LEAVE NO COMRADE BEHIND!

Long before the Band of Brothers hit the screen, it was unwritten law for the U S military to leave no man behind. In this day and age, we can expand that to say "Leave no man or woman behind".
A third-class female cadet, a sophomore, USCGA Class of 2010, and a male enlisted man claimed two Mexican policemen assaulted them after they came ashore from skinny-dipping at the beach during the pre-dawn hours in Veracruz, Mexico.
It appears that female 3/c Cadet Jane Doe and the enlisted man may have been swimming or cavorting on the beach while the two policemen hid behind some rocks and surprised them when they came out of the ocean. Chances are that the female cadet was Mexican or Hispanic and that she spoke Spanish. Otherwise, a teenage female would not have felt secure enough to go romping around a foreign country after midnight and hanging out in remote areas. Clearly she was at home in the Spanish environment. However, the enlisted man may have spoken Spanish also. One or both would have been able to converse with the Mexican police officers.
Cadet Jane Doe said the police officers attempted to handcuff them, and forced her to perform oral sex on one of them. This probably was not communicated by sign language, unless the policeman indicated by signing that he wanted her to do the same thing to him that she was doing to the enlisted man.
The Eagle docked Friday, 13 July, in Veracruz and left on Monday. Cadet Jane Doe and the enlisted man are still in Mexico working with authorities. The ship, CGC EAGLE, is continuing on its summer training program. It is due to arrive in Miami on July 27 as its next port call. Cadets in the Classes of 2008 and 2010 and a few trainees on this 5 week summer cruise boarded the Eagle in San Juan, Puerto Rico, in mid-June and from there sailed to Cartagena, Colombia and then to Veracruz, Mexico.


The Coast Guard Academy can look forward to some rude awakenings in this case. I dare say they have little or no experience in dealing with Mexico and corrupt Mexican officials. They made a big mistake in leaving a teenage female cadet and an enlisted man in Mexican custody. Someone had better fly to Mexico quickly and carry plenty of CASH. This is not the Cadet Webster Smith case and the Rule of Law. In Mexico, money talks and justice walks.
Captain Chris Sinnett, the Commanding Officer of the Eagle had to be out of his mind. If I had been Captain Sinnett, that ship would never have sailed without every cadet and crewman on board.
There would be no reason to leave cadets or crewmen behind if they were only witnesses to an investigation. That is an easy call. Take their statements and let them leave on the ship. They could even fly back whenever and if ever there was a trial. This case will never see a trial.
These two kids are going to be charged with something. That is why they were not allowed to leave Mexico. Mom and Dad and the Coast Guard Academy are going to have to come up with some CASH, and a lot of it.
Silvina Morales, the prosecutor's office agent in charge of the case, indicated that a Complaint had been drafted; and according to the complaint, the female cadet and the enlisted man decided to swim at a local beach. She said the two policemen apparently hid behind some rocks and surprised the swimmers when they came out of the ocean. All reports from the Coast Guard are ambiguos concerning who is the subject of the complaint. It could be the female cadet and the enlisted man, or it could be the police officers.
My bet is that it is the female cadet and the enlisted man. They could be charged with almost anything; such as, public drunkenness, lewdness, swimming nude on a public beach, public indecency, drunk and disorderly, having sex in public, assaulting a police officer, refusal to cooperate with a police officer, being on the beach after dark or sundown. They may have entered a closed or secured area.




Nevertheless, we will not rest until these two brave young Americans are returned to American soil.


Even if the female cadet and the enlisted man are eventually released from Mexican custody, this case will be far from over.
What standard will be used to dispose of this case? The Webster Smith Standard, where the female cadet receives no discipline and she gets to testify against the enlisted man? Shelly Raudenbush had a torrid fling with a Navy enlisted man in Norfolk, Virginia and went on to be the Star Witness against Webster Smith. She received complete immunity for fraternizing with a Navy enlisted man, and Webster Smith was convicted, essentially, for keeping her secret. The 3/cCadet Jane Doe was a freshman 4/c cadet during the Webster Smith Court-martial; so, she would be quite familiar with the facts of the case. Also, the female cadet grapevine would have given her all the facts concerning Shelly Raudenbush and her sexual escapades with Navy enlisted men.She observed that Shelly was not called to task for her violations of the Cadet Regulations or the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It would appear that that is how the Coast Guard Academy will handle all similar incidents involving female cadets. They are sacred cows.
Or, will this case be judged by be the Shelly Raudenbush Standard where the female cadet gets immunity from prosecution, no charges for fraternizing with an enlisted man? Although Shelly's infractions occurrred in Virginia and New London, not in a foreign country, the facts are similar. Also, Shelly knew how to keep a secret. She only told Webster Smith and her female friends. She did not create an international incident. This 3/c Jane Doe may have sparked an international incident with our Southern Neighbor whose relationship with the US is tense at the moment because of the immigration issue, border security, and drug smuggling across the border. Also, she may have ruined the career of the commanding officer of the CGC Eagle.
Or will they used the the Cadet John Miller Standard where the local authorities take care of resolving the case and the cadet is returned to duty with a warning to be more discrete next time? I am reasonably sure this case will eventually be solved by the local authorities; and, it will be resolved without a trial. It will only take a large infusion of CASH. As soon as the parties agree on a figure, the case will be over. That is, it will be over in Mexico. There will still be the matter of determining whether 3/c Cadet Jane Doe has violated any regulations.

Either way, the female cadet corps has the Wisniewski Curse? Or, perhaps it is the Shelly Raudenbush Curse? Either way, the Coast Guard albatross is still there around the neck of the Coast Guard Academy. Until the Webster Smith travesty is resolved fairly, and Webster Smith is given his Commission and his degree, and his record is wiped clean, the cadets will continue to suffer these terribly embarrassing incidents.




See http://lawandorderroybean.blogspot.com/ for more analysis and comments.

LATE BREAKING NEWS: On or about Tuesday, 24 July, 3/c Cadet Jane Doe was repatriated to Miami, Florida to her family. Not as big as Elian Gonzales, but just as emotional. She is awaiting the arrival of the CGC Eagle with the rest of her classmates. The skids were greased and she was released. She will have the best sea story to tell from this cadet summer training cruise.
What deal was struck with the Devil to secure her release?
Was she an unfortunate victim of circumstances, or a victim of her own bad judgment?

