Gonzalez & Waddington – Attorneys at Law

CALL NOW 1-800-921-8607

Underreporting of Military Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault at Fort Hood

Introduction

Addressing the issue of underreporting of military sexual assault and harassment is crucial to ensuring the safety and well-being of service members. The U.S. Secretary of the Army established the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee (FHIRC) to assess Fort Hood’s command climate and culture comprehensively. One of the critical findings of the FHIRC report, released in November 2020, highlights significant underreporting of sexual assault and harassment incidents at Fort Hood.

Purpose of the Report

Military Sexual Harassment court martial attorneysThe primary purpose of the FHIRC report was to evaluate whether the command climate at Fort Hood was conducive to the uninhibited reporting of sexual harassment and assault. Finding #2 of the report states, “There is strong evidence that incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment at Fort Hood are significantly underreported” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 43). This article delves into the details of this finding, emphasizing the urgent need to address the factors contributing to underreporting and to improve the reporting mechanisms.

Importance of Addressing Underreporting

Underreporting of military sexual assault and harassment has severe consequences for victims and the broader military community. Victims who do not report their experiences often do not receive the necessary support and justice, leading to long-term psychological and professional impacts. Moreover, underreporting undermines the integrity and trust within the military, allowing perpetrators to avoid accountability and potentially continue their abusive behavior. The FHIRC report underscores the pervasive nature of this issue, stating, “Many victims fear retaliation, exposure, and ostracism for reporting SHARP violations” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 27).

Scope of the Article

This article explores the extent of underreporting at Fort Hood, the factors contributing to this issue, and its impact on victims and the military culture. It also reviews the recommendations made by the FHIRC to address these challenges. By examining these aspects, the article aims to highlight the critical steps needed to improve the reporting and response mechanisms for military sexual assault and harassment. Ensuring a safe and supportive environment for all service members is paramount to maintaining the military’s effectiveness and morale. Fort Hood Independent Review Committee Report, 2020. Report of the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee,” U.S. Department of the Army.

Background on Underreporting of Military Sexual Assault and Harassment at Fort Hood

The Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program is a critical initiative within the U.S. Army designed to address and prevent sexual harassment and assault. SHARP aims to create a culture of respect and dignity by providing comprehensive prevention strategies, victim support, and offender accountability. Despite its well-defined objectives, the implementation of SHARP at Fort Hood has faced significant challenges, particularly in the area of reporting sexual harassment and assault incidents.

Overview of SHARP at Fort Hood

Fort Hood, one of the largest military installations in the United States, has been the focus of intense scrutiny due to its handling of sexual harassment and assault cases. The Fort Hood Independent Review Committee (FHIRC) was established to evaluate the command climate and the effectiveness of the SHARP program at the installation. The FHIRC’s findings revealed numerous deficiencies in the implementation of SHARP, contributing to a culture where sexual assault and harassment incidents were significantly underreported.

Extent of Underreporting

The FHIRC report provides compelling evidence of the underreporting of sexual assault and harassment at Fort Hood. The report states, “There is strong evidence that incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment at Fort Hood are significantly underreported” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 43). This underreporting is attributed to various factors, including fear of retaliation, lack of trust in the reporting process, and inadequate support for victims. According to the Department of Defense’s Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, the number of reported cases of sexual assault across the military has been increasing. However, this does not necessarily indicate a rise in incidents but rather an increase in the willingness of victims to come forward. Despite this trend, the FHIRC found that Fort Hood lagged behind other installations regarding reporting, indicating deeper systemic issues.

Command Climate and Culture

The command climate at Fort Hood has been identified as a significant barrier to effective reporting and response to sexual harassment and assault. The FHIRC report highlights that “the command climate at Fort Hood was ineffective, to the extent that there was a permissive environment for sexual assault and sexual harassment” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. iii). This environment discouraged victims from reporting incidents due to fear of retaliation and lack of faith in the system.

Challenges in SHARP Implementation

Military Sexual Harassment court martial attorneysSeveral challenges in implementing the SHARP program at Fort Hood have contributed to the underreporting issue. These challenges include understaffing, insufficient training for SHARP personnel, and inadequate resources. The FHIRC report notes, “The SHARP Program at Fort Hood was under-resourced due to understaffing, lack of training, lack of credentialed SHARP professionals, and lack of funding” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. iiii). Furthermore, the FHIRC identified a lack of command emphasis on the SHARP program. The report states, “The main cause was the inability of the command elements at the Division and Brigade levels to proactively drive the SHARP Program elements of knowledge, prevention, reporting, response and recovery down into the ranks where most of the SHARP violations took place” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 17). This lack of leadership commitment significantly undermined the effectiveness of the program.

