wave. This is important things. Because it is about who we say
as we are as professionals.
When a young man or woman is hazed, it is not corrective
training. It is abuse. And there is a significant difference
between abuse and corrective training. Corrective training,
when applied properly in the Army, means that it is tied to a
specific training deficiency; and the leader is there with the
soldier making sure that the training deficiency is overcome
and that the corrective action is in line with that.
So, for example, if I show up late to a formation my leader
may ask me to come or demand or order me to come to my next
place of duty early in a specific uniform. And when I have met
the standard that applies to that training deficiency then we
go on about our business.
From the Army perspective, from my perspective, this is not
something that we are going to tolerate. And I am committed,
along with the rest of the Army leadership, to solve this
problem. It is against who we say we are. And if one man or
woman, one of our brothers or sisters, dies because of our own
actions, that is not okay with me, and I am committed to this.
Sergeant Major Barrett. I am echoing every single thing
that the Sergeant Major of the Army said. We are taking as an
aggressive stance and fight towards all disgusting societal
issues and concerns that are plaguing the Services. And I am
not talking just about hazing. I am talking about drugs,
alcohol, domestic violence, criminal mischief, sexual
misconduct, tasing, operational stress, forced preservation
measures, hazing and suicide.
We are taking aggressive steps. Our behavioral health
program has integrated every one of our programs at
headquarters Marine Corps to better synchronize the research,
the resources, the policies, the training, the prevention, and
the treatment for all these things. I refer to them as the
insurgents inside of our wire, and it is affecting every single
Service sitting at this table.
We are aggressive. We are constantly taking and making
assessments, and we are going after a problem when we see the
problem.
Ma'am, what happened to Lance Corporal Lew is disgusting.
The small unit leadership that the congressman was speaking of
10, 15 minutes ago, he is absolutely spot-on. The small unit
leadership failed. I wish I could take it all back. We should
have done better. But we are aggressively attacking these
societal concerns as hard as we can possibly take them, and you
have our assurance on that, ma'am.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Chu; and we will proceed to
Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez of New York.
Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Wilson,
and Ranking Member Davis.
Sirs, our immigrant community is truly something that makes
our country great. In New York, where I am from, this community
has always been our strength, growing not just from all over
the world but serving as a magnet for young people in this
country. As I go to the various parts of my district, whether
it is the Polish community, Chinatown, or some West Indies
communities, the pride they show in their new country, their
country of choice, is inspiring.
This is especially true with the young people. It is not
surprising that they would want to show that pride through
serving the military or in the military. I have attended over
100 of induction ceremonies. Seeing the young men and women as
they are beginning their military careers with the American
flag in their lap beaming with pride is inspiring.
Private Danny Chen was one such excited young people. He
was my constituent, embarking on a new chapter of his life
serving this country. He had a true love for this country and
wanted to give back. So imagine the shock he felt upon arriving
at his unit to find he was not only unwelcome but the focal
point of systemic torture, an act that can only be described as
appalling. The result cost us a very special young man who had
so much to offer.
What is important to understand is, when we have these acts
take place, they don't just impact the individual or family.
They impact entire communities. As I talk to family, friends,
teachers, and those who knew Danny, I keep hearing a familiar
refrain, how could this happen? And while I appreciate all the
discussion of the policy on hazing and the difference it will
make, I need to hear how the leadership of the military and
Services, of all Services, going forward is going to make this
policy part of everyday life, just like a soldier formation so
it is second nature. This cannot be another paper policy stuck
up on a bulletin board or discussed one day and forgotten the
next.
So my question to our representatives from the military is,
what mechanisms will be in place to ensure that there will be
regular top-to-bottom reviews to ensure the policy that we have
heard about today is implemented properly and becomes part of
our armed services' everyday life?
And I heard, I heard your anger, I heard your frustration
and your commitment. I need to hear what is the mechanism that
will be in place to make sure that this is part of every
soldier, men and women's, life, day life?
Sergeant Major Chandler. Yes, ma'am. And I appreciate your
sentiments.
We have established a working group. The Director of the
Army Staff, Lieutenant General Troy, has directed a working
group between Army TRADOC [Training and Doctrine Command]
forces command, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve,
along with the Army staff to do a comprehensive review of our
current policy, to look for gaps that are associated with our
current policy and training programs, and then to look at
either changes to our Army policy or to request changes to the
DOD or even up through Members of Congress if we need to have a
statutory change to ensure we have the enforcement mechanisms
we need.
From a training perspective, we are going to look at how we
train this across the Army and whether or not we need to insert
it as a special topic as a mandatory training like our Marine
Corps and Navy brothers have done.
And that is our commitment. We will have a program. We are
in the very early stages, but I expect a very rapid turn. The
Secretary of the Army has demanded swift action, and I believe
we will have it.
Ms. Velazquez. And, sir, are you getting input from
different immigrant communities?
Sergeant Major Chandler. I am not sure about that, ma'am,
but I can take that question for the record and get you a
response.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 63.]
Sergeant Major Barrett. Thank you, ma'am.
First, one of the significant purposes behind us
integrating all of our behavioral health programs into one
single area is so that there is that cross-talk. So we are
looking for that common thread to improve our value-based
leadership training curriculum from the second you enter the
military until the second you decide to walk out a better
citizen.
Next, the commandant of the Marine Corps has just
directed--and it is starting with our sexual assault. He has
just instituted a sexual assault prevention operational
planning team consisting of 20 senior officers and 20 senior
enlisted leaders headed up by a two-star general. And the
purpose of it is to take a fresh, unconstrained look at the
problem that sexual assault, the programs, the courses, and the
initiatives that we presently have and how we are going to beat
this back and get all the prevention to the left of the
incident. And we are going to assess what we are doing
presently and what we need to do to get to the left of the
problem.
The next thing is early this summer the commandant is
holding a leadership symposium where he is bringing in all the
three-star level leadership this summer to capture every single
lesson learned over the last 10 years for the appropriate and
the right way ahead.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, and we will proceed with
Congressman Mike Honda of California.
Mr. Honda. I want to add my thanks to Chairman Wilson and
Davis and, to the gentlemen here, thank you for your service;
and I appreciate, as Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez had
indicated, your sentiments.
But just by listening to the testimony I would think that
this hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service appears to
denounce hazing and have safeguards to prevent it. Yet, hazing
occurs, as evidenced by the recent incidents of Private Danny
Chen, Lance Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy Vessel the
Bonhomme Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta just issued an
anti-hazing directive during his holiday message in December.
It keeps coming up. What I find extremely troubling is a
lack of actual statistics on hazing. And how can anyone be
convinced that a problem doesn't exist or our current policies
are working if there is no method to monitor or evaluate it?
And do any of the Services have a database or other monitoring
system to record incidents of hazing and harassment?
I read the reports. It appears that the Coast Guard was
doing one that turned in some datum on the incidences and the
outcomes. But what I found interesting was that--that needs to
be talked about, I guess--in each category of--areas--suicide
have no data available to determine hazing was or was not a
contributing factor. You need to dig deeper into that and to
see, you know, if there is any connection with the breakdown of
the racial background--you know, white, Asian, black, Hispanic,
others--looking into the dynamics of diversity, language,
background, and cultural issues needs to be dug even a little
bit deeper.
How does each Service evaluate their current policies if
they are working or not? Waiting to review policies after a
slew of tragic cases is not an effective preventative approach.
I know that and I have heard that abuse versus corrective
training--I am not sure how corrective training is put
together, or whether having these kinds of things looked at
internally without an external review from other folks who are
familiar with these kinds of practices----
A few years ago, we were a part of the Port Hueneme
training for the folks over there, both the civilians and
enlisted folks. And we did a lot of work on racial interaction,
and there was a lot of work to be done, within the ethnic
groups and outside of the ethics groups. So I think that that
kind of thing needs to be continued.
The hazing of servicemen in a National Guard company
assigned in Kosovo surfaced only last month after a private in
the company lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant General Mark
Hertling, Commander of the U.S. Army Europe, commented that the
private reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the
General said, for this guy to say what you guys are doing is
wrong, courageous is an understatement.
I definitely agree. However, it also speaks to how
difficult for subordinate servicemen to report inappropriate
behavior to the senior officers. I am not sure that we are not
looking into that more, to say that this is what you do, this
is the process, and not understand some of the barriers or some
of the dynamics that enter into reporting. And as a vice
principal of a middle school, you know, my kids say, I don't
want to be known as a snitch. Translation: I will get my ass
beaten.
Okay, so I think that that is the kind of dynamics that you
may want to look at. However, this must be nearly impossible
during an extended forward operation that these folks are
involved in.
So what can be done to create an environment that allows
for this type of reporting, both psychologically and physically
being able to report that, whether that is through information
or through sharing, whatever it is, but it still has to be an
environment that is safe and confidential?
What have you done to address culture sensitivity and to
adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion effort? And do
hazing and harassment training, monitoring, and enforcement
policies need to be uniform across the Services?
And so those are the kinds of thoughts I have, and I
appreciate the other members here and their thoughts about
leadership in the smaller units. I think that that is part of
that dynamics, too. So there is insulation between those who
needed to be reported to and those who are victims or
bystanders. I think that you have the sense of who the actors
are. It is the interaction and the motivation or the
encouragement or the sense of responsibility fulfilled that
what you say you are instilling in each and every service
person.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will wait for my response.
And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, if these responses could be
turned in in writing within a couple of weeks, that would be
appreciated.
Mr. Wilson. Congressman, actually, thank you very much.
Because the time is up, except for one thing. I thought that
you actually provided an extraordinary summary. And so for the
record, for each of you, I thought the points of the
Congresswoman were well made, and I know we would all look
forward to receiving response to that question.
And in consultation with our ranking member, again, I want
to thank all of you for being here today, your commitment to
our country, your dedication, and we look forward to working
with you to address this issue in the future.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
March 22, 2012
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 22, 2012
=======================================================================
Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson
Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing on
Hazing in the Military
March 22, 2012
Today, the Military Personnel Subcommittee will receive
testimony from the Services' senior enlisted advisors,
concerning the Services' policies, training, and enforcement
with respect to hazing.
This is a topic that cannot be taken lightly. Hazing is a
degrading act that must not be tolerated in the military or in
our society. Unfortunately, it happens. The military services
do have policies on hazing to ensure its members understand it
is wrong and must not be tolerated. Hazing is contrary to the
values of our volunteer force and affects the morale of units.
It violates the professionalism achieved and expected by our
military.
The Subcommittee will hear from the senior enlisted
leadership within the Services who are charged with keeping the
service chiefs informed. These leaders are also responsible for
ensuring the service member at the lowest level not only
understands these policies, but also knows the courses of
action service members should take to remedy the situation when
policies are violated. This issue concerns me as a member of
Congress, as a veteran myself, but especially as the father of
four sons currently in the military where it was the best
environment for what I know is the opportunity of military
service.
Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis
Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing on
Hazing in the Military
March 22, 2012
I am pleased that the subcommittee is turning its focus to
the important issue of hazing in the military. Over the past
year, there has been a number of hazing incidents across the
Services that have been brought to the public's attention.
I am sure that we all agree that hazing is a serious and
deplorable crime, which disrupts unit cohesion and reduces the
morale of our men and women in uniform. Hazing, particularly in
light of the current ongoing deployments and responsibilities
that are being asked of our men and women in uniform, is a very
serious matter.
I am aware that most of the Services have policies that
prohibit hazing, and harassment for that matter. But, I am
interested to learn how the Services educate and train our
military personnel, so that they know how to recognize hazing
and harassment, what they should do to stop it or prevent its
tolerance among the force. Do we even know how often these
incidences occur? If incidences are not tracked, how does a
Service recognize that this is an isolated incident or an
epidemic?
Parents and families who send their son or daughter to
serve our Nation in uniform are already concerned about their
health and safety given the operational requirements service
members are facing. They should not have to worry about whether
their child is being subjected to hazing or harassment as well.
We need to restore the confidence in our families that the
Services are doing all they can to prevent hazing from
occurring among the force; hopefully, this hearing will be one
step toward that goal.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
March 22, 2012
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
March 22, 2012
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. VELAZQUEZ
Sergeant Major Chandler. Yes. The Army has relationships with
several organizations from across the Nation's diverse communities.
These engagements allow the Army to communicate directly with community
leaders, gain a better understanding of their culture, and more
adequately address human relations challenges including, but not
limited to hazing. The Army currently works with eight key Asian-
American and Pacific Islander organizations. Similarly, the Army is
also engaged in dialog with the American-Islamic community which has
provided useful culture based training packages. The overall objective
of the Army's Diversity Outreach Strategy is to build stronger
relationships with our Nation's diverse communities while increasing
awareness. [See page 19.]
?
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
March 22, 2012
=======================================================================
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. COFFMAN
Mr. Coffman. 1) What was the disciplinary record for the eight
sailors discharged for hazing on board the USS Bonhomme Richard? Was
this the decision to discharge them made on the hazing charge alone?
What article(s) of the UCMJ were they charged with? Were they taken to
a court martial or were they a subject of a nonjudicial punishment?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 1) What was the
disciplinary record for the eight sailors discharged for hazing on
board the USS BONHOMME RICHARD? Of the eight Sailors discharged for
hazing, one had previous documentation for non-judicial punishment.
