2019 Sexual Misconduct Incident Tracking Report

Published August 2019
Data presented in report accessed May 2019

Background

Prior to the introduction of Operation HONOUR in 2015, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) did not have a dedicated central database in which to record all cases of sexual misconduct. FRAGO 001 to the Chief of Defence Staff Operation Order for Operation HONOUR (dated 18 March 2016) directed that, starting on 1 April 2016, all Level 1 organizations report incidents of sexual misconduct to the CAF Strategic Response Team on Sexual Misconduct (CSRT-SM) (now called the Directorate Professional Military Conduct - Operation HONOUR [DPMC-OpH]) for coalition in a master database.

In January 2018, the Operation HONOUR Tracking and Analysis System (OPHTAS) was created for use by the chain of command as a dedicated means of recording, tracking and conducting trend analysis of incidents of sexual misconduct. The system reached its initial operating capability in October 2018, and is anticipated to reach full operating capability in December 2019.

OPHTAS is designed to record and track incidents of sexual misconduct reported to the chain of command. Any incident reported to the chain of command on or after 1 April 2016 can be reported in OPHTAS, regardless of when it occurred. Prior to 1 April 2019, OPHTAS was only used to record incidents that involved at least one CAF member as a complainant or respondent. Effective 1 April 2019, incidents of sexual misconduct involving only DND civilians could also be recorded.

OPHTAS only records incidents reported by or to the chain of command. Incidents may not be reported to the chain of command for a variety of reasons, such as when an affected person discloses an incident to the Sexual Misconduct Response Centre (SMRC) and requests that no formal report or investigation be initiated. The chain of command may also not receive a report when an affected person seeks care from either the Canadian Forces Health Services or a civilian health care provider, both of which will respect patient confidentiality.

This report includes all available OPHTAS data recorded since 1 April 2016 and is reported by fiscal year (1 April to 31 March). Some datasets are incomplete for a variety of reasons, for example details may not have been disclosed or known at the time, or the data has yet to be entered. OPHTAS is continuously audited and updated to ensure that data is as complete as possible. In addition, it is important to note that incidents can be reported at any time. As a result, the data in this report may be different from data in previous reports. Because of the dynamic nature of OPHTAS data, the date that the data was accessed for this report is included in all figures and tables.

This report was developed to provide the CAF with a snapshot of the data currently available in OPHTAS and some key observations. Further analysis of the data will be conducted to inform and focus our efforts to address sexual misconduct.

Part 1 – Reporting Trends by Date

Incidents Reported to Chain of Command by Fiscal Year

The chain of command is required to enter all incidents of sexual misconduct into OPHTAS within 48 hours of the incident being reported. Incidents reported to the chain of command can be incidents that occurred recently or that occurred at any time in the past (see the “Incident Reporting Compared with Occurrence” section below). Table 1 presents the number of incidents reported by month for the last three fiscal years. Figure 1 plots the total number of reports received per fiscal quarter over time. The number of reports submitted to the chain of command has decreased over the past three years.

Table 1. Incidents reported by month and fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
FY 2016–17 49 35 37 28 23 47 31 52 48 30 39 42 461
FY 2017–18 29 34 48 44 37 31 35 32 40 21 37 25 413
FY 2018–19 17 30 22 23 26 33 38 34 16 27 19 17 302

Figure 1. Reporting totals by fiscal quarter and year

Figure 1

Description of Graph

The graph plots the total number of reports received by the chain of command per fiscal quarter over time. The total number of reports received varies from a high of 131 in the third quarter of fiscal year 2016-2017 to a low of 63 in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018-2019. There are two lines on the graph. One line connects the data points for each quarter. An additional line indicates that the trend over all three fiscal years is five fewer reports every quarter.

Who Reported Incidents to the Chain of Command by Fiscal Year

Cases in OPHTAS include information on who reported the incidesnt to the chain of command. This information is presented in Table 2. Note that MP is the Military Police and CFNIS is the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, a part of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal organization.