Military Sexual Assault in the Army

The background on underreporting of military sexual assault and harassment at Fort Hood reveals deep-rooted structural and cultural issues. Addressing these issues is crucial to ensuring that the SHARP program can effectively fulfill its mandate and create a safe and supportive environment for all service members. The following sections will explore these issues in greater detail and discuss the FHIRC’s recommendations for improvement. Fort Hood Independent Review Committee Report, 2020. “Report of the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee,” U.S. Department of the Army.

Extent of Underreporting of Military Sexual Assault and Harassment at Fort Hood

Military sexual assault and military sexual harassment are pervasive issues that undermine the integrity and effectiveness of the armed forces. The Fort Hood Independent Review Committee (FHIRC) report provides extensive evidence that incidents of sexual assault in the military, particularly at Fort Hood, are significantly underreported. This underreporting has far-reaching consequences for victims, the military community, and the overall mission readiness of the armed forces.

Statistical Evidence of Underreporting

The FHIRC report states unequivocally that “There is strong evidence that incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment at Fort Hood are significantly underreported” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 43). Despite the implementation of the SHARP (Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention) program, the data indicates that many victims of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment do not come forward to report their experiences. According to the Department of Defense’s Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military, the number of reported cases of sexual assault has been increasing across the military. However, this increase does not necessarily indicate a rise in incidents but rather a greater willingness of victims to report. Despite this trend, Fort Hood’s reporting rates lag behind other military installations, suggesting systemic issues prevent soldiers from coming forward.

Factors Contributing to Underreporting

Several factors contribute to the underreporting of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment at Fort Hood. One of the most significant factors is the fear of retaliation. The FHIRC report highlights, “Many victims fear retaliation, exposure, and ostracism for reporting SHARP violations” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 27). A lack of trust in the SHARP program and the broader military justice system compounds this fear. Another critical factor is the perceived ineffectiveness of the SHARP program. The FHIRC report notes, “There was a pervasive lack of confidence in the SHARP program among soldiers” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 36). Soldiers did not believe their reports would be taken seriously or result in meaningful action. This lack of confidence discourages many from reporting incidents of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment.

Impact of Underreporting

The underreporting of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment has severe consequences for both victims and the military community. Victims who do not report their experiences often do not receive the necessary support and justice, leading to long-term psychological and professional impacts. The FHIRC report emphasizes that “Underreporting of sexual assault and harassment undermines the integrity and trust within the military” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 42). For the broader military community, underreporting allows perpetrators to avoid accountability and potentially continue their abusive behavior. This creates a culture where sexual misconduct is tolerated, further eroding trust and cohesion within units. The FHIRC report states, “The command climate at Fort Hood was ineffective, to the extent that there was a permissive environment for sexual assault and sexual harassment” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. iii).

Case Studies and Examples

The FHIRC report includes several case studies and examples that illustrate the extent of underreporting at Fort Hood. These cases highlight the barriers that victims face when attempting to report military sexual assault and military sexual harassment. One such case involved a soldier who chose not to report an incident of sexual assault due to fear of retaliation and lack of faith in the system. This soldier’s experience is not unique and underscores the urgent need for reforms. Another example from the report describes a unit where multiple soldiers experienced military sexual harassment but did not report it due to a lack of trust in their command’s ability to handle the situation effectively. These examples demonstrate the pervasive nature of the problem and the need for comprehensive changes to the SHARP program and command climate at Fort Hood.

Military Sexual Assault were Underreported in the Army

The extent of underreporting of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment at Fort Hood is a critical issue that requires immediate attention. The FHIRC report provides clear evidence that many incidents go unreported due to fear of retaliation, lack of confidence in the SHARP program, and systemic barriers within the military justice system. Addressing these issues is essential to creating a safe and supportive environment for all service members and ensuring the integrity and effectiveness of the military. Fort Hood Independent Review Committee Report, 2020. “Report of the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee,” U.S. Department of the Army.

Factors Contributing to Underreporting of Military Sexual Assault and Harassment at Fort Hood

Underreporting of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment is a pervasive issue at Fort Hood, as highlighted by the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee (FHIRC) report. Several factors contribute to this underreporting, including fear of retaliation, lack of trust in the reporting process, insufficient support for victims, and a permissive command climate. Addressing these factors is crucial to ensuring that all incidents of sexual assault in the military are reported and appropriately addressed.

