A brigadier general in the West Virginia Army National Guard retaliated against a high-ranking female officer after she reported that she had been sexually assaulted by another officer, according to a report from the Department of Defense's inspector general.
Brig. Gen. Charles Veit gave Lt. Col. Teresa James an unfavorable Officer Evaluation Report "in reprisal for" reporting the sexual assault, the report concluded.
The report has not been officially released, but the IG's office announced its findings (without naming Veit) in its May newsletter and a copy of the report was obtained and published by The Army Times, an independent news organization.
This is the first time the IG has substantiated a reprisal for reporting sexual assault, said John Hoellwarth, a spokesman for the IG's office.
While this is the first substantiation of retaliation, the problem of retaliation is broadly acknowledged to be widespread.
A 2014 DOD-commissioned study found that 62 percent of women who reported a sexual assault to a military authority were retaliated against in some way. Another 2014 DOD report found that 59 percent of those reporting assaults received some form of social retaliation and 40 percent received some form of professional retaliation.
James, a St. Albans native, was medically discharged last year after a 35-year career in the National Guard.
"I do consider it a small victory for any survivor of sexual assault," she told the Gazette-Mail. "I think it gives some hope that perhaps their claims will be taken more seriously in the future."
The IG report investigated but did not find evidence to support charges that Maj. Gen. James Hoyer, the adjutant general of the West Virginia National Guard, retaliated against James for reporting the sexual assault.
Hoyer was emphatic last year that the National Guard did not retaliate against James.
"We have not retaliated against individuals, and all the cases that have come forward to us related to sexual assault, sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct, we have a record of dealing with perpetrators," Hoyer told a Washington NBC affiliate last year, in regard to James and another victim of assault. "And I think you'll see we don't have a record of reprisals."
James was sexually assaulted by a male officer in 2006 at a training facility in Little Rock, Arkansas, a previous DOD report found.
She did not initially report the assault.
"The reason why I didn't is exactly what ended up happening to me. At the time, my perpetrator, he was on the fast track," she said. "I had made a career out of the National Guard, and I wasn't ready for . . . , I didn't want my career to end."
She decided to report what had happened in 2010, after returning from a tour in Iraq. She said other female soldiers had come to her with complaints about the same male officer, alleging sexual harassment and gender bias.
James reported those allegations to Maj. Gen. Allen Tackett, then-leader of the state National Guard, in 2010. She subsequently told Hoyer, in 2012, that the officer had sexually assaulted her.
Two DOD investigations substantiated the sexual assault charge and charges that the male officer "berated, belittled, and engaged in acts of hostility against soldiers; used gender epithets; engaged in physical assault on three other Service members; and may have treated female soldiers disparately."
The male officer, whose name is blacked out throughout the IG report, resigned from the National Guard in 2013.
Local prosecutors in Arkansas did not investigate the sexual assault charge because the statute of limitations had run out and Army investigators declined to investigate, the IG report states.
Lt. Col. Todd Harrell, a spokesman for the West Virginia National Guard, said that after criminal avenues were exhausted, the National Guard "vigorously pursued administrative remedies to deadlock the [male officer's] career, causing the perpetrator to effectively separate from the military without having completing his 20 years of active-duty service, thereby forfeiting a significant portion of retirement."
Veit had read the investigation about the male officer's misconduct, the IG report found, but nonetheless gave him a positive Officer Evaluation Report, including a characterization of "Outstanding Performance-Must Promote."
Two months after James reported the sexual assault, Veit gave her an unfavorable OER.
Veit told the IG that the unfavorable report was over concerns with James' handling of two disciplinary actions with soldiers under her command.
However, the IG report states that one of those actions took place outside the time frame for which James was being reviewed and that Veit did not document his concerns at the time, in violation of standard practice.
Veit retaliated against James, the IG report found, because her allegation of sexual assault by the male officer brought to light the favoritism that Veit had shown the male officer.
"Comparing the Officer Evaluation Reports Brig. Gen Veit gave [James] and [the male officer] reflects his disparate treatment of her," the report states. "Brig. Gen. Veit had motive to reprise against [James] because her sexual assault allegation implicated [the male officer]."
Veit remains with the West Virginia Army National Guard, where he is the assistant adjutant general for homeland defense and installations, Harrell said.
The IG report recommends that the secretary of the Army "take appropriate action" against Veit.
Harrell said the West Virginia Guard had not yet received a copy of the report and is awaiting guidance from the secretary of the Army.
"The report that you're referencing has not come down to us through official channels, that I'm aware of, but we have seen the report that you're referring to because it was released in the media," he said. "I can't speculate on what may or may not happen prior to any recommendations coming down from above."
Wayne Hall, a U.S. Army spokesman, said the report had been passed from the DOD's inspector general to the Army's inspector general and is being reviewed.
"We, I think, are too early in the process to really even address what the Army will do; it goes through a review process," Hall said. "It's an administrative process and there's no time frame for administrative processes."
James was not alone in her reluctance to report the sexual assault.
There were more than 6,000 sexual assaults reported involving a service member in fiscal year 2015 (which ended on Sept. 30, 2015), according to an annual DOD report released last month.
"Only a small fraction of victims report sexual assault to DOD authorities," the report reads, going on to say that that small fraction is growing.
Before 2014, less than 15 percent of service member sexual assaults were reported, the report estimates. In 2014, that number grew to slightly under 25 percent, the report states.
In 2013, Congress passed an overhaul of how the military must deal with sexual assault cases, that, among other things, makes it a crime to retaliate against people who report sexual assault, gives civilian officials more control over prosecutions and mandates dismissal for anyone convicted of sexual assault.
Not all of those changes apply to state National Guard units, which often are bound by state laws, James said.
"A lot of those congressional mandates, at that level, do not apply at the state level," she said.
Harrell said, "The Guard is bound, on its effective date, by all new federal policies or regulations which specifically indicate they are applicable to the National Guard."
James, meanwhile, is on a temporary disability retirement list, because of post-traumatic stress disorder associated with the assault, she said. She will be up for evaluation soon, but does not plan to return to active duty, even if she is deemed fit to serve, a not-uncommon occurrence for those who report sexual assault.
"Military personnel who report a sexual assault frequently find that their military career is the biggest casualty," a recent Human Rights Watch report on military sexual assault concluded.
The IG report recommended that James be given an appropriate military service award, that her unfavorable evaluation report be removed and that she be considered for a promotion to full colonel.
"It was three very long, grueling years and a very emotional time to have to provide the volumes of testimony and evidence to substantiate my claim," James said this week. "At this point, I don't even know what is next, you know. Will the person, General Veit, who reprised against me, be punished for his actions? That remains to be seen at this point. I don't know. I believe that he should be."
She added that she is very proud of her service and the soldiers with whom she served alongside.
"My whole reason for speaking out is to educate other survivors," she said, " 'That you are not alone. There are people out there that will help you, and that the best thing to do if you are assaulted is report it.' "
Reach David Gutman at david.gutman@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-5119 or follow @davidlgutman on Twitter.