The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

In the war against sexual assault, the Army keeps shooting itself in the foot

The Army has been embarrassed by the actions of several soldiers assigned to key roles in its campaign against sexual misconduct. From left, Lt. Col. Michael D. Kepner II, a former deputy brigade commander at Fort Stewart, Ga.; Maj. Gen. William H. Gerety, former head of the 80th Training Command; and Col. Morris “Reese” Turner, former commandant of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute.

FORT STEWART, Ga. — To mark the end of Sexual Assault Awareness Month in April, the 188th Infantry Brigade held a potluck luncheon here at the largest Army installation east of the Mississippi River. The deputy commander reminded his soldiers they were all “responsible for bringing an end to sexual assault and harassment,” according to the brigade’s Facebook account.

What most of the soldiers didn’t know was that the deputy commander, Lt. Col. Michael D. Kepner II, was himself facing court-martial on charges that he had sexually harassed and assaulted a female lieutenant on his staff.

Despite repeated complaints from the victim and other officers, Kepner’s chain of command violated Army rules and allowed him to stay in a leadership post for at least eight months while he was under criminal investigation, internal Army emails and memos show. He later pleaded guilty to some of the charges and is serving time in a military prison.

For the past two years, the Pentagon has acknowledged having a severe problem with sexual assault in the ranks. Military leaders have promised Congress, the White House and their own troops that they are redoubling efforts to protect victims and punish offenders.

But those pledges­ have been undermined by a string of previously undisclosed cases­ in which soldiers entrusted with key roles in the campaign against sexual assault and harassment have, in turn, been accused of committing those very ­­offenses, according to a Washington Post investigation.

The Army Reserve’s 80th Training Command summoned about 350 personnel to an Orlando hotel in 2013 for a four-day conference on sexual-assault prevention. One session highlighted how excessive drinking is often at the root of sex crimes committed by those in uniform.

Soon after the conference began, sheriff’s deputies were called to the hotel to investigate a report that a female guest had been raped by one of the participants — an inebriated soldier she had met at the hotel pool.

The two-star general in charge couldn’t believe it when aides told him what had happened. Maj. Gen. William H. Gerety “turned beet red and said, you are f—king shitting me,” according to an Army inspector general’s report obtained by The Post under the Freedom of Information Act.

In a separate case in Florida, the Pentagon in October removed the leader of a military training institute dedicated to the prevention of discrimination and sexual misconduct.

Seven female employees told investigators that the commandant, Army Col. Morris “Reese” Turner, had inappropriately hugged them, rubbed their shoulders or touched them without consent, documents show. Turner acknowledged to investigators that he was a “touchy-feely” person but denied wrongdoing.

The Army concluded that he had committed assault when he touched two of the seven women, and it reprimanded him for creating “a hostile and ineffective work environment,” records show.

Overall, the Defense Department received 6,131 reports of sexual assault last year, a figure that has more than doubled since 2007.

According to Pentagon officials, the increase is actually a sign of progress. They say troops are more likely to report assaults than in the past because they have more faith in the military to properly investigate such crimes.

That assertion, however, has been undercut by a rash of scandals.

In March, a sexual-assault-prevention officer for an Army battalion at Fort Hood, Tex., pleaded guilty to acting as a pimp by luring cash-strapped young female soldiers into a prostitution ring.

Last year, the Army disciplined its former top sex-crimes prosecutor after receiving a complaint that he had kissed and groped a female officer — while attending a conference on sexual assault.

Other branches of the armed forces haven’t been immune.

Members of Congress publicly excoriated the Air Force two years ago after the officer in charge of its sexual-assault-prevention programs was arrested outside a bar for allegedly grabbing a woman’s buttocks. The officer was acquitted in civilian court, but he received a reprimand from the Air Force and was removed from his job.

Still, the Army has a particularly spotty record on putting the right people in such sensitive roles. Last year, the service fired or reassigned 588 people from their jobs as victim counselors, military recruiters and “positions of trust” after background checks revealed a history of sex crimes, child abuse, drunken driving and other offenses.

Army leaders declined interview requests for this article.

In a statement, Lt. Col. Ben Garrett, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said the service “has refined and enhanced its screening and selection processes to ensure that only the most qualified people are assigned to provide support and assistance to the victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment.”

“When these individuals engage in misconduct or fail to meet the Army’s exacting standards for these critical positions,” he added, “the Army takes appropriate action to hold them accountable.”

