Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Area
Browse By Session Type
Search Tips
ASC Home
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Historically, decisions to prosecute, defer, or dismiss cases alleging military sexual assault (MSA) following preliminary Article 32 hearings were made by military commanders (under their role as the Convening Authority) which has been established by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Prior research in this area (Westcott & Dodge, 2024) has indicated that while these hearing outcomes are influenced by extralegal characteristics of the offender, in addition to cultural differences of the Convening Authorities themselves, namely connection to the branch of service. This research study utilizes data from the Department of Defense’s annual reports on sexual assault in the military from fiscal years 2016-2018 (n = 4,531) to assess correlations between branches of service and specific Article 32 case recommendations. The results of these analyses have indicated idiosyncratic patterns of non-judicial consequences across branches of service, despite operation under the same guidance of the UCMJ, which is supposed to be uniform across all military branches. Policy implications will also be discussed.