Was the decision to discharge them made on the hazing
charge alone? The Sailors were processed for administrative discharge
on the basis of the hazing misconduct alone. Commanding Officer of
BONHOMME RICHARD determined that the hazing misconduct met the
requirements for mandatory administrative processing in accordance with
Navy regulations (MILPERSMAN 1910-142, Separation by reason of
misconduct--commission of a serious offense.)
What article(s) of the UCMJ were they charged with? Seven
of the eight Sailors were charged with violations of UCMJ Article 128
(Assault) and Article 92 (Failure to Obey a Lawful General Order). The
eighth sailor was charged only with Article 93 (Cruelty and
Maltreatment) because the extent of his involvement was to lure
subordinate victims into the berthing in order to be assaulted by
others.
Were they taken to a court martial or were they a subject
of a nonjudicial punishment? The Commanding Officer of BONHOMME RICHARD
held nonjudicial punishment for the Sailors involved. They were not
taken to a court-martial. After imposing nonjudicial punishment, the
Commanding Officer began immediate administrative separation processing
for all eight sailors. All were processed using Notification Procedures
with General (Under Honorable Conditions) being the least favorable
characterization of service. All had less than six years of service and
therefore were not entitled to administrative separation boards. All
eight were given the opportunity to meet with an attorney prior to
signing their administrative separation notifications and all eight met
with attorneys. All were ultimately discharged with a characterization
of service of General (Under Honorable Conditions).
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. CHU AND MR. HONDA
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 2) Just by listening to the testimonies, we
would think that this hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service
appears to denounce hazing and has safeguards to prevent it. Yet,
hazing occurs, as evident by the recent incidents of Private Danny
Chen, Lance Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy vessel, Bonhomme
Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta issued an anti-hazing directive
during his holiday message in December.
What I find extremely troubling is the lack of actual statistics on
hazing. How can anyone be convinced that a problem doesn't exist or
current policies are working if there is no method to monitor and
evaluate it? Do any of the Services have a database or other monitoring
system to record the incidences of hazing and harassment? If so, how do
you use the data you collect?
Sergeant Major Chandler. 2) The Army does not have a central
database dedicated to incidences of hazing and harassment. Commander's
administrative actions are tracked at the local level; while criminal
investigations are tracked in centralized law enforcement databases.
The Army holds its commanders accountable for maintaining good order
and discipline in their units. This includes investigating all
allegations of misconduct upon notification to the chain of command.
Depending upon the seriousness of the misconduct, Army law Enforcement
conducts a criminal investigation or a commander at any level orders an
administrative investigation pursuant to Army Regulation (AR) 15-6.
Hazing is not an enumerated offense under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ); therefore, misconduct that would violate the hazing
prohibitions in AR 600-20 could be charged under Article 92 (violation
of a lawful general regulation), Article 93 (cruelty and maltreatment),
Article 128 (assault), Article 133 (conduct unbecoming an officer) or
Article 134 (servicing discrediting conduct/conduct prejudicial to good
order and discipline).
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 3) How does each Service evaluate that their
current policies are working? Waiting to review policies after a slew
of tragic cases is not effective prevention.
Sergeant Major Chandler. 3) Our Hazing policy clearly states that
Hazing is fundamentally in opposition to Army Values and is prohibited.
AR 600-20 was comprehensively reviewed in March 2008. The Army's Hazing
policy is currently under review by the Hazing Policy Assessment Team
(HPAT). Part of the assessment is to review the training conduct in the
Army and how well it supports the Army policy on Hazing.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 4) The hazing of service members in a
National Guard company assigned in Kosovo surfaced only last month
after a private in the company lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant
General Mark Hertling, Commander of U.S. Army Europe, commented that
the private reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the General
said, ``For this guy to say what you guys are doing is wrong,
courageous is an understatement.'' We definitely agree. However, it
also speaks to the difficulties for subordinate service members to
report inappropriate behavior of their senior officers. This must be
nearly impossible during extended forward deployments when only the
unit's immediate senior officers are present. What can be done to
create an environment that ensures both accessibility to higher level
of command for reporting of incidents and the safety of the victims and
whistleblowers? What type of support system is in place for victims of
hazing and whistleblowers who report hazing?
Sergeant Major Chandler. 4) Commanders are responsible for ensuring
an environment free from reprisal and commanders are required to
establish and implement a plan to protect complainants and others
involved in the complaint from acts or threats of reprisal. At a
minimum, a commander's plan for protecting complainants and others
involved from reprisal must include specified meetings and discussions
with the complainant, subject, named witnesses and selected members of
the chain of command and co-workers. Retaliation or reprisals against
Soldiers who file informal or formal complaints are prohibited (AR 600-
20, paragraph 5-12).
In a deployed environment, commanders use town-hall type meetings
and battlefield rotations with members of his staff, such as the Equal
Opportunity Representative, Inspector General, and Chaplain. These
teams talk to Soldiers and provide their assessment to the command on
issues of concern.
The support system for Soldiers who have reported incidents will
vary, and include the Chain of command, Chaplain, Equal Opportunity,
behavioral health, medical system, and Army Staff Judge Advocate.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 5) What have you done to address cultural
sensitivity and to adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion
effort? Have you outreached to communities for resources and guidance?
If not, what plans do you have to do so?
Sergeant Major Chandler. 5) The Army's ``Consideration of Others''
program currently provides foundational cultural sensitivity training.
The Army Diversity Roadmap, issued in December 2010, addresses
diversity training and education that will support inclusiveness
throughout the Army. Preliminary diversity and inclusion competencies
have been developed, along with corresponding knowledge, skills, and
abilities. Training and education planning are in progress. The Army's
Hazing Policy Assessment Team, which consists of members from HQDA,
TRADOC and FORSCOM, is working closely with the Defense Equal
Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) to develop diversity and
inclusion specific training, both at the intuitional and tactical
levels. The training is scheduled to be implemented during the 4th
quarter of FY12.
In January 2012, the Army implemented a new strategy for execution
of diversity outreach on an Army-wide basis (including Reserve
Components). Coordination efforts are through the Army Diversity
Outreach Strategy Working Group, which facilitates a comprehensive
approach that synchronizes efforts, including senior leader
participation. The Army is emphasizing strong relationships with Asian
American and Pacific Islander organizations. From those organizations,
we have learned much about cultural considerations and community
priorities. The Army is also significantly increasing participation in
events and activities that support relationships and understanding.
Similar outreach efforts are in place for other communities, including
Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans. We also have a
dialog with organizations that support American-Islamic relations. A
number of organizations have offered support for improved cultural
understanding.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 6) Do hazing and harassment training,
monitoring, and enforcement policies need to be uniform across the
Services?
Sergeant Major Chandler. 6) The definition of Hazing should be
uniform across the Services. The training of these topic must be
relevant to culture, force composition and specific to each Service. If
we created a statutory definition of hazing under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, then enforcement of the policy would be uniform
across the all Services. It is important to incorporate the cultural
differences of each Service exhibits into training to make it
effective.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 7) Army Sergeant Major Chandler and USMC
Sergeant Major Barrett testified their interest in creating a statutory
definition of hazing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
They implied that this would make it easier for them to track these
incidents. Currently 44 States have anti-hazing laws and 31 States
define hazing as a crime in their criminal code. We believe that
defining hazing in the UCMJ would provide a strong disincentive against
hazing and yet another tool for prosecutors to go after the
perpetrators of hazing. What are the Services' assessments regarding a
statutory definition for the Defense Department? What should a
definition look like?
Sergeant Major Chandler. 7) The Army Hazing Policy Assessment Team
is considering whether to recommend that Army leadership support the
creation of a statutory definition of hazing under the UCMJ. If that
course of action is followed, the recommendation will be forwarded to
the Joint Service Committee (JSC), which is comprised of subject matter
experts in military justice from all Services. The JSC is charged with
researching and drafting proposed revisions to the UCMJ
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 8) Representative Coffman expressed a
failure of leadership in the unit level as the primary cause for these
recent hazing cases. We understand that annual drop-down reviews of
command are required by the Services. Do these reviews actually occur
annually? Do they include reviews of commands within smallest units?
What specifically are they reviewing? Do they include hazing incidents
and hazing culture as part of the review? Do they include reviews to
ensure that each command level has adequate hazing and harassment
prevention training?
Sergeant Major Chandler. 8) In accordance with AR 600-20, Paragraph
6-i(13 and Appendix E3i(13) and Appendix E, the Army requires company
level commanders to conduct Command Climate Assessments within 90 days
of assuming command and then annually thereafter to gauge ``climate''
factors such as leadership, cohesion, morale, ease of ability to
approach the command about issues, and the human relations environment.
Surveys are important as provide a baseline that allows the command to
develop action plans and implement program initiatives. The Army is
modifying the frequency for the command climate survey so there would
be an initial survey, then one at the six month point, and annually
thereafter, allowing commanders to evaluate the effectiveness of their
plans and adjust them necessary.
The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) provides
a Command Climate Survey (DEOCCS) and it does not currently have hazing
specific questions. DEOMI plans to release DEOCCS 4.0 in September 2012
to include hazing, bullying, and toxic leadership questions.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 9) Some of the Services stated that they
require their personnel to report incidents of hazing and harassment.
Where are these reporting requirements defined or documented? Also,
what are the penalties for failure to report these incidents?
Sergeant Major Chandler. 9) The Army does not have a specific
reporting requirement for hazing allegations. The Hazing Policy
Assessment Team is considering the adoption of such a reporting
requirement.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 10) During the hearing, each of the Services
shared their latest statistics about hazing. However, the timeline for
these numbers were inconsistent across all the branches and only
included cases that went to a Courts Martial. How many cases of hazing
occurred within each of the Services over the last 5 years, including
both Courts Martial and Non-Judicial Punishment? How do these numbers
break down by race and gender? What were the respective punishments for
each instance?
Sergeant Major Chandler. 10) In the last 5 calendar years, Army law
enforcement investigated 37 hazing cases, which involved 128 subjects
and 103 victims. Of the 128 subjects, 124 were male and 4 were female;
103 were Caucasian; 18 were African-American; 4 were Asian; and 3 were
of other/unknown origin. Of the 103 victims, 95 were male, 7 were
female and 1 was unknown; 81 were Caucasian; 11 were African-American;
3 were Hispanic; 3 were Asian; and 5 were of other/unknown origin. This
number does not include allegations of hazing investigated through
administrative investigations or commanders' inquiries.
In the last 5 calendar years, the Army prosecuted 12 Soldiers at
courts-martial for hazing-related offenses. Of the 12 accused, all were
males; 5 were African-American; 5 were Caucasian; and 2 were Hispanic.
One accused was acquitted. Of those convicted, the sentences ranged
from a formal reprimand to reduction in rank, loss of pay and
allowances, confinement and a punitive discharge.
The Army does not maintain statistics of hazing-related offenses
that resulted in non-judicial punishment.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 11) Please provide the Committee with the
relevant anti-hazing material and documents you use to train your
service members.
Sergeant Major Chandler. 11) Currently, the Army has no hazing
specific training in our schools or in our units. Our Hazing Policy
Assessment Team (HPAT) noted this as a gap during the analysis of our
policy and training. Recommendations developed by the HPAT will be
briefed to senior Army leadership for decision/and or approval.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 12) Please describe the difference under
regulation and in practice, for each Service, between appropriate
``corrective training'' and hazing.
Sergeant Major Chandler. 12) In the Army, corrective training is
addressed in Army Regulation (AR) 600-20, paragraphs 2-18(c)(3) and 4-6
and in AR 27-10, paragraph 3-3(c). It is defined as extra training or
instruction used by commanders and noncommissioned officers in
leadership roles to correct deficiencies. It must be directly related
to the deficiency and must be oriented to improve the Soldier's
performance in the problem area. Examples of corrective training
include a squad leader ordering a Soldier to assemble and disassemble
an M16 rifle repeatedly to ensure proficiency and speed, or to perform
additional physical training to ensure the minimum standards for
running endurance are achieved.
Hazing is prohibited by Army Regulation 600-20, paragraph 4-20 and
is defined as conduct whereby one military member unnecessarily causes
another to be exposed to an activity that is cruel, abusive, oppressive
or harmful.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 13) When did your Service last update its
hazing policy? Do you have any plans to review and update it if
necessary? If your Service does not currently have an anti-hazing
policy, are you considering instituting one?
Sergeant Major Chandler. 13) Our policy on hazing clearly states
that hazing is fundamentally in opposition with the Army Values and is
prohibited. AR 600-20 was comprehensively reviewed in March 2008. The
Hazing Policy Assessment Team is reviewing the current policy and will
propose recommended changes that better define harassment and hazing.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 14) Please provide data broken up according
to race/ethnic heritage and gender, regarding the following: How many
service members have died from non-combat injuries in the last 10
years? Of these incidents, how many were classified as suicide,
homicide, accident, etc. Also, please include data on deaths resulted
from friendly fire. How many equal opportunity complaints have been
received from service members within the last 10 years? Of these
claims, how many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of
members in each Service of the last 10 years?