Don Christensen, president of Protect our Defenders, a victim-advocacy group, said the armed forces have hamstrung themselves by filling sexual-assault-prevention jobs with poorly trained personnel. Just as people start to gain experience, they typically rotate to new assignments within a year or two as part of the military’s “revolving-door mentality,” he said.

The system shows that the military “doesn’t really take sexual assault seriously and just plugs somebody in without vetting them,” said Christensen, a retired colonel who served as the Air Force’s chief prosecutor. “You keep churning people through the program and eventually you’re going to end up with people who are bad.”

‘Sir, no!’

Commanders at Fort Stewart — home to the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division — received a series of blunt warnings that they were mishandling the case of Kepner, the lieutenant colonel accused of sexual assault.

Kepner was placed under criminal investigation in September 2014 after a lieutenant under his command reported that he had sexually harassed her over several months and repeatedly pressured her to have sex.

The harassment turned physical, culminating in two back-to-back incidents in which he grabbed her by the neck and pushed her against a wall, according to charging documents.

Agents from the Army Criminal Investigation Command confronted Kepner. He acknowledged that he had put his hands on the female officer’s shoulders, pressed her against the wall and said, “This is what all those horny lieutenants want to do to you” and “Let’s do it on this desk,” according to the agents’ investigative reports.

Kepner played down his remarks as “playful banter.” He told agents that he stopped after the female officer said, “Sir, no!”

Kepner and his military attorney declined to comment for this article.

Under Army policy, criminal suspects must be removed from leadership positions and lose their security clearances until their cases are resolved. A few days after Kepner was placed under investigation, he was relieved as commander of the 83rd Chemical Battalion.

But instead of sidelining him, Kepner’s superiors placed him in a more important post. He became deputy commander of a larger unit: the 188th Infantry Brigade. He also kept his security clearance.

Records show that Army brass assured Kepner’s victim that he would be restricted to “making coffee and paper airplanes” in his new role as the deputy brigade commander. In fact, he frequently served as the brigade’s acting commander and led the unit in training exercises, according to the documents.

After a five-month investigation, Kepner was formally charged with sexual assault, violating a protective order and other crimes.

A separate disciplinary investigation concluded that Kepner had sexually harassed the lieutenant “on an almost daily basis.” That investigation found he had also harassed a second female lieutenant in the same unit.

“It was rare to have a conversation without him turning it sexual,” the second lieutenant told investigators in a statement. “His comments were so frequent, it was almost predictable.”

Other evidence surfaced. A major told investigators that Kepner had once undermined a sexual-assault-prevention class at Fort Stewart.

After instructors presented a case study about a sergeant who sexually assaulted a drunk female soldier, Kepner took his battalion aside to offer a different view, according to the major’s statement.

Kepner told his soldiers that there was “another side” to the story: The married sergeant had actually been trying to protect the drunk soldier by giving her a ride home.

In Kepner’s retelling, the sergeant “gave in to temptation” after the woman subjected him to sexual advances. Kepner asserted that the sergeant’s actions were understandable because he was just a “man being a man,” the documents show.

Despite the sexual-harassment findings and the criminal charges­ against Kepner, the Army allowed him to continue as deputy brigade commander — alarming some Fort Stewart officials.

“I am concerned about the message it sends to the victim and Soldiers in the unit that he is still in a leadership position, not to mention the impact if the media caught wind,” Lt. Col. William J. Anderson, the officer in charge of Fort Stewart’s sexual-assault-prevention programs, wrote in a Feb. 18 email to Col. Vernon Miranda, the 3rd Infantry Division’s chief of staff. Miranda did not respond to requests for comment.

The warning went unheeded. Two months later, Kepner spoke at the luncheon to commemorate Sexual Assault Awareness Month, according to the brigade’s Facebook account. (The Army recently deleted the Facebook postings after The Post inquired about them.)

Meanwhile, Kepner’s primary victim and her advocates were growing even more exasperated.

On May 27, the victim filed a congressional complaint with Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), a member of the Armed Services Committee.

“This is fundamentally wrong,” the victim wrote. “I’ve been patient and have tried to trust the system, but my patience has run out.”

She accused senior Army officials of “protecting” Kepner and added: “This is why women in the military do not report sexual assault.”

Kepner was finally removed as deputy brigade commander after the congressional complaint.

