Inside the Army’s SHARP Meltdown with Jeff Gorres | S.O.S. #242

Power reveals character, and nowhere is that more visible than inside military sexual assault response. We sit down with Jeff Goris—career aviator, senior SHARP advocate at Fort Hood, and later a Department of the Army civilian—to unpack how a program meant to protect survivors gets kneecapped by backlogs, weak command emphasis, and investigations run by the very people with skin in the game. From the McQueen scandal to the wake-up after Vanessa Guillén, Jeff traces the specific mechanisms that fail victims and also crush the falsely accused: preliminary inquiries used to pre-shape outcomes, administrative actions that sidestep due process, and clearance removals that quietly end careers.

Across an unflinching conversation, Jeff explains the ethics of real advocacy: know the policies cold, focus on the victim’s needs, and document every step. He shares hard-won tactics for anyone at risk of retaliation—professional liability insurance, early legal counsel, and meticulous records—while making the case that true reform depends on independent investigations outside command influence. We talk about culture honestly: why achievement often trumps character at senior levels, how retaliation silences truth-tellers, and why the “court of public opinion” sometimes becomes the only path to accountability when internal systems stall.

This episode offers a practical roadmap and a challenge. If leaders want safer formations, they must separate adjudication from command interests, empower IGs to investigate retaliation, and give both accusers and accused the right to present evidence and witnesses. Until then, advocates and allies can still win small, meaningful battles—supporting survivors, protecting whistleblowers, and telling verified stories that make indifference costly. Listen, share, and help push for due process, independent investigations, and culture that rewards courage over convenience. If this resonates, subscribe, leave a review, and tell us: what reform would you mandate first?

The stories and opinions shared on Stories of Service are told in each guest’s own words. They reflect personal experiences, memories, and perspectives. While every effort is made to present these stories respectfully and authentically, Stories of Service does not verify the accuracy o

Chapters

• 0:00 Opening, Guest Intro, Mission
• 2:00 Jeff’s Path From Aviation To SHARP
• 6:40 Fort Hood’s McQueen Scandal Context
• 10:30 Taking Over SHARP: Training And Triage
• 15:30 Early Cracks: Staffing And Succession Gaps
• 20:30 Caseload Backlog And Weak Command Emphasis
• 25:00 He Said–She Said And Advocate Ethics
• 31:00 Due Process, Bias, And Preliminary Inquiries
• 37:30 Self-Advocacy, Lawyers, And Liability Insurance
• 43:00 Vanessa Guillén, Culture Shock, And Reforms
• 47:30 Administrative Retaliation And Career Fallout
• 53:00 Why Commands Shouldn’t Investigate Themselves
• 57:30 Media Distraction And Leadership Drain
• 1:02:00 Building Pressure: Storytelling And Public Accountability
• 1:06:00 Practical Advice And Closing Reflections

Transcript

SPEAKER_03: 0:01

The Army is no different than any of the other services where they say they prioritize sexual assault. However, what is it really like to be inside one of these sexual assault programs? For example, in the Army, they have the SHARP program. We have sexual assault and prevention response staffer in the Navy. And today, to get a behind-the-scenes look of what really goes on in running these programs and some of the gaps in services, I've got Jeff Goris. Jeff, how are you doing today?

SPEAKER_02: 0:31

Doing well, man, yourself.

SPEAKER_03: 0:33

Doing really good. Thank you so much for being on the Stories of Service podcast, ordinary people who do extraordinary work. I am the host of Stories of Service, Teresa Carpenter. And to get this started, as we always do, I'm going to play an intro from my father, Charlie Pickard.

SPEAKER_00: 0:48

From the moment we're born, we are inspiring others. By showing up as a vessel of service, we not only help others, we help ourselves. Welcome to SOS.

SPEAKER_03: 1:14

And for more than three decades, Jeff carried the weight most people never see. Having served 26 years in uniform, followed by years as a Department of the Army civilian, he became the first person soldiers turned to when the worst moments of their lives shattered their sense of safety. And at Fort Hood, he served on the sharp senior victim advocate and program manager, the one trusted to navigate chaos, traumacy, and a bureaucracy that was often in denial about its own failures. However, his reputation grew not because he sought attention, but because people inside the system knew he understood the truth about sexual assault in the ranks. Commands, investigators, and Congress pulled him into rooms where uncomfortable questions had to be answered. And he became a recognized expert whose recommendations shaped programs across the Army, even as the culture resisted change. And now this experience drives his post-ARMI mission, where he works with current and former Department of War sexual assault victim advocates who are facing retaliation for doing the very thing they were trained and obligated to do. Many are fighting active cases with EEO, OSC, and MSTB trapped in hearings against commands that should have protected them. Welcome again, Jeff.

SPEAKER_02: 2:27

Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it.

SPEAKER_03: 2:29

So first off, as I always ask my guests, where were you born and raised and what inspired you to join the Army?

SPEAKER_02: 2:37

Oh, uh I was born in a small farming community in uh Midwestern Minnesota. And uh really what inspired me is I'm fourth generation. Uh my great-grandfather, both my great-grandfathers uh served, uh served World War I, my grandfather served in World War II, uh, my father Vietnam, uncle Vietnam, all the way up. And that's pretty much really what inspired me going around. Uh you know, folks that put others in front of themselves, right? That selfless service, right? Looking out for uh others and doing a duty of uh that's greater than themselves, being part of an organization, you know, greater than self, making that commitment, making those sacrifices, and trying to leave this world a little better place. So that's that's really what inspired me was you know, again, the generations performing family.

SPEAKER_03: 3:28

What was your job in the Army?

SPEAKER_02: 3:30

Oh, for many years as uh as aviation, aviation maintenance. Uh for many, many years, uh basically about the first uh 20 or so years, straight aviation maintenance uh individual, obviously lots of overseas deployments, uh senior aviator, etc. And of course, as you progress in rank, you kind of move away from your basic basic task, right? And the Army said, you know, they got bit bit bigger and better things for you, and obviously became a senior staff officer uh and and such. And as as that became involved with the Sharp community eventually in uh in 2001, 2014, 2015, really actually after the McQueen scandal at Fort Hood is what uh what selected me uh to get into the Sharp role as a uniformed service member.

SPEAKER_03: 4:22

So was that something that you were asked to do, or did you have to apply for the I was asked to no, it was uh I had I had uh uh we had just closed down a brigade, right?