Natalie Granger, a Coast Guard spokeswoman, said U.S. officials are working with the Mexican government on the investigation. She said the details of the investigation could not be released until the work is complete, and she could not say how long that would take.

The two policemen were charged with robbery, abuse of authority and sexual misconduct.

The torch has been passed to a new Gender, and the females continue to get a free ride with no ethical accountability. With each Academy entering class containing more and more females, the Coast Guard Academy can look forward to more of the same, underway as before and steady as she goes.

The albatross around the neck of the Coast Guard continues to work in other areas of Coast Guard responsibilities. The Coast Guard is being stripped of authority in areas where it has proven that it cannot be relied upon to perform honorably. It is not that the Coast Guard lacks the manpower; it appears that she lacks the integrity to do it fairly and impartially. “This is truly a sad day for the Coast Guard”.

The Webster Smith case exposed a cancer that has festered for years in secret and in silence. Now the world is sitting up and taking notice. Not only the world, but also those in the corridors of power who have the authority to rein in those rogue elements in the Coast Guard who feel that they are above reproach.
It is usually the little things that trigger the avalanche. Webster Smith triggered an investigation of the Coast Guard Academy superintendent, a Study of the Culture and Climate at the Academy, a Congressional Deep Water Ports inquiry, and Congressional Hearings concerning the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) Corps appearance of bias and impropriety in enforcing the Boating Safety Regulations.
When Doug Wisniewski invited the news media to come in and look over how the Academy protects its defenseless female cadets against ”so-called” sexual predators, he was forcing the toothpaste out of the tube. He was ringing a bell that could not be unrung. Unfortunately, you cannot squeeze the toothpaste back into the tube, and you cannot unring that bell.
The Baltimore Sun revealed on 1 August 2007 (just 3 days before the Coast Guard will celebrate its 217th Birthday) that Congressman Elijah D. Cummings has proposed legislation that will strip the Coast Guard of all of its administrative law judges. On 31 July 2007 he called for the U.S. Coast Guard's administrative court system to be removed from Department of Homeland Security and Coast Guard control and placed within an independent arm of government. He will submit legislation to strip the administrative law system from the Coast Guard, with hopes of having the change implemented by the end of 2008. Rep Cummings said. “Being treated fairly by a judge is a fundamental right of every American and we need to send a strong message to the mariner community that when they come before the Coast Guard that's how they're going to be treated.” Well, Happy Birthday US Coast Guard. What a birthday present!
Like the Prophet Elijah in the Old Testament, is this modern day congressman bringing a message of despair and retribution to a runagate group of power hungry demagogues? Also, in Moby Dick, it was Elijah who prophesied the destruction of all those who hunted to kill but secretly worshipped the great white whale. The Coast Guard by its own press releases implies that the only minority group worthy of its recruiting attention is the white female. It has staked its reputation on being the first Academy to admit women, to have the largest percentage population of women in the cadet corps, and the first to court-martial a Black male cadet for having sex with his white female classmate; and now, the first to leave a teenage female cadet alone in a foreign port because she was late returning to the ship from liberty. Sadly, all of the evidence in the Webster Smith case after the fact shows that the cadet was discriminated against and framed with perjured testimony. Is that shouting I hear from the bridges and engine rooms of merchant ships around the world? Are merchant seamen and shipping companies around the world celebrating the demise of the Coast Guard ALJ Corps?
One question begs attention. Will the diminution in authority, and control over the ALJ Corps and the enforcement of the Boating Safety and Marine Inspection laws translate into a reduction in staff and budget? Will the historically Humanitarian Service be stripped of more and more of its peace time humanitarian mission areas of responsibilities? At the same time, will the Coast Guard receive more and greater responsibility for Homeland Security? Will the Coast Guard become more hawkish and less of a dove?
The nation’s only maritime police force will be more military ready and less boating safety friendly. That would be a good time to increase the percentage of female cadets and enlisted women. The Cadet Culture Study postulated that females out perform their male counterparts the majority of the time. However, it did not mention that there has been an 80 percent jump in the homeless population in America fueled by female veterans. Many female veterans do not even consider themselves veterans. They have the hardest time adjusting back to civilian life after a tour in the military. But, that could be the subject of future Coast Guard studies. In the mean time, the torch has been passed to a new GENDER of Coast Guard officer trainees. Git ere done!

12 Jan 2008, Update: White Teenage Female Cadet Claims Sexual assault By Mexican Police on Veracruz Beach.
Two Mexican law enforcement officers accused of assaulting a white female Coast Guard Academy third class cadet and a Black enlisted crew member stationed onboard the Coast Guard Academy training ship USCGC Eagle are still in jail.
The incident occurred during a port call in Veracruz, Mexico, in mid-July 2007.

The case is under review by the First Criminal Court in Veracruz, and the judge has not issued a final decision, according to a Coast Guard Academy spokesman.

The U.S. Embassy has just received a verbal update from the Mexican court.

According to that update, the accused police officers filed an appeal against their imprisonment, and a federal court denied the appeal, but the criminal court is expecting a new appeal. Mexican courts are like German jokes, they are not funny and you never know where they are going or how they will come out.

The third-class female cadet and the male crew member said the police officers attempted to handcuff them, stole some of their possessions, threatened them and forced the female to perform oral sex on one of them, while they were on liberty after a late night swim at a beach in Veracruz, Mexico.

The two policemen have allegedly been charged with robbery, abuse of authority and sexual misconduct.




BRING ME MEN.

White Women Only Minority Coast Guard Recognizes.

Admiral Thad Allen, the Coast Guard Commandant, speaks truth to action, except when it comes to African Americans. According to Admiral Thad Allen white women are the only minority the Coast Guard recognizes. African-Americans, the only Constitutionally protected minority in America is invisible to the Coast Guard. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were added to the U S Constitution in the 19th Century after the bloodiest period in American history to protect the only constitutionally recognized minority in America, the descendents of the freed African slaves. On 28 July 1868, the ratified 14th Amendment was adopted into the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing citizenship and all its privileges to African-Americans.
In July of 2007, Admiral Thad Allen attempts to re-write history to define "minority" as a white woman. Admiral, please!!
"This is a sad day for the Coast Guard," said Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard.
"The face of the Coast Guard was forever changed as a result of Adm. Siler's commitment and foresight towards minority recruiting and the advancement of women within the Coast Guard's ranks."

