{"id":39618,"date":"2021-04-05T18:43:27","date_gmt":"2021-04-05T18:43:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/armytimes\/uncategorized\/2021\/04\/05\/18-army-instructors-charged-with-sexual-abuse-since-2019-data-shows\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T07:38:05","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T07:38:05","slug":"18-army-instructors-charged-with-sexual-abuse-since-2019-data-shows","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/armytimes\/news\/2021\/04\/05\/18-army-instructors-charged-with-sexual-abuse-since-2019-data-shows\/","title":{"rendered":"18 Army instructors charged with sexual abuse since 2019, data shows"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Between January 2019 and January 2021, the Army charged 18 soldiers under a new law designed to protect trainees, cadets and applicants from sexual abuse, according to data the Army provided to Military Times.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 93a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes prohibited sexual relationships between recruiters or training instructors (such as drill sergeants) and \u201cspecially protected junior member[s] of the armed forces\u201d such as applicants, delayed entry program members, or servicemembers still undergoing initial training.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Article 93a data, first obtained by Military Times, offers an unprecedented snapshot of the prevalence of sexual misconduct involving trainees, cadets, recruits and their instructors. An Army spokesperson explained that the service had no good way of tracking such misconduct \u2014 when it rises to the level of criminal charges \u2014 before 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSexual misconduct by Soldiers in a special position of trust (training, drill sergeants, recruiters) before Jan. 1, 2019, was most often charged as a violation of Service or local regulations under Article 92, UCMJ or as maltreatment under Article 93,\u201d said Matthew Leonard, an Army spokesperson. \u201cWe are not able to distinguish between these violations of Article 92 and 93 [before 2019] with others.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to making such misconduct easier to track, the law has added teeth to longstanding policies prohibiting sexual contact between vulnerable early career troops and their instructors or recruiters \u2014 regardless of whether the protected junior service member has consented. A defense official told Task & Purpose<\/a> last week that the Army views trainees as \u201cincapable of consent\u201d to their instructors due to an imbalance of power. The Defense Department requires<\/a> recruiters to avoid \u201cpersonal, intimate or sexual relationship[s] with a recruit or trainee,\u201d to include even \u201cdating, handholding \u2026 [and] social networking.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of the eighteen charges, only seven of the accused soldiers have actually been convicted of the new UCMJ provision. Five cases were still pending as of January.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Army data, as of January 2021, four Fort Sill<\/a> soldiers had been charged under Article 93a, but none had been convicted. One accused soldier pled guilty to a lesser charge under Article 92 (disobeying a direct order) for violating regulations with the same trainee, said Leonard, the Army spokesperson. Three cases there were pending as of January.<\/p>\n\n\n\t