During his court-martial in September, he pleaded guilty to assaulting the lieutenant — albeit not sexually — as part of a deal with prosecutors. He was sentenced to four months in prison.

He has not been discharged from the Army but probably will be forced to retire after 22 years of service, including four deployments to Iraq.

“I made a mistake. I screwed up,” he testified at trial. “I apologize for what I thought was a consensual relationship. I didn’t mean to terrorize anyone.”

Capt. Christopher Cusmano, an Army lawyer who served as a legal advocate for the victim, said he still cannot understand why the Army allowed Kepner to stay in a leadership post for so long. He said it was appalling that Kepner gave public remarks to promote Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

“What’s happened in this case has just blown me away left and right,” he said.

Senior officers at Fort Stewart declined interview requests.

In a statement, Lt. Col. Amanda Azubuike, a spokeswoman for the 3rd Infantry Division, said Fort Stewart leaders “take incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault very seriously and are deeply concerned and disturbed by what the victim had to go through.”

In an interview, the victim said she was pleased with Kepner’s conviction but unhappy that he wasn’t automatically kicked out of the Army. The Post generally does not identify victims of alleged sex crimes.

The lieutenant said she put up with the harassment for months to protect her career. Even after she was assaulted, she said, she hesitated to file a complaint because she didn’t think anyone would take her seriously. She said senior brass treated her like “a whiny” junior officer.

“My goal from the beginning was just to get him away from soldiers and out of a position of command authority,” she said. “There’s no system for senior officers to get investigated. It’s all senior officers trying to protect themselves.”

From bad to worse

Maj. Gen. William Gerety was trying to do the right thing. Concerned with perceptions that the military was struggling to cope with sexual-assault ­cases, the head of the Army Reserve’s 80th Training Command organized a four-day symposium on the topic for hundreds of soldiers in September 2013.

The conference was held at the Rosen Centre Hotel in Orlando. On the first full day, Gerety’s staff informed him that one of his enlisted soldiers had been accused of raping a civilian woman the night before.

Gerety was furious. But instead of properly demonstrating how to handle such a case, the commander bungled the investigation, according to a report by the Army’s inspector general.

Under Army regulations, sex-crime reports must be immediately referred as a law-enforcement matter to the Army Criminal Investigation Command. Nevertheless, several of Gerety’s staffers testified to the inspector general that there was confusion over how to proceed.

The alleged victim had already told deputies from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department that she did not want to press charges. She said she had been sexually battered as a teen and “nothing was done about it,” according to the deputies’ report.

Meanwhile, the accused soldier told deputies that the encounter was consensual. There were no witnesses and no physical evidence; the soldier and the alleged victim both said he was too drunk to ejaculate.

Although there wasn’t much to go on, Gerety and his staff were obligated to report the case immediately to Army criminal investigators.

One of Gerety’s aides testified that they failed to do so because the general told them there was no need. Because the alleged victim did not want to press charges, according to the aide, Gerety told his staff that “technically, no crime has been committed” — an incorrect assumption under the law.

Another staff member came to the opposite conclusion. He told the inspector general that, under the Defense Department’s definition of sexual assault, if someone is intoxicated and cannot give consent, then it is automatically a crime to have sex with that person. But that wasn’t right either.

Yet another aide told the inspector general — also incorrectly — that the victim had “recanted” her story and, therefore, there was no sexual assault.

Others said they urged Gerety to refer the case to the Army’s criminal investigators in accordance with regulations. Instead, he appointed a military nurse to conduct a commander’s inquiry — a less serious step.

Five days later, a junior officer contacted Army investigators anyway, and they took over. After six months, agents concluded that there was “insufficient evidence” to press charges, primarily because the alleged victim did not want to cooperate.

After a separate inquiry, the Army inspector general determined that Gerety had mishandled the case and that his version of events — his attorney said the general had ordered his staff to notify criminal investigators immediately — was “not supported by the facts.”

Gerety, who has since retired from the Army, did not respond to requests for comment.

The inspector general also gave a heavy dose of blame to managers of the 80th Training Command’s sexual-assault-prevention program.

The managers, whose names were redacted from the inspector general’s report, “did not fully understand what constituted a sexual assault” and “made incorrect conclusions that a sexual assault did not occur.”

In an interview, the accused soldier said he was innocent of rape. He said he has since received a formal reprimand from the Army for adultery; although he is single, the alleged victim was married.