Adm. Owen W. Siler, 85, commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard from 1974 to 1978, died from heart failure July 17 at St. Joseph's hospital in Atlanta.
During Siler's tenure as commandant he instituted a "minority recruiting program" and was instrumental in having "women" admitted to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, making it the first of the military service academy (sic) to do so. He also oversaw the expansion of the Coast Guard's marine environmental protection program, with the passage of the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976, to include an increase of the service's jurisdiction along the nation's coastline to more than two million square miles.
By --Lt. j.g. Nadine Santiago | July 19, 2007






This is how the Coast Guard defines "minority". To the Coast Guard a minority is a white woman! In the early 1970's in the EEOC Guidelines to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Congress expanded the definition of minority to include women, but not exclusively as women.

The Coast Guard Academy Director of Admissions CAPT Susan Bibeau received the Outstanding Achievement in Diversity Management Award at the Third Annual Department of Homeland Security Award Ceremony in Washington D.C., December 6, 2007.

"Every eligible young American committed to acquiring a great education and serving their country deserves a chance to gain admission to the Coast Guard Academy," said Bibeau. As a graduate of the first Academy class to commission women, I understand how important and challenging it is to extend this opportunity to populations who may know little about the Coast Guard. Talent knows no race or gender... it is present everywhere in our society. Further, the Coast Guard deserves access to everyone who can best secure the safety of our nation."
During the past six years as the Academy's director of admissions Bibeau has strategically restructured the Academy admissions processes to attract and sustain greater ethnic and gender diversity within the Corps of Cadets. Her work has included reaching out to leaders of influential national minority organizations such as the National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities to help the Academy create a model of diversity that is based on excellence and equity.
Also during her tenure, Bibeau has innovated recruiting and outreach strategies such as the Science, Technology, Engineering Program (STEP) and Girls in Technology which have redesigned the preparatory and recruitment strategies to attract both minority students and women.
"Capt. Bibeau's initiative and innovation to create programs that help broaden the diversity at the Academy is commendable," said Rear Adm. J. Scott Burhoe, Coast Guard Academy Superintendent. "Her work to bring together students from diverse backgrounds helps those here at the Academy become more well-rounded cadets and more capable officers in the United States Coast Guard. Embracing diversity is a national security issue, and her work in this area is worthy of this well deserved recognition."



A tree is known by the fruit it bears. What has been the fruit of her labors? There was no mention of raw numbers, or any breakdown by minority ethnic groups. I am sure this award was well deserved. The only question is how well deserved. The issue of awards has always been a sticky point with Black Officers. They never seem to get one. When they do, it is usually left on their desk or simply enetered into their service record, without any fanfare. There usually is little notoriety unless it is presented posthumously.



























The Captain has been at the Academy since 2001. She witnessed the entire Webster Smith fiasco. How has that effected minority recruiting? What was her involvement, if any? As a senior staff officer, she must have been privy to the development? What was her input? Did she have an interest in the minimizing the fallout from the Webster Smith case? Did she feel any compassion or duty to any of the female cadets that allegedly were raped, or were forced to give testimony in the trial of Webster Smith against their free will? What was her relationship to Captain Collela; and, why was Katie’s name taken off the witness list? Not every female cadet with relevant and material evidence to present was required to testify.

Is she retiring or being transferred? Why was this award presented at this time? The citation sounded like something that would be presented at a retirement ceremony.

I wonder if Carmen Walker was present.

(And now a word from a Black Cadet who did not graduate in 2006)
For the Coast Guard Academy (CGA) class of 2011, an academy officer reported a population of “four Black cadets at most.” In the United States of America, African-Americans constitute 12.7% of the population according to the 2000 Census. West Point, Annapolis, and USAFA's cadets/midshipmen reflect those numbers. The average class of cadets reporting to CGA for indoctrination is consistently 300+. Can you imagine 38 Black cadets in one class? It is likely that there are less than 30 Black cadets in the entire cadet population, amassing a whopping 3% of the nation’s prospective Coast Guard Academy officer corps.

Why would diversity help? It would foster a welcoming environment for future servicemen and women. Many Black officers complain that there is a lack of representation in the senior ranks. Admiral Manson Brown is the only hope for Commandant right now. With the all-but-confirmed selection of Vice Admiral Vivien Crea for January 2009, the probability of an African-American president preceding a Black CG Commandant is much higher.

The media has reported the CG’s racially insensitive events over the past few years. With not a single person brought to justice for those occurrences, many Black servicemen and servicewomen feel as though they do not matter. I don’t believe that is the message that the Coast Guard is intending to spread. Merle J. Smith and London Steverson were the first Black cadets to graduate. In 2006, the fortieth anniversary of CDR Smith’s accomplishment saw no fanfare. In 2006, the thirtieth anniversary of an equally important first, received fanfare... banners, speeches, and a lot of attention from the local media.

Diversity is a positive for all races. It aids tolerance and understanding; it alleviates fear of the unknown. It would help the Coast Guard’s image and cohesion to emphasize attracting black talent. Talent is the operative word. Nearly 90% of all admitted Black cadets are sent to preparatory school for one or two years before attending the Academy. When the few that make it through the Naval Academy Preparatory School arrive at the academy, they see that they already know most of their Black classmates from the previous year’s gauntlet. This may contribute to a sense of inferiority in relation to their classmates who came straight from high school.

Find talent by looking in the right places. In 1973, the admissions team scoured the densely populated Black areas of the country—looking for any kid to hand an acceptance letter. That following year, 28 Black cadets showed up in a class of 400+. This was the highest percentage of first year Black cadets ever. By 1977, few had survived to see graduation. In 1978, 4 out of 20 made it; one came so close to being reverted that he was honored at graduation for pulling through. Since then, the average Black population has hovered around 3% of their class.


