the dod for ptsd, and sent me on my way. as for the v.a., i only seen a counselor, one counselor through my whole therapy, who was not trained in military sexual trauma. he mostly trained at vietnam vets, you know, i looked for different treatment facilities, and different programs at my v.a. they were you know, women oriented. which was fine, but then when, you know, i asked about, you know, what can they do for men, and she says, you know, well we don't have a men's group yet. we're still in the process of putting that together. and this is just last year. and so, you know, her recommendation was to go through cognitive therapy. you know. and that's traveling down, you know, every day for six weeks. and that's 90 miles from my home, you know. >> after you attempted suicide,

what did -- what type of treatment did you receive then? was it a different kind of treatment, or did you receive better care through the v.a.? >> i received -- as my spinal cord injury and my paralysis i received excellent care regarding that. and i go to richmond at hunter homes mcguire v.a. medical center down there for their spinal cord clinic, because it's top notch. their psychologists there are very well listeners, but, again, they're not trained about, you know, military sexual trauma. you bring it up and they're like, oh. that's kind of like their first thing and then you know, their first expression, and at that point you kind of feel like oh, you know, i'm just this, you know, this dirty thing that they just happened to stumble in. not that i'm downing any of them. it's just the fact that that's

the stigma that i feel personally when you get a reply of, oh. you know, when you say that you're sexually assaulted. >> thank you. miss kenyon can you share with us your experience in terms of what type of mental health treatment you received, and whether it was better in the v.a., or whether it was better in active duty under the dod and whether your records were transferred well, and what impact that treatment had on you. >> yes. thank you. during my active duty service, the recommendation was to go to mental health. and whenever i did, i would get a counseling statement for not doing my job. so, after one or two, i believe, i stopped going, because of the repercussions in my command. >> did your case go to trial, miss kenyon?

>> it did not. it went to basically the cid investigated, and he denied everything, and then he was caught lying on his sworn statement later, and they gave him a charge of lying on a sworn statement, and indecent assault, and basically he was given an article 15, and extra duty. so he had no jail time. he lost rank and that was it. but my repercussions in the fact that i could not go to treatment, i was punished for going to treatment, so i did not pursue it while i was in the military. however when i went out, i did -- when i was discharged, i did try to go to the v.a. multiple times and was redirected to other locations, other services, and eventually gave up, and i restarted recently trying to get more help

and get support and basically what i have found in helping myself and other veterans, it's good counselors are the stuff of legends. you know, they're always 50 miles away. they're always -- they're, you know, i heard of this magical counselor, somewhere out of reach. you know. and those types of things happen and are told to other veterans, and they do try and pursue them. but if they are any good, they have a very long list. >> during your trial, did -- were mental health records used in your trial? your mental health records? >> not to my knowledge. and it was just my commander took it, and he didn't -- there was no formal trial. >> do you know, mr. arbogast, if your mental health records were used in your article 32 hearing or during your trial? >> i'm not quite sure. but they did use mental unstability, you know, the defense tried that approach when

they did, when they drilled me on the stand. >> but your trial was unique. you had taped evidence of a -- of your perpetrator admitting the crime of drugging you and raping you. so you had more of an air tight case. but again for those who joined our hearing later your assailant received no jail time. >> no, due to his 23 years of service, they thought that was, you know, more or less, like i said, you know, kudos for him. and, you know, to me, it was disgusting because, you know -- >> which is one of the reasons why members of this committee are working so hard to remove the good soldier defense. >> right. and i think that's very important. because of the simple fact of, you know, when i'm brought in, and i'm told that, you know, oh, well he's just a lance corporal, i'm a staff sergeant, this is how many years i've served and then you use that good soldier defense, you know, then that weighs upon the jury, or the judge, whoever has the case, and then they're like oh, well he's had this one case, but that

