Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Congressional research reportDec 4, 2019
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Military Families and Intimate Partner
Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Kristy N. Kamarck
Specialist in Military Manpower
Alan Ott
Analyst in Defense and Intelligence Personnel Policy
Lisa N. Sacco
Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy
December 4, 2019
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R46097
SUMMARY
Military Families and Intimate Partner
Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a national public health issue. IPV is also a crime characterized
by recidivism and escalation, meaning offenders are likely to be repeat abusers, and the intensity
of the abuse or violence is likely to grow over time. Like the broader phenomenon of domestic
violence and abuse, a subset of which includes IPV, associated physical and mental trauma for
those who are victims of abuse, as well as for those minor children who witness the abuse, can
have both immediate and long-term health effects and significant costs to society. When military
servicemembers are involved as either victims or perpetrators of IPV, the consequences of IPV
can also harm unit readiness.
Congress has constitutional authority to fund, regulate, and oversee the Armed Forces, including
the military justice system. Congress has used this authority in recent years to mandate domestic
violence prevention and victim response policies, programs, and services. In addition, Congress
has acted to improve accountability measures for military perpetrators through statutory changes
to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
R46097
December 4, 2019
Kristy N. Kamarck
Specialist in Military
Manpower
-redacted-@crs.loc.gov
Alan Ott
Analyst in Defense and
Intelligence Personnel
Policy
-redacted-@crs.loc.gov
Lisa N. Sacco
Analyst in Illicit Drugs and
Crime Policy
-redacted-@crs.loc.gov
For a copy of the full report,
please call 7-.... or visit
www.crs.gov.
Within the Department of Defense (DOD), IPV may include domestic violence and domestic
abuse. Domestic violence is defined as an offense with legal consequences under the U.S. Code,
UCMJ, and State laws, while domestic abuse refers to a pattern of abusive behavior. Within DOD, the Family Advocacy
Program (FAP) is responsible for clinical assessment, supportive services, and treatment in response to domestic abuse, child
abuse, and neglect in military families. Military responses to incidents of IPV may involve military law enforcement, unit or
installation commanders, and military health personnel. In some cases, military and civilian officials may coordinate
additional responses to IPV.
In FY2018, DOD reported 16,912 incidents of spouse and intimate partner abuse (the active servicemember population totals
over 1.3 million). Roughly half (8,039) of these incident reports met the criteria for abuse under the DOD definition. Some of
these incidents have severe consequences. In FY2018, there were 15 confirmed domestic abuse fatalities involving military
personnel as perpetrators or victims; in three of the cases, the victims had reported prior incidents of abuse to FAP personnel.
Congress has taken numerous actions over the past few decades to address risk factors for IPV among the servicemember
population, to raise awareness, to protect victims, and to hold perpetrators accountable. More recently, in the 116 th Congress,
lawmakers added a punitive article to the UCMJ specifically for domestic violence offenses (prior offenses had been
prosecuted under the punitive article for assault). As Congress continues to consider policy issues related to IPV, areas for
continued oversight include community coordination in prevention and response, coverage and access to military-sponsored
victim services, the appropriateness of law enforcement response, data collection and federal reporting requirements, and
other programs that can help mitigate risk factors for IPV.
Congressional Research Service
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 2
DOD Organization and Definitions ................................................................................................. 3
Family Advocacy Program (FAP) ............................................................................................. 4
Family Advocacy and Family Assistance Funding ............................................................. 4
FAP Personnel and Accreditation........................................................................................ 5
Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 5
Incident Data and Reporting ............................................................................................................ 6
What Proportion of the Military-Connected Population is Affected? ....................................... 8
Victim Profile ...................................................................................................................... 9
Offender Profile ................................................................................................................ 10
Younger Troops are at Higher Risk of Offending and Being Victimized .......................... 11
How does IPV in the Military Compare to the Civilian Population? ...................................... 12
Prevention...................................................................................................................................... 13
Entry Screening ....................................................................................................................... 14
Education, Training, and Awareness ....................................................................................... 15
Military and Family Life Counseling ...................................................................................... 15
Interventions .................................................................................................................................. 16
Clinical Interventions .............................................................................................................. 16
Military Protective Orders....................................................................................................... 17
Expedited Transfer and Administrative Reassignments .......................................................... 18
Victim Support and Services ......................................................................................................... 18
Confidentiality: Restricted and Unrestricted Reporting .......................................................... 19
Victim Advocacy Services ...................................................................................................... 20
Special Victims’ Counsel/Victims’ Legal Counsel .................................................................. 20
Transitional Compensation...................................................................................................... 20
Forfeiture and/or Coordination of Benefits ....................................................................... 21
Access to Retired Pay and Benefits......................................................................................... 22
Emergency Housing and Accommodations ............................................................................ 22
Relocation Benefits ................................................................................................................. 22
Federal Crime Victims Fund ................................................................................................... 23
Military Law Enforcement Response ............................................................................................ 24
DODIG Review of Law Enforcement Actions ....................................................................... 26
Crime Reporting to National Databases .................................................................................. 27
Military Justice System ................................................................................................................. 29
Commander’s Authority .......................................................................................................... 30
Court-Martial........................................................................................................................... 30
Domestic Violence Punitive Article ........................................................................................ 31
Sentencing ............................................................................................................................... 31
Military Rules of Evidence ..................................................................................................... 32
Victim Advocate—Victim Privilege ................................................................................. 32
Remote Live Testimony of a Child ................................................................................... 32
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 33
Community Coordination........................................................................................................ 33
Congressional Research Service
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Coverage and Access to Victim Services ................................................................................ 34
Law Enforcement Response .................................................................................................... 34
Data Reporting ........................................................................................................................ 35
Mitigating Risk Factors ........................................................................................................... 35
Figures
Figure 1. DOD Spouse and Intimate Partner Abuse Incidents, FY2009-FY2018 ........................... 9
Figure 2. Active Duty Spouse Abuse Offenders by Pay Grade, FY2018 ...................................... 12
Tables
Table 1. DOD’s Family Assistance Funding, FY2015–FY2020 ..................................................... 5
Table 2. DOD-Reported Spouse and Intimate Partner Abuse Victims, FY2018 ........................... 10
Table 3. Types of Alleged Spouse Abuse, FY2018......................................................................... 11
Table 4. Estimated Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence: Comparisons Across Military
and Civilian Female Populations ................................................................................................ 13
Table 5. DODIG Findings on Military Law Enforcement Incident Response .............................. 26
Table A-1. Intimate Partner Violence; Selected Legislation .......................................................... 37
Table C-1. Table of Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 41
Appendixes
Appendix A. Selected Legislation ................................................................................................. 37
Appendix B. CDC Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence ..................................................... 40
Appendix C. Acronyms ................................................................................................................. 41
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 42
Congressional Research Service
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Introduction
Domestic violence is a term often used to describe abuse of a spouse or child in the home.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a subset of domestic violence that is committed against a
spouse, or current or former dating partner. IPV is treated as a public health issue and is
monitored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at the national level.
According to the CDC, approximately one in five women and one in seven men report having
experienced severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime.1 In addition,
crime statistics suggest that 16% of all U.S. homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner.
Nearly half of female homicide victims are killed by a current or former male intimate partner.2
IPV criminal offenses are typically defined and prosecuted at the state level; however, federal law
imposes penalties on some domestic violence offenders.3 Military IPV offenders may be
prosecuted in civilian courts, but are also subject to punitive measures within the military justice
system under Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) provisions.4
From a military effectiveness perspective, IPV may lead to productivity losses, degraded
servicemember or unit readiness, and subsequent costs to the Department of Defense (DOD).5
When servicemembers are victims, associated mental and physical trauma may affect their ability
to deploy or serve in worldwide assignments and can lead to capability gaps in units. In addition,
qualified veterans who were victims of IPV may require additional care for co-morbid conditions
through the Veterans’ Health Administration (VHA).
Congress has constitutional authority to fund, regulate, and oversee the Armed Forces, including
the military justice system. Congress has used this authority in recent years to mandate domestic
violence prevention and victim response policies, programs, and services. As such, there is
enduring congressional interest on domestic violence prevention and response, victim well-being,
and perpetrator accountability.
This report starts with an overview of IPV in the Armed Forces, including risk factors,
prevalence, and concerns specific to military families and certain subgroups. The next section
focuses on DOD prevention activities, including efforts to screen out high-risk individuals,
increase awareness, and address relationship stresses before they escalate. This section is
followed by a discussion of intervention activities implemented by clinical service providers,
military commanders, and other stakeholders. The next section describes actions taken by DOD
and the Congress to provide victim support, resources, and advocacy. Following that, the report
touches on how military law enforcement organizations respond to and investigate allegations of
domestic abuse and how offenders are held accountable under the military justice system. Finally,
the report touches on some continuing issues for congressional oversight and action.
1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Preventing Intimate Partner Violence, at https://www.cdc.gov/
violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/fastfact.html.
2 Ibid.
3 Federal law outside of military law is beyond the scope of this report. For more on this topic, see CRS Report
R42499, The Violence Against Women Act: Overview, Legislation, and Federal Funding, by Lisa N. Sacco.
4 The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Chapter 47 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code) is the code of military
criminal laws applicable to all U.S. military members worldwide.
5 The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in a 2010 report that, according to DOD officials and
servicemembers, “domestic abuse has a negative effect on readiness mostly due to the amount of time spent by
commanders and others on this issue.” See GAO, Military Personnel: Sustained Leadership and Oversight Needed to
Improve DOD’s Prevention and Treatment of Domestic Abuse, GAO-10-923, September 2010, p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
1
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Background
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a crime characterized by recidivism and escalation, meaning
offenders are likely to be repeat abusers, and the intensity of the abuse or violence is likely to
grow over time. IPV can harm victims in various ways, resulting in physical injury, mental health
problems, and adverse pregnancy outcomes (e.g., low birth weight, preterm birth, and neonatal
death).6 Many victims of IPV continue to struggle with stress and anxiety long after incidents
occur. For example, national surveys have found that among victims of IPV, 41% of women and
10% of men have experienced symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).7
In addition, alleged perpetrators can face decreased productivity at work, loss of income, and
incarceration. Domestic violence can also affect the behavior and well-being of subsequent
generations. Research has shown that children who grow up in a home where IPV occurs are at
higher risk for behavioral, cognitive, and emotional disorders.8 Relatedly, studies have indicated
that perpetrators often have a history of experiencing abuse or witnessing abusive relationships
within their families as a children or young adults.
Factors unique to military service may exacerbate risks for both perpetrators and victims of IPV.9
First, servicemembers and their families frequently move for various assignments.10 This
separates individuals from natural support networks, which can heighten stress on intimate
partnerships, including those involving caretakers, and lead to social isolation. Whereas a victim
of domestic abuse might normally escape a situation by temporarily moving in with a local family
member or trusted friend, this option may not be readily available, particularly for those located
at overseas or remote installations.11 Similarly, difficulties in coping with frequent moves and
other pressures associated with military service (e.g., a spouse’s long hours, shift work, or
unpredictable deployments) may contribute to marital conflict and instability (e.g., reunification
cycles, separation, or divorce). In addition, frequent household moves may complicate the
capacity of nonmilitary spouses to achieve full employment. Lack of financial independence and
the threat of lost or reduced military benefits may serve as a disincentive for military spouse
victims to seek help in cases of abuse. Finally, prior interpersonal trauma is also indicated as a
risk factor for both perpetrators and victims. Some data suggest that women who have
6 Alhusen, Jeanne L., et al., “Intimate Partner Violence During Pregnancy: Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes,” Journal
of Women’s Health, vol. 24, no. 1 (J 2015), pp. 100-106.
7 D'Inverno, A.S., Smith, S,G,, and Zhang, X., et al., The Impact of Intimate Partner Violence: 2015 NSVS Research-inBrief, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), August 2019, https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/
nisvs/nisvs-impactbrief-508.pdf.
8 Carlson, Bonnie E., “Children Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence; Research Findings and Implications for
Intervention,” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, vol. 1, no. 4 (October 2000), pp. 321-342.
9 For a full list of CDC risk factors for intimate partner violence (IPV), see Appendix B.
10 GAO has estimated that the average time between permanent change of station (PCS) moves is two years. See GAO,
Military Personnel: Longer Time Between Moves Relates to Higher Satisfaction and Retention, GAO-01-841, August
2001, p. 2, https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01841.pdf.
11 According to 16 U.S.C. §670(1)(A), a military installation “means any land, or interest in land owned by the United
States and administered by the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a [MILDEP], except land under the jurisdiction
of the Assistant Secretary of the Army having responsibility for civil works.” The term is further defined in 10 U.S.C.
§2801(c)(4) to mean “a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity.” In general, this includes facilities,
training ranges, and other supporting infrastructure that reside on a military installation. See CRS In Focus IF11263,
Defense Primer: Military Installations Management, by G. James Herrera.
Congressional Research Service
2
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
experienced abuse in childhood may be more likely to join the military to escape a violent or
unstable home environment.12
At the same time, some factors unique to military service may mitigate IPV incidence. For
example, access to health care (TRICARE), stable pay and benefits, and the availability of
installation-based family support services may help with financial stability and early intervention
for at-risk couples. In addition, military servicemembers who are perpetrators of abuse may face
more immediate or severe sanctions for IPV than their civilian counterparts (e.g., reductions in
pay, loss of employment, and/or benefits). Military commanders have broad discretion to impose
administrative remedies, penalties, or referrals for judicial action for abusers under their
command (see section on “Commander’s Authority”). In this way, military commanders can play
an important role in IPV intervention, and in establishing a climate where victims feel safe to
report and perpetrators are held accountable.
DOD Organization and Definitions
Prior to 1980, the military services (Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps) conducted their
own family advocacy programs, primarily under their respective military medical service
programs.13 In response to a 1979 U.S. General Accounting Office (now called the U.S.
Government Accountability Office) report that characterized military service family violence
prevention programs as inconsistent and understaffed, DOD established the Military Family
Resource Center (MFRC) as a three-year demonstration project through a DOD-subsidized grant
from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).14 In 1981, Congress first
appropriated funds for DOD family violence prevention and between 1981 and 1983,
responsibility for total funding of the program transitioned to DOD’s sole responsibility.15 During
that time, DOD also published Directive 6400.1, establishing the Family Advocacy Program and
an Advocacy Committee with representatives from the services and DOD.16 Given the success of
the MFRC demonstration and DOD’s interest in consolidating programs under a single
secretariat, DOD transferred MFRC activities to the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Force Management and Personnel in August of 1985.
