Air Force General Puts Sexual Assault Case Documents Online

Posted on April 12, 2013 by

Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin appears as if he’s not going to go down without a fight when it comes to allegations by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and others that he was wrong to dismiss a sexual assault conviction against Lt. Col. James H. Wilkerson III.

Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin, USAF

Today, the Third Air Force commander who served as convening authority in the case against Colonel Wilkerson made a plethora of case-related documents available to visitors on the Air Force Freedom of Information Act website.

Collectively referred to as the Record of Trial, the list of documents includes all pre-trial, trial and post-trial documents as well as a link to the six-page letter (pdf) General Franklin voluntarily wrote to Secretary of the Air Force Michael B. Donley — which I referenced in an article published Thursday — appears on the site.

Is this an unprecedented move by a convening authority? I don’t know for sure. It is, however, a bold move by a general officer who seems to be focused on doing what’s right instead of doing whether it takes to earn a fourth star. For that, I salute you, General Franklin.

Read more about this case and others I’ve highlighted in my series, DoD’s War on Men.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice, a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com. It chronicles the life and wrongful conviction of Army Green Beret Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart. His second book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, is coming soon.

Senator McCaskill Continues Reckless Effort to Undermine Military Justice System

Posted on April 11, 2013 by

The military justice system is bad enough without people like Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) trying to make it worse.

Click to read other articles in series, DoD’s War on Men.

On Wednesday, the liberal senior senator from the Show-Me State used a news release to share her feelings about a letter in which Air Force Lt. Gen. Craig A. Franklin explained to Secretary of the Air Force Michael B. Donley his decision to overturn the guilty verdict issued by members of a court-martial panel in a sexual assault case at Aviano Air Base, Italy. Interestingly, the liberal senator did not include a copy of the letter in her release. Why? Because it doesn’t support the position she’s espoused during the past five weeks as a combatant in DoD’s War on Men.

Lt. Col. James H. Wilkerson III

Before I delve into the content of the March 12 letter written by General Franklin, commander of Third Air Force and the convening authority in the case of Lt. Col. James H. Wilkerson III, a review of the battles in this war is in order.

In a post March 7, I shared the full text of the scathing letter in which Senator McCaskill strongly urged Secretary Donley and Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, Chief of Staff of the Air Force to consider removing General Franklin for cause.

A few days later, Senator McCaskill announced she was proposing legislation to curtail the authority of military commanders to override court-martial convictions involving sexual assault charges and publicized the fact that she had met with Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh “to discuss her ongoing efforts to address sexual assaults in the military.” In addition, however, she used another news release to smear the now-innocent Colonel Wilkerson.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)

“Rape is the crime of a coward—and rapists in the ranks are masquerading as real members of our military,” she explained, adding, “The focus of our efforts should be on effective prosecution. There’s no reason a General who’s never heard the testimony of factual witnesses should be able to wipe out a verdict with the stroke of a pen.”

Those words prompted me to demand Senator McCaskill apologize to Colonel Wilkerson for inferring that he was a rapist. In addition to the fact that Colonel Wilkerson had been declared innocent, he had never been accused of rape in the first place!

On April 8, Senator McCaskill announced new Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had bought into her plan to take away commanders’ authority when it comes to courts-martial cases like the one involving Colonel Wilkerson.

Now, back to the Wednesday news release in which Senator McCaskill referred to the letter written by General Franklin to Secretary Donley.

“This explanation crystalizes exactly why the convening authority should not have the unilateral ability to overturn a jury verdict-and why we need legislation that restricts their ability to do so,” the liberal member of the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote. “This letter is filled with selective reasoning and assumptions from someone with no legal training, and it’s appalling that the reasoning spelled out in the letter served as the basis to overturn a jury verdict in this case.”

Was Senator McCaskill right in her analysis of General Franklin’s six-page letter (pdf) to Secretary Donley? You be the judge! Click here or on the graphic below to read it.

Click to read letter (pdf) at Scribd.com.

Next, read the piece I published Monday under the headline, National Defense University Publishes Must-Read Article About Military Sexual Assault. Pay particular attention to the ending, and let me know if you agree with me by leaving a comment below.

