'We are all in disbelief': How the New Hampshire National Guard failed to protect female soldiers

[sarisataka]

‘We are all in disbelief’: How the New Hampshire National Guard failed to protect female soldiers

When a military police battalion from the New Hampshire National Guard arrived at the US southern border in October 2022, the unit’s commander Lt. Col. Mark Patterson immediately began making soldiers uncomfortable.

In one instance, Patterson sent a junior female officer a picture of a sexually themed “Beer Garden Babe” costume suggesting she wear it to the battalion’s upcoming Halloween party. In another, he told a female colleague that he’d gotten an erection while thinking of her during a massage.

Some of the women felt that Patterson often followed them, including around their hotel and to a local gym. He would also take photos of them without their knowledge and share them with others along with comments about their bodies. Patterson repeatedly ordered women in the battalion to come to his hotel room, texted them at all hours, and spoke at length about wanting a relationship with a younger woman.

If they complained about his behavior, Patterson would threaten to make their deployment miserable.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/how-the-new-hampshire-national-guard-failed-to-protect-women/index.html

I cannot understand units that do not take this seriously.
When I was a member of an MP Company (USMC) I was a witness, with others, to a quid pro quo harassment of a female Marine at an official party. Five of us immediately protectively surrounded our female companion with the senior member telling the offender the conversation was over and he was to leave the event immediately.

The next morning, before formation, we (all males), went to the First Sergeant to give a full account of what happened. His response was, "We're taking this to the Old Man". The now six of us located our commander where the First Shirt repeated what he had been told by us and said he expected at least an Article 15 proceeding be convened. The CO didn't hesitate and drew up charges for a court-martial.

[yagotme]

1. Blatant violation of UCMJ. Been awhile since I went through it,

but there's probably something in Art. 134 that would cover it, at a minimum. One of the higher Art.'s may be in play, but I'd have to have a copy of it in front of me to find it. (Did the write-ups for Bn and Co NJP's for 2 years. Used to have a pretty good working knowledge of UCMJ. That's been awhile...)

[MotownPgh]

2. MEN don't take it seriously!