The Military Family Act of 1985 formally established an Office of Family Policy under the Office
of the Secretary of Defense to “coordinate programs and activities of the military departments to
the extent that they relate to military families.”17 Congress later amended and codified the act
under Chapter 88 of Title 10, U.S. Code, in 1995 as part of the National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 1996 and renamed the Office of Family Policy as the Office of
Military Family Readiness Policy. Currently, this office falls under the purview of the Office of
12 Gerner, Megan R., et al., “Women Veterans and Intimate Partner Violence: Current State of Knowledge and Future
Directions,” Journal of Women’s Health, vol. 23, no. 4 (2014), p. 304, http://www.ncdsv.org/images/JWH_Womenveterans-and-IPV-current-state-of-knowledge-and-future-directions_2014.pdf.
13 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Office of Family Policy, Military Family Resource Center, History of the
Department of Defense Family Advocacy Program, 1987, p. 5.
14 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Military Child Advocacy Programs—Victims of Neglect, HRD-79-75, May
23, 1979, https://www.gao.gov/assets/130/126931.pdf.
15 P.L. 97-114.
16 U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), Office of Family Policy, Military Family Resource Center, History of the
Department of Defense Family Advocacy Program, 1987, p. 2.
17 P.L. 99-145 §802.
Congressional Research Service
3
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
the Under Secretary of Defense (USD) for Personnel and Readiness (P&R).18 Within USD
(P&R), the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy has
oversight responsibility for military family programs, including domestic violence prevention and
response. The military services implement domestic violence prevention and response through the
Family Advocacy Program (FAP). Military law enforcement activities fall under the purview of
USD (P&R) and the Defense Human Resource Activity (DHRA), while central incident databases
are housed in the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), also under DHRA.
Family Advocacy Program (FAP)
Currently, the Family Advocacy Program (FAP) is the designated program within DOD and the
services to address “domestic abuse, child abuse and neglect, and problematic sexual behavior in
children and youth” through prevention, awareness, treatment, and rehabilitation services.19 The
military services implement the FAP. FAP managers also work in coordination with civilian
agencies involved in domestic violence response. In 2016, Congress required the FAP to provide
an annual report to Congress on child abuse and neglect and domestic abuse in military families.20
Family Advocacy and Family Assistance Funding
Family advocacy and family assistance programs are funded through annual appropriations as
part of the Defense-wide Operation and Maintenance budget for DOD dependents education.
DOD-requested FAP funds are directed to each of the military services to implement clinical
intervention programs, “in the areas of domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, child abuse and
neglect, and problematic sexual behavior in children and youth.”21 FAP funding also supports a
DOD hotline for reporting allegations of child abuse, training for domestic violence responders
and members of the chain of command, public awareness activities, support for obtaining civilian
protection orders, and research on domestic violence prevention. According to DOD budget
documents, defense-wide funding for family assistance supports
programs and outreach services to include, but not limited to: the 1-800 Military
OneSource call center; the Military and Family Life Counseling Program; financial
outreach and non-medical counseling; Spouse Education and Career Opportunities; child
care services; youth programs; morale, welfare and recreation programs and, support to the
Guard and Reserve service members, their families, and survivors. Funding supports DoDwide service delivery contracts to support all Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve
Components.22
The total defense-wide funding request for family assistance and family advocacy for FY2020
was $877 million, an increase of 5.5% from the previous year (see Table 1).
18 P.L. 104-106 §568.
19 DOD, Family Advocacy Program, DODI 6400.01, May 1, 2019, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/
DD/issuances/dodi/640001p.pdf.
20 P.L. 114-328 §574.
21 DOD, “DOD Dependents Education,” FY2020 President’s Budget Request, Operation and Maintenance, DefenseWide, March 2019, p. 9.
22 Ibid., p. 8.
Congressional Research Service
4
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 1. DOD’s Family Assistance Funding, FY2015–FY2020
in millions of current dollars
Family
Advocacy
Program
(FAP)
FY2015
(actual)
FY2016
(actual)
FY2017
(actual)
FY2018
(actual)
FY2019
(enacted)
FY2020
(requested)
705.5
194.9
194.3
198.2
208.2
230.6
632.4
596.2
628.9
622.9
646.0
827.3
790.5
827.2
831.1
876.5
Family
Assistance
TOTAL
705.5
Source: Compiled by CRS from DOD budget documents for Defense-wide Operation and Maintenance, DOD
Dependents Education.
Note: DOD did not report separate line items for FY2015 Family Assistance and FAP funding. Total funding for
Family Assistance and FAP covers a broader range of activities than IPV.
FAP Personnel and Accreditation
DOD policy requires specific credentialing for those assigned as FAP managers, including a
master’s or doctoral level degree in the behavioral sciences from an accredited U.S. university or
college, state licensure, and certain experience.23 Service Secretaries are also responsible for
establishing criteria for other FAP personnel, and for annual accreditation and certification of
installation FAPs. According to DOD, the FAP is supported by over 2,000 government and
contracted personnel.24
Definitions
The CDC uses the term intimate partner violence (IPV) to describe “physical violence, sexual
violence, stalking and psychological aggression (including coercive acts)” by a current or former
spouse or dating partner. DOD often refers to IPV as domestic violence or domestic abuse.
Domestic violence is defined as an offense with legal consequences under the U.S. Code, the
UCMJ, and state laws, while domestic abuse refers to a pattern of abusive behavior. DOD defines
four types of abusive behavior: (1) physical abuse, (2) emotional abuse, (3) sexual abuse, and (4)
neglect of spouse (see text box below on “DOD Definitions of Domestic Abuse and Domestic
Violence”).
Under the DOD definition, a victim of domestic violence may be a current or former spouse, an
intimate partner sharing a common domicile, or a person with whom the abuser shares a child.
Under the CDC’s definition, an intimate partner does not need to share a common domicile or
child. DOD’s narrower definition of what constitutes IPV correlates to victim and dependents’
eligibility for certain benefits or services following an incident of reported abuse (see section
below on “Victim Support and Services”). Sexual violence involving military personnel in which
the offender and victim do not share a domicile, child, or other legal relationship (i.e., spouse or
23 DOD, Family Advocacy Program, DODI 6400.01, May 1, 2019, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/
DD/issuances/dodi/640001p.pdf.
24 UDOD, “DOD Dependents Education,” FY2020 President’s Budget Request, Operation and Maintenance, DefenseWide, March 2019, p. 9.
Congressional Research Service
5
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
former spouse), is typically handled by DOD’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR)
program.25
DOD Definitions of Domestic Abuse and Domestic Violence
Domestic Violence. An offense under the U.S. Code, the UCMJ, and state laws involving the use, attempted use,
or threatened use of force or violence against a person, or a violation of a lawful order issued for the protection
of a person who is:
A current or former spouse,
A person with whom the abuser shares a child in common, or
A current or former intimate partner with whom the abuser shares or has shared a common domicile.
Domestic Abuse. Domestic violence or a pattern of behavior resulting in emotional/psychological abuse,
economic control, and/or interference with personal liberty that is directed toward a person who is:
A current or former spouse,
A person with whom the abuser shares a child in common, or
A current or former intimate partner with whom the abuser shares or has shared a common domicile.
Types of Maltreatment
Physical abuse. The non-accidental use of physical force against a spouse or intimate partner that causes
physical injury (e.g., bruise, cut, sprain, or broken bone) or reasonable potential for more than
inconsequential physical injury.
Emotional abuse. Non-accidental act or acts, excluding physical or sexual abuse, or threat adversely
affecting the psychological well-being of the partner (e.g., isolating partner from friends/family; restricting
access to economic resources or benefits; threatening to harm the individual’s children, pets or property; or
berating, disparaging, or humiliating the partner).
Sexual abuse. The use of physical force to compel the spouse or intimate partner to engage in a sexual act
or sexual contact against his or her will, whether or not the sexual act or sexual contact is completed.
Neglect of spouse. Withholding or threatening to withhold access to appropriate, medically indicated
health care, nourishment, shelter, clothing, or hygiene where the spouse is incapable of self-care and the
abuser is able to provide care or access to care.
Source: DOD, Domestic Abuse Involving DoD Military and Certain Affiliated Personnel, DODI 6400.06, May 26, 2017.
For a complete list of maltreatment categories and corresponding definitions, see http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/
54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodm/640001m_vol3.pdf.
Incident Data and Reporting
DOD collects data on domestic abuse incidents through the FAP Central Registry, created by in
1994. In 1999, as part of the FY2000 NDAA, Congress explicitly mandated that DOD maintain a
centralized database and collect annual reports from the Services on
(1) Each domestic violence incident reported to a commander, a law enforcement authority
of the armed forces, or a family advocacy program of the Department of Defense.
(2) The number of those incidents that involve evidence determined sufficient for
supporting disciplinary action and for each such incident, a description of the substantiated
allegation and the action taken by command authorities in the incident.
25 For more information on military sexual assault, see CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework for
Congressional Oversight, by Kristy N. Kamarck and Barbara Salazar Torreon.
Congressional Research Service
6
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
(3) The number of those incidents that involve evidence determined insufficient for
supporting disciplinary action and for each such case, a description of the allegation. 26
The military services collect data at the installation level. Each installation’s FAP enters data into
its respective service registry and then submits reports to the DMDC, which maintains the
registry for all of DOD.27 Data elements include demographic information, individual identifiers
(i.e., name and social security number), relationship indicators, incident details (e.g., location and
date), and the type and severity of abuse.28 When an FAP office receives a report of domestic
abuse, an incident determination committee (IDC) determines whether the incident “met criteria”
to be submitted and tracked within the database.29 Incidents that do not meet the criteria for
domestic abuse are also included in the database, but identifiable individual information is not
tracked. DOD uses the aggregate data in this registry to produce annual reports to Congress,
analyze the scope of abuse and trends, and support budget requests for domestic violence
prevention resources.
The FAP Central Registry is not the only database that includes domestic violence information
involving military servicemembers. DOD also maintains the Defense Incident-Based Reporting
System (DIBRS) as a central repository at DMDC for criminal incident-based statistical data.30
DIBRS includes criminal activity related to domestic abuse, but would typically not capture cases
without law enforcement involvement. (See section on “Crime Reporting to National Databases”
for more detail.) While GAO has highlighted concerns about gaps and overlaps in these two
databases (see text box below on “GAO Reviews of DOD Domestic Violence Data Collection
Efforts”), DOD has resisted consolidating them, stating that
DIBRS and the Services’ FAP Central Registries, from which the DoD Central Registry
contains limited data elements, serve fundamentally different purposes: law enforcement
and clinical treatment, respectively. […] Using the FAP database for law enforcement data
collection purposes will significantly degrade the perception of the FAP as a program that
provides clinical assistance to troubled families. 31
In some cases, the DOD’s database for military sexual assault, the defense sexual assault incident
database (DSAID) may also capture data on incidents of sexual abuse involving spouses or
intimate partners.32 The prevalence of intimate partner sexual assault or stalking of
26 P.L. 106-65 §594; 10 U.S.C. §1562.
27 Data is entered using DD Form 2901, Frequently Asked Questions about the Family Advocacy Program Data
Collection System Central Registry, at http://www.ncdsv.org/images/FAQFAPDataCollectioncentralregistry.pdf.
28 DOD, Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April 2019.
29 The term “met criteria” in the context of an incident determination committee (IDC) finding does not reflect a
criminal legal disposition; rather, the term reflects a clinical determination of whether the incident meets the criteria to
be classified as abuse for the purpose of developing an intervention/treatment plan for both the victim and the offenders
involved in the allegations. The IDC is comprised of the deputy to the installation or garrison commander who serves
as the chair, the senior enlisted noncommissioned officer advisor to the chair, a representative from the
servicemember’s chain of command, a representative from the Staff Judge Advocate’s office, a representative from
military law enforcement, and the FAP manager or FAP supervisor of clinical services. DOD, Family Advocacy
Program (FAP): Child Abuse and Domestic Abuse Incident Reporting System, DOD Manual 6400.01, vol. 2, August
11, 2016.
30 DOD, Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS), DODI 7730.47, June 29, 2018, https://www.esd.whs.mil/
Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/773047p.pdf?ver=2018-07-25-142042-013.
31 Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, Second Annual Report, February 25, 2002, p. x, http://www.ncdsv.org/
images/Year2Report2002.pdf.
32 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Sexual Violence: Actions Needed to Improve DOD’s Efforts to
Address the Continuum of Unwanted Sexual Behaviors, GAO-18-33, December 2017, p. 23, https://www.gao.gov/
assets/690/689086.pdf. See also CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework for Congressional
Congressional Research Service
7
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
servicemember victims may also be captured in DOD’s annual workforce and gender relations
(WGR) surveys. These surveys would not generally capture all types of domestic abuse, and
surveys do not include military spouses. Therefore, while incidents of domestic abuse that are
reported to FAP or other military officials are generally captured in the data, it is possible that the
actual prevalence (including unreported incidents) within the military is higher than reported.
GAO Reviews of DOD Domestic Violence Data Collection Efforts
In 2006, as part of a congressionally mandated review of the management of domestic violence programs and
systems, GAO found significant deficiencies in data collection and reporting.33 In particular, the GAO noted that
until January 2006, the Central Registry only contained reported incidents of abuse involving spouses and not
intimate partners. In addition, a review of DIBRS information found that a number of installations were not
reporting disciplinary actions taken by the commanders, as required by statute. In 2010, Congress asked GAO to
review the progress made by DOD on the recommendations from the 2006 review.34 In the 2010 review, GAO
raised concerns about potential for overlap, gaps, or data reliability issues between the DIBRS and FAP
databases.35 GAO also noted in the 2010 report that while previous attempts to get a more accurate count of
domestic violence incidents by matching DIBRS and Central Registry data had been made, there was no systematic
methodology in place for matching data or ensuring accuracy.36
What Proportion of the Military-Connected Population is Affected?
