Here’s a link.

40 Responses to “Navy Times article about relief of NLSO CO over Yokosuka VWAP fiasco”

  1. Socrates says:

    Pheeew!  Its a good thing that under the VWAP program the defense counsel is not the one required to give proper notice to victims and family of the plea terms.  If this were the case, then there would have been some real discipline meted out.

    Or, if the LT Prosecutor had put devious quotation marks around her notice: CAPT Guinn, I have “notified” the victims.  Now that would have been a REAL lie worthy of disbarment.

  2. Once a JAG says:

    The evidence apparently did not support a finding that TC was intentionally misrepresenting anything. Moreover it was disingenuous to repackage this as a VWAP case when it was really an old fasioned lack ot judgment in negotiating a pretrial on the part of some senior JAGs .Regardless of VWAP I think the reaction of the victims was predictable, But enough it is over and all concerned scarred.Tme to move on but as we do we should be jusr a little worried about the ease with which JAG opts to personally and professionally destroy officers and even civilian counsel by attacking their ethics. Even if cleared they are damaged.

  3. Reading Skills says:

    Scratching my head here and I can’t square this circle…Guinn says he was lied to, but the Rules Counsel did not find “the requisite evidence of intentional deception”.

    So that sounds like the Rules Counsel found that there in fact was not a lie.  Probably more along the lines of a miscommunication or misunderstanding.

    Also…this case is 2 years old.  Why is this news?


  4. Charles Gittins says:

    It;s news because O JAG had refused to release the Rules Counsel investigation for over a year because it does not support the relief of the CO.  The LT JAG told the CO she briefed the victims on the PTA; that was not true.  But at the end of the day, the CA approved the PTA and his letter explaining his reasons and why he approved to spare the victims testimony for little more in the way of “vindication” explains why Judge Advocates work for the CA and not vice versa. The decision that the Senior JAGs took issue with were the terms of the PTA – –   only one guy had the authority to approve it and it wasn’t any “JAG” it was a line officer in command who had specific goals which were achieved with the plea agreement reached at his direction.  since OJAG can’t take on a command flag, for a decision they did not like they did what all cowards do, go after the less senior who only provided recommendations in order to satisfy the Commander’s wishes.  Partington’s appeal in DC Cir means something — it has the potential to reign in the JAG to its express authority and possibly refocus PR investigators to actually read the PR discipline Reg before going down that road.  

  5. Reading Skills says:

    “they did what all cowards do, go after the less senior”

    The irony.  It hurts.

  6. TheDailyJAG says:

    So when Mister Gittins smears the junior officer by calling her a liar, despite all evidence to the contrary (remember evidence, Chuck?), that’s not doing what “all cowards do, go after the less senior.”  That’s only zealous representation.  But when it comes to representing someone who was always a terminal O6, and will – in fact – retire as an O6, I fail to see the need to once again dredge up this case and smear other another attorney – an attorney who took the same oath, worked for the same goals, and dealt with the victims day in and out for over a year while other attorneys in the same office (for over a year) took little notice of this case.  Though the TC was probably the most talented trial attorney in the RLSO at the time, that officer was still junior and assigned as the sole counsel in an O4-officer-serial-sex-offender case with close to two dozen alleged victims.  Where was the command interest and oversight then?  Do any of the JAGs reading this post and the articles about this case think it’s OK to put an O3 solely in charge of that case – especially in an under employed trial shop?  Would you have let the CA make that deal without giving him or her written advice?  Would you have ensured that all your cases – but particularly this one – were regularly briefed to you and tracked by the senior TC?  Despite the lack of oversight, it bears noting that the case in question was absolutely ready for trial a mere weeks or so away(at the time of the deal) and that a guilty verdict on some of the charges and a sentence beyond 7 days of confinement was as much a foregone conclusion as one can have before trial. 

    This isn’t about whether you personally like or dislike the attorneys associated with this case.  That’s not relevant.  It’s about an unforgivable deal that drew attention to a CO who poorly ran his command.  Should he have been fired for that?  Apparently the JAG leadership thought so; and the fact that he apparently lays the blame for his DFC at the feet of an O3 TC that had worked alone and unafraid for a year to convict a wretched sex offender only proved that the JAGC leadership might have been correct in its appraisal of CAPT Guinn’s capability. 

    CAPT Guinn, if your attorney speaks for you, and we can assume that he does, then don’t you think it’s time to put a bit in his mouth?  You’re smearing the only RLSO attorney under your command that gave a crap about those victims and actually worked to have Velasquez convicted and jailed.  To what end?  To show that your problems as a CO were entirely the fault of a junior TC?  It’s time to step up and accept the responsibility of a senior officer and the commanding officer.  You remember: “The responsibility of the Commanding Officer for his or her command is absolute, except when, and to the extent which, he or she has been relieved therefrom by competent authority” (Navy Regulations 0802). 
    Hasn’t this gone far enough?

  7. PhilCave says:

    Share the glory and take the blame has always seemed a proper leadership principle.  This seems to be one of those situations where that principle didn’t work.  A leader gives cover to the junior inexperienced person allowing them a learning curve.

    I am certain that LT Dewey got thrown under the bus, and that was done before Charlie got involved.

    Charlie, we agree on a lot, but on this I’ll differ.

  8. stewie says:

    “because it does not support the relief of the CO”
    I’d say that putting a single O3 in charge of a complex rape case with supervision, and then topping that off with an unusual/light deal again with no supervision…
    supports the relief of the CO.

  9. Reading Skills says:


    I’ll agree with what you wrote, except that it warrants noting that the unsupervised O3 was the only person at the command to oppose the unusually light deal.  And then when the proverbial shit hit the fan, the leadership used the 2702 form canard as a red herring to distract from their own poor decision making.

    If Rex Guinn wants to protest, through counsel, about scapegoating in the JAG Corps, perhaps he should look a little closer to home.

  10. Zachary Spilman says:

    I don’t want to join in throwing mud at the LT in question, but killing a deal really is a lost art.

    There are some rules for trial counsel: (1) You must negatively endorse the proposed deal in writing, even if it wasn’t routed through you. (2) You must detail why the proposed deal is both “objectively” and “subjectively” unjust. (3) You must convey the outrage expressed by the victim(s) upon learning of the terms of the proposed deal. (4) You must subtly explain that the defense is terrified of what you will do to the accused in court.

    Also, it’s not unreasonable to send your endorsement to the convening authority wrapped around a dead fish. Just be sure to put the appropriate rank insignia on the fish.

  11. stewie says:

    So she’s thinking, if only I’d mailed the salmon instead of eating it?

  12. Charles Gittins says:

    I am currently on my honeymoon and have more important things to do.  I will return later in the week, to post factual details — Rex didn’t throw anyone under the bus, but the minor problem with the handing out of forms was Navy wide and only one NLSO CO was relieved.  And before the IO left the Island, he specifically told Rex he had no  findings with regard to Rex’s conduct or regulatory compliance — a finding that ended up changed at about the same time the IO received a non-slated premier command billet.  You do the math.  The Admiral was provided the appropriate advice, but he had his own idea of justice, and at the end of the day, the JA works for the Commander, not vice versa.  And the LT had a non-detailed, but experienced O-4 assigned to assist her with what was a guilty plea, after all, and there are hundreds of e-mails where the O-3 and O-4 communicated about the case.  More to follow, “DailyJAG” posting anonymously.  

  13. PhilCave says:


    I agree that the VWAP issue at Yoko was not an anomaly.  Also, the other Services shouldn’t get too complacent or feel they escaped attention.  The other Services have similar, and in some places worse situations.  i’ve had a couple of Army cases where the TC told me they had no intention of talking to the victims about my PTAO because what they had to say didn’t matter. 

  14. Casual Reader says:

    Attorney Gittins, All the evidence in this case, some of which you received from sources other than Quinn, supports the conclusion that the LT did not lie.  Even the email support that fact.  There is a difference between zealous representation and character assasination.  

    Zachary Spilman, are you sure all of that was not done?

  15. Socrates says:

    Reading Skills opinion that the information that the LT provided to the CO was “more along the lines of a miscommunication or misunderstanding” seems like it could be right, at least if the Rules Counsel finding is valid.  And the DailyJAG’s forceful arguments are insightful considerations, with much persuasive value.  However, one can be a great, heroic prosecutor – and have a bad CO – but still fail at a critical juncture in the litigation.  We prosecute servicemembers everyday, despite great prior work, based on a momentary lapse.  Perhaps an annoying quibble, but does this terrific LT JAG not regularly swear-in witnesses with the admonition to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?  And do not prosecutors regularly throw-in gratuitous “false official statement” charges for this kind of nonsense?  If what Charlie Gittins alleges, that the “LT JAG told the CO she briefed the victims on the PTA; that was not true” faithfully represents what happened, then the LT is rightly condemned.  She’s a lawyer and a Navy officer – not your pal at the local pub.
    But, in terms of relieving the CO, Phil Cave is right: that is justified under Navy tradition.  If, say, the Nav “lies” to his CO about water depth or distance from land or distance from another ship, and a grounding or collision results… as Admiral Trump says, “You’re fired!”  The confidence of subordinates (and seniors) is an independent basis for this decision – not morality or fairness.
    …Charlie, don’t leave us hanging: what does your bride think of this?  

  16. Zachary Spilman says:

    Three things that just don’t fit:

    (1) The VWAP forms are bureaucratic drivel. I’ve handed out more than my fair share. Most recipients say something along the lines of, “what the hell is this?” The brightest say something like, “you’re kidding, right?” Nobody gets fired for issues with handing out forms.

    (2) The investigation of CAPT Guinn apparently found no misconduct, but agreed that he “exercised poor leadership and management,” which is almost synonymous with breathing.

    (3) Velasquez was “charged with molesting 25 female patients during routine exams in Japan and Kuwait between March 2006 and June 2008. He pleaded guilty in May 2010 to two counts of wrongful sexual contact and two of conduct unbecoming an officer, and was required to register as a sex offender in Kentucky, where he now lives.” This begs a question: Where’s the investigation of the convening authority?

  17. ASWOJoe says:

    This case is like a bad penny.  Mr Gittins, accepting your premise that the CO was “shocked, shocked I say” at the outcome of the case and the utterly predictable outrage of the victims at the deal that was struck is at best disingenuous and at worst an utter fabrication on the part of your client.  You’re better off sticking with CAPT Guinn being a scapegoat, which he was despite the fact of his inability to ensure an accurate representation of the case to RADM Wren and maintain control of his trial shop.  The ultimate responsibility for the outcome of the case does rest with the CA.  But I’ve never been really clear on the logic behind why they accepted a deal that prima facie would enrage the victims?  Particularly when a defendant was as close to guaranteed to be convicted as Lenny Velasquez.  My God man putting that dirtbag in front of a jury made of SWO’s?  A 1L could’ve convicted.  Perhaps the soon to be retired CAPT would care to clear that up?  And forgive me but you claim the Lieutenant lied, and yet the Rules Council says she didn’t.  I’m sure that was just because they were invested in protecting her and not the career JAG right?  Stick with leaving the blame where it belongs.  The CA made a bad deal on the recommendation of your client, and the JAGC decided to burn him as an offering to the aggrieved victims.  That sucks.  On the bright side, better men than him never got to retire as CAPT’s.  Maybe he can call Holly Graf up if he wants someone to make him feel better.  Your client really needs to start owning his part of that, the title of Commanding Officer already isn’t what it used to be.  Guys like him blaming everyone in sight don’t help.
    Truly though, enjoy the honeymoon, hopefully you’ll get a break from a difficult case.  But hurry back, I can hear an ambulance racing to Sentara.  You might still be able to catch it.    

  18. Reading Skills says:


    How is the LT “rightly condemned”? The Rules Counsel found, despite the best efforts of those senior to her to place the blame on her shoulders, that there was no lie.  However, since Mr. Gittins has already defamed the integrity of at least one senior officer here, the IO, perhaps the Rules Counsel is also part of the Grand OJAG Conspiracy to “get” Rex Guinn? I suppose we’ll know for certain if CAPT Quinn is given follow-on orders to be the CO of the yet to be established RLSO Fiji.  (or some other suitably paradise location).

    I’d be careful when slandering a LT contrary to the professional responsibility findings at nothing more than the word of an adverse party and his attorney. 

    I suggest you contact the LT directly and ask her side of the story.  Then you can render judgment free of speculation.  

  19. Socrates says:

    Reading Skills,

    You know her.  I agree with your underlying point and avoid mentioning any names because this is a blog where we should discuss issues and principles, not engage in ad hominem.  So the fact you happen to know her name implies slander when I intend no such thing. My comment was an “if/then” statement and does not constitute slander, and not even its evil cousin – innuendo.  She may indeed be God’s model of integrity, transparent communication, and full-disclosure, as well as a great prosecutor.  So I am interested in Charlie Gittins later factual additions (without a name).  My point went beyond the “no intent” finding of the Rules Counsel – I was hinting at the possibility of hypocrisy – that something beyond a cursory “I’ve advised” notice was called for here, even if that was true, because the statements to the CO did not accurately convey the whole situation.  That is, she may have held the accused she prosecutes and her witnesses to a higher standard than she holds herself.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But a good learning point for similar situations for others…hence the blog. 

    As a matter of consistency, I take it you feel as strongly about the slander dished on Earl Partington – 40 years of good lawyering spit-on because of a bumbling military judge, a cranky appeals court, an investigation laden with a conflict-of-interest (the investigator directing the shop at the time of Partington’s act, under his watch), and, gasp, “quotation marks”?

  20. TheDailyJAG says:

    I suspect that only a handful of people have actually read the emails and letters (does one actually write letters anymore?) associated with this case.  Most of the commentators work from a position of incomplete information.  Mister Gittens writes that CAPT Guinn assigned a “non-detailed, but experienced O-4” to supervise the TC.  We can only assume he refers to the Senior Trial Counsel, who should have been supervising all cases in any event.  By that logic, there were as many non-detailed attorneys assigned to this case as there were RLSO attorneys.  But, perhaps this just underscores the comment I made earlier about a poorly managed command. 
    I fail, however, to see the point of this discussion.  CAPT Guinn was, is, and will always be a terminal O6.  And the O3 TC in this case has been so thoroughly flogged that any chance of a career in the JAGC ran out the scuppers with the blood.  It remains to be seen how the other half dozen, or so, officers dinged by the JAGMAN will fare, but we can infer associating with this case hasn’t helped their positions.  And now we have Mister Gittens alleging that an active-duty, career, Navy O6 JAG, a present RLSO CO and former line officer, was somehow complicit in a NLSC conspiracy to lay the place the blame on CAPT Guinn just before RADM DeRenzi laid him out as sacrifice.  It’s so very rare that I get to use the maxim, “post hoc ergo propter hoc.”  Thank you Mister Gittens; hoist in pina colada to the triumph of rhetoric. 
    I view this circus (Neronian sense) from the perspective of a third-party, but I also think the airing of the grievances should be rare and kept close to the Festivus Pole.  Mister Gittens’s media parade is unnecessarily personal and public and pointless and vile and is clearly beyond the pale.  We are officers.  And it should, but apparently doesn’t, go without saying that CAPT Guinn is answerable for Mister Gittens’s behavior; which means that I can only conclude that CAPT Guinn and I have very different opinions about how an officer and gentleman should behave. 
    As Mister Gittens says: “You do the math.”

  21. Reading Skills says:

    “That is, she may have held the accused she prosecutes and her witnesses to a higher standard than she holds herself.  Maybe.  Maybe not.”

    She didn’t.  This is not an academic exercise.  These are people.  I suggest you stop throwing out “hypotheticals” when there is a real live person’s name and integrity attached.  Get the facts.  From all sides. Anything less is facts not in evidence, counselor.

  22. Socrates says:

    Fair enough.  What are the facts?  What, precisely, did she tell her CO?

    Please don’t insist on fidelity to facts and then withold them.

    I don’t like your implication that “counselors” cannot calmly and rationally discuss legal and ethical “real-world” scenarios.  You confuse sensitivity with slander.

  23. Reading Skills says:

    you’re right.  fidelity to facts is so two years ago.


  24. Socrates says:

    OK.  So that’s for those who know.  I guess that I’m glad that you and several others possess this vital information.  Your position boils down to this: “We know the truth and this case is closed.  For those who don’t know the truth, its too late and too bad.  No more questions or comments.” 

    You remind me of the PR people for the Clinton Administration who used to leak scandals on Friday afternoon and on Monday say, “Oh, that’s old news.  Lets move on to the people’s business.” 

  25. Reading Skills says:

    Or we’re just tired of seeing a good LT dragged through the mud after watching this drama for over two years and prefer not to feed the trolls.  If you’re so curious, ask her offline.  If she wants to engage, that’s her call.  But this blog is turning less from an honest and academic discussion and more into a mean-spirited and grotesque fascination with the abomination, and many want no part of it.

  26. Casual Reader says:

    This is not a legal discussion.  It certainly is not an academic exercise. 

    It is about real people who have had priviledged and confidential matters “discussed” by those with either no knowledge or obvious agendas. 

    It is about individuals who provided information, priviledged by law and practice, only to realize later (1) the information was disclosed; and (2) the receipient of the information had conflicting but undisclosed obligations. 

    Socrates, however you may wish it so, there is no “scandal”.  The news is that there was no lie.  There was no gross derelictin of duty.  There were mistakes.  If you want more information, file a FOIA request for the hundreds of documents provided during the investigation.

    The issue is not about slander v. sensitivity.  It is about all assassins and assasins-in-training letting go.

  27. thatguy says:

    I am not a lawyer, but read about this case awhile ago.  Who initiated the plea, and who in their right mind thinks that 7 days is appropriate for a charge of 25 female patients while also being a Naval Officer and being a Doc?  Who knew and when did they know about the plea?  I think that is what brought this to the attention of those of us outside of Yoko or the JAG Corps.

  28. TheDailyJAG says:

    Thatguy – good questions.  A plea deal can be proposed by either party, but it’s often proposed by the defendant.  I suspect that was the case here.  After the offer negotiations usually occur between the parties (make you wonder what the government’s counter-offer was if the perfected deal was 7 days).  The Convening Authority, who is not a JAG, must give final approval to the deal.  In this case that was Commander, Navy Region Japan, an two star admiral.  Typically, the prosecutor and staff judge advocte share their views on the deal with the CA – but those lawyers have no “veto” authority.  Ultimately, the CA bears the ultimate responsibility for a good or bad deal.  After a deal is struck the defendant pleads guilty as agreed.  If the judge accepts the guilty plea, there is a truncated sentencing hearing.  The judge then imposes a sentence.  If the sentence is for less punishment than the deal the defendant gets that benefit.  If, however, the judge assigns greater punishment the CA reduces it to the agreed to maximum punishment – as is his or her plenary authority.  In this case, I believe the judge sentenced the defendant to something like 2 years of confinement.  The CA reduced that to seven days.

    Others here could probably explain how the fall out from that result led to a series of investigations, firing, and career immolation.

  29. Socrates says:

    Casual Reader & Reading Skills – I understand your defense of a LT and not wanting her dragged-down.  But your excitement and agitation just blocks out my very simple question: what did she actually tell her CO?  Why is that question malicious, or mean, or like asking for “double-top-secret” (probation) information?  If you know the answer, instead of just saying “its too years ago,” “do a FOIA request,” “don’t be a character assasin,” “don’t be a hungry troll,” why don’t you just say: “She told the CO everything; she told him exactly what she conveyed to the victims and families about the terms of the PTA.” etc.  That would shut me up and kill Charlie Gittins argument.  Instead, you just accuse me of wanting to create a “scandal,” when the firing of a RLSO CO IS, in fact, a scandal, and the story made the Navy Times.
    But, to back-off a bit, I agree that the bigger issue is the bad PTA terms and how much accountability the CA had for it.  I also reiterate that the CO’s firing was probably justified (and I hope this conclusion, on the other end, does not constitute “character assassination” either) 

  30. Reading Skills says:

    I’m not taking the troll bait, no matter how kindly you word it. You don’t want a professional discussion, you want sensationalized gossip and it is disingenuous for you to attempt to claim anything else.  This made the Navy Times because Charlie Gittins went to a reporter and called a LT, who had been cleared of misconduct allegations launched by his client, a liar.  It’s a headline grab and a dishonest one at that.

    As I have said, if you want the facts, e-mail the Trial Counsel.  Mr. Gittins clearly wants a public mudfight. To what end, I don’t know but he’s not going to get one.  At least not from me.  This is the integrity of a Naval Officer you are talking about.  A Naval Officer, who by the way, was cleared by the Rules Counsel of all misconduct allegations, but nonetheless as DailyJAG points out, has suffered irreparable harm to her reputation and career.

    So again, I suggest if you are truly curious, e-mail the Trial Counsel.  But this is not the forum. 

  31. Socrates says:

    When an advocate speculates as the motives behind another he has changed the subject, lost the debate, and forfeited any moral high ground.  Your zealous advocacy for a friend has blinded you to the attacks you now feel free to fling at others. I am genuinely curious about the actual facts here and wonder what was said to the CO.  Because you already know, and have known for 2 years, and are close to the emotions involved, you don’t seem willing to allow for that kind of interest.  I was willing to bend over and accept a factual spanking from you.  You chose hold the information you have.  I can respect that, if you lay off a little on the aggression.
    In regard to Mr. Gittins “ends,” he is CAPT Guinn’s defense attorney, and I think you must know that using the media is a legitimate and customary tool to vindicate a client’s reputational interests.  And, if I wanted to be as flippant about the “FOIA” and “email” comments, I could reply: “Tell the LT to get her own lawyer to defend her, if she’s so interested in her integrity…blah..blah…blah”  But, of course, I wouldn’t mean it. 

    Your announced standard for CAAFlog posts – to e-mail each participant in every story – vice discuss it rationally, even if the issue percolates with  – well, that point needs no refutation. This IS the forum for military justice discussion, even about “real” people, as you emphasized.  Great!  Now I’ve got to email LTC Lakin, Bradley Manning, Ms. Ehlers, Carolyn Martin, CAPT Owen Honors, Earle Partington, Denedo’s appellate attorney, etc.  I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings, but if you actually read what I put forth about an essentially anonymous lawyer in the context of this string, its not all that salacious, and certainly not malicious. Its only because you know her that you interpret any comments as a direct attack and “gossipy.”

    Can we put down our weapons and agree that the bigger issue is the PTA deal and condemn the CA for approving an unjust plea agreement – without this critique of his professional judgment seeming like an ad hominem attack, or sensationalizing gossip?  Am I permitted to at least have this view?

    Or I am corrupting the morals of the youth once again…  

  32. Rob Klant says:

    I hope the discussion doesn’t distract from what I think the real take-away should be:  the VWAP forms are not simply “bureaucratic drivel”.  They provide substantive benefits both to TCs/SJAs/CAs by giving a check-and-balance against their largely unfettered discretion and to victims by giving them a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the disposition of the case. 

    If timely notice of the terms of the PTA had been given here, it would have provided the victims the chance to convince the original CA to reconsider or to request a CA higher in the chain of command lawfully to intervene.  See e.g. Villlareal, 52 M.J. 27 (CAAF 1999).  

    Personally, I think the attitude that VWAP advisement is nothing more than empty procedural burden is largely what set up the RLSO and CA to fail.      

  33. SomeDC says:

    Reading Skills:  What exactly did the investigation say about you?

  34. Casual Reader says:

    SomeDC, you made my earlier point.  It is time to let it go.  Your innuendo is juvenile. 

  35. Charles Gittins says:

    I have the redacted PR “investigation,” which puts most of this speculation by those without access to the document to rest.  Unfortunately it is in Virginia, not Hawaii, and my efforts to post the facts from that report must necessarily await my return to my world.  At which time, most of the gum flapping speculation about the facts and who did what and when will necessarily end. And, yes, while redacted, it is pretty easy to fill in the blanks.  

  36. Enough Already says:

    Just stop the drama already.  I cannot believe that Rex had Charlie take this to the Navy Times “to clear his name” before he retired.  Rex didn’t understand in command or now that it is not about him.  And Emily needs to let this go and stop all the darn pseudonym posts.   It is time both of them went home and moved on.  The Navy JAG Corps is better than this.  Much better.

  37. Casual Reader says:

    Mr. Gittens, you also have made my earlier point.  It is time to let it go.  If the Navy Times Article is correct, and that is where this discussion started, the PR “investigation” was not a final conclusion.  You cannot challenge an investigation and rely on it as well.

    You and your current client had your forum already.  Deal with the final result and move on.

  38. Bridget Wilson says:

    Looks like CG got a good result for his client.

  39. k fischer says:


    I hope you had the good taste to honeymoon with your bride at the Hyatt in Kauai.  The waves at Shipwrecks are sick, and the Grilled Mahi Sandwich at Brennecke’s is simple, yet ample fare.  Then again, its Hawaii.  You could pitch a tent next to a bunch of monk seals and it would be better than staying on VA beach.


  40. Dew_Process says:

    At the risk of someone misinterpreting this, as what was in the Navy Times article and the diatribe on this thread are my sources of knowledge here, does anyone know (versus speculation) whether or not the term “dereliction of duty” entered the lexicon of the IO’s report?

    My question is not meant to throw gasoline on a volitile issue, but rather to find out (factually) if it was or was not included in the investigation, like an LIO.  If it was, at least for me, that narrows things down a bit.