Letter to John McHugh, Secretary of the Army - Minnesota National Guard's Ability to Assist Victims of Sexual Assault

Letter

Dear Secretary McHugh:

We write to express our concern with the Army's recently published directive outlining the eligibility of Army National Guard and Reserve servicemembers for Special Victims Counsel (SVC) services.

As you know, Congress established the SVC program to be a legal resource throughout the military justice process for victims of sexual assault in the military. Servicemembers can request SVC services to assist in providing legal advice and representation during the highly vulnerable period following a sexual assault. SVC lawyers receive specialty training in order to serve as a valuable resource for assistance and encourage victims to come forward. The Minnesota National Guard has taken proactive steps to ensure access to SVC services by assigning a Minnesota attorney and judge advocate to serve as the state's full-time SVC.

The Army recently published new directive (AR 2014-09) expanding some SVC services to members of the National Guard in Title 32 state duty status by Army-trained SVC Judge Advocates. We are concerned the Army policy does not extend services to members of the National Guard who are not on a duty status, but are victims of military-on-military sexual assault outside of their drill weekend or military duty. The Army policy does not recognize that the effects of military sexual assault are experienced by both the servicemember and the unit regardless of whether the assault occurs on or off duty.

We respectfully request the following information:

1. Is the Army providing SVC services to members of the National Guard and Reserve who are the victim of sexual assault by another servicemember when not on military orders (non-drill weekend / non- annual training event / not on state active duty, etc.)?

2. Did the Army intentionally exclude National Guard and Reserve servicemembers who were sexually assaulted while not in a military status from receiving SVC services when finalizing AR 2014-09? If so, why?

3. During update of the SVC program guidance, did the Army consult National Guard and Reserve stakeholders on the need to extend SVC services to reserve members assaulted by another reserve member while neither are on military orders?

4. What is the Army's rationale for not providing SVC services for a member of the National Guard or Reserve when the sexual assault was both (a) military-on-military sexual assault; and (b) the assault has a nexus to the victim's military service?

5. Has the Army examined the SVC programs of other service components that extend services to victims of sexual assault in the military who are assaulted while not on military orders with plans to incorporate these best practices into Army policies?

As members of the Minnesota Congressional delegation, and strong supporters of the Minnesota National Guard, we are focused on ensuring the military has the tools to prevent sexual assault and assist survivors. Our Minnesota servicemembers should not be impeded from seeking critical services in the aftermath of a sexual assault. The Army must provide clear guidance and direction in order for the National Guard to effectively provide these services authorized by Congress.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.