The total active duty population is over 1.3 million, approximately 16% of whom are women.37 In
addition, the total number of active duty military spouses is about 600,000, about 25% of which
are age 25 or younger.38 Based on data collected by the services, there were 16,912 reported
incidents of spouse and intimate partner abuse in FY2018.39 Of these, roughly half (8,039) of the
reports met the criteria for abuse under DOD definitions, affecting 6,372 victims (see Figure 1
below).40 Physical abuse accounted for 73.7% of all met criteria incidents, followed by emotional
abuse (22.6%). Sexual abuse and neglect accounted for a smaller proportion of domestic abuse
incidents—3.6% and 0.06% respectively.41
Oversight, by Kristy N. Kamarck and Barbara Salazar Torreon.
33 GAO, Military Personnel: Progress Made in Implementing Recommendations to Reduce Domestic Violence, but
Further Management Action Needed, GAO-06-540, May 2006, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTSGAO-06-540/pdf/GAOREPORTS-GAO-06-540.pdf.
34 GAO, Military Personnel: Sustained Leadership and Oversight Needed to Improve DOD’s Prevention and
Treatment of Domestic Abuse, GAO-10-923, September 2010, p. 2.
35 Ibid., p. 7.
36 “From 2000 until 2003, while the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence was in operation, DOD attempted to
manually match data from the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System and the Central Registry to compare
information on specific cases.” Ibid., p. 16.
37 Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), DoD Personnel, Workforce Reports & Publications, Table of Active Duty
Females by Rank/Grade and Service, August 2019, https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp.
38 DOD, 2017 Demographics: Profile of the Military Community, 2017, p. 135, https://www.militaryonesource.mil/
reports-and-surveys/demographic-profiles.
39 DOD, Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April 2019, pp.
40 and 54.
40 Ibid. One or more incidents may be reported by a single victim.
41 Ibid, p. 39.
Congressional Research Service
8
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 1. DOD Spouse and Intimate Partner Abuse Incidents, FY2009-FY2018
number of incidents
Source: DOD, Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April
2019.
Notes: Data include both spouse and intimate partner abuse. Unduplicated victims represents the number of
unique victims. Some victims may report multiple incidents of IPV.
There has been little change in the rate or number of reported incidents that met criteria for
domestic abuse since FY2009. While the total number of incidents in FY2018 is 19% lower than
the number of incidents at the most recent peak in FY2011, the total force size also shrank during
that time. In fact, the rate of incidents that met criteria for spouse abuse has not varied
significantly since FY2008.42 While there are no clear trends in the number of incident reports,
there are some indications that the categories of abuse being reported may have changed over the
past eight years. The number of reported domestic abuse incidents involving sexual abuse has
generally increased incrementally since FY2009, when DOD added this as a category for
reporting (there was a slight drop in reported incidents in FY2018). This change in reporting may
be due to a number of factors, including an actual increase in these types of IPV; cultural shifts in
the perception of sexual abuse within existing relationships; and greater general awareness of
sexual violence, reporting avenues, and available resources among military servicemembers,
military-connected intimate partners, and first responders.43
Victim Profile
Victims of reported abuse are predominately (two-thirds) female. About half of the victims who
reported spouse abuse to DOD and two-thirds who reported intimate partner abuse were members
42 DOD does not collect data on the number of servicemembers with intimate partners, therefore is unable to determine
a rate for that subpopulation.
43 Marital rape has been illegal in all 50 states since 1993. However, some definitions and penalties for the offense vary
by state and penalties may differ in severity from other domestic abuse or sexual violence crimes. Sexual abuse of a
spouse or intimate partner is also reported as a domestic abuse-related sexual assault in DOD’s annual reports of sexual
assault in the military.
Congressional Research Service
9
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
of the military at the time the abuse took place (see Table 2 below). In FY2018, DOD reported 15
domestic abuse fatalities (13 spouses and 2 intimate partners).44 Of the fatalities, three victims
had previously reported abuse to DOD’s FAP and four of the perpetrators had been reported
previously for at least one prior abuse offense. Nine of the offenders were civilians with military
victims.
Table 2. DOD-Reported Spouse and Intimate Partner Abuse Victims, FY2018
Sex of victims
Victims by military status
Number of
unique victims
male
female
military
civilian
Spouse abusea
5,550
35%
65%
54%
46%
Intimate partner abuseb
822
29%
71%
62%
38%
Source: DOD, Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April
2019, pp. 42, 44, 45, 55, and 56.
Notes:
a. Victims married to an offender and who experienced at least one incident of maltreatment that meets
criteria for abuse (i.e., physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, or spousal neglect).
b. Victims who experienced at least one incident of maltreatment that meets criteria for abuse and are former
spouses, share a child in common with the offender, or are current or former partners who have shared a
common domicile.
Offender Profile
Servicemembers account for a majority of reported offenders. In FY2018, 57% of the reported
spouse-abuse offenders were servicemembers.45 DOD-reported female offenders were more likely
to be civilians, and were the perpetrators in 40% of physical spouse abuse incidents (see Table 3).
This percent of female physical abuse offenders reported by DOD is higher than the literature
would predict for the general population. Multiple studies suggest that women are less likely to be
the primary perpetrator of physical violence in a relationship and that when they use violence it is
nearly always in response to physical violence by their partner.46 However, it is unclear from the
data if physical abuse perpetrated by women is retaliatory. Sexual abuse cases were almost
entirely perpetrated by men (96%) which is consistent with the research.47
44 Fatalities for the fiscal year only include cases taken to the IDC. DOD, Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and
Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April 2019, p. 55.
45 DOD, Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April 2019, p.
46. Similar offender data for intimate partners is not available in the FAP report.
46 Miller, Susan L. and Michelle L. Meloy, “Women’s Use of Force: Voices of Women Arrested for Domestic
Violence,” Violence Against Women, vol. 12, no. 1 (January 2006), pp. 89-115, https://www.biscmi.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/05/MillerMeloy2006.pdf.
47 DOD, Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April 2019, p.
51.
Congressional Research Service
10
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Table 3. Types of Alleged Spouse Abuse, FY2018
met-criteria incidents
Sex of offenders
Type of abuse
male
female
Physical
60%
40%
Emotional
75%
25%
Sexual
96%
4%
Neglect
100%
0%
Spouse abuse (total)
62%
38%
Source: DOD, Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April
2019.
Perpetration of IPV in military partnerships may be underrepresented in DOD incident data,
particularly if the victims are civilians, unmarried to the perpetrator, or not residing on a military
installation. Incidents that occur outside of a military installation are less likely to be witnessed by
military first responders and unmarried civilian intimate partners of a servicemembers are
typically ineligible to be treated at military treatment facilities (MTFs). Coordination between
civilian and military officials for domestic violence reporting is discussed in later sections (see
“Confidentiality: Restricted and Unrestricted Reporting” and “Community Coordination”).
Younger Troops are at Higher Risk of Offending and Being Victimized
National-level data suggest that intimate partner violence primarily begins at a young age: an
estimated 71% of females and 58% of males reported having first experienced sexual violence,
intimate partner physical violence, or stalking before the age of 25.48 In addition, approximately
23% of female victims reported having first experienced intimate partner violence before the age
of 18.49 Similarly, rates of reported domestic abuse in the military are highest among junior
enlisted (E-3 and below) families who are typically between the ages of 18 and 24. In FY2018,
the rate of offenders in the grades of E-1 to E-3 was 15.1 per 1,000 married couples; in contrast to
the overall rate of 5 per 1,000 married couples (see Figure 2).50
48 Breiding, Matthew J. et al., Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner
Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011, CDC, September
5, 2014, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e.
49 Ibid.
50 DOD, Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April 2019.
Congressional Research Service
11
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Figure 2. Active Duty Spouse Abuse Offenders by Pay Grade, FY2018
rate per 1,000 married couples
Source: DOD, Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April
2019. p 50.
Notes: Grades E1-E9 are enlisted grades, O1-O10 are officer grades, and W01- W05 are warrant officer
grades.
How does IPV in the Military Compare to the Civilian Population?
A number of factors complicate comparisons of military and nonmilitary IPV datasets,
particularly the infrequent reporting of national civilian data and differences between how DOD
and federal nonmilitary data are reported, collected, and aggregated. For example, each state may
have different laws and processes for recording IPV, whereas all military branches use a common
IPV definition and process. In addition, military members and their spouses and partners are, on
average, younger than the general population. Therefore, direct (unweighted) comparisons of
incident rates at the national or local level should be interpreted with some caution.
Some studies, nonetheless, have compared IPV prevalence data across military and civilian
populations. Since 2010, the CDC has conducted the National Intimate Partner and Sexual
Violence Survey (NISVS), which collects data from adult men and women on past-year and
lifetime experiences of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence at the state and
national levels.51 In 2010, CDC randomly sampled military women and wives of active duty
members to compare IPV prevalence rates among civilians, military women and military spouses
and generally found similar prevalence rates across the populations.52 Where there were
differences, active duty women were generally found to have a decreased risk of IPV relative to
the civilian population. Nevertheless, active duty women who were deployed in the previous
51 CDC, Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence, Stalking, and Sexual Violence Among Active Duty Women and Wives
of Active Duty Men—Comparisons with Women in the U.S. General Population, 2010, Technical Report, March 2013,
http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/research/2010_National_Intimate_Partner_and_Sexual_Violence_SurveyTechnical_Report.pdf.
52 The CDC did not conduct similar comparisons between male civilian and military victims of IPV in this study.
Congressional Research Service
12
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
three years were significantly more likely to have experienced physical and sexual IPV compared
with those who had not deployed.53
Table 4. Estimated Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence: Comparisons Across
Military and Civilian Female Populations
2010
General
Population
Women
Active Duty
Women
(deployed
w/in 3 years)
Active Duty
Women (not
deployed
w/in 3 years)
Wives of
Active Duty
Men
(deployed
w/in 3 years)
Wives of
Active Duty
Men (not
deployed
w/in 3 years)
Lifetime
20.0%
13.7%
11.4%
13.4%
13.1%
3-years
3.7%
4.5%
4.0%
3.5%
-
Lifetime
56.7%
47.2%
41.1%
41.2%
40.0%
3-years
28.2%
22.6%
24.7%
15.8%
12.0%
Lifetime
26.9%
21.9%
16.0%
20.6%
15.9%
3-years
6.2%
5.7%
5.4%
4.8%
-
Type of Intimate
Partner Violence
Contact Sexual
Violence
Psychological
Aggression
Severe Physical
Violence
Source: CDC, Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence, Stalking, and Sexual Violence Among Active Duty Women and
Wives of Active Duty Men—Comparisons with Women in the U.S. General Population, 2010, Technical Report, March
2013, Tables 2, 3, 6, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20 http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/research/
2010_National_Intimate_Partner_and_Sexual_Violence_Survey-Technical_Report.pdf.
Notes: The age range for women in these data is18-59 years. Contact sexual violence as completed forced
penetration, attempted forced penetration, completed alcohol- or drug-facilitated penetration, being made to
penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, and other unwanted sexual contact experiences. Severe physical
violence includes acts such as being hit with something hard, being kicked or beaten, or being burned on
purpose. Psychological aggression includes expressive aggression (e.g., name-calling, or insulting or humiliating an
intimate partner) and coercive control, which includes behaviors that are intended to monitor, control, or
threaten an intimate partner. Contact sexual violence for wives of active duty men not deployed within three
years is not reported due to high standards errors or small sample size.
Prevention
DOD has focused on a number of activities to prevent IPV and mitigate the escalation and
repetition of violence or abuse following an initial offense.54 The CDC has identified several
individual, relationship, community, and societal risk factors for domestic violence (see
Appendix B). Some of these risk factors are inherent in the military environment. For example,
53 CDC, Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence, Stalking, and Sexual Violence Among Active Duty Women and Wives
of Active Duty Men—Comparisons with Women in the U.S. General Population, 2010, Technical Report, March 2013,
p. 14, http://www.sapr.mil/public/docs/research/2010_National_Intimate_Partner_and_Sexual_Violence_SurveyTechnical_Report.pdf.
54 Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, Third Year Report, 2003, http://www.ncdsv.org/images/
Year3Report2003.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
youth is considered a risk factor, and the bulk of servicemembers are recruited and enlisted or
appointed between the ages of 17-26. On the other hand, military protocols for entry screening,
education and training, and support structures may provide protective factors and deterrence.
Entry Screening
DOD and the services use medical, cognitive, and other qualification standards to screen those
seeking entry into the Armed Forces for IPV risk factors. For example, DOD medical standards
generally prohibit enlistment or appointment of individuals with a history of personality or
behavioral disorders.55 In addition, a history of drug or alcohol abuse can be a disqualifying
factor.56 Past misconduct and criminal convictions can also disqualify individuals.
Those disqualified from service may request a conduct waiver, which typically requires specific
information about the offense(s) and “letters of recommendation from responsible community
leaders, such as school officials, clergy, and law enforcement officials, attesting to the applicant’s
character or suitability.”57 Convicted domestic violence offenders, on the other hand, are typically
ineligible for conduct waivers, pursuant to the Lautenberg Amendment Gun Control Act of
1968.58 Domestic battery or other violent offenses committed without conviction may also be
disqualifying.59
The Lautenberg Amendment and Military Service
Some studies have found that access to firearms increases the risk for intimate partner homicide. 60 Consequently,
Congress has taken actions to reduce firearm access for known offenders. A 1996 amendment to the Gun
Control Act of 1968 (P.L. 104-208, 18 U.S.C. §922) makes it a felony for any individual convicted of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess or receive firearms or ammunition. The 1996
amendment, sometimes referred to as the Lautenberg Amendment (named after its sponsor, Senator Frank
Lautenberg), also makes it a felony for another person to sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm to any person they
have reasonable cause to believe has such a conviction, regardless of when the conviction occurred. There are no
exceptions for military personnel or military-issued weapons. As a result, those convicted of domestic violence
would be unable to carry a firearm and are thus ineligible for entry into military service.61
According to DOD policy, if a member is found to have been convicted of a domestic violence conviction in a
civilian court or a general or special court martial, an appropriate military authority will “immediately retrieve all
government-issued firearms and ammunition, suspend his/her authority to possess government-issued firearms or
ammunition, and advise them to dispose of their privately owned firearms and ammunitions lawfully. These actions
shall also be taken if there is reasonable cause to believe a military member has a qualifying conviction.”62
In recent years, as recruiting quantity targets have increased to force end-strength numbers, the
Services, and particularly the Army, have increased the use of conduct, and other waivers.63 Some
55 DOD, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction into the Military Services, DODI 6130.03, May
6, 2018, p. 44.