Sergeant Major Chandler. 14) In the last 10 years Casualty and
Mortuary Affairs reports a total of 5,551 non-combat deaths. The Army
considers any death of a Soldier due to a non-combat injury a
significant loss, all efforts are made to investigate and put in place
policies and procedures to avoid future losses. As part of that
process, non-combat deaths of Soldiers are separated into 5 categories:
1) accidents, 2) homicides, 3) illness, 4) self-inflicted (suicide) and
5) undetermined.
Of the total non-combat deaths, 2,614 were classified as accidents
and are comprised of the following: 54 Asian/Pacific Islander (A/PI)
males, 4 A/PI females, 24 American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) males,
5 AI/AN females, 379 Black males, 32 Black females, 1,787 White males,
73 White females, 182 Hispanic males, 16 Hispanic females, 32 Other
males, and 6 Other females.
Homicides accounted for 286 of the total non-combat deaths and are
comprised of the following: 4 A/PI males, 1 A/PI female, 3 AI/AN males,
1 AI/AN female, 82 Black males, 21 Black females, 128 White males, 20
White females, 18 Hispanic males, 6 Hispanic females, 1 Other male, and
1 Other female.
Illnesses accounted for 1,250 of the total non-combat deaths and
are comprised of the following: 28 A/PI males, 7 A/PI females, 4 AI/AN
males, 2 AI/AN females, 267 Black males, 73 Black females, 719 White
males, 59 White females, 66 Hispanic males, 9 Hispanic females, and 76
Other males.
Self-inflicted deaths accounted for 1,193 of the total non-combat
deaths and are comprised of the following: 46 A/PI males, 3 A/PI
females, 17 AI/AN males, 3 AI/AN females, 139 Black males, 14 Black
females, 839 White males, 37 White females, 78 Hispanic males, 2
Hispanic females, 13 Other males, and 2 Other females.
Of the total non-combat deaths, 135 were classified as undetermined
and are comprised of the following: 3 A/PI males, 1 AI/AN male, 18
Black males, 3 Black females, 92 White males, 14, White females, 2
Hispanic males, and 2 Other males.
Currently 34 of the total non-combat deaths are pending
determination and are comprised of the following: 1 A/PI male, 5 Black
males, 1 Black female, and 27 White males.
As friendly fire deaths take place in combat, they are not included
in the categories of non-combat deaths. There were 27 deaths in the
Army that resulted from friendly fire since 2002. Of those deaths one
(1) was identified as A/PI male; one (1) AI/AN male; and 25 White
males.
There were a total of 1,641 Equal Opportunity complaints from FY02
through FY11. The complaints were comprised of the following: 24 A/PI
males (four substantiated), 51 A/PI females (17 substantiated), 4 AI/AN
males (three substantiated), 15 AI/AN females (nine substantiated), 277
Black males (54 substantiated), 479 Black females (143 substantiated),
113 White males (40 substantiated), 426 White females (207
substantiated), 61 Hispanic males (16 substantiated), 124 Hispanic
females (44 substantiated), 23 Other males (six substantiated), 28
other females (12 substantiated), three Unknown males (one
substantiated), and 13 Unknown females (six substantiated).
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 15) The Army's Hazing Task Force was
recently created to review its hazing policies. What is it directed to
review and produce? Is it authorized to make any recommended changes to
policies? If not, then what are the follow-up procedures to act on any
recommendations? Does it outreach to the public for comment or advice?
Also, please provide periodic updates on the Task Force's progress and
findings.
Sergeant Major Chandler. 15) The Hazing Policy Assessment Team
(HPAT) was directed to employ a multi-disciplinary team from across the
Army that will conduct a gap analysis of Army Regulation (AR) 600-20,
Army Command Policy, paragraph 4-20 that prohibits hazing. The team
will review the definition of hazing and the policy, collect and review
pertinent data, evaluate training and training execution, and then
present written assessments and recommendations regarding policies and
training to Army Senior Leadership. To date, the HPAT has not sought
public comment or advice for its recommendations.
Members of the team are from Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Manpower & Reserve Affairs); G-1, Human Resource Policy Directorate
(HRPD); Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP); G-3/
5/7 Training; Office Provost Marshal General; Office of The Judge
Advocate General (OTJAG); Office of the Chief of Chaplains (OCCH); The
Inspector General (IG); Office of Congressional Legislative Liaison
(OCLL); Forces Command (FORSCOM); Training and Doctrine Command
(TRADOC); The National Guard; The Army Reserves; and, the Army Research
Institute (ARI). The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute
(DEOMI) volunteered to participate.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 16) Just by listening to the testimonies, we
would think that this hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service
appears to denounce hazing and has safeguards to prevent it. Yet,
hazing occurs, as evident by the recent incidents of Private Danny
Chen, Lance Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy vessel, Bonhomme
Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta issued an anti-hazing directive
during his holiday message in December.
What I find extremely troubling is the lack of actual statistics on
hazing. How can anyone be convinced that a problem doesn't exist or
current policies are working if there is no method to monitor and
evaluate it? Do any of the Services have a database or other monitoring
system to record the incidences of hazing and harassment? If so, how do
you use the data you collect?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 16) The Navy has not historically
maintained statistics on hazing. However, hazing has been added as a
new category in our Quarterly Criminal Activity, Disciplinary
Infractions and Courts-Martial Report (QCAR), requiring subordinate
authorities to report hazing statistics to the General Court-Martial
Convening Authority for consolidation and further forwarding to Office
of the Judge Advocate General, where the statistics will be kept.
Navy is developing a database called Military Equal Opportunity
Network (MEONet), which will be an online, web-based program and
database that will be used to assist Navy Leadership in recording the
number of harassment and hazing incidents. It will provide leadership
with an additional means to identify trends and implement corrective
actions.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 17) How does each Service evaluate that
their current policies are working? Waiting to review policies after a
slew of tragic cases is not effective prevention.
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 17) Navy evaluates the hazing
policy by reviewing trends of reported hazing incidents. We also review
results from command climate assessments, feedback from Equal
Opportunity Advisors, and reports from Navy Inspector General visits.
Additionally, senior Navy leadership (officer and enlisted) conducts
continuous proactive engagement with command teams and Sailors at units
and installations around the world to discuss policies pertaining to
command readiness/climate. Through observation and interactive two-way
dialogue, we gather timely feedback on the effectiveness of policies
and determine if changes are required. Hazing will continue to be a
part of those discussions and a focus of our training.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 18) The hazing of service members in a
National Guard company assigned in Kosovo surfaced only last month
after a private in the company lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant
General Mark Hertling, Commander of U.S. Army Europe, commented that
the private reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the General
said, ``For this guy to say what you guys are doing is wrong,
courageous is an understatement.'' We definitely agree. However, it
also speaks to the difficulties for subordinate service members to
report inappropriate behavior of their senior officers. This must be
nearly impossible during extended forward deployments when only the
unit's immediate senior officers are present. What can be done to
create an environment that ensures both accessibility to higher level
of command for reporting of incidents and the safety of the victims and
whistleblowers? What type of support system is in place for victims of
hazing and whistleblowers who report hazing?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 18) By Department of the Navy
policy, any allegation of hazing must be reported to the Commanding
Officer, who must in turn report any substantiated incident to the
Chief of Naval Operations. Navy leaders are also responsible for
ensuring that victims, witnesses, and whistleblowers (whether military
or civilian) are afforded their rights under applicable regulations.
Victims and witnesses of hazing also qualify for services under the
Victim/Witness Assistance Program (VWAP). VWAP is designed to ensure
victims and witnesses are afforded their rights throughout the criminal
justice process--from initial contact by investigators through final
disposition. Additionally, service providers (e.g., Family Service
Center personnel, family advocacy counselors, health care personnel,
chaplains, and legal assistance attorneys) provide services to victims
and witnesses, to include referrals, as necessary.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 19) What have you done to address cultural
sensitivity and to adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion
effort? Have you outreached to communities for resources and guidance?
If not, what plans do you have to do so?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 19) The Navy has taken steps via
our Equal Opportunity (EO) program and command climate program to
ensure everyone respects each other and feels they are valued in a more
inclusive workplace. Through changes to EO policy, Navy reinforces its
commitment to ensuring a safe, professional environment for our
Sailors.
Additionally, the Navy continues to demonstrate its commitment to
respecting cultural sensitivities through training events like our
Diversity Leadership Symposium, where we directly engage and educate
our deckplate leaders on current best practices. The health and welfare
our Sailors will always remain at the forefront, and we continue to
develop new and innovative training methods to ensure our Sailors feel
they are valued and respected at all times.
The Navy also conducts heritage month activities and observances of
nine specific diversity-related groups, events, and individuals
honoring the many contributions made and those that continue to be made
in our Navy. Reflecting on these contributions honors the diversity of
thoughts, ideas, and competencies in our Navy today. Current
communication partnerships with organizations such as the Defense Equal
Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) continue to provide resources
and guidance for our Sailors, in addition to our own internal efforts.
The Navy has an ongoing effort to identify and leverage talent and
is working to develop enduring relationships with over 60 nationally
recognized affinity groups. The Navy commits time and resources by
attending various conferences to gain insight and understanding into
the issues facing underrepresented/minority groups.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 20) Do hazing and harassment training,
monitoring, and enforcement policies need to be uniform across the
Services?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 20) I don't believe they do. While
the policy that prohibits hazing is uniform across the Department of
Defense, the inherent differences between the individual Services
warrant specific and tailored approaches to training, monitoring, and
enforcement within each branch. The Navy has its own unique
organizational structures, service culture, and traditions, and we
adjust our response based upon these factors. We are always seeking to
improve our ability to prevent, identify, and take immediate action to
address hazing.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 21) Army Sergeant Major Chandler and USMC
Sergeant Major Barrett testified their interest in creating a statutory
definition of hazing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
They implied that this would make it easier for them to track these
incidents. Currently 44 States have anti-hazing laws and 31 States
define hazing as a crime in their criminal code. We believe that
defining hazing in the UCMJ would provide a strong disincentive against
hazing and yet another tool for prosecutors to go after the
perpetrators of hazing. What are the Services' assessments regarding a
statutory definition for the Defense Department? What should a
definition look like?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 21) The Department of the Navy
uses a standard definition of hazing which we believe allows sufficient
flexibility and autonomy for commanders to act based upon their
assessment of the circumstances and their interpretation as to whether
a given act constitutes hazing under that definition.
Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1610.2a defines hazing as any
conduct whereby a military member or members, regardless of Service or
rank, without proper authority causes another military member or
members, regardless of Service or rank, to suffer or be exposed to any
activity which is cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning,
or harmful. Soliciting or coercing another to perpetrate any such
activity is also considered hazing. Hazing need not involve physical
contact among or between military members; it can be verbal or
psychological in nature. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing
does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator. Hazing can
include, but is not limited to, the following: playing abusive or
ridiculous tricks; threatening or offering violence or bodily harm to
another; striking; branding; taping; tattooing; shaving; greasing;
painting; requiring excessive physical exercise beyond what is required
to meet standards; ``pinning''; ``tacking on''; ``blood wings''; or
forcing or requiring the consumption of food, alcohol, drugs, or any
other substance. Currently, hazing can be charged in a variety of ways
and prosecuted at general, special, or summary court-martial. Possible
charges include Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 92 (violation
of a lawful general order), Article 93 (cruelty and maltreatment), and
Article 128 (assault).
Navy policy further provides our leaders and service members
guidance on what is not considered hazing. Under Department of the Navy
policy, hazing does not include command-authorized or operational
activities; the requisite training to prepare for such missions or
operations; administrative corrective measures; extra military
instruction; athletics events, command-authorized physical training,
contests or competitions and other similar activities that are
authorized by the chain of command.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 22) Representative Coffman expressed a
failure of leadership in the unit level as the primary cause for these
recent hazing cases. We understand that annual drop-down reviews of
command are required by the Services. Do these reviews actually occur
annually? Do they include reviews of commands within smallest units?
What specifically are they reviewing? Do they include hazing incidents
and hazing culture as part of the review? Do they include reviews to
ensure that each command level has adequate hazing and harassment
prevention training?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 22) Department of the Navy is
unfamiliar with the term ``drop-down reviews.'' However, the Navy
utilizes Command Climate Assessments which are administered via the
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. The questions in the
Command Climate Assessment survey are Service specific and each command
may tailor up to ten additional, locally-prepared and focused questions
to the survey for their command. The information provided by command
members is retained in an anonymous format and their verbatim comments
are provided to the Commanding Officer and the Command Assessment Team
who will work together to resolve command climate concerns. Also, an
executive summary of the Command Climate Assessment is provided to the
Commanding Officer's Immediate Superior In Command. This allows the
senior officer to maintain awareness of the climates in the units under
his/her command.
Command Climate Assessments are required to be performed annually.
Specifically, they are conducted within 90 days of assumption of
command of the new Commanding Officer and annually thereafter. Our 2011
annual review showed a 98% completion rate of required Command Climate
Assessments in CY2011.
Every command, regardless of size, is required to conduct Command
Climate Assessments.