SPEAKER_02: 4:34

It wasn't uh we just continued a brigade, and that was one of my final tasks before retirement. Uh then my senior mentor who I'd worked for for a number of years, um, I decided to retire. Um, I was pretty well broken up, I was no longer deployable, and uh after multiple, you know, as things go on, right? It's not the time, it's the mileage, it's the mileage that gets you, right? Right.

SPEAKER_03: 5:00

And the wear and tear on your body after a while. Oh, absolutely.

SPEAKER_02: 5:03

Yeah, absolutely, right? And many can attest to. Uh, but my senior mentor at the time is like, hey, we need some help. Um, we've had some issues. Uh there's a program out there called Sharp. Uh, of course, familiar with it as a senior leader since 2012. And I was asked to stay on and take over the program and recover the program after the McQueen scandal here at Fort Hood in uh 2014 and uh took it over in March of 2015.

SPEAKER_03: 5:30

Okay. So tell me a little bit about what your impression of was of Sharp before you took on the program. Like what did you, what were some of your going into the program? What did you think of it?

SPEAKER_02: 5:43

I I thought it was uh you know very worthwhile, you know, that that responsibility of soldiers looking out for soldiers, uh, leaders looking out for soldiers and victims, right? Again, selfless service, advocating, doing what you're supposed to do as a soldier and a warrior, standing up for those that you know can't stand for themselves, right? Um, had a very great positive impression for many, many years. Uh recommended multiple uh senior non-commissioned officers uh to pursue that as victim advocates as well as sexual assault response coordinators. So it was a positive, I had a very positive viewpoint of the program from a leadership side. You know, again, I was a brigade uh senior leader, and from a leadership perspective, I had a very positive uh point of view at that time.

SPEAKER_03: 6:31

Gotcha. So this was an opportunity for you to give back. You were sort of at the tail end of your career, and this was a chance to work directly with people who'd been affected. Now, you mentioned a scandal that was going on right around the time that you took over in 2014. Can you tell our audience a little bit about that?

SPEAKER_02: 6:49

Yes, it's you know, it's it's pretty well known. McQueen scandal basically was running a you know, he he himself was a victim advocate, um, and he was running a prostitution ring on Fort Hood. Um and so that was uh that's a that's a gist of it, right? That's bottom line. Eventually he was convicted, separate, you know, separated, etc. But that's the that's kind of back the background of it. Um and it was it was a pretty obviously very telling, right? Fort Hood has not had as you know, they've had their fair shares of talent, that's for sure.

SPEAKER_03: 7:29

So tell me a little bit about what it was like for you when you first started working within the program. You're you know, you just assumed the position. What was it like those first few months?

SPEAKER_02: 7:42

Really like a fire hose, right? Fire hose. There was a lot of you know, there's a lot of training that you have to accomplish. You have to be credentialed, background investigations, etc. Um, and it's it's very intense. The policy, right? Knowing the policy, becoming a subject matter expert on the policy, quite a bit of studying, but at the same time, it's like you know, building the plane while it's flying, you're running the program. Uh so it's like, hey Jeff, here you go, but oh, by the way, we expect this from you as well. And it was it was a very much an eye-opener. Um, we had a large group of advocates, you know, more than all roughly 60 somewhat advocates on the installation are full-time, most of them highly dedicated, highly committed, very professional. And uh, we had a really large staff at that time within the three corporate hood office, uh, nearly nine full-time professional victim advocates just at the core office. Again, very professional, very dedicated, well, well respected within the community, well respected in the within the community, because some of them have served for quite some time. Uh it is busy, it's a very busy time. And I'm you know, obviously you're doing victims as well. That never that never ceased. You're dealing with sexual harassment victims, sexual assault victims, you know, running running the program day to day while you're in the training program to get certified and get credentials across the board. So it was um it was a busy time period. Um, I was very proud, very honored to do it. Again, serving those that need it most, serving those that need it most, serving those that had nowhere else to go, that were confused, hurt, uh, felt that they had their voice taken away from them, you know, again, enabling them, empowering them to make their own decisions going forward. Uh so very very much respected the task at hand, but also acknowledged, you know, quite a steep hill uh for a learning curve to become that expert at the command as well as the victims require.

SPEAKER_03: 9:54

Where did you start to see the cracks in the program? Like as you were running this and you were working with victims, you were working on these cases, where did you start to see some of the the gaps or some of the places where you were like, oh, wait a minute, this isn't what I thought this job was going to be?

SPEAKER_02: 10:14

Really, the first the first things, things in the armor per se, right? Those uh call-outs would really have what happened when I when I began roughly a year and a half and a half. I took over the job. And uh realizing that they did not have a follow-on successor for me, there was nobody selection, nobody in the pipeline. Um and again it was a senior officer's position, the program management role control. And uh even when I retired, I still hadn't filled that position. And for really roughly two years, that position remained unfilled. Now they did have a commission officer that was a program manager, and that was uh was responsible, but they often looked towards me, even though I was retired, for assistance. Uh I mean I mean Gladly, right? Gladly assistant, right? Gladly helped review documents, uh, visit them on site when uh when they needed it, and guided them through the process and made sure that they knew you know points of contact, you know, investigators counsels, etc. Uh but that's really when it started, it's like, hey, this if this is such a priority, why isn't there somebody dedicated to to replace me as I'm retiring?

SPEAKER_03: 11:45

Right, right. Yeah, because my understanding is that you retired and then you became a a government civilian, correct?

SPEAKER_02: 11:54

Yeah, for for about a year, I was a uh I was actually a finance program manager for the G8, uh, prior to taking over the uh the GS role as a as a Sharp program manager. Yeah, so for about a year prior, I was a GS employee um in the G8 office as a finance program manager. That's correct.

SPEAKER_03: 12:13

So other than not having a successor to take over the Sharp office, what were some of the other issues that you might have seen that you said, wait, this is fixable, but there just isn't somebody there that can fix it or has the authority to fix it.

SPEAKER_02: 12:36

Well, there's I mean, literally right off, you know, you know, taking over taking over the job as a civilian, it just uh was very shocking to see the lack of um progress that the installation had made in those years. I mean, we're talking thousands of cases that had never had any feedback, thousands of cases that weren't didn't go anywhere, and it was uh and folks not following up with victims, right? Folks not following up with victims, not because they didn't want to, it's just the caseload was so large and with a lack of command emphasis, right? So the you know the the command itself was contributing to the overall uh challenges that the victim advocates on the installation was were having, right? Um I mean it's it's no it's no secret. I mean with the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee uh within the first couple paragraphs lays out the fact that you know the command emphasis to command support was completely ineffective and thereby contributed to the permissive atmosphere of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

SPEAKER_03: 13:55

Um right. And you're really at the mercy as a victim, you're at the mercy of whether or not the prosecution will bring a case forward, whether that be or the command, rather.

