Where Have All The Good Men Gone?
Imagine waking up one morning to find that your spotless and perfect career had gone off the track and over the rails. What would you do if the powers-that-be told you that they considered you "off the Reservation" ; not because you had committed a crime, or had been accused of sexual harassment, or worse, but because you had told the truth?
This nightmare scenario is happening more and more today in our military services.
What if Truth alone could not save you? What would you say then? Why me? Why now? What can this mean? Am I part of a bigger drama that I am not aware of? What made me the center piece of this Great Controversy?
No good deed goes unpunished. This means that life is unfair and people can do or try to do good things and still end up in a lot of trouble. Bad things happen to good people.
Sometimes helping out exposes us to some other danger; such as, the wrath of small-minded petty individuals in a positions of power whose plans were disrupted by said good deed.
There are many such cases in the Unrestricted Coast Guard Chronicles (UCGC).
(Consider the case of Commander Benjamin Strickland.)
THIS BLOG IS TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE DUE TO REQUIRED MAINTENANCE:
The Book is available on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-CDR-Benjamin-Strickland/dp/1514682737
This nightmare scenario is happening more and more today in our military services.
What if Truth alone could not save you? What would you say then? Why me? Why now? What can this mean? Am I part of a bigger drama that I am not aware of? What made me the center piece of this Great Controversy?
No good deed goes unpunished. This means that life is unfair and people can do or try to do good things and still end up in a lot of trouble. Bad things happen to good people.
Sometimes helping out exposes us to some other danger; such as, the wrath of small-minded petty individuals in a positions of power whose plans were disrupted by said good deed.
There are many such cases in the Unrestricted Coast Guard Chronicles (UCGC).
THIS BLOG IS TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE DUE TO REQUIRED MAINTENANCE:
The Book is available on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Case-CDR-Benjamin-Strickland/dp/1514682737
Labels: GaleForce
posted by ichbinalj at 3:56 PM
53 Comments:
Those who desire to live righteously will suffer persecution. (2 Timothy 3: 12)
Our fight is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness in high places.
How much of the US Artic Representative's fingerprints are on this ?
Since it happened on his watch, it would be fair to say that when all the dust settles, he will have to take the credit or the blame for it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
-Gandhi
CG is such a catty organization nowadays, it is no surprise those in high places would shoot the messenger. Even while they claim to be "making progress at eradicating sexual assaults from our service". Of course, by going after those who make waves after reporting, it serves a two-fold way to send an obvious message to the scared masses. We can all be assured less will be reported in the future and those in powerful places can then claim "success" at reducing the number of incidents.
This guy is screwed the rest of his career. In the CG there is no rehabilitation program once the organization puts you on the enemies list.
The Unrestricted Coast Guard Chronicles are True, unrestricted, free, boundless, limitless, independent, open, unconfined, unconstrained, unrestrained, uncontained, unfettered, unshackled, without strings; and unprecedented; because in the United States today, we have more than our share of political correctness and nattering nabobs of negativism.
"All TRUTH passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)
The fish rots from the head down. For this type of personnel action to occur, does "the head" have to give approval, even if it is tacit ? How much more of this type of action has been taken on other political undesirables ? Below is another relatively recent example, and perhaps there are many more.
U.S. Coast Guard v. E-7 (LARCENY)
Mayport Naval Station, Florida
The Coast Guard accused Mr. Joseph Jordan's Client of stealing and wrongfully appropriating over $12,000 worth of specialized Coast Guard equipment.
Coast Guard approached this case with the mindset of securing a conviction. The Coast Guard ensured that the Command Master Chief for the convening authority in this case was on the client's Courts-Martial panel. Additionally, several Chief's and Chief Petty Officers working directly under the Command Master Chief were included on the total panel of 10. Lastly, several officers, who were rated by the convening authority, were included on the panel. Thru skillful questioning, Mr. Jordan successfully brought the panel down from 10 to 3 panel members.
