The victim also couldn't request a transfer. And if they had to work with the alleged perpetrator, that could bring more trauma or victimization.

Some people look at those higher numbers and say that 'it's not good'. But it is good because that means people are getting the help they need and feeling safer about the reporting process. People want to feel safe, and that's why we have victim advocates on base.

The restricted reporting process enables the victim to get themselves together, understand the process, learn what will happen if they go unrestricted and learn what initiating the investigation will mean for them. In the meantime, they are getting all the support they need.

With restricted reporting, the victim would contact myself, a victim advocate, chaplain or health care provider. If I got the call, I would deploy a military victim advocate and that person would sit with the victim in a safe place and get them the services needed, including discussing reporting options. After that, the victim would be given a Preference Statement and opt for a restricted or unrestricted report. With a restricted report, there would be no identifying information.

The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say "I." And that's not because they have trained themselves not to say "I." They don't think "I." They think "we"; they think "team." They understand their job to be to make the team function. They accept responsibility and don't sidestep it, but "we" gets the credit…. This is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done.

Plans are only good intentions unless they immediately degenerate into hard work.