56 Ibid., p. 10.
57 Ibid.
58
Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Campbell, Jacquelyn C., et al., “Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multisite Case
Control Study,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 93, no. 7 (2003), pp. 1089-1097.
61 DOD policy clarifies that the department “does not construe the amendment to apply to major military weapon
systems or “crew served” military weapons and ammunition (e.g., tanks, missiles, aircraft).” DOD, Domestic Abuse
Involving DOD Military and Certain Affiliated Personnel, DODI 6400.06, May 26, 2017, p. 10.
62 Ibid., p. 11.
63 Baldor, Lolita C., “Army Using Drug Waivers, Bonuses to Fill Ranks,” XX Insert Publication Title Here XX, August
Congressional Research Service
14
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
have questioned whether those with waivers for any kind of misconduct (e.g., drug, alcohol, or
traffic violations) are at higher risk for misconduct offenses while serving in the military.64 One
study of Army enlistments between 2003 and 2008 found that while those with conduct waivers
for any reason did have higher rates of alcohol and drug-related offenses, the waivers were not
significantly associated with substantiated incidents of domestic abuse.65
Education, Training, and Awareness
Prevention programs for domestic violence include education and training components, some of
which are required in both law and policy. The FY2000 NDAA required DOD to establish a
standard training curriculum for commanding officers on handling domestic violence cases.66 In a
2004 memorandum, the USD (P&R) also required specialized training for military chaplains on
confronting a potential domestic violence situation.67
The Family Advocacy Program (FAP) is charged with promoting awareness of domestic abuse
through education, training, and information dissemination.68 Training for commanders, troops,
counselors, and health care personnel typically focuses on increasing awareness of IPV warning
signs and appropriate responses. Training for troops might include workshops or briefings on
healthy relationships and family resiliency. Generally, domestic violence prevention training is
not mandatory and is not applied uniformly across and within the services. The military services
have experimented with tailored education programs for higher-risk demographics. The Navy, for
example, has initiated a series of workshops on relationship abuse awareness and prevention that
targets junior enlisted members.69 DOD’s Military Onesource website also offers a range of selfserve resources and tools to learn more about domestic violence.70
Domestic Violence Awareness Month
In 1989, the 101st Congress passed the first joint resolution designating October as National Domestic Violence
Awareness Month (S.J.Res. 133). The military services typically recognize this month through purple ribbon
awareness campaigns and activities (e.g., ceremonies, workshops, posters/fliers, and social media).
Military and Family Life Counseling
Relationship stressors are indicated as risk factors for IPV. Part of DOD’s prevention activities
include no-cost, nonmedical, confidential counseling services for members and their families
through the Military and Family Life Counseling (MFLC) program.71 These services are part of
1, 2018.
64 Alvarez, Lizette, “Army and Marine Corps Grant More Felony Waivers,” New York Times, April 22, 2008.
65 Galloway, M. Shayne, et al., “The Association Between U.S. Army Enlistment Waivers and Subsequent Behavioral
and Social Health Outcomes and Attrition From Service,” Military Medicine, vol. 178 (2013).
66 P.L. 106-65 §593.
67 Letter from David Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD (P&R)), Domestic Abuse
Training for Chaplains, January 29, 2004, http://www.ncdsv.org/images/DomesticAbuseTrainingChaplains.pdf.
68 DOD, Family Advocacy Program (FAP), DODI 6400.01, March 16, 2018.
69 The Navy has reported that they are currently studying the effectiveness of these workshops. DOD, Report on Child
Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April 2019.
70 See for example DOD, Military Onesource, 2018 Domestic Violence Prevention Month Toolkit, at
https://www.militaryonesource.mil/leaders-service-providers/child-abuse-and-domestic-abuse/2018-domestic-violenceprevention-month-toolkit.
71 DOD, Counseling Services for DoD Military, Guard and Reserve, Certain Affiliated Personnel, and Their Family
Congressional Research Service
15
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
DOD’s prevention activities and include relationship counseling, anger/conflict management, and
deployment adjustment (i.e., separation and reintegration). DOD provides these services through
a contractor to active and reserve personnel and their immediate families at over 200 military
installations or in nearby civilian community centers worldwide. Family life counselors do not
handle domestic abuse cases—these are typically referred to the FAP and medical providers, as
required. Members and their spouses may also participate in other service-level programs, like
chaplain-led marriage retreats or family resiliency workshops under their installation’s family
readiness program.72 While commanders or others may refer couples to these programs,
participation in them is generally optional.
Interventions
While prevention activities generally target the entire population, interventions are targeted at
high-risk couples or individuals, or provided after a first alleged offense.73 Interventions include
removing individuals and family members from any immediate risk of harm, initiating an
investigation, ensuring ongoing safety, and preventing future escalation or offender recidivism.
Response to domestic abuse often involves coordination among military commanders, law
enforcement officials, health care personnel, social workers, and legal representatives. DOD
policies outline specific roles and responsibilities for each of these responders.74 The FY2019
NDAA required the establishment of multidisciplinary teams on military installations to enhance
collaboration in response and management of domestic abuse cases.75 The law requires each team
to include (1) one or more judge advocates, (2) personnel from military criminal investigation
organizations (MCIOs), (3) mental health professionals, (4) family advocacy caseworkers, and (5)
other personnel as appropriate.
Clinical Interventions
When an incident is reported to the FAP, a team assesses the situation and coordinates clinical
case management, including treatment, rehabilitation, and ongoing monitoring and risk
management. FAP employees are typically professional social workers. According to DOD, there
are over 2,000 funded positions across the military departments for delivery of FAP services,
including “credentialed/licensed clinical providers, Domestic Abuse Victim Advocates, New
Parent Support Home Visitors, and prevention staff.”76
Members, DODI 6490.06, March 31, 2017.
72 Military Onesource provides resources and links to information about these programs
athttps://www.militaryonesource.mil/family-relationships/relationships/keeping-your-relationship-strong/marriageenrichment-programs.
73 DOD identifies individuals or families that are high-risk for violence as those with known incidents of severe abuse
or the potential for severe abuse, or offenders engaging in high-risk behaviors such as making threats to cause grievous
bodily harm, preventing victim access to communication devices, stalking, etc.
74 DOD, Domestic Abuse Involving DOD Military and Certain Affiliated Personnel, DODI 6400.06, May 26, 2017.
75 P.L. 115-232 §577.
76 DOD, Report on Child Abuse and Neglect and Domestic Abuse in the Military for Fiscal Year 2018, April 2019, p.
11.
Congressional Research Service
16
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Military Protective Orders
Once a servicemember has allegedly committed an act of domestic violence, and it is reported to
the member’s commander, the commander is responsible for holding the perpetrator accountable
and taking actions to protect the victim.77 The commander may, for example, issue a military
protective order (MPO) to help ensure the victim’s safety.78 An MPO generally prohibits contact
between the alleged offender and the domestic violence victim.79 A servicemember must obey an
MPO at all times, whether inside or outside a military installation; violations may be subject to
court martial or other punitive measures. The commanding officer may also restrict an accused
servicemember to a ship or to his or her barracks to keep the parties separate. There may be some
cases when the victim is a servicemember and the alleged abuser is a civilian. Commanders
cannot issue an MPO for civilians, but may arrange for temporary housing on the installation for
the servicemember victim and bar the accused civilian from installation access.
While military commanders have a high degree of control over the activities on an installation,
they typically lack jurisdiction over events in civilian communities. Approximately 63% of
military personnel live in private housing located outside of a military installation.80 Because of
this, coordination between military and civilian law enforcement authorities is often required to
provide for victim safety. The FY2000 NDAA included a provision to create incentives for
collaboration between military installations and civilian community organizations working to
prevent and respond to domestic violence.81 In 2002, Congress required that civilian protection
orders (CPOs) have full force and effect on military installations.82 This means that if a
servicemember violates the terms of a CPO, he or she may be subject to disciplinary actions
under the UCMJ, in the same way as if violating an MPO. Military commanders, by regulation,
are also encouraged to issue an MPO to support an existing CPO, or to provide some protection to
a victim while the victim pursues a CPO.83 MPOs are unenforceable by civilian law enforcement.
In 2008, however, Congress required the commander of a military installation to notify civilian
authorities when an MPO is issued, changed, or terminated with respect to individuals who live
outside of the installation.84 Procedures for coordination and information-sharing between
military and local officials are established through formal memoranda of understanding (MOUs).
77 DOD, Domestic Abuse Involving DOD Military and Certain Affiliated Personnel, DODI 6400.06, May 26, 2017, p.
6.
78 10 U.S.C. §1567. An MPO is a written lawful order issued by a commander (see DD Form 2873 at
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/forms/dd/dd2873.pdf). Violations may be prosecuted under article
90 of the UCMJ for willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer; under article 92 for failure to obey order or
regulation; or under article 134 for conduct prejudiced to good order and discipline in the Armed Forces or of a nature
to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces.
79 Before an MPO is issued, a commander can immediately issue as a first step a no contact order, which is analogous
to a temporary restraining order.
80 DOD, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, “Facilities Management—Military Housing
Privatization Initiative; Privatized Housing Overview,” FY2007, https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/fim/Housing/
Housing_overview.html.
81 P.L. 106-65 §592.
82 P.L. 107-311.
83 DOD, Domestic Abuse Involving DOD Military and Certain Affiliated Personnel, DODI 6400.06, May 26, 2017, p.
8.
84 10 U.S.C. §1567a.
Congressional Research Service
17
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Expedited Transfer and Administrative Reassignments
In an effort to protect servicemembers reporting sex-related offenses from retaliation, Congress
required in 2011 that DOD develop policies and procedures for consideration of station changes
or unit transfers of active duty member victims who report sex-related offenses under the
UCMJ.85 Per statute, an individual’s commanding officer must approve or disapprove an
application for transfer within 72 hours of submission. If the commander disapproves the transfer,
the applicant may request review from the first general officer in the chain of command. The law
requires a decision from the general officer within 72 hours of the submission of the request.
Congress expanded the application of such transfer policies and procedures to cover military
servicemembers who are victims of physical or sexual IPV through the FY2018 NDAA.86 The act
specified that transfer policies and procedures are to be implemented once abuse has occurred,
irrespective of whether the offender is a member of the Armed Forces.
In the FY2014 NDAA, Congress also added a provision that allows commanders and others with
authority to reassign or remove from a position of authority individuals who are alleged to have
committed or attempted sex-related offenses. The law is specific that reassignment action is “not
as a punitive measure, but solely for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline within
the member’s unit.”87 Advocates for this provision had argued that reassignment of the victim
could be seen as penalizing the victim instead of the perpetrator.88
Covered offenses under the expedited transfer (10 U.S.C. §673) and administrative reassignment
(10 U.S.C. §674) authorities currently do not include the UCMJ offense for domestic violence,
which was added in 2018 as part of the FY2019 NDAA (See section below on “Domestic
Violence Punitive Article”).89
Victim Support and Services
In the past decade, DOD has developed methods for incident reporting, data collection, and
analysis of IPV trends. There is some evidence to suggest, however, that the actual prevalence of
domestic abuse in the military could be underreported. While DOD conducts annual surveys of
servicemembers to determine the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment in the military, it
does not conduct or report on similar surveys with the military spouse population or on the
prevalence of non-sex-related abuse by intimate partners. Indeed, IPV prevalence can be difficult
to measure, and within the academic literature there is a broad range of prevalence estimates for
victimization and perpetration involving military servicemembers. One meta-analysis undertaken
by the VA suggests that among active duty servicemembers, the 12-month prevalence of IPV
perpetration was 22%, and victimization was 30%—rates higher than those of actual incident
reports within DOD.90 Another (nonscientific) survey conducted by a military family advocacy
85 P.L. 112-81 §582. These offenses include rape and sexual assault, other sexual misconduct, and stalking under 10
U.S.C. §§920, 920c, and 930.
86 P.L. 115-232 §536.
87 P.L. 113-66, 10 U.S.C. §674.
88 For a broader discussion on military protective orders, see CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A
Framework for Congressional Oversight, by Kristy N. Kamarck and Barbara Salazar Torreon.
89 P.L. 115-232 §532.
90 The authors note that both of these estimates had high heterogeneity. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); Health
Services Research and Development Services, Intimate Partner Violence: Prevalence Among U.S. Military Veterans
and Active Duty Servicemembers and a Review of Intervention Approaches, p. 22, https://www.hsrd.research.va.gov/
Congressional Research Service
18
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
group in 2017 found that 15% of the military and veteran family respondents did not feel
physically safe in their relationship. Among those experiencing abuse, the survey found that
“87% of military spouse respondents did not report their physical abuse, citing their top two
reasons for not reporting the abuse was that they felt it was not a big deal and they did not want to
hurt their spouse or partner’s career.”91
Intimate partner abuse for the perpetrator is often connected with coercive control and monitoring
of the victim’s activities (e.g., controlling phone or email passwords, and restricting bank account
access), and thus some victims may be fearful of seeking help. Confidentiality concerns, financial
dependency, and lack of support structures can all create barriers to reporting IPV. Congress and
DOD have taken some actions to try to reduce these barriers, to encourage victims to report, and
to increase access to victim support services.
Confidentiality: Restricted and Unrestricted Reporting
Responding to concerns from military family members about confidentiality in reporting
incidents of domestic abuse, Congress required in 1999 that DOD establish policies and
procedures, which provide “maximum protection for the confidentiality of dependent
communications” with service providers, such as therapists, counselors, and advocates.92 DOD
has since developed distinct reporting streams that can accommodate varying levels of
confidentiality. In an unrestricted reporting scenario, domestic abuse is reported to law
enforcement, FAP, or the chain of command. Such a report would typically set off a sequence of
actions to include a criminal investigation of the alleged offender. In some cases, a victim may be
hesitant to trigger these events but may want to access support services in a confidential manner.
In recognition that some victims may be deterred from reporting based on confidentiality concern,
DOD has established a restricted reporting option. With some exceptions, this reporting option
allows victims to disclose information to a victim advocate, victim advocate supervisor, or
healthcare provider without that information being disclosed to other authorities.93 The restricted
reporting options allows the victim time to access medical care, counseling, and victim advocacy
services while providing some time to consider relationship choices and next steps.
Whom to Call for Victims of Abuse
Military-connected victims of domestic abuse may contact the local Family Advocacy Program94 or call the
24/7 National Domestic Abuse Hotline at 800-799-SAFE (7233). Those in immediate danger of assault or
physical injury should call 911. Those on a military installation, may also call their military law enforcement office.
publications/esp/partner_violence-REPORT.pdf.