doesn't mean that he hasn't had cases in the past. >> thank you. senator graham? >> thank you very much. do both of you agree if you had access to civilian counseling services that would be beneficial? if the v.a. would pay for it? >> if i had a little more choice outside of where i did not feel i had to go to the v.a., and possibly endure other male soldiers who are always threatening to me regardless, it's just a trigger, i do believe that i could see the benefit in not only other outside counselors, but other alternative health care as prescriptions are not -- >> do you know of anything in your local community that you think would be beneficial to you? >> i have -- i have heard and seen a lot of benefits to things

like meditation to yoga to -- in correlation with a counselor, you know, to push through balance and well-being, and taking those triggers and those moments of panic and being able to maintain them much better. >> i don't want to butcher your last name, lance corporal -- >> arbogast, senator. >> arbogast. do you think that would be helpful to you to have access to civilian counseling where the v.a. is inadequate? >> i actually do that. i actually use my track care and medicare to do that because of the v.a. counselors not having that expertise. >> so tricare does provide that access to you? >> correct. >> in your case, miss kenyon, that's not the case? >> i currently do not receive anything like that. and i pay out of pocket for any counseling. >> did you get a disability -- >> i have not received a rating.

>> is that still ongoing? >> it's still ongoing, senator. >> what was the date of your assault, do you recall what time period? >> i hate to say this, but which one? >> well, i mean the one that is the subject of article 15. >> the one that received the most justice, i suppose, would be july 2006. >> 2006. now you said you received letters of counseling, going for treatment, is that correct? >> yes, senator. >> would you be willing to make those letters available to the committee? >> absolutely. if i have received a copy of them, i will -- >> thank you. i would like to see the letter of counseling, who wrote it, and what they said. thank you both. i hope that we can find a way to broaden the treatment options available. for those who find themselves in your circumstance. and i think there are a lot of things outside the v.a., outside dod that may be beneficial.

not just in this situation, but in other situations. but particularly this situation. thank you for sharing your testimony with the committee. >> senator hirono? >> thank you, madam chair. and thank you both for testifying this morning. one of the concerns that this committee, and the larger committee, the main committee, has is the fact that thousands and thousands of these sexual assaults occur, and they are never reported. would you share with us from, particularly from your own experience, why this is so, and what we can do to enable more of the survivors to report these crimes. start with you mr. arbogast. >> senator, could you elaborate your question again? >> well, thousands of the -- the figures are some 22,000-plus

sexual assaults occur in the military in a given year and only a very insignificant number of these crimes are ever reported to the chain of command. and i wanted to ask for your thoughts on why this is so, and what we can do to enable more people to report these crimes. enable more service members? >> and the dod, reporting to the chain of command, it's horrific. you know, it could be a perpetrator in your chain of command. it could be your direct supervisor. in my case it was my previous supervisor. he used his influences to try to get to me, torment me, over the time that i was, you know, raped, and to the time that the investigation was going on. then i endure, you know, going to his home, wearing a body wire, and then i have to endure

the article 32, and i have to endure the court-martial. so you can see the patterns of different traumas that i was subjected to. so, anybody that would see something like that, any service member would be like, you know, i'm not going to report this. and you know, and thousands of veterans, the v.a. finds thousands of veterans a year that finally report military sexual trauma. and i don't have the exact numbers, but i know it's alarming. so it's, you know, you know, taking it out of the chain of command, you know, i've talked to some active duty commanders, and they have specifically said, if i don't have to deal with a sexual assault and i can continue with going on with what my mission is to, you know, make the unit ready, and deal with these everyday problems of what needs done and whatever their command is, whether it be

engineering, mode of transport, they would like to do that, concentrate on that. because a sexual assault is more or less a burden on the command. and then it creates a morale problem. and a cohesion problem. so, you know, it's -- it's just, you know, that's the only thing i can -- i can think of that would, you know, get that -- you know, you know, going back to my testimony where it says, you know, that sapro official made the comment that, you know, let's tell them, let's just tell perpetrators, don't rape. okay so you get all the perpetrators in a room and tell them don't rape. but you're still going to allow them to serve? >> i note in your testimony that one of the observations you made is that there should be some very specific specialized training in working with survivors of military sexual trauma. i do agree with you, because on the civilian side, there are many states that require prosecutors, for example, to get