Across the board, Black officers account for around 6% of the flag officers in the Department of Defense; there is a significant disparity between those numbers and the percentage of senior officers in the Coast Guard, due in part to the flawed (but widely shared) recruiting methods of the past four decades.

There are intelligent Black men and women, all over the country. Show no racial preference in whom you accept; but effectively present opportunity to Black kids at the same elite schools that supply the majority. Decrease the dependence on minority cadets coming from preparatory schools.

Recruiting, accepting, and retaining Black talent in the USCG will alleviate many of the race relations issues in the service. It would remove the burden on RADM Manson K Brown, whose odds on becoming the first Black Commandant are stacked against him.

Potential Black CGA cadets are out there, accepting admittance to Ivy League colleges, top 20 ranked state schools, and the DOD academies. They don’t need preparatory school or any sort of advantage or pass. They are the best too. In a year when Admiral Thad Allen witnessed the valedictorian graduation of a destined, brilliant, young black woman—this is his team’s opportunity to mandate recruiting more like her and letting the numbers and qualifications speak for themselves.

(Posted by Webster M. Smith 18 Jul 2008)

The United States Coast Guard Academy is scheduled to host a free, public Women's Equality Day information fair from 1000 to 1400 on August 26 in Munro Hall at the USCGA.

Each year since 1971, when President Jimmy Carter designated August 26 as Women's Equality Day, the United States has recognized the struggle for equal rights for women.

This year the Coast Guard Academy is celebrating the event with the theme "Strengthening Our Communities" by hosting various Coast Guard and regional community groups on campus.

"This will be a great opportunity for members of our Coast Guard and surrounding New London community to network and learn from the organizations that help support and strengthen our leadership," said LTJG Colleen Jones, Assistant Civil Cights Officer at CGA and the event organizer.

The various organizations in attendance will include the Greater New Haven National Organization of Women, the General Federation of Women's Clubs of Connecticut, National Naval Officers Association, Academy Women, Toastmasters, CG Educational Services, and CG Child Development Center. The League of Women Voters will also be on hand to register people to vote.

The Academy's Morale, Welfare and Recreation office will be giving out prizes to attendees at Women's Equality Day.

(WEST POINT. 12/21/2010) The Coast Guard will have the first woman superintendent of a military service academy at the helm of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy when classes convene next summer. The commandant of the Coast Guard, Adm. Bob Papp, has selected Rear Adm. Sandra L. Stosz, Coast Guard director of reserve and leadership, for the superintendent position. Rear Admiral Stosz graduated from the Coast Guard Academy in 1982 with a bachelor of science degree in Government.

"Rear Adm. Stosz has dedicated her career to developing professional Coast Guard men and women," said U.S. Coast Guard commandant, Adm. Robert J. Papp. "We are also extremely proud to be the first service with a woman at the helm of our academy.

The Coast Guard has always led by allowing men and women equal access to all career fields and assignments."

In her current position, Stosz is responsible for policy affecting the recruitment and training of more than 8,000 Coast Guard reserve members. She has also commanded the Coast Guard's only recruit training center in Cape May, N.J. She will be the first and only female commander to head any of the nation's five military academies.

"I am humbled by the prospect of taking over such an important position in our service and honored to be following Rear Adm. Burhoe," said Stosz. "The school and officer corps have benefited in so many ways from Scott's outstanding leadership and vision."

Under the command of the current superintendent, Rear Adm. J. Scott Burhoe, the school was ranked as a top college by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges and listed as the number one college in the northeast by U.S. News and World Report. The school had five Fulbright and three Truman scholars during his tenure. Burhoe also improved the school's diversity record, doubling the percentage of minority admissions from 12 percent in 2008 to 24 percent in 2010.

"Rear Adm. Stosz is an excellent choice to succeed me as superintendent," said Burhoe, "She has a distinguished record of service, and as a member of the board of trustees understands the importance of continuing to move the academy forward on its current track."

Burhoe is scheduled to retire July 1.

The Coast Guard Academy was established in 1876. The oldest service academy is West Point which was established in 1802.




The Coast Guard cannot be trusted to write history. African Americans are left out. They become invisible.
All history is spin. Coast Guard history has been written to ignore African American contributions. On one of the few times the Coast Guard has seen fit to highlight the contributions of an allegedly African American, they racially kidnapped a white Irishman (Michael Healy) and presented him to posterity as a Black man. This blog is a light shining in the darkness. It is partially an attempt to set the record straight. An ounce of truth benefits like the ripples on a pond.

BRING ME MEN.
Bring me men to match my rivers, continent cleaners flowing free,
Drawn by eternal madness, to be mingled with the sea.
Men of oceanic impulse, Men whose moral compass sweep
Towards the wide, infolding ocean of an undiscovered deep.
Men who feel the strong pulsation of the central sea, and then
Time their currents by its earth throbs--

BRING ME MEN.

SMITH v USCG, DHS, et. al.

http://www.amazon.com/CONDUCT-UNBECOMING-Officer-Lady-Conviction/dp/1460978021



SMITH v USCG, DHS, et. al.
Case Nr. HS-06-USCG-0052430MHCGA
Cadet Webster Smith v USCG; DHS; Admiral James Van Sise, Superintendent, U S Coast Guard Academy; Captain Douglas Wisniewski, Commandant Of Cadets, U S Coast Guard Academy.
Complaint of Racial Discrimination. 17 July 2006.
Jurisdiction: Commandant Instruction 5350.11
EEO Investigating Officer, Susan C. Holmes
Report of Investigation:

A formal complaint of sexual and racial discrimination was filed on 17 July against Admiral James Van Sice and Captain Douglas Wisniewski.
The Academy Civil Rights Officer was unable to informally resolve the complaint. In accordance with the Department of Homeland Security regulations, the complaint has been forwarded to Coast Guard Headquarters for resolution.