91 Blue Star Families, Here’s What Military Spouses Say about Domestic Violence, October 22, 2018,
https://bluestarfam.org/2018/10/heres-what-military-spouses-say-about-domestic-violence/.
92 P.L. 106-65 §585.
93 In some cases, for example, a serious and imminent threat to the victim or another person (including a child),
prohibitions on disclosing information are suspended.
94 A state or country FAP resource locater can be found at https://www.militaryonesource.mil/leaders-serviceproviders/child-abuse-and-domestic-abuse/victim-advocate-locator
Congressional Research Service
19
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Victim Advocacy Services
In 2003, as part of the FY2004 NDAA, Congress called for the development of a Victim
Advocate Protocol for victims of Domestic Violence.95 Among other things, the Protocol requires
victims of domestic abuse be notified of victim advocacy services and be provided access to those
services 24 hours a day (either in person or by phone).96 Victim advocates play a substantial role
in supporting the victim following a domestic violence incident. They help victims and other atrisk family members by developing a safety plan,97 referring them to ongoing care through
military or civilian providers, and providing information on other resources (e.g., chaplain or
legal services, transitional compensation).98 Victim advocates can be DOD employees, military
contractors, or other civilian providers.
Special Victims’ Counsel/Victims’ Legal Counsel
A Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) or Victims’ Legal Counsel (VLC) is a judge advocate or
civilian attorney who satisfies special training requirements and is authorized to provide legal
assistance to victims of sexual assault throughout the military justice process.99 Currently
SVC/VLC services are not authorized for victims of domestic violence; however, recent
legislative proposals have sought to expand such services to this population. A provision in the
FY2019 NDAA required DOD to submit a report on feasibility and advisability of expanding
SVC/VLC eligibility to victims of domestic violence and asked for an analysis of personnel
authorizations with respect to the current case workload. DOD found that expanding this
eligibility to domestic violence victims would “significantly increase the caseload of SVC/VLC
programs across the board.”100 If SVC/VLC support were made available to victims of domestic
violence, each of the military services “would require additional SVC/VLC authorizations and
sufficient time to train personnel to implement new mission requirements.”101
Transitional Compensation
Some spouses are wholly or highly financially dependent on their military intimate partner,
possibly discouraging some victims from reporting IPV. Therefore, the prospect of the member
being incarcerated or discharged from the military can provide a disincentive for an abused
spouse to seek help. In a 1993 House Armed Services hearing on Victims’ Rights, the Ranking
Member noted that “with few exceptions, when a military member is incarcerated because of
violence or abuse, the family is cut loose by DOD and left without medical coverage, without
counseling, without housing, without the support of the military community.”102
95 The Army and Air Force refer to this position as a Special Victims’ Counsel and Navy and Marine Corps refer to it
as a Victims’ Legal Counsel.P.L. 108-136 §577.
96 Department of Defense, Domestic Abuse Involving DoD Military and Certain Affiliated Personnel, DODI 6400.06,
May 26, 2017, p. 7.
97 This is developed using DD Form 2893 “Victim Advocate Safety Plan”.
98 Some victims may be ineligible for military medical care if they are an unmarried intimate partner of a
servicemember. These individuals may be referred to civilian providers.
99 10 U.S.C. §§1044, 1044e and 1565b.
100 E-mail correspondence between CRS and OSD on September 6, 2019.
101 Ibid.
102 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Forces and Personnel, Victims’
Rights, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., May 11, 1993, H.Hrg 103-22 (Washington: GPO, 1994).
Congressional Research Service
20
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Congress sought to redress this disincentive to reporting through the FY1994 NDAA, which
authorized the temporary provision of monetary benefits, called transitional compensation, to
dependents of servicemembers or former servicemembers who were separated from the military
due to IPV.103 One of the motivating arguments for establishing the transitional compensation
benefit was that it could provide a measure of financial security to spouses or former spouses.
The provision was codified in 10 U.S.C. §1059 and applies to cases involving members who, on
or after November 30, 1993 are
separated from active duty under a court-martial sentence resulting from a
dependent-abuse offense,
separated from active duty for administrative reasons if the basis for separation
includes a dependent-abuse offense, or
sentenced to forfeiture of all pay and allowances by a court-martial that has
convicted the member of a dependent-abuse offense.
Transitional compensation payments are exempt from federal taxation, provided at the
dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) rate, and authorized for at least 12 months but no
more than 36 months.104 For individuals to be eligible, they must be current or former dependents
of servicemembers, including spouses, former spouses, or dependent children.105 Intimate
partners who are not or were never married to servicemembers are generally ineligible to receive
compensation from DOD. While in receipt of transitional compensation, dependents are also
entitled to military commissary and exchange benefits, and may receive dental and medical care,
including mental health services, through military facilities as TRICARE beneficiaries.106
Forfeiture and/or Coordination of Benefits
Recipients of transitional compensation benefits must certify eligibility on an annual basis to
retain payments. In addition, payments will cease if the eligible spouse or former spouse
remarries, on the date of remarriage,
cohabitates with the servicemember after punitive or other adverse action has
been executed, or
is found to have been an active participant in the conduct constituting the
criminal offense, or actively aided or abetted the member in such conduct against
a dependent child.107
103 P.L. 103-160 §1058.
104 DOD, Financial Management Regulation, Volume 7B, Chapter 60: Victims of Abuse—Nonretirement Eligible
Members (Transitional Compensation), July 2018, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/documents/fmr/current/
07b/07b_60.pdf P. 60-10. DIC rates are specified in 38 U.S.C. 1311(a). For more information on DIC, see CRS Report
R40757, Veterans’ Benefits: Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) for Survivors, by Scott D. Szymendera.
105 A dependent child is under the age of 18, over 18 but incapable of self-support due to a mental or physical
incapacity that existed prior to age 18, or less than age 23 and enrolled in a full-time course of study. For dependents
over the age of 18, they must be dependent on the former member for over one-half of dependent-support. A dependent
child who was carried during pregnancy at the time of the dependent-abuse offense resulting in the separation of the
former member, who was subsequently born alive to the eligible spouse or former spouse, will not receive payment
until after the child is born.
106 Medical and dental care furnished to a dependent of a former member of the uniformed services in facilities of the
uniformed services will be limited to the health care prescribed by 10 U.S.C. §1077, and subject to the availability of
space, facilities, and the capabilities of the medical and dental staff.
107 10 U.S.C. 1059(g)(3).
Congressional Research Service
21
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Payments may also cease if a court-martial sentence is remitted, set aside, or mitigated to a lesser
punishment. Spouses or former spouses may not receive both transitional compensation and
court-ordered payments of retired pay and must elect to receive one or the other of those benefits,
if applicable.108
Access to Retired Pay and Benefits
A military servicemember typically becomes eligible for a pension from the federal government
after 20 years of service.109 Under the Uniformed Services Former Spouses Protection Act
(USFSPA), up to 50% of the member’s disposable military retired pay may be awarded by court
order to a former spouse in a divorce settlement.110 In some cases, a member may be eligible for
retired pay by virtue of longevity in service; however, punitive actions in response to member
misconduct may terminate eligibility for retired pay. In 1992, Congress authorized the military
departments to make court-ordered payments of an amount of disposable retired pay to abused
spouses or former spouses in cases where the member has eligibility to receive retired pay
terminated due to misconduct related to the abuse.111 So, for example, if a retired member,
through court martial sentencing as a result of a domestic violence offense, becomes ineligible to
receive retired pay, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) may still pay a courtordered portion of what the member might otherwise be eligible for, to the member’s spouse or
former spouse. A spouse or former spouse, while receiving payments under this chapter, is also
eligible to receive any other benefits a spouse or former spouse of a retired member may be
entitled, including medical and dental care, commissary and exchange privileges, and the
Survivor Benefit Plan.112
Emergency Housing and Accommodations
In situations where a servicemember is the perpetrator of violence, the commanding officer may
restrict that individual to the barracks, ship, or other installation housing and issue MPOs (as
discussed in section “Military Protective Orders”. The primary objective is typically to remove
the offender from the home, to protect the victim. On the other hand, there may be scenarios
where commanders have less control over housing of the perpetrator (e.g., in the case where the
offender is a civilian living outside an installation). In such cases, DOD policies also require that
victim advocates facilitate provision of shelter and safe housing resources for victims.113
According to the services, commanders typically draw on a number of housing options on the
installation (e.g., temporary lodging) or in the local civilian community (e.g., shelters, hotels,
etc.).
Relocation Benefits
Military families move frequently to different assignments worldwide, often far away from
family and support networks. Moving expenses for the family under a member’s orders are paid
108 Under 10 U.S.C. §1408(h), a spouse or former spouse who is a victim of abuse may be eligible for court-ordered
retired pay, even if the member has had his or her eligibility to receive retired pay terminated as a result of misconduct.
109 CRS Report RL34751, Military Retirement: Background and Recent Developments, by Kristy N. Kamarck.
110 CRS Report RL31663, Military Benefits for Former Spouses: Legislation and Policy Issues, by Kristy N. Kamarck.
111 P.L. 102-484.
112 DOD Comptroller, Financial Management Regulation, DOD 7000.14-R, Volume 7B, Chapter 59, May 2012, p. 20.
113 DOD, Domestic Abuse Involving DoD Military and Certain Affiliated Personnel, DODI 6400.06, May 26, 2017.
Congressional Research Service
22
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
by the Department of Defense. Generally, civilian spouses are only eligible for these benefits
when the family moves together under the military sponsor’s orders. For some abused spouses, it
may be prohibitively expensive to independently execute a household move following a domestic
abuse incident, particularly for those accompanying servicemembers stationed overseas. In 2003,
as part of the FY2004 NDAA, Congress added a provision that allows for certain travel and
transportation benefits for dependents who are victims of domestic abuse in the absence of
military orders for a permanent change of station move.114 When relocation is advisable to ensure
the safety of the victim, the Secretary of the military department concerned may authorize
movement of household effects and baggage at the government’s expense, plus travel per diem
paid to the dependent. The authorization for these benefits allows for a move to an appropriate
location in the United States or its possessions, or if the abused dependent is a foreign national, to
their country of national origin.
Federal Crime Victims Fund
In 1984, the Crime Victims Fund (CVF, or the Fund) was established by the Victims of Crime Act
(VOCA, P.L. 98-473) to provide funding for state victim compensation and assistance
programs.115 The CVF does not receive appropriated funding.116 Rather, deposits to the CVF
come from a number of sources including criminal fines,117 forfeited bail bonds, penalties, and
special assessments collected by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, federal courts, and the Federal
Bureau of Prisons from offenders convicted of federal crimes.118 The largest source of deposits
into the CVF is criminal fines.119 U.S. military servicemembers and their families are eligible for
these victim assistance and compensation programs.
The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) within the Department of Justice (DOJ) administers the
CVF.120 As authorized by VOCA, the OVC awards CVF money through formula and
discretionary grants to states, local units of government, individuals, and other entities.121 Grants
are allocated according to VOCA statute, and most of the annual funding goes toward the two
VOCA formula grants: the victim compensation formula grant and victim assistance programs.
The grants are distributed to states and territories according to guidelines established by
VOCA.122
114 P.L. 108-136 §571, 37 U.S.C. §406(h).
115 P.L. 98-473, Title II, Chapter XIV, Victims of Crime Act of 1984, October 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2170. VOCA is
codified at 34 U.S.C. §20101 et seq.
116 In January 2002, Congress enacted a one-time appropriation of $68.1 million for the Crime Victims Fund to assist in
providing relief to 9/11 victims (P.L. 107-117, 115 Stat. 2294).
117 The largest source of deposits into the CVF is criminal fines. See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, 2011 OVC Report to the Nation, p. 2, http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/
reporttonation2011/ReporttoNation2011.pdf (hereinafter, 2011 OVC Report to the Nation).
118 See 34 U.S.C. §20101. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) established that gifts, bequests, or donations
from private entities could also be deposited to the CVF.
119 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, 2011 OVC Report to the
Nation, p. 2, http://www.ovc.gov/pubs/reporttonation2011/ReporttoNation2011.pdf (hereinafter, 2011 OVC Report to
the Nation).
120 P.L. 100-690, Title VII, Subtitle D.
121 For more information on the Crime Victims Fund and VOCA, see CRS Report R42672, The Crime Victims Fund:
Federal Support for Victims of Crime, by Lisa N. Sacco.
122 For information regarding state offices that receive and administer these funds, see U.S. Department of Justice
(DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, Providers/Community Leaders – U.S. Resource Map
Congressional Research Service
23
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Victim compensation formula grants may be used to reimburse crime victims for out-of-pocket
expenses such as medical and mental health counseling expenses, lost wages, funeral and burial
costs, and other costs (except property loss)123 authorized in a state’s compensation statute.
Victims are reimbursed for crime-related expenses that are not covered by other resources, such
as private insurance. Since FY1999, medical and dental services have accounted for close to half
of the total payout in annual compensation expenses.124 In FY2017, “the vast majority of
applications related to a victimization (52,461 or 96%) were related to domestic and family
violence.”125
Victim assistance formula grants support a number of services for crime victims, including the
provision of information and referral services, crisis counseling, temporary housing, and criminal
justice advocacy support. States are required to prioritize the following groups: (1) underserved
populations of victims of violent crime,126 (2) victims of child abuse, (3) victims of sexual assault,
and (4) victims of spouse abuse.127 States may not use federal funds to supplant state and local
funds otherwise available for crime victim assistance. According to the OVC, victims of domestic
violence make up the largest number of victims receiving services under the victim assistance
formula grant program. In FY2017, over five million crime victims were served by these grants,
43% of whom were victims of domestic and/or family violence.128
Military Law Enforcement Response
DOD and the Services have a general framework under the UCMJ, and other laws, for responding
to violent offenses.129 DOD domestic abuse policies superimpose specific requirements onto this
framework. Among other things, DOD policy states commanders are required to respond to
reports of domestic abuse in the same manner as they would to credible reports of any other crime
and must ensure that military service offenders are held accountable for acts of domestic violence
through appropriate disposition under the UCMJ.130 Similarly, law enforcement and military
of Crime Victim Services & Information, https://www.ovc.gov/map.html.