A Command Climate Assessment seeks to determine the ``health'' and
functional effectiveness of an organization by examining such factors
as morale, teamwork, and communication and is accomplished using an
anonymous survey of command members and a minimum of two of the
following assessment methodologies; review of records and reports,
individual interviews, observations, focus groups, and other methods
deemed appropriate by the commander. The survey focuses on four primary
areas: Military Equal Opportunity, Civilian Equal Employment
Opportunity, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, and Organizational
Effectiveness.
The survey does not contain specific questions on hazing incidents
and hazing culture. However, Commanders have the capability to select
up to an additional 10 locally-developed questions and five short-
answer questions and these elements can include inquiries about hazing,
command culture, etc. Additionally, service members can write their own
comments on any personal concern and these responses are provided
verbatim to the Commander and the Command Assessment Team.
Department of Navy policies direct that service members receive
training on hazing both on an annual basis and each time a service
member reports to a new duty station. Training materials are developed
by the Navy's Center for Personal and Professional Development and are
available to commands and individuals alike via the Navy Knowledge
Online website.
The annual requirement for commands to conduct hazing training is
driven by Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1610.2A. Additionally, in
the e-Learning course ``Navy Policy on Hazing'' the service member
learns the definition of hazing; identifies examples of hazing;
identifies components of the Navy Policy on Hazing; identifies
consequences of violating the Navy Policy on Hazing; and identifies
resulting actions when hazing is reported.
Additionally, Navy requires that within the first 30 days of
reporting to a new command, or within 3 drill weekends for reservists,
commands provide service members Navy Pride and Professionalism
training which includes the Navy policy on hazing.
All general Navy training is monitored and managed within each
command.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 23) Some of the Services stated that they
require their personnel to report incidents of hazing and harassment.
Where are these reporting requirements defined or documented? Also,
what are the penalties for failure to report these incidents?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 23) The requirement to report acts
of hazing is outlined in the Department of the Navy's hazing
instruction. Failure by witnesses to report a hazing incident is
punishable under appropriate articles of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), including Article 92 (Failure to obey an order or
regulation), and Service regulations which mandate the reporting of
crimes.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 24) During the hearing, each of the Services
shared their latest statistics about hazing. However, the timeline for
these numbers were inconsistent across all the branches and only
included cases that went to a Courts Martial. How many cases of hazing
occurred within each of the Services over the last 5 years, including
both Courts Martial and Non-Judicial Punishment? How do these numbers
break down by race and gender? What were the respective punishments for
each instance?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 24) The DON does not have the
specific information Congresswoman Chu seeks.
Hazing is not a stand-alone offense that can be charged under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Under Navy regulations, hazing
is defined as any conduct whereby a military member or members,
regardless of Service or rank, without proper authority causes another
military member or members, regardless of Service or rank, to suffer or
be exposed to any activity which is cruel, abusive, humiliating,
oppressive, demeaning, or harmful.
Under the UCMJ hazing can be charged as follows:
Article 92, UCMJ, Violation of a Lawful General Order.
Maximum punishment: punitive discharge, two years of confinement, total
forfeitures of pay and allowances, and reduction to paygrade E-1.
Article 93, UCMJ, Cruelty and Maltreatment. This article
may apply when the accused is in a position of authority over another
person (such that the accused can issue orders to that person), and the
accused is cruel toward, or oppresses, or maltreats that person.
Maximum punishment: punitive discharge, one year confinement, total
forfeitures of pay and allowances, and reduction to paygrade E-1.
Article 128, UCMJ, Assault. Depending on the
circumstances and method of assault, the crime may be prosecuted as
simple assault; assault consummated by a battery, or aggravated
assault. Maximum punishment for aggravated assault (most serious):
punitive discharge, eight years confinement, total forfeitures of pay
and allowances, and reduction to paygrade E-1.
Hazing-related offenses can be prosecuted at general, special or
summary courts-martial or service members can receive nonjudicial
punishment for conduct amounting to hazing. While Navy commanders have
been required to report incidents of hazing for years, our statistics
have focused on the tracking cases by Article number and have not
specifically tracked the disposition of hazing allegations. Beginning
this year, however, the Navy and Marine Corps have begun tracking the
disposition of hazing offenses. Our databases do not presently capture
offender race demographics.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 25) Please provide the Committee with the
relevant anti-hazing material and documents you use to train your
service members.
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 25) The requested material was
forwarded to the House Armed Services Committee on, or about, February
13, 2012, in response to an earlier committee request for information.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 26) Please describe the difference under
regulation and in practice, for each Service, between appropriate
``corrective training'' and hazing.
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 26) Secretary of the Navy
Instruction 1610.2a defines hazing as any conduct whereby a military
member or members, regardless of Service or rank, without proper
authority causes another military member or members, regardless of
Service or rank, to suffer or be exposed to any activity which is
cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful.
Soliciting or coercing another to perpetrate any such activity is
also considered hazing. Hazing need not involve physical contact among
or between military members; it can be verbal or psychological in
nature. Actual or implied consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate
the culpability of the perpetrator. Hazing can include, but is not
limited to, the following: playing abusive or ridiculous tricks;
threatening or offering violence or bodily harm to another; striking;
branding; taping; tattooing; shaving; greasing; painting; requiring
excessive physical exercise beyond what is required to meet standards;
``pinning''; ``tacking on''; ``blood wings''; or forcing or requiring
the consumption of food, alcohol, drugs, or any other substance.
While the specific term ``corrective training'' is not included in
the lexicon of Navy hazing policy, hazing does not include command-
authorized or operational activities; the requisite training to prepare
for such missions or operations; administrative corrective measures;
extra military instruction; athletics events, command-authorized
physical training, contests or competitions and other similar
activities that are authorized by the chain of command.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 27) When did your Service last update its
hazing policy? Do you have any plans to review and update it if
necessary? If your Service does not currently have an anti-hazing
policy, are you considering instituting one?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 27) Our current policy on hazing
was written in 2005. We completed a review of this policy in 2012 and
found the policy to be clear and unambiguous.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 28) Please provide data broken up according
to race/ethnic heritage and gender, regarding the following: How many
service members have died from non-combat injuries in the last 10
years? Of these incidents, how many were classified as suicide,
homicide, accident, etc. Also, please include data on deaths resulted
from friendly fire. How many equal opportunity complaints have been
received from service members within the last 10 years? Of these
claims, how many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of
members in each Service of the last 10 years?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 28) The accompanying table
provides requested data on the number of Navy non-hostile fatalities
over the past 10 years, broken out by casualty category as well as race
and ethnicity. I am unable to offer data on friendly fire incidents
since that information is not centrally captured as a sortable data
field in the personnel casualty reporting process under Department of
Defense Instruction 1300.18.
Since 2002, the Navy Equal Opportunity (EO) office has received
1,317 complaints, 563 of which were substantiated.
During the last 10 years there have been 829,206 individuals in the
Navy.
[The information referred to is retained in the committee files and
can be viewed upon request.]
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 29) Just by listening to the testimonies, we
would think that this hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service
appears to denounce hazing and has safeguards to prevent it. Yet,
hazing occurs, as evident by the recent incidents of Private Danny
Chen, Lance Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy vessel, Bonhomme
Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta issued an anti-hazing directive
during his holiday message in December.
What I find extremely troubling is the lack of actual statistics on
hazing. How can anyone be convinced that a problem doesn't exist or
current policies are working if there is no method to monitor and
evaluate it? Do any of the Services have a database or other monitoring
system to record the incidences of hazing and harassment? If so, how do
you use the data you collect?
Master Chief Petty Officer West. 29) The Discrimination and Sexual
Harassment (DASH) database will serve as the model for reporting ALL
hazing incidents. This database will capture substantiated and
unsubstantiated incidents of hazing. The Equal Opportunity and
Diversity Management Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps will use this
information to modify training and education requirements as necessary
across the Marine Corps. This reporting/tracking process will be the
tool the unit commander will use to report all incidents of hazing.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 30) How does each Service evaluate that
their current policies are working? Waiting to review policies after a
slew of tragic cases is not effective prevention.
Sergeant Major Barrett. 30) The Marine Corps has numerous tools
available to evaluate the effectiveness of policies, and keep the
finger on the pulse of the command climate. For example, Marines are
given the opportunity to provide additional comments during Command
Climate, Retention, and Exit Surveys, which are conducted at different
intervals throughout a Marine's service. Alleged criminal offenses are
reviewed and investigated. Marines also have the right to ``Request
Mast'', to directly communicate grievances to, or seek assistance from,
their commanding officers or Officer in Charge. Additionally, Marines
can contact the Inspector General's (IG) office through the IG hotline,
which receives and handles allegations regarding fraud, waste, abuse,
mismanagement or misconduct. The Marine Corps Order on Hazing was
recently updated (1 Feb 2012) to ensure all Marines understand the
definition of hazing and it deteriorating effects. The Marine Corps is
taking a comprehensive approach with the establishment of a hazing
incident tracking system (DASH) along with a 24 hour Sexual Harassment
and Hazing Advice Line which will provide available resources and
information to victims. All Marine units undergo regular inspections
per Marine Corp Order 5430.1, Inspector General Program (IGP). The
Inspector General of the Marine Corps oversees the program to ensure
inspections are conducted throughout the Service, that all units are in
compliance with Marine Corps policy and that the policies are current
and relevant. There are 122 functional areas with checklist which help
assess compliance and mission readiness. However, there are currently
33 ``core'' functional areas that all units are assessed regardless of
their mission. The fundamental mission of inspectors is to teach, train
and enhance the operational readiness of the unit and Marine Corps.
Currently, the new Marine Corps Order 1700.28A, 1 Feb 2012. Hazing
does not have a functional area checklist developed. Vetting a new
functional area checklist for hazing is currently underway. Once a
functional area checklist is developed, hazing will be added to the
``core'' (or mandatory) list of areas to be inspected across the Marine
Corps.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 31) The hazing of service members in a
National Guard company assigned in Kosovo surfaced only last month
after a private in the company lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant
General Mark Hertling, Commander of U.S. Army Europe, commented that
the private reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the General
said, ``For this guy to say what you guys are doing is wrong,
courageous is an understatement.'' We definitely agree. However, it
also speaks to the difficulties for subordinate service members to
report inappropriate behavior of their senior officers. This must be
nearly impossible during extended forward deployments when only the
unit's immediate senior officers are present. What can be done to
create an environment that ensures both accessibility to higher level
of command for reporting of incidents and the safety of the victims and
whistleblowers? What type of support system is in place for victims of
hazing and whistleblowers who report hazing?
Sergeant Major Barrett. 31) The Marine Corps has numerous tools
available to create an environment to ensure accessibility to the chain
of command. For example, Marines are given the opportunity to provide
additional comments during Command Climate, Retention, and Exit
Surveys, which are conducted at different intervals throughout a
Marine's service. Alleged criminal offenses are reviewed and
investigated. Marines also have the right to ``Request Mast'', to
directly communicate grievances to, or seek assistance from; their
commanding officers or Officer in Charge. Additionally, Marines can
contact the Inspector General's (IG) office through the IG hotline,
which receives and handles allegations regarding fraud, waste, abuse,
mismanagement or misconduct. The Marine Corps is going to implement a
24 hour Sexual Harassment and Hazing Advice Line which will provide
available resources and information to victims. Furthermore, the Marine
Corps has 37 Equal Opportunity Advisors (EOA) assigned to Major
Subordinate Commands (MSC), Marines can use to seek guidance and
information. The EOA is a special staff member for the commanding
general/commander. The EOA is trained on all Department of Defense
Equal Opportunity policies, information related to cultural and ethnic
diversity, contemporary issues, and discrimination to include sexual
harassment prevention training. The Marine Corps has added ``hazing''
to the EOAs list of responsibilities and will be managed by the Equal
Opportunity and Diversity Management Branch, Headquarters Marine Corps.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), through ALMAR 05/12,
reminded all Marines that Hazing is contrary to our Core Values of
Honor, Courage, and Commitment. With the focus on leadership, the CMC
issued a direct and personal message to commanders to ensure all
Marines are treated with dignity, care, and respect, and to be ever
vigilant for signs of hazing within our ranks and that there is no
environment to condone hazing. Marines have available resources to
report incidents without fear of reprisal. The Marine Corps is
currently in the process establishing additional resources to provide
victim assistance services to victims of hazing consistent with the
victim assistance standards. A sexual harassment/hazing advice line and
the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) are currently being
established in conjunction with the Marine Corps Hazing Reporting
Process.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 32) What have you done to address cultural
sensitivity and to adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion
effort? Have you outreached to communities for resources and guidance?
If not, what plans do you have to do so?
Sergeant Major Barrett. 32) The Commandant of the Marine Corps
(CMC) has directed a comprehensive review of the Marine Corps' current
diversity posture and issues in his Commandant's Planning Guidance of
2010. A draft Diversity Campaign Plan is currently in staffing. The
mission and intent is to improve diversity across the Marine Corps
while maintaining the Corps' dedication to developing and maximizing
the potential of every Marine and strengthening our connectedness to
the American public. The following goals will assist in the successful
achievement of the mission:
(1) Improve diversity across the Marine Corps. (2) Ensure each
Marine is provided equitable opportunities for professional development
and career progression. (3) Ensure every Marine understands the
importance of having a diverse force. (4) Institutionalize diversity
and inclusive policies and practices across the Marine Corps.