very specialized treatment -- training when they deal with rape victims, for example. and apparently that's something that you would suggest for the military. miss kenyon would you like to give us your thoughts on my question? >> yes, thank you, senator. i would add, generally, the attitude, sexual assault is underreported in the civilian world, as well, and is not to disregard the military environment in which makes it even more hostile. i would also point out that i can only correlate it with -- to make and understand who would a cop report a rape to within their own -- you know, that wouldn't cause other police officers to possibly spread a rumor. that's the only civilian thing i could possibly think that would correlate with a perversion of justice this way. so i would also stop publicly

putting posters up with rape myths, like wait until she's sober. these types of things like that, where it's a different type of candy-coated victim blaming. there's a lot of studies in regards to the perpetrators are repeat offenders. they prey on this. it is not a sexual act. it is a power act. it is not about the sex. it is about usually taking them down a notch. >> and would you agree it should also be treated as a crime? >> oh, absolutely. >> that's what it is. you work with -- with survivors of military sexual trauma, so during the period when you had to undergo repeated traumas, have there been some positive changes to how the military helps survivors of military sexual trauma? >> well, i do believe the 2004

implementation of the sapro office, despite it not having power, the option to report unrestricted and restricted did open a few doors. however, the loopholes are so great that the command can still exploit them regardless, because, for example, if you were a survivor of the sexual assault, and you wanted to go to a counselor but you reported restricted, which is all within your rights, what would you tell your commander? you know, giving that information to a commander allows them to investigate it, and go further with an unrestricted report, whether they cooperate or not. this was threatened to me. and already being ostracized based on a previous investigation, i could not allow the commander who threatened to question everybody in my hangar, that's 260 people, and create that kind of environment which everybody knew what was going

on. not just most of them. >> so while there have been some improvements then given theer is earty of the problem, more can be done? >> we have a very long road ahead, and you know, it is an amount of baby steps. and i do hope that we can take it step by step, and -- and public prosecutions will go a long way to showing both victims and survivors, or perpetrators, as justice can and will be done. >> and you, too, support removing the chain of command from the decision to prosecute these crimes? >> absolutely. i believe that there's enough on the commander's plate, and the fact that there's just entirely too many conflicts of interest, as well as just, even if they do want to do the right thing, there's pressures from every direction that creates an almost impossible environment in which justice could be served. even, and i hate to say this, but even to the perpetrators. >> thank you. thank you madam chair.

>> thank you, madam chair. questions in sort of two areas that have been raised by just listening to your testimony and answers to questions. and first i'll just thank you for being here today. this is hard to do. and i appreciate your courage in coming, and letting us ask questions so that we can understand the situation, and better decide how to improve it. ms. kenyon you raised a point in your testimony, i want to make sure i understood what you meant. you said you think to some degree sexual assault in serkszual assault in the military gets treated like any other sexual assault, citizen sexual assault and you said you thought the better analogy was an incest analogy. i want to make sure i understand what you meant when you said that. >> absolutely. thank you. i do -- i love talking about

this. the betrayal aspect is completely uncommon in the civilian sexual assault. one of the feelings that i left the military feeling almost crushingly, the betrayal of my command. we're talking at this point, an all-volunteer military. so they go in and there's an inherent trust. there's a trust in the system. you know, you're fighting next to your brothers, your sisters. these guys are in charge of your well-being, your food, your exercise everything. everything in the same respect as an adult would with a child. boot camp is there to break you down to build uh-uh -- you back up as an airman or whatever. if you were assaulted by your

brother, psychologically quite similar. you go to your father, your commander and say he didn't want to report it. how would you deal with that? so it's quite psychologically similar. as well as the fact that it is very easy for victims -- and this happens in the civilian world, but it's very easy for victims to start blaming themselves because they don't know the perpetrator. so i teach them about the perpetrator so that they can put the blame where it belongs and process that correctly. both of those go a long way. >> it's not only a crime of violence but a betrayal of a relationship. in the civilian context, whether it's incest or sexual assault by