123 The Final Guidelines for the VOCA Victim Compensation Grant Program clarify that states may not include
property replacement or repair cost as compensable expenses, except for replacement or repair of locks and windows,
and replacement of bedding and clothing held as evidence, in their annual certification of payments. See Section IV.
B.2 (b) (ii) 4 & 5.
124 Medical and dental services do not include mental health services. OVC records these mental health costs as a
separate category. For additional compensation data, as well as the number of victims served, by victim types and
service categories, see DOJ, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, VOCA Nationwide Performance
Reports, https://www.ovc.gov/grants/vocareps.html.
125 Compensation recipients indicated whether a crime experienced by an applicant was related to a type of
victimization, when applicable. In FY2017, there were 54,819 applications paid that indicated that a victimization type
was related to a crime, out of 250,583 total applications paid. See Office for Victims of Crime, Victims of Crime Act
Victim Compensation Formula Grant Program, Fiscal Year 2017 Data Analysis Report, March 2017, p. 5,
https://www.ovc.gov/grants/vocanpr_vc17_508.pdf.
126 States have flexibility in defining and determining the populations of victims of violent crimes that may be
underserved in their respective states.
127 34 U.S.C. §20103(a).
128 DOJ, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, 2017 Victims of Crime Act Performance Report,
State Assistance Program, https://www.ovc.gov/grants/vocanpr_va17.pdf.
129 United States Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), 2019 Edition, Rule 303 requiring a preliminary investigation of
potential offenses. http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2019.pdf.
130 DOD, Investigations by DOD Components, DODI 5505.16, June 23, 2017.
Congressional Research Service
24
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
criminal investigation personnel are required to investigate reports of domestic violence and
respond to them as they would to credible reports of any other crime.131
In 1993, as part of the FY1994 NDAA, Congress specified certain responsibilities for military
law enforcement officials in response to domestic violence. In particular, the law requires that in
cases where there is evidence of physical injury, or where a deadly weapon or dangerous
instrument has been used, officials must report the incident within 24 hours to the appropriate
commander and to a local FAP representative.132 Military law enforcement includes both
installation law enforcement (ILE), MCIOs, and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service
(DCIS), which is an arm of the DOD Inspector General. The term defense criminal investigative
organization (DCIO) is used to describe the military criminal investigative organizations and
DCIS. Current DOD policy requires that either a MCIO or another appropriate law enforcement
organization investigate domestic violence and specifies that MCIOs are to investigate all
unrestricted reports of domestic violence involving sexual assault or aggravated assault with
grievous bodily harm.133
Military Law Enforcement Organizations
To fully understand which law enforcement organization is responsible for investigating domestic violence, it is
helpful to distinguish between installation law enforcement (ILE) and MCIO. These organizations have different
levels of responsibility for investigating crimes and corresponding levels of proficiency.
Military Criminal Investigative Organization (MCIO)
An MCIO is composed of servicemembers or civilians who are military department criminal investigators (special
agents). MCIOs include the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC), the Naval Criminal
Investigative Service (NCIS), and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI). A typical MCIO special
agent must be 21 or older, have at least two years of military service, have a minimum of 60 college semester
hours, and have a minimum General Technical (GT) score of 110 (the same minimum score required for
commissioned officers in the Army); and have successfully completed a special agent course accredited by the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board (typical course length is 15 weeks. )134 They have general
jurisdiction over offenses under the UCMJ. MCIO personnel are under the control and supervision of the military
department’s provost marshal.135 An MCIO investigates serious offenses analogous to felonies and is expressly
responsible for investigating all sexual assault offenses under the UCMJ.136
Installation Law Enforcement (ILE)
ILE is made up of servicemembers or civilians who are military installation police or police investigators whose
jurisdiction is limited to military installations. ILE includes U.S. Army Military Police, Naval Security Forces, Air
Force Security Forces, and U.S. Marine Corps Military Police. ILE personnel are under the control and supervision
of an installation provost marshal or equivalent official. ILE investigates incidents that do not fall within a MCIO’s
jurisdiction, namely, minor military offenses and offenses analogous to a misdemeanor.137 ILE are responsible for
investigating offenses under Article 128 (Assault) with a maximum punishment that is less than one year.
131 Ibid.
132 P.L. 103-160, 10 U.S.C. §1058.
133 DODI 5505.19 defines grievous bodily harm as a “serious bodily injury that includes fractures or dislocated bones,
deep cuts, torn members of the body, serious damage to internal organs, and other severe bodily injuries. It does not
include minor injuries, such as a black eye or bloody nose. See https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/
issuances/dodi/640005p.pdf.
134 U.S. Army, Regulation 195-3, The Criminal Investigation Command Special Agent Program, February 19, 2017.
135 Ibid.
136 Ibid.
137 Military Criminal Investigation Organizations (MCIO) Jurisdiction, https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/
DR_a/pdf/web/ARN18263_R195_2_ADMIN_FINAL.pdf (Army); https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/
saf_ig/publication/afi71-101v1/afi71-101v1.pdf (Air Force); https://www.secnav.navy.mil/doni/Directives/
05000%20General%20Management%20Security%20and%20Safety%20Services/05-
Congressional Research Service
25
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
DODIG Review of Law Enforcement Actions
A 2019 report by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DODIG) found that law
enforcement response actions were generally consistent with DOD policies; however, the DODIG
noted DCIOs did not consistently comply with DOD policies when responding to nonsexual
domestic violence incidents involving adult victims (see Table 5).138 In particular, the audit
revealed that responders often did not have necessary equipment for collecting and preserving
evidence and that incident reports did not get proper supervisory review. In 22% of the reviewed
cases law enforcement failed to report the incident to the FAP and in 82% of those cases failed to
submit criminal history data to the Defense Central Index of Investigations (DCII), the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CJIS), and the
Defense Forensics Science Center. (See discussion below under “Crime Reporting to National
Databases.”)139
Table 5. DODIG Findings on Military Law Enforcement Incident Response
noncompliance rates
Category for
Noncompliance
Total
Army
Navy
Marine
Corps
NCIS
Air
Force
Crime scene search not
conducted
33%
50%
56%
24%
5%
35%
Required evidence not collected
8%
5%
0%
6%
0%
29%
Required photographs not taken
92%
100%
100%
88%
58%
100%
Interviews not conducted
27%
37%
21%
22%
17%
24%
Interviews not thorough
54%
71%
64%
27%
25%
87%
FAP not notified
24%
31%
42%
12%
0%
38%
Subjects not indexed in DCII
55%
59%
100%
62%
17%
34%
Fingerprint cards not submitted
as required
71%
94%
100%
41%
18%
94%
Final disposition reports not
submitted as required
76%
98%
100%
51%
24%
94%
DNA sample not submitted as
required
55%
42%
100%
46%
6%
97%
Source: Table derived from DODIG, Evaluation of Military Services’ Law Enforcement Responses to Domestic
Violence Incidents, DODIG -2019-075, April 19, 2019.
Notes: Noncompliance rates are based on a sample of 219 of the 956 incident responses that were reported
between October 1, 2014, and September 30, 2016. NCIS is the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. While the
Navy had the highest non-compliance rates, they also had the smallest sample of incidents (18 total).
400%20Organization%20and%20Functional%20Support%20Services/5430.107A.pdf (Navy).
138 DOD Inspector General, Evaluation of Military Services’ Law Enforcement Responses to Domestic Violence
Incidents, DODIG -2019-075, April 19, 2019, https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/25/2002120678/-1/-1/1/DODIG2019-075.PDF, p. i. DOD policy (DODI 5505.19) requires DCIOs to investigate all unrestricted reports of domestic
violence involving sexual assault or aggravated assault with grievous bodily harm.
139 Ibid. p. i.
Congressional Research Service
26
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
In general, actions by the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS)—the only MCIO included
in the IG report—were more likely to be in compliance than those by military law enforcement.140
In the report, the Army and the Air Force do not distinguish between ILEs and MCIOs, and
relevant criminal investigation jurisdiction policies for these military services show that their
MCIOs do not have responsibility for investigating domestic violence.141 Presumably, with the
exception of the NCIS data, all other data in the table are based on ILE responses to domestic
violence incidents. Among other things, the DOD IG found that military service law enforcement
organizations, largely ILE, did not consistently comply with DOD policies when responding to
nonsexual domestic violence incidents involving adult victims.142 The IG findings and the data in
the table appear to suggest that ILE are less proficient at domestic violence responses and
investigations, whereas an MCIO, using NCIS as the sole example, is more proficient at
responding to them.
Crime Reporting to National Databases
Law and policy require military law enforcement to provide certain crime reports to DOD and
national crime databases throughout a criminal investigation of a servicemember. The Services
are required to maintain automated information systems that comply with the Defense IncidentBased Reporting System (DIBRS), which complies with the FBI National Law Enforcement Data
Exchange (N-DEx) System.143 The FBI’s N-DEx system is a repository of criminal justice records
and data from law enforcement agencies in the United States and it is managed by the FBI’s
Criminal Justice Information Service (CJIS).
DIBRS captures criminal incidents of domestic violence that are reported to law enforcement in
compliance with the following laws144;
The Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act of 1988,145
The Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990,146
The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act,147 and
The Jacob Wetterling, Megan Nicole Kanka, and Pam Lychner Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Program.148
140 Navy policy for NCIS jurisdiction and responsibility does not expressly include domestic violence, so it is not clear
under what circumstances NCIS will investigate an offense under Article 128(b) (Domestic Violence) (SECNAV
INSTR 5430.107A).
141 DODIG, Evaluation of Military Services’ Law Enforcement Responses to Domestic Violence Incidents, DODIG 2019-075, April 19, 2019.
142 Ibid.
143 DOD, Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submission Requirements, DODI 5505.11, October 31, 2019,
at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/550511p.pdf?ver=2019-08-20-104636-083. FBI,
National Data Exchange (N-DEx) System, at https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ndex.
144 DOD, Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS), DODI 7730.47, June 29, 2018, p. 1, at
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/773047p.pdf?ver=2018-07-25-142042-013.
145 28 U.S.C. §534.
146 42 U.S.C. §§ 10601 - 10608.
147 18 U.S.C. §922.
148 42 U.S.C. §§ 16901 - 16928.
Congressional Research Service
27
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
DIBRS data is subsequently reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National IncidentBased Reporting System (NIBRS).149 As repository for federal and state crime activity, NIBRS
data is used for analyzing crime trends and developing policy approaches to reduce criminal
activity.150
Specific records of investigations are located in the Defense Central Index of Investigations
(DCII), an automated central index that identifies investigations conducted by DOD investigative
agencies. DCII is typically used by DOD security and investigative agencies and other federal
agencies to determine security clearance status and the physical location of criminal and
personnel security investigative files.151
Per DOD policy for collating investigation data, MCIOs are responsible for
Titling and indexing subjects of criminal investigations in the DCII when there is
credible information that a subject of an investigation committed a criminal
offense (under the UCMJ or any other federal criminal statute).152
Reporting disposition information within 15 days of final disposition of military
judicial or nonjudicial proceedings; approval of a request for discharge,
retirement, or resignation in lieu of court-martial; or, discharge resulting from
anything other than honorable characterization of service based on investigations
UCMJ violations.153
Submitting fingerprint cards and final disposition of investigations to the FBI
CJIS regarding servicemembers investigated for violating an offense under the
UCMJ, based on probable cause.154
Crime Data Reporting Failure: the Devin Kelley Case
While crime data reporting procedures are in place, a single instance of noncompliance can result in severe harm.
In November 2017, a former member of the U.S. Air Force entered the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs,
Texas, and shot and killed 26 people using a weapon he purchased from a licensed firearms dealer. The former
member, Devin Kelley, had been convicted by general court-martial for a felony-level domestic violence offense
stemming from an assault on his wife and stepson.155 He was sentenced to confinement and given a bad conduct
discharge from the Air Force.156 Under existing law and policy at the time, Kelley should have been prohibited
from purchasing a weapon from a licensed federal firearm dealer. However, on six separate occasions, Kelley was
able to purchase firearms from stores that were Federal Firearms Licensees and completed the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Form 4473, which is required to obtain a firearm license.157
149 U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS), DODI 7730.47, June 29, 2018.
150 FBI, National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), at https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/nibrs.
151 DOD, Defense Central Index of Investigations (DCII) Account Management Guide, May 23, 2016.
152 DOD, Titling and Indexing in Criminal Investigations, DODI 5505.07, February 28, 2018 (To title a subject is to
place the name and identifying information of a person in the title block of a criminal investigative report. To index a
subject is to submit identifying information concerning subjects, victims, or incidentals of investigations).
153 Ibid.; DODI 5505.11.
154 Ibid.
155 DODIG, Report of Investigation into the United States Air Force’s Failure to Submit Devin Kelley’s Criminal
History Information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, DODIG-2019-030, December 6, 2018,
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Dec/07/2002070069/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2019-030_REDACTED.PDF, p. 1.
156 For more on discharge types, see CRS Report R43928, Veterans’ Benefits: The Impact of Military Discharges on
Basic Eligibility, by Sidath Viranga Panangala.
157 DODIG, Report of Investigation into the United States Air Force’s Failure to Submit Devin Kelley’s Criminal
History Information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, DODIG-2019-030, December 6, 2018,
Congressional Research Service
28
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
A subsequent report by the DOD Inspector General (DODIG) found that after Kelley’s court martial conviction,
the Air Force failed to submit his fingerprints and final disposition report to the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information
Services (CJIS) Division for inclusion in its databases as required by DOD and Air Force policy. In particular, the
DODIG found that the Air Force missed four opportunities in the course of the investigation, prosecution, and
incarceration of Kelley to submit his fingerprints to the FBI and two opportunities to submit final disposition
information.158
In 2019, the Air Force launched a modernized criminal data reporting system, called the Air Force Justice
Information System, to provide a “centralized hub of criminal data reporting, automatic flagging of federally
reporting of offenses, providing installation breech tracking and criminal data reporting trends and analytics that
allow for predictive analytics.”159
Military Justice System
While some domestic violence offenders in the military may be subject to local or host nation
jurisdiction, active duty servicemembers worldwide may be held accountable for domestic
violence offenses under the military justice system. The military justice system is established in
Title 10 of the United States Code and is separate from and independent of the federal criminal
justice system established in Title 28.160 Congress enacts this authority through the articles
(statutes) that make up the UCMJ, under Chapter 47, of Title 10, U.S. Code.161 The President
implements the UCMJ by executive order through the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM).162 The
MCM establishes detailed rules for administering justice.163Among other things, The MCM
contains the major components of military justice:
Jurisdiction—Court-Martial Convening Authority for the three levels of courtsmartial and the jurisdiction of each one (chapter II, part II, MCM).