Table 2. Who reported incidents to the chain of command by fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
Complainant 57.3% 54.2% 55.0%
Supervisor 9.3% 9.2% 16.2%
Bystander 14.8% 19.9% 15.2%
Respondent 0.2% 1.7% 5.3%
MP/CFNIS/Civilian Police 1.5% 1.0% 4.0%
Civilian 0.2% 0.7% 4.0%
Unknown 16.7% 13.3% 0.3%

Key observations:

Incident Reporting Compared with Incident Occurrence

Sexual misconduct incidents can be reported to the chain of command at any time. The incidents may have occurred recently or any time in the past. Table 3 shows aggregated data for the fiscal year reports were received and the fiscal year the incidents occurred. The shaded cells highlight when the incident is reported in the same fiscal year as it occurs.

Table 3. Fiscal year of incident occurrence compared with the number of incidents reported each fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Fiscal year incident occurred Incident reports by year Total
FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
Before FY 2015–2016 28 18 14 60
During FY 2015–2016 29 7 3 39
During FY 2016–2017 404 47 2 453
During FY 2017–2018 341 27 368
During FY 2018–2019 256 256
Total 461 413 302 1176

Key observations:

Part 2 – Incident Trends by Date

Sexual Misconduct Incidents by Date of Occurrence

This part of the report presents sexual misconduct incidents that occurred in the three fiscal years that are the subject of this report. Table 4 gives a monthly breakdown of the incidents that have occurred within each fiscal year. Figure 2 plots the total number of incidents that occurred per fiscal quarter over time. Based on the data available in OPHTAS, there is a declining trend in incident occurrence.

Table 4. Incident occurrence by month and fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
FY 2016–17 52 39 34 26 20 42 45 51 49 33 34 28 453
FY 2017–18 26 39 36 40 34 32 32 33 32 17 31 17 368
FY 2018–19 17 31 24 21 30 30 32 23 12 13 18 5 256

Figure 2. Incident occurrence totals for each fiscal quarter and year

Figure 2

Description of Graph

The graph plots the incident occurrence totals for each fiscal quarter and year. The total number of incidents varies from a high of 155 in the third quarter of fiscal year 2016-2017 to a low of 36 in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2018-2019. There are two lines on the graph. One line connects the data points for each quarter. An additional line indicates that the trend over all three fiscal years is six fewer reports every quarter.

Sexual Misconduct Incident Type by Date of Occurrence

OPHTAS records information about incident type according to five categories: sexual assault, sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual behaviour, miscellaneous incidents and other. The number of incidents for the main types of sexual misconduct incidents are reported by fiscal year in Figure 3.

The category of “Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour” includes incidents involving inappropriate language, displays of inappropriate materials, and indecent acts. This category was changed in April 2019 to reflect specific types of inappropriate behaviours that align with the current CAF definition of sexual misconduct and will not appear in future reports. The category of “Miscellaneous Incidents” includes specific types of sexual misconduct, including incidents such as child pornography and voyeurism. The category of “Other” includes cases without enough information to select a specific type of sexual misconduct defined in OPHTAS.

Figure 3. Total number of incidents for categories of sexual misconduct by fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Figure 3

Description of Graph

The bar graph presents the total number of incidents per fiscal year for each category of sexual misconduct. Categories of sexual misconduct incidents presented in the graph are sexual assault, sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual behaviour (which includes incidents involving inappropriate language, displays of inappropriate material, and indecent acts), miscellaneous incidents (which includes incidents such as child pornography and voyeurism) and other incidents (which includes cases without enough information to select a specific type of sexual misconduct). With the exception of sexual assault, all categories of sexual misconduct decreased each fiscal year. Sexual assault occurrences were lowest in fiscal year 2016-2017, highest in fiscal year 2017-2018, and at a level in-between in fiscal year 2018-2019.

Key observations:

Detailed information about sexual assault cases is presented in the next section.