SPEAKER_02: 14:12

So well, yeah, yeah, and in that time the prosecution was the command, right? It it wasn't it wasn't split that like it is now. You don't have the uh the the senior army uh basically adjudicating all the cases. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. You didn't have that. Um and and not only that, you know, the command support to the victims varied across across the installation.

SPEAKER_03: 14:41

It sounds like it was always from what people tell me, it's basically in a sexual harassment or a sexual assault case that are boils down to a he said, she said. And this is what I've I've learned through my uh interviews, is that it really just boils down to who the command likes more sometimes, or who when there's no evidence. When there's no and I'm saying when there's no evidence, I'm not saying when there's um and there are witnesses on both sides that will say something happened and they were told about it, and there are witnesses on the other side that say, no, the person was completely willing and consensual and and went along with and so my question is as a sharp program manager, how do you guys piece that? How do you make sense of that?

SPEAKER_02: 15:34

Well, I mean, and that's the one aspect of it on the ethical side of the house uh of being a victim advocate, um, you have to be that voice for the victims. You have to know the program, you have to know the policies, you have to know the regulations, and just support the victim through your knowledgeable but courageous advocacy for them. To be frank, there's not much as a victim advocate you can do, nor should you. Right, right. Um you're you're there to advocate for the victim. If there's challenges and just meta transfers they can do, but it but you know, but but with that being said, you're also responsible to ensure that all the processes are being done correctly and thoroughly. And we talked about not having evidence that he said, she said, I would counter that with well, where was the evidence of command enforcement and command support? Um you know, no greatest no no greater evidence than that would be than just look at the you know sexual harassment harassment uh reports and the lack of uh alleged defender information we put into the database of sexual harassment.

SPEAKER_03: 16:55

I think the thing that frustrates me though is that as we know false allegations do exist. And is there support, if there's support for the victims, for the alleged victims, is there just as much support for the people who've been falsely accused? If if they've been falsely accused, because we don't know until something's been adjudicated. And I think that's that's the issue is that and and the people that are investigating these cases, these are investigators that are a lot of times. I mean, maybe the army's different, but I know in my command, I was just kind of pointed at, given a letter, and said, I'm going to investigate this guy for making inappropriate comments. He was a civilian, by the way. And oh, by the way, he's had warnings about this in the past, and your investigation could likely lead to his firing. And I felt like a real weight on my shoulders about this. This guy had been in the CB community for years and years, I mean decades. And I really didn't know what to make of it because there were people on both sides, people that thought he was just joking around and they loved his sense of humor, and then there were people on the other side that thought it was inappropriate what he was doing. And so I'm just curious at how how your office tries to make sense of these cases. It's got to be so difficult.

SPEAKER_02: 18:21

Well, and that's so that's the kind of the uniqueness with Sharp, right? Right, and it and it's kind of hard to say, but it at the end of the day, a a true victim advocate that's operating with the ethics and integrity cannot really focus on the alleged offender or the alleged perpetrator, right? You have to focus on the victim. And and the best thing you can do to support the program is to execute uh professionally and brutality as required. Um you the the aspects of or the challenges which is false allegations. I think you can you can expand that upon those victims that are victims of retaliation. They are right, right. I mean bottom line is most investigations give little little little to no due process rights for those accused.

SPEAKER_03: 19:34

They do they do not. And and that that I think is a problem in the administration system that we see over and over and over again is that if you're the subject of an investigation, you don't get to decide who your witnesses are, you don't get to decide the scope of your investigation, you have no rights as the person who's being investigated. And I can remember, even in the one where I was the investigator. The guy was terrified. And he brought in a tape recorder. And I felt, I'll be honest with you, Jeff, I felt bad for the guy. And I I did the most fair report I could. Yeah. Because I'm an interviewer and I do podcasts. So I understood a little bit on how to be fair, but I realized that I could have put anything I wanted on those witness statements because half the time these people don't even want to read them. They don't want to be a part of the investigation. They don't and it was just so sad. And when I saw that, it really, it really, really broke my heart because I realized that this is people's careers and their lives on the line. And that had to be a really frustrating position for you to be be in.

SPEAKER_02: 20:43

Well, it it it was. I mean, especially when it comes to you know the victims' retaliation. And I would just harp in on the fact that you know, not only would the investigator um not read it, they probably wouldn't even check up on check up on anything given. Um and I would I would I would quantify Teresa that part of the investigation they don't have the support, but really depends on the command. Because if they're under investigation and the command doesn't want it to go anywhere, the command will just they'll just squash the investigation. They'll hinder it. Um I think one of the one of the most egregious aspects of administrative investigations is the so-called preliminary investigation, uh, which I have been using into my observations and assessment over the years, that uh you know where I was growing up as a young junior officer, young leader, young commander, preliminary investigations were used to establish probability, right? Right? Should we continue with this? And to be fair, I have no issues in my past with utilizing that tool. But I don't not anymore. I've seen the horrific results of those in which commands have used the preliminary investigation to gather information against those subjects that would hurt them and then build their defense. Yeah, or build their defense, right? Um just discredit the accuser, discredit the evidence, or try to fight the evidence, right? Hide it, hide whatever you want to call it, call it. But again, I think I think the investigation is all determined on what the command emphasis and amendment support is. If you are a friend or you know, an ally of the command, you got no issues.

SPEAKER_03: 22:41

Right.

SPEAKER_02: 22:42

If you're a whistleblower, right? If you're a whistleblower, you're seeking the truth, you're doing your duty, and it's contrary to what your command interest is, you're gonna be hung out to drop.