In addition, the Marine Corps participates in affinity group
conferences annually, i.e. Black Engineer of the Year Awards (BEYA),
Women of Color in STEM (WOC-STEM), Association of Naval Services
Officers (ANSO), and National Naval Officer Association (NNOA). These
conferences foster positive relationships between the Marine Corps and
the American people. The conferences also provide opportunities to
increase awareness of the diversity within our Corps and the career
opportunities offered.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 33) Do hazing and harassment training,
monitoring, and enforcement policies need to be uniform across the
Services?
Sergeant Major Barrett. 33) The policy and definition for hazing
and harassment should be standardized across the Services to ensure the
message is consistent. The training, monitoring, and enforcement of
those policies need to be maintained by the individual Service.
The Marine Corps provides rank appropriate training and education
on Marine Corps Values and Values Based Training (VBT) subjects that
directly influence the conduct and ethical behavior of Marines. All
courses stress VBT and Leadership as a leadership imperative and
emphasize the establishment of proper command climate toward VBT the
key to success for an effective VBT/L program. Hazing, Sexual Assault
Prevention and Response, Substance Abuse, Fraternization, and Sexual
Harassment are the VBT subjects that must be continually emphasized in
the Operating Force and Supporting Establishment. Marine Corps Bulletin
(MCBUL) 1500, Annual and Ancillary Training and Marine Corps Common
skills requires the annual sustainment of all of those VBT subjects.
These requirements ensure there is no gap between the schoolhouse and
Operating Force.
Marine Corps recruits in the Delayed Entry Program begin receiving
instructions on Ethics and Core Values training. Students in the Entry
Level Training pipeline receive training on the Marine Corps policy for
each one of the VBT subjects at the MCRDs and then receive
reinforcement training at MCT and the MOS producing school. Students in
career progression courses at MOS schools and students in PME schools,
both officer and enlisted, receive rank appropriate training and
education on the VBT subjects, how to conduct a VBT guided discussion
and, ethical leadership training.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 34) Army Sergeant Major Chandler and USMC
Sergeant Major Barrett testified their interest in creating a statutory
definition of hazing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
They implied that this would make it easier for them to track these
incidents. Currently 44 States have anti-hazing laws and 31 States
define hazing as a crime in their criminal code. We believe that
defining hazing in the UCMJ would provide a strong disincentive against
hazing and yet another tool for prosecutors to go after the
perpetrators of hazing. What are the Services' assessments regarding a
statutory definition for the Defense Department? What should a
definition look like?
Sergeant Major Barrett. 34) Hazing is defined in the Marine Corps
in Marine Corps Order 1700.28A. This definition [``any conduct whereby
a military member or members, regardless of Service or rank, without
proper authority causes another military member or members, regardless
of Service or rank, to suffer or be exposed to any activity which is
cruel, abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful.''] is
identical to that prescribed for the Department of the Navy in
SECNAVINST 1610.2A.
Violations of the Marine Corps policy prohibiting hazing subject
those involved to potential disciplinary action under Article 92
(Failure to obey order or regulation) of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ). Article 92, UCMJ carries with it a maximum punishment
(at General Court-Martial) of two years of confinement, total
forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. ``Hazing,'' however, may
include conduct proscribed by other Articles under the UCMJ. Therefore,
those who have engaged in acts of hazing may also be charged under
other applicable Articles to include, but not limited to, Article 93
(Cruelty and maltreatment) or Article 128 (Assault).
One potential benefit of creating a statutory definition of hazing
would be consistency across the Services. While the Navy and Marine
Corps definitions are identical, the Army definition does differ
slightly [``any conduct whereby one military member or employee,
regardless of Service or rank, unnecessarily causes another military
member or employee, regardless of Service or rank, to suffer or be
exposed to an activity that is cruel, abusive, oppressive, or
harmful.''].
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 35) Representative Coffman expressed a
failure of leadership in the unit level as the primary cause for these
recent hazing cases. We understand that annual drop-down reviews of
command are required by the Services. Do these reviews actually occur
annually? Do they include reviews of commands within smallest units?
What specifically are they reviewing? Do they include hazing incidents
and hazing culture as part of the review? Do they include reviews to
ensure that each command level has adequate hazing and harassment
prevention training?
Sergeant Major Barrett. 35) All questions will be addressed
individually.
Question: We understand that annual drop-down reviews of command
are required by the Services. Do these reviews actually occur annually?
Answer: While Marine Corp Order 5430.1, Inspector General Program (IGP)
prescribes how annual inspections are to be conducted, Marine Corps
Order 5040.6I Marine Corps Inspections and Readiness Assessments
further details administration of the process. Furthermore, there are
two kinds of inspections conducted annually, first is the Commanding
General Inspection Program where all units under the cognizance of a
General Officer are systematically inspected, second are all units not
commanded by a General Officer participate in the Unit Inspection
Program which is also assess under the Inspector General of the Marine
Corps.
Question: What specifically are they reviewing? Answer: Unit
Inspectors assess Marine Corps policy compliance by using functional
area checklist. Functional area checklists contain the requirements to
assess whether a unit is Mission Capable or Non-Mission Capable. For
example, there are 122 functional area checklists for the Marine Corps
to include Safety, Physical Security, Training, Medical, Dental, Equal
Opportunity and Sexual Assault. If a unit is assessing to be Non-
Mission Capable, the Unit Commander has 30 days to bring his command up
to standard. Commanders can ask for HQMC assistance, request for
extensions or refer an issue they can't fix (Manpower, Funding, etc.)
up the chain of command for resolution
Question: Do they include reviews of commands within smallest
units? Answer: The Marine Corps inspection program applies to all units
regardless of mission, size or location. The subject of Hazing is
address through annual Ethics and Core Values training.
Question: Do they include hazing incidents and hazing culture as
part of the review? Answer: Hazing is addressed as part of Ethics and
Core Values required training at all levels of command to include:
1) Entry level training, MCRD Paris Island, MCRD San Diego,
Officer Candidate School, Quantico
2) Career Level Schools, Expeditionary Warfare School, Command
and Staff College, Marine Corps War College, Corporals Course, NCO
School, Staff NCO Academy Professional Development, General Officers
Symposium, SgtMajs Symposium, Commanders Course
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 36) Some of the Services stated that they
require their personnel to report incidents of hazing and harassment.
Where are these reporting requirements defined or documented? Also,
what are the penalties for failure to report these incidents?
Sergeant Major Barrett. 36) The updated MCO on Hazing (MCO
1700.28A) directs Commanding Officers and Officers in Charge to report
all substantiated incidents of hazing. The Marine Corps is implementing
a reporting process to capture all substantiated and unsubstantiated
incidents of hazing through the DASH reporting system. Incidents of
hazing are documented and reported with the Operations Event/Incident
Report (OPREP-3) Serious Incident Report as directed in MCO 3504.2.
This Order articulates the reporting policies and instructions for
reportable events or incidents. The report provides information to the
Commandant of the Marine Corps and Senior Marine Corps Leadership for
reportable events. A Hazing event or incident that results in death,
injury requiring hospitalization or significant property damage, is
included as a reportable event.
Failure to comply with Marine Corps orders is punishable under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. Art. 92., Failure to obey any lawful
order or regulation. Art. 134. Conduct prejudicial to good order and
discipline.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 37) During the hearing, each of the Services
shared their latest statistics about hazing. However, the timeline for
these numbers were inconsistent across all the branches and only
included cases that went to a Courts Martial. How many cases of hazing
occurred within each of the Services over the last 5 years, including
both Courts Martial and Non-Judicial Punishment? How do these numbers
break down by race and gender? What were the respective punishments for
each instance?
Sergeant Major Barrett. 37) The Marine Corps has court-martial
statistics for hazing cases dating back to the implementation of the
Marine Corps Case Management System (CMS) in February 2010.
In calendar year 2011, there were no general court-martial (GCM)
cases involving hazing. There were 43 special court-martial (SPCM)
cases that involved hazing.
Of the 43 SPCMs, 11 resulted in convictions, 5 resulted in
acquittals, and 27 were ultimately withdrawn from SPCM and adjudicated
at lower forums. Of the 11 convictions, the following punishments were
adjudged:--Restriction for 60 Days, Reduction to E-3, Reprimand;--
Reduction to E-6, Reprimand;--Bad Conduct Discharge, 9 Months
Confinement, Reduction to E-1, Forfeiture of $900 pay for 9 Months;--90
Days Confinement, Reduction to E-1, Forfeiture of $500.00 pay for 3
Months;--Bad Conduct Discharge, 12 Months Confinement, Reduction to E-
1, Forfeiture of $978.00 pay for 12 Months;--Bad Conduct Discharge, 150
Days Confinement, Reduction to E-1, Forfeiture of $500.00 pay for 3
Months;--Bad Conduct Discharge, 6 Months Confinement, Reduction to E-
1;--4 Months Confinement, Reduction to E-1, Forfeiture of $900.00 pay
for 5 Months;--Bad Conduct Discharge, 8 Months Confinement, Reduction
to E-1, Forfeiture of $970.00 pay for 8 Months;--Bad Conduct Discharge,
4 Months Confinement, Reduction to E-1, Forfeiture of $978.00 pay for 4
Months;--Restriction and Hard Labor w/o Confinement for 60 Days,
Reduction to E-1, Forfeiture of $978.00 pay for 6 Months.
In calendar year 2010, there were three GCM and 26 SPCM cases that
involved hazing.
Of the three GCMs, two resulted in convictions and one resulted in
an acquittal. The two convictions resulted in the following
punishments:--Bad Conduct Discharge, 13 Months Confinement, Reduction
to E-1, and Total Forfeitures;--Bad Conduct Discharge, 36 Months
Confinement, Reduction to E-1, and Total Forfeitures.
Of the 26 SPCMs, 10 resulted in convictions, 5 resulted in
acquittals, and 11 were withdrawn from SPCM and ultimately adjudicated
at lower forums. The 10 convictions adjudged the following
punishments:--Bad Conduct Discharge, 8 Months Confinement, Reduction to
E-1, Forfeiture of $964.00 pay for 8 Months;--Bad Conduct Discharge, 4
Months Confinement, Reduction to E-1, Forfeiture of $964.00 pay for 4
Months;--Bad Conduct Discharge, 10 Months Confinement, Reduction to E-
1, Forfeiture of $964.00 pay for 10 Months;--45 Days Confinement,
Reduction to E-1, Forfeiture of $964.00 pay for 2 Months;--Reduction to
E-4, Forfeiture of $833.00 pay for 1 Month;--Confinement for 85 Days,
Reduction to E-2;--Confinement for 240 Days, Reduction to E-1,
Forfeiture of $200.00 pay for 10 Months;--Confinement for 150 Days,
Reduction to E-1, Forfeiture of $500.00 pay for 10 Months;--Confinement
for 180 Days, Reduction to E-1, Forfeiture of $400.00 pay for 10
Months;--Confinement for 3 Months, Reduction to E-1, Forfeiture of 2/3
pay for 3 Months.
JAGINST 5800.9C, the Department of the Navy's Quarterly Criminal
Activity Report (QCAR), was revised on 23 March 2012 and now includes a
sub-category, ``Disposition of Hazing Offenses.'' This report will now
track the disposition of hazing offenses, as defined by MCO 1700.28A,
including non-judicial punishment, summary court-martial, special
court-martial, and general court-martial. The report will include
``total adjudicated,'' ``total guilty,'' and ``total not guilty.''
Prior to this revision of the JAGINST, hazing offenses that were
disposed of below the special court-martial level were not separately
reported.
Neither the Marine Corps Case Management System nor the QCAR
identifies the race or gender of victims or accused in any disciplinary
action.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 38) Please provide the Committee with the
relevant anti-hazing material and documents you use to train your
service members.
Sergeant Major Barrett. 38) Lesson materials are within enclosures
(2) through (5). The training schools are updating/pen changing their
lesson plans and material, with the new Marine Corps Order number and
new policy on Hazing, while their periods of instructions are being
taught. The current lesson materials are in the process of being
updated by the Marine Corps Recruiting Depots (MCRDs), Marine Combat
Training, School of Infantry (SOIs), Officer Candidates School, and The
Basic School.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 39) Please describe the difference under
regulation and in practice, for each Service, between appropriate
``corrective training'' and hazing.
Sergeant Major Barrett. 39) There are two forms of corrective
training. Incentive Training is only authorized at Marine Corps Recruit
Depots (MCRD). Extra Military Instruction is authorized beyond recruit
training. Both are designed to correct minor deficiencies and instill
discipline. Neither is intended to be used in an abusive nature with no
relation to the infraction committed.
(1) ``Incentive Training'' (IT) is ``an aid in instilling
discipline and motivation . . . '' IT consists of physical exercises
administered in a controlled and deliberate manner as a consequence for
minor disciplinary infractions.'' It is ONLY used at the MCRDs and may
ONLY be administered by a Drill Instructor, per MCRDPI Depot Order
P1513.6A.
(2) ``Extra Military Instruction'' (EMI) is a non-punitive measure
defined in JAGMAN paragraph 0103, as ``instruction in a phase of
military duty in which an individual is deficient, and is intended for
and directed towards the correction of that deficiency . . . It may be
assigned only if genuinely intended to accomplish that result. It is
not to be used as a substitute for judicial (court-martial) action or
non-judicial punishment (NJP), and must be logically related to the
deficiency in performance for which it was assigned.''
