When an Army Reserve aviation soldier reported that she had been sexually assaulted, a male supervisor retaliated by keeping her off a deployment which ended her hazardous duty pay and recommending she be kicked off of active duty status, a Pentagon-level Inspector General investigation found.
The IG also found that the supervisor likely referred to the soldier as “bat [s***] crazy” to at least one other soldier and that his actions towards the woman were at least partially driven by personal doubts of her story of the assault, doubts that the IG said the man had “no reason” to hold.
The IG recommended that the Army Secretary “consider appropriate action” against the supervisor for his reprisal.
The IG does not identify either the ranks or positions of the woman who filed the complaint or the man investigated, except to say that both were members of the Army Reserve 11th Expeditionary Combat Aviation Brigade, based at Fort Carson, Colorado. The report does make clear that the man held a supervisory role in the woman’s chain of command, and at one point told a witness that “he alone had the authority to decide whether [the woman] would deploy.”
The IG investigation released earlier this month was conducted in response to a complaint from the soldier who alleged that an official with the 11th ECAB recommended she be released from active duty in reprisal for reporting that she was sexually assaulted. The soldier also alleged that the Reserve official removed her from a Middle East deployment, which made her ineligible for a temporary promotion.
Under federal law and military rules, reporting a sexual assault is a “protected communication,” for which the sender cannot be punished or otherwise retaliated against.
The soldier had been assigned to 11 ECAB which was one of two Army Reserve aviation brigades preparing for a 400-day deployment with approximately 1,200 soldiers to various locations in the Middle East to support Operation Inherent Resolve and Operation Spartan Shield.
The male official had a “personal motive” since the soldier’s allegations were against 11 ECAB members, according to the report. The IG also said that the supervisor questioned the credibility of the soldier’s report “with no reason to do so” and viewed sexual assault reports “as something for him to distance himself from.”
The IG report also notes that another soldier testified that the male official referred to the soldier as “bat [s***] crazy.” The supervisor denied using those words to describe the soldier, but the IG sided with the second soldier who reported the remarks. That second soldier, the IG said, had taken specific notes of a conversation with the supervisor within days of the assault, in which the soldier noted the supervisor had used the specific phrase.
According to a Rand Corporation report, in 2014, 30% of women in the military who self-reported sexual assault said they experienced social and professional retaliation, or adverse administrative actions or punishments associated with the sexual assault. Among the victims who filed an official report with the Department of Defense, the “perceived retaliation” was “even higher.”
A 15-6 investigation, which is a command-directed inquiry in response to allegations of soldier misconduct, poor leadership, command climate issues, determined that the 11th ECAB command’s climate during pre-mobilization, mobilization, and post-mobilization was “poor.”
The senior soldier’s response to the IG, included in the report, disagreed with the findings including having a personal motive. The supervisor also said that he complied with Army Regulations after learning of the assault. However, the IG said he did not comply with all requirements “when he failed to listen to what the [soldier] wanted or needed” before he made his decision.
According to the 15-6 investigation, one witness told investigators that the supervisor ended the monthly Sexual Assault Response Coordinator meetings, never entertained the idea of bringing the soldier back on deployment and responded with “negativity or with disinterest” to other SHARP events.
The 15-6 investigating officer found that the male supervisor “did not fully support the spirit” of the Army’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Response Program and that he did not provide emotional support to the victim, show empathy, or “take steps to be available and support the victim.”
In May 2023, the Reserve’s acting deputy commanding general modified the investigation’s findings to include that the supervisor’s “declination to hear directly from the sexual assault victim” went against policy.
Missed pay and promotion
The IG’s findings indicate that the supervisor’s decision led the soldier to miss out on $150 of monthly hazardous duty incentive pay she could have received under Army policy by flying at least four hours each month. Once the soldier was removed from deployment and transferred, she was no longer entitled to the pay, the IG said.