SPEAKER_03: 22:55

Yep. What I tell people now, or if someone were to ask me about joining the military, I would say the benefits still in my mind outweigh the costs, the people that I've met and the places I've gotten to travel and the just the opportunities that I've had from serving the leadership that I've learned from the good ones. I still feel like all those things outweigh it. But I also say, unless you're ready to be a pro se litigant in your own case, should something happen. And the reason I say pro se is because you can easily be bled dry or run out of cash paying lawyers to try to defend yourself. So you need to number one, be know that you, if something happens and you get accused of something, you have to be prepared to represent yourself. Number two, you have to understand how to tell a story. You have to be a storyteller, you have to understand how to calmly and succinctly present your evidence. And if you have to present your evidence in the court of public opinion, so be it. And and I mean that is honestly the only way that people get justice these days. I just watched uh a documentary with 50 Cent produced it. I forget what it's called. Somebody in the audience can remind me, but it was about Sean Combs. I don't know if Sean, I don't know if Sean Combs did the RAPE word. I really don't know. I do know that we saw on video that he is obviously a domestic abuser. That was not what he was charged with, though. He was not that was not part of his court case. He got pretty much off of everything. He had a very good legal team, dream legal team, got off. How did he ever get any justice or get exposed? The court of public opinion. That's how. Basically, 50 Cent, who by the way had a relationship with him throughout the years, which I thought was interesting. Yeah, some kind of a relationship. I mean, they made songs together, they performed together. I mean, I went on a whole 50 Cent rabbit hole. I'm like, why did he want to do this to this guy? So whatever. But the point being is that the only way that Sean Combs got exposed was through the court of public opinion, not through the legal system. So if if we can't expose people that do nefarious things through the legal system, which we can't, we cannot trust the legal system. What faith do we have other than our own credibility, other than our own personal ethics, other than our own ability to tell our story, and other than our ability to work the process? And that's where I think people like yourself came in. Did you ever have people that would come to you and say, I'm not gonna hire a lawyer, I'm gonna work my case and I'm gonna represent myself?

SPEAKER_02: 25:43

Yeah, so you know, I've been helping uh uh almost a dozen other folks that have been bossing through. There's five that are active right now right now. And you know, one if I could tell anybody everybody including informed service members that are in your in roles that are are fairly senior senior and they put you everybody should have professional liability insurance. Everybody should anybody that has roles of uh of substance at risk of uh uh personal excuse you know public trust in which you can be hung out to try by alleged investigation or alleged complaint. You need to have professional liability insurance. It costs nothing, it provides a hyperfinancial backbone to assist you to fight, quite yeah.

SPEAKER_03: 26:41

I never thought about that. Professional liability insurance, because I think about that also as a podcaster, I really do.

SPEAKER_02: 26:48

No, you you probably should. You probably should. I recommend it to everybody. I don't I don't recommend certain unless they go find your own. Right? Um I mean, there's folks that I have that but and I know many, many senior victim advocates and program managers within the army that have done just that. Um because you're talking you're talking about bleeding yourself dry. Just a retainer to uh get a lawyer is gonna give you eight to twelve thousand dollars.

SPEAKER_03: 27:20

Right.

SPEAKER_02: 27:21

And I know of the five cases that I'm that I'm insisting on, uh and I don't I just assist, right? It's not it's it's it's it's it's a duty for me because of what I went through with. And uh but the the least amount is in the forty thousand dollar range. And and no, they're they're they're lawyers I think they're gonna all prevail. At the end of the day, they'll all prevail, and those legal fees will all be recouped. But the problem is, you know, some of them have already been terminated by the army, they don't have an income shrink. But that professional liability tree is that backup provided by you know, you know, a bank will legal fight. Because you're right, you're right. Um you have to stand for yourself because nobody else is able to fight.

SPEAKER_03: 28:13

Right.

SPEAKER_02: 28:14

And if the public opinion is the last witness, last part of the party, right?

SPEAKER_03: 28:18

Yep. And I think that I hate to advise people to go that route. Like I like I love to be the person that says hire a lawyer, hire a lawyer. But I also know that unfortunately a lawyer is not a guarantee that you're gonna win your case.

SPEAKER_02: 28:36

No, no, no, but but but but without one, I can almost guarantee you're gonna lose.

SPEAKER_03: 28:43

Yeah, and I think that's also a shame. And I think that that's somehow maybe in my idealized world, one day I'd love to see that change. Because if we have to keep depending on other people to solve our problems for us or to get us out of trouble in the legal system, well, then we don't have a good legal system if if the pro se litigate can't fight their own fight. I I think that's that's how I feel is that because I do know there are people who chose to fight, didn't win their fight, but didn't hire a lawyer. They just kept fighting. And I I don't know what the right answer is to this. As as we work through this issue as a military community, through the military justice circles, what the right answer ought to be. But I do know that go ahead.

SPEAKER_02: 29:30

Yeah, I don't know. One aspect of it is you know, we we talked about the legal system within which I don't think it is a legal system within the Department of War. It's not even a justice system, right?

SPEAKER_03: 29:41

No, it's just like a kingdom. There you go.

SPEAKER_02: 29:47

And the challenge is that where lady justice is supposed to be blindfolded, not blind, blindfolded. There is no blindfold in the UCMJ. There is institutional as well as personal bias and prejudice because the command, even the command holds all the cards, right? They're the ones that determine an investigation, right? And don't even get me started about the refinance of the IG, that's a whole different story. Uh uh, but honestly, the only way around this in the UCMJ aspect of it is third-party commands have got to be given the mantle to execute UCMJ. As far as I'm concerned, right? Uh third party commands have got to be given the mantle away from those that have an interest in the outcome.

SPEAKER_03: 30:43

But I would say too, Jeff, that at on the grassroots level, because that's where we are, we're the grassroots. And on the grassroots level, what we can do is the military podcast community can band together and agree to share these stories and tell these cases. Because I do believe that shaming the commands and making the right decisions and doing what's ethically just is sometimes the best answer once this person has some mentors who can objectively look at the evidence and advise them on whether or not they have a case that should be properly adjudicated. Then I think that that's where you have to go, okay, it's time to take my story public. It's time to tell the world what happened to me. And I can tell you, there's no better release when you can tell the world what happened to you. And I think, Jeff, that's kind of also what happened to you as you became a civilian, right? You also face some some battles. So as we're transitioning from your sharp experience, you see how I I do that? I I could so tell us a little bit about what happened next as you got into your civilian sector.

SPEAKER_02: 32:05

Well, bottom line is uh uh you know took over in late uh 2018 right away. There was a few challenges. The previous shop was absolutely decimated. Uh we only had three folks, three full-time folks execute that four mission. Thousands of cases that have been really uh non-administered, right? Non-managed over the previous couple of years. Um you know, it's you know it's just it was very disheartening pulling in on that kind of a chaos. And it wasn't slowing down, right? We were still around 300 sexual assaults a year, uh hundreds of sexual harassment, uh, and trying to try to complete the record and trying to clean everything up. But it but you know, quickly thereafter we had the you know tragedy of of uh uh you know Miss Vanessa Guian. Um and that and that just horrible. Um it uh the resultant investigation uh really opened the eyes, I think, to the Army, the Army to be honest with you, to the nation, but where the Army priority came to to removing uh the cancer of circumstances harassment and the formations.