The Coast Guard opted to prosecute this case instead of taking a look at the unit's internal property accountability procedures. None of the property Client allegedly stole was accurately reflected on the books. But that is not the whole story.
Client is a highly skilled, 20-year veteran of the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, his skills rubbed his superiors the wrong way. When he PCS'd, he left in a hurry. As he arrived to his next duty station he found out there was an investigation into missing equipment at his previous unit. The unit did not call him to inform him. He found out from a friend. So, in order to help, the Client immediately called his previous Command and left a message. No one answered and no one called back. Instead, the Command called the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS).
CGIS was only interested in investigating Mr. Jordan's Client and failed to properly investigate for evidence that would exonerate the Client. The fact that the equipment was found and returned to the unit was of no consequence to CGIS, the Coast Guard or the Government as those agencies' only interest was to find the Client guilty - With or Without proper evidence!
Result:
Full Acquittal! This was achieved through skillful cross-examination of property accountability officer, and members of Client's previous command whose only concern was to attempt to ruin Mr. Jordan's Client career out of incompetence and jealousy.
A fish rots from the head down. Mr. Michael Berkow is the Director of CGIS. In May 2006 a female police detective with the LAPD sued the LAPD and Michael Berkow claiming that Mr. Berkow awarded choice assignments to female members of the LAPD who had sex with him. Ms. Ya-May Christle blew the whistle on her boss, Mr. Berkow, and was awarded more than $1,000,000.00 (a million dollars) in damages by a Los Angeles jury.
Ms. Ya-May Christle was a Whistleblower.
Coast Guard is used to being the judge, jury, police, prosecutor, defense lawyer, and executioner. Has been getting away with it for years.
From the literature out there, William Bratton (now NY City Police Commissioner) worked closely with Michael Berkow. It is safe to assume that Michael Berkow had developed a very strong resume as well as endorsements from law enforcement leaders like Bratton. Never underestimate the impact of a William Bratton calling the hiring manager for the Coast Guard Investigative Service Director position.
However, I believe ICHBINALJ is pointing out that given the verdict of
That begs the question, if the female American Asian police officer was a Coast Guard employee in a similar circumstance, then how would she fare given the tenacity of the Coast Guard Legal Department, and the integrity and efficiency of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Also, consider the political factors which always see to rear their ugly heads. Can the LAPD wrap itself with the life savers flag like the Coast Guard in order to realize some type of good will such as unfairly being in the "good graces" of the MSPB ?
After all, perhaps the power brokers pulling the strings try to instill doubt and fear by relying on this question: who would dare question the moral authority and virtues of the lifesaving service's leadership ? To some within the very high echelons as well as the ones that hang onto their coattails, is it almost like questioning god, or challenging god, is it not ?
And perhaps those at the highest rungs of the echelon saw something in Michael Berkow that confirmed a mutual philosophy and value system.
Just some thoughts to consider, ICHBINALJ
A fish rots from the head down.
Statement made to the Coast Guard Investigative Service was predicated on false information from CGIS, and that required that the statements be suppressed. United States v. Schroder, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94070 (S.D. Ala. July 6, 2006):
In light of this concession and the evidence presented, the court finds that, whether deliberate or not, CGIS materially mislead defendant about the nature of the investigation on April 12, 2006. A letter of predication was issued on March 13, 2006, which unequivocally directed the CGIS to conduct a criminal investigation targeting defendant Schroder. Under the circumstances of this case, any involvement in the investigation by CGIS after the letter of predication was issued was related to CGIS’ criminal investigation of defendant. Thus, the court finds that on April 12, 2006, whether Agent Lee responded that it was not a criminal investigation, or simply stated that they had expanded the investigation and were there to gather more facts, the statement was misleading. It is undisputed that defendant’s attorney specifically asked whether this was a criminal investigation. Under either version, Lee’s response was at least evasive and incomplete. There was clearly a criminal investigation of defendant at that time and the only truthful and accurate answer was an affirmative one. Whether or not Lee believed he was being truthful, his statement was misleading and inaccurate and resulted in the defendant providing information that he may not have provided otherwise. Thus, the court finds defendant’s motion to suppress is due to be granted as to statements given on April 12, 2006.
