I Am Vanessa Guillen
In the wake of Vanessa Guillen’s story unfolding, to include her murder and fear of reprisal for coming forward to report sexual harassment and sexual assault by her direct supervisor, many member’s of the United States armed forces are coming forward to sharing their stories of how the military has failed them when facing sexual based criminology. ‘I am Vanessa Guillen’ is a cry for help being echoed by thousands, the fear that many service women and men face of reprisal is legitimized through the ongoing investigation of Vanessa Guillen’s murder. As the investigation continues to unfold, the claims of sexual harassment and sexual assault her mother has announced publicly during her daughter’s search have been deemed not credible. Private First Class Guillen’s voice has been dismissed posthumously, whereas the suspect in the murder investigation, as well as, accused assailant’s voice has been provided the benefit of the doubt in his innocence for sexually driven crimes after his suicide.
The truth of the matter is that was happened to Vanessa Guillen is not new in the military’s history. The military began taking accountability of their deepening sexual assault and sexual harassment issues in 2004 with the initiation of the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO) established by the former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Since SAPRO’s initiation, Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) was restructured and integrated into SAPRO forming the Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program.
Studies showing the prevalence of sexual assault have been published by the SARPO office annually since its inception since 2004. In 2004, the first report published, there were 1,700 reported sexual assault allegations reported against service members or by service members with only 1,232 investigations completed during that calendar year. Of the 1,232 investigations, only 51 were being charged by civilian or foreign authorities and 342 were founded and the service member’s commander was provided the ability to take action on the case under their discretion. Commander’s did not recommend court martial 229 of the 342 times, allowing assailants to receive honorable discharges or continue their military service with unscathed records.
Commander’s discretion is a wide casting net for the majority of all military disciplinary pursuits. Additionally, almost every level of command provides their own experience and biases into their discretionary decisions that can influence the ending disciplinary decisions, usually in favor of the assailant: this means, that although someone can be found guilty of sexual assault, depending on who the commanding officer is of the assailant, the outcome can be vary widely, to include the commanding officer’s commanding officer, and so on up the chain of command.
Since 2004, the prevalence of sexual assault among the ranks has not diminished. Former President Barrack Obama called for an investigation into the military’s SHARP program in 2013, stating that those who commit sexual assault in the military should be “prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged”. In 2018, the number of sexual assault allegations formally reported soared to 5,805 with only 1,845 were founded and commanders were able to provide judiciary action. 5 years after former President Barrack Obama’s recommendation for court martial for all founded assailants, only 740 of the 1,845 cases were recommended for court martial . If the former commander-in-chief advocated for the harshest of commander discretion, why has his words not been reverberated by all commanders in the armed forces?
In 2012, 23% of female and 4% of male service members reported being sexually assaulted since their initial enlistment into the military. Women serving the United States military are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than are to be killed in combat. The death of Vanessa Guillen reminded everyone still serving of the ever-growing fear of this potentially occurring to them without justice being served.
Before Vanessa Guillen, there was Private First Class LaVena Johnson. LaVena’s death was classified by the Army as a suicide while she was defending our country in Iraq in 2005. When her remains were returned to her family, the gunshot wound that killed her did not match the official autopsy provided by the military based on the location and the size of the allegedly self-inflicted wound; moreover, the body was returned with a glove glued to her hand to hide burns that were not explained to her loved ones. After relentlessly requesting more information on LaVena’s death under the Freedom of Information Act, her family saw the photographs of their loved on naked, covered in bruises and bite marks, acid burns covering her genitals, and injuries to her hands that coincide with being lit on fire using flammable liquid.
Then there is Private First Class Tina Priest, Private First Class Melissa J. Hobart, and many more who died before we would ever be able to hear their stories. Voices from survivors are now, more than ever, speaking up about the injustices and ineffectiveness of the military’s SHARP program and current investigation and disciplinary process. Those voices need to be heard and broadcast across all channels in order to be the catalyst for much needed, long lasting change.