SPEAKER_03: 33:28

Yeah, it was definitely an eye-opening moment for a lot of people, but it had been brewing for years, and we knew that the issue, as I've always said, is not about commands ignoring and putting sexual harassment and assault under the rug, or commands weaponizing complaints. Like I hate the way that that Hague points it as weaponizing complaints, and then the people on the other side, the MST community says, well, victims are not getting justice. Both of those things can exist at the same time, and they do, because the root cause of not providing due process has never been fixed.

SPEAKER_02: 34:08

Never been addressed.

SPEAKER_03: 34:09

Never been addressed, and that's the root issue that nobody wants to talk about. Like that's the part that just irritates me. It's not either or, it's the fact that we are not, we have not created a process within the IG, within the UCMJ, to root out undue command influence and to provide due process for the accused and the accuser. And oh, by the way, uh we have somebody when justice goes a wall, and absolutely you may definitely mention this episode during your podcast episode covering the civilian victim perspective. Um, absolutely, and that's why on my show, Jeff, I cover people who've been victims or have, and their their complaint went nowhere, and I cover people who have been accused. I mean, I'm sorry, who who say they've been falsely accused. Uh either way, it's it's not a fair process. And so you saw some of this stuff and it just kept happening, and you that had to be a frustrating situation because you went into that job with the intent of wanting to serve others, and you probably just couldn't do what you had hoped to accomplish while you were there.

SPEAKER_02: 35:14

Yeah, commands just weren't listening, right? I mean, you have brigade or regimental commanders that just dismissed any type of input or concern. Um and it was it was very, very frustrating, very, very telling. Um but on you know, unfortunately, the other aspect of it, you know, now that I'd moved on to the GS side of the world as a civilian, it also opened up my eyes to the the challenges within the uniform victim advocate community and some of the challenges that they were having, were they really supporting the victims rather than the command? Um that became increasingly evident. Uh and by by not supporting the policies, not doing that, you know, being that that advocate, that courageous advocate, that empathetic advocate, they're really doing more harm than good uh with victims. And that became very, very frustrating when the the commands would they would just be dismissive of recommendations, you'd point out challenges because although a program manager, I had no authority to do anything, right? I was a manager, right? And I wasn't a supervisor, I was a manager. I could I could point out the deficiencies with respect to policy, law, regulation. Uh, but if the commanders didn't take action, I had nothing to do other than go to the you know the core commander. Well, you know, we all know how that you know turns out, right? That that didn't go over too well. Now I will tell you, I mean there was a senior commander uh that was very, very supportive of the program. Senior commander very, very supportive. And I'll tell you, I am I you know the previous two corps commanders, neither one of them were very well uh thought of as far as supporting sharp. But the DCG, General General Eflon, he did everything he could to fix the problem. He did everything he could to fix the program.

SPEAKER_03: 37:14

That's awesome. Well, I think too, we also want to celebrate those people. We want to celebrate the people who step up and do the best they can, no matter what the circumstances are. And we are definitely so thankful for those people. And I definitely want to also say that there is more of an acknowledgement that the issue is a due process problem, at least among the general population. I can tell you when I first started doing shows where I covered the false allegations side, I got so much bad feedback. And then over time, I feel like there's been a sort of a shift where people understand that it's not an either-or, it's a it's a due process problem where you don't have the same protections in place in the civilian community that you would have in the military community, especially as it pertains to the UCMJ and differences in. I mean, anything from the jury pool, a jury pool is not always a jury of your peers, it's a jury of whoever the commanding officer wants to say is your jury of your peers. That's right. The fact that 75% is supposedly a unanimous verdict, that should not be a unanimous verdict. I mean, there's just things like motions. I would love to get somebody like Jocelyn Stewart, she's an army uh JAG defense attorney, and she wrote an entire book on motions. And I would love to just dig into all the ways that they lay down motions who which really block evidence and block the jury and block certain things from going into a courtroom. And that's usually where a trial is made or break, made is made or broken, is on the motions and on what is what the rules of the game, basically, the rules of the actual procedure.

SPEAKER_02: 39:16

Well, yeah, I mean, and I'm I'm just gonna highlight you're talking about you know the judicial side of the house, and you know, with the false, you know, false accusations impact on the judicial side of the house. I I would argue and uh and defend that more individuals are destroyed, and I I choose my words wisely, again, more individuals are destroyed with the concurrence of the command through the non-judicial administrative process than anything else.

SPEAKER_03: 39:46

You're absolutely right.

SPEAKER_02: 39:48

It's pretty hard. At the end of the day, there are, although they're not really good checks and balances, just typically on the civilian side, you know, but there are some judicial checks and balances. Again, I'm not They're weak, given now that I've I've observed, assessed, and I've done my own study. But on the administrative side, uh, there's no checks and balances, there's no due process, you have the right to nothing. Nope. You have the absolute right to nothing, especially as a civilian. As a uniformed service member, you have very little, very little uh right to redress administrative investigations, administrative actions because they're so-called non-punitive, right? Well, how do you you're losing your livelihood? How how how more punitive do you can you get?

SPEAKER_03: 40:32

And not only your livelihood, depending on the characterization of your discharge, you're losing your VA benefits, you're losing access to the GI bill, you're losing all these other benefits that come from service that you may or may not now be entitled to. You may get degrade, downgraded in a pay grade. There are so many other secondary and third order effects. Um, maybe if you didn't get an honorable discharge, but you got a general discharge, well, now you can't get certain jobs. Or, oh, by the way, were you titled? Were you under investigation? And now you've got a scarlet letter in your uh on your background check, which now prevents you from getting government jobs, prevents you from getting a gun. I mean, there's just there's so much that comes from just being under investigation that we as military justice advocates just have to continue to keep beating that drum on, or nothing's going to change.