Part 3 – Detailed Sexual Misconduct Incident Statistics

OPHTAS records the same categories of information for all cases. This includes information on individuals who have been the target of sexual misconduct, referred to as the “complainant”, and on the individuals who are alleged to have committed the sexual misconduct, referred to as the “respondent”. Information is included on the type of sexual misconduct incident that occurred, whether or not drugs or alcohol were known to be involved in an incident, and where the incident took place.

In many cases, not all the information that can be recorded in OPHTAS is available for each incident. The chain of command enters the information that is initially reported and updates the cases as more information becomes available. In producing this report, only the data that is known is presented.

It should be noted that correspondence between the number of complainants and the number of respondents is not one to one. Information may not always available on the complainant or the respondent involved in each incident for a variety of reasons, such as one of the individuals involved in the complaint is a non-DND civilian, the identity of a respondent is unknown, or identifying information is not entered in OPHTAS (e.x., incidents involving anyone under 18 years of age).

Recognizing the egregious nature of sexual assault, information recorded in OPHTAS involving sexual assault is presented separately in the next section. Sexual misconduct, other than sexual assault, will be presented following the sexual assault statistics.

Sexual Assault Incident Statistics

The category of sexual assault incidents includes three specific types of sexual assault: unwanted sexual touching, sexual activity unable to consent, and sexual assault using violence. There is also an “Other” category for sexual assault incidents, which is used when a sexual assault is reported but details of the type of sexual assault are not immediately available.

Complainant Profiles for Incidents of Sexual Assault

Complainant profiles for sexual assault are presented in Table 5. As discussed above, the numbers and percentages for gender, rank or status, and component reflect the data available and do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual assault cases per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison.

Table 5. Complainant profiles of sexual assault cases occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Note: The category of “Other” includes non-DND civilians, contractors and NPF employees

FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
63 cases 114 cases 84 cases
Gender Female 46
82.1%
66
89.2%
40
85.1%
Male 41
17.9%
8
10.8%
7
14.9%
Rank/Status DND Civilian 3
8.8%
2
3.8%
0
0%
Other 18
52.9%
19
35.8%
8
16.0%
Junior NCM 11
32.4%
27
50.9%
31
62.0%
Senior NCM 1
2.9%
2
3.8%
1
2.0%
Junior Officer 1
2.9%
3
5.7%
10
20.0%
Senior Officer 0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
Component Regular Force 23
76.7%
30
63.8%
22
52.4%
Primary Reserve 7
23.3%
17
36.2%
20
47.6%

Key observations:

Respondent Profile for Incidents of Sexual Assault

Respondent profiles for sexual assault incidents are presented in Table 6. As discussed above, the numbers and percentages for gender, rank or status, and component reflect the data available and do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual assault cases per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison.

Table 6. Respondent profiles of sexual assault cases occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Note: The category of “Other” includes non-DND civilians, contractors and NPF employees

FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
63 cases 114 cases 84 cases
Gender Female 4
6.7%
5
5.8%
0
0%
Male 55
93.2%
81
94.2%
67
100%
Rank/Status DND Civilian 1
3.0%
2
0%
0
0%
Other 1
3.0%
0
0%
1
1.5%
Junior NCM 19
57.6%
45
77.6%
45
68.2%
Senior NCM 5
15.2%
5
8.6%
5
7.6%
Junior Officer 5
15.2%
8
13.8%
10
15.2%
Senior Officer 2
6.1%
0
0%
5
7.6%
Component Regular Force 39
76.5%
54
71.1%
40
62.5%
Primary Reserve 12
23.3%
22
19.3%
24
37.5%

Key observations:

Drug and Alcohol Involvement for Incidents of Sexual Assault

Table 7 presents the data for sexual assault cases where information about alcohol or drug involvement was recorded. The numbers and percentages in Table 7 do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual assault cases per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison. Effective 1 October 2018, aligned with the legalization of cannabis, involvement of cannabis or cannabis products is recorded separately from other drug involvement.