Asked what he was thinking to get drunk and have sex with a stranger at a sexual-assault-prevention conference, the soldier replied, “That’s a fair question.”

“It was a stupid situation to put myself in,” he said. “I don’t have a statement or answer for any of that.”

The Post is not naming the soldier because he was not charged with a crime.

He remains in the Army Reserve.

‘The do’s and don’ts’

Army Col. Morris Turner had just finished a tour of duty in Baghdad last year when he learned that his new assignment would be at a military base on the Florida coast.

“I knew nothing about this job,” Turner told the Florida Today newspaper. “I said, ‘Where is this?’ And I Googled and saw this little island. I said, ‘Good location.’ ”

A field artillery officer, Turner had been selected to lead the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute at Patrick Air Force Base, near Cocoa Beach.

The institute has a staff of about 140 people who specialize in human relations. They train other Defense Department personnel on ways to prevent discrimination, sexual harassment and similar problems.

Among other things, the institute produces training videos on how to cope with “realistic workplace scenarios.” One video depicts a fictional boss named Miguel who can’t keep his hands to himself. Subordinates wince as he squeezes their shoulders, pinches their cheeks and caresses their hair.

When Turner took command of the institute, some female employees came to fear that their new boss had a similar habit. After a few months, the women confided in one another that Turner had rubbed their shoulders or touched them in ways that made them physically uncomfortable, according to interviews with three staff members and records compiled by Army investigators.

At the urging of her colleagues, a non­commissioned officer who worked closely with Turner filed a complaint against him with the sexual assault response coordinator’s office at Patrick Air Force Base on Dec. 10, 2014.

She accused Turner of giving her unwanted shoulder massages, touching her buttocks and making sexist remarks. In a handwritten statement given to investigators, she said she was worried that Turner would retaliate against her for reporting his behavior.

In an interview with The Post, the non­commissioned officer said the unwanted touching was a constant source of mental strain. “I don’t know how else to describe it, other than I felt like I had to hold my breath the entire time I was around him,” she said.

Turner, she asserted, clearly knew that the shoulder rubs were making her uncomfortable. “He’d say, ‘Does it bother you?’ I’d say, ‘Just stop.’ And at that point, he’d just dig his thumbs in all that much harder.”

The allegations triggered a rapid and intensive response by Army and Air Force criminal investigators. Over the next few weeks, they interviewed dozens of employees.

Seven women told investigators that Turner had hugged or touched them without their consent, documents show. Some said they viewed the contact as harmless, although perhaps not a smart thing for a commander to do, especially at an institute focused on stopping sexual harassment.

Others described the touching as clearly inappropriate, prompting investigators to label the incidents as suspected “abusive sexual contact,” according to the documents.

Turner told investigators that he recalled hugging or touching three of the seven women but said the contact was entirely benign. He said it was “in his ‘nature’ to communicate using his hands and touching the person he is talking to,” according to the investigators’ report.

In an interview with The Post, Turner described himself as an exuberant person and characterized his leadership style as that of a coach — a backslapper trying to make a tangible personal connection.

“I was in shock, complete shock, that anyone would perceive my genuine caring style as inappropriate,” he said.

“I know the do’s and don’ts,” he added. “None of the touching I ever did in my entire career has gone past that threshold.”

Turner questioned the motives of the women who told investigators that he had touched them. He said the institute was a dysfunctional workplace filled with malcontents who resented his efforts to turn things around.

His defense attorney, Gary Myers, accused the Army of grossly over­reacting to spurious ­charges because the service was afraid of being perceived as soft on sexual misconduct.

“This whole thing is garbage,” Myers said. Army criminal investigators, he added, “would find that the pope engaged in sexual harassment by touching people.”

In the end, Army lawyers in Washington concluded that Turner had committed assault by placing his hands on two non­commissioned officers without their consent but that there was no basis to charge him with abusive sexual contact.

In June, he received a written reprimand from the Army for creating a “hostile” workplace culture and fostering an “environment of intimidation and reprisal.”

The Army, however, agreed not to include the reprimand in Turner’s official personnel file, which effectively frees him to resume his military career.

He was removed as commander of the institute in October and is awaiting a new assignment with the Army.

Related stories:

Fresh reports of sexual misconduct undercut Pentagon’s argument for internal fix

Air Force captain dissents from military sex assault policy, and commanders take notice