SPEAKER_02: 41:35

Well, you know, absolutely. I mean, one of the one of the folks on support right now, you know, just found out, you know, months after uh you know being let go, months after being terminated, she was applying for a job, and just found out that you know the army removed her security clearance, right? Unbeknownst to her, right? No due process. SSO just removed it, right? Put some D-Rog information on there. And of course, not in the pro not in the system now, not in the organization, not in the unit, and having a very difficult time figuring out how to appeal, and it's and it's gonna be almost impossible, you know, unless you're with an organization or have access to a security officer, there's no way to appeal that. Now, of course, her lawyers got it and everything else, and it should be checked on okay eventually when this process is all done. Uh, but you're talking months and months, and then by the way, still doesn't have a job because she can't apply anything for that she's qualified for now. Right again, the com the command emphasis on destroying the individual.

SPEAKER_03: 42:40

Yeah, yeah, it's it's really too bad. And I mean, I would say to people, you know, my old optimistic self would have said, contact your congressman, contact your congressman. But what we realize is that they're too busy worrying about whether or not P. Hageseth did, you know, law of armed conflict violations and things to get us all in the news, all upset about, than to worry about what the individual person at the at the human level is facing. And I think sometimes that's really unfortunate. Um, I was very optimistic come in January when when Hagseth got into office. I know a lot of disagreed with me about it, but I was just wanting so badly to see more happen on the due process side. And I saw that he really was um definitely getting at this whole woke culture that I had seen in my career, where we we started really over-emphasizing, in my opinion, on identity versus merit. And and so I thought he was really going to get after some of this stuff. And I've been really disappointed because at least on the administrative side, I get that he can't change the UCMJ that takes an act of Congress, but I really am disappointed that even on the administration side, we're just not seeing. I mean, I I have no shortage of people that continue to come to me. You're probably having no shortage of people that are coming to you. So it's not like we've seen these changes that we all thought we would see at this point.

SPEAKER_02: 44:04

Well, and you know, same, you know, I'm disappointed. The fact that, you know, you know, now you have the army rewriting administrative investigations to 15-6, and what the commander has to advise you of you know possible administrative actions for a false accusation. Right? So the command, you know, now the new 15-6 is basically restricting whistleblowers from moving forward because you you're you're warning them right off the bat. If you accuse somebody, if they determine that it's they determine that.

SPEAKER_03: 44:41

Yeah, and they determine through what process? Through what process, Jeff.

SPEAKER_02: 44:48

The sec def could easily, well, not only the sec deaf, the agency secretaries as well could fix this in a one-paragraph memo, right? Empower the IGs, you will not you, you know, you will investigate retaliation complaints. You, IG, will investigate retaliation complaints, not to commands, not let the commands investigate themselves, which has been the common practice for the last years that I've known, anyways. And oh, by the way, remove remove those commands that have a vested interest in the outcome from any aspect of the administrative or judicial process, period.

SPEAKER_03: 45:31

Yep, I agree. And give the accused and the accuser the right to bring forth their own witnesses, their right to rebuttal with their own evidence. In other words, if you have evidence that proves your innocence in a case, it must be considered within the investigatory process. It must be considered an attachment, it must be put into. I can't tell you how many times people tell me that they had proof of something or they had these witnesses that would have collaborated their side of the story, and those people were just never interviewed.

SPEAKER_02: 46:09

Well, again, you know, the commands get to preliminary investigation, they set up the old investigation outcomes.

SPEAKER_01: 46:17

Yeah. Right? Yeah.

SPEAKER_02: 46:20

I mean, I've seen it, especially with for you know, oh my lord, um uh you know, a unit on a Fort Hood, you know, went after a whistleblower, a sexual assault victim whistleblower, uh, to the point where the last day of the army, you know, as as they were chapping her out for making a retaliation complaint, last day in the army, the two-star tells the garrison commander to bar her from the installation. Yeah. And no action taken. No action taken.

unknown: 46:50

Right.

SPEAKER_02: 46:51

The court the court of public opinion, that division commander is no longer in the army. Right? Um, because you and I'm in my opinion, you know, maybe Congress isn't the right way to go, but I think if you remain silent, then you don't you you can't really complain a whole lot either. I mean, there's some I I think voices and contact, the advocacy. I do, I do think it has an effect. I do think it has an effect. Um, you know, I know folks that you know they didn't move on from where they were at, they retired. Right. Right? They're no longer in positions to harm soldiers or others, right? Or to harm those leaders that care. Uh, you know, again, one of my another aspect that I saw where you know a senior officer, um, as far as I'm concerned, did the right thing, so supporting my efforts and what I was doing, supporting my efforts and what I was doing, uh, and would later end up having to leave the service after the corps commander uh went after him. Went after him. In my opinion, went after him because supporting the Sharp program and the positions that I had, you know.

SPEAKER_03: 48:06

Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of people, we've lost a lot of good people within the armed forces who had a conscious and had good moral ethics. I'm having another guy on tonight who amplifies exactly what I'm talking about, exemplifies what I'm talking about. He never lost his ethics, he never lost his moral compass, and he paid dearly for it. And I think that that type of culture has to stop. And the only way it's going to stop, in my opinion, is if we continue to show people what true leadership looks like. And I do believe there is a leadership drain in the armed forces at the highest ranks, at the 06 and above ranks, because of the fact that we spent so much time, I believe, spending, you know, worrying about identity, worrying about who looks good, who likes who. Instead of, well, who who gave who got results? Who was able to get their, you know, roll up their sleeves, get themselves dirty, and do the grunt work and know how to lead and know how to set the example. And there just weren't enough leaders that were willing to stick around and deal with the BS. Because what happens is, and I'm sure you saw it too, Jeff, is that we got to this point and we were like, oh my god, this isn't what we at least for me, that wasn't what I thought leadership was supposed to be. I I had a few really good.

SPEAKER_02: 49:34

Yeah, character character took a back seat to the prevailing emphasis at the thing. Right? Character no longer mattered. What was the current prevailing emphasis? And you put anything in there, it doesn't matter. Whatever the achievement or the emphasis of the, you know, what was the task at hand to appease some other organization, some other effort, right?

SPEAKER_03: 49:57

Some political, whatever the political agenda, whether it be whether it be Black Lives Matter or whether it be whatever the Trump administration, I mean, the fact that the old Trump administration went after Captain Crozier, that still to me just blows my mind that you're gonna go after somebody who was protecting their crew. I don't care that a letter got leaked. You still don't go after somebody whose intent was ultimately to keep their sailors safe. And that was that was not that was the first crack in the road for me about ethics and character was when I saw that happen, I go, ooh, wait a minute. And then there was just a number of events in the Navy that I saw with Captain Bradley Geary being one of the most recent, where I was like, I what happened? And then we see, like you say, with everything with the sexual assault and and the shark program. Um, was there anything that happened as you became a GS that you looked that you saw too, even within your own your own role as a as a GS after this, that really just kind of made you go, okay, it's time to retire?

