Sexual assault in the US Armed Forces is a very real and prescient issue for all service members. In April 2023, the US Department of Defense (DoD) reported that in 2022 there had been “a roughly 1% increase in overall reports of sexual assaults” with all the service branches having seen an increase in reported instances of sexual violence compared to the previous year.
Since the death of Vanessa Guillen, the DoD as a whole has made a strong push to combat sexual assault within their armed forces, leading to numerous public revelations, from massively unreported instances of men sexually assaulting men to sexual violence against LGBTQ+ troops.
Credit should certainly be given to those military, elected and appointed officials who have spearheaded efforts to shed light on this pervasive threat. But the actions of certain individuals deserve nothing short of condemnation. Case in point: a report published earlier this month by CNN found that the former Commandant of the US Coast Guard (USCG) Karl L. Schultz “covered up an … investigation into rapes and sexual assaults four years ago at the agency’s academy.”
‘Operation Fouled Anchor’ and the Origin of a Cover Up
While sexual assault occurs substantially through the service branches, its impact cannot be understated across the multiple service academies of the United States Armed Forces (US Military Academy at West Point, US Naval Academy, US Coast Guard Academy, US Air Force Academy, US Merchant Marine Academy). The service academies in 2022 reported the highest number of reported sexual assaults since the DoD began “tracking the problem in 2006” while, in 2023, the number of reported sexual assaults increased with “one in five female students … [having] experienced unwanted sexual contact.” Given the historical issue of sexual assault at service academies, many branches have attempted to explore the issue in an effort to eradicate it.
In partial response to various problems at the US Coast Guard Academy and the US Merchant Marine Academy, the US Coast Guard commissioned a study to explore the issue, codenaming it “Operation Fouled Anchor.” The final report was released in 2019, yet only reached the public’s attention in June of 2023 following a CNN investigation into the matter, at which point Coast Guard leadership finally briefed Congressional leaders. CNN reportsed:
“[investigators] unearthed more than 90 potential assaults from the late 1980s to 2006 … ultimately [identifying] more than 60 substantiated incidents of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment committed by academy cadets or otherwise that occurred at the academy … the incidents were handled as administrative violations, and punishments, if they happened at all, were as minor as extra homework or lowered class standings. Sometimes, even those pushed out of the academy were still able to serve in the US military. As a result, some of the accused ascended to top roles at the Coast Guard and other military agencies.”
The Coast Guard concluded in its own report, as quoted by CNN;
“[academy leadership] did not adequately investigate allegations as serious criminal matters and hold perpetrators appropriately accountable … [leadership] failed to take sufficient action to ensure a safe environment – particularly for female cadets – and failed to instill a culture intolerant of sexual misconduct.”
In spite of these findings, the report recommended no charges, given the statute of limitations on the crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and limitations of evidence, leaving many victims interviewed feeling re-victimized and without a sense of justice.
This report, which was launched in 2014, and a final draft of which was produced in 2019 before being issued in January 2020, was so serious that the then-Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Paul F. Zukunft “planned to issue a public apology to the victims the investigation identified,” reasoning “that bad news, like dead fish, don’t get better with time.” Zukunft briefed his successor, Admiral Karl L. Schultz on the matter, prior to his retirement in 2018.
However, Admiral Schultz and his deputy, Admiral Charles W. Ray, evidently concealed the report and did not disclose the information to either Congress or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which governs the Coast Guard and Merchant Marine in times when the nation is not at war. According to internal documents obtained by CNN, Schultz and Ray instituted policies intended to keep the report secret, including “[having] officials with access to case materials … [signing] non-disclosure agreements.” There is also no evidence that either Schultz or Ray briefed the DHS on the report’s contents and one congressional aide with knowledge of the report and total probe stated “[Schultz and Ray] knew. They read it. They signed off on it. It seems like the most logical reason is that they didn’t want to have controversy under their leadership.”
When Schultz testified before the House Homeland Security Committee, he did not bring this report up to the Committee and dodged quite a few questions on the matter in total while stating: “I think we have created a more open environment to report … we are working hard to eradicate sexual assaults, sexual harassment from our ranks.” Commandant Schultz retired in June of 2022 to much fanfare and praise while Vice Commandant Ray retired in June 2021, leaving Admiral Linda Fagan, the current and first female Commandant to lead the US Coast Guard, to deal with the emerging scandal and apologize for the Coast Guard’s actions.
Following CNN’s reporting on the probe in June 2023, multiple Senators demanded that the USCG Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigate the cover up and that the Coast Guard answer for the amount of time it took for the information to come to light.