UPDATE 4/12/2013 at 1:29 p.m. Central: When I published this piece yesterday, I failed to note how this subject matter has a connection to my soon-to-be-published book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, and makes me think General Franklin might want to read the book. In his letter to SAF Donley, the general noted the following:

“Lt Col Wilkerson voluntarily agreed to take an (Air Force Office of Special Investigations) polygraph examination. I am fully aware of and considered the polygraph results. As you are aware in a criminal investigation, a polygraph is only an investigative tool to assist in the potential focus of the investigation and/or to attempt to elicit admissions of guilt. It is not a “lie detector test,” nor is it “pass” or “fail.” Because of the inherent unreliability of polygraphs, they are entirely inadmissible in a court-martial. Ultimately, Lt Col Wilkerson has consistently maintained his complete innocence — throughout two lengthy OSI interviews, through the entire court-martial, and throughout his nearly four months in prison (following the court-martial and during the post-trial process).”

National Defense University Publishes Must-Read Article About Military Sexual Assault

Posted on April 8, 2013 by

Almost 18 months ago, my book, Three Days In August, went on sale, carrying the true story of Army Green Beret Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart and his unsuccessful battle with the military justice system. More recently, I’ve written eight posts as part of my series, DoD’s War on Men. Today, I point you to a well-written piece, Fostering Constructive Dialogue on Military Sexual Assault by Lindsay L. Rodman. Published in Joint Force Quarterly 69 by National Defense University Press, this piece (see abstract below) is a must-read for anyone interested in this topic:

Click to read full article.

Unrealistically high estimates by DOD officials of sexual assaults in the military, along with hazy definitions and methodologies, have fueled the public discourse on this emotional issue, making it unnecessarily hysterical and obscuring the military’s search for solutions. While the military is expected to maintain a higher standard than society at large, the experience of colleges and universities, whose demographic is roughly the same age as the military’s, should be drawn on. Moreover, an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of criminal law will help draw the debate about the military sexual assault problem away from blaming commanders because they are not always obtaining convictions. The educational and military communities should combine their efforts to find a more holistic solution.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), you should read this and then step down from your agenda-fueled soapbox.

Gun Rights, National Security and Mental Health

Posted on April 5, 2013 by

Especially since the deadly shooting in December at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., efforts to tighten laws on gun ownership have increased in many localities. Some have even pushed to prohibit military veterans from obtaining firearms if they have been treated for any mental health issues — notably, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder related to wartime service. Now, it appears Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. has issued new guidance that makes one wonder, “What was he thinking!”

James R Clapper Jr.

Admittedly, gun ownership — and Second Amendment rights in general — is a topic I never expected to address on this website where I focus on topics related to my soon-to-be-published second nonfiction book, THE CLAPPER MEMO. When I read a news release from DNI Clapper’s office today about new guidance that applies to all executive branch departments and agencies, I couldn’t help but share my concerns in this space.

New security clearance guidance, according to the news release, will support victims of sexual assault who have consulted with a health care professional. In short, DNI Clapper issued the interim guidance which will allow victims of sexual assault who hold or wish to hold a government security clearance to opt out of disclose specific details about their counseling.

What does that mean? It means that individuals who’ve undergone mental health counseling of one kind or another will be able to disclose that fact by answering “Yes” to a question on the test. In turn, they will be able to avoid having to answer some of the background investigation questions.

According to the news release, DNI Clapper’s interim guidance also reaffirms the following:

• Strict enforcement of an individual’s privacy protections. Everyone involved in the personnel security process, including the individual completing the questionnaire, must be fully aware of the guidance and the specific protections it affords individuals.

• All information pertaining to mental health treatment shall be handled on a strict need-to-know basis. Any misuse of the information by investigators, adjudicators, supervisors, or other personnel is punishable under applicable regulations, policies, and privacy laws.

• Improper questions about an individual’s mental health counseling may result in administrative or other appropriate disciplinary action.

So, unless I’m misunderstanding something, the following is true: The federal government, per DNI Clapper, stands willing to grant security clearances to individuals who’ve undergone mental health counseling without knowing the nature, reason for, or scope of that counseling; and, at the same time, they want to take away gun ownership rights from veterans who have undergone mental health counseling of virtually any sort. Something’s wrong with this picture!