There is a lot out there in regards to the Coast Guard Investigative Service besides about Michael Berkow. Of course, you all are aware of the Washington Times reporters notes being taken by the Coast Guard Investigative Service.
Then, you can read about how the Coast Guard Investigative Service allegedly spied on a peace activist organization. The link is below to this story as well as a quote that claims that the Coast Guard Investigative Service misrepresented itself and violated the civil liberties of the members of the group.
http://www.ufppc.org/local-news-mainmenu-34/11532-local-news-towery-case-has-potential-of-shedding-light-on-fusion-centers.html
"By May of 2007, the attorneys representing the targeted activists claim the Coast Guard was “infiltrating and illegally spying on PMR and other groups.” Cliff Colvin, an employee or agent of the Coast Guard’s Investigative Service lied about his affiliation and purpose and falsely identified himself so he could spy on PMR “meeting and activities,” disrupt those activities, and also identify individuals and groups for arrests."
So we have CGIS misrepresenting themselves to the public/engaging in fraud, conducting raids on citizens homes and seizing their personal property and spying on Americans. Why hasn't this criminal CGIS organization been shut down yet?
Is Congress aware of CGIS criminal violations of the law and the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country?
Coast Guard officer corps career advice: You either die a hero, or live long enough to become the villain.
So it seems the right actions were taken, but the investigation he requested turned against him. Why ?
Dear ALPAT Hi Flyer HH-65,
That is a good question, but not so easily answered.
I would not phrase it so. The investigation, itself, may not have turned against him. It is more like the "powers that be" turned against him.
The Coast Guard is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots. If you're not an idiot, but find yourself in the Coast Guard, you can only operate well by pretending to be one.
If you are a moral, honest, person of integrity, who values friendship and loyalty, then you will come up against people who are not loyal, honest, or friendly.
You may be called upon to do things that do not fit squarely within your moral compass. You may be asked to 'go along" in order to "get along". If you stand by your guns and refuse to compromise your moral principles or betray the trust of a friend or a superior, you may find yourself in the line of fire. The measure of a man is how much he is willing to risk in order to live with a clear conscious and be at peace with his God.
I cannot say at this point if that may be the reason or a factor in this case. It is a bit premature to come to such a conclusion. I am just scratching the surface, but I intend to dig deep.
But one thing is certain; that is, no good deed goes unpunished. And if you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, then you may be sacrificed, because just as surely as some in the Coast Guard have been promoted to their "level of incompetence" and shit seeks its own level, then it may have been more practical that one man be sacrificed for to satisfy the bloodthirstiness of others.
It has been said that everybody's life pivots on one or maybe two moments. We may not know at the time that we are making a decision that will resonate in Eternity.
When the Righteous Judge comes along and the Books are opened, we will all be judged by the deeds recorded in the Books. I, for one, believe that it does not profit a man to gain the whole world and to loose his soul. It may turn out that CDR Strickland may have lost a tour of duty in Naples, Italy and maybe his career, but not his soul and a mansion in the sky.
If it turns out that he stood up for truth, justice, and the American way, rather than become a party to an unholy conspiracy then it may turn out that what he sacrificed was trash and he received a better and more lasting reward.