someone you know, which a huge percentage of sexual assaults in the civilian context are by -- the survivors know the perpetrator that. helps me understand what you meant. you touched upon the topic that i wanted each of you to address a little bit. in the treatment phase, concerns that you both have about overmedication. and i just was curious, is that a concern that you have about the way ptsd is treated from sexual assault or a more general concern you're sharing with us about the way the dod or the va approaches mental health issues? this is part of a much larger discussion, obviously, as we tackle mental health issues. are we too heavy into take this prescription or two or three

mor more. >> thank you, senator. that context not only goes with combat related ptsd to military sexual trauma that they're overly medicated and you've got severe side effects to all these medications. so you're pretty much, like i said, when you go to these appointments -- and this is a flaw also. when you go to get these medications, you've got six-month gaps before you see a psychologist or psychiatrist. so, you know, there's too many long gaps there. and then when you go there, you know, you spend five minutes in their office. if you live far away, you travel 90 miles, spend five minutes in an office, we're going to throw

this drug at you or that drug at you. as i said before, these side effects are just astronomical of what they can cause. >> thank you, senator. this definitely -- i can speak personally in the ptsd realm. however, in the survivors i have dealt with, it does bleed over into other -- you know, when it comes to like tbi, any sort of personality disorders, any diagnosed depression. even if you say, i hurt my foot. they will throw a pill at you. at least one. what happens is it usually starts with one or two. oh, let's try this out and in like -- i pointed out, very long spans in getting back in to take yourself off of some of these drugs is extremely dangerous.

and to mix and match is also even worse. and then you come up with new symptoms saying, well, i dealt with this, but now i feel like i'm under water all the time. they'll throw another pill at you, instead of fixing the one that they previously gave you. >> we're seeing, you know -- obviously, i know you follow this, too. a huge epidemic of things like heroin addiction these days. in the broader society that often begins with prescription drug addiction and then prescription drugs are more expensive than heroin now. and so this prescription drug thing is a significant issue. if i hear you correctly, as you describe it, you worry a little bit that this overmedication is driven by we don't have enough counselor counselors to meet with you so if it's going to be six months before we have an appointment, we have to do something. here, try this. it's kind of a stop gap. probably isn't the best diagnosis. probably isn't the best strategy, but we've got to do something because there's not enough counselors to deal with your mental health needs. there's an issue of the number of counselors, the kind of

training they get and you're worried the medications are just being kind of -- here is something to get you by for a while. >> yeah. a band-aid basically. and even then it's a band-aid that could kill you. >> yeah. >> some of them, the medications snowball and i don't -- i personally have looked this up. i can't find accurate like correlations with civilian versus military treatment in medications and how they're doled out. i think that would be important to study as well as just the -- the survivors that have contacted me, out the of curiosity, the ones who have volunteered their list of medications and my husband being a neuro scientist, i hand them over and he says how are they still alive? it's amazing to read just the side effects and some of these things. >> well, my time is up.

this raises an interesting area that we probably should explore. if we were able to determine, for example, that folks in the military who were seeking treatment for mental health issues, ptsd or other, were dramatically more medicated than those who were seeking mental health services in the civilian world. that would really strike a big alarm. that would suggest to us that maybe something is not being done right. and the way you made that testimony, you pointed at a potential problem that we ought to explore further. thank you for your testimony toda today. >> first and most importantly, i always stand in awe of those of you who have been victimized by this horrific crime and step out of the shadows and not only try to see justice but then go on and try to do even more. and i think while there are some

policy differences in the united states senate, i think we all are such fans of your courage and your tenacity. so i want to thank you very much for that. you know, as somebody who spent years as a sex crimes prosecutor and walked into the courtroom, hand in hand, with hundreds of victims, i am painfully aware of the shortcomings of victims services for this crime, no matter where it occurs. and one of the things i wanted to visit briefly with both of you about is first i want to thank the military, because i think it is the research and the recognition of ptsd that has allowed the civilian criminal justice system to begin to get their arms around the fact, i think most of the victim is i worked with in the late 70s, '80s and '90s were suffering from ptsd. and those that were victims of domestic violence were suffering from ptsd.