Authority to assign EMI that is to be performed during normal
working hours is not limited to any particular grade or rate, but is an
inherent part of that authority over their subordinates that are vested
in officers and noncommissioned/petty officers in connection with
duties and responsibilities assigned to them. This authority to assign
EMI that is to be performed during normal working hours may be
withdrawn by any superior if warranted.
Authority to assign EMI to be performed after normal working hours
is vested in the Commanding Officer or Officer In Charge. Such
authority may be delegated, as appropriate, to officers and
noncommissioned/petty officers, in connection with duties and
responsibilities assigned to them.
Hazing is defined as any conduct whereby a military member or
members, regardless of Service or rank, without proper authority causes
another military member or members, regardless of Service or rank, to
suffer or be exposed to any activity which is cruel, abusive,
humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. It is prohibited at all
times pursuant to MCO 1700.28A.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 40) When did your Service last update its
hazing policy? Do you have any plans to review and update it if
necessary? If your Service does not currently have an anti-hazing
policy, are you considering instituting one?
Sergeant Major Barrett. 40) The Marine Corps policy on Hazing was
last updated on 1 February, 2012 (MCO 1700.28A). We are reviewing and
updating the Hazing reporting process with the establishment of
additional reporting and tracking procedures.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 41) Please provide data broken up according
to race/ethnic heritage and gender, regarding the following: How many
service members have died from non-combat injuries in the last 10
years? Of these incidents, how many were classified as suicide,
homicide, accident, etc. Also, please include data on deaths resulted
from friendly fire. How many equal opportunity complaints have been
received from service members within the last 10 years? Of these
claims, how many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of
members in each Service of the last 10 years?
Sergeant Major Barrett. 41) During 2002-2012, the Marine Corps had
1,293 non-combatant deaths. Accidents were the number one cause of non-
combatant deaths (941). There were nine cases of ``Friendly Fire
Deaths'' with white males having the majority of the incidents (6).
White males also had the greatest number of suicides among all races
(263) during the 10 year span. A complete breakdown of data is
documented within enclosures (6) through (9).
(PART 2): How many equal opportunity complaints have been received
from service members within the last 10 years? Of these claims, how
many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of members in each
Service of the last 10 years?
Answer: A consolidation of the total number of equal opportunity
complaints, over the past 10 years, is listed in the following table
and includes the total Active Component population. A breakdown of all
equal opportunity complaints per year (2002-2012) are within enclosure
(10).
Type of Complaint Total Cases Substantiated Cases Cases of Sexual
Discrimination 325 197 Cases of Race Discrimination 142 66 Cases of
Gender Discrimination 60 13 Cases of Age Discrimination 1 1 Cases of
Religion Discrimination 6 4
Total Force Numbers (AC) Year Qty Year Qty 2002--173,749 2008--
198,505 2003--177,756 2009--202,786 2004--177,159 2010--202,441 2005--
180,025 2011--201,157 2006--180,414 2012--198,427 2007--186,471
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 42) Just by listening to the testimonies, we
would think that this hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service
appears to denounce hazing and has safeguards to prevent it. Yet,
hazing occurs, as evident by the recent incidents of Private Danny
Chen, Lance Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy vessel, Bonhomme
Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta issued an anti-hazing directive
during his holiday message in December.
What I find extremely troubling is the lack of actual statistics on
hazing. How can anyone be convinced that a problem doesn't exist or
current policies are working if there is no method to monitor and
evaluate it? Do any of the Services have a database or other monitoring
system to record the incidences of hazing and harassment? If so, how do
you use the data you collect?
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 42) The Air Force does not specifically
track incidents of misconduct as hazing. However, the Air Force
carefully monitors the disciplinary response to many incidents of
misconduct through a computer-based tracking system known as AMJAMS
(Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System). The
purpose of AMJAMS is to collect data pertaining to investigations,
nonjudicial punishment imposed pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), trials by court-martial, and related military
justice activity; it does not always contain information related to a
case handled purely administratively (no UCMJ action).
As hazing usually consists of behaviors otherwise punishable under
the UCMJ (i.e., assault in violation of Article 128, or cruelty and
maltreatment of a subordinate under Article 93), AMJAMS tracks the
disciplinary response to underlying misconduct. For example, if two
airmen were accused of hazing another airman by assaulting him in
violation of Article 128, AMJAMS would identify the allegations for
those two airmen as ``assault,'' not hazing. Since hazing does not have
an objective definition, AMJAMS would only recognize an incident as
``hazing'' if UCMJ specifications used the word ``hazing'' in the
specification. After a thorough search of AMJAMS, only two incidents
were identified in the past three years where charging authorities used
``hazing'' in the specification to describe the incident; both airmen
were punished via Article 15.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 43) How does each Service evaluate that
their current policies are working? Waiting to review policies after a
slew of tragic cases is not effective prevention.
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 43) Air Force training is constantly
evaluated for overall effectiveness and improvements via course
critiques, end-of-course surveys, climate surveys, and measurement
devices (e.g. written tests, progress checks, etc) and can be
immediately updated by Air Education and Training Command (AETC) and
United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). Furthermore, all Air Force
training encourages Airmen to anonymously complete critique forms at
any time to report unauthorized behavior. Airmen complete End of Course
Surveys which includes questions covering their treatment during
training and the opportunity to provide written comments regarding any
aspect. Basic Military Training also uses systematic trend data to
retool their education and training programs and policies.
Additionally, the Air Force utilizes the Chief of Staff's Climate
Survey to evaluate the climate at the unit and institutional levels.
This is an opportunity for Airmen to provide anonymous feedback on
issues such as hazing, maltreatment, favoritism, harassment, etc.
At the local level, each unit is also required to have a Unit
Climate Assessment when a new commander takes command, or every two
years. These climate assessments are another opportunity for Airmen to
provide feedback on the overall climate in the unit and inform
leadership of any issues with hazing, maltreatment, harassment,
favoritism, etc.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 44) The hazing of service members in a
National Guard company assigned in Kosovo surfaced only last month
after a private in the company lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant
General Mark Hertling, Commander of U.S. Army Europe, commented that
the private reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the General
said, ``For this guy to say what you guys are doing is wrong,
courageous is an understatement.'' We definitely agree. However, it
also speaks to the difficulties for subordinate service members to
report inappropriate behavior of their senior officers. This must be
nearly impossible during extended forward deployments when only the
unit's immediate senior officers are present. What can be done to
create an environment that ensures both accessibility to higher level
of command for reporting of incidents and the safety of the victims and
whistleblowers? What type of support system is in place for victims of
hazing and whistleblowers who report hazing?
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 44) Air Force whistleblowers are
protected under IAW 10 USC 1034. Violations are investigated and
personnel who violate the whistleblower law are dealt with by command.
Air Force personnel have avenues to complain about hazing that includes
their chain of command and the Inspectors General (IG). Air Force IGs
are assigned at nearly every wing/installation within the Air Force, to
include active duty, Air Force Reserves, and Air National Guard.
Personnel are briefed whenever they PCS at Newcomers' Briefings on how
to contact the IG. The IGs are also required by Air Force Instruction
(AFI) 90-301 to brief all newly assigned wing, group, and/or squadron
commanders within 30 days of assumption of command on the roles of the
IG and what whistleblower protection is. Also, the role of the IG and
the IG process are outlined within the Professional Development Guide
(PDG) that every enlisted member of the Air Force has to study prior to
taking tests for promotion.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 45) What have you done to address cultural
sensitivity and to adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion
effort? Have you outreached to communities for resources and guidance?
If not, what plans do you have to do so?
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 45) Diversity and inclusion are vital to
the successful accomplishment of the Air Force mission. In fact, the
Air Force characterizes diversity as a military necessity. The
Secretary, Chief of Staff, and Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force
signed the Air Force Declaration on Diversity reinforcing their
commitment to the principles of diversity and inclusion. Additionally,
the Air Force promotes a culture that embraces diversity and provides
the opportunity for all Airmen to reach their full potential. The Air
Force Policy Directive on Diversity, Strategic Roadmap on Diversity,
and Air Force Instruction on Diversity (in coordination now) all
provide guidance and direction for Air Force members on promoting
diversity and inclusion throughout the force.
In response to Executive Order 13583 Establishing a Coordinated
Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the
Federal Workforce, our diversity office is conducting a thorough review
of the Air Force's Diversity Strategic Roadmap to ensure that it is
consistent with the President's guidance, federal jurisprudence, the
Office of Personnel Management's Government-wide Diversity and
Inclusion Strategic Plan and the Department of Defense Diversity and
Inclusion Strategic Plan. Ensuring Air Force strategic level guidance
is consistent with these higher level documents will allow us to
further institutionalize diversity and inclusion throughout the Air
Force.
To ensure the Air Force is tied in with communities across the
country, we developed a Calendar of National-level Diversity Outreach
Events. For example, the Scientist and Engineer Career Field
recruitment team at the Air Force Personnel Center annually sponsors
and participates in the Hispanic Engineers National Achievement Awards
Conference (HENAAC). Their participation at HENAAC and similar events
not only helps to inform prospective Hispanic employees about Air Force
civilian career opportunities but also provides a national-level venue
to recognize the notable accomplishments of outstanding Air Force
civilian members who have excelled in science and other technical
careers. To plant the seeds of the benefits of service, good
citizenship and a healthy lifestyle early on, the Air Force
participates in other outreach programs focused on our youth. Heroes
and Heritage is a program that brings high school students with high
grade point averages together with military professionals to showcase
opportunities in the Air Force and encourage young people to maintain
their grades in order to widen their opportunities. Air Force in the
Community (AFiC) is an Air Force sponsored program in which we brought
a science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) program to middle
school students, parents, and key educators and influencers for a two
day event featuring a STEM related project competition, student
physical fitness challenges, and Air Force guest speakers. Our
messaging stressed the importance of leadership, physical fitness,
education, and good citizenship.
Air Force bases across the country are also collaborating with
their local communities and reaching out to young students. For
example, Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, recently partnered with Viva Technology
and a local middle school involving over 100 students, local high
schools, and Tinker AFB employees during a special technology program
at the Mid-Del Technology Center. Additionally, Air Force members
participate in approximately 350 regional fairs in the United States
and Puerto Rico along with the International Science and Engineering
Fair to encourage the achievements of America's youth in STEM.
Our deliberate civilian force development programs are intended to
develop and sustain our world-class and diverse civilian force and meet
mission requirements by training civilians to perform essential
technical and occupational skills, serve in institutional leadership
roles in multiple environments, and produce a competitive cadre of
candidates prepared to fill key positions. The Air Force is committed
to building diversity within our military and civilian ranks; we
actively recruit, develop and retain highly qualified people who bring
tremendous talent and ability to our team.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 46) Do hazing and harassment training,
monitoring, and enforcement policies need to be uniform across the
Services?
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 46) Yes, we believe these policies
should be standardized across the Services to the maximum extent
possible. In a fiscally constrained environment where aircraft and
other weapon systems will be cut from the Air Force inventory along
with corresponding personnel, standardized programs that can be used as
a baseline would be optimal provided the Services are afforded the
flexibility to supplement and tailor based on mission needs.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 47) Army Sergeant Major Chandler and USMC
Sergeant Major Barrett testified their interest in creating a statutory
definition of hazing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
They implied that this would make it easier for them to track these
incidents. Currently 44 States have anti-hazing laws and 31 States
define hazing as a crime in their criminal code. We believe that
defining hazing in the UCMJ would provide a strong disincentive against
hazing and yet another tool for prosecutors to go after the
perpetrators of hazing. What are the Services' assessments regarding a
statutory definition for the Defense Department? What should a
definition look like?
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 47) In the past, perpetrators of hazing
have been prosecuted under the UCMJ for associated behaviors in
connection with the incident (i.e., assault consummated by battery,
cruelty and maltreatment of a subordinate, failure to obey lawful
general order, etc.). While the behaviors associated with hazing
usually constitute offenses under Articles 128, 92, 93, 133, and/or
134, the maximum punishment for each offense depends on the specific
UCMJ article under which it is charged. A UCMJ offense specifically
criminalizing ``hazing'' could be helpful if drafted correctly. A
statutory definition for hazing would have to be broad enough to cover
behaviors commonly connected with hazing, delineated enough to
distinguish hazing offenses from similar crimes not constituting
hazing, and narrow enough to not criminalize appropriate activities
customarily associated with military training. Such a definition could
look similar to the following draft, though any definition should be
carefully studied and reviewed by the Joint Service Committee on
Military Justice.
``17a. Article 93a--Hazing
Any person subject to this chapter who, as a form of initiation,
congratulatory action, unauthorized training, or unlawful punishment,
wrongfully causes another person subject to this chapter to suffer or
be exposed to any activity which is cruel, abusive, humiliating,
oppressive, demeaning, or harmful, or encourages another to engage in
such activities or other illegal activities under this code, shall be
guilty of hazing and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.''
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 48) Representative Coffman expressed a
failure of leadership in the unit level as the primary cause for these
recent hazing cases. We understand that annual drop-down reviews of
command are required by the Services. Do these reviews actually occur
annually? Do they include reviews of commands within smallest units?