Retired BMC said: Seems I"m not the only one this happened too. 2 years ago I turned in an E8 for sexually assaulting a female civilian at MAW Camp (Ft Knox, KY). Reported it to my LT, who ran it up the chain at Sector Lake Michigan, who instead of following COMDT policy or CGIS mandatory reporting....crazy stuff, they passed it off to D9 Cleveland who sent the Chaplin and the CMC down to KY a week later to "investigate" my report and give the E8 a PG 7. Not only did nothing happen for 3 months, I received a PG 7 for a "bad attitude" and was slandered through out the district. Well, 3 months AFTER I reported it, the Sector Boston CO heard rumor about it and launched a CGIS investigation. Not only did they find the victim, it was confirmed that the incident took place but another admin investigation was launched to due MISHAP cover ups, destruction of government property and misconduct of personal. After all the investigations, the D9 Admiral who was a BFF to this E8, was quoted as saying "how hard do you want to squeeze to get anything out of this?", dismissed all charges then retired 2 weeks later. There is a good ol boy network in the USCG, almost like a mafia mentality. If you're connected, you are untouchable. I stood up for the truth and I was slandered, I was the tattle tale, the narc, the rouge Chief. My Command, my Chiefs Mess, my leaders were all silent bystanders. There were a few who stood with me....but way too many against me for doing the right thing. The CG leadership is more concerned about hiding this disease of sexual assault rather than destroying it because no one wants it too happen on their watch. They'd rather turn a blind eye then confront it......yes, all the good men are gone, replaced by self serving, not my problem cowards. Since I've retired, I've complained to my U.S. Senator, who promised to help.....then the mid term elections happened, then my vote wasn't important anymore (Senator Debbie Stabinow). I've filed a complaint with the DHS Office of Inspector General.....who turned it over to CGIS, who still to this day hasn't contacted me. No One cares! I've done a FOIA request and received about 200 pages of emails, documents and statements....to see the level incompetence and ignorance of senior leadership and how they downplayed the seriousness of the assault and all the other misconduct shows their ineptitude to lead others. I'm very sad for the future of the CG.
RETIRED BMC also said: "Correction....it was the Sector Buffalo Commanding Officer who launched the the CGIS investigation AFTER Sector Lake Michigan and D9 Cleveland failed too."
Richard Horton said, "There is a documentry about this called "Invisiable war"."
Is that the way the Coast Guard has become since it is a small service, almost like a Good Ole Boy mentality ? For such a small service or agency, is it remarkable that there are these documented cases like the retired BMC's, Strickland's, Coast Guard Cadet Webster Smith, and the lawyer Mr Jordan's client ? Could it be that these just represent the proverbial tip of the iceberg and that there is more instances of retaliation, abuse of power, etc. within the Coast Guard ? Perhaps victory was declared by the Coast Guard Legal community when the retired BMC went away quietly instead of drawing attention to what he witnessed ?
Seems like your blog is a means to document these instances. In many ways you are serving as a de facto historian of valuable life and learning experiences within the Coast Guard personnel management environment.
corey jore said : "Speechless. It seems the NKVD is in full control of today's Coast Guard. It's only a matter of time before political officers are stationed aboard every cutter to ensure total compliance with the party narrative. Thankfully we did not fight the Nazis with this group of senior leaders. I am glad I got out when I did, and I'm sorry to say that I would not recommend a military career to any young person until I am certain that sanity has been restored. Best of luck to you CDR *salute*"
Anonymous said: Perhaps there was a target placed on Cmdr Strickland by very senior management. Of course the only way this was conveyed to Criminal Investigative Service (CIS) was through verbal channels. There probably was no written record available through FOIA request of the career death warrant issued from senior management to CIS.
Seems like this was essentially was a political hit job under the disguise of a "criminal" investigation. CIS follows some political assassination playbook, unwritten or not available through a FOIA request, and such playbook was used to go after Cmdr Strickland.
Did CIS illegally use Congressional funds to conduct this political investigation ? Does Congress know about that ?
Anonymous said: CGIS was entitled to dig into Strickland's background, Rinckey said,
What does this mean ? Does that mean try to find some incriminating information on Strickland that goes beyond the scope of the original investigation ?
So the original investigation (sexual assault) conveniently morphs into another investigation (old chat messages) ? Why was his background like old chat messages examined in the first place ? How was it relevant ?
Obviously CGIS has a different standard since it seems to be able to do whatever it wants (or as instructed by the CGIS director) as far as retrieving information like Strickland's old chat messages.
