December 14, 2009

Defense HotlinePentagonWashington, DC 20301-1900

Sirs;

My name is Angela Ehlers. I am filing this complaint as a concerned citizen and also thewife of Sgt Edwin Ehlers II, who was wrongfully convicted by the United States Marine Corps.The Marine Corps, Navy and NCIS have not only violated my husband's constitutional rights buthave also violated numerous DoD Directives, JAGINST, and OPNAVINST listed in this letter.

In February 2008 after months of research, the Commanding General, Major GeneralThomas Waldhauser acted as the convening authority in Edwin's Case. Edwin's attorneyMichael Eisenberg and I brought it to his attention that Petty Officer Paul Skovranko USN, liedto NCIS and to the court about taking his daughter, the alleged victim, to the Beaufort NavalHospital in June 2004 through the documentation we received from the DoD Family AdvocacyProgram under DoD Directive 6400.1 stating they were never notified about the allegationsthis child made and neither was the hospital.

April 2008 while I was making a phone call to Camp Pendleton to gather informationabout one of the prosecutors, Capt John Ellis, I ended up speaking to his commanding officerMajor Clay Plummer. Major Plurnmer asked me about Edwin's case. Major Plummer and Icarried on a 45 minute conversation that evening. During that time, I let him know that thefather of this alleged victim, Petty Officer Paul Skovranko had lied about taking his daughter tothe Beaufort Naval Hospital the night of June 2, 2004 which he alleged to NCIS and the court.

I also let Major Plummer know that I have documentation from the Family AdvocacyProgram stating that they were never notified about the allegations the child made, which is aviolation of DoD Directive 6400.1 and that the Beaufort Naval Hospital has no record of thealleged victim being at the hospital in June 2004. I clearly told him that Petty Officer PaulSkovranko and his wife lied to investigators and the court in August 2007 when Edwin wasconvicted. Major Plummer stated that it was his "judicial and legal obligation to report ail fraudon the court under JAGINST 5803.1 C" and asked me to send him the documents pertaining tothis since he was not aware of it when he sat 2nd chair at my husband's trial. I sent theinformation certified mail and it was received on 05/01/08 and signedt.for by Edward Lopez. OnMay 3, 2008 Edwin's Attorney Michael Eisenberg contact Major Clay Plummer who stated thathe was not going to do anything about the information and hung up.

In May 2008, following the conversation with Major Plummer, I then brought thisinformation to the attention of the Judge Advocate General who told me that they were alsounwilling to do anything about this. I have several letters/responses from the various letters thathave gone back and forth from me to the Judge Advocate General since May 2008 through the

present about that issue. All have stated they are not going to do anything to correct thesematters.

I then, in December 2008 contacted NCIS Parris Island where this investigationoriginated. I spoke to Special Agent J.R. Crandall who is a supervisor at NCIS and who, as hetold me several times during our conversation, has over 25 years experience working for NCIS.

I questioned him about the Family Advocacy Program (FAP DOD 6400.1), to which hereplied that it was not available in June 2004 at Parris Island MCRD. I corrected him and toldhim that it has been available at all installations since 1992. He stated then his agents didcontact them and advised the FAP of the child's allegations. I once again, corrected him andtold rum that I had a document from the Parris Island FAP and a&of January 2008, no they hadnot been notified.

I advised Special Agent Crandall that Petty Officer Paul Skovranko, father of the allegedvictim, called NCIS the day after he allegedly took his daughter to the Beaufort Naval Hospital. Itold him that had Petty Officer Skovranko ACTUALLY taken his child to the hospital, as healleged to NCIS agents and the court, the hospital and NCIS would have been REQUIRED tofollow the foregoing instructions, DoD Directives and Federal Laws:

OPNAVINST 1752.1 A

DoD Directive 6400.1

SECNAVINST 5520.3b

SECNAVINST 5527.2

DoD Directive 1030.01

DoD Directive 5525.7

DoD Directive 5525.5

18 U.S.C. Sec 2258

Title 42 chapter 32 sub chapter 4 § 13031

NAVMEDCOMINST 6310.3

He then changed his position as to whether his NCIS agents at Parris Island had actuallycontacted the Family Advocacy Program and that they had also contacted local lawenforcement (which they have not done so) and then said he did not want to speak to meanymore and hung up. I sent the documentation I had in my possession in January 2009 toSpecial Agent Crandall, which he signed for a few days later.

