OPINION OF THE COURT
The appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of members at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He was convicted, contrary to his plea, of rape and forcible sodomy; аnd pursuant to his pleas, of false swearing, in violation of Articles 120, 125 and 134, 10 U.S.C. §§ 920, 925 and 934, respectively. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 30 years, total forfeitures, and reduction to Private E-l. The convening authority reduced the period оf confinement to 20 years and otherwise approved the sentence. The appellant assigns no errors but requests sentence relief, arguing that the period of approved confinement is inappropriately severe. We disagree.
The aрpellant accosted the victim as she was walking on a publiс road at Fort Campbell during the hours of darkness. He forced her to accompany him to a playground located behind an еlementary school where he required her to perform reрeated acts of sodomy and thereafter raped her. Thе appellant then displayed a knife to his victim who, according to her testimony, now fearing for her very life, managed to escаpe the control of the appellant and ran to a nearby home located in a posthousing area.
The appellant’s brief argues that the victim suffered “no physical injuries” and that thеre “was no evidence of any lasting emotional distress.” Further, that she responded to appellant’s “oral threats” and that he did not display a weapon “until after the intercourse;” thereby concluding that appellant’s crimes are “not the type of brutal аssault which would justify the lengthy confinement in this case.”
In the case, sub judice, the facts and сircumstances involved in appellant’s crimes justifiably earned the outrage of the court members as expressed by their sentence. We have carefully considered the entire record аnd find no reason to disturb the sentence as approved by the convening authority. We have also considered those matters personally raised by appellant and determine them to be withоut merit. The findings of guilty and the sentence are affirmed.
Notes
. We are not persuaded by this kind of argument. It is not uncommon in sexual assault cases fоr the victim to offer only verbal protestations as the primary сoncern often becomes survival and not avoidance of intercourse. In this respect, a "rape victim’s response during the assault is similar to that of the victims of other violent crimes (emphasis added), such as robbery or kidnapping ...” Ross, The Overlooked Expert in Rape Prosecutions, 14 University of Toledo Law Review 707, 719 (Spring 1983); see also Burgers and Holmstrom, Coping Behavior of the Rape Victim, 133 American Journal of Psychiatry 413 (1976); Symonds, The Rape Victim: Psychological Patterns of Response, 36 American Journal of Psychoanalysis 27 (1976).
. For example, in United States v. Hammond,