Formal complaints were also files with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and the General Accounting Office. All three complaints made similar allegations.
The complaints alleged, among other things, that Cadet Webster Smith was sexually discriminated against because of his sex and gender when he was charged with a crime for engaging in a consensual sex act, and the other person was not charged - to wit Shelly Raudenbush. That was a violation of his 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the law.
The complaint alleges the following violations:
A) His civil rights were violated when he was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006, before being charged with a UCMJ offence, because of his race;
B) His civil rights were violated when he was sentenced to hard labor before being found guilty on or about June 27, 2006;
C) His civil rights were violated because of his race when he was falsely imprisoned was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before trial;
D) His civil rights were violated when he had to work on the boat docks - before being found guilty - because of his race;
E) His civil rights were violated when press releases were issued with his name and photograph before he was charged accusing him of sexual assault - because of his race;
F) His civil rights were violated when he was not free to continue with academic classes before being charged and/or before being found guilty because of his race;
G) His civil rights were violated when he was denied the equal protection of the law when he was court-martialed on similar allegations - while others were given non-judicial punishment -because of his race;
H) His civil rights were violated when he was denied the right to a fair trial because his commanding officer suborned perjury; This denial was because of his race.
I) His civil rights were violated when he was denied the opportunity to present character evidence favorable to him during the extenuation and mitigation portion of the trial. These character witnesses were standing by ready to testify and were never called. This denial was because of his race.
J) He was denied his right to a detailed military counsel; to wit, a Coast Guard lawyer. - He was assigned a Navy JAG lawyer without any prior consultation with him, because of his race.
K) His civil rights were violated when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, exerted undue command influence by soliciting witnesses to lie about him.
L) His civil rights were violated when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, gave him an unlawful order; to wit, not to send an e-mail or communicate with anyone anywhere before he was charged. Sending one e-mail to one friend at Annapolis, who was not a potential witness, could not have amounted to witness tampering.
M) His civil rights were violated and his reputation was irreparably damaged when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, issued a public statement that he was a sexual predator and that his presence created an intimidating environment in Chase Hall before he was charged with the crime.
N) His civil rights were violated when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, deliberately postponed scheduling a court martial until all of the witnesses against him became commissioned officers instead of being cadets like him thus decreasing his credibility against the witnesses' credibility.
O) His civil rights were violated when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, issued a restraining order prohibiting him going within 100 yard of the Academy grounds before being charged of any crime - because of his race.
P) His civil rights and his right to a fair trial were violated when he was denied a trial by a jury of his peers, since no cadet was in the jury pool, and no cadet sat on his jury, because of his race.

In order to resolve the complaint, he demanded the following:
A) Immediate release from confinement.
B) Restoration of all pay and allowances.
C) Reinstatement as a first class cadet at the USCGA ,
D) Resumption of his senior academic studies,
E) To be allowed to graduate and receive a commission with a date of rank as an officer of the Class of 2006.
F)A written formal apology from Capt. Wisniewski, and a Public Information Press Release stating that he was not sexual predator, that he did not create a hostile environment at Chase Hall.

MEMORANDUM
To: USCG Civil Rights Office
From: Webster Smith
Date: July 17, 2007
RE: FORMAL COMPLAINT OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
I.
Jurisdiction
1.1 This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 and the first, fourth, fifth, eighth, and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
II.
Nature of the Action and Relief Sought
2.1 This is a civil rights violation case by a federal employee alleging a continuing series of discriminatory conduct against him because of his race and gender.
2.2 This also is an action under the common law of the State of Texas for false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
2.3 Complainant seeks a declaration that the acts of the defendant agency intentionally and unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race and gender.
2.4 Complainant additionally, and independent of the claims against the government agency, seeks appropriate injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages against the individual defendants.
III.
The Parties
3.1 Webster Smith, complainant, is an adult male citizen of the United States and the State of Texas. He is an African-American citizen and a resident of Houston, Texas. At all times material to this action he was a cadet at the United States Coast Guard Academy.
3.2 Admiral James Van Sice, Superintendent at the United States Coast Guard Academy and at the United States Coast Guard, an agency of the United States of America.
3.3 Douglas Wisnewski, Captain, Commandant of Cadets at the United States Coast Guard Academy, an agency of the United States of America.
3.4 Sean Gill, Commander, Staff Legal Officer, at the United States Coast Guard Academy, an agency of the United States of America.
IV.
Facts
4.1 Defendants have maintained, acquiesced in the maintaining of, or failed to take appropriate required action to eliminate a general and consistent pattern and practice of racial discrimination by white Officers against African American cadets at the United States Coast Guard Academy.
4.2 Such pattern and practice has been consistently manifested for at least the two years preceding the filing of Complainant's formal complaint by the following acts and others:
4.2.1 African American cadets have been subjected to unwarranted criticism and disparagement of their work by white officers.
4.2.2 White officers have subjected African American cadets to harsh and unreasonable performance standards not generally applied to other cadets and not consistent with applicable personnel practices and regulations.
4.2.3 Abuse of authority by white Officers toward African American cadets intended to humiliate, embarrass and invade the privacy of said African American cadets.
4.2.4 White Officers have subjected African American cadets to harsher discipline than accorded white cadets for the same or similar alleged misconduct.
4.3 Consistent with and pursuant to that general policy and practice, Complainant was discriminated against because of his race and gender in the following respects:
4.3.1 Starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before being charged with any offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
4.3.2 On or about January, Complainant was ordered to perform hard labor on the boat docks until June, 2006. During which time his classmates continued to attended classes. This prevented Complainant from completinging his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
4.3.3 On or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence, because of his race;
4.3.4 Complaint was ordered to work on the boat docks - before being found guilty - thus preventing him from attending classes and finish his education because of his race.
4.3.5 Complainant’s civil rights were violated when press releases were issued with his name and photograph stating that he had committed sexual assaults and other crimes before he was charged with any such allegations - because of his race;
4.3.6 Complainant was not free to continue his academic classes before being charged because of his race;
4.3.7 Complainant was denied the equal protection of the law when he was court-martialed on similar allegations - while others were given non-judicial punishment -because of his race;
4.3.8 During his trial, on or about June 2006, Complainant was denied the right to a fair trial when he was denied the opportunity to present character evidence favorable to him during the Extenuation and Mitigation (E&M) portion of the trial. Character witnesses were standing by ready to testify and were never called. This denial was because of his race.
4.3.9 On or about June 2006, Complainant was not allowed to properly cross-examine the Agency’s main witness, Sherry Radenbush.
4.3.10 Complainant was denied his right to a detailed military counsel; to wit, a Coast Guard lawyer. - He was assigned a Navy Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer without any prior consultation with him, because of his race.
4.3.11 Complainant’s civil rights were violated when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, exerted undue command influence by soliciting witnesses to lie about him.
4.3.12 Complainant’s Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, gave him an unlawful order, thus abusing his authority; to wit, not to send an e-mail or communicate with anyone anywhere before he was charged. Sending one e-mail to one friend at Annapolis, who was not a potential witness, could not have amounted to witness tampering.
4.3.13 Complainant’s reputation was irreparably damaged when his Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, issued a public statement that he was a sexual predator and that his presence created an intimidating environment in Chase Hall before he was charged with the crime.
4.3.14 Complainant’s Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, deliberately postponed scheduling a court martial until all of the witnesses against him became commissioned officers instead of being cadets like him thus decreasing his credibility against the witnesses' credibility.
4.3.15 Complainant’s Commanding Officer, Capt. Wisniewski, issued a restraining order prohibiting him going within 100 yard of the Academy grounds before being charged with a crime - because of his race.
4.3.16 Complainant’s right to a fair trial was violated when he was denied a trial by a jury of his peers, since no cadet was in the jury pool, and no cadet sat on his jury, because of his race.