and our ability to treat this and prevent suicide as a result of this absolutely insidious illness should be at the top of all of our lists. so i think at least now we are beginning to recognize the problem. we got a ways to go, obviously, with having the services tailored to the type of stress and trauma that has brought about this illness. and i think that's what we're all focused on trying to do now. if either one of you, at the moment you reported, whether to a social worker, at a hospital or whether it was restricted or unrestricted, if at that moment you had gotten your own lawyer whose only job was to look out for you, do you think it could have made a difference in terms of how you were treated as you navigated this difficult process

and the services that you might have been provided? >> thank you, senator. i do believe a lawyer would be helpful, especially one that is impartial and not in my command or anywhere related. i also have been personally working on a type of miranda rights where you can go to anybody as a survivor of sexual assault and they have to tell you what your rights are before you move forward. that way, you know -- i mean, you didn't accidentally go to your commander and then -- now you can't report restricted. that was something that happened to me and my commander then later made promises that made me confident in the fact that he would lie to me. that being said, between the the lawyer as well as like the -- just being very upfront,

commander, priests, clergy, lawyers, anybody involved in that system should be upfront with what a survivor is allowed to do at that point before he or she can make a decision on that, in that regard. >> senator, i really don't know. i was young at the time. i can't say because everything was kind of fast paced. i went from falling apart to where do i go to a social worker and everything trickling down from there. was i told anything about, hey, these are your rights and you can have your own attorney. i think that would have help ed

being advocated by somebody who was not biased within the chain of command. the simple fact that you don't know if this person may be advocating for you or your so-called lawyer. i don't know if you're referring to a civilian lawyer or military lawyer. but you don't know if that's a golfing buddy or somewhere down the line that they know each other. and they go back and tell your personal information and then, you know, where i've had this happen is people found out about my situation from being talked about. and it's like how did they find out? >> right. i know when i was prosecuted sometimes there were victims that declined to go forward, even after we had gone through a lot of the process and i felt very strongly that the case could be successfully prosecuted and the victim, for a lot of reasons, including mental health issues, ptsd issues said, no, i'm done. at that moment in time, the lack of trust that victim may have had in me -- i was part of a

system. you know, i was associated with the police. and, you know, i was -- if they had had their own independent lawyer that would have been giving them advice just for them -- a little bit like we do for court-appointed advocates for children in the juvenile system in the civilian cases where there is a lawyer, an advocate for the child that is not associated with any of the other parties in the conflict, i'm hoping that what we've done, which is remarkable, that we are going to require this for all victims, is going to set a standard -- first of all, this has never been done anywhere in the world has this occurred. i'm really hopeful that it will, once again, show the way of the civilian system that we've got to find the resources to get victims -- and in the civilian system the victims have no guarantee of any mental health services. none. zip. nada. there's nothing there. a lot of them don't have insurance. so you have to kind of coddle

together. i want to say finally we are determined to get rid of the good soldier defense. i am confident that is going to happen. if not in the next month, then certainly i have not encountered opposition to this idea. and finally we're going to work on this overmedication thing when i went to walter reed after the big scandal there and went from room to room in the fisher house and other places over there. every single room, the dresser was all alcohol bottles and pill bottles. and i didn't see one sign for group therapy for addiction treatment. and i began then realizing we had a huge overmedication problem when it comes to mental health in the military. >> if i could ask about your question about the attorney,

from reporting to article 32, i had nobody, nobody at all. the thing is that when it came to court-martial time, i was drilled. being revictimized so many times and nobody had the prosecutor. they could only do so much. saying, listen, did you ask for this? you wanted this. and the judge not to intervene, it was disgusting. >> believe me, i have been in a courtroom as a prosecutor when a judge did intervene, when there were appropriate questions and the judge just completely did not make the right ruling. and, you know, i think judges are better today than they were 20 years ago. we are working now to make sure

