Officials release academy sexual-assault IG reports

  • Published
  • By Tech. Sgt. David A. Jablonski
  • Air Force Print News
WASHINGTON --  Defense Department and Air Force officials released findings of two inspector general investigation reports on sexual assault at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

The findings were presented at a Pentagon press briefing Dec. 7 by the deputy undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, Dr. David S. Chu; the Air Force vice chief of staff, Gen. T. Michael Moseley; the Air Force inspector general, Lt. Gen. Steven R. Polk; and Gary M. Comerford, DOD inspector general spokesman.

The DOD report cites eight Air Force leaders for their involvement in the policy changes that contributed to the investigative and cultural problems at the academy. Two Air Force legal officials involved in reviewing the academy sexual assault policy and in taking action in connection with that policy are being referred to the DOD general counsel.

DOD’s report described conditions that officials said degraded order and discipline at the school. According to the findings, problems at the academy were rooted in a problematic cadet subculture.

This subculture, the report found, manifested itself through an unhealthy disregard for regulations and the law, including prohibitions regarding alcohol consumption, sexual harassment and assault, resulting in cadet order and discipline significantly below the level expected at a premier military institution funded at taxpayer expense. The report offers recommendations to help sustain the Air Force’s efforts to correct those problems, including an oversight mechanism.

The DOD report also assessed responsibility.

While the current secretary of the Air Force has already accepted both the responsibility and accountability for the situation at the academy by his own congressional testimony, a number of other senior officials bear responsibility for the confidential sexual-assault reporting program, cultural problems and the resulting consequences, the report stated.

The program created a unique reporting policy at the academy without approval of the secretary, which differed from the rest of the Air Force. While the change in policy did not cause the sexual assaults, it contributed to cultural problems, kept the magnitude of the problems from being visible to Air Force leaders and prevented effective criminal investigations.

The DOD report found that 21 senior leaders were not responsible for sexual assault problems at the academy. When informed of the problems, they took appropriate action.

“We are moving forward to make real changes and make them stick,” said Dr. Chu.

“One of the most critical is victim confidentiality,” he said. “First and foremost, we want victims to come forward for help. The Air Force and DOD will institute a policy of confidential reporting for victims. We’re convinced this policy will help victims and improve the overall climate. But we also want to sustain good order and discipline by holding those who assault their fellow servicemembers accountable for their actions.”

General Polk presented the Air Force’s findings.

The Air Force report summarizes the inspector general’s activities related to review of the individual sexual-assault cases. It provides a summary of 56 separate Office of Special Investigations case reviews and the Air Force senior official inquiries directorate’s 10 reports of investigation and 13 reports of inquiry.

OSI’s assessment found that criminal investigative procedures by agents at Detachment 808 followed Air Force guidance and demonstrated a sound program, according to the report. In one situation, evidence was destroyed before final command action had been taken, but this did not affect the outcome of the case. Nothing found during the review jeopardized the chain of custody, caused legal errors or affected the final disposition of cases.

The investigators from the inquiries directorate identified four instances where academy officials did not follow established procedures or instructions. However, their review of all the allegations, concerns and issues revealed no evidence of intentional mishandling or willful neglect on the part of any academy official.

But there is much room for improvement, General Moseley said.

“The DOD report detailed several things the Air Force did not do well,” he said.

“Working with Dr. Chu’s team, we’ve already corrected a number of problems and are working on the rest. We’ve accepted 13 of the 14 recommendations made by DOD and are currently working with Dr. Chu on the remaining recommendation,” the general said.

“(Lt. Gen. John W. Rosa Jr., academy superintendent,) didn’t wait for any report. Instead, he immediately began to change the climate at the academy upon assumption of command,” General Moseley said. “The ‘Agenda for Change’ is well on its way.”

General Moseley also said it is the Air Force’s responsibility to deal with this problem and to provide every Airman a safe work place and treat him or her with dignity and respect.

“People come to us from the greater population, but that doesn’t take us off the hook when it comes to providing the best possible care and environment … whether it is at a deployed location or home station.”

The situation leading to reports began nearly two years ago and started a chain of events leading to the investigations.

In January 2003, various senior government officials received an e-mail asserting there was a significant sexual-assault problem at the academy that was being ignored by academy leaders. Air Force Secretary Dr. James G. Roche subsequently directed the Air Force inspector general to conduct two parallel reviews.

The service first established a team to review all complaints reported to and investigations conducted by, the academy’s OSI detachment from January 1993 to December 2002.

The second review, led by the Air Force inspector general, was conducted to investigate individual complaints that the Air Force mishandled their allegations.

In February 2003, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee requested that DOD review the work being done by the Air Force, and others, and provide findings and conclusions to the committee. The objectives of the DOD review were to review the quality and timeliness of criminal investigations conducted on alleged sexual assaults, review the thoroughness and advocacy of the Air Force General Council Working Group work, and identify individual accountability for sexual-assault problems at the academy.

The reports are available at http://www.af.mil/library/posture/usafa_report.pdf and http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2004/d20041207igsummary.pdf.