What is "inappropriate language"? How do you define? Who defines it? What standard do you use? Do you use the prevailing contempory community standard? Which community? The military community? The American Community? The homosexual community? The Women's' Lib Community? The Silent Majority Community? The conservative Christian Community? The sea going military officer community? Or perhaps the legal community? Why not even the Supreme Court Community? Do you define it the same way they defined pornography and obscenity? That is "I cannot define it but I know it when I see it, that is, when I hear it"?
Is inappropriate language anything that is not politically correct (PC)? Are the PC Police empowered to eliminate the 1st Amendment Right to "free speech"? What is P C today may not be tommorow. What is PC today, tommorow may be "pass-say".
So, is there a "Statue of Limitations" on inappropriate language? How far can the PC Police go back in your life to find you guilty of politically inappropriate language? Two years? Ten years? Twenty years? Is there any mitigating allowance given for growth, maturity, or cultural development?
Moreover, if free speech is no longer respected, how about "free thought"? Can a man still find privacy in the santity of his own mind?
An American citizen should still find security in the sacred confines of his own thoughts and private correspondence.
Is there no security in our papers and possessions from "unlawful search and seizure"? Electronic seizure is just as unlawful!
They had no right to seize his personal private correspondence. They may have had the power, but they had NO right!
This Was An Act Of Cyberterrorism
The Coast Guard uses cyberterrorism against its' officers and personnel.
It was an act of cyberterrorism when the Coast Guard using the CGIS illegally searched CDR Strickland's computer and information stored in a system of personal records; intercepted and took information out of those files; used the information for politically motivated purposes to disrupt his career, and his personal life.
The act was premeditated and politically motivated and designed to harm CDR Strickland and to permanent and totally disrupt his career as a Coast Guard officer.According to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, cyberterrorism is any "premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, computer programs, and data which results in violence against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents."
What the Coast Guard did was both a crime and an act of terror. It was designed to result in the violent destruction of CDR Strickland's personal life and career; and to spread terror in the hearts and minds of other officers, cadets, and personnel for the purpose of coercion to make them change their minds and actions when they consider reporting acts of sexual harassment or assault, as it is their sworn duty to do. In cyberterrorism, the leading motive is to punish or to coerce people into complying with some political or social demands. Moreover, the act results in violence or fear. What happened to CDR Strickland and his family surely qualifies as cyberterrorism.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by the author.
VADM Manson Brown was the Pacific Area commander before Zukunft. Would VADM Brown have approved a hit job on one of his subordinates this way ?
Somehow I doubt it.
VADM Manson Brown was a people's person. I cannot imagine him having allowed something like this to occur on his watch. Public Relations were his long suit. Safeguarding his officers was his forte'.
No, I seriously doubt that VADM Brown could have approved a hit job like this on one of his subordinates.
If he had been the Pacific Area Commander before VADM Zukunft, it is reasonable to believe that most, if not, all of the Senior Staff Officers, under VADM Brown would have still been in place under VADM Zukunf. So, the character of the Senior Staff would not have changed much after VADM Brown left. The zeitgeist and the esprit would have been the same in the 'hallowed halls of power' in the Pacific Area.
Moreover, this type of character assassination does not fit well with the image of VADM Zukunft that was talked about during the Commandant Selection Process times. Master Chief Vince Patton had many flattering anecdotes to tell from officers and enlisted people who had served under Zukunft. This makes this unreal scenario all the more difficult to understand. Could there be a renegade bunch of senior miscreants running around who care nothing for the Commandant or his policies of "people are our most important product"?
One thing is or sure; it happened. Zunkuft was there, and now he is here. A good man was punished for going by the book and doing his duty. His family was sacrificed for no explicable reason. And now, we have a lot of "bad paper" circulating and much more being generated in diverse sectors of the Government; that is to say, at the BCMR, and in the Inspectors General offices of various Agencies. How this will all work out and what will be the final outcome is anybody's guess. History may have to be the final judge.