that the victims today and going forward have that independent lawyer that can be there for them and advise them. and i'm very excited about that reform. we all worked very hard on it together. i'm really proud of it. i don't think that how big it is has actually been comprehended by most people because we've been focused on a policy difference rather than the monumental historic changes that we just got signed into law. >> may i say as well that person not be subject to rank? i've had captains and lieutenants and they were unable to confront my commander because they outranked or even the sapro office, who had no rank and were civilian coward under anyone

with any bars on them. so, to have that independence somehow. >> we've got to make sure that happens. you're absolutely right. thank you both very much. >> thank you, senator. that is something many of us will look into for the next ndaa, because i've heard of cases where special victims counsels have advised not to seek mental health because of the concern it would be used in article 32 against them or at least advised you need to be aware that it could be used against you. i've heard of cases where the question of whether one would report or not was debated because of fear of how they would be treated. so i think we have to really look into empowerment of that specific person to see if they can't be bullied, they can't be

retaliated against themselves. so i think that's something senator mccaskill and other senators will work on for the nerks round. i think it's really important. senator happ? >> thank you, madame chair, for holding this hearing. i want to thank both of you for being here and for your courage coming here before us. i'm so sorry for everything you have been through. but to come here before us, it's really important. because this issue, obviously, is one we want to work together to stop the occurrence of military sexual assaults in the the military but also to make sure that victims get the full support that they need. i think this issue is of special victims counsel that senator mccaskill and i and senator gillebrand and others. making retaliation a crime under the ucmj and i think as we go

forward. this is something we look at to make sure that it is clear that any kind of action against a victim's counsel that is helping sexual assault victims should be actionable. that's an important thing so that everyone understands that retaliation against a victim is a crime with ucmj but also retaliation of someone acting on his or her behalf should be as well. i think that's something we can make sure as we look at this going forward. senator mccaskill and others have thought it's a good idea eliminating the good soldier defense. i am hoping we do that this year, special victims' counsel but this good soldier defense has no place in determining, you

know, the outcome of these cases in the sense that your conduct should determine the outcome. and if you've committed a crime and have committed these horrible acts, then just because you were a good soldier doesn't mean you shouldn't be held accountable and fully accountable and have the the appropriate sentence to go with the crime that you committed. and i think that in the civilian system we've eliminated a lot of these things. and those reforms now, i'm hoping, will have some agreement on that. there is a lot of agreement to get that past this year as well. finally, i want to understand as you talk about the overmedication sbiissue and the transitions you've made outside the military, how do we improve that transition process? what can dod and the va do to

improve that transition process from your perspective, and to make sure that you have the support system in place, if you choose to leave the military and have been a victim of sexual assault? last week i was up in new hampshire, visiting one of our veterans centers and one of their charges is to treat victims of sexual assault. and i think it's, obviously, how do we make sure that that care is there. i wanted to get your thoughts on what can we do better on even the transition from dod, those who are leaving, out to the va and obviously i heard what you said about the overmedication issue. within the va system so that we're working -- even though the veterans committee will work on that, we can work on that thon committ. i wanted to get your thoughts on how we could do a better job. >> thank you, senator. i've worked closely and do adaptive sport with his the

wounded warrior resident from the marine corps. they have district injured support coordinators. the marine corps has made a huge step when it comes to that, because not only do they follow from the time they're in the wounded warrior there to the civil i civilian world check in on the veterans. it's crucial and it's an awesome concept when it comes to that. so that way this is going on, that officer or enlisted, whatever it may be, can contact their resources and make things move along and the marine corps has done tremendously when it comes to taking care of their wounded. >> maybe that's a model we can look at to make sure that's

across services? >> i believe so. it's been pretty effective. >> i would say the ability for the va to talk to the dood, that is something that is very broken right now. the records and database in which they both work do not communicate at all. and that will go a long way to just -- as simple as a records transfer that. will help as well as affording opportunities outside the va and ptsd sufferers in getting themselves to a well-being and to navigate that complex system.