The Call for Charging Commandant Karl Schultz and Vice Commandant Charles Ray
This news has shaken the Coast Guard to its core. Already, we have seen opinion pieces from retired Coast Guard officers on the scandal in addition to many taking to social media and venting their frustration.
This frustration is highly understandable. However, if justice is truly desired, the Department of Defense (DoD) should recall both Admirals Schultz and Ray to active service and court martial them. The best charges to gain such a conviction would be either Article 133 or Article 134 “General Article” of the UCMJ.
Under Article 133, the charge holds that “Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer [and a gentleman] shall be punished as a court-martial may direct” the charge being rather deliberately vague in order to ensure that all officers act and conduct themselves in an honorable way. In certain contexts, this charge is used against officers who have used racial slurs against another, have been drunk and disorderly, or lied to a superior officer. However, the main elements of such a charge rest upon the basis that “the accused did or omitted to do a certain act” and that these actions did constitute “conduct unbecoming an officer.”
In this sense, it would need to be shown that Schultz and Ray did or omitted to do a certain act which would be anathema to “the ideal officer and perfect gentleman” this being characterized “by acts of dishonesty ….” Clearly, Schultz did not divulge certain information before Congress, which is unquestionably dishonest; showing in a court of law that Schultz did so for political purposes and to avoid a controversy which would reflect poorly upon the US Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Academy could surely be classified as dishonest. For Schultz at least, it appears that charging him under Article 133 would be rather easy to do given the amount of public statements he has made on the topic of sexual assault before an official hearing while in an official capacity.
Article 134 is a much simpler, straightforward charge, often being used in the event the main or primary charge is unable to be sustained or appears to be weaker. This article covers “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces [and] all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces,” effectively working to punish acts or offenses “not specifically covered in any other article of the UCMJ.” Under this Article, there are three clauses which determine the specific offense:
Clause I offenses “involve disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces”
Clause II offenses “involve conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces”
Clause III offenses “involve noncapital crimes or offense which violate federal civilian law”
For the purposes of charges being brought against Schultz and Ray, clause II would be most applicable given their actions. Under clause II, it makes “punishable conduct which has a tendency to bring the service into disrepute or tends to lower it in public esteem.” Schultz and Ray have both engaged in behavior which was mean to conceal official information from the public and from elected officials who had a purview in this matter. The political and public fallout from the revelation that the US Coast Guard leadership effectively sat on this information (when investigators and prior leadership intended to make this report public), did not brief their civilian superiors, and even took efforts to prevent those involved from divulging this information on their own certainly has decreased the view that many had of the US Coast Guard and of the entire DoD. This entire scandal and cover up of information has lowered the opinion of the US Coast Guard in the minds of many Americans.
Concurrently, it is also possible that Schultz violated Section 1001 of Title 18 of the US Code which holds to “prohibit deceptive practices aimed at frustrating or impeding the legitimate functions of government departments or agencies” this being violated by “[falsifying, concealing, or covering up] by an trick, scheme, or device a material fact” or by making any “false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations.” It can be argued that Schultz did engage in deceptive practices (e.g., having select individuals attached to the probe sign NDAs, being noncommittal in hearings) to conceal a material fact which did impede the “operation or integrity of the government.”
Conclusion
Sexual assault is epidemic within the US Armed Forces and a very serious mobilization and strategic problem for the military as a whole. It is a national security and defense level issue given the rampant nature and lack of leadership initiative on the subject. The actions of Commandant Schultz and Vice Commandant Ray have severely damaged the pride and trust the American public has in the US Coast Guard and is another clear sign to sexual assault victims, advocates, and others that leadership of the US Armed Forces does not care about their pain and suffering, instead prioritizing the “needs of the service.”
According to the reports described above, Schultz and Ray have both acted dishonorably and engaged in conduct that, if not rising to the level of a criminal charge in civilian or military law, casts a stain upon the US Coast Guard which is a further slap in the face to victims. No matter whether their actions violate the law, their conduct here is reprehensible from a moral perspective and sullies the good work the Coast Guard has done to root out sexual harassers and abusers. This should serve as a reminder to advocates and those currently commissioned and sworn Coast Guards to continue the push for reform and exemplify the values of their service, to always be on guard and continue to fight for those who cannot.
Wisconsin Republican Representative Tom Petri said in 2005 “it isn’t the original scandal that gets people in the most trouble – it’s the attempted cover-up.” That sentiment still rings true today.
Alan Cunningham is a PhD student at the University of Birmingham’s Department of History and a sexual assault reform advocate with Combat Sexual Assault. Any views, thoughts, opinions expressed are solely those of the author and does not reflect the views, opinions, or official standpoint of any of the author’s affiliations, including educational institutions and past & present employers.