The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The Road to Success in the Coast Guard appears to be paved with dead bodies, or the carrion of dying careers that have been sacrificed by "Hatchet men" on their way to the Traitors' Ball. At the Academy we called them "buddy-fu..ers". Those are the ones who loved to screw their buddies for the sheer fun of it.
Someone offered up this poor lad on a silver platter. And what did they get in return? That Thomas guy did a real hatchet job on CDR Strickland.
The OER, Officer Evaluation Report, is the most frequently used weapon of choice.
CDR Strickland, the XO, received a Derogatory Officer Evaluation Report (OER) from CAPT Thomas, the CO. The Derogatory OER rated CDR Strickland in the Block 9 category as the worst Commander/O-5 he has ever known in the Coast Guard and in Block 10 specifically states that CDR Strickland needs to change his “personal views” to “align with CG direction and policy”.
That sounds personal and subjective, not professional and objective. And his refusal to allow the XO to see any evidence that the CO claimed to have against him was barbaric, and not in keeping with modern Personnel Management. It was taunting and cruel.
It seems that when CAPT Thomas arrived at the ship, his mind was already made up concerning CDR Strickland. He had already formed an opinion of the XO. The OER was just a self-fulfilling prophecy. He knew when he reported onboard the MUNRO that he was going to ruin the XO's career. The only question is whether he did it of his own volition or was he carrying out the wishes of someone else. Was he an assassin or a hit-man for some other conspirators at PAC AREA or CG HQ?
Now Hear This: Rumor has it that CAPT Thomas, the Hatchet Man, has been rewarded with orders to be Chief of Response at District Five in Portsmouth, VA. This assignment will allow CAPT Thomas to be closer to his wife and family who reside in Virginia.
Now Hear This: The shchuttle-butt is that; CAPT Michael Ryan, another senior officer with fresh blood on his hands, the blood of fellow officer, CDR Ben Strickland, has been rewarded with orders to become the Executive Assistant to the Commandant (now ADM Zukunft).
He is the man who had CDR Strickland's orders to Italy pulled prior to the OER being validated, and he authorized the demotion of the CDR to a billet far below his rank and experience.
Now Hear This: CAPT Matthew Bell who arranged for the firing of CDR Strickland from being XO of the USCGC MUNRO for the PACAREA staff has been rewarded with orders to be the next Deputy Commander at CG Personnel Command.
Now Hear This: CAPT Kevin Gavin who approved the validation of CDR Strickland's OER despite the clear violations of CG policy that he was obligated to uphold, was detached to assume duties as CO of the Coast Guard's HITRON squadron in Jacksonville FL.
Now Hear This: CAPT Crabbs was rewarded with assignment to be the next PACAREA chief of staff.
There is a pattern here, if you know what I mean.
Yes, there is a pattern. And the pattern is that every senior officer involved in the retaliation against CDR Strickland was rewarded with a choice follow-on billet.
This is nothing new. It is business as usual.
Look at the officers involved in the Balboni Case, and The Webster Smith Case.
There is a pattern, Judge Steverson. It is predicated on the organization norms and culture, and aided by a tenacious CG Legal team and CGIS, perhaps to a point of nefarious actions which always seem to go unchallenged.
Look at the below small snapshot of retaliatory history over the last few years.
1. Benj Strickland's case, perhaps undue influence from Coast Guard HQ
2. Thomas Day's case on MSPB
3. Deepwater acquisition and Dekort being pushed aside
4. Baltimore Sun article about Coast Guard Admin Court system abuse of power
5. Washington Times reporter's rights being violated by CGIS
6. CGIS infiltrating a peace activist group
7. over-reach to railroad Webster Smith, and let the female cadets conspirators off the hook
8. perhaps undue influence by Commandant over Rear Admiral Ostebo with railroading the LT Aviator
There may be many more recent examples. But it seems like business as usual as nothing really has been changed.