here are my recommendations, and i don't think they'll work for everybody however catering, having enough support even if it's a single counselor for one individual help with paperwork to see that he or she receives the proper medications, that they c-- not sit on hold for da. >> for days, really? >> for hours and hours. most of the time you give up and try again tomorrow. >> wow. >> so that does happen quite a bit. i would like to make a comment on the retaliation. >> whatever you would like to -- >> you said you want to make retaliation a crime. and currently in regulations, it is. however, it is usually the command who does it. and as it currently stands, it's

the command who would prosecute themselves. so that's a clear conflict of interest. how would you pursue that? how are you proposing that -- say i was retaliated against. who do i go to? who would handle that case as well as who would be in charge of making that charge and deciding what was really retaliation and what might have just been a bad night out or any other number of things that the command could downplay it as. >> i think that we have further, with what we passed in the legislation, further emphasized that retaliation in particular for these types of crimes is a clear crime under the ucmj to further give teeth to that crime under the ucmj and, you know, one of the proposals that is on the table allows a really -- going beyond the chain of

command, up the chain, beyond if there is a conflict at the level of the chain of command. i think that's one way to deal with it, where you're taking it up beyond that person and really upping the issue within so that there's a huge emphasis on it. but, obviously, one of the things we want to get at with everything that we're doing is that we continue to have oversight over this. i mean, i think what you're hearing from everyone here is that whatever we pass -- we've passed some incredibly important reforms in the defense authorization and we may pass further reforms that we're going to continue not to just have this be the year where we're emphasizing it, but where we have regular oversight over this. i think that's an important aspect, too, so that we can further pass whatever needs to be done and also hold people publicly accountable, particularly for those who are leaders to understand that this is part of their responsibility to have a zero tolerance policy

and support victims and that if a leader in our military is found to be retaliate iing agai someone who is a victor helping a victim, they're going to have a lot of problems and we will hold them publicly accountable here, too. i want you both to know this isn't you come here once and we're just going to have this year of issues because i think all of us arounder around this table are committed to a continuing oversight function. next year and each month. in the past we've had this issue where we're all focusing on it and it goes away, but we're all dealing with the problem still. we are committed to remaining continuously engaged on this issue on a bipartisan basis. thank you for raising the issue on retaliation. >> thank you. senator kaine?

>> i would like to say thank you, like my colleagues have. i wouldn't want to appear before a congress youngal hearing. i want to focus on the issue of command and chain of command. that term has been used repeatedly. you said something about it's the command who retaliates. how can they prosecute themselves? my commander lied to me. i don't need a name, but what rank person are you referring to when you say that? >> i actually had multiple ranks retaliate as well as lie to me and make false promises and things of that nature. everyone from my squad leader up to my command sergeant major and my lieutenant colonel.

everyone in that rank who i came in contact with, regarding my sexual assault somehow, some more severe than others let me down or made false promises or made it -- or outright made my life a living hell zblie understand that. but i think one of the ways that this discussion that we've been having has been is we're using chain of command -- under department of defense policy nobody below '06 makes the decision whether or not to go forward with a prosecution sbchlt those people you just mentioned all are below the 06 level. in other words, when you say your commander, you're not talking about a navy captain or a colonel or above. is that correct? >> yes, senator, that's correct. excuse me. at that time that i served, it

was the commander's ability to lessen the charge. so an 06 never -- it never came across their desk. >> okay. now that's an issue we have to be sure that the facts get to the 06 level because they're the people making the decision. but i think it's important to inform our discussion that when people talk about taking the decision out of the chain of command, you're not taking it away from sergeants and majors. you're taking it away from colonels and naval captains. that's a higher level. let me change this subject for a moment. you've talked eloquently about the deficiencies of the treatment system. would one solution be to allow military personnel to use their benefits in the civilian system? in other words, to go outside the military system, to get the counseling and those if there's more availability in the area

