ADF members sanctioned over Afghanistan drinking session in 2013

NINE members of the defence force have been slapped with administrative sanctions for their part in a curious case involving special forces soldiers, guns, a female spy and an Afghan booze-up.

Defence has revealed few details of the 2013 incident in which a soldier pulled a gun on a female member of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service during a drinking session in Afghanistan.

“Given the relatively small number of people who were deployed to this particular mission at the time, Defence will not disclose the specific sanctions imposed,” a spokesman said.

That could have included a formal warning, a censure, removal from duty, reduction in rank or involuntary termination of service.

This all started in December 2013 when Defence received allegations of misconduct by some of its personnel on operations, launching an inquiry into the allegations and other misconduct.

Few details have been revealed.

It’s claimed that a special forces soldier, reported to be a member of the Special Air Services Regiment, allegedly pulled a loaded handgun on a female agent during a drinking session at the Australian embassy in Kabul.

The intelligence services watchdog, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, examined ASIS’ part in this, plus the broader issue of ASIS officers and side-arms.

Its 2013-14 annual report noted that ASIS didn’t have adequate controls to ensure an agent wouldn’t be carrying a weapon under the influence of alcohol.

ASIS accepted and implemented all the inspector-general’s recommendations with IGIS lamenting it couldn’t say more.

“It is difficult for the office to continue to demonstrate rigorous and credible oversight given the strict limitations on public reporting,” its annual report said.

Defence head Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin added a few more details during a Senate estimates committee hearing last year, confirming that one of those charged was the soldier who drew the weapon.

Others charged were not necessarily involved in the actual incident, he said.

The case was referred to the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service and then to the Director of Military Prosecutions who passed it back to the army for administrative action.