I had a distantly similar fact pattern when I was a prosecutor in a Marine Corps hazing case. We charged the Platoon Sergeant both for his personal role in pounding new rank into the new Corporal's chest and for leadership role in allowing it to happen (several other NCOs participated). He was convicted on both.

The law and facts here are obviously very different. But my experience is that the members panel (jury) was able to distinguish between the two and understand that the defendant had two different sets of responsibilities and violated them both.