that were wherever you live? for instance we have a program in northern maine under the va. it's a pilot program where veterans are able to get their services not by going four hours to the va hospital, but by accessing local civilian services. would that be something that might be helpful in this situation, by broadening the field of available treatment possibilities? mr. arbogast? >> thank you, senator. like i stated before, i already use my medicare for that purpose because where the va lacks. i think the va -- veterans would not have a problem traveling for good care. it's the fact that they need to -- you know, i emphasized on how good i get my spinal cord injury care in richmond virginia

now. so, you know, that's a four-hour drive for us. so i would go there every day. >> if you were getting adequate care? >> well, i mean, i get adequate care there. i get superior care there. >> you mentioned the 90-mile drive. >> that would be within my va medical center, which i try to avoid at all costs, because they are just out of the loop. they don't have the resources. you know, they don't even have a doctor that specializes in spinal cord injury care. he he's just an md who thinks he just knows about it but really doesn't. but the thing is if every va had the resources to deal with every type of injury, illness, whatever, then it wouldn't be a problem to use the va system. it's a problem that each va

medical center is different in that they're not being held accountable. >> do you have thoughts about that? >> i believe there are a lot of benefits, especially in the ability to test drive basically other counselors and caregivers to whom you feel comfortable, as well as being able to better specialize in what is actually affecting you. as well as there's the ptsd, prescription, overprescribing problems and there's also identity issues and other addiction that is don't fall under narcotics or alcohol, even like shopping kicks and things like that, that are not treated in the va. but if you went and sought outside help i think there's benefit to getting more specialized treatment. and i think it is -- i would say almost impossible for every va to have every service. and so with that knowledge, to have the ability to go outside of that would benefit them.

>> but given the rise of this -- i don't want to imply that it hasn't existed before. i'm sure ptsd goes back to the beginning of time. but the increasing awareness of it, the volume of it that we're seeing in recent years, i suspect you would agree that this is something the va should be gearing up for in a very serious way. and i'm gathering from your testimony that you don't believe that they are. >> i don't believe the va has the ability to move three moves ahead, or to see that, where the need is coming until they have the problem. then they approach whomever. then the money comes in for the problem. by then it's two years down the road and the problem is even bigger. so, i don't see that there's an adequate system for the va to apply certain foresight in

seeing where they need help and being able to justify it adequately to whoever they have to in order to get the funding for it. i would consider looking into that system, where you could encourage the individuals, the directors to think three moves ahead and say, you know -- >> what's coming? >> right. look what's coming. you don't necessarily have to prove it with the numbers in regards to, you know, you already have these. and this is what you're funded for. you don't have to have them on backup to justify the need. >> the va isn't within the purview of this committee but clearly it's a continuum of concern that we have about our military people, whether they're in service or veterans. thank you very much for your testimony. thank you very much for taking the time. yes, sir? >> there's a very big problem with the va's retention rate,

too, with providers. >> retention rate? >> they can't keep doctors, especially where i'm at. their vboc or cboc, excuse me. i went through seeing a doctor, who i've seen for years. we're talking about like medical doctor. you know, i've seen for years. and then i come back in find out he quits. then it takes them six months to get a new doctor. so i'm left without care for six months. they finally get a new doctor, i have to explain everything all over again. and come to find out, well, i'll see you in a month, two weeks, whatever it may be. come to find out, he quits. so then i'm left without care for eight months. >> now do you have a choice in all this? do you have have to go to the va hospital or could you use tri-care to go anywhere? >> i could use tri-care to go anywhere. the fact is some civilian providers are just as bad as the va providers. it's the way -- >> are you suggesting our

healthcare system in this country is screwed up? >> it is. it is, truthfully. it is. and, you know, it's quite disturbing that, you know, we more or less -- veterans have to go around and shop for, you know, is this doctor specialized in this care? what do they know? it is a very disturbing problem. >> thank you. thank