Fear of Retaliation

One of the most significant barriers to reporting military sexual assault and military sexual harassment is the fear of retaliation. The FHIRC report found that “Many victims fear retaliation, exposure, and ostracism for reporting SHARP violations” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 27). This fear is rooted in the experiences of many soldiers who have faced negative consequences after coming forward with their allegations. Retaliation can take many forms, including professional repercussions, social ostracism, and even threats of violence. The FHIRC report cites several examples where victims were demoted, reassigned to less desirable positions, or subjected to hostile work environments after reporting incidents of military sexual assault. This pervasive fear of retaliation creates a significant deterrent for victims considering whether to report their experiences.

Lack of Trust in the Reporting Process

Another major factor contributing to underreporting is a lack of trust in the reporting process. The FHIRC report states, “There was a pervasive lack of confidence in the SHARP program among soldiers” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 36). Many soldiers do not believe their reports will be taken seriously or lead to meaningful action. This lack of trust is often based on past experiences where reports were mishandled or ignored. The perceived ineffectiveness of the SHARP program further exacerbates this lack of trust. The report highlights that “The SHARP Program at Fort Hood was under-resourced, due to understaffing, lack of training, lack of credentialed SHARP professionals, and lack of funding” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. iii). These deficiencies hinder the program’s ability to provide adequate support and ensure accountability, leading soldiers to doubt its efficacy.

Insufficient Support for Victims

Insufficient support for victims of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment is another critical factor contributing to underreporting. The FHIRC report indicates that many victims do not receive the necessary medical, psychological, and legal support after reporting an incident. This lack of support can discourage victims from coming forward, as they may fear that reporting will exacerbate their trauma rather than alleviate it. The report also notes that “there was widespread lack of knowledge of basic SHARP reporting methods and the right to Special Victims’ Counsel” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 24). This knowledge gap means that many victims are unaware of the available resources or how to access them. Improving education and awareness about SHARP processes and support services is essential to encouraging more victims to report incidents.

Permissive Command Climate

The command climate at Fort Hood has been identified as a significant barrier to effective reporting and response to sexual harassment and assault. The FHIRC report highlights that “the command climate at Fort Hood was ineffective, to the extent that there was a permissive environment for sexual assault and sexual harassment” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. iii). This environment discouraged victims from reporting incidents due to fear of retaliation and lack of faith in the system. A permissive command climate allows military sexual assault and military sexual harassment to go unchecked, fostering a culture where such behavior is tolerated or even normalized. The FHIRC report points out that “command elements at the Division and Brigade levels failed to proactively drive the SHARP Program elements of knowledge, prevention, reporting, response, and recovery down into the ranks” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 17). Without strong leadership and accountability, efforts to address and prevent sexual misconduct are severely undermined.

Impact of Cultural Norms and Stigma

Cultural norms and stigma surrounding sexual assault in the military also contribute to underreporting. There is often a stigma attached to being a victim of sexual assault, which can lead to feelings of shame and isolation. This stigma can be particularly pronounced in the military, where values such as strength, resilience, and toughness are highly prized. The FHIRC report notes that many victims feel that reporting an incident will be seen as a sign of weakness or that they will be blamed for what happened. This victim-blaming mentality can deter individuals from coming forward and seeking the help they need. Changing these cultural norms and reducing the stigma associated with being a victim of military sexual assault is crucial to increasing reporting rates.

Military Sexual Assault Court Martials Did Not Solve the Problems

Addressing the factors contributing to the underreporting of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment at Fort Hood is essential to creating a safer and more supportive environment for all service members. Fear of retaliation, lack of trust in the reporting process, insufficient support for victims, a permissive command climate, and cultural norms and stigma all play a significant role in deterring victims from reporting their experiences. Comprehensive reforms are needed to address these issues, including improving the SHARP program’s resources and effectiveness, enhancing victim support services, fostering a culture of accountability, and changing harmful cultural norms. Only by addressing these factors can the military ensure that all incidents of sexual assault and harassment are reported and appropriately addressed. Fort Hood Independent Review Committee Report, 2020. “Report of the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee,” U.S. Department of the Army. Underreporting of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment has significant and far-reaching consequences. When incidents of sexual assault in the military go unreported, it affects not only the victims but also the entire military community. This section explores the various impacts of underreporting, highlighting the personal, professional, and systemic ramifications within the military.

Impact on Victims

The most immediate and profound impact of underreporting military sexual assault and military sexual harassment is on the victims themselves. When victims do not report their experiences, they are often denied access to necessary medical, psychological, and legal support. The FHIRC report notes that “underreporting of sexual assault and harassment means that many victims do not receive the care and support they need” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 42). Victims who do not report incidents may suffer from long-term psychological effects, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The lack of official recognition and support can exacerbate these conditions, leading to further isolation and distress. Additionally, the fear of retaliation and lack of trust in the reporting process can compound the trauma, making it even more difficult for victims to seek help.