April 25, 2009 I contacted NCIS Special Agent J. R. Crandall once again and advisedhim that I had allowed him more that ample time to report this misconduct and fraud committedby his agents through the Investigations Department at NCIS Headquarters. I quoted NCIS

Manual for Administration which states that supervisors within NCIS are required to reportallegations of misconduct and deficient performance to the Assistant Director for Inspectionscode 006. I let Special Agent Crandall know that per this manual he only had 3 working days tomake this report and he had failed to do so. I also reiterated that fact that since he is a DODemployee he is required to comply with all their manuals, since he did not I had filed a complaintwith the NCIS IG Robert Mulligan.

May 15, 2009 I received a letter from NCIS IG Robert Mulligan acknowledging mycomplaint and advising me that he was going to be looking into the allegations I alleged in myletter and evidence I supplied. He has yet to actually conduct an investigation pertaining to thedocumentation I supplied to him.

I found the VA/SARC training module 21 which states that Military Criminal InvestigativeOrganization (MCIO) Mission - comprised of the Army's Criminal Investigating Division (CID),Air Force's Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) and the Navy's Naval Criminal InvestigatingService (NCIS). The primary role of MClOs is to be objective fact finders. However, unlike theircivilian counterparts, MClOs do not make judicial or administrative decisions regardingprosecution or offender accountability. MClO's are responsible for:

- Conducting criminal investigations in which the military is, or may be a party of interest

- Investigating allegations of sexual assaults on and off a base or installation, as appropriate

Investigative Process

a. The investigative process involves the conduct of a preliminary investigation and

determining titling information for the Defense Clearance and Investigations Index

(DCII) Report. The purpose of titling the report of a criminal investigation is to identify

the subject for the accuracy and efficiency of the investigative effort.

b. The third step includes, but is not limited to, interviews, background checks, and

collection of evidence. In sexual assault cases the evidence must be beyond "he said-she

said."

This case was only based on he said-she said testimony. No physical evidence orotherwise was ever found. As a matter of fact during the NCIS investigation, Randi Hester(former step-daughter of Edwin) was interviewed since the alleged victim went to her first withthe allegations. Randi stated to NCIS that the child wouldn't say anyone's name-only that "hedid it and her mommy would be mad at her if she told". The alleged victim's mother, StaceySkovranko in front of Randi Hester actually told the child it was Edwin who did this to her.

In the Memorandum of Understanding under DoD Directive 5525.7, the DoD IG isrequired to establish procedures to implement the investigative policies set forth in

this Directive. The DoD IG is also required to monitor compliance by DoD criminal investigativeorganizations to the terms of the MOU (meaning that NCIS had violated this by not informing thelocal authorities or social services of this alleged crime), and because the alleged victim alsoimplicated Edwin's ex-wife Gloria Johnson-Hester-Ehlers ("best friend" of the alleged victim'smother) in this crime, NCIS would have been REQUIRED to notify the Department of Justicebecause Gloria is not able to be tried by a court-martial for her alleged involvement (Section^paragraph b). This did not happen either.

Gloria was interviewed by NCIS 3 weeks after these allegations against her were formedin the mind of a child, yet NCIS chose to ignore this fact. Gloria Johnson-Hester-Ehlers did notknow about this allegation until the first day of the trial in August 2007, 3 years after therecorded NCIS interview where she was implicated.

After everything that had allegedly happened, NCIS never bothered to ask for pretrialrestraint. Not even after Edwin allegedly confessed to the crime with Special Agent EricMuelenberg on May 25, 2005, 2 years prior to his conviction. I have included documentationfrom NCIS that is dated 14 months after this alleged confession. It states that Edwin did notconfess but maintained his innocence regarding the allegations of sexual assault. Where is thisconfession that Special Agent Eric Muelenberg testified to at trial? No where because he liedabout it. Special Agent Muelenberg even told the court that he, not Edwin filled in the drawingwhich was used against Edwin at trial. Is this not considered tampering with evidence???