Table 7. Sexual assault cases occurring in the fiscal year involving alcohol (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Location FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
63 cases 114 cases 84 cases
Reported alcohol involved 6
9.8%
19
25.0%
33
75.0%
Reported alcohol not involved 55
90.2%
57
75%
11
25%

Key observations:

Location for Incidents of Sexual Assault

OPHTAS case entries include information on where an incident of sexual misconduct took place. The number of incidents reported for each location category in each fiscal year is reported in Table 8.

Table 8. Locations for sexual assault cases occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Location FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
At the Unit During Work 4
6.3%
4
3.5%
5
6.0%
While on Military Course/Training 7
11.1%
16
14%
10
11.9%
At the Mess
During a Sanctioned Event
12
19.0%
8
7%
8
9.5%
In Quarters/Personal Residence 9
14.3%
31
27.2%
31
36.9%
Civilian Establishment 10
15.9%
18
15.8%
12
14.3%
While Deployed 5
7.9%
7
6.1%
2
2.4%
During a Field Exercise 3
4.8%
3
2.6%
1
1.2%
Other 13
20.6%
27
23.7%
15
17.9%

Key observations:

Sexual Misconduct Other Than Sexual Assault Incident Statistics

The “sexual misconduct other than sexual assault” category includes sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual behaviour, miscellaneous incidents, and other incidents where sufficient information is not available to categorize. The data reported in this section is the total number of incidents in a fiscal year less the number of sexual assault cases in a fiscal year (FY 2016-2017: 390 incidents; FY 2017-2018: 254 incidents; FY 2018-2019: 172 incidents).

Complainant Profiles for Incidents of Sexual Misconduct Other Than Sexual Assault

The complainant profiles for incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault are reported in Table 9. As discussed above, the numbers and percentages for gender, rank or status, and component reflect the data available and do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual misconduct incidents other than sexual assault cases per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison.

Table 9. Complainant profiles of incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Note: The category of “Other” includes non-DND civilians, contractors and NPF employees

FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
390 incidents 254 incidents 172 incidents
Gender Female 252
81.8%
148
77.1%
93
75.0%
Male 56
8.2%
44
22.9%
31
25.0%
Rank/Status DND Civilian 34
24.1%
5
4.9%
7
5.6%
Other 25
17.7%
22
21.4%
12
9.7%
Junior NCM 57
40.4%
49
47.6%
73
58.9%
Senior NCM 3
2.1%
9
8.7%
7
5.6%
Junior Officer 12
8.5%
13
12.6%
22
17.7%
Senior Officer 10
7.1%
5
4.9%
3
2.4%
Component Regular Force 183
75.3%
107
65.6%
75
71.4%
Primary Reserve 60
24.7%
56
34.4%
30
28.6%

Key observations:

Respondent Profiles for Incidents of Sexual Misconduct Other Than Sexual Assault

The respondent profiles for incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault are reported in Table 10. As discussed above, the numbers and percentages for gender, rank or status, and component reflect the data available and do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual misconduct incidents other than sexual assault per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison.

Table 10. Respondent profiles of incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Note: The category of “Other” includes non-DND civilians, contractors and NPF employees

FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
390 cases 254 cases 172 cases
Gender Female 17
5.1%
13
5.6%
9
5.9%
Male 316
94.9%
221
94.4%
143
94.1%
Rank/Status DND Civilian 12
9.1%
7
5.3%
2
1.3%
Other 8
6.1%
3
2.3%
2
1.3%
Junior NCM 61
46.2%
69
51.9%
91
60.7%
Senior NCM 28
21.2%
26
19.5%
28
18.7%
Junior Officer 14
10.6%
15
11.3%
24
16.0%
Senior Officer 9
6.8%
13
9.8%
3
2.0%
Component Regular Force 233
77.2%
152
72.0%
111
74.5%
Primary Reserve 69
22.8%
59
28.0%
38
25.5%

Key observations:

Drug and Alcohol Involvement for Incidents of Sexual Misconduct Other Than Sexual Assault

Table 11 presents the information on whether or not alcohol was known to be involved in incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault. The numbers and percentages in Table 11 do not account for incomplete data sets. The total numbers of sexual misconduct incidents other than sexual assault per fiscal year are included in the tables for comparison. Effective 1 October 2018 (aligned with the legalization of cannabis), involvement of cannabis or cannabis products is recorded separately from other drug involvement.