SPEAKER_02: 51:07

Yeah, the the the lack of it's really the lack of ethics within the community, the lack of integrity within the community, uh, from from the army sharp and actually DOD Sapro Down, right? Uh from DOD Sapro down. Uh it became very, very frustrating that they were they were permissive uh to the command retaliation. That was that was quite evident. Um, you know, over the years, right? You get you got hundreds of retaliation complaints with the victims, very few investigations, uh less than 40 investigations with 250. Uh in those than 40 investigations, probably I think it was seven or nine actual outcomes. Seven or nine actual outcomes. Uh, but not only that, the fact that they they didn't want to support you know the quality of the victim advocates. Uh, that were they were they would take the complaints of hey, we have a victim advocate that is you know filled out you know a possible fraudulent application, and thereby had a SARC sign a possible fraudulent application. And then, oh, by the way, the brigade commander signed a possible fraudulent case. They weren't interested in it. You know, there's there's no process to ensure the ethics and integrity of the program. Um the National Organization of Victim Advocates, they're a third-party credentialing service, but they have no they have no say, they have no power. Staff row has none because they have no independent authority. They all rely on the commanders. So you bring it to the commanders, but you think what are the commander's gonna do? The commander's not gonna do anything because he's got the piece of paper that he signed or she signed with all the information in the background. So obviously what they're doing is admitting that they didn't check anything, right? Or background investigations and background, I mean, I can just go on and on, right? But that was that was really the final, you know, kind of the final straw. Obviously, the investigation and and you know, this you know, my negotiated settlement agreement and stuff, but I was glad to go when I realized that Army Sharp and DOD Sapro had no interest in maintaining the program of a program of ethics and integrity.

SPEAKER_03: 53:16

Right. And I will say that the idea that the system will investigate itself has never worked. Like it doesn't work in any any way. It's like the USDA when I used to do the puppy mill advocacy, they tried to have the USDA police itself and police its own breeders. And it was like, no, they're what they would do is they would let the breeders know, the puppy mill breeders, or you know, large-scale commercial breeders, they would let them know ahead of time that they were coming out and doing their inspections that would give like these, you know, all kennels tons of time to clean things up and to make things look pretty or put away their sick dogs or whatever. And it's like, no, like you can't have investigatory agencies be a part of the very agency that's committing the wrongdoing. It doesn't work.

SPEAKER_02: 54:16

Well, and another another example of the results of commands investigating themselves, no greater example to you need to look at than a tragedy after you know, specialist being. You know, you had the force com IG that came in and did that look. And everybody saw him, everybody saw the IG on on tape, right? On on TV. We're okay, everything's alright. Program is program is secure, there's no issues at the command, no challenges, you know, etc. And then not more than six months later, after the Fury, right, after the Fortune Independent Review Committee gets done with their investigation, you know, what do they say? They lay it all the way out. I mean, the command emphasis wasn't effective, it contributed to the permissive atmosphere of sexual harassment and sexual assault. The first paragraph within the report. That's why you can't have commands investigate themselves.

SPEAKER_03: 55:18

And we all know that.

SPEAKER_02: 55:19

We but yeah, but you know, but they do it anyways, yeah. And the the secretaries and the sec def and the our agency secretaries, they allow it to happen.

SPEAKER_03: 55:28

They do. And that's why that's why we do these shows. I mean, that's why I became a military podcaster, that's why I took on this issue. I think when I started my podcast, it was going to be more leadership and inspirational focused, and I still love all that stuff, don't get me wrong. But I started to realize that this was where I felt the biggest problem was within the Department of War. The biggest problem was due process. Like there isn't anything else that I can put my finger on and say that needs to be fixed more. But you know what? It's funny. This is the biggest problem, but it is not the biggest thing that you see task and purpose talking about, you see military.com talking about, you see we are the mighty. No, they're more or less focused on some, you know, one particular Venezuelan boat that whether or not, and and oh, by the way, never mind the fact that this issue with this, you know, second strike happened has happened throughout history. Happened in World War II, happened during Vietnam. Second strikes do happen, and there is a legal case for it. If you watch Tim Parla Torre's uh Tim Parlatore's uh interview with Sean Spicer, they lay out in history that this is something that happens. But I'm sorry, Congress is too focused on the nitty-gritty of that because it's an opportunity to take Hague Seth down, and that's really all it is at the end of the day. It's an opportunity to take Hague Seth down and talk about signal gate or talk about something else. Then to talk about yeah, it's than to talk about the biggest issue impacting everyday sailors, soldiers, service members, guardsmen, space force people. The biggest thing that impacts us right now is the lack of due process, and nobody wants to talk about it. It just blows my mind.

SPEAKER_02: 57:19

It's a status quo, right? We're gonna continue on. We're gonna continue to harm innocent folks, we're gonna continue to allow victims to be re-victimized through retaliatory ostracism, reprisal, etc. We're not interested in it. We're not gonna give them protections. We're just gonna talk about it, right? We're gonna talk about it, but we're not gonna give them any protections, you know. And task, like you said, military task for purpose military.com, all those folks. Nobody's interested in carrying that, carrying that load. It doesn't sell.

SPEAKER_03: 57:46

And those military and the reason it doesn't sell is because the agenda-sending media doesn't allow it to sell. That that's the thing. Like, and and then we've got these military influencers, and I won't say who they are, they're they're nice people, but they're just they're just tagging on. You know what I mean? They're they're they're they're continuing this this news cycle of of BS distraction material that has absolutely nothing to do with what's really impacting the everyday soldier, sailor, service member, which is this idea that they are not feeling safe in their own working environment. They do not feel safe serving because they can't trust their leadership, because their leadership has failed them, and their leadership has failed them because there's no process to properly adjudicate issues. It just, I'm sorry, Jeff. The whole thing just it just it blows my mind, and that is why I continue to have these shows.

SPEAKER_02: 58:43

Yeah, and I'm gonna, you know, the duplicity of commands, right? The prejudice and bias that is inherent with you know individuals as well as you know, self-interest, right? Could you tell me you know what 06 or general officer is gonna put their skin on the line or a junior officer or an NCO or a soldier?

SPEAKER_03: 59:06

I don't necessarily buy that because I think to myself, to those people, okay. An 06 has a pension, has BA disability, has can go out into the community and be a civic volunteer post-military. Where are they? Where are they talking about these issues?