Special Agent Muelenberg also conducted a polygraph on Edwin on May 25, 2005. Theresults were never recorded and the test itself has since disappeared. It's only Special AgentMuelenberg's OPINION that Edwin was guilty but as usual, there is no hard evidence to supportthat fact either. The polygraph never saw anyone but Special Agent Muelenberg. By not havingan independent 3rd party supervisor look over and conduct a quality control check, NCIS hasalso violated SECNAVINST 5520.4B. In this Secretary of the Navy Instruction it states that allpolygraph examinations conducted by NIS will be supervised by a certified supervisorypolygraph official designated by the Director, NIS, to exercise professional and technicalsupervision over NIS polygraph examiners. The reported results of each NIS polygraphexamination is reviewed by a supervisory polygraph official before examination resultsare considered final.

NCIS also failed to report these alleged incidents to law enforcement violating DoDDirective 5525.5,18 U.S.C. Sec 2258 and 42 U.S.C. Sec 13031. Everyone in NCIS, who hasbeen made aware of these allegations (from the reporting agents to Inspector General Mulligan)and not reported them to "real" police officers under the DOJ, is guilty of a class Bmisdemeanor.

Meanwhile, in April 2009 I went to a meet and greet for Major General Waldhauser at theOfficers Club. I had a nice 5 minute conversation with him about Edwin's

conviction at which time he told me that his former Staff Judge Advocate, Lt Col Robert Millerhad not given him everything submitted on Edwin's behalf when he was the acting conveningauthority for 1st Marine Division. He took my article 73 petition I had prepared for the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Appeals home with him and sent me a letter stating that he was unableto do anything to correct this injustice to Edwin.

End of May 2009 I submitted the Article 73 petition to the NMCCA. Of course it wasdenied. Judge Maksyrn did state that he felt that the child had been coached by her parents

4

because she was inconsistent in her testimony. Judge Maksym also stated that he could notaffirm the oral sodomy charge because of the inconsistencies in the testimony and that the 3years it took to bring Edwin to court violated his Constitutional Rights.

August 2009,1 contacted the current Commanding General, Major General Richard Millsof 1st Marine Division. I let him know everything that I had found after the conviction and alsothe events that led up to the conviction. He stated that he was not able to do anything either,but did wish me the best of luck on my future endeavors.

As you can see by the information I have enclosed, I have reported theseinconsistencies, lies, and disregard for DoD directives and the law up and down the chain ofcommand from the prosecution alt the way to the Commandant of the Marine Corps andSecretary of the Navy, all to no avail. I expect someone to actually do their job and correct thisimmediately. I have already informed everyone I have spoken to that I plan on going public withmy information and also filing a lawsuit naming the people who knew about/committed theseacts.

Respectfully,

Angela Ehlers

www.militaryinjustices.blogspot.com

I consent to the disclosure of my identity outside the Defense Hotline on a need-to-know basis

I certify that all of the statements made in this complaint (including continuation pages andaddendums) are true, complete, and correct, to the best of my knowledge. I understand that afalse statement or concealment of a material fact is a criminal offense (18 U.S.C. Section 1001).

Enclosures

Certified Mail 70082810000226962681

5

•*!

_nru

IT

ru

aaa

aHi

CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)

For del! very InfonTsstion vtsH our website at www.usps.comj:

TTFFrClA.LPostage

Certified Fee

Return Receipt Fee(Endorsement Required)

Restricted Delivery Fee(Endorsement Required)

Total Postage & Fees

$

12350

12,30

10.00

$ $7.34

'.Wt

05

PostmarkHere

12/14/2009

• Complete Hems 1,2. and 3. Also completeItem 4 if Restricted DeHvery

• Print your name and addres*m the reverse Oso that we can return the ca** you. jg £4

• Attach this card to the back MtemaU|«»,or on the front if space permfs^ *•» -p

1. Article Addressed to:

a Service TypeD Certified MailD RegisteredD Insured Mail

DExpresaMaitD Return fteceipt for Merchandise

D C.O.D.

4. Restricted Peftrery? ̂ tra ft«i)

(Transfer from seni-

PS Form