What specifically are they reviewing? Do they include hazing incidents
and hazing culture as part of the review? Do they include reviews to
ensure that each command level has adequate hazing and harassment
prevention training?
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 48) Within the United States Air force
Inspector General channels, the Air Force Inspection Agency conducts
Compliance Inspections that review both the functional requirements of
entire units' mission, and the leadership and management elements of
the unit. However, there is no specific checklist item that addresses
hazing incidents within the unit. The Compliance Inspections are
targeted to occur every 24 months to ensure they capture the current
commander's performance in that position.
Additionally, the Air Force utilizes the Chief of Staff's Climate
Survey to evaluate the climate at the unit and institutional levels.
This is an opportunity for Airmen to provide anonymous feedback on
issues such as hazing, maltreatment, favoritism, harassment, etc.
At the local level, each unit is also required to have a Unit
Climate Assessment (UCA) when a new commander takes command, or every
two years. These climate assessments are another opportunity for Airmen
to provide feedback on the overall climate in the unit and inform
leadership of any issues with hazing, maltreatment, harassment,
favoritism, etc. The installation commander has visibility of all
completed UCAs through the semi-annual Human Relations Climate
Assessment (HRCA). During the HRCA the installation commander receives
an analysis of the installation equal opportunity (EO) and human
relations climate (HRC). Senior leadership discusses EO complaints and
UCA trends affecting the installation work environment from a total
force perspective and makes actionable strategic/tactical
recommendations to address areas of concern. Another assessment tool
conducted by the EO office is the Out and About Program. During this
assessment, EO staff members visit various work centers and base
facilities to gather additional EO/human relations information that may
impact installation personnel. The EO director schedules out and about
assessments with the unit commander, staff agency chief or first
sergeant. The EO director will ensure unit leadership receives a
summary of observations following the assessment.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 49) Some of the Services stated that they
require their personnel to report incidents of hazing and harassment.
Where are these reporting requirements defined or documented? Also,
what are the penalties for failure to report these incidents?
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 49) The Air Force does not have a formal
policy specifically regarding the reporting of hazing. However, Air
Force training courses are required to brief trainees on the Air Force
policy prohibiting hazing. Air Education and Training Command
Instruction (AETCI) 36-2203, Technical and Basic Military Training
Development, requires all training venues, i.e. Basic Military Training
and technical training, to address sexual harassment/assault,
unprofessional relationships, and hazing within their orientation
programs. The AETCI further requires commanders to ensure AETCVA 36-6,
Points of Contact for Students and Trainees, is displayed on Airmen
bulletin boards in military training flights (MTF) and dormitory areas.
This visual aid reinforces the reporting proceedure and encourages
Airmen to follow the chain of command, inspector general channels or
other means (i.e. students are encouraged to anonymously complete
critique forms and end of course surveys) to resolve issues.
All Airmen are entitled to an environment free from personal,
social, or institutional barriers that prevent Airmen from rising to
the highest level of responsibility possible. Hazing is contrary to
good order and discipline, is not acceptable behavior, and is not
tolerated in the Air Force. Compliance with the policy against hazing
is the responsibility of every Airman, and Airmen who engage in,
condone, or ignore it face administrative actions. A commander's
options include, but are not limited to, counseling, reprimand,
creation of an unfavorable information file (UIF), removal from
position, reassignment, demotion, delay of or removal from a promotion
list, adverse or referral comments in performance reports and
administrative separation. More serious cases that involve assault,
aggravated assault, maltreatment of subordinates, etc, may warrant
court-martial or non-judicial punishment for the offender. Moreover, if
an Airman is uncomfortable with reporting suspected hazing incidents
through his or her chain of command, they are encouraged to use the
base Inspector General.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 50) During the hearing, each of the Services
shared their latest statistics about hazing. However, the timeline for
these numbers were inconsistent across all the branches and only
included cases that went to a Courts Martial. How many cases of hazing
occurred within each of the Services over the last 5 years, including
both Courts Martial and Non-Judicial Punishment? How do these numbers
break down by race and gender? What were the respective punishments for
each instance?
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 50) The Air Force does not specifically
categorize cases under a ``hazing'' designation and does not routinely
see incidents of hazing. However, there were two cases within the past
3 years where ``hazing'' was used in the language of the specification.
Those cases were Article 15s:
1) An airman's violation of Article 92 (dereliction of duty) at
Basic Military Training (BMT) for hazing another BMT student, resulting
in forfeiture of $699 per month for two months (one month suspended)
and a reprimand; and,
2) A Staff Sergeant's violation of Article 93 (cruelty and
maltreatment of subordinate) for striking and threatening an airman
with a poor Enlisted Performance Report for failing to submit to
hazing, resulting in a reduction to Senior Airman.
Although hazing in the Air Force appears to be limited and
isolated, the Air Force is confident that if hazing incidents arise in
the future that are localized to a unit or part of a unit, commanders
would be aware of them, address the misconduct under the Uniform Code
of Military Justice and deal with the hazing aspect appropriately
through administrative or other command actions.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 51) Please provide the Committee with the
relevant anti-hazing material and documents you use to train your
service members.
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 51) The requested relevant anti-hazing
material and documents were provided on a CD to PSM Craig Greene of the
HASC Mil Pers on 16 Feb 12.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 52) Please describe the difference under
regulation and in practice, for each Service, between appropriate
``corrective training'' and hazing.
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 52) The Military Commander and the Law
defines hazing as any conduct whereby a military member without proper
authority causes another military member, regardless of Service or
rank, to suffer or be exposed to any activity which is cruel, abusive,
humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. It further states that
physical contact is not necessary--verbal or psychological abuse will
suffice. In addition, soliciting or encouraging another to engage in
such activity is also considered hazing. Hazing is typically associated
with ``rites of passage'' or initiations. Some examples include hitting
or striking, tattooing, branding, shaving, ``blood pinning,'' and
forcing alcohol consumption. Actual or implied consent to hazing does
not eliminate the perpetrator's culpability.
Conversely, alternative corrective measures (verbal counseling,
training sessions, remedial transition period (RTP), and mandatory
curfew), when authorized by the chain of command and not unnecessarily
cruel, abusive, oppressive, or harmful falls outside the punitive
definition of hazing. Therefore, in accordance with (IAW) Air Education
and Training Command Instruction (AETCI) 36-2216, Administration of
Military Standards and Discipline Training, such measures are used
during Basic Military Training (BMT) and technical training to correct
disciplinary infractions and substandard behavior with a specific focus
on the following areas: room and uniform inspections, Air Force Core
Values, Enlisted Force Structure, drill and ceremonies, fitness, combat
skills, and tasks. The AETI further states, if and when required,
Military Training Leaders (MTLs), Military Training Instructors (MTIs),
and Commanders will use a ``flexible leadership style that employs
mutual respect, support, genuine concern, and targeted doses of
discipline, as needed.'' For example, an Airman who consistently fails
room inspections may be tasked with building clean up duty until the
behavior is learned. These temporary measures will not exceed 10-12
duty hours over 15 calendar days unless additional time is warranted,
properly documented, and approved by the military training flight chief
not to exceed 30 consecutive days. Should additional corrective
measures be warranted to reinforce attention to detail, motivate
students, and/or build teamwork to accomplish a specific goal or
training objective to promote student success, it will only be
authorized as reflected in approved and certified training plans. These
procedures are reviewed/approved annually by the applicable group,
wing, and numbered air force director of operations.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 53) When did your Service last update its
hazing policy? Do you have any plans to review and update it if
necessary? If your Service does not currently have an anti-hazing
policy, are you considering instituting one?
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 53) The Chief of Staff of the Air Force
issued an Air Force Policy on Hazing on 30 Oct 97. The Air Force has
not issued any subsequent policy specifically addressing hazing.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 54) Please provide data broken up according
to race/ethnic heritage and gender, regarding the following: How many
service members have died from non-combat injuries in the last 10
years? Of these incidents, how many were classified as suicide,
homicide, accident, etc. Also, please include data on deaths resulted
from friendly fire. How many equal opportunity complaints have been
received from service members within the last 10 years? Of these
claims, how many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of
members in each Service of the last 10 years?
Chief Master Sergeant Roy. 54) Attached.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 55) Just by listening to the testimonies, we
would think that this hearing is almost unnecessary. Each Service
appears to denounce hazing and has safeguards to prevent it. Yet,
hazing occurs, as evident by the recent incidents of Private Danny
Chen, Lance Corporal Harry Lew, and aboard the Navy vessel, Bonhomme
Richard. In fact, Secretary Panetta issued an anti-hazing directive
during his holiday message in December.
What I find extremely troubling is the lack of actual statistics on
hazing. How can anyone be convinced that a problem doesn't exist or
current policies are working if there is no method to monitor and
evaluate it? Do any of the Services have a database or other monitoring
system to record the incidences of hazing and harassment? If so, how do
you use the data you collect?
Master Chief Leavitt. 55) Hazing may be investigated at the Command
level or by the Coast Guard Investigative Service, and may be
punishable under provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Substantiated cases may result in court-martial, confinement (jail
time,) and punitive discharge.
Courts-martial involving hazing misconduct are tracked by the Judge
Advocate General in the Office of Military justice at Coast Guard
Headquarters. The Coast Guard does not have a mechanism to track hazing
cases that are adjudicated outside courts-martial.
Harassment based on a protected status is reported to the unit
chain of command or to a Civil Rights Service Provider. When a
Harassment Incident is reported, Commanders of Coast Guard Units have
an affirmative duty to ensure the safety of the victim, conduct an
investigation, and report findings to the Civil Rights Directorate. In
addition to these steps, the victims may choose to initiate the Equal
Employment Opportunity discrimination complaint process as outlined in
COMDTINST M5350.4C, 4-A.1. The Coast Guard offers a complaint process
for military members patterned after the process for civilian members,
based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Federal
Sector Regulations at 29 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part
1614. Data regarding Civil Rights complaints is tracked by CG-00H, the
Coast Guard Civil Rights Directorate.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 56) How does each Service evaluate that
their current policies are working? Waiting to review policies after a
slew of tragic cases is not effective prevention.
Master Chief Leavitt. 56) The Coast Guard uses proactive monitoring
based on organizational and climate surveys as well as input from the
field and multiple leadership/diversity councils to review and update
policies.
Additionally, these inputs are used to monitor and evolve Coast
Guard culture via revised policies, training, or leadership emphasis.
Every other year beginning in 2002, Coast Guard members and
employees have confidentially participated in the Coast Guard's 154-
question Organizational Assessment Survey (OAS) about employee
satisfaction. The survey does not include specific questions about
hazing, but does indicate the overall unit climate. The results are
provided via reports generated by the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management OPM web based tool. Data is kept at OPM to insure
confidentially and to prevent suppression of honest responses during
future administrations of the OAS and other surveys.
The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) manages
another command assessment tool, the DEOMI Organizational Climate
Survey (DEOCS). This survey is used as a Commander's management tool
that allows the Coast Guard to proactively assess critical
organizational climate dimensions that can impact the organization's
effectiveness. Additional information is available at their website,
http://www.deocs.net/public/index.cfm .
Within the DEOCS tool:
--Respondents answer questions that characterize their unit's
readiness, formal and informal policies, practices, and procedures that
occur or are likely to occur within the organization.
--The survey assesses 13 climate factors by posing questions
answered by survey takers using a five-point scale.
--The questionnaire focuses on three primary areas: Military Equal
Opportunity (EO), Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), and
Organizational Effectiveness (OE).
--Respondents' anonymity is protected when completing the online
survey by using a computer-generated, untraceable, single use password.
Also, no personally identifying information is collected.
Commanding Officers (COs) can add up to 10 locally-developed
questions (LDQs) and five short answer questions (SAQs) to their unit
surveys, helping them target specific areas of concern. The program
allows COs to select from among hundreds of LDQs and SAQs already
written, or to create their own.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 57) The hazing of service members in a
National Guard company assigned in Kosovo surfaced only last month
after a private in the company lodged a formal complaint. Lieutenant
General Mark Hertling, Commander of U.S. Army Europe, commented that
the private reporting the incident was courageous. In fact, the General
said, ``For this guy to say what you guys are doing is wrong,
courageous is an understatement.'' We definitely agree. However, it
also speaks to the difficulties for subordinate service members to
report inappropriate behavior of their senior officers. This must be
nearly impossible during extended forward deployments when only the
unit's immediate senior officers are present. What can be done to
create an environment that ensures both accessibility to higher level
of command for reporting of incidents and the safety of the victims and
whistleblowers? What type of support system is in place for victims of
hazing and whistleblowers who report hazing?
Master Chief Leavitt. 57) Lieutenant General Hertling's visible
leadership stance in this regard is often the most effective factor in
changing a culture or creating an environment that supports and
reinforces the policy of reporting incidents. Similarly, the leadership
of the Coast Guard has taken steps to unequivocally denounce hazing, to
reinforce policy and to foster an environment that does not tolerate
hazing and promotes reporting incidents when they occur. This
leadership emphasis, coupled with robust training for all new members,
and annually thereafter, reinforces the requirement to report
incidents.