What if a woman who has undergone some kind of serious mental health counseling applies for a position which will require her, as part of her everyday duties, to carry a firearm. If everything else checks out, it appears she could land the position despite the possibility that the mental health issue(s) for which she received counseling could make her more likely to compromise national security secrets. Meanwhile, a veteran who’s simply trying to return to the “new normal” after serving in combat could have his Constitutional right to own firearms rescinded — perhaps, for life. Yes, something is very wrong with this picture!

Someone needs to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee before things spiral out of control even more.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) applauded DNI Clapper’s work in a news release I received via email today. No surprise, though. She seems to be on the wrong side of a lot of issues, including DoD’s War on Men.

UPDATE 4/8/2013 at 6:48 p.m. Central: It seems Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has bought into Sen. Claire McCaskill’s bad plan to take away commanders’ authority when it comes to courts-martial. Here’s a link to Hagel’s latest action.

Timing Is Everything When Fighting DoD’s War on Men

Posted on March 30, 2013 by

The timing of a news release by officials at Fort Bragg, N.C., appears to represent a new type of game being played in the Department of Defense’s War on Men.

Click image above to read other posts in the series, DoD’s War on Men.

The announced launch of a new Female Mentorship Program at the sprawling post, home to several large Army organizations, including Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps HQ, the 82nd Airborne Division, and the United States Army Special Operations Command, came only days before pretrial hearings were set to begin in a high-profile case involving allegations of sex crimes against an Army general.

At the center of those hearings is Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair, former deputy commanding general of support with the 82nd Airborne Division and Regional Command-South in Afghanistan. He stands accused of a variety of charges for which he could go to prison for life if found guilty.

So, was the timing of the mentorship program release a coincidence? It doesn’t appear that way.

While the press release announcing the formation of the mentorship program made no reference to General Sinclair, PRWeek reported that Army public information officers at Fort Bragg had sent it over the same list serve designated solely to give updates on legal proceedings against Sinclair, inferring a link between the two issues. When PRWeek inquired about a possible connection, Army officials did not immediately return their call.

While mentoring stands as a proven means of developing new talent in an organization, one worries that what the mentors will be teaching their underlings will only help to further the efforts of those calling the shots in DoD’s War on Men.

Senior Officers Back Supreme Court Brief Filed on Behalf of Lieutenant Michael Behenna

Posted on March 26, 2013 by

Thirty-seven retired high-ranking military officers, including a former Chief of Naval Operations, signed an Amicus Brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 27 in support of Army Ranger 1st Lt. Michael Behenna. An Edmond, Okla., native, Lieutenant Behenna is serving 15-years behind bars at the U.S. Military Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., for killing a known Al-Qaeda operative in Iraq.

Army Ranger 1st Lt. Michael Behenna SCOTUS Amicus Brief

Click image to download document (pdf)

Early on, the 31-page brief raises an important question — that is, whether a servicemember in a combat zone categorically forfeits the right to self-defense as a matter of law by pointing a firearm without authorization at a suspected enemy. In the case of Lieutenant Behenna, he admitted during his court-martial that he shot Ali Mansur in self-defense. And therein lies the rub.

The brief’s conclusion section (below) makes a clear argument, stating that Lieutenant Behenna deserves some punishment, but not what he received, and, more importantly, a new trial:

Lieutenant Behenna’s unauthorized actions in a combat zone were a serious breach of military discipline and for that reason he should be subject to appropriate disciplinary action under the (Uniform Code of Military Justice). But in so acting without authorization, he did not forfeit his right to self-defense. This Court should grant the petition for certiorari, reverse the (Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces), and remand to allow a new court-martial panel to consider Lieutenant Behennas’s claim that he acted in self-defense, including evidence unlawfully withheld by the prosecution corroborating that claim.

At the same time as I’m pleased with this document, I remain disappointed that its authors made no mention of the colossal failure of leadership among officers in Lieutenant Behenna’s chain of command. That failure, a subject I tackled in a post Aug. 20, 2012, allowed him to be put in a position from which nothing good could result.

To read any of the more than 60 posts I’ve written about the lieutenant’s case since June 4, 2009, click here.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Lieutenant Behenna and Army Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart, the man whose life story is chronicled in my book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice, became good friends behind bars at Fort Leavenworth.