There is a Law of Unintended Consequences. It says that "no good deed goes unpunished". When that Law is in effect then the reporting officers and witnesses may become collateral damage. CDR Ben Strickland, former XO of USCGC MUNRO, is the most recent example.
CWO3 Woods "agent note" in in the CGIS report that MUNRO did not get underway from Dutch Harbor because the crew was too intoxicated is a false statement. The truth is MUNRO did not get underway, because MUNRO was released from the search and rescue case by the NORPACSARCOORD when the vessel in distress self-corrected its own mechanical issues - that is the only reason why MUNRO did not get underway. And, District 17 logs support this. This isn't a matter of opinion, the official SAR log that CWO3 Woods reviewed show the same - MUNRO was deemed no longer needed and therefore released from SAR. It might be fair to ask the readers if they think then-VADM Zukunft if he read that investigation. If he did, what did he think when he saw that comment? Did he accept it as fact? Did he ask additional questions? Did it give him reason to think CDR Strickland should be held accountable? Or, did it strike him as a slanted and biased view? Any Admiral I know would certainly question that Special Agents note being presented in an investigation which is supposed to show "facts", and tell their legal staff to figure out what is really going on. Ultimately, it was a D17 decision as to whether the ship needed to get underway or not, and no investigator ever asked D17 why MUNRO did not get underway. The answer to that question lies with the D17 Command Center, and it keeps official logs of all such cases - that is where the "facts" would be. Perhaps then-VADM Zunkunft never read the investigation. Perhaps his legal staff reviewed it, and then briefed him in a biased and slanted manner on the "findings". Still, his legal staff has a professional obligation to ensure that reports of investigation are being conducted in a fair and truthful manner. This which this one was not (certainly not that particular statement as a "Special Agents note"). Is he the kind of Commandant that is now ensuring would ensure his legal staffs are adhering to the highest possible standards? And, if that is an untrue statement, what is is that CWO3 Woods was trying to accomplish, other than to slander and disparage the MUNRO command cadre? If that is the sort of investigator he is, then is he fit to be out there "seeking the truth", either to "prove" or "disprove" allegations? Or, is he allowed to simply keep on digging into the background of CDR Strickland until he finds something he can go after? If CWO3 Woods made a false statement in an official report (one that any reasonably seasoned investigator should have known was not a "fact"), then is he being held accountable? If not, why not? CDR Strickland was terminated from his primary duties without an investigation or due process by then-VADM Zukunft, but CWO3 Woods gets off scot free for falsifying official investigations?
CWO3 Woods put his "agents note" in one of four CGIS reports which stemmed from CDR Strickland's report of a sexual assault. The CGIS Report of Investigation number was: 0068-13-GNW-0026-8D(GE)
If an offense was committed, then who committed the greater offense? Was it CDR Strickland, XO of the MUNRO, with years old chat messages (non UCMJ offense) or CSIC S/A CWO3 Woods with his intentional deception and abuse of his authority as a CGIS agent to obstruct justice by falsifying official CGIS reports?
CDR Strickland was aware of this instance of falsification of a CGIS report by CWO3 Woods and complained about it.
CWO3 Woods had read the District 17 SAR case log and was aware of the true reason, yet falsified his report anyway. This could be a reason for the retaliation that CDR Strickland complained about (this criminal act by CWO3 Woods), couldn't it ?
This appears to concern the M/V Bankok Bridge Search and Rescue Case in Feb 2013. This is the case CWO3 Woods referenced in one of his investigation reports. CWO3 Woods also made a false official statement in the report when he claimed USCGC MUNRO was unable to respond to a SAR case due to crew intoxication.
It appears that this was not true and S/A Woods knew that it was not true at the time he made mention of it.
It is not clear why he would slander the officers and crew of the CGC MUNRO with an allegation of incapacitation due to intoxication when he was aware that it was not true.
Why did within two weeks of the outset of the investigation (and well after the Accussed had confessed) did Mr. Berkow, the CGIS Director call CAPT Bell, the PACAREA Chief of Staff and scream for the MUNRO Command's "head"?
