Here is a link to theDoD “Mills Report.”

What We Found

No law, rule, or regulation specifically required the Services to notify individuals about possibly compromised DNA evidence developed in their cases. Even so:

  • Army forwarded two USACIL notifications to Army trial and defense counsel alerting them to the issues and cases involved. Although stressing the notifications met all requirements, Army now plans a “courtesy letter” notification to all possibly affected individuals in Army cases.
  • Navy and Air Force notified or attempted to notify all possibly affected individuals in their cases.
  • Army ultimately verified or expunged Mills-related data from CODIS. However, seven DNA profiles generated from retesting evidence found in an unsecured USACIL refrigerator years after Mills resigned were deleted only due to our continuing concerns about chain of custody and controls over the evidence involved.

Each Service developed separate, ad hoc processes for identifying individuals and completing notifications. Standard policy or guidance would have ensured individuals were treated consistently across the Services.  (Emphasis added.)

The whole report is classified!  Whitewash, so much for transparency.

8 Responses to “IG report on USACIL”

  1. Dwight Sullivan says:

    Note the following from the one-page excerpt that the IG made public: 

    “Although indicating its intention to send the courtesy notifications involved in our second recommendation, the Army stressed that our report should not imply a requirement for the notifications. We ensured our wording did not imply such a requirement.”

    Am I correctly interpreting that to mean that the Army looked at the Mills/USACIL fiasco and is arguing that it shouldn’t have to notify individuals whose DNA was analyzed by Mills that his competence and integrity had been undermined?  That’s the Army’s reaction?  It’s concerned about whether it’s required to provide notice to those potentially adversely affected? 

  2. joonka says:

    This is the problem with the entire system, cover up cover up, really who are and why are these people tasked with being involved with so called”military justice” F..ing classified? thats ok, we’ll all hear more about this when people start asking in the aftermath why was this report classified!!

  3. Phil Cave says:

    Keep in mind, along with problems in civilian labs, this is a topic where the defense “bar” and the sexual assault in the military “bar” have a similar interest.
    Often-times when labs are properly vetted during a scandal it is found that tests that could have helped convict a rapist or sexual assaulter were not properly tested or never tested.
    Also, 
    At the time of Mills they had a former Army JA (perhaps she may have left, but would have been replaced?) on staff as legal advisor.
    At the time of Mills they had to have had an extensive history of discovery requests and court-testimony.
    Ergo, they had to know about the prosecutions “rule” about discovery.  And if they were a legitimate science lab, they wouldn’t care about what their results mean or the effect.  True scientists are not advocates.  Oooops, I’m channeling last weeks NACDL two days of forensic “science.”

  4. Charlie Gittins says:

    It’s a misuse of classification.  This is an example of why people leak classified documents.  You can’t trust that they are actually really classified.  Confidential — Secret  – Top Secret are the recognized classifications.  There is another that the Government uses routinely — Top Secret-Embarrassing — to shield otherwise unclassified but embarrassing information about incompetence or malfeasance from public view.  Whoever classified the information should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.  There is no national security implication from disclosure of this report.  Another day and my decision to stop practicing in the military joke, er–justice arena validated again.

  5. Dew_Process says:

    Charlie, you’re 100% right.  What I want to know is:
     
    1)  Who is the Classification Authority?
     
    2)  Who delegated that authority to the purported Classification Authority?
     
    3)  Where are the unclassified “Classification Guidelines” used for classifying this report?
     
    Anyone who has anythingpending involving anything at USACIL, should be filing a specific Bradydemand for a copy of this Report, especially if you currently possess an active clearance!

  6. Charlie Gittins says:

    What he said!  Good questions.  Somebody should feed them to a friendly reporter, like Marisa. 

  7. Tami says:

    Or you can submit a FOIA request and see what the response is….  If it truly is “classified,” they have to say that in their denial letter.

  8. Phil Cave says:

    Charlie,
    Marisa & Mike at McClatchey have a FOIA request in right now.
    They are on it.
    And yes, what DP said.