On April 7, 2022, the soldier became ineligible for temporary promotion because she was removed from the unit’s deployment to the Middle East. The 11 ECAB was given five slots to enroll soldiers in the Basic Leader Course, a prerequisite for a temporary promotion. Priority for enrollment went to deployed soldiers, the IG said.
While the supervisor’s decision made the soldier ineligible for promotion, the IG said that it couldn’t hold the supervisor responsible. The guidance for temporarily promoting 11 ECAB soldiers came out in February 2022 and the supervisor removed the soldier from deployment about two months before it came out. The IG also noted that the supervisor was not involved in determining temporary promotions.
The IG said that evidence did not support that the male official or other 11 ECAB officials removed the soldier from the deployment in December 2021 to “purposefully prevent” her “from later receiving a temporary promotion.”
In response to the IG report, the supervisor said he did not take unfavorable personnel action against the soldier since she remained on active duty throughout the 11 ECAB’s deployment. The IG, however, said the facts “do not refute” that the supervisor’s decisions affected the soldier’s military career, pay, and benefits.
IG challenges supervisor’s reasoning
On Nov. 30, 2021 the soldier reported sexual assault to her company commander and made an unrestricted report to the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator. On Dec. 1, 2021 the soldier testified to the Army Criminal Investigation Division.
That month, CID identified two suspects in the soldier’s sexual assault case who were placed in pretrial confinement. Within two days, the suspects were released from pretrial confinement and sent back to Fort Cavazos.
When citing his reasoning against sending the soldier on deployment, the supervisor said he was concerned whether investigators identified the right people and that the soldier’s “safety was still in question.”
The IG said in its review that “by that logic, every 11 ECAB female Soldier or friend of the Complainant [the female soldier] would have been in danger,” and that the male official “took no action with respect to those soldiers.”
Early on, the soldier expressed the desire to deploy “almost immediately” after reporting the sexual assault, according to the IG. The supervisor said “he was surprised to learn that the [female soldier] still wanted to deploy and did not expect that reaction from someone who just experienced a traumatic event,” according to the report.
In a December 2021 memo, the supervisor wrote that if the soldier does deploy “it may be after other Soldiers from the 11 ECAB have departed North Fort Hood [Cavazos]” but noted that the decision would be evaluated periodically. He listed multiple factors that his decision would be based on including: the soldier’s well-being and ability to recover, ability to protect her, and resource availability in Kuwait.
Subscribe to Task & Purpose today. Get the latest military news and culture in your inbox daily.
According to the IG, one witness told the supervisor that the soldier “experienced a sudden loss of control since the assault,” and was concerned the command’s actions were exacerbating the problem.
Nonetheless, on Dec. 6, 2021, the soldier was removed from deployment and two days later, she was recommended for release from active duty. The soldier said she felt “thrown away” and “left to fend” for herself, according to the IG report.
The supervisor told the IG that the soldier was the only person directly removed from deployment but one witness testified that 15% of 11 ECAB soldiers who were supposed to mobilize could not deploy because of behavioral health reasons. The IG said the supervisor did not seek a medical or mental health assessment before deciding if the soldier “could handle the deployment.”
“While the [soldier] continued to recover from the assault, no documented determination, medical or otherwise, existed that stated” she was unfit to deploy, the IG said in its report.
The soldier even volunteered for a psychological evaluation after she was recommended for release and was assessed “to return to duty at this time without limitations in austere, combat, and garrison environments.”
The IG said that there were no recommendations that could “remedy” the fact that the soldier was denied deployment and recommended for release. The IG called on the Army to consider its own actions.
“The investigation will be referred to the chain of command for appropriate action,” a spokesperson for the Army told Task & Purpose.
The latest on Task & Purpose
- A Marine went on a comedy podcast. The sister of a fallen scout sniper was listening.
- After nearly 5 years, the Space Force still can’t get its own dress uniforms for most guardians
- The Navy’s 1945 cookbook teaches how to feed hundreds of sailors
- Navy SEAL astronaut doctor Jonny Kim will blast off into space next year
- An Air Force special ops squadron damaged three Ospreys in five days