Impact on Military Culture

Underreporting of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment undermines the integrity and trust within the military. When incidents are not reported, perpetrators are not held accountable, which can create a culture of impunity. The FHIRC report emphasizes that “a permissive environment for sexual assault and sexual harassment undermines the core values and discipline of the military” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. iii). This culture of impunity can lead to an increase in the prevalence of sexual misconduct, as individuals who commit these acts may feel emboldened by the lack of consequences. This endangers more soldiers and erodes the trust and cohesion necessary for effective military operations. A military environment where sexual misconduct is tolerated or ignored is detrimental to morale and unit cohesion.

Impact on Military Readiness

The underreporting of sexual assault in the military also has significant implications for military readiness and effectiveness. Soldiers who experience sexual assault or harassment may be less likely to re-enlist, leading to a loss of trained and experienced personnel. The FHIRC report highlights that “retention of skilled personnel is negatively impacted when victims of sexual assault and harassment do not feel supported” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 48). Additionally, the presence of sexual misconduct within the ranks can distract from the mission and undermine the focus and efficiency of military operations. When soldiers are preoccupied with concerns about their safety and well-being, their performance and dedication to their duties can suffer. This can have a cascading effect on military units’ overall effectiveness and ability to accomplish their missions.

Legal and Policy Implications

Underreporting of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment also has significant legal and policy implications. When incidents are not reported, it is challenging to gather accurate data on the prevalence and nature of sexual misconduct in the military. This data is crucial for informing policy decisions and developing effective prevention and response strategies. The FHIRC report underscores the importance of accurate reporting for policy development, stating that “comprehensive and accurate data on sexual assault and harassment is essential for the formulation of effective policies and programs” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 54). Without reliable data, efforts to address and prevent sexual misconduct in the military are likely to be insufficient and misdirected.

Impact of Military Sexual Assault in the Army

The underreporting of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment has profound and far-reaching impacts. It affects the victims, the military culture, and the overall readiness and effectiveness of the armed forces. Addressing the issue of underreporting is crucial to ensuring that all incidents of sexual misconduct are reported and properly addressed, thereby fostering a safer and more supportive environment for all service members. Comprehensive reforms and a strong commitment to accountability are essential steps toward achieving this goal. Fort Hood Independent Review Committee Report, 2020. “Report of the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee,” U.S. Department of the Army.

Recommendations from FHIRC on Addressing Military Sexual Assault and Harassment at Fort Hood

The Fort Hood Independent Review Committee (FHIRC) report identified numerous deficiencies in how military sexual assault and military sexual harassment cases are handled at Fort Hood. To address these issues, the FHIRC provided several key recommendations aimed at improving the reporting, response, and prevention mechanisms for sexual misconduct in the military. These recommendations are essential to creating a safer and more supportive environment for all service members.

Improving Reporting Mechanisms

One of the primary recommendations from the FHIRC is to improve the reporting mechanisms for military sexual assault and military sexual harassment. The report suggests establishing more confidential and accessible reporting channels to encourage victims to come forward without fear of retaliation. The FHIRC emphasizes the need for “establishing confidential reporting channels that allow victims to report incidents without fear of exposure or reprisal” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 60). Additionally, the report recommends increasing the visibility and accessibility of reporting options. This includes better dissemination of information about how to report incidents and what resources are available to victims. The FHIRC highlights the importance of “enhancing awareness and understanding of reporting options among all service members” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 61).

Enhancing Victim Support

To address the inadequate support for victims of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment, the FHIRC recommends significantly enhancing the support services available. This includes increasing the number of Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) and other support personnel who are trained and credentialed to assist victims. The report states, “The Army should increase the number of Special Victims’ Counsel and other support personnel to ensure that all victims receive the care and support they need” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 64). Furthermore, the FHIRC suggests providing comprehensive and ongoing training for SHARP personnel to ensure they are equipped to handle the complexities of sexual assault in the military. This includes training on trauma-informed care and the legal rights of victims. The report emphasizes, “Ongoing training and professional development for SHARP personnel are essential to providing effective support to victims” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 65).

Strengthening Command Accountability

Command accountability is critical to the success of any program aimed at addressing military sexual assault and military sexual harassment. The FHIRC recommends that commanders at all levels be held accountable for the implementation and effectiveness of the SHARP program. The report suggests that “commanders should be evaluated on their handling of SHARP cases and their efforts to create a respectful and safe environment” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 68). The FHIRC also recommends establishing a centralized SHARP Program Management Office at the installation level to provide oversight and ensure consistency in program implementation. The report states, “A centralized SHARP Program Management Office can help ensure that the program is implemented consistently and effectively across all units” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 69).

