Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:18 pm
Time: 8:18 pm
Results for military (u.s.)
2 results foundAuthor: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division Title: The Handling of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct Allegations by the Department's Law Enforcement Components Summary: The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this review to assess how the Department of Justice's (Department) four law enforcement components respond to sexual misconduct and harassment allegations made against their employees. This review examined the nature, frequency, reporting, investigation, and adjudication of such allegations in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and the United States Marshals Service (USMS). The findings in today's report include: - Component supervisors did not always report allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct to their respective internal affairs offices as required by component policies. In several instances, these supervisors were not disciplined for their failure to report. Additionally, at the FBI and USMS, the internal affairs offices chose not to investigate some allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct despite significant evidence that misconduct had occurred, and DEA's internal affairs office did not always fully investigate allegations of sexual misconduct related to prostitution. - At ATF, DEA, and USMS, we found a lack of coordination between the internal affairs offices and security personnel. As a result, security departments at these components were sometimes unaware of allegations that may impact an employee's eligibility to hold a security clearance and access classified information. In contrast, we found that the FBI's internal affairs office alerts the FBI security department to any such misconduct allegations it receives. - All of the components we reviewed either did not have adequate offense tables or did not properly use their offense tables for charging employees with sexual harassment and sexual misconduct offenses. The offense tables at ATF, DEA, and USMS did not contain adequate language to address the solicitation of prostitutes in jurisdictions where the conduct is legal or tolerated. The FBI offense table contains such a category, but we found instances where general offense categories were applied instead of the specific category. - All four components have weaknesses in detecting the transmission of sexually explicit text messages and images by employees. Although the FBI archives and proactively monitors its employees' text messages, there are limitations to its ability to use this information, and misconduct investigators at ATF, DEA, and USMS cannot easily obtain such text message evidence. These issues may hamper the components' ability to conduct misconduct investigations, fulfill their discovery obligations, and deter misconduct. Finally, today's report notes that the OIG's ability to conduct this review was significantly impacted and unnecessarily delayed by repeated difficulties we had in obtaining relevant information from both the FBI and DEA. Specifically, the FBI and DEA initially refused to provide the OIG with unredacted information which the OIG was entitled to receive under the Inspector General Act. When they finally did provide the information without extensive redactions, we found that it still was incomplete. We were also concerned by an apparent decision by DEA to withhold information regarding a particular open misconduct case despite the fact that the OIG was authorized to receive the information. Because of these difficulties, we cannot be completely confident that the FBI and DEA provided us with all information relevant to this review. Our report reflects the findings and conclusions we reached based on the information made available to us. The report makes eight recommendations to improve the law enforcement components' disciplinary and security processes relating to allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment. The DOJ and the four components reviewed concurred with all of the recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2015. 139p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2015 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2015/e1504.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2015/e1504.pdf Shelf Number: 135145 Keywords: Child PornographyLaw Enforcement InvestigationsMilitary (U.S.)ProstitutionRapeSextingSexual AbuseSexual HarassmentSexual Misconduct |
Author: Gillibrand, Kirsten Title: Snapshot Review of Sexual Assault Report Files at the Four Largest U.S. Military Bases in 2013 Summary: On February 10, 2014, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, in her oversight role as Chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, requested the Department of Defense (DoD) provide her office with files pertaining to the investigation and adjudication of sexual assault cases, from 2009 to 2013, at the largest U.S. base for each military service. These installations are the Army's Fort Hood in Texas, Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in California, and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. On December 15, 2014, 308 days after the initial request, the Department of Defense provided 107 redacted sexual assault case files from the year 2013. Senator Gillibrand had requested "all reports and allegations of rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault, sex in the barracks, adultery and attempts, conspiracies, or solicitations to commit these crimes" for the last five years. Despite two separate assurances from then-Secretary of Defense Hagel directly to Senator Gillibrand that all files would expeditiously be provided, the DoD reluctantly agreed to provide just one year's worth of files after then-Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin intervened. The larger request remains unfulfilled. This refusal from the DoD to provide basic information pertaining to sexual violence and military justice to the former Personnel Subcommittee chair with oversight duties calls into question the Department's commitment to transparency and getting to the root of the problem. While the case files do shed some light on how the military has dealt with the scourge of sexual assault on bases, with many findings consistent with the Associated Press's accounts of sexual assaults at American military bases in Japan, it is important to note that the files are redacted, incomplete, and often do not contain all relevant data pertaining to the cases. Our review of the 107 case files provided by the Department of Defense sheds further light on the true scope of sexual violence in military communities, including two large but overlooked segments of the military population - military spouses, and civilian women living near military bases - that are not counted in the DoD's surveys on sexual assault prevalence. The documents analyzed by our office suggest that civilians (including spouses) are especially vulnerable, and that the military justice system continues to struggle to provide justice. Details: Washington, DC: Office of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, 2015. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2015 at: http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Gillibrand_Sexual%20Assault%20Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Gillibrand_Sexual%20Assault%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 135536 Keywords: Military (U.S.)RapeSexual AssaultSexual HarassmentViolence Against Women |