There are multiple venues for reporting incidents, including the
chain of command and the Civil Rights program (via regional Civil
Rights Service Providers). Access to the chain of command is codified
in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (Article 138).
The Coast Guard has both organic resources and administrative
policies and procedures available to ensure the protection of victims
and/or whistleblowers. Organic resources include: the Critical Incident
Stress Management program, the Employee Assistance Program and
Chaplains to assist with the mental welfare of the workforce; Family
and Sexual Violence Investigators from Coast Guard Investigative
Service (CGIS), trained to handle incidents of rape and sexual assault
and provide recommendations regarding the safety of the victims, and
Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARC) and Victim Advocates (VA)
from the Work-Life program to provide victim advocacy services.
Administrative policies and procedures include: temporary or permanent
reassignment to another unit during or after an investigation for the
safety and best interests of the member; the Personnel Records Review
Board and the Board for Corrections of Military Records to appeal
retaliatory evaluations; the Civil Rights program for Equal Opportunity
and Equal Employment Opportunity complaints; and Military Protective
Orders issued by the command when warranted to ensure the safety of
personnel. In addition, the Military Whistleblower Protection Act of
1988, 10 U.S.C. Section 1034, provides protection for a military
service member who makes a protected communication regarding a
violation of law or regulation. The superiors of these service members
are prohibited from retaliating against the service member making the
protected statements.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 58) What have you done to address cultural
sensitivity and to adopt a more intentional diversity and inclusion
effort? Have you outreached to communities for resources and guidance?
If not, what plans do you have to do so?
Master Chief Leavitt. 58) Culture and diversity sensitivity are
emphasized throughout the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is very proud of
its strategic approach to diversity management and strives to be
recognized as the ``Service of Choice'' in the federal government for
recruiting, retaining, and sustaining a ready, diverse, and highly-
skilled Total Workforce. The Commandant's Diversity Policy Statement is
published on the Coast Guard Website and is circulated to all
personnel. In 2011, the Coast Guard published its revised Diversity
Strategic Plan that set clear and concise direction to better position
Coast Guard leaders to define a pathway for change in our efforts to
make the Coast Guard workforce reflective of American society. To
implement our Plan, we are executing a deliberate and focused campaign
plan, OPTASK DIVERSITY, which captures performance assessments
quarterly to identify, address and remove barriers.
To acknowledge and better utilize the link between leadership and
diversity, the Coast Guard combined the Leadership Advisory Council and
the Diversity Advisory Council into the Commandant's Leadership,
Excellence, and Diversity (LEAD) Council. This council meets semi-
annually and is comprised of representatives from every facet of our
workforce. The LEAD Council's findings and recommendations are briefed
directly to the Commandant. To work in conjunction with the Commandant
level LEAD Council, a Coast Guard wide Leadership and Diversity
Advisory Council network was established. This network established a
pathway for field leadership and diversity issues to be discussed
throughout the Coast Guard and be brought to the highest levels of
Coast Guard leadership via the LEAD Council when appropriate.
Recruiting and retaining a high quality diverse workforce is an
important mission for the Coast Guard. The Office of Diversity partners
with many communities, as well as national level organizations and
affinity groups. Specifically, an extensive collaboration exists
between the Coast Guard Academy, the Coast Guard Human Resources
Directorate and the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE) to
increase awareness of Coast Guard career opportunities to
underrepresented populations. Coast Guard members also participate in a
variety of affinity groups such as the National Naval Officer
Association (NNOA), the Sea Service Leadership Association (SSLA) and
the Association of Naval Service Officers (ANSO). These groups provide
a venue at local, regional and national levels for mentoring,
professional development and an open discussion on diversity and
inclusion.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 59) Do hazing and harassment training,
monitoring, and enforcement policies need to be uniform across the
Services?
Master Chief Leavitt. 59) Anti-hazing and harassment policies,
training, and monitoring should be similar for all the Services.
However, each service chief must retain the authorities necessary to
promote and enforce good order and discipline within their Service.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 60) Army Sergeant Major Chandler and USMC
Sergeant Major Barrett testified their interest in creating a statutory
definition of hazing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
They implied that this would make it easier for them to track these
incidents. Currently 44 States have anti-hazing laws and 31 States
define hazing as a crime in their criminal code. We believe that
defining hazing in the UCMJ would provide a strong disincentive against
hazing and yet another tool for prosecutors to go after the
perpetrators of hazing. What are the Services' assessments regarding a
statutory definition for the Defense Department? What should a
definition look like?
Master Chief Leavitt. 60) ``It is the Coast Guard's opinion that it
is unnecessary to create a new punitive article under the Uniform Code
of Military Justice (UCMJ) to hold active duty service members
accountable for hazing misconduct, nor would it make ``tracking''
hazing courts-martial easier. The Coast Guard has a robust and clear
anti-hazing policy (and associated training requirements). That policy
is outlined in Chapter 2 of the Discipline and Conduct Manual,
COMDTINST M1600.2. As recognized by COMDTINST M1600.2, there is a wide
variety of misconduct that can be associated with and manifest during
hazing activity. The variety of hazing misconduct can and has been
addressed by Commanders through disciplinary action under the UCMJ to
include trial by court-martial. Hazing misconduct has successfully been
charged under Articles 90, 92, 93, 120, 128, and 134 of the UCMJ. Thus,
the UCMJ provides great flexibility for Commanders and the Service in
disciplining and prosecuting hazing activity. Charging decisions are
informed by the facts unique to the particular hazing case(s). If an
enumerated offense of hazing is developed, there would be the
unintended consequence of narrowing the type of conduct labeled and
charged as ``hazing''. Essentially, this could lead to the
underreporting of hazing incidents throughout the Services. The Coast
Guard is unable to draft a clear ``hazing'' definition that can fully
capture the vast range of misconduct that is currently punitive under
the existing UCMJ.
During preparation for MCPOCG Leavitt's recent congressional
testimony on hazing, the Coast Guard JAG Office of Military Service
(CG-0946) was able to quickly abstract metrics for all Coast Guard
courts-martial held over the past 4 years that involved hazing. Non-
judicial punishment remains an area of weakness for tracking due to the
inherent limitations of the Direct Access data base. The value of an
enumerated ``hazing'' definition in statute has been a recent topic of
discussion at the Joint Service Committee. Response from all Services
has initially been unfavorable for many of the reasons outlined
above.''
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 61) Representative Coffman expressed a
failure of leadership in the unit level as the primary cause for these
recent hazing cases. We understand that annual drop-down reviews of
command are required by the Services. Do these reviews actually occur
annually? Do they include reviews of commands within smallest units?
What specifically are they reviewing? Do they include hazing incidents
and hazing culture as part of the review? Do they include reviews to
ensure that each command level has adequate hazing and harassment
prevention training?
Master Chief Leavitt. 61) The Coast Guard uses a number of surveys
in a systemic manner to monitor Coast Guard culture, and the impact of
policy and other changes intended to improve the culture of the
organization.
Every other year beginning in 2002, Coast Guard members and
employees have confidentially participated in the Coast Guard's 154-
question Organizational Assessment Survey (OAS) about employee
satisfaction. The survey does not include specific questions about
hazing, but does indicate the overall unit climate. The results are
provided via reports generated by the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM). Data is kept at OPM to insure confidentially and to
prevent suppression of honest responses during future administrations
of the OAS and other surveys.
The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) manages
another command assessment tool, the Defense Equal Opportunity Climate
Survey (DEOCS). This survey is used as a Commander's management tool
that allows the Coast Guard to proactively assess critical
organizational climate dimensions that can impact the organization's
effectiveness. Additional information is available at their website:
http://www.deocs.net/public/index.cfm . Specific hazing related
questions in the DEOCS survey would be beneficial. Within the DEOCS
tool:
--Respondents answer questions that characterize their unit's
readiness, formal and informal policies, practices, and procedures that
occur or are likely to occur within the organization.
--The survey assesses 13 climate factors by posing questions
answered by survey takers using a five-point scale.
--The questionnaire focuses on three primary areas: Military Equal
Opportunity (EO), Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO), and
Organizational Effectiveness (OE).
--Respondents' anonymity is protected when completing the online
survey by using a computer-generated, untraceable, single use password.
Also, no personally identifying information is collected.
Commanding Officers (COs) can add up to ten locally-developed
questions (LDQs) and five-short answer questions (SAQs) to their unit
surveys, helping them target specific areas of concern. The program
allows COs to select from among hundreds of LDQs and SAQs already
written, or to create their own.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 62) Some of the Services stated that they
require their personnel to report incidents of hazing and harassment.
Where are these reporting requirements defined or documented? Also,
what are the penalties for failure to report these incidents?
Master Chief Leavitt. 62) The Coast Guard's hazing policy is found
in the Discipline and Conduct Manual, Commandant Instruction Manual
M1600.2. The policy includes the following language: ``Every military
member must inform the appropriate authorities of each suspected
violation of this policy'' and ``Victims of actual or attempted hazing
and witnesses to these activities must report it to the appropriate
level of the chain of command.'' Additionally, the hazing policy
mandates that commands must investigate hazing incidents, including
those who ``tacitly condoned such practices, either by inaction or
neglecting to investigate reported incidents.''
Commands have a wide variety of tools available to hold individuals
accountable for failing to report hazing. The appropriate action is
dependent upon incident-specific circumstances. Available remedies
range from counseling to discharge proceedings, and/or adjudication
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 63) During the hearing, each of the Services
shared their latest statistics about hazing. However, the timeline for
these numbers were inconsistent across all the branches and only
included cases that went to a Courts Martial. How many cases of hazing
occurred within each of the Services over the last 5 years, including
both Courts Martial and Non-Judicial Punishment? How do these numbers
break down by race and gender? What were the respective punishments for
each instance?
Master Chief Leavitt. 63) Since CY 2009, nine courts-martial have
convened and one case is pending for serious misconduct arising out of
hazing activity throughout the Coast Guard. Seven of the cases related
to hazing took place aboard Coast Guard Cutter VENTUROUS between 2007
and 2009, and were referred to courts-martial. Several other crew
members received administrative action under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice for less egregious infractions. Punishments from the
seven courts-martial resulted in five members receiving confinement or
restrictions of up to five months, six members being reduced in pay
grade, three members forfeiting pay, one member being discharged, and
one member receiving a bad conduct discharge.
In addition to the incidents on VENTUROUS, two other courts-martial
have convened for hazing incidents, at Station Cape Disappointment and
Sector Mobile since 2009; both of these cases are in final legal
review. There is also a case pending at Sector San Francisco set for
trial in late April 2012.
Twenty-three Coast Guard personnel, all male, have been identified
as the ``targets,'' or victims of serious hazing misconduct. Seventy-
eight percent of the victims are Caucasian (white). Other victims are
evenly distributed across other racial profiles to include Asian,
African-American/Black, Hispanic, Hawaiian Islander and Native
American/Alaska Native. ``Juniority'' of rank appears to be the primary
motivating factor for the offender to target a victim.
Hazing Victim Racial Profiles
White--78%--(18) Asian--4%--(1) Black--4%--(1) Hispanic--4%--(1)
Other--8%--(2) Total--23
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 64) Please provide the Committee with the
relevant anti-hazing material and documents you use to train your
service members.
Master Chief Leavitt. 64) [The information referred to is retained
in the committee files and can be viewed upon request.]
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 65) Please describe the difference under
regulation and in practice, for each Service, between appropriate
``corrective training'' and hazing.
Master Chief Leavitt. 65) Corrective training, called Extra
Military Instruction (EMI) in the Coast Guard, has specific
requirements and structure, which is outlined by the Military Justice
Manual. The tasks and/or training ordered to be performed as EMI must
relate to and have the logical purpose of correcting an identified
deficiency related to the performance of assigned duties.
The Conduct and Discipline Manual defines hazing as any conduct in
which a military member without proper authority causes another
military member(s) to suffer or be exposed to any cruel, abusive,
humiliating, oppressive, demeaning or harmful activity regardless of
the perpetrator's and recipient's Service or rank. Soliciting or
coercing another to conduct such activity also constitutes hazing.
Specific examples are listed in the policy.
Extra Military Instruction is outlined in section 1.G.1.b of the
Military Justice Manual, COMDTINST M5810.1, available at: http://
www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/5000-5999/CIM_5810_1E.pdf.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 66) When did your Service last update its
hazing policy? Do you have any plans to review and update it if
necessary? If your Service does not currently have an anti-hazing
policy, are you considering instituting one?
Master Chief Leavitt. 66) The Coast Guard's hazing policy is found
in the Discipline and Conduct Manual, Commandant Instruction Manual
M1600.2. The Manual was updated in September, 2011, and is reviewed
frequently and updated whenever appropriate.
Ms. Chu and Mr. Honda. 67) Please provide data broken up according
to race/ethnic heritage and gender, regarding the following: How many
service members have died from non-combat injuries in the last 10
years? Of these incidents, how many were classified as suicide,
homicide, accident, etc. Also, please include data on deaths resulted
from friendly fire. How many equal opportunity complaints have been
received from service members within the last 10 years? Of these
claims, how many were substantiated? What are the total numbers of
members in each Service of the last 10 years?
Master Chief Leavitt. 67) See attached.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