Michael Berkow has a history of retaliation against whistleblowers. Question is was he acting on orders from higher up or was the attempt to turn Strickland's request for an investigation on himself a CGIS inside job?
Why did CGIS spend months investigating the reporter of the sexual assault who requested the investigation in the first place? Could it be that someone thought that making a public example of a senior officer would stifle reports and allow the sr. leadership to claim that the number of assaults were decreasing? Could it be that Strickland's report and request for an investigation into the allegations was considered to be embarrassing to the Coast Guard and came at an inopportune time?
http://jpp.whs.mil/Public/docs/07-RFI/Set_3/Responses/Q80_Responses_20150513.pdf
NOTE: The following questions and ANSWERs apply only to the USCG. For the answers that apply to the USA, USAF, USN, and the USMC see the link above.
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS PANEL
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION SET # 3
47
80.
Board of Correction of Military Records (BCMRs)
–
a. How have BCMRs typically handled applications that specifically contain
requests for relief from retaliation for making a protected communication?
(Answer)The Chair of the BCMR has met with personnel in the Office of the Inspector
General to ensure they are aware of the BCMR as an avenue of redress, but the
BCMR has not received a whistleblower case from the Coast Guard in several years. The BCMR has specific regulations for handling such whistleblower cases at 33 CFR part 53.
b.Are there any additional considerations given if an applicant states or
provides evidence that he/she has been a victim of sexual assault in the
military?
(Answer)If the Board received such an application, it
would consider the recent Medical
Guidance about PTSD issued by DoD for the correction boards on September 3,
2014.
c.What considerations are given when applicants note they filed a sexual
assault report, admittedly engaged in collateral or subsequent misconduct, and the command’s adverse action was unfair or an injustice (i.e., a request
to change an involuntary administrative discharge to a medical discharge)?
If those cases are not treated as retaliatory claims, please explain how
BCMRs distinguish those record corrections requests which may imply a
causal connection to the sexual assault from those that specifically state the
action was in reprisal to filing a report.
(Answer)The BCMR does not receive enough sexual assault cases to generalize (fewer than one per year on average), but the Board normally treats an implication of reprisal the same as an outright allegation of reprisal.
d.What procedures have been developed with DOD IG and/or the Service IGs
to help expedited the procedures for victims whose retaliation claims have
been substantiated? How does the BCMR coordinate cases with the DOD
and Service IGs?
(Answer) The Chair of the BCMR has met with personnel in the Office of the Inspector General to ensure theyare aware of the BCMR as an avenue of redress, but the BCMR has not received such a whistleblower case in several years.
e.Have the Services’ BCMRs established a separate procedure for sexual
assault victims challenging their discharge as required by FY14NDAA section 547?
If so, please describe that confidential process.
(Answer) The BCMR has a staff of three, and all BCMR cases are handled confidentially and on a need-to-know basis. In light of section 547, BCMR decisions in sexual assault cases will no longer be posted online.
f.What steps are BCMRs taking to give due consideration to the psychological
and physical aspects of an individual’s experience in connection with the sex-related offense and determining what bearing such experience may have had
on the circumstances surrounding the individual’s discharge or separation
from the Armed Forces as required by FY15 NDAA 547?
(Answer) When the BCMR receives an application from a victim of sexual assault, it will take into consideration DoD’s new Medical Guidance about PTSD, and if the applicant received mental health treatment while in the Service, the Coast Guard’s advisory opinion for the case willcontain the opinion of a psychologist or psychiatrist, in accordance with section 521 of the FY15 NDAA.
Judge, look at the timing of the firing of Strickland by Zukunft by the announcement of Zukunft as the new Commandant. Perhaps they considered Strickland's report "unfinished business" that needed to be dealt with prior to Zukunfts confirmation hearings?
This Book was written for "posterity" and not for profit.
Post a Comment
<< Home