Members of all branches of the armed forces receive frequent training with regard to what constitutes sexual assault. This training has made it clear for years that anyone who is intoxicated, and who's judgment therefore is impaired, cannot give consent for sex. In other words, "yes" does not always mean "yes," at least not in the eyes of the military justice system.
So, if one of the two -- after the fact -- claims "I was drunk and he (or she) took advantage of me" then charges of sexual assault are likely to follow. Seefried *should* have known better, but if he was drunk too, then his judgment also was impaired. Alcohol leads to really bad decisions, and it is a big factor in many, if not most, sexual assault cases in the armed forces today.
All that being said, commanders today DO feel intense political pressure to prosecute all allegations of sexual assault, even if the ensuing investigations do not make a case. So, I tend to believe that there's a kernel of truth in the defense's assertion that the CO's and commanding general's actions to overrule the Article 32 hearing are motivated by political pressure -- even if that pressure is indirect, resulting from the broader political environment.