Table 11. Incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault occurring in the fiscal year involving alcohol (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Note: Full information is not available for each case; numbers and percentages are based on the data available

FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
390 incidents 254 incidents 172 incidents
Reported alcohol involved 13
3.7%
26
11.2%
33
28.0%
Reported alcohol not involved 337
96.3%
207
88.8%
85
72.0%

Key observations:

Location for Incidents of Sexual Misconduct Other Than Sexual Assault

OPHTAS case entries include information on where incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault took place. The number of incidents reported for each location category in each fiscal year is reported in Table 12.

Table 12. Locations for incidents of sexual misconduct other than sexual assault occurring in the fiscal year (data accessed 15 May 2019)

Location FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
At the Unit During Work 106
27.2%
60
23.6%
40
26.2%
While on Military Course/Training 65
16.7%
45
17.7%
23
13.4%
At the Mess During a Sanctioned Event 43
11.0%
31
12.2%
19
11.0%
In Quarters/Personal Residence 39
10.0%
15
5.9%
26
15.1%
Civilian Establishment 30
7.7%
15
5.9%
16
9.3%
While Deployed 21
5.4%
34
13.4%
8
4.7%
During a Field Exercise 15
3.8%
8
3.1%
6
3.5%
Other 71
18.2%
46
18.1%
29
16.9%

Key observations:

Part 4 – Actions Taken for Reported Incidents

Once a case is entered into OPHTAS, the chain of command is required to track and record any subsequent actions taken on the case, including administrative and/or disciplinary action, as applicable. Other organizations, including the Canadian Forces Provost Marshall, the Integrated Complaint and Conflict Management (ICCM) system, the Judge Advocate General (JAG), and Director Military Careers Administration (DMCA), also manage incidents of sexual misconduct. The information presented below is from these organizations’ annual reports. The information below is not currently directly linked to the cases in OPHTAS.

Initial Actions Taken Against the Respondent

As an initial action, personnel in positions of command, supervisors or instructors may be removed from these duties either temporarily or permanently (see Table 13).

Table 13. Personnel removed from positions of authority

FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
Removed from command Temporarily 0 1 1
Permanently 2 4 4
Removed from supervisory position Temporarily 11 6 8
Permanently 13 4 14
Removed from instructional duties Temporarily 6 4 3
Permanently 6 2 4

Status of Investigations

All cases of sexual misconduct undergo some level of investigation. Any case that has the potential to constitute a service or civilian offence is referred to the Military Police (MP) for investigation by either the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service or the appropriate civilian police force, depending on the circumstances. Cases that the MP determine do not require a MP investigation can be referred back to the chain of command to be investigated, or in cases involving sexual harassment, referred to a Harassment Investigator. Table 14 reports the status of all investigations undertaken in response to reported sexual misconduct incidents.

Table 14. Status of investigations recorded in OPHTAS (data accessed 15 May 2019)

FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
Completed 278 200 87
In progress 183 213 215
Total 461 413 302

Canadian Forces Provost Marshal

Information on criminal sexual offences can be found in the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal (CFPM) annual reports. The information contained in the CFPM reports is reflective of all reported incidents that occurred on a Defence establishment or that are being investigated by civilian policing authorities involving a CAF member. The criminal sexual offences reported to the Canadian Forces Military Police are more inclusive than those recorded in OPHTAS. They include alleged offences involving CAF members, DND employees and any civilian persons on a Defence establishment at the time of the offence.

