This is a news story that has caught my attention frequently in the past few weeks:

Cassandra Hernandez, a 20-year-old Air Force Airman, First-Class, attended a party in the on-base dormitory, where she was raped by three of her fellow airmen. She reported the attack and a formal inquiry into the incident was launched by the Air Force, and the three airmen were charged with raping her.

She and her family report that they have been harassed by the Air Force and those involved with the case during the legal process. One of the airmen decided not to accept the Article 31, and decided to go through with a trial (this means that the other two airmen DID accept the article, which means that they accepted that they were guilty of gang raping Hernandez). An attorney representing the accused airman, set up a series of interviews with Hernandez, not allowing her on-base victim's advocate to be present. Hernandez consequently decided that she did not want to testify in the trial, and the Air Force dropped the charges against the airmen, citing "factual inconsistencies," and her desire not to testify against the three airmen.

Months later, Hernandez and the three men she says attacked her were charged with Article 15s (indecent acts). Hernandez declined to accept the nonjudicial decision that she had committed 'indecent acts' when she had been raped, and requested a hearing. She has since been court-martialed, and the three airmen she says attacked her have been given immunity in exchange for testifying against her.

So, let's get this straight -

Hernandez reported that she was raped.
She was subjected to interrogations without her victim's advocate present, which is ILLEGAL.
She chose not to testify, and the charges were dropped.
She was court-martialed, and the men who raped her face no consequences for their actions in exchange for testifying that sex was consensual.

Lovely.