Navy Sacrifices Officer to Appease Members of Congress

Posted on March 21, 2013 by

Imagine yourself in the shoes of a veteran Navy officer who, while old enough to retire, decides to stay on active duty because people in your vital career field are in short supply during time of war. Then something awful surfaces; a female sailor accuses you of doing something to her, but she cannot remember any details.

Click on the image above to read other posts about DoD’s War on Men.

An Article 32 investigation is conducted to determine whether formal charges should be drawn up, and the officer in charge of the investigation recommends against moving forward with charges and always-ugly court-martial proceedings. Why? Because, he reports, the accuser is simply not credible.

Just as you begin to breathe a sigh of relief, your world turns upside down. Rejecting the investigating officer’s recommendation, senior Navy officials opt to prosecute you, a trial takes place, and you are convicted of sexual assault-related charges by a panel comprised of military members overloaded with training on what constitutes sexual assault. Among the “lessons” they learned was this: “If a female has a single drink of alcohol she is unable to give consent, but if the male is drunk, it’s simply regrettable sex.”

Before you know it, you’re behind bars in a military prison and trying to come to grips with being branded a sex offender for the remainder of your life — if, that is, your appeals fail.

Unbelievable? Hardly.

That’s what happened to the husband of a Navy wife who contacted me almost six months ago after reading the life story of Army Green Beret Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart, chronicled in my book, Three Days In August.

NOTE: Because her husband’s case is still in the appeals process, she has asked me not to reveal names via which she and her husband might be identified. Why? Because her husband has already been made an example by Navy leaders, and she doesn’t want his case impacted further if she can prevent it.

Today, the Navy officer’s wife forwarded copies of several letters which combine to prove that Navy officials have merely acted as foot soldiers in the Department of Defense War on Men.

In the first letter, written to R.R. Lamoureux, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, via J.A. Riehl, director of the Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards, members of the Navy Clemency and Parole Board (NC&PB) wrote, among other things, that they voted unanimously to recommend parole. In keeping with military justice guidelines, their recommendation was based upon whether or not the convicted officer was likely to offend again.

Two weeks later, Riehl wrote a letter to accompany the one sent by the NC&PB to Lamoureux.

“I do not concur with the Naval Clemency & Parole Board’s recommendation for parole,” Riehl stated, before going on to say that the convicted officer’s “offenses involving the sexual assault of a fellow sailor represent a significant departure from the conduct expected of a naval officer particularly in light of departmental efforts to eliminate the rash of sailor-on-sailor assaults that have plagued the military and generated significant concern among members of Congress and the general public.”

Six weeks later, Robert T. Cali, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (M & RA), wrote a memo to the president of the Naval Clemency & Parole Board, stating that the officer’s request for clemency and parole had been disapproved.

Of course, there are many more details to this case which, one day, I will be at liberty to disclose. Meanwhile, shame on Navy leaders for allowing self-centered concerns of members of Congress to outweigh military justice for a man who devoted his life to serving his country. Stay tuned!

Did DoD’s War on Men Claim Another Victim?

Posted on March 19, 2013 by

Though I’m not yet at liberty to disclose the name of a U.S. Army Soldier who appears to have become yet another victim of the Department of Defense War on Men, I feel compelled to share troubling details about his recent conviction on sexual assault charges that were shared with me by his father during a phone call today.

Click on the image above to read other posts about DoD’s War on Men.

In short, the father told me he had received signed letters from two members of the five-member court-martial panel — the military version of a jury — who had sat in judgment over his son during legal proceedings last year. In their letters, both panel members described how they had voted against convicting the man’s son. In addition, both described having been pressured to render a guilty convict by Army officials who wanted to make an example of the accused Soldier so as to discourage other Soldiers from committing sexual assaults in the future.

The father told me he will forward copies of those letters to me for dissemination to my readers if his son’s defense attorney thinks it a good idea during a time when they are moving forward with the appeals process. In other words, no guarantees. Stay tuned!