Integrated Conflict and Complaint Management

The Director General Integrated Conflict and Complaint Management Annual Report 2018 reported 31 cases of Operation HONOUR related incidents. These numbers were gathered during the initial pilot project of four Conflict and Complaint Management Services centres.

Judge Advocate General

In preparation for their annual reports, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) identifies Summary trial and Courts Martial results, which include charges related to sexual misconduct. Detailed information was provided for fiscal year 2016–2017 and fiscal year 2017–2018. The fiscal year 2018–2019 annual report will be published in the summer of 2019. Summary trial results are summarized in Table 15, and court martial results are summarized in Table 16.

Table 15. Summary trial results by fiscal year

Fiscal Year 2016–2017 Fiscal Year 2017–2018
19 Summary trials 21 summary trials
27 charges of conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline related to sexual misconduct 26 charges of disobedience of lawful command and conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline related to sexual misconduct;
22 findings of guilty; 1 charged not proceeded with, 2 not guilty findings and 2 charges stayed 18 findings of guilty; 6 findings of not guilty and 2 charges stayed
Punishments included reduction in rank, reprimands, fines ranging from $200 to $2500, and minor punishments Punishments included fines ranging from $100 to $200 and minor punishments

Table 16. Court martial results by fiscal year

Fiscal Year 2016–2017 Fiscal Year 2017–2018
12 courts martial including a sexual misconduct related charge: behaved in a disgraceful manner, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, breach of trust and sexual assault. 20 courts martial including a sexual misconduct related charge: behaved in a disgraceful manner, ill-treated a subordinate, conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline, and sexual assault
10 Courts Martial found the accused guilty of a sexual misconduct related charge; 1 court martial found the accused not guilty; 1 case withdrawn 14 Courts Martial found the accused guilty of sexual misconduct related charges, 4 court martials found the accused not guilty, and 2 cases were not tried
Punishments for sexual assault included dismissal, imprisonment and reduction in rank Punishments for sexual assault included dismissal, imprisonment and reduction in rank
Punishments for the other sexual misconduct related offences included reduction in rank, severe reprimand, reprimand, and fines ranging from $500 to $3000 Punishments for the other sexual misconduct related offences included reduction in rank, severe reprimand, reprimands and fines ranging from $200 to $2500.

Director Military Careers Administration

Director Military Careers Administration (DMCA) conducts an Administrative Review process to recommend administrative career action when the conduct of a CAF member calls into question the viability of their continued service. An Administrative Review will normally be initiated whenever DMCA receives information concerning an incident related to sexual misconduct. DMCA can recommend release or remedial measures, which include initial counselling, recorded warning, or counselling and probation.

Table 17. DMCA recommendations for sexual misconduct

FY 2016–2017 FY 2017–2018 FY 2018–2019
Releases 16 30 37
Remedial Measures 2 18 15

Future Action

The CAF is committed to ensuring that OPHTAS provides information that is integral to understanding sexual misconduct in the CAF and DND. As OPHTAS matures and data continues to be entered, it will serve a much more important purpose than a repository of sexual misconduct incident records. The collation of reliable data will provide us with a pool of data essential for continual performance measurement and analysis. To that end, work is underway to fully integrate OPHTAS with all other key personnel-related and sexual misconduct incident-related databases. For example, as part of the integration, select information on Military Police investigations, such as whether an investigation is in progress or completed, and if charges have been laid, will be automatically linked with OPHTAS.

OPHTAS will also be integrated with other systems, such as the Justice Administration and Information Management System (JAIMS) for military justice outcomes and the Integrated Complaint Registration and Tracking System (ICRTS) for sexual harassment outcomes. Throughout the data integration process, checks and balances are confirmed to ensure data security is maintained and the Privacy Act is respected.

Once complete, the integration will give OPHTAS better analytical capabilities, reduce redundancies and the corresponding potential for data-entry errors, and facilitate automated data reporting to the chain of command.

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: