USS WASP CO IG Investigation

8/6/2019 USS WASP CO IG Investigation

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uss-wasp-co-ig-investigation 1/36

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYCOMMANDEF

U.S. FIEET FOFCES COi,iMAND1562 M]ISCHEB AVENUE SUITE 250

NOBFOLK. VA 23551-2437 5041Ser N02IC11/080

2Sep 09

Subi: NAVY HOTLINE COMPLAINT

MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS

Comander, U,S. Flee! Forces ComndNawal Inspector General

200801501 ; PERSONAL AllD PROFESSIONAI,

Ref: {a) NIcgTS Horline complaint of 2 oct 08

Encl: (1) cNsF IG Report of InwesEigarion of 15 Ju1 09(2) cNsF l,ega1

sufticiency Revies of 16 Jul09

(3) CNSL lrr 5041 ser N02IG/245 of 19 Aug 09{4) CNSL 1!r s041 Ser N02!G/251 of 31 Aug 09

1. Enctosures (1, throush (a) and rhis leller are rhe final r€6ponse ro

2. Reference (a) conplainE, recer-yeq-yj-4,!!9 DgD lq ! E, allesed Ehar

numerouE personal and profesgional acts of misconduc!. A prelininaryinquiry conducted by the connander surface Force iCSF) Inspector ceneraldetermined lhac eleven of lhe nineteen allegaEions made t ere ej,therfrivolous o. nol appropriate for furbher leview. The eleven are discussedin enclosules (11 and 12). The eight all€galions, six of whicb welesubstan!ialed, are summarized as follows:

a.4l!9s9ts!991, that

-,

coerced lhe USS h'ASP MwR committee ro purchase for casl1, agas BBQ g!i]l and a golf pucaer, which were personal belongings of II, for prj.zes in an l4vlR gotf lournamen!, in violarion of s cFR2635.?02 (U6e of Public office for Priwale Gain) , is sttlsTllr'TrlalqD. 5 CFR

2635.?02 prohibits employees from using public office fo! private gai.n

-

did not negoliale rhe donarion of the grill and puEter silblhe Mi{R conmitlee p!io! to the golf tournasen! and did demand conpe.sationfo! rhe ilens afler lhe tournanent. ge had leceived the itensin plior rournanents and had no receipts trith tirhich to validale , -7- ^ ,

value anat instead suggested a fair @rket value. There ras no d "t q,\lelative to f demanding payment, his position

".I

-

intimidated the MwR comittee mehbers and resulled i;unquesrioDins complia.ce \ri!h his denands.

b. 4l!gs!gl9!-3, rhat

-,

coinnilled larceny by lak:ing fo! his personal use a !:air oieriblenaEic sart and pepper shakets flom a caDadian Forces Ma!rcime crnmandbanguet in June 2OO?, iD violation ot UCMJ Alticle 121 (Latcenv) i:

-€n eE IcElE ItsE errE! tntdty mi.t8. o! E!.uE)Ftilcd atise+6.E!c roY !.6ult in bolh

-€i+J_anC--.=i*nL.l+n l!i..-



Subj: NAVv HOTLINE COMPLAINT

MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS

SSBSTIIIIIII@. The

2 0 0401501 ONAI,

rco

forche day of the banquet prowideal first-hand knowledge thar

-

posseBsed lhe salt and pepper shakers upon his return ro rhe ship."heluriher scaEed he had seen che shakels on display in thel s!a!e!oon.

The I stated they vrere traded for conmand coj.ns bur lhe I srared no euchtrarsfer occurred. The - further stated they did nor leave the receprionwith lhe shakers anal he {itnessed the - so inEo the CNo Flag Mess of lheCalladian Naval Ueadquarters and rhe folloeing day thelhad i:he shakersin his posseBsion.

c. A!ks3q!94, tba!

-,

delayed adninistratiwe separation actions (ADsEp) cturing200? to 20og in order to artificially remain ellgible lor rhe "coldenAnchor" letenlion excellence avard, in violation of OPNAVTNST 1040.1lc(NalY Enlisted Relenlion and Calee! Developnent Proqran) and uc!1.t Arcicle92 (Failure to obey an order or Regulation), rs SuaaTANTIrTEq. I

I "nd.. Eaboard liAsp conf irned rhe I direcEed then !o"game the sy€len" by pushing !\DSEPS from one quarler ihto the follo{ingquarEe!: in order Eo hainlain the appearance or higher rerenEion andqualify for consideralion for the colden Anchor at ard. T\lo quarters ofacceptable pertormance vas required to be considered for Ehe award. f

-

admitled to this action when questioned.

d. lhaE during lhe 20 07 LotmenE of 14AsP,

-, used his position

!o promole lhe sales of rugs, suils and shotgunsfron specific wendors, to lhe crew and wardroom ot WASP and receivedfronetary benefita in rhe form of discounrs and free nelchandise as acoftnlssion for sale8, in violation of 5 CFR 2635.702 (use of Public Officefor Priware Gain), is guB6tllctlltBD. iihile no evidence was found tosuppolE lhe assertion thar f realized priwate gain, e-rnailrecords, ship's lveb pages and first-hand testinrony bear vitness that heacliwely pursued rhe sales of merchandise purveyed by wendors of hischoice and made l,aid).oom altendance coowulsory fo! a rug sales ewent inBahraln. In doing so.

-

uEed hig position of authority to"endorse a product, service o! enterprise", in violatj.on of the provisionsof lhe ciled stalute.

e. l!l9gg!:991, lhat duling the ilure 2007 FleeE week celebrarion inNew Yolk City.ew Yolk City.L wa6 a guest sp€aker ab a Trunp social ewent anat, as a result,accepced a free priwale helicopter laxi serwice and a free round of golfac the Tnmp National Golf Course, in violalion of 5 cFP. 261s-202/2A3/204

(Gifrs fron Outaide Sources), is guAATUrTIAtEp. The cited directivestates !ha! a gilt for sDeaking al a non-Federal entily ewenl may beaccepled, lif rhe ilem has litrle or n6 inErlnsic value, a gif! such as aplaque or cerEificate, and is inlended solely for presentalion, o! is



Subj: NAVy IIOTLINE COUPTAINT 200801501r PERSONA! AND PROFESSIONAI,

MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS ICO @

valuedat less than $20,.

The

gifl of a free round of golf a! lheTrump

Nacional colf course did noE meet rhe6e crireria. @ elated tha!afler he spoke at a social evenE he played 9o1f at no coaE al the TrumpNalional Golf course. The otfice of covernnrent Elhics has luled tha!"$idely atlended garherlng5" - a descriptive used Eo denorc an evenL inshich all attendees have Buffici.ent freedon to nix and conwerse l{irh allother altendees ' are appropriate for governnent eBployeee to attend.Holrever, they furlher ruled lhat sporting acEivilie€ are noE typicallyconsidered widely atrended galherings, ard as such are nor conBideledethically appropriaEe to attend for rree. The TEEEI advised @IEIEI not to accept lhe golf !rip; lowever, [@ opted to do so.

..LrraL-

IEEE:=, failed to properly docunent persona] leave in septembe! andDecellibei 200?, in violalion of MIIPERSMAN 1050, is gltBgTlNTIArED.

speciflcally for the December 2o0? allegation, the El srated IF ---;7:----leaa absent flon the ship for several days epanning bolh of lhe shi"p,sholiday leave periods. Records show thar no leave t{as charsed to llEl@ for Decenrber 2oo?. IEIE !'ae inEerviewed resaldins hislaking afld being charqed leave- The question !,as in general and nor to asp€cific ewent. EEE:=E:= replied !ha! he dj.dn,t remenbe! filting ou!leawe reqlesEs for leave, As Eraced, ihere are seweral ingtanceg in 2OO?nhen deck l"ogs showed lhe E as being ashore and no! atrending ro officialbuainess, as per Ehe E anal Gt teBtinony, and for hich no correspondinsleave was chalged.

o. All.daErd t Fh.r :tEZE-!Za-, , used the USS WASP'g oedical deparrneDr ro provid€ nedicatcare to his IEEE:, in wiolation of s clR 2635.702

{us€ ofpublic

Office for PrivaEe Gain) , is lNsIrEs?AtIIIATlp. The evidence supported tha!l!IS-!Z!-j sas treared f or an emergency dental issue. torrevel, iEvas deiermined that rhough no! comnon pracrice, dependents may be seen inshipboard medical facililies sherher fo! energency ieEue or noc_ rt yasfurEher determined tha! a nililaly heatth care provider ehould Erear anemergenc condltlon legardless of etlgibj.liry stalus. The rleatmenr offEltZ-F

-l

diil nor viotate any sEandaid or regulation.

i 4!!g!!r!tj . hrrLEfs_!Zc_j, kep! f or hi€ own use cruise lickets donaled !o rhe crew 6fUss WASP by Celebriry cruiEe Lines in Nowembe! 2006, in violation of 5 CFR2635 .202/203 / 204 (cift.s frorn OulEide Sources), is ItISttBStril€rrlED. Thoughone uitness itldicared he haal seen lhe tickels in €iistoay.l1'o o!]rer poEenrially colrobolating wilnesses Btareal rhey dict nor see rheEickerE in [!E-E: possesEion, ancr IE-:-;;_----l denied ever Eeeins orhaving custody of them. The rickers rhaE appeared Eo have been donaleat in2006 hawe not been uaeat, could not be tocaled or ocherwiEe accounEeat for-

ffi

eivr I .nr -_rniral Fon.l!rc-3



subj: NAVY goTLINE COI'IPIAINT

MI SCONDUCT A.LI-SCATIONS

200801s01 ; PERSONAI- AND PROFESSIONAL

rco

The prepondelance of lhe lestinonial and docunentary evidence did not'suppolt the alleqation.

4, On 27 Augus! 2009, a! Adniral,3 Mas! conducred bv comrnander Navalsurface Force Arranlic, RADM (. !4- euirn, f- .""relieved of connand. Required accounrability aclion j.s complete,reconnend this case be closed as EttBStAtaUAtED -

Copy to:COMNAVSORFOR



Sectlon 1,LocatioD of

EOTIIT:IE IIIVBSTIGATIONNAVy 200801501

15 .Tuly 2009

Itrveatlgators alal ldertitying IDfonoatioD ardl{orki.ng Paper6,

a

b. l,ocation of Working Pap9rs:Cofinander, Naval Suxface Folces

Office of the Inspector Generaf2841 Rendova RoadSan Diego, CA 92155-5490

section 2: BackgrouDd and Su.mEry:

a. Hotline contro_l Ss, Dat.es of Receipt and Tasking DaEes:

(1) commander. u.s. sEcoND Fleet: Receivedcomplaint on 5 Dec 2008, forwar.ded to COMNAVSURFLANT.

(2) Commander, Naval Surface Folces, AtlanLicPfeet (CNSL) : Received on 9 Dec 2008

(3) Commander., Naval surface Forces (cNsF)fnspector General (IG) : Received on 18 Dec 2008

'N--."''".6,1!^l"B-

NAVY 200401501

EDclogur€ (1)

Invest i tors and Idents i fyl4llqlormat ion:



Iggi: CNSL fG position was vacant h?hen CNSL Chief ofstaff received complarnt. Though CNSL is the ISIC ofthe subject of complaint, and woufd geneiaLly maintain

cognizance of the investigation, CNSL requested CNSFIG conduct investigation. Thj.s was done with Ehe

approval of CoMPACFLT IG.

Summary_of the Two separate complaints were

These complainEs detailednumerous allegations of personaf and professional misconduc! by

whlle he qras

. These complaints were made anonymously and were signedsimply'-." The atlegations ranged from taking leavewithout chit s/perftiss ion, to theft of memorabilia from the Royal

Canadian Na!1r, to the improper use of MWR funds for pelsonalgain. After conducting a preliminary inquiry into the 19

complaints hre identified 8 allegations whlch warranted furtherinvestigation.

c. Summary of Out"oqe__9l_IqY9_Eg!9e!_19!. Af ter conducting aprelj.mj.nary inquiry CNSF IG determined Ehat there were lLallegaEions tshat were deemed either frivolous or not appropriatefor further revierd and I allegations which warranted aninvestigatj.on. cNsF rG determined that 5 of Ehe I allegationsinvesEigated were substantiated and the remaining 2 wereunsubsEanE iated.

The following is a summary of the 11 allegations that weledisnissed during the prelihinary j"nquj"ly; the sublect pulchaseda gun safe using MWR funds levidence dlscovered duringpreliminary inquiry dj-d not support this) , the subject created adepfoyment Lo gain tax-free pay (frivolous), the subject would"forget his wallet" to avoid paying for dinner wilh subordinates(evidence discovered during pteliminary inquiry did not supportthis). the subject j umped flom a Helicopter serving ae Uhe "SARdummy" wiEh the Aircrew during a training evolution {althoughEhis is not Ehe norm, lhis is not in direct violation of anystandard), Iwas witnessed stealing ship'6 memorabilia in March2008 (evidence discovered duiing preliminary inquiry did not

support this), subject received an all j.nclusiwe trip tocopenhaged, Denmark for himself and his wife in October 2006{evldence discover.ed duiing preliminary inquiry did not support

2

ffi

NAVY 200801501

Enclosure (1)



this), subject falsified CASREP reports (evidence discovetedduring preliminary inquiry did not support this), subject rode

the RHIB during night time tlaining evolutj.on iSubiect Matter

Bxpelts deemed this as approptiate conduct), subject imploperly

gri," ^*"y command Coins, baLI caps, and pictules to vi-sitols(eviilence discovered during pleliminary inqLriry did not suppor:!

this), subject i"mproperly leceiveal a going away present when he

left the ship (evidence dj.scovered during preli.ininary inquirydid noc supporE this). subiecE used Ehe RHIB as a means to leaveLhe ship while iE was in the Chesapeake Bay so he could gogolfing in Norfolk (evidence discovered du!:i"ng prelimidaryinqujry did not supporE this) .

the 8 allegations which were rnvestigated are detailed in thisreport.

section 3. Flrat A11e tiot!:

a, Facts:

(t) An anon]4nous complainanL staled LhaE "skinmed (stole) $50a trom entry fees" from a commandtoutnament,

public position for personal gain while Iof USS WASP, byexchanging a BBQ Gas Grill and Golf Putter for cash via an MwR

fundraising event, in vj.olation of 5 CFR 2635.7A2 Use of Publicoffice for Private Gain, is aubstantiat€d.

12) 5 cFR 2635.?02, Use of Public office for Privalecain states, in par!, "an enpfoyee sha-lJ not use his pub-licoffice far his own private gain.." Subparagr:aph (a) furtherstates: fnducemenE or coercion of benefiEs. "An enp.l.oyee sha-l-lnot use o@ pasition or titfe orany authority associated with his piblic oftice irr a manrei thatis inceDded to coerce ar induce another persan, including asubordinate, ta provide any benetit, financial or otherwlse, tohimseff or to friends, r:efatives, or persons vlith wbon theenpfayee is affiTiat:ed in a nongovet ntuentaL capacity. t'

(3) L vrhefl interviewed and after being

read his article 31b rights, was asked if he ever suppliedprizes for a Command Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) GolfTournament. He stated thai he had in fact done so. He supplied

3

ffi

NAVY 200801501

EucloEule (1)

used

golf



a golf putter that he stated as worth $299.95, and a gas giillth;t he claimed to have "priced-out" at Lowes for r'two or three

hundred dollals." Both of these items were won by

-

as prizes in different golf tournaments, thus, he was unable to

pro;ide receipts verifying their value' rn return for thesepri"e", I received apploximately $500 flom the uss

WASP M!,lR Golt Tournament committee.

(4) Two uss wasP un:or orilcers, who were I

- -

received at least $500 foi the puEter and the grill ionerecalled it as S7oo, the other $500) . BoEh stated thaE therewas no prior ariangement with E to rise these items asprizes; he slmply arrived before the tournament and adnounced

they would be givea as prizes. Additio4al1y, they boEh statedthat there was no discussion betr,teen the Tournarnent Committee

and lEl concerfling compensation for thepuLter

andglill

until af ter they had been awarded.

-f

then approachedthe co mitte" meribers as they were counting the proceeds for thetournanent, and

-

demanded money from the entry feesas compensation for the putter and gas grifl .

b. 44clY9l-€.-!iqq!eE-+on, and conclugion:

(1) In order to substantiate a violation of 5 CFR 2635./02 Use

of Public office for Private Gain in this case, lheprepondera:rce of the evidence must establi.sh that fused his positioD or title to coelce or improperly influence hissubordinate (s) \arhen he provided the two pr:izes for the USS WASP

colf Toulnament and then received a financial benefit in theexchange .

(2) Whil-eprovided Ewo of his own perso[al belongings, which were to beused as "prizes' for a MWR Gol"f Tournament, Exchanging higpersonal befongings for cash, \,rhich came from the USS WASP MwR

fund, iE a clear violation of 5 CFR 2635.702, Istated Ehat he received both the goff club and the grill asprj.zes froft previous Lournaments. He stated that he estimatedthe value of Ehese items based upon his perception of their fair.market value. He was abfe to use his position as the I of the

USS WASP Eo coerce the MWR Committee to accept his personalbelonginga aa prizes for the tournament and to tllen receivelein cursement for these items from his command's MWR fund. The

4

ffi

NAVY 200801501

Eacloeu!€ (1)



first notice the M!.lR comnittee received from

-

that he

expected compensation for the two plizes that he provided was

while chey were assessing the ploceeds after the tournament and

after the prizes \rete a\tarded. It is no! reasonable !o expect

tlro junior Officers to deny their !equegtfor compensation for the grill and putter aftet the ptizes had

bee! distributed. I should not have accepted the cash

benefit provided by the uss wAsP MwR Commitiee for \that was hispersonal pr:oper:ty.

(3) That

gain while I of USsgolf putter: for cashof 5 CFR 2635.7O2 Use

wAsP, by exchanging a BBO gasvia an MWR fundraising evenE,of Public Office for Privale

used his public position for personalgri1l andin vi,olationGain, is

6ubalantiated.

l{ote: Regarding misuse of the MwR, the anonymous complainantfurther alleqed thaL failed t.o pay the entry fees tothe tournament for the team he entered. when questi.oned aboutthis, f vigolously denied this allegation. Thoughnumerous witnesses stated that they had nheard rumorg" that II had failed to pay his entry fees, none had first-handknowledge. No evidence was dlscovered to subsEantiate thisallegatio4, though it must. be roEed that the receipts for thelournamelrt came up exactly $200 shorl, the price of one team,gentry fee.

c. Recommendations: Forqrald

toCNSL

forAction Deemed

appropriate in light of rhe substantiated allegation.

d. Disposition: Foflrarded to USFF IG for review.

SecEl.otr 4- Second Allegatloa:violated

Uniform Code of Military ,tustice (UCM,I) Article 121 Larceny, byimproperly taking a set of unique sal! and pepper shakers from abanquet hosted in ifune 2OO7 by Canadian Forces Maritime Cofinand(aka Canadian Navy) for his personal use, is substanllated.

a - Facts:

(1) An anonymous compfainant alleged that, "fn ,tuneaf 2007, the yss wAsP pu77ed inEo I{aljfax Ns rtlova ,scoria) and

@

NAVY 2 008 01s01

Bnclosure (1)



Iattended a fornaf dinner hosted bv the canadian Nav-f

with 2'd FTeet pelsonne-l . IIII stole a set of salt and

Pepper shakers fton Lhe tabTe ' tlrese were ofd miTitary itenswith Canadian e(tbTens ' "

(2) UC1,jJ Article 121 lJarceny, states? in part:(d Any person subject to this chaptet who wtongfufLy takes,obtains, ar withholds, by any means, fran the possession ofthe ownet or of any ather pergon any noney t personalprope.cy, or atticfe of vaLue ot any kind-"(7) wiEh intent permanentfy ta deprive ot de frand anothetperson of the use and benefit af Property ot ta appraptiateit to his own uee or the use of any person other Ehan theowner, ateafs that property and is guilty af 7atceny...

(2) The elenents needed to establish larceny under

UcMif Article 121 are:(a) That the accused wrongf!77y took, obtained' or wixhheTd

certain property fram the possessjon of the owne!: ar at anyother Person;(b) That the propetty befonged to a certain pertton;(c) That the property was of a cerEain vafue, or oE some

vaTue; and(d) That the taking, obEaining, ar withhoTding by theaccused was with the intent pernanentTy to deprive ordefraud another person of the use and benefit of theptoper:ty ar pernanentTy to appropz:iate the prope)aty for theuse of fhe accused or for any person other t]lan the ownet.

(3)

-,

when interviewed and af ter belngread his Article 31b rights, was asked if he had any knoq'1edgeof any salt and pepper shaker that came inco his possessionfolfowing a dinner host.ed by the Canadian Navy in Halifax, NovaScotia- He stat'ed, "nlo, I have na knowiedge af anytlling likethat." He was furEher asked if there were any gifts of any kindgiven or exchanged at Ehe dinnet in question, and he €tated,

(4) ln May 2009,

-

called the cNsF ForceInspecEor Genelal and stated Ehat after speaking t'o his wife herealized he did have a seE of salt and peppei shakers which were

Lraded for command coins at t'he dinner.

6

ffi

NAVY 200801501

Enclosule (1)



(s)

, stated that he attended the

Halifax dinner with the Canadian Navy. As par! of hisdut-ies, he met

-

upon his return io the pierasked if he sawl in possession of any satEshakers following tbe dinner, I answeled, "r

I.lhen inter:viewed,

stated/ when asked j.f he had any knowledge about

\tas no gift exchange, We did not Teave the receptian withand pe+)per Bhakers. When we got to the pier he had salt

possessing salt and pepper shakers that origioated at the4i4ne!, ".f saw then in hjs possession-. I saw the afficjaT

went in there... I can te77 yoD for a fact

sa.l t

, qo inta the cerenonial CNO Mess of t.he CanadianNavaT Headquarters that wc were at and he had a pair ofcerefilonia7 saft and pepper shaker's iD hjs possession that werecTearfy Canadian in his staEeroon the next day."

(6) When interviewed,

gEpg!-lakers and I did in facr see^y-

, stat-ed thaE he wason duty as on the night of

up to the ship he puffed somethinq out of his pocket, I didn, tsee it initia77y... but he I)u]led t.be insides of his packet outand I coufd see,sa.lt and pepper shakers in hjs,hard. He didn'tsay where he got thern frod, but he Taughed, Tike ,fook what I

fr return to the ship,,. asZgot

got.'I found out a few days later throuqh the qrapevi.ne thathe sto?e Lhem off a tabfe fran the Canadian function..." a

I coutd not recatt wbo totd him thar E stote.shaket6, but sLated it uras convnon kdowledge in the nardroomto the I.

Note: Nurherous nenrbers of the USS WASP wardroom vTere interviewedin the course of !hi"s investigation. A1f were asked about Ehealleged theft of i:he SaIt and peppei shakers. Att \^rere aware ofthe allegation and had hear:d of the altegation. ?!ro Officershad Ehe firsE-hand knowledge and saw f t^rith theshakers. No one inteLvieqred refuted the claim_

(7) An examination of Repoir Chits (i.e. Repolt andDisposition of Offenses, NAVPERS 1525l27) fto.Etine asI of USS WASP shows that, in one case, a Sailor wag

1

ffi

NAVY 2 0 0801501

Enclosure (1.)

theI. When

and peppetSar^,1

theand

canadian Navy dinner in Halifax with E. He f urther



charged with violating UCMJ Article 121 Larceny. The reportchit reads that a Third CLass Petty Officer, while thc USS wAsP

was in Cartagena, Columbia stole a $15 a bottle of wine. ThisSailor was foudd guilty at NJP and received 45 days r:estricLioo,

45 days of Extra Duty, 2 months forfeiture of X months' pay, anda suspeDded feduction in raie.

b 4selrqig Discussion and Conclusion:

(1) ro order to eetablish that

-

violated ucMJArticLe 121 Larceoy, the preponderance of fhe evidence must showthat I wrongfully took 6a1t and pepper shakers ftom aCanadian Navy banquet and that he intended to keep thempermanently,

(2) The preponderance of the evialence demonslrates that I

I did in fact take a set of salt and pepper shakers from aCanadian Nar-y Banquet held in Halifax, Nova Scotia. fnough II initially denied any knowledge of taking the salt alldpepper shakers that. belonged to the canadian Navy, tswo separateUss wAsP officels piovideat detailed eye-lritness accounts of II irl possession of the salt and pepper shakers.

-

with f at Ehe dinner, sLated EhaL hein the Mess afEer the reception with the salt

and pepper shakers.

-

also stated thaE he salr the6ame saLt' and pepper shakers in If stateroom lhe nextday. IIIL who was the I on irre day or rhe dinner,stated he saw E lrit.h the sal! and pepper shakers when

they met on thepier

after tbe dinner.(3) After initially denying he had the salt and pepper shakers,

-

called the cIiIsF IG and stated his r,rife reminded himthat he did have Ehem.

-

rhen ctaimed that hereceived them as part of an exchange for command coins. II call to the cNsF Folce Inspector ceneral admitting hehad Ehe saLE and peppe! shakels and that they were excbanged fotcommand coins is not deemed crcdiblc.

-

\^ras askednumerous times about the shakers dur:ing hj.s intervievr and he wasadamant in denying he possessed them. Then, months afie! he wasinterviewed, he and I suddenly remembered he had Eheshakers and they were innocently exchaDged fot comroand coj.ns.

eecall J,-andwhen he stated Ehat he atlended the Canadian Navy dinner in

8

ffi

NAVY 2{}0a01501

Enclosure (1)



Halifax with E, He slated, "I eaw then [salt andpepper Ehakersl in his possession.. I saw the officiaf

-

I andl went in there... 7 can te77 yott tot a facE Lhele wasno qiEt exchaage - [Emphasis affi

receptjon with Salt and Pepper shakers. When we got to the pierhe had saft and Pepper shakers and I did in facc see ny

-

f-, go into the ceremonial cNo Mess of theCanadian NavaT Headquarters that l4e were at and he had a pair ofcerefioniai Sa]t and Pepper shakets in hjs possess'jon Ebat verecieatfy Canadian in hi3 statetoom tbe next day.,,

(4)

-

olrn amended statement shows that the elementof intent that is required for a viofation of UCMJ Article 121is present. After j.nitially denying possession of the sal! andpepper shakers, in May 2009,

-t

admitted to possessingthen. The fact that

-

amendeai his oiiginaf statemelrt

tojustify

his possession of the salt and pepper shakels ca1lsioto question the credibility of his Btatements. His account ofhow he obtained these items shows that when he obtained them, hedid so with Lhe inLenEion to keep them. The original denial by

-

and the eye witness account by

-

of how

-

obEained the sal! anat pepper shakers show that If wrongtully took the salt anat pepper shakers with t.heintention of permanently deprivlng the rightful olrnels.

(5) The dollar value of the shakers has noE been determined.however, these were not merely inexpensive, disposable j.Cems.

They had a Canadian emblem and

-

statement that. hetraded them for command coins shows ihey he knew were of some

value. lhough the shakers ar:e likely of little monetary value,their thefc should not be minimized, particularly since If was a guest at an official function of a foreign countryand attended as a representat.ive of the U.S. Navy. Theseriousness of theft of minor property i.s perhaps bestdemonstrated uvl own accions at captain,s Mast.The strong punishment gj.ven to a 3!d Class petty Officer forstealing a $15 bott.le of wine and the charges brought forwardunder UCMiI Article 121 for this offense by- serve toemphasize the expectations

-

had for his subordinatesand demonstrate lhat ady act of theft, no inatEer how minor, isunacceptable -

(6) The allegation thaE, violated Uni form Code

9

ffi

NAVY 2 008 01501

Enclosure {1)



of Military Justice (UCM,I) Article 121 Larceny, by improperLytaking a set of unique Salt and Pepper shakers from a banquethosted in ,lune 2007 by Canadian Forces Maritime Coounand (akaCanadian Navy) for his personal use, ls su.bs talrtiaEed.

c. Recommendat ions : Forq,ard to CNSL for Action DeemedAppropriate in light of the substantiated allegation.

d. DisposiEion: Forwarded to USPF IG for review-

Section 5, Third Allegation: ThaEimproperly

defayed Admiiristrative Separations (ADSEPS) during rhe 2OO7-200Atimeframe in order to remain eligible fot the RetentiooExcellence Award (aka "the colden Anchor Award) . in violation ofOPNAVINST 1040.11C, Navy EnlisEed Relention and career

Development Ptogram/ and Unifor:m Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)article 92, Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation issubstantiated.

b. Facts:

(1) An anon),mous complairunt affeged thaE: I! directs lhe legal department to hol-d backdischarge/separation paperwork for the quar:terly illput s for thecolden Anchor award; the ship has always won Che award bydelaying the paperwork so Ehe ship appears no! to exceed Ehernaximum amount' of discharges, especiafly those classified a€less than honorable.

(2) OPNAVINST 1040.11C, Navy EnlisCed Retention andcar.eer Development Program, page 1, paragraph 4, states that theobjective of the Navy Enlisted Retention and Career DevelopmentPlogram is lo "maintain pelsorute1 stabillty by reEalning topquality Sailors in the proper skills balance and at the requirednuolcers. " The po-Llcy set for.th in this instruction is used astshe basis for the Retention Excellence Award-

(3) The criteria for t.he annual Retention ExcellenceAward is senl to fleet and shote activities by navaf messagefrom each Echelon 2 connnand. The standatds for winni.ng the

annual award fron COMUSFLTFORCOM was set forth in naval messaqe,D'XG 2020A62 FEB 0?, for FY 2007 urere as follows: "to 'jn lhehonor rofT for two or fiore quarters during the fiscaJ- year or

10ffi

NAVY 2008 0150 rEncloeure (1)



have, in the aggregate over the tlscaf year, neL or exceeded thezeenljstnent targets of 50, 60, and 80 percent respectiveTy for2anes A/B/C, and meL zone '\A" atLriLion of 6-2 percent or: 7ess.t'

(4) UCMJ Article 92 Failure to Obey an Order orRegulation, states, in part,'?ny person subject Lo Lhia chapterwho- is dqaeTict in Lhe perfornance of his dutjes,, slall bepunish--d as a coutt-martial nay direcL."

(5) The elements required for Article 92, derelictionof DuEy offense are:

(a) 'Ibat the accused had certain duties;(b) That the eccuqed knew or reasonably shouTd haveknown of the duties; and

(c) That. Lhe accused was (wiflfuTfy) (thro gh negfector culpab).e inefficiency) dereTict in the perfornanceof those dDties

(5) oPNAvINsr s3s0.4c, qr-ug 3!lLLl99!9L3!!E9Pr.evenEion and Control , page 72, paragraph 1, states, .unitCommanders, COs, and OICS are responsible ior understanding andagg.essively suppor!ing policies and taking immediate correctivemeasures in cases of personnel involved in drug and alcohofabuse and violations of the UCM,f , " Subparagraph 19 (page 16),further states, "Take plggE! action to rj.d the Navy of alialcohol abusing or dependent membels who are determined not tobe amenable to treatment, and

alLdrug abuse!s,,.,,

When interviewed,onI

I, was asked, "Did

-

direct Lhe Legal Department tofalsify any paperwork to cast the USS wAsp in a bette! tighrthan it otherwise would be? Do you have any knowledqe ofanything like that?"

-

responded, "on the Tegajside, we didn't fafsify any paperwork. What we wouTd do to makethe USS WASP look better is we would occasionaTfy rofl peopTeover lnto the next quarter sa we wouTd win a quarter [and] wewoufd e/in Lhe retention honar roff, so we woul-d win the GofdenAnchor. " When asked if that procedure was dilected, he

answered, 'Absoluce]y. I had a spreadsheet that the - reviewedthat t:racked our ansxes."f was asked how thisworked and he responded. \\the ,tay it wot:ks is you've goE to win

11ffi

NAVY 200801501

EncLosule (1)



two quarters out af Lhe four to be e]iqibleaward and so we woufd fTood one quarter andknowing it woridn't be a big deal., and thenEwo, "

for the retent iongo over the nwnbertry to win the next

(8) vlhen interviewed, ,r onI

I, lras asked if he had any knowledge of

-

directing the legal Department to hold back ADSEps in order toremain eligible for the Retention Exceflence award. Heresponded, "Iet me see if I goL this ).ight...If we ADSEP so nanypeopie in a cettain quarter that: as Tong as we stayed ax acettain nlnber than we wauLd stj]l be eLigible for the co)denAtlchor?t' The investigator responaleal, "Yes,"

-

continued, ''yeah, rrre bad Lhat conversation witnZl. tt

was pretty much toTd eo ne. It r4as pfeEty n cb that he wantedt.o gane the system. "

(9) When interviewed regarding the allegationconcerning the colden Anchor Award,

-l

was asked if hehefd back discharge paperwork in order to win the award. HearEwered, "9,lould I do sonething Tike that yeah r wouLd dosomeLhing like thaE. Did I kick out evetybody who waB supposedto be kicked out, yes. Did I evet get an officialcorrespondence saying I was 7ate, no. I was too stnatt for that.f made sure they knew...I ptobabfy .sjgled shit a couple weeksbefore the end af the quarter knowing the admiraT wasn't gonDahave Eine to you know...My philosophy was if a Saifor was reaffygood up to Lhe patLicu]ar point of the infraction and I thoughtI cou-ld trusC the Sailor...if that person vas st777 productive itwasntt fike I was going to get a new body in, sotueone e-lse hadto step up.... "

b. Analr/sis, Dj.scus€ion, and Conclusion:

(1) rn order ro esrabtish Lhat

-

viotated opNAvrNsr1040.11C and UCMJ Article 92, the preponderance of the evidencemusE show that El subverted the retention/atErilionproceas in order to renain eligible for tbe Retention ExcelfenceAward as established by COMFLT'FORCOM DTG 20201-62 FEB 07.

(2) fhe goal of the ReEenEion Excellence Award i6 to recognizethose commands whose "Dedica!ion and commitment to career

72ffi

NAVY 200801501

Enclosure (1)



motivation and excellence not only exemplify your superbperformance, but also attest to your concern for the personaland profeseional needs of our Sailors. Every metlber of yourConmand can be jLrctifiably proud of t.his achievement."

(3) The testimony of both of

-

I, coupled wj.th

-

own testiiony, demonstratesthat there was a concerLed effort to "game the syst.em,, in orderto make USS ttAsp compet it.ive for the Ret.ention Excellence Awardawara. f admitLed that he was cognizant of thenumbeis required to win the Award, alld that they were a faceorwhen deciding precisely \^rhen to l\DSEp a Sailor rvhom had beenfound guilty of drug abu6e. Both Legal Officers stated that

-

dir:ected them to delay some ADsEps for the eELLq!!purpose of winn i ng_l_!e r9l!9n jl9!9r

3!g_E!l

(4) Additionally,

-

had a duty under OPNAV 5350.4C to"promptly" separate Sailors for drug abuse. Although OPNAVfNST5350.4C does Dot contain a specific time requirement forAdnini st rat ive ]y Separating sailors guilty of Drug Abuse,OPNAVINST 5350.4C does requi.re that the Sailor is to beseparated "promptly.,' ?he purpose of this regufation is torenove a Sailor convicted of a dr:ug-related offense from theNaval Service in a tinely manner. The ]ack of formaf tifterequj"rements provides Commanding Officers the flexibility tomalnt'ain operational readiness.

-stated

thaE alt"shiLty" Sailor:s were prompEfy renoved, while only Ehose $/ithsolid piior records, except fo! their positive drug test, wereamong those thaE were not promptly administratively

sepalated.

-

sEaEed that Lhi6 was done so as to not force aninnocent Sailor Eo have to fill the role of the Sailor with thesolid recoid thaL had made a singte misEake ii.e, dlug use) .

!g!€yer, as evidenced in Ehe test.inpny of

-,

II real intention was not to retaj.n top quaLity;ailors inorder Eo malntaln operaeionaf readiness. Hig inEention was towin the Retention Excellence Award bv delavincr theadhinistrat.ive separation of sa1lors. III .t"E.d,"What we would do to tuake Ehe USS qASP Took better is we wouldoccasianafTy rolf peop).e oveta into che next qua-rter so hte wouTdttin a quarxer [and] we would vin the retentian honar ro7L, so wewould win the cofden anchor..

(6) Four senior Surface vfar.fare Officers, all prior CommandingOfficers, were contacted as subject matter experts concernidg

13

ffi

NAVY 2 00aO 1501

Enctosure (1)



the process of \'holding back" ADSEPS in order to ltin theRetention Excellence Award. All were aware of the practice.though none condoned it and all stated thal commanding Officersthat relied on that method were cheating others that approached

the award farrly and honestly.

(7) The prepondelance of the evidence shows fviolated oPNAVINST r040.1lc and ucMJ Areicle 92 by subvertingEhe retenLion/attrllion process ln order to remain eligible forthe Retentfon Excellence Award as established by coMFL'I'FoRcoMDTe 2020162 FEB 07.

-

inEentionally delayed .IIDSEpPINGSailors who committed UCMif violations such as drug use so thaEhis retention race appeared excellent for a specific quarter.His goal in delaying ADSEpS was not to "maintain personnelsEability by retaining Eop quality Sailors in the proper skillsbalance and at the required ounibers. " His goal iras to hold off

on ADSEPPING Sailors lor a brief time so that' his quarterlyretention rates appeared excellent.

The allegalion that, improperly delayed

Administrative Separations (ADSEPS) during the 2007-2008timeframe in order to remain eligible for the RetentionExcellence A$rard {aka "che colden Anchor Alrard). in violation ofOPNAVINST 1040.11C, Navy Enlisted Retention and CareerDevelopment Program, and Uniform code of titilitary ,fustice (UCM.f)

Article 92, Failure Eo Obey an Order or Regulation iesubalantsiated.

c. Recomme ndat i ons : Fotward !o CNSL for AcEion DeemedApprop!iate in light of the substantiaEed allegaEio!1.

d. Disposition: Forwarded to USFE IG for teview.

s€ctLon 6. FourEb All€gallon:, violated 5

CFR 2635.702, Use of Public Office for Pri.vate cailr when he wasI USS wASp by promoting the goods offeled by nunerous tradesmenand demanding his wardroom attend these sales is substaat.ialed.

a. Facts:

(1) An anon]4nous complainanE alleged thats:

L4W

NAVY 2008 01501

Errclo€ure (1)



- while on liberty in Bahr.aln, t-hele was a mandatory officerfunction called a "Rug Flop",

-

required all of-ficetsto be present, a lug dealer came in, showed his tugs analIl received free rugs and attempted to negotiace discounts

for himself from the purchases oi the Officers. vie wereconsfantly pressured by the I to buy rugs.

-

-

has used numerous unauthorized vendor€ to seLlproducts on the ship while deployed. He had a suit maker flowninto Bahrain from RoEa to make 6uits for the crew.

-

got on the ships 1Mc daily ro entice the crew to by suits, II received free suits as a commission from the vendor-

- while Ehe ship was reLurning from the csF operating area III arranged f or Tur:kish Shotgun sales f or the crew. II got on the 1Mc several tj-mes per day pushing the shotguns

and tetlinq everyone they should buy one.

-

commission were 2 free shotguns flom the dealer, the cofinissionwas based on Lhe nundcer sold

Io Note: Glammatical errors appear in lhe preceding thleeparagraphs,. Ehey appear here exacEly as received in lhe originalcomplaint and niII be Lreated as one allegation.

(21 S CFF' 2635.'102, Use of Public Office for Ptivatecain states, in parE, "An enployee snait nol use nii publicoffice for his own private gain, fot- the endorsenent of anyprodrct, serrice, or enCeaprige.L Subparagr:aph (c) Endorsementg

further states: An enployee sha7l naE r,se or permi r- tlE-ie ofh)s Gavefiment poeition or EitTe or any authority assocjatedwit!' his pubiic otfice to endotse any product, setvice orenterprise. .

(3)

-,stated t.hat , in lhe 4-5 days prlor to pulling

into Bahrain, would make announcemetts on lhe lMc at least adozen tirnes per day eacouraging WASp Saitors Eo buy suits upontheir port call in Bahrain. He lecalted

-

stating aE.an A11 Officer Meeting (AOM), ,,If you don.E have a suit, you,renot warth a shit.',

(4) The following email was discover.ed from II to all officers abo;rd rhe wasp regarding the '\Rug Ftop:"

15ffi

NAVY 200801s01Enclosure {1)



ocrober 23, 2007 10:49 PM

- - ---Oriqinal Message- _- _'

subjecr: RE' Rug FtopI,

They're a1l in... unless they have Duty of coulse,orherwise please notify rhe! of your wishes to ailend an r'4NR cour vou'veslqnecl up for Ehat night, or,hateve! i! ie you think is rere inPoltant !

-----oriqinal Messaqe _-_

-

senr: Tuesday. Ocrobe! 23, 2Oa1 6:29Pl{

To: officelssubjecc, Ruq Flop

t,Iardroon,

The wa6p has been presenred uiEh a unique opporluniEy ro goro a lug flop qhile in porE Bahlaid. Tbele ill be free food and drink6.The locarion is slill 1BD, bur iL wilL be held on rriday the 26th ar 1800. Iwas lequesred by lhe gentleman putLing it on char ue need an ac.urare headcount. If you say Ehar you are gor-ng to go, please try your hardest coalrend 60 all of Lhe food doesn,E go co vaisr. Please RsvP no laEe! rhanThulsddy Lhe 25Lh Thdnks rur rime.

(s)

-l

was asked abouE 'lEhe Mandatory Rug

F]op." He stated, "rhe Mandatory Rug Flop. Well warded. Infact, I don't know if it was mandatory. I think it was probablyhighfy encouraged. "

(6) when asked if he actended a "Rugstated, "Of course.

Flop" while inI had to! "ahrain,

-

internalsales.Handfi.r

l'7 )

in Apli1web-page

of 2 008,leading

stalred that when he became I ofthere was a link on the ship's

to a page set-up to process shotgunAviaLion BoaLswains MaLe (Ai rcraft

show that 745

Recor.ds lded

shotguns lrere processell throuqhthe

USS WASP.He inherired therole of "Shotgun Sale Coordlnaror, from his predecesBor as Air

Depart.men! LCPO, but took no acLive role in conEinuinq lhe safes

",.--""*'"",16

ffi

NAVY 200801501

Encfo6ure {l-)



stated that his predecessorcontinue the sales via the

lras told bVE directly toship's website throughout home cycle.

(8) when asked abouL the Shotgun sa1es,

-

sLaLed that he didn't remember how much he paid for the Lhreeshotgune he bought from the Shotgun vendor. When asked j.f hegot a better deal on the shotguns than other crewmembers, If answered, "wef7, I never thought of it that way." Hefurther stated thaL he did not know how much the WASP crew waspayi.ng for shotgiuns, so he couldn,t say whether he received abetcer deal then that re6t of Ehe crew or not. lEwas asked about the perception of Lhe crew regarding II role in the sales, and he responded, "He wag gettingsonEthing.'

b. Analysis, Discussion, and conclusi.on:

(1) In order to substantiate a viol.aEion of 5 CPR 2635-702, tJBe

of Publ_l,S q!!lce_l9f_!I 9!e _garo, the preponderance of Eheevidence must show that an employee used his office for personalgain, or i.mproperly used his position or title to endorse a

"proaluct, service, or enterpr:ise. "

(2) The evjdence in this case clearly establishes Lhat If aia, in fact use his position as

-

otUSS WASP to endorse various "producEs, services, orenterprises., His requirement. Ehat. all officers attend a ,,tugf1op,' as demonstraEed via emai1, his repeaEed catls for suitpurchases, and the placemenL of a link to a Turkish shotgunmerchant on the ship's webpage constit.ute an endorsement, andthus a v-iofation of 5 CFR 2635.'7A2. Though Lhere is no firmevidence that shows

-

used lhese endorsements toptocure free goods or better deals for himself, lhe perceptionceltainly existed throughouE uss wAsP.

(3) Further, while it is comroon practice for merchanEs topeddle their goods to U.S. Servicemen dul'irlg port calls, thescale of lhese sales during

-

tenure as I isstriking. The repeated reminders to Lhe cre\4, over lhe tMC andat AOMS lrere unreasonable, aod led to a perceplion Ehat I

-

was pushing the merchant sales in exchange for his own

personal benefit- When coupled with the fact that 746 shoEgunsales were processed thlough USS I{ASP and the fact that

- directed that a link be maintaioed on t.he sbip,s web

11

ffi

NAVY 2008015 01

Bnctosure (1)



paqe, it i6 reasonable to conclude

-

benefited fromthese exchanges.

(4) while there is no way of knowing how the purchases that

-

made compare in value to those made by the resi ofthe crew. ?he prepondelance of the evidence shows LhaL IIl did use his position to improperly endorse numerou-smerchants to the crew of WASP, fueling a perception that he wasusi.ng those endolsemencs Eo gailr favorable deals.

USS WASP by promoting the goods offered by numerous tradesmenand demanding his wardroom aLtend Lhese safes is subslantiated.

c. Recommendations : Forward !o CNSL for Action DeemedAppropriate i.n light of the substantiated allegation.

d. Disposition: Forwarded to USFF IG for rev.iew.

S6ctlon 7. Ftfth atl

(5) The allegation LhatL Afloat Training2635.7O2, Use of Public

,-croup, AElantic, violated 5 CFR

office for Private cain when he was I

, v:olated 5

and freec ity.

cFP 2635.2O2/2O3/2O4accepting gifts forouting while at Nelts!bBtantiated.

a. Facts:

Gifts from Ouhside Sources, by improperlyspeaking in the form of an expensive golfYork City FleeL week in ,June 2007, is

(1) Standards of ELhicaI ConducE for Employees of LheExecutive Branch, 5 CFR 2535, addresses DoD personnel receivinggifts for speaking. If DoD personnel in Lheir official capacityare offered a gift lhanking them for speaking at a non-FederalentiEy evenE, they may accept in their personal capacity, if theitem has littfe or no inErinsic va1ue, a gift such as a plaqueor certificate, aod is intenaled sole1y for presentation, or i6valued at S20 or les6.

used his

golf ar

(2) A.l anont'rnous complainant afleged thatposition co receive a private helicopter ride

Trump National colf coutse ourside of New york

18

ffi].rY rl€u.. eli| !^''!-'?

NAVY 200801501

Enclosure (1)



(4)

-

sraced rhat he recalled

-

played golf at Tlump NaLional Golf Cour.se during F1eet Week 07.He stated that he discourag.a I from accepting thegolf due to the percepLion among lhe crelv that he \ras personallybenefitting from his position ae

-.

He tatersaw oictures of golling at Trump National. Hestated Lhats was driven to a heliport and took aprivaEe helicopter to the course.

(3)

-

stated that he did play Golf at TrumpNational CoLrlse at no charge but only after he was invited tospeak to a group about the Navy. NO other crew members lrereinviLed. He said tshat the Admiral in charge of Fleet Week was

planning to play, but his schedule didn,t allow lt. He statedthat he Cook a private helicopter froh New York City to Lhecourse in New,teisey.

(5) Trump National is an exclusive course and a phonecall to the pro shop provided approximate raEes. Time of yeaiand special offelings can change the price, Weekday prices areapproximately $250 and weekend prices are approximatefy gjSO forone round of golf with a mandatory carL Ehat prices at 935-40.

{6) A scheduled, one way helicopter trip fromManhaLtsan to Newark International Airport (a comparabte tr.ip tothat taken u:_Ill Spg!" $159 ar a miniftum, accordlng tothe webs ite

b. Analysj.s, Discussion, and Conclusion:

(1) Commanders may permiL Lheir DoD employees to attendmeeCings. conferences, seminars, or simifar eveDts sponsored bynon-Federaf entities (NPES) in their official DoD capacit.ies atI'ederal GovernmenL expense if lhere j.s a legitimat.e FederalGovernment. purpose such as tsraining or gaEhering informaEion ofvalue to the qoD. (JER 3-200. 3-207, and 3-211 pertain). Since

-

stsated that the Admiral j.n chalge of Fleet week r^rasplanning to aEEend the Trump event, but his schedule did notallow it., r4/e can assume that

-was

given permission tospeak at this engagement.

(2) However, as Ehe iludge Advocate General.s Ethics GuiilesEaEes, "meetings at luxury resorts, invaTwing extravagantmea-ls, substancia-l entertainment, or recreationa-l events are

19

ffi

NAVY 200801501

Enclosure (1)



subject to pubiic ctiticisn and the appeatance that personnelattended the fieeting for perEonaf enjayment rather Lhan bonafide afflcial pury)ases.'t rrris is exactty

'unvI

warned him not to play golf aL che Trump resorE. And ivhat vras

Employees of the\\Given because of the

advised by his I on the potential for his gotf

viewed unfavorably by the cre{r, yet. he acceptedlegardless off advice.

excursion to be

the gift

che outcome; a complaint ftom a d)sgruntled Saj.or because thed1,1,ea!d,,!c f pcsrLron rc garner aluxury golf game that no other WASP Sailor was provided.

(3) The Standards of Ethical Conduct forExecuf,ive Branch explicitly prohibit gi.flsemployee's po€ition.,, IE is clear that

the Trump Nallonal Golf Course. Additionally,

golf atTrump National colf Courset and the preceding privat.e helicopterride to the coutge, are such gifts, as no othe! menrber of theUSS WASP'S crew were invited or. piovided access to free golf at

l4) while some events are considered widely Attended catherings,and are exceptions to the gift acceptance regulations, theoffice of Government Ethics issued a memolandum dated s Dec O?

tshat articulated the fol lowing:

'OCl has received many quesEions from agency echics officialsand oEheis concerning Ehe applicaEj.on of the WAG excepiion tosporating events. such as baseball games, horse races. and 9,oIf,tourna'l€.Ets- OcE has concluded that such events tl4riclffy donot quaTify aB WAG9. Sporting events generally are not

structured in a way that facilitates Lhe exchange of ideas amonga large and diverse group of atLendees, !.rhich is the puapose ofthe wAG exception. Employees io these seEtings typically do nothave sufficienE freedorn t.o mix and converse lrith all otheratlendees. Occasionally, OGE has been asked whether a sportingevent can be characterized as a WAG if there is a reception,eitsher before, during, or after the evenL. Some have argued thata reception, where aelendees can move about and colverse morefreely, provides an adequate opportuniEy for int.eracLion withother aEtendees. OGB does not agree that the mere availabilityof a reception is sufficient to convert an entire sporting eventinEo a WAG. It is true thaE Ehe exception permits employees to

accept free " enterta i nment ', furnished to all WAG atEendees ,,asan integral part of the event.n 5 C.F.R. S 2635.2O4G1 l4l - Inmost cases, however, the real neventn is Ehe sportsing activiCy,

20ffi

NAVY 200801501

Enclosule (1)



not the reception, which ie simply ancillary to the mainattraction. It would be a case of the ,,tai] lragging the dog'! tosay that free attendance at the main sporting event i6 justifiedbecause it is rrintegral-n to a clearly subsidiary reception.?,

Therefor:e, white I \^ras asked to speak at Ehisengagement, he r,/as not entitled to accepL the gift of free golfand transporLation costs. The golf outing was not Ehe type ofspolt.ing event that could be characterized as a WAG and neithercould it be viewed as sufficiently integral- to the 6peaklngengagement to qualify as entertainmeat which is exempt from giftregulation requirements.

(5)

-

accepLance of the free round of Go-Lf and freehelicopter ride was cfearfy inappropriate and an exampfe ofaccepti.og qift's based on his position.

(6) The allegation that ,-

-,

Afloat Traioing croup, Atlaotic. viotated 5 CFR2635.2A2/2A3/2O4 cifts friom Out.side Sources, by improperlyaccepting gifts for speaking in the form of an expensive golfoutj-ng rdhile ats New York City F1eets week in ,June 2OO'7, isgubatantlated.

c. Recommendat iOnS : Forward to CNSL for ACtion DeemedApplopiiate in Iigh! of the substantiated allegaEion.

d Disposition: Folnarded to USFF IG for leview.

Section 8- Sixth Allegationr

the UCM.T, Article 92 - Disobeying a lawfulcompfying lrith MILPERSI4AN 10s0. Definitionproperfy documenting leave while serving asof USS llASP, is aubstantiated.

a. Facts:

violatedorder, by notof teave, by not

Commaoding Officer

(1) An anonymous comp.Iainant afleged ttrat, .If toof leave seveia-l tlmes per month and .nore than 30 alayspej,. year. If you wefe to check the Teave logs, yau wan't findmuch ieave charged. "

27ffi

NAVY 200801501

EDclosule (1)



(2) MILPERSMAN 1050-010 states: ,'leaye, as defined byNaty Regulations, is the autharized absence of a nenber t'-on apLace of duty. chargeable alfajn.st such nefibet accardirq to theAflned Foreea Ireave Act 0f 7946, as anended.,,

(3) A review of200? through April of 2008change of I) stro*"dfiom 23-27 Feb 08-

the USS WASp,s leave log irorn \luly of(approximate time of I

one entry of feave for

(4) For FY 200?, was charged 13 days ofreqular leave in Aplil 2007.

(5) A co

(5) For FY 2008, I"as chargeat 14 days ofregula! leave. He was charged 5 days for leave in Februar:y 2008and then 9 days for leave in April/May 2008,

-,

, sho\red a rcquest fot 5

days of leave in Feb 08. stated he filled out t-hischit for

of a leave chiL for

-,

signed by

(10) When asked if he took leave while he was the I"r must have, r mean r

(7) Both of tne E of tne L

-

and I, rhar served wtrrte E wastrta E, stated that there \rere regufar occasionstrrat I would not be on boar.d the wasp for extendedperiods while he was aot on feave. Both statsed that he remainedio phone contact with them Ehroughout these periods -

(8)

-

admitted that there were times whenhe l^ras not on board during the work ureek whife the ship was inhomeporE. He stated thaE duling these absences he ah,/aysremained in the 1ocal area and was often attending meetings orothe! official business, while remaining in contact lrith WASPleadership that remained on board. He stated rhaE, at times, heremained away from WASP in older to build confidence in hissubordinates

(9) Intervie\ds r^rith nunerous meniber:s of the USS WASP

crew stated lhat

-

was frequenEly absent from the UssWASP, despite not beinq officially on leave.

-,f

stared,

22ffi

NAVY 2 008 01501

Enclosure (1)



assume I did..to the best of ny recolTection, if I took J,eave 7

did it the way I $/as supposed to." and Lhen when asked if heever filled out a leave lequest he stated, "...to be ho\est, youknow, I dan't know.." and that when he took leave, "he lrou]d say

something to lris I ot

-,"

and he assumedthaL his leave wasn'l something, "that you woufd send over tatheZ-'

(11) Theie are two perioals in z0or whenlis questioned about taking authorized 1eave. In SepteRiber 2007,the uss WASP pufled into Mayport, FL. This porE visit wasscheduled as a working port. In Decefiiber 2007 the USS WASP

scheduled two leave periods for the crew that would allow everymehber Ehe opportunity to take regular leave for the holidays.

(12) The first period in question is SepEenber 200?.

wnen f was asked if he had taken leave in September2OO7 during the USS WASP port visit Eo Mal4)orL, FL,

-

sLated that he did not know if he submitLed a feave request forthis absence. I furthei staLed thaL he had spent oneevening away from the USS WASP with his rrife and duling thistime he bad tr.avelled with I between Matpolt, FL andOrlando, FL. He asked lhat we review the USS WASP deck 1o9s asthey would show when he was on or off the ship.

(13) A review of the USS WASP deck 1096 entries from12 Septeriber thr:ough 15 Septenber shoir Lhe following entries asthey relate to the \,vheteabouts of the l: 12 SEP 1626 I

Departs; 13 SEp 2330 ...the I and I are ashore...; 14 SEP 2330(mid-waLch ent.ry this reflects 2330 of 13 SEp 07) , ...Ehe I andI are ashore...; 14 SEP 2102 I Depatted; 15 SEP 2330 {m1d-watchentry this l:eflects 2330 of 14 sEp 0?) , ...the I and I areashore...;15 SEP 0611 I Arrives, tS SEp 1438 I Departs, t6 SEp2330 (mid-lrarch entfy this reffecrs 2330 of 15 sEp o?) ...che ltand I are onboard....

114)

-

states that 14 sEpin error and that this entiy was made Lo reflect

2102 ent.ry washis return to

ship and that aE the time he was the .,acting,, f 'rhile IJ was ashore.

(15) The second peridd inDecefirber 2007 when Ehe USS WASP sel:when quesEi.oned abouE

-

question was duringiEs holiday feave schedule.whereaboutss during this time

23ffi

NAVY 200801501

Errdlosule (1)



petiod.

-

stated that was "off shipfor several days and not on official business. rt was duringthe two Chtist as leave periods during 2007 hoTiday season." andthaE "duiinq the Xnas feave period everyone was expeeted to take

feave, I kno\! of no other officers that stayed away trom theehlp or other mefilbers of the ctew who stayed away and wete notcharged feave." I was not charged for Leave inDecember 2O0?.

Analysis, Discuss ion and concllrsion:.

(1) In order Lo establish that violated uCM.f ,Artsicle 92 - Disobeying a lawful order, by not complying withMILpERSMAN 1050, it must be established by a preponderalce ofthe evidence tfrat f did not obey the standards thatwould grant him an authorized absence flom his official duties

(2) The evidence shotrs lhat there were very few tines in which

-l

took leave and had it charged against his balance.In two years [200? and 2oo8]

-'

was chatged a total of2? days of leave on 3 separate occasions. On one of theseoccasions. for the leave charged in February 2008, Iensurea J leave request was submitted by filling out

-

(3) when I was asked about taking leave in September200?. he stated ".I don't know nuch about the Leaver never paidmuch attention to it." Z and

-stated

lhat

-

was often away for extended periods aod remainedinphone contact with thea throughout these periods. These

statements provide credibility to t.he ori.ginal allegati"on andmade the allegation worthy of fuithe! investigation. I! was

-

duty Eo ensure he was charged legular leave forthe times he was away from his official duties. The fact that

-'.6cayed

in contact,, did not absofve Iorhis obligation to take 1eave.

-

logic was that hisfrequent absences gave the rest of the crew an opportunity tobuild their confidence in their own abiliEie€. This excuse doesnot €ufficiently explain why he would not submit leave lequestsor be charged for leave. From the statements made by both If and

-,

there are Ewo tirne periods in question

wtren J was not on libeity or performing official.duties and when he should have been charged for regular leave-The filst incident in question is in septemlcer 2oo? when the uss

24ffi

NAVY 200801501

Enclosur€ (1)



wAsP was in Ma!?ort, FL, The second incident is in December200? when the USS wASp scheduled its holiday leave period foithe crew.

WASP deck log €hows that

(4) september 2007 is Lhe ti.me frame for the first incident inguestion. The evldence shows f was not charged forleave in September 2007. when quest.ioned about his whereaboutsduring the uss wAsP port visit to Mayporl, FL, in septehber:2oo7,

-

staLed that he spent one evening away from Ehe6hip buL he did noE remefirber submilting a leave request for Ehlsperiod. During the guestioning of Ehis event I askedEhat we review the USS WASP deck log Lo show exactfy when he wasonboard the ship. The review of the deck log was alsocofroboraEed with statements from

-

for entriesregardi[g th" E.

-

states Et\at the entsryof "12 SBP 1625 I Departs" was the entry that accounled fo!

-

initially reaving the ship. This coincides with

-

own t.estimony about tlaveling t'o O!1ando to meeEhis wife after the ship pulled in. E a16o slatesthaE Ehe entry of 15 SEP 0511 "I arrives" was the entry Ehataccounts for E return to Ehe USS WASP and that the1{ SEP 2102 entry was in error.. That lhis entry lras made toreflect his,

-,

return to ship because at the Eime hewas the I wtrite f \ras ashore. A review ofthe facEs, Ehe USS W Sp deck 1og, the tesEinoay of

-,

attd

-

petsonal account of the events, aLl show thathe was not on leave nhile the USS WASP was in port. The USS

SEP at 1626 until at leasL 14 SBP 2102.If the explanarionpr.ovided byl is taken into account it is possibte

Ei.7as not on board uotil 15 sEp at 0611. The uss wAspscheduled this poit visit as a !,rorking port. As a working porE,the crew was required to stand regular duty- E wasnot performing an official duty off the €hip and the USS WASPwas not in a fiberty port. The evidence showe thatlI failure to 6how prope! documentation of an authorizedabsence from duty created the appearance that he was Ehe onlycrew meniber of tshe USs WASP who was allowed to deviate fron thestandards thaE governed the resE of the cfevr.

(5) The second inciden! in quesLion where occurred in Decenibe!

2007. In Decenber 2OO? Ehe USS WASp auEhorized Ewo separateleave periods hrhere saifors hrere a1lolted to take regular annualleave. This is commonly leferred to as hollday leave. The

25

ffi

was not on the ship from 12

NAVy 2008 01s01

Enclosute (I)



splitting of the holiday teave period into two separate lineframes, where sailors can request regular leave, aLlows evexymember of a Command to request and receive annual holiday leavewithouL adversely affecting Lhe Command. I states

that.

-

was absent from the shlp for several daysduriyig boLh leave periods. He also states that during this time

-

was not performing any official dutles off the shlpnor was he on leave. Thi.s facL \ras confirmed by reviewing II Leave and larnings Statements and the USS wASp leave1og, neither show chat he requested Leave or was charged forleave in Deceiiber 2oa7.

-j

af €o staLes that everyother sailor on board the USS ITASP was required to submit aleave lequest during t.his period- The fact is thaE the onlyauthorized absence from the USS WASP at this time, other thanregular liberly hours ats Lhe end of the work day, was for ameniber: Lo tre in a leave statug. I was not questioned

about this time flame nor did he provide a specific stalementabout his whereabouts in December 200?.

{6) MILpERSMAN 1050 is the standard that defines a Sailor,slight to take an authorized leave of absence from their officialduties. The issue here is not if

-

had the lj.ght tobe away from his officiaf duLie6, it is hot, he exercised thatright.

-F

own sLatements reveal that his attitudetoeards complying with the sEandards for requestinq or takingpersonal feave was very telaxed, Hi€ attitude created theperceptionr among senior memlcers of his crew. t.hat he was nol:Eaking author.ized Ieave. There are three occasions that sholv

-

indifference towards complyinglrith the standaratsin t.he MTLPERSMAN 1050. Both instsances in 2007, al1 the

evidence shows EhaE

-

did not request not leceiveauthorized feave from his official duty. AIso, in April 2OO8one of the three Eimes ne

""s "ir.igea-i;. i;;;. "i.ii!-rt" ,"."-irr", his Executive Officer had to srbmit his

Leave paperwork for him. A preponderance of the evidence {ther,ritness statemenEs,

-I

sLatements, along with the USSwAsP leave 1og, the USs wasp deck Log, and I Leaveand Earnings Statements) shows that

-

failed to obeythe standards for Militar.y Leave as defined in MILPERSMAI{ 1050.

(7) The allegarion That.

, violated the UCMJ.Article 92 - Disobeying a lawful order, by not. complying withMILPERSMAN 1050, Definition of Leave. by noE properly

26ffi

NAVY 2 00aO1501

Encloeure (1)





aware of any dependant care lhat took p1ace, for I oranyone else. He was also a6ked if I asked him to"back daLe" I records, and stated that tha! never happened-

b. Analysis, Discussion, and Conclusion:

(1) The only evidence to support the anonl'mous complaint is II admission tbat I was in fict treatld for anemergen! dental issue. However,

-

is a f andLhus eligible for DoD Medical care. The medical professionalscontacted staLed that, though it is not coruuon practice,dependants Igy be seen in shipboard medical faciliEies, \dtretherfor an emergenE issue or not. They further stat.ed thaE amilitary healthcale provide! should Ereat a patient in pain withan emergent condiLion regardless of eligibility status.Therefore, the tleatment of

-

for an emelgency dentaf

conditioo does not' constitute a violation of any staodard orrequlaLion.

staEement that

-

never asked hj.m Lo2)"back date"of this al legalion.allegatio.

record corroborates f dentalThele is sifirply no evidence to support Lhis

ation that T'hai

, vioLated 5 CFR2635.102, Use of Public_ Office for private cain by us.i:1g

ry departmeoE to provide medicat care to !

The afl

is un6ubEtant{ated.

Recommendalions: None

d Disposit.ion: Forwarded to USFF IG for leview.

Secti.oD 10, Bighth Allegatlon: That

Celebrit.y Ciuise t,ines in November 2006.

CFR 2635-2O2/2O3/2O4, Grfts from Outsidehis own use cruise tlckets donateal tso the

violated 5

Sources, by keeping forcrew of USS WASP by

i9 u.Dsubstsaltiatsed.

a- Facts:

(1) An anonymous complainant. alleged that. afterproviding assistance Eo seve:.a1 passengers aboard a Celebrit.y

28ffi

NAVY 200801s01Enclo6ure (r)



Cruise Liner, Celebrjty "donated 2

tjckets r{ere given togiven to any creAdnen])ers on ahe WASP. These tickets are in

-

passesstan. This info was pl.,vided via the

previous Legal Affi,cer. "

(2) Standards of Ethical Conduct for Ernployees of cheBranch,5 CFR Chapter XVI, Subparat B, Gifts frorn Outside

Section 2635.202 ceneral Standards, sulpa-ragrap6 G)-

(4) , after being advised of his Article

tickets to the ctew, theEeand these ticketa were never

ExecutiveSources,ceneral p i4!_19!9, states: "Except as provided in thissubpart, an enpToyee shaTl not, directiy or indirectiy, sojicitor accept a gitt (7) fron a prohibited sorrrce or (2) Givenbecause of the enpiayee's poeition.',

(3 ) Numerous crew members, incfuding

-,

confirmed that WASP did in fact render assistance to a Celebrity

Cruise liner and cruise tickets were donated in appreciation folthe assistance offered. This was confirmed \riEh CefebriEyCruise Lines corporate office. Over 13 nernbers of the wASp crewwere asked if they knew j.f the cruise tickets had ever beenused- No one had any knowledge of their use.

3lb rights, co[firmed that Celebrity had agreed to donate 2tickets to the crew, but he vehemently denied ever receivingthem, as he understood thaL WASP could not accept such adonation. Whel1 asked hrhat happened to the tickets, he stated,"I have no idea. "

on wasP,stated that he observed two cruise ltckets in

-

possession and had a conversation with him regarding what towith the tickets. No resolution was reached. Irecalled that either the E

(s)

the-, were also presentfor Lhe conversation in which the tickets were present.

(5) When interviewed and asked if they saw the ticketsi.rE possession, neither I norlcould recalf seeing the tickets. They boch recalI speaking with

-

about possible uses for t.he tickets and suggested

r.affling tshem to the crew.

29ffi

NAVy 2 00801501

anclosure (1)



(?) Cetebrity cruise Lines, beyond confirndng theincident and the fact that they intended to donate tickets,could only provide information stating that they have no record

taking a cluise on fheir line ln Lhe last

forive years.celebrity, attempted to determine the status and,/or disposiLionof the donated tickets- He was unable Lo provj.de anyinformation.

(8) BoEh Legal Officers under ,Ihad no knolrledge of the

concfusion:

(4) The allegation tha!violated s cFR

263s.2O2 / 2O3 / 2A4 GifLs from Outsj"de Sources, by keepiag for hlsown use cruise t.ickets donated to the crew of USS WASP byCelebriEy Cruise Lines in Novembe! 2005, is r.rngubstantiated.

30w

ilray rIIsI'96 eR sn gtnenlsEE B*se'^ssns l!'tt 1_es!t rn Ee?lr €rg;L a,rE €nrn*leu' FElra*Tr_a

NAVY 20 08 01501

Enclosure (1)

I and

-,

\rere aware of Ehe pending donation,as alleged by the complainant, butdisposition of the ticketss.

b. Analysis, Discussion, and

(1) In order to substantiate an all-egaLion that Iviolated the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employee6 of theExecutive Branch,5 CFR 2635.2O2/203 /204 Gifts from OuLsideSources, the prepondelance of the evidence grould have to showthat f did in fact receive and keep the tickets forhis personal use, thus constituting a prohibited gift.

\2) ID essence, this allegaEion boils dorrn Lo a ',he said, shesaid." The evidence shows that CelebriLy intended to dotate twotickets to the crew, and thaE no membet of the crew ever usedthe tickets. perhaps E should have followed up rdithCelebrity on the staEus of Ehe ticket6, as there is a cfearperception by the crew tfrat

Ilwas

inreceipt.

ofthe

tickefs. one witness stated that he saw I itpossession of the tickets, but neithe! of two potentiallycorloboraLing wit-nesses that he stated may be able to confirmthis recalled seeingf with the Lickets.

(3) The prepooderance of the evidence does not contradict I

-

assertion that he never received the tickets and has noknowledge of where Ehey ended up.

,-



c

d

Recommendat ions : None

Disposition: Forwarded to USFF IG for review.

11. Interviens and docutents r€viewed:

Interviews:

section

b

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4 )

(5)

(6)

(7)

{8)

(e)

(10 )

{ 11)

(12)

(13 )

(14)

(14)

31

ffirdu lMssE OR u{*1ll_t0Rlt!D Elsel€3URE EY iEsUtst lll Boltl elllt tD etrit!!(*Ir FBrrtttis

NAVY 2 0040150lEAclosute (1)



(1) 5 CFR 2635 and relevant subsections

{2) UCM.I Aiticle 121 Larceny

(3) MTIPERSMAN 1050, Definition of Leave

(4) Joint Ethics Regutation (JER) 3 2OO, 3-207. and3 -271

{5) OPNAVINST 5350.4C

(6) Iemails from 23 ocL o7

i?) USS IIASP deck log from SepLenbei 2OO7

(8) USS WASp leave 1og from July of 200? t.hroughApril of 2 008

i10)

( 11)

172)

(13)

(14)

LES from 2007 and 2008

Leave chit fo" of Feb 08

-

emails from 24 Jun 09 anat

opNAVTNST 1040 - 11C

COMUSPLTFORCOM, D"tc 2020L62 FEB 07, for Fy 2007

UCMJ Article 92

2s Jun 09

{15) OpNAVINST 5350.4C

(16 ) UcM.l Arricle 121_

(L7) Repott and Disposition ofL626/27 , frofiI

Offenses. NAVPERS

time as I

32ffi

NAVY 200801501

Documents

USS WASP CO IG Investigation