Increasing Transparency and Accountability

Transparency and accountability are essential to restoring trust in the SHARP program and the military justice system. The FHIRC recommends that the outcomes of SHARP cases be published regularly, without identifying the individuals involved, to demonstrate the Army’s commitment to addressing military sexual assault and military sexual harassment. The report states, “Publishing the outcomes of SHARP cases can help deter future misconduct and build confidence in the SHARP response process” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 71). Additionally, the FHIRC suggests conducting regular audits and assessments of the SHARP program to identify areas for improvement and ensure compliance with established standards. The report emphasizes, “Regular audits and assessments are necessary to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the SHARP program” (FHIRC Report, 2020, p. 72).

Conclusion

The recommendations from the FHIRC provide a comprehensive roadmap for addressing the deficiencies in the handling of military sexual assault and military sexual harassment at Fort Hood. By improving reporting mechanisms, enhancing victim support, strengthening command accountability, and increasing transparency, the Army can create a safer and more supportive environment for all service members. Implementing these recommendations is essential to restoring trust in the SHARP program and ensuring that all incidents of sexual misconduct are reported and appropriately addressed. Fort Hood Independent Review Committee Report, 2020. “Report of the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee,” U.S. Department of the Army.

Authoritative websites that provide comprehensive information on military sexual assault:

1. Department of Defense (DoD) Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO)

DoD SAPRO

•The official site for the DoD’s efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault within the military.

2. Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN)

RAINN – Military Sexual Assault

•Provides information and resources for survivors of sexual assault, including those in the military.

3. National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC)

NSVRC – Sexual Violence in the Military

•Offers resources and research on sexual violence, including in military contexts.

4. Military OneSource

Military OneSource – Sexual Assault

•A Department of Defense-funded program providing support and resources for military members and their families.

5. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

VA – Military Sexual Trauma

•Information and resources for veterans who have experienced military sexual trauma.

6. American Psychological Association (APA)

APA – Military Sexual Assault Prevention Efforts

•Offers insights into efforts and research related to preventing sexual assault in the military.

7. Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN)

SWAN – Sexual Violence in the Military

•An organization advocating for the needs of servicewomen, including issues of sexual violence.

8. Center for American Progress (CAP)

CAP – Addressing Sexual Assault in the Military

•Research and policy recommendations for addressing sexual assault in the military.

9. Human Rights Watch (HRW)

HRW – Military Sexual Assault

•Reports and advocacy on human rights issues, including sexual assault in the military.

10. Military Rape Crisis Center (MRCC)

MRCC

•Provides support and advocacy for survivors of military sexual assault.

These resources offer a range of perspectives, support services, research, and policy discussions related to military sexual assault.

Our Military Defense Lawyers Defend UCMJ Cases at the Following Military Bases in the United States, Europe, & Asia

Maxwell Gunter Air Force Base, Montgomery, AL
Redstone Arsenal Army Post, Madison, AL
Fort Novosel Army Post, Dale, AL

USCG Juneau Coast Guard Base, Juneau, AK
Marine Safety Unit Valdez Coast Guard Base, Valdez, AK
ISC Kodiak Coast Guard Base, Kodiak Island, AK
Fort Greely Army Post, Fairbanks, AK
Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, AK
Eielson Air Force Base, North Pole, AK
Fort Wainwright Army Post, Fairbanks, AK
Fort Richardson Army Post, Anchorage, AK

MCAS Yuma Marine Corps Base, Yuma, AZ
Davis Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, AZ
Luke Air Force Base, Glendale, AZ
Fort Huachuca Army Post, Cochise, AZ

Fort Chaffee Army Post, Fort Smith, AR
Pine Bluff Arsenal Army Post, Jefferson County, AR
Little Rock Air Force Base, Jacksonville, AR

Petaluma Coast Guard Base, Petaluma, CA
ISC Alameda Coast Guard Base, Alameda, CA
NWS Seal Beach Navy Base, Seal Beach, CA
Naval Postgraduate School Navy Base, Monterey, CA
Naval Air Facility Navy Base, El Centro, CA
NS San Diego Navy Base, San Diego, CA
NAS Point Mugu Navy Base, Poing Mugu, CA
Point Loma Navy Base, San Diego, CA
NAS Lemoore Navy Base, Lemoore, CA
Naval Base Coronado Navy Base, San Diego, CA
NAWS China Lake Navy Base, China Lake, CA
Twentynine Palms Marine Corps BAse, Twentynine Palms, CA
MCRD San Diego Marine Corps Base, San Diego, CA
MCAS Miramar Marine Corps Base, San Diego, CA
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, San Diego, CA
MCLB Barstow Marine Corps Base, Barstow, CA
Vandenberg Air Force Base, Lompoc, CA
Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, CA
Los Angeles Air Force Base, El Segundo, CA
Edwards Air Force Base, Edwards, CA
Beale Air Force Base, Marysville, CA
Presidio Of Monterey Army Post, Monterey, CA
Fort Irwin Army Post, Barstow, CA

Schriever Air Force Base, El Paso, CO
Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, CO
Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base, Colorado Springs, CO
Buckley Air Force Base, Aurora, CO
Air Force Academy (USAFA), Colorado Springs, CO
Fort Carson Army Post, Colorado Springs, CO

US Coast Guard Academy (USCGA), New London, CT
Marine Safety Center Marine Base, Groton, CT
Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, CT

Dover Air Force Base, Dover, DE

Naval Research Laboratory Navy Base, Washington, DC
Coast Guard Headquarters, Washington, DC
Navy Yard Navy Base, Washington DC
The Pentagon, Washington, DC
Marine Barracks Marine Corps Base, Washington, DC
Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, DC
Walter Reed Medical Center, Washington, DC
Fort McNair Army Post, Washington, DC

Homestead Air Reserve Base, Miami, FL
District 7 Coast Guard Base, Miami, FL
Air Station Clearwater Coast Guard Base, Clearwater, FL
Blount Island Command Marine Corps, Jacksonville, FL
NAS Panama City Navy Base, Panama City, FL
Naval Air Warfare Center Navy Base, Orlando, FL
NAS Whiting Field Navy Base, Milton, FL
NAS Pensacola Navy Base, Pensacola, FL
NS Mayport Navy Base, Duval, FL
NAS Key West Navy Base, Key West, FL
NAS Jacksonville Navy Base, Jacksonville, FL
Training Center Corry Navy Base, Pensacola, FL
MacDill Air Force Base, Tampa, FL
Tyndall Air Force Base, Panama City, FL
Patrick Air Force Base, Brevard, FL
Hurlburt Field Air Force Base, Mary Esther, FL
Eglin Air Force Base, Valparaiso, FL

Kings Bay Submarine Navy Base, Kings Bay, GA
NAS Atlanta Navy Base, Marietta, GA
MCLB Albany Army Post, Albany, GA
Robins Air Force Base, Houston, GA
Moody Air Force Base, Valdosta, GA
Hunter Army Airfield Army Post, Savannah, GA
Fort Stewart Army Post, Liberty, GA
Fort McPherson Army Post, East Point, GA
Fort Eisenhower Army Post, Augusta, GA
Fort Gillem Army Post, Forest Park, GA
Fort Moore Army Post, Columbus, GA

Wheeler Army Airfield Base, Wahiawa, Hawaii
USCG ISC Honolulu Coast Guard Base, Honolulu, HI
Station Maui Coast Guard Base, Wailuku, HI
NS Pearl Harbor Navy Base, Oahu, HI
NCTAMS PAC Navy Base, Wahiawa, HI
MCB Hawaii Marine Corps Base, Kaneohe, HI
Hickam Air Force Base, Honolulu, HI
Tripler Medical Center Army Post, Honolulu, HI
Schofield Barracks Army Post, Oahu, HI
Fort Shafter Army Post, Honolulu, HI

Mountain Home Air Force Base, Elmore, ID

Rock Island Arsenal Army Post, Arsenal Island, IL
Great Lakes Training Center Navy Base, Chicago, IL
Scott Air Force Base, St Clair, IL

United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, KS
McConnell Air Force Base, Sedgwick, KS
Fort Riley Army Post, Riley, KS
Fort Leavenworth Army Post, Leavenworth, KS

Fort Knox Army Post, Elizabethtown, KY
Fort Campbell Army Post, Clarksville, TN

Marine Corps Support Facility, New Orleans, LA
NSA New Orleans Navy Base, New Orleans, LA
Barksdale Air Force Base, Bossier City, LA
Fort Johnson Army Post, Vernon Parish, LA

NS Portsmouth Navy Base, Portsmouth, ME
NAS Brunswick Navy Base, Brunswick, ME

Coast Guard Yard, Baltimore, MD
NSA Annapolis Navy Base, Annapolis, MD
NAS Patuxent River Navy Base, Lexington Park, MD
Naval Medical Center Navy Base, Bethesda, MD
US Naval Academy (USNA), Annapolis, MD
Andrews Air Force Base, MD
Fort Meade Army Post, Odenton, MD
Fort Detrick Army Post, Frederick, MD
Aberdeen Proving Ground Army Post, Aberdeen, MD