Criminal Procedure Code—Rules for Courts-martial provide for the
administration of military justice (chapters III – XIII, part II, MCM).
Rules of Evidence—Military Rules or Evidence established the evidential
procedure for judicial proceedings at a court-martial (part III, MCM).
Criminal Code—Punitive Articles in the UCMJ criminalize specific conduct
(part IV, MCM).
The MCM also includes the procedure for nonjudicial punishment (NJP) and maximum
punishment information for each punitive article.164
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Dec/07/2002070069/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2019-030_REDACTED.PDF, p. 30.
158 DODIG, Report of Investigation into the United States Air Force’s Failure to Submit Devin Kelley’s Criminal
History Information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, DODIG-2019-030, December 6, 2018,
https://media.defense.gov/2018/Dec/07/2002070069/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2019-030_REDACTED.PDF, p. 61.
159 Stein, Vicki, New Air Force Justice Information System Goes Live, U.S. Air Force, October 3, 2019,
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1979464/new-air-force-justice-information-system-goes-live/.
160 The military justice system derives its authority from the War Power clauses in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
161 The UCMJ establishes status-based jurisdiction over servicemembers and UCMJ offenses without regard to their
location. Article 802, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §802); Article 17, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §817); Rule 201, 202, 203, MCM.
162 Article II of the U.S. constitution provides the authority of the commander-in-chief to implement military justice.
https://constitution.congress.gov/conan/essay/II_2_1_1_2/.
163 United States Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), 2019 Edition, http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM2019.pdf.
164 Part V Nonjudicial Punishment Procedure, Appendix 12 Maximum Punishment Chart, MCM (2019 Edition).
Congressional Research Service
29
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Commander’s Authority
The authority to prosecute or refer charges to court martial falls within the jurisdiction of a
command and its commander.165 Commanders at every level are responsible for deciding whether
to take action regarding misconduct occurring in a command over which they have authority.166
When addressing misconduct, a commander acts as an adjudicator of first instance to determine
whether misconduct warrants disposition in a judicial, nonjudicial, or administrative process.167 A
commander can also determine to take no action against an offender. These determinations are
known as disposition decisions. They are made at the lowest level of command with direct
authority over an offender, unless disposition authority is withheld by a higher-level commander.
DOD requires all commanders to refer allegations of domestic violence by a victim, or credible
reports of domestic violence by a third party, to an appropriate law enforcement organization.168
Law enforcement personnel must promptly complete a detailed written report of the investigation
and forward it to the alleged offender’s commander.169 The commander must then review the
report and obtain advice from an appropriate legal officer before determining disposition.170
Court-Martial
Upon review of the investigative report, the commander may refer the case to court-martial for
trial. There are three courts-martial levels with jurisdiction over UCMJ offences.171 The first two
levels—summary and special courts-martial—are courts of limited jurisdiction (minor and
misdemeanor offenses).172 The third and highest level—general court-martial—is a court of
general jurisdiction (felony offenses).173 A general court-marital can impose the maximum
punishment prescribed for a crime in the UCMJ.174 A trial by general court-martial typically
consists of a military judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, and members.175 The members are a
panel of servicemembers who can render guilty or not guilty verdicts, like a civilian jury, and
make sentencing decisions, unlike a civilian jury.176
165 Rule 201, MCM.
166 Rule 306, MCM.
167 Ibid. Article 15, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §815), establishes nonjudicial punishment (NJP) proceedings. NJP is a quasi-
judicial adjudicatory process in which the commander makes the disposition and punishment decisions, unless a higher
level commander conducts the proceedings. However, NJP is not suitable for serious offenses that are typically
adjudicated in a court martial. NJP addresses matters such as intentional non-compliance with regulations or standards.
168 DOD, Instruction 6400.06, Domestic Abuse Involving DOD Military and Certain Affiliated Personnel, at
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/640005p.pdf.
169
Ibid.
170 Ibid.
171 10 U.S.C. §816.
172 10 U.S.C. §§819, 820.
173 10 U.S.C. §818.
174 10 U.S.C. §818.
175 10 U.S.C. §§825-827.
176 Panel members are not required if the accused requests a judge-alone trial.
Congressional Research Service
30
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Domestic Violence Punitive Article
The punitive articles in the UCMJ are the offenses that fall within the jurisdiction of a courtmartial.177 Prior to 2019, domestic violence offenses were typically prosecuted under the general
offense of assault under Article 128 (Assault).178 Congress amended the UCMJ in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 by adding a specific punitive article for domestic
violence—Article 128b—effective on January 1, 2019.179 This punitive article prescribes
punishment, as a court-martial may direct, for any person subject to UCMJ jurisdiction who:
(1) commits a violent offense against a spouse, an intimate partner, or an immediate family
member of that person;
(2) with intent to threaten or intimidate a spouse, an intimate partner, or an immediate
family member of that person(A) commits an offense under [the UCMJ] against any person; or
(B) commits an offense under [the UCMJ] against any property, including an animal;
(3) with intent to threaten or intimidate a spouse, an intimate partner, or an immediate
family member of that person, violates a protection order;
(4) with intent to commit a violent offense against a spouse, an intimate partner, or an
immediate family member of that person, violates a protection order; or
(5) assaults a spouse, an intimate partner, or an immediate family member of that person
by strangling or suffocating;180
Article 128b generally requires a threat or violent offense or the specific act of strangulation or
suffocation to trigger the UCMJ. Research has found that strangulation is an associated risk factor
for intimate partner homicide of female victims.181
Sentencing
After a guilty verdict or plea, and without delay, a court-martial imposes a sentence that is within
its authority and discretion.182 Specific punishments for UCMJ offenses tried by a court-martial
are reprimand; forfeiture of pay and allowances; fine; reduction in pay grade; restriction to
specified limits; hard labor without confinement; confinement; punitive separation; and death.183
A single punitive article can include a range of offenses from minor to serious; the maximum
punishment increases as the severity of the offense increases.
177 In addition to punitive articles in the UCMJ, the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. §13) is an adoption by
Congress of state criminal laws for areas of exclusive or concurrent federal jurisdiction, provided federal criminal law,
including the UCMJ, has not defined an applicable offense for the misconduct committed. This allows a court-martial
to adopt the criminal law of the State wherein the military installation is located and applies it as though it were federal
law (No. 91 (Article 134, clause 3, Discussion), Ch. IV, MCM).
178 Article 128, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §928); Appendix 12 Maximum Punishment Chart, MCM.
179 P.L. 115-232 §532.
180 10 U.S.C. §928b.
181 Glass, Nancy, et al., “Non-fatal Strangulation is an Important Risk Factor for Homicide in Women,” Journal of
Emergency Medicine, vol. 35, no. 3 (October 2008), pp. 329-335.
182 Rules 1001-1009, MCM.
183 10 U.S.C. §856; Rule 1003, MCM.
Congressional Research Service
31
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
As noted above, domestic violence was previously included in the general assault article (Article
128) before it became a nominative offense under Article 128b.184 Punishment under Article 128
includes a maximum punishment as low as three months for simple assault and a maximum
punishment as high as dishonorable or bad conduct discharge, total forfeitures, and 20 years’
confinement, for assault with intent to commit specified offenses, such as murder, rape, and rape
of a child.185 Domestic violence was distinguishable from other types of assault under Article 128
(Assault) by the greater severity of its punishment.186 DOD has not yet amended the most recent
MCM issued in 2019 to include a maximum punishment for Article 128b (Domestic Violence),
which became law around the time DOD issued the 2019 MCM.
Military Rules of Evidence
The Military Rules of Evidence (MRE) are established by executive order as part of the Manual
for Courts-Martial.187 They are analogous to civilian rules of evidence, particularly the Federal
Rules of Evidence.188 There are two rules within the MRE that specifically apply to domestic
violence (i.e., privileged conversations with victim advocates, and testimony of children who
witness an event).
Victim Advocate—Victim Privilege
A victim who has suffered direct physical or emotional harm as the result of a sexual or violent
offense has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, a
confidential communication made between the alleged victim and a victim advocate, or between
the alleged victim and DOD Safe Helpline staff.189 The communication must have been made for
the purpose of facilitating advice or assistance to the victim.190 A victim advocate is a person,
other than a trial counsel, any victims’ counsel, law enforcement officer, or military criminal
investigator in the case, who is appropriately designated as such.191
Remote Live Testimony of a Child
If a child is a victim or witness of domestic violence, a military judge must allow remote live
testimony if the judge finds on the record that
It is necessary to protect the welfare of the particular child witness;
The child witness would be traumatized, not by the courtroom generally, but by the
presence of the accused; and,
The emotional distress suffered by the child witness in the presence of the accused is more
than slight.192
184 Ibid. Article 128b.
185
Ibid.
186 UCMJ, Appendix 12, Article 128.
187 Appendix 19, MCM.
188 Article 36, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. §836).
189 Rule 514, MCM.
190 Ibid.
191 Ibid.
192 Rule 611(d), MRE, MCM.
Congressional Research Service
32
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
To make these findings a “military judge may question the child in chambers, or at some
comfortable place other than the courtroom, on the record for a reasonable period of time, in the
presence of the child, a representative of the prosecution, a representative of the defense, and the
child’s attorney or guardian ad litem.”193 Remote live testimony is not required if the accused
voluntarily excludes himself or herself from the courtroom.194
Issues for Congress
The consequences of intimate partner and domestic violence to servicemembers and families can
be severe and even fatal. Congress has taken a number of actions over the past three decades to
expand the provision of prevention and support responses, improve data collection and
monitoring of IPV prevalence, deepen civilian and military collaboration on addressing and
monitoring IPV, among other things. In the 116th Congress, there have been several proposals to
augment services for military-connected IPV victims. Nevertheless, recent reports and testimony
have identified several ongoing issues for oversight. These include
Community coordination,
Coverage and access to victim services,
Law enforcement response,
Data collection federal reporting requirements, and
Mitigating risk factors.
Community Coordination
In many IPV cases involving the military, the abused or the abuser is a civilian, and incidents
happen both on and off military installations. The UCMJ applies worldwide to active duty
servicemembers; however, local, state, and foreign governments (for members serving in foreign
countries) may have overlapping jurisdiction for domestic violence response, investigation, and
prosecution. Local law enforcement authorities may have different protocols for domestic
violence response depending on the location. Domestic violence victim advocates have often
asserted that insufficient coordination between military and state/local authorities threatens the
safety of victims when they move between installations and the civilian community. DOD
regulations require certain information to be shared between installation commanders and local
authorities, but it is unclear if processes for information sharing are consistent across bases and if
gaps are sufficiently addressed. For example, at a September 2019 House hearing, a
representative of a victims’ advocacy group noted that while CPOs are given full force and effect
on military installations, victims may not know whom to notify on the installation that they have
a CPO and that everyone involved needs clear registration procedures.195
193 Ibid.
194 Ibid.
195 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Prepared Testimony of
Brian Clubb, J.D., U.S. Marine Corps Reserve (Ret.), Military & Veterans Advocacy Program, Battered Women’s
Justice Project, Shattered Families, Shattered Service: Taking Military Domestic Violence Out of the Shadows, 116 th
Cong., 1st sess., September 18, 2019.
Congressional Research Service
33
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Coverage and Access to Victim Services
While there have been a number of efforts to improve and expand victim services, there may still
be some barriers to coverage and access. A 2019 study based on interviews of FAP personnel
found that there was variation in the services offered across services and installations with smaller
installations sometimes lacking a full range of programs.196 The study also found that, on average,
FAP offices are open five days a week for approximately 41 hours per week, with a small portion
(3%) offering weekend hours.197 Some FAP personnel noted that these hours may make it difficult
for working civilian spouses, or those in need of childcare, to be able to attend counseling
appointments.198
In addition, some servicemembers and spouses may not be aware of their eligibility for services.
In 2019 testimony to the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee, an IPV
survivor noted that during the period of her abuse, she was not aware of the FAP or other services
available to her.199 The 2019 FAP study also found that public awareness and outreach activities,
“are not a strong emphasis of [FAP] programming.”
In terms of coverage, some military-connected IPV victims may not be eligible for services under
existing law and policy. For example, unmarried civilian intimate partners of a servicemember
would not typically have access to military relationship counseling services, military health care,
transitional monetary benefits, or other resources on the installation. In addition, due to the parttime nature of their work, members of the Reserve Component and intimate partners of members,
may not have consistent access to installation resources and mental/behavioral health coverage.
For example, the National Guard has reported that it does not offer a curriculum on Domestic
Abuse Response and Intervention Training; rather, it relies on FAP services of its parent services
(Army and Air Force) for members called to duty on federal orders.
Finally, another aspect to consider is the period of transition during discharge or separation from
the military. Military veterans, including retirees and their civilian spouses are generally not
eligible for FAP services but may be eligible for some services through the VA. For example, he
VA does offer some social work programs including the Veteran Health Administration’s Intimate
Partner Violence Assistance Program.200
Law Enforcement Response
DODIG’s 2019 findings of deficiencies in military law enforcement response to domestic
violence incidents (as discussed in “DODIG Review of Law Enforcement Actions”) suggest that
further congressional oversight of DOD actions in this area could be warrented. DOD domestic
violence policy requires the DODIG to develop relevant policy for MCIOs and to oversee their
investigations of domestic violence, similar to DODIG responsibility for sexual assault
196
Farris, Coreen, Margaret Tankard, Praise O. Iyiewuare, Lynn Rosenthal, Angela Clague, Laura L. Miller, Peter
Glick, Katharine Sieck, and Radha Iyengar Plumb, Availability of Family Violence Services for Military Service
Members and Their Families. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2019. https://www.rand.org/pubs/
research_reports/RR3019.html, p. 13.
197 Ibid. p. 23.
198 Ibid. p. xii.
199 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Shattered Families,
Shattered Service: Taking Military Domestic Violence Out of the Shadows, 116th Cong., 1st sess., September 18, 2019.