SPEAKER_02: 59:28

Yeah, where are they in this discussion, right? Why why aren't why aren't there and I will I will I will say again, I I serve with there, I mean, two oh sixes that are mentors of mine, retired 06s that are mentors of mine, paid a pretty steep price for for bringing things up, uh specifically to Lieutenant General White, uh and stuff. Um one of them did to Lieutenant General White, and pay to have paid a career ending price, right? Career ending price. Uh so they're out there, respect them. But again, we've elevated achievement and achievement based on whatever the shiny bobble is at the time, whatever that emphasis of that agenda, right, is at the time over character. Yeah, achievement is much more high highly valued than character. And um I'll I'll tell you.

SPEAKER_03: 1:00:40

That most nearly every like 40% or something crazy of military officers don't stay in their front they're past their first term. I mean, people get in and they go, they go, I I'm I'm not gonna deal with this. This is I I am not gonna be treated this way.

SPEAKER_02: 1:00:56

And I can't ethically, I mean, I just was just at church services this last week with with a junior officer. And we're talking, I'm going like, okay, so you're having these thoughts, why aren't you executing? You're already having the thoughts of departing, you've already made the decision, you're just waiting for validation, right? Yeah.

SPEAKER_03: 1:01:14

Because you know, and it's because of the lore. I mean, there's still, like I said, because of the agenda setting media, there's still this lore that the military should be what we all wanted it to be. And so people are conflicted because they're like, wait a minute, the military was supposed to be this thing, and it's supposed to be this wonderful place where all these good people serve, and we're all, you know, rowing in the same boat. But then what I'm seeing in my day-to-day workplace isn't matching that. It's toxic, it's focused on a political agenda, you know, good people are not getting promoted. So then there's this disconnect, you know, this cognitive dissonance with what we publicly look like on paper, and what the you know, the task and purposes and the and the mainstream media is saying we are, and then what I'm really seeing in real life. And so that's where us military podcasters and people like yourself really are so valuable and so needed is to tell these stories and to not be afraid to tell these stories.

SPEAKER_02: 1:02:15

Well, and we got we got support, right? It's great to tell, but then there's action that goes with it as well. And you know, I I I mean I mean I I help anybody that reaches out, well, not but most folks that reach out to me, uh, and stuff. And uh you gotta be supportive, you gotta you know, build that environment that is wanting the greater good to occur. Um, and I I think eventually I think things will change. I think you just gotta keep on beating the drums uh and being vocal about it and not give up. Um you gotta take the small victories as well. Obviously, you gotta take care of yourself. You gotta take the small victories as well.

SPEAKER_03: 1:02:54

Absolutely, absolutely. Well, I definitely want to thank you for taking time to come on the podcast. I know these are not easy or sometimes the most sexy conversations to have, but I think that they're really important. And I think that in time we are gonna see those changes. And like you said, we celebrate those tiny victories when they do happen. Uh, for example, when Captain Bradley Geary did get his case dropped, that did happen, and that happened due to the court of public opinion. I mean, if he had not taken his case to the court of public opinion, I do not believe uh Deshaun Ryan, I do not believe he would have had the outcome that he had. And that's correct.

SPEAKER_01: 1:03:29

I agree, I agree.

SPEAKER_03: 1:03:30

So I think we just need to encourage more people to do that. We need to teach storytelling. We've got people like Scott Mann uh out there teaching people how to share their story. And we need to continue to show people that there is a polite and respectful way to advocate online and not lose your freedom of speech protection. So thank you so much, Jeff. I really appreciate you taking the time to come on. Is there anything I didn't cover down on or anything you want to leave our audience with as we close out the call?

SPEAKER_02: 1:04:00

No, I mean one thing I also I would say is you know, if you're a if you're a victim advocate or a SARC out there and you're being targeted by the command, you you gotta take it seriously. Right? You gotta take it seriously. Uh I mean there's a lot of things going on with all in the community. You gotta have professional liability insurance, and you gotta take you gotta take any type of accusations, regardless if they're formal or informal, you gotta take accusations seriously because that's just the first step in the in the process for the command. That's all I'm saying. I appreciate it.

SPEAKER_03: 1:04:33

Absolutely. And I would say to close out the call on my end, is that you've got to get in front of problems. The moment that you start to see that there is tension in your workplace, you need to be able to address it. I will tell you, that was one of the reasons I I really enjoyed my NATO tour so much, is I had a Greek surface warfare officer as a boss. And anytime we had tension, he said, let's just talk about it, let's get it out. And we did. And it was messy, it was ugly sometimes, uh, but I didn't leave there angry, and I didn't leave there wanting to file a complaint. So um, you know, I I I think that's that's what we need to have the time. That's what we do.

SPEAKER_02: 1:05:14

Yeah, absolutely.

SPEAKER_03: 1:05:15

All right. Well, thank you so much for coming on. I will meet you backstage to say goodbye as I go full screen, but do really, really, really appreciate your time. All right, guys, that is it. Uh, tonight I'm actually on the iPad. Uh, if you can see me on full screen right now, I've I've learned the art of just using a very, very simple microphone and this, and I can suddenly still get the same uh quality. So that is a good thing for me to keep in mind as I move forward and travel and still podcast. We do have a number of shows this week. I didn't put out any kind of a teaser for it. So I'll just say tonight I'm having an amazing storyteller. I've read his memoir for one of my college classes called Hardfills. And he is a gentleman in the aviation community, an officer from ETU Hawkeye pilot, who took all of the, or I believe NFO, who took all the hardest jobs and all the jobs nobody wanted, and made it a mission to always do the right thing, even when nobody was looking. And I just really appreciated his book and also his excellent storytelling. And then this Thursday, I'm having Juliette Funt. Uh, she is a leadership coach who has done a number of talks and presentations and work with military on taking back your time and finding those blank spaces in the day and being able to really uh manage manage your life in a in a in a way that I I find very compelling. And then Saturday I'm having Franklin Anus on the show, and we're going to be talking about Alden Partridge, which was a he was a scholar uh from the late 1800s who has been largely ignored uh in military history. And he did a deep dive on him. I read the book. I'm not even a history buff, but it was an amazing book about his contributions, and many of the things that we are seeing today were things that he was preaching about in the late 1800s. So that I also found fasting, late 1800s, early 1900s. So, with that, uh thank you all for watching the Stories of Service podcast. As I always close out these calls, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, and enjoy the rest of your evening. Bye bye now.