Sector SE New England Coast Guard, Woods Hole, MA
Air Station Cape Cod Coast Guard Base, Cape Cod, MA
Hanscom Air Force Base, Bedford, MA

Camp Shelby Army Post, Hattiesburg, MS
NS Pascagoula Navy Base, Pascagoula, MS
NAS Meridian Navy Base, Meridian, MS
Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, MS
Gulfport Battalion Center Navy Base, Gulfport, MS

Whiteman Air Force Base, Johnson, MO
Fort Leonard Wood Army Post,Fort Leonard Wood, MO

Malmstrom Air Force Base, Cascade, MT

Offutt Air Force Base, Bellevue, NE

Creech Air Force Base, Indian Springs, NV
NAS Fallon Navy Base, Fallon, NV
Nellis Air Force Base, Las Vegas, NV

Portsmouth Shipyard Navy Base, Portsmouth, NH

NAES Lakehurst Navy Base, Lakehurst, NJ
Mcguire Air Force Base, New Hanover, NJ
Fort Dix Army Post, Burlington, NJ

Los Alamos Demolition Army Post, North Central, NM
Kirtland Air Force Base, Bernalillo, NM
Holloman Air Force Base, Otero, NM
Cannon Air Force Base, Curry, NM
White Sands Missile Range Army Post, Otero, NM

US Military Academy (USMA), West Point, NY
Fort Hamilton Army Post, Brooklyn, NY
Fort Drum Army Post, Jefferson, NY

Simmons Army Airfield, Cumberland, NC
Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, Brunswick County, NC
Camp Mackall Army Post, Southern Pines, NC
Air Station Elizabeth City Coast Guard Base, Elizabeth City, NC
MCAS New River Marine Corps Base, Jacksonville, NC
MCAS Cherry Point Marine Corps Base, Havelock, NC
Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, Jacksonville NC
Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Goldsboro, NC
Pope Air Force Base, Fayetteville, NC
Fort Liberty Army Post, Fayetteville, NC

Minot Air Force Base, Minot, ND
Grand Forks Air Force Base, Grand Forks, ND

ISC Cleveland Coast Guard Base, Cleveland, OH
Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH

Coast Guard Institute, Oklahoma City, OK
Vance Air Force Base, Enid, OK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, OK
Altus Air Force Base, Altus, OK
Fort Sill Army Post, Lawton, OK

Naval Support Activity, Philadelphia, PA
JRB Willow Grove Navy Base, Willow Grove, PA
Carlisle Barracks Army Post, Carlisle, PA

Fort Buchanan, San Juan, PR
Coast Guard Base San Juan, San Juan, PR

Station Point Judith USCG, Narragansett, RI
Station Castle Hill Coast Guard, Newport, RI
NS Newport Naval Base, Newport, RI

NWS Charleston Navy Base, Goose Creek, SC
Naval Hospital Charleston Navy Base, North Charleston, SC
Naval Hospital Beaufort Navy Base, Beaufort, SC
MCRD Parris Island Marine Corps Base, Port Royal, SC
MCAS Beaufort Marine Corps Base, Beaufort, SC
Shaw Air Force Base, Sumter, SC
Joint Base Charleston Air Force North, Charleston, SC
Fort Jackson Army Post, Columbia, SC
NSA Capodichino
Gricignano Support Site
NSA Naples
NSA Gaeta
NAS Sigonella
Augusta Bay Port Facility
NCTS Naples

Ellsworth Air Force Base, Rapid City, SD

Arnold Air Force Base, Tullahoma, TN
NSA Mid South Naval Base, Millington, TN

Biggs Army Air Field at Fort Bliss, El Paso, TX
NAS Kingsville Navy Base, Kingsville, TX
NAS Corpus Christi Navy Base, Flour Bluff, TX
Sheppard Air Force Base, Wichita Falls, TX
Randolph Air Force Base, Universal City, TX
Laughlin Air Force Base, Del Rio, TX
Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, TX
Goodfellow Air Force Base, San Angelo, TX
Dyess Air Force Base, Abilene, TX
Brooks City Air Force Base, San Antonio, TX
Fort Sam Houston Army Post, San Antonio, TX
Fort Cavazos Army Post, Killeen, TX
Fort Bliss Army Post, El Paso, TX

Tooele Army Depot Base, Tooele, UT
Dugway Proving Ground Army Post, Tooele County, UT
Hill Air Force Base, Salt Lake City, UT