4.4 Agency has acted and continued to discriminate and retaliate against the Complainant because of Complainant's race and gender with malicious intent and in reckless disregard of his rights.
4.5 Agency has subjected Complainant to extreme emotional distress by conduct which was unreasonable, unwarranted and outrageous, and in no way related to any discretionary authority of Commander Wisniewsky or to any purpose or objective of the United States Coast Guard Academy.
4.6 Agency has caused Complainant to be falsely considered dishonest, and a sexual predator with knowledge that the allegations were false.
4.7 The acts of Commander Wisniewsky proximately caused substantial loss, suffering, humiliation, emotional distress and other damages to plaintiff and will continue to do so.
4.8 Because the conduct of Commander Wisniewsky was accomplished with malicious intent and in reckless disregard of Complainant's rights, Complainant should recover punitive damages from the Agency.
V.
First Claim for Relief
Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991
5.1 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Agency has discriminated against Complainant in the terms and conditions of Complainant’s employment because of Complainant’s race when white Officers subjected Complainant African American cadet to harsher discipline than accorded white cadets for the same or comparable alleged misconduct.
5.2 In addition Agency discriminated against Complainant because of his race when starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before being charged.
5.3 Moreover, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January, Complainant was ordered to do hard labor continuing until June, 2006 while his classmates were allowed to attend classes, thus preventing him from finishing his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
5.4 Furthermore, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence.
VI.
Second Claim for Relief - Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
6.1 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Complainant was not free to continue with academic classes before being charged and/or before being found guilty because of his race;
6.2 In addition, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when Complaint was ordered to work on the boat docks - before being found guilty - thus preventing him from attending classes and finish his education; because of his race.
VII.
Third Base for Relief - 42 U.S.C. Section 1981
7.1 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 forbids race discrimination in a contractual relationships. Section 1981 specifically states: "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. For purposes of this section, the term 'make and enforce contracts' includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship." Complainant’s civil rights were violated when press releases were issued with his name and photograph stating that he committed sexual assault even before he was charged accusing him of such allegations - because of his race; No other cadets with similar issues were ever publicized to the public at large or to the media. They were all white.
7.2 In addition, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before his trial.
7.3 Moreover, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January, Complainant was ordered to do hard labor continuing until June, 2006 before, during and after his classmates attended classes and thus preventing him from finishing his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
7.4 Furthermore, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence.
VIII.
Fourth Base for Relief
42 U.S.C. Section 1983
8.1 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 prohibits race discrimination by those acting "under color" of state law. Section 1983 specifically states: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable." Agency has discriminated against Complainant in the terms and conditions of Complainant’s employment because of Complainant’s race when white Officers subjected Complainant African American cadet to harsher discipline than accorded white cadets for the same or comparable alleged misconduct.
8.2 In addition, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when starting on or about January 2006, Complainant was falsely imprisoned and was not allowed to go freely on liberty without any due process before being charged.
7.3 Moreover, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January, Complainant was ordered to do hard labor continuing until June, 2006 before, during and after his classmates attended classes and thus preventing him from finishing his education and thus obtaining his college degree.
7.4 Furthermore, Agency has discriminated against Complainant because of his race when on or about January 2006, Complainant was forced to work on the boat docks beginning prior to and continuing until June 20, 2006 by his Commandant Officer while all his classmates were attending classes, and before being charged with a UCMJ offence.
Request for Relief
A) Immediate release from pre-trial confinement.
B) Restoration of all pay and allowances.
C) Reinstatement as a first class cadet at the USCGA ,
D) Resumption of his senior cadet academic studies,
E) To be allowed to graduate and receive a commission with a date of rank as an officer of the Class of 2006.
F) A written formal apology from Capt. Wisniewski, and a Public Information Press Release stating that he was not a sexual predator, that he did not create a hostile environment at Chase Hall.


(Original Complaint drafted by Attorney Sylvia Casey, California Bar Nr. 221785)




Former CGA Cadet,Caitlin Stopper

Caitlin Stopper, said:

"Webster Smith and I, at least on the surface, have nothing in common. Our gender, ethnicity, geography, and religion could not be any more opposite. However, we were both raised in loving and dedicated families of faith who taught us that the key to leadership is a strong moral character; and that every American should do whatever they can to forward the cause of liberty and freedom provided by our Constitution."

"Where it counts, Webster Smith and I do have similarities. We were both victims of injustice at the hands of our fellow shipmates and superiors farther up the chain of command. Webster and I are proof that there are serious fundamental flaws in the Coast Guard Officer Corps as well as within the cadet ranks at the Academy in New London, Connecticut. We are, underneath everything, shipmates. As anyone will tell you, the ties that bind shipmates are thicker than blood. Iron may rust, and wood may decay, but shipmates are forever. However, that is not the reason why I stand behind Webster. I stand behind him as we are both victims of injustice and have become, through our adversity, crusaders of justice."

AFFIDAVIT of James Van Sice:

AFFIDAVIT of Douglas Wisniewski:

STEVERSON v USCG, DOT, et.al.