200 VA, VHA Social Work, at https://www.socialwork.va.gov/IPV/Index.asp.
Congressional Research Service
34
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
investigations.201 Current DODIG policy assigns MCIOs responsibility for initiating a criminal
investigation in response to all allegations of adult sexual assault, a serious offense under the
UCMJ.202 That is, these investigations are not within the jurisdiction of installation law
enforcement. There was no similar mandate for all allegations of domestic violence under Article
128 (Assault), with the exception of unrestricted reports of domestic violence involving sexual
assault or aggravated assault with grievous bodily harm.203 If the maximum punishment of Article
128b were to be established at one year or more—a serious offense—such a move may preclude
investigations by installation law enforcement investigators whose investigative jurisdiction is
limited to minor offenses with punishment for a year or less.
Data Reporting
Several DODIG and GAO reports have raised concerns with DOD data collection, management,
and reporting to internal DOD and federal databases. The reliability of data can have implications
for congressional oversight and funding, in terms of accurate estimates of the size and scope of
IPV issues and identifying high-risk military populations for targeted programs. While DOD and
the services have undertaken efforts to improve the quality and reliability of data, this is a
potential area for continued oversight and audit. Questions also remain as to whether those
responsible for entering data into the various systems (i.e., law enforcement, FAP personnel) are
adequately trained on their statutory and regulatory obligations. Consideration may be given as to
whether incident data accurately captures IPV that goes unreported to the FAP, or if further
surveys or studies of the military spouse population are needed. In addition, proper entry of
criminal data is necessary for adequate enforcement of other laws, for example, those prohibiting
convicted IPV offenders from purchasing firearms.
Mitigating Risk Factors
Another way to address IPV prevention is to address risk factors. One method is through DOD
programs and policies that help to improve family stability and resiliency and promote a positive
and supportive command climate. From a broad perspective, any actions to reduce personnel
tempo (PERSTEMPO), whether through fewer deployments, more time at home station between
deployments, or through fewer unaccompanied assignments can help to reduce family stresses
associated with departure and reintegration.204 Another option for reducing stress on military
families is to manage permanent change of station (PCS) moves to extend time on station.205
Frequent moves can impair social support networks and have been found to have a negative
impact on spousal employment and earnings.206
201 Ibid, DODI 6400.06.
202 DOD, Instruction 5505.18, Investigation of Adult Sexual Assault in the Department of Defense, March 22, 2017.
Regarding the two offenses of child and adult sexual assault, previously, only child sexual assault was exclusively
characterized as a serious offense and under the exclusive investigative jurisdiction of MCIOs.
203 Ibid.
204 For more on PERSTEMPO, see CRS In Focus IF11007, Defense Primer: Personnel Tempo (PERSTEMPO), by
Kristy N. Kamarck.
205 Tong, Patricia K., et al., Enhancing Family Stability During a Permanent Change of Station: A Review of
Disruptions and Policies (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2018), https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/
RR2304.html.
206 Burke, Jeremy, and Amalia Miller, The Effects of Military Change-of-Station Moves on Spousal Earnings, (Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2016), https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9920.html.
Congressional Research Service
35
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
While personnel management efforts could be made to reduce deployments and PCS moves,
national security concerns may sometimes necessitate high PERSTEMPO. DOD and the services
have several other programs to support families, for example, child and youth programs (e.g.,
subsidized child-care services),207 spouse employment assistance, and other family readiness
services. In Congress’s oversight and appropriations roles, one area of consideration is whether
these programs are funded at appropriate levels given current or anticipated demands on military
servicemembers.
Finally, given the military commander’s unique authority, the command climate he or she
establishes within a unit is an important aspect of IPV prevention. DOD policies specify that
military commanders have a duty for care not only of their troops, but also of the troop’s
families.208 Commanders may address issues among the troops through positive reinforcement of
healthy relationships and attitudes or through punitive administrative actions. The CDC has
identified problematic gender norms as a potential risk factor for IPV. Some reporting has
identified prevailing negative stereotypes, attitudes, and memes directed at the military spouse
community.209 Commanders can have significant influence on acceptable and unacceptable
behavior in the workplace.
In addition, several abused spouses have testified that they felt their partner’s commander did not
provide adequate support, follow established procedures, or take complaints of abuse seriously.210
In cases where victims of IPV are servicemembers, there may also be concerns about retaliation
from a commander or military peers for reporting or seeking help—particularly if the offending
spouse is also a military servicemember. One response to this might be a survey of IPV victims to
better understand their perceptions of command response and their experiences with other
responders such as victim advocates and law enforcement or military justice personnel. Similar
surveys have been done with victims of sexual assault.211 Options to remedy concerns about
commander response may be to require higher-level review of IPV complaints, or to enhance
protections from retaliation against those who report IPV.
207 CRS Report R45288, Military Child Development Program: Background and Issues, by Kristy N. Kamarck.
208 DOD, Military Family Readiness, DODI 1342.22, April 11, 2017, p. 12.
209 See for example, Jowers, Karen, “'Dependa’ Bashing: Mudslingers Stun Military Spouses,” MilitaryTimes, June 22,
2015; and Marcotte, Amanda, “Meet the “Dependa”: An Ugly Meme—and Sexist Stereotype—Used to Slur Military
Spouses,” Salon, May 15, 2017.
210 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Shattered Families,
Shattered Service: Taking Military Domestic Violence Out of the Shadows, 116th Cong., 1st sess., September 18, 2019.
211 See, CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework for Congressional Oversight, by Kristy N.
Kamarck and Barbara Salazar Torreon
Congressional Research Service
36
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix A. Selected Legislation
Table A-1. Intimate Partner Violence; Selected Legislation
1968 - 2019
Year
Law and Statute
1968
Gun Control Act of 1968
18 U.S.C. §922
1974
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act provided financial assistance
for a demonstration program for the prevention, identification, and treatment of
child abuse and neglect, to establish a National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect under the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.
P.L. 93-247; 42
U.S.C. §5010 note.
1981
Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1981
Section 778. Etablished funding for the Family Advocacy Program.
P.L. 97-114
1985
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (Military
Family Act of 1985)
Section 802. Established an Office of Family Policy under the Office of the
Secretary of Defense.
P.L. 99-145 §802;
10 U.S.C. 133
note.
1988
Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act – Initiated the development of
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS).
P.L. 100-690; 34
U.S.C. §41303
1992
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
Section 653. Allows victims of abuse to receive payment of court-ordered retired
pay if the member has eligibility for retired pay as a result of misconduct involving
abuse of a spouse or dependent.
P.L. 102-484;
10 U.S.C. §1408
1993
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994
P.L. 103-160
Section 551. Established response and reporting responsibilities of military law
enforcement officials at scenes of domestic violence. Within 24 hours of the
incident, provide a report of the domestic violence to the appropriate
commander and to a local military family advocacy representative.
10 U.S.C. §1058
Section 552. Required improved procedures for notification of victims and
witnesses of status of prisoners in military correctional facilities.
10 U.S.C. 951
note
Section 553. Required study of stalking by persons subject to UCMJ.
1994
1995
Section 554. Established transitional compensation for dependents of members
separated for dependent abuse.
10 U.S.C. §1059
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994; Title IV,
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA)
P.L. 103-322; 42
U.S.C. §13701 et.
seq.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
Section 534. Established victim advocacy services for victims of family violence
through the family advocacy programs of the military departments.
P.L. 103-337
Section 535. Allowed for earlier payment of transitional compensation – at the
date of approval of a court-martial sentence, and the date that administrative
separation action is taken for the perpetrator.
10 U.S.C. §1059
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
Section 568. Revises and codifies the Military Family Act and Military Child Care
Act.
P.L. 104-106; Ch.
88, Title 10, U.S.
Code
Congressional Research Service
37
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Year
Law and Statute
1996
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997
Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic
Violence (the Lautenberg Amendment).
P.L. 104-208;
18 U.S.C. §922
1999
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
P.L. 106-65
Section 585. Required DOD to establish regulations for confidential
communications with victim service providers.
10 U.S.C. §1071
note.
Section 591. Established the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence.
Section 592. Required the Secretary of Defense to establish an incentive program
to provide funds to commanders of military installations to improve coordination
with civilian authorities and to strengthen capacity of those providing domestic
violence response and support services.
Section 593. Required 1) standard guidelines for negotiating agreements with
civilian law authorities, 2) that no contact orders be recorded, tracked, and a
copy provided to the aggrieved party, 3) standard guidelines on factors for
substantiating allegations, 4) and a standard training program for all commanding
officers on handling of domestic violence cases.
10 U.S.C. §1562
note
Section 594. Required a central DOD data base for domestic violence incidents.
10 U.S.C. §1562
2002
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003
requires a report to Congress on the implementation of recommendations by
Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence.
P.L. 107-248
2002
Armed Forces Domestic Security Act required that civilian orders of
protection shall have the same force and effect on a military installation.
P.L. 107-311; 10
U.S.C. §1561a
2003
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004
P.L. 108-136
Section 571. Authorized travel and transportation for dependents relocating for
reasons of personal safety.
37 U.S.C. §476
Sections 572. Allowed transitional compensation to commence as of the date of
sentencing of a service member who has been convicted of a dependent-abuse
offense at a court-martial and extended eligibility period to 36 months.
Section 573. Expanded eligibility for transitional compensation for dependents
and former dependents of a former member of the armed forces.
Section 574. Extended eligibility to spouses of members who are separated
administratively on the basis of a dependent-abuse offense.
10 U.S.C. §1059
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2009
P.L. 110-417
Section 561. Required that MPOs remain in effect until terminated or replaced by
a military commander.
Section 562. Required that commanders of military installations notify civilian law
enforcement agencies when an MPO has been issued.
10 U.S.C. §§1567
& 1567a
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
P.L. 111-383
2008
2010
Section 543. Required DOD to address deficiencies in the Defense IncidentBased Reporting System (DIBRS) for domestic violence incidents and required
that chaplains receive domestic violence training.
2011
2014
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
P.L. 112-81
Section 582. Authorized expedited transfer of duty station for victims of sexual
assault.
10 U.S.C. §673
Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015
P.L. 113-291
Congressional Research Service
38
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Year
2017
2018
Law and Statute
Section 544. Required improved reporting of domestic violence incidents.
10 U.S.C. §1562
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018
P.L. 115-91
Section 538. Required inclusion of information in annual SAPRO reports
regarding sexual assaults committed by a member of the Armed Forces against
the member’s spouse or other family member.
10 U.S.C. §1561
note
John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019
P.L. 115-232
Section 532. Added a punitive article on domestic violence to the UCMJ.
10 U.S.C. §928b
Section 534. Required a report on feasibility and advisability of expanding
eligibility for the Special Victims’ Counsel programs to victims of domestic
violence.
10 U.S.C. §1044e
Section 536. Required expedited transfer procedures for victims of physical
domestic violence.
10 U.S.C. §673
Section 577. Required service secretaries to maintain multidisciplinary teams on
military installations to address child abuse and domestic violence.
10 U.S.C. §1561
note.
Source: Compiled by CRS from federal statute.
Congressional Research Service
39
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix B. CDC Risk Factors for Intimate Partner
Violence
Individual Risk Factors
Low self-esteem
Low income
Low academic achievement
Young age
Aggressive or delinquent behavior as a youth
Heavy alcohol and drug use
Depression
Anger and hostility
Antisocial personality traits
Borderline personality traits
Prior history of being physically abusive
Having few friends and being isolated from other people
Unemployment
Emotional dependence and insecurity
Belief in strict gender roles (e.g., male dominance and aggression in
relationships)
Desire for power and control in relationships
Perpetrating psychological aggression
Being a victim of physical or psychological abuse (consistently one of the
strongest predictors of perpetration)
History of experiencing poor parenting as a child
History of experiencing physical discipline as a child
Relationship Factors
Marital conflict: fights, tension, and other struggles
Marital instability: divorces or separations
Dominance and control of the relationship by one partner over the other
Economic stress
Unhealthy family relationships and interactions
Community Factors
Poverty and associated factors (e.g., overcrowding)
Low social capital: lack of institutions, relationships, and norms that shape a
community’s social interactions
Weak community sanctions against IPV (e.g., unwillingness of neighbors to
intervene in situations where they witness violence)
Societal Factors
Traditional gender norms (e.g., women should stay at home, not enter workforce,
and be submissive; men support the family and make the decisions)
Congressional Research Service
40
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
Appendix C. Acronyms
Table C-1.Table of Acronyms
Acronym
Description
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CJIS
Criminal Justice Information Services Division
CPO
Civilian Protective Order
CVF
Crime Victims’ Fund
DCII
Defense Central Index of Investigations
DCIO
Defense Criminal Investigative Office
DCIS
Defense Criminal Investigative Service
DFAS
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
DHRA
Defense Human Resources Activity
DIBRS
Defense Incident-Based Reporting System
DIC
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
DMDC
Defense Manpower Data Center
DOD
Department of Defense
DODIG
Department of Defense Inspector General
DOJ
Department of Justice
DSAID
Defense Sexual Assault Incident Database
GAO
Government Accountability Office
FAP
Family Advocacy Program
FBI
Federal Bureau of Investigation
IDC
Incident Determination Committee
ILE
Installation Law Enforcement
IPV
Intimate Partner Violence
MCIO
Military Criminal Investigative Office
MCM
Manual for Courts Martial
MFRC
Military Family Resource Center
MOU
Memorandum of Understanding
MPO
Military Protective Order
MRE
Military Rules of Evidence
MTF
Military Treatment Facility
NCIS
Naval Criminal Investigative Service
NDAA
National Defense Authorization Act
N-DEx
National Law Enforcement Data Exchange
NIBRS
National Incident-Based Reporting System
OVC
Office for Victims of Crime
Congressional Research Service
41
Military Families and Intimate Partner Violence: Background and Issues for Congress
PCS
Permanent Change of Station
PTSD
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
SAPR
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
SVC
Special Victims’ Counsel
UCMJ
Uniform Code of Military Justice
USD
Undersecretary of Defense
VA
Department of Veterans Affairs
VHA
Veterans Health Administration
VLC
Victims’ Legal Counsel
VOCA
Victims of Crime Act
Author Contact Information
Kristy N. Kamarck
Specialist in Military Manpower
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Lisa N. Sacco
Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
, 7-.. ..
Alan Ott
Analyst in Defense and Intelligence Personnel
Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov
, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
R46097 · VERSION 2 · NEW
42
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted phone numbers and email addresses of analysts who
produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made any
other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.