DoD War on Men: Comparing Messages Sent by Accusers

Posted on March 15, 2013 by

Today, as part of my continuing series about the Department of Defense War on Men, I compare the handling of evidence in military court-martial cases to the handling of similar evidence during the prosecution of a civilian sexual assault case making news in ~~West Virginia~~ Ohio.

ABC News broadcast a story today about the case of two Steubenville, Ohio ~~W.Va.~~, high school football players who stand accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl while she was drunk at an “alcohol-fueled party” the night of Aug. 11, 2012. If the report is reliable, then it appears prosecutors will rely heavily upon text messages and mobile phone photos exchanged by party attendees — and, perhaps, others — as they pursue guilty verdicts against the 16- and 17-year-old boys who stand accused.

Kelly Stewart returns from a mission in Iraq.

Army Green Beret Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart, the man whose life story and wrongful conviction are chronicled in my book, Three Days In August, probably would have benefited from having members of his court-martial panel made aware of some text messages sent by his accuser. But it didn’t happen. Instead, the highly-decorated combat veteran was convicted of a handful of sexual assault-related crimes and sentenced to eight years confinement at the U.S. Military Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Several months later, however, Sergeant Stewart’s defense team had the rare opportunity to present new testimony during a post-trial hearing in Germany. During that hearing, many people testified, essentially calling out the 28-year-old German woman who had accused the Solider of raping and kidnapping her in his Stuttgart hotel room as a liar.

Did it get him a new trial? No.

Not even the testimony of Tamara Buehler, a woman who had known the accuser for more than 10 years as a friend, housemate and employer, earned him a new trial. She reported receiving a text message from the accuser within 24 hours of the night she spent with Sergeant Stewart.

In the text message, Buehler said, the accuser described a lecherous night during which she “found my master.” Of course, she took this to mean that there was sex of the sadomasochist type and noted that there was no talk of something happening that the accuser did not like. And that wasn’t all! Buehler also stated that the accuser had claimed her encounter with Sergeant Stewart was “great SEX.”

Incredibly, the military judge ignored the testimony of Buehler and several others who combined to paint a portrait of the accuser as a woman who had had sex with at least two more men between the day she met Sergeant Stewart and the start of the court-martial proceedings. Her testimony takes on additional weight when one realizes the accuser had testified during the trial that she could no longer be around men after her night with the Soldier. More details here.

U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair, the deputy commanding general of support with the 82nd Airborne Division and Regional Command-South, speaks with Afghan media outside of a school near Forward Operating Base Howz-e-Madad in Kandahar, Afghanistan, Nov. 16, 2011. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Amanda Hils/Released)

Now to a more recent case — that of Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair; if he receives the same treatment as Sergeant Stewart, he’s likely to receive an even longer prison sentence.

In what appears to be a smart move, however, General Sinclair’s defense team has gone on the offensive, launching a website, Sinclair Innocence, where one can read important details about the case which, for the most part, seems to be going unreported by mainstream news media outlets.

Under the tab, The Truth Behind the Case, several questions appear along with answers that tilt in favor of the accused general. Two paragraphs from the bottom of the page, links to journal entries and text messages — described as having been sent by the accuser to General Sinclair — appear to reveal much about the consensual nature of their relationship. If genuine, the documents also seem to shed much light on the mental state of the general’s accuser.

While it will be interesting to see how the case of the high school football players turns out, I will be more interested in General Sinclair’s case, hoping to see evidence of fairness and truth in the midst of DoD’s War on Men.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice, a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including Amazon.com. His second book, THE CLAPPER MEMO, is coming soon.

Air Force Officer Owed Apology by Senator Claire McCaskill

Posted on March 13, 2013 by

Six days ago, I asked a question, Is DoD Waging War on Men?, and proceeded to highlight the cases of five members of the U.S. Armed Forces who have faced, or will soon face, prosecution on a variety of charges, with most falling under the “sexual assault” umbrella. The following day, I highlighted U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill’s (D-Mo.) desire to see an Air Force general fired for doing the right thing. Today, I offer another sad update on “Claire Bear” and her inexcusable actions, including the fact that she owes an Air Force officer an apology.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)

On Tuesday, Senator McCaskill announced she is proposing legislation to curtail the authority of military commanders to override court-martial convictions involving sexual assault charges and publicized the fact that she had met with Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