STEVERSON v USCG, DOT, et.al.

Lt. London Steverson v USCG, DOT, Commandant(USCG), Commandant (G-P), Commandant (G-PMR), Captain Raymond J. Copin, Commander Albert J. Allison.

Complaint of Racial Discrimination. 29 January 1976.
Jurisdiction: Commandant Instruction 5350.11
Investigating Officer John O. Platter, Jr.
Report of Investigation, File Number 76-58.
Dates of Investigation 19-27 May 1976.

Description of the Complaint and Chronology:
July 1964 Kenny Boyd and London Steverson reported to USCGA as the first and only JF Kennedy cadets.
June 1968 Ensign London Steverson graduated from USCGA; assigned to USCGS Glacier (WAGB-4), Long Beach, California as Deck Watch Officer and Marine Science Department Head.
July 1970 Lieutenant (jg) Steverson transferred to CCGD 17(Ops) Juneau, Alaska.
July 1972 Lieutenant Steverson transferred to CG Headquarters, COMDT (G-P), 7th & D Street, SW Washington, DC.
September 25, 1972 Lt. Steverson assigned to head G-PMR-3, Minority Recruiting Department.
May 1973 Lt. Steverson applied to The National Law Center, George Washington University Law School. He was accepted to the night school program.
January 1975 Captain William P. Butler organized a Minority Recruiting Ad Hoc Committee (Committee) to draft a Minority Recruiting Plan. The intent was to formalize the successful techniques that had allowed the Coast Guard to add about fifty new Black cadets in only two years. It was designed to make minority recruiting more of a science than an art. Constructive criticism and alternative ideas were encouraged. Captain Butler was Chairman of the Committee, and Commander Copin was Vice Chairman. Lt Steverson was a member and resident expert on minority recruiting techniques and minority views. The first phase of the Committee's life was intended to allow Lt. Steverson to provide a primer on Minority Recruiting Techniques that had proven most successful.
May 1975 Commander Copin replaced Captain Butler as Chairman. Commander Allison joined the Committee.
May 1975 Commander Copin threatened Lt Steverson with an adverse fitness report unless he received his complete backing and full cooperation on the Committee.
July 1975 Commander Allison told Lt Steverson that he had too much power for a Lieutenant. Lt Steverson interpreted Cmdr Allison to mean “too much power for a Black lieutenant”.
January 1976 Captain Copin released a draft of The Minority Recruiting Plan (The Plan).
January 1976 Lt Steverson submitted in writing a minority view on The Plan.
January 20, 1976 Commander Allison advised Lt Steverson that he was going to lower his performance marks and that he would be getting an adverse fitness report.
January 1976 After receiving a less than satisfactory Fitness Report, Lt Steverson attempted to informally reconcile the situation with Captains Copin and Allison.
January 29, 1976 Lt Steverson filed a Formal Complaint of Racial Discrimination with the Department of Transportation, Director of Civil Rights.
April 1977 Lt. Steverson graduated from George Washington University Law School with a Juris Doctorate Degree in Law.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Final Decision after investigating the Complaint.






























Description of the Organization:

Description of the Investigation:

Issue in the Complaint:

Details of the Investigation:

List of Witnesses interviewed:



INDEX:
1. Complaint of Discrimination.

2. DOT Acceptance Letter.

3. Affidavit of Complainant.

4. Affidavit of Captain Raymond J. Copin, Alleged Discriminating Official, (ADO).

5. Affidavit of Commander Albert J Allison, Alleged Discriminating Official, (ADO).



6. Affidavit of Lt(jg) Walter Sapp (Witness).
























7. Affidavit of Lt. William L. Giles (Witness).

8. Affidavit of CWO3 Robert T. Douville (Witness).


9. Affidavit of Lt. Cdr. Maxie M. Berry, Jr. (Witness).

Lieutenant Commander Maxie M. Berry, Jr.



STATE OF Washington…………………..)
SS:
COUNTY OF District of Columbia………)


I, Lt. Cmdr. Maxie M. Berry, Jr., residing in Baltimore, Md. 21212, am employed as Assistant Chief, Military Equal Opportunity Division, Office of Civil Rights, U. S. Coast Guard, DOT, Washington, D. C. ,…………………………………….

Hereby solemnly swear:

I know the Complainant, Lt. London Steverson, USCG, both personally and professionally. Personally, I have seen him at social events sponsored by the Department of Transportation and the U. S. Coast Guard. Professionally, I have worked with him on some projects that involved both minority recruiting and civil rights issues. We were both members of the Minority Recruiting Ad Hoc Committee. He has been to my office many times. He is acquainted with Mr. Walter Summerville, in my office, and Mr. William “Bill” Hudson, my boss, the Chief of the Coast Guard Office of Civil Rights.

Since I have been in the Office of Civil Rights, there have been 16 Direct Commission Black and Hispanic officers hired to recruit minorities. All failed in their mission. I had the occasion to counsel all of them. They all attributed their failure to limited support. To my knowledge all Coast Guard attempts to recruit minorities, particularly for the Academy and for Officers’ Candidate School, failed before Lt. Steverson was given the job. He appears to have had some success.

I feel that Lt. Steverson was asked to perform above and beyond what is normally required of a Coast Guard Officer. I am referring specifically to this Minority Recruiting Ad Hoc Committee that was formed by Captain William Butler. The fact that this Committee dealt with minority recruiting added an additional responsibility to Lt. Steverson and the rest of the Black officers to succeed. Had it not been for that situation, I believe Lt. Steverson would not be faced with the present situation

Because the minority issue is a sensitive issue, I feel that this was a contributing factor. Therefore, I feel that had I been in the same situation as Lt. Steverson (assigned as Chief of the Minority Recruiting Branch), I would have done my job the way I knew would have gotten results and I too would have received an adverse fitness report.

Previous attempts by the Coast Guard Office of Personnel to increase Minority recruiting in the U. S. Coast Guard had not been successful. As a result, the Commandant sent out letters to various persons, I included, asking us to serve on an Ad Hoc Committee on Minority Recruiting. We were asked to make individual contributions which we felt would enhance the Minority Recruiting. We were also encouraged to submit individual minority opinions if the final committee report excluded certain of our suggestions.