Naval Support Activity, Hampton Roads, VA
Training Center Yorktown Coast Guard Base, Yorktown, VA
Sector Hampton Roads Coast Guard Base, Portsmouth, VA
NSA Norfolk Navy Base, Norfolk, VA
Medical Center Portsmouth Navy Base, Portsmouth, VA
Joint Expeditionary Fort Story Naval Base, Little Creek, VA
NWS Yorktown Navy Base, Yorktown, VA
NAS Oceana Naval Base, Virginia Beach, VA
NS Norfolk Naval Base, Norfolk, VA
NSWC Dahlgren Naval Base, Dahlgren, VA
NAB Little Creek Navy Base, Norfolk, VA
Quantico Military Reservation Marine Corps, Quantico, VA
Henderson Hall Marine Corps Base, Arlington, VA
Langley Air Force Base, Hampton, VA
Fort Myer Army Post, Arlington, VA
Fort Monroe Army Post, Hampton, VA
Fort Gregg-Adams Army Post, Prince George, VA
Fort Eustis Army Post, Newport News, VA
Fort Belvoir Army Post, Fairfax, VA

Yakima Training Center Army Post, Yakima, WA
Naval Hospital Bremerton Naval Base, Bremerton, WA
NAS Whidbey Island Navy Base, Oak Harbor, WA
NS Everett Navy Base, Everett, WA
Navy Base Kitsap Navy Base, Silverdale, WA
McChord Air Force Base, Tacoma, WA
Fairchild Air Force Base, Spokane, WA
Fort Lewis Army Post, Pierce, WA

Fort McCoy Army Post, Tomah, WI

Francis E Warren Air Force Base, Cheyenne, WY

Asia - Pacific Europe South Korea Japan

Chievres Air Base, Belgium
Kleine Brogel Air Base, Belgium

USAG Grafenwoehr, Germany
USAG Ansbach, Germany
USAG Baumholder, Germany
USAG Garmisch, Germany
USAG Hohenfels, Germany
USAG Kaiserslautern, Germany
USAG Stuttgart, Germany
USAG Vilseck, Germany
USAG Wiesbaden, Germany
Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany
Büchel Air Base, Germany
NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen, Germany
Ramstein Air Base, Germany
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany

RAF Alconbury, Cambridgeshire, UK
RAF Croughton, Northamptonshire, UK
RAF Fairford, Gloucestershire, UK
RAF Feltwell, Norfolk, UK
RAF Fylingdales, North York Moors, UK
RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom
RAF Menwith Hill, North Yorkshire, UK
RAF Mildenhall, Suffolk, UK
RAF Molesworth, Cambridgeshire, UK
RAF Welford, Berkshire, UK

NSA Souda Bay, Greece

Papa Air Base, Hungary

Naval Air Station Keflavík, Iceland

USAG Vicenza, Italy
Camp Darby, Italy
Caserma Ederle, Italy
NSA Capodichino
Gricignano Support Site
NSA Naples, Italy
NSA Gaeta, Italy
NAS Sigonella, Italy
NCTS Naples, Italy
Aviano Air Base, Italy
Ghedi Air Base, Italy
Sigonella Naval Air Station, Italy

Volkel Air Base, Netherlands

Stavanger Air Station, Norway

U.S. Army Garrison, Poland
Camp Kosciuszko, Poland
33rd Air Base, Powidz, Poland
Naval Support Facility Redzikowo, Poland
Łask Air Base, Poland

Lajes Field, Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal

Naval Support Facility Deveselu, Romania
Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base, Romania
Câmpia Turzii Air Base, Romania

Naval Station Rota Spain, Spain
Morón Air Base, Spain

Ankara Support Facility, Turkey
Incirlik Air Base, Turkey
Izmir Air Station, Turkey

USAG Japan, Camp Zama
USAG Torii Station, Okinawa, Japan
NAF Atsugi, Japan
NSF Kamiseya, Japan
NAF Misawa, Japan
CFA Okinawa, Japan
CFA Sasebo, Sasebo, Japan
CFA Yokosuka, Yokosuka
Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan
Misawa Air Base, Japan
Yokota Air Base, Japan
Marine Corps Base Camp Smedley D. Butler, Okinawa, Japan
Camp McTureous, Okinawa, Japan
Camp Courtney, Okinawa, Japan
Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan
Camp Fuji, Japan
Camp Gonsalves, Okinawa, Japan
Camp Schwab, Okinawa, Japan
United States Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan
Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Japan
Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan
Misawa Air Base, Japan
Naval Air Facility Atsugi, Japan
Camp Kinser, Japan
US Fleet Activities Saesebo, Japan
Yokota Air Base, Japan
Yontan Airfield, Japan

Camp Humphreys, South Korea
Yongsan,  SouthKorea (Seoul, Korea)
USAG Yongsan, South Korea
Camp Casey, South Korea
Camp Red Cloud, Korea
Kunsan Air Base, South Korea
Osan Air Base, South Korea

 
 
Skip to content