Captain Bill Butler was Chief of the Recruiting Division; so, he served as the first Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee. My understanding from Captain Butler from the initial discussions was that all the members were to be considered equal, and that we should freely and openly express our views. In fact, views from the field on how to increase Minority recruiting were solicited and they were submitted to the Committee.

During the initial stage under Captain Butler’s chairmanship, I and the other members of the Committee, including Lt. Steverson, injected various recommendations that were thoroughly discussed.

When Captain Ray Copin assumed the Chairmanship of the Committee, the ground rules as far as accepting all members as equals deteriorated. A more militaristic, and more rank conscious, environment or atmosphere surfaced. I felt that Captain Copin’s approach was to talk at us instead of listening to us.

The Committee was guided in the direction Captain Copin determined. Previously, the Committee’s direction was determined by majority rule. The recommendations that were contrary to Personnel Policy or USCG procedures were not readily accepted. Captain Copin would talk them to death; he would filibuster them to death. For Example, we discussed the one-man, one-vote approach to decision making. We discussed this for several meetings without resolving it. Whenever the Committee came close to a resolution, which appeared to be unacceptable to Captain Copin; that is, when the Captain did not agree with it, he would filibuster the idea to death.

On a number of occasions during the meetings, the views of Lt Steverson would differ markedly with those of Captain Copin. I, and the rest of the members, also had very different views from Captain Copin on many issues. Lt. Steverson often told me afterwards that whenever his views during the meetings had differed with Captain Copin’s views, that Captain Copin would call him into his office for a closed-door dressing-down session. During these counseling sessions, Lt Steverson indicated that he was told that he was not supporting the Captain or his views, policies or programs. Also, Lt. Steverson told me that Captain Copin told him that his failure to give backing and support to Captain Copin, himself, would result in an adverse fitness report. He was threatened with an adverse fitness report if he did not endorse Captain Copin’s ideas as good one for recruiting more minority applicants.

I felt that the reason Lt. Steverson and I were placed on the Committee was precisely because of our minority backgrounds, our ethnic group, and our varied experiences. We felt that we had been asked by the Commandant to serve on the Ad Hoc Committee with a mandate to provide recommendations to him which would improve minority recruiting programs. We thought that we had been asked to make recommendations that were innovative and, based on our opinions, if adopted would improve the Coast Guard’s posture in the minority community.

Lt. Steverson openly and freely communicated his views, opinions, and recommendations to the Committee. He would freely discuss his reasoning on any opinion that he held. Whenever Captain Copin was unsuccessful in my views or Lt. Steverson’s views, he would filibuster that issue to death.

Lt. Steverson told me that he was going to get an unfavorable fitness report because of the biasness of Captain Copin and Commander Al Allison, the assistant to Captain Copin.

Captain Copin wanted his views to prevail. So, he tried to devide the Committee. I felt that he wanted to “devide and conquer”. Lt. Steverson told me that the way things were going the only way he would be able to be completely honest about the issues was to write a separate minority report.

Even though, Lt. Steverson wrote most of the Ad Hoc Committee Report, he still wrote a minority report to the principal report. When the Committee met to vote on the final report, Captain Copin did not tell us how he wanted any minority opinions forwarded up the chain of command. There was no indication or direction that the Committee members were restricted in discussing any items that we felt needed to be included in the minority report.



I have read the above statement, and it is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

(Signed) Maxie M. Berry, Jr.
LCDR, USCG

Subscribed and sworn to before me at Washington, D.C. on this 26 day of May 1976 before John O. Platter, Jr., EOS.

10. Affidavit of Lt. Cdr. George F. Martin (Witness).

11. Affidavit of Lt. Captain William P. Butler (Witness).

12. Affidavit of Lt. Cdr. Thomas A. Welch (Witness).



13. Affidavit of LaVerne O. Doggett, Office Secretary (Witness).


I, LaVerne Doggett, do hereby solemnly swear, inter alia:
I live at 2300 Good Hope Road, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20020. I am employed as a Secretary-Stenographer, GS-7, at COMDT,G-PMR, USCG HQ.
I have been in this position since 03/1974. I am the only secretary for the Chief, G-PMR. CAPT William Butler was the Chief in 03/1974; now, CAPT Ray Copin is the Chief. Copin was the Assistant Chief until Butler retired.
I was never present during any of the staff meetings between Butler and Copin and the four Branch Chiefs.
All of the Branch Chiefs made their request for a meeting with the Division Chief during meetings or on transmittal slips, except for Steverson. He always communicated by formal memorandum. Steverson told me that he and Copin had a communications problem. I believe this communications problem began when Copin was Butler's assistant.
From 06/1975 to 11/1975 when Copin became Chief G-PMR, the Assistant Division Chief position was vacant. It was filled by CDR Alfred J. Allison.
I do not recall Steverson ever going to see Allison without being summoned. I recall Allison going to see Steverson in his office a few times. I never heard what was being discussed when Steverson met with Copin or Allison.
I do not think that the problem that existed between Steverson and Copin was of a racial nature. I think it was of a managerial nature. All memorandum leaving the Office came through me. Steverson always submitted his written work in final form. The other three Branch Chiefs submitted their paper work in draft form. Copin usually made changes to all memorandum from the Branch Chiefs, except Steverson's. I do not believe that Steverson knew that Copin made changes to the memorandum of the other Branch Chiefs.
Steverson's fitness report of 01/31/1976 was prepared by Allison, and hand-carried to Copin, without me seeing it. Normally I would see Allison's proposed report before Copin approved it. When I received Steverson's report for typing it had been finally approved by Copin as the official report.

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before me at Washington, DC on this 24th day of May 1976.
John O. Platter, Jr. EOS.

14. Affidavit of CWO Niel D.Ruenzel (Witness).

15. Affidavit of Cdr. James L. Webb (Witness).


Minority Recruiting Officers Conference 1973 St. Louis, Missouri




NNOA Convention Cleveland, Ohio







Lt. Steverson acts as interpreter for Military Attache from Zaire, General Fallu Sambu, who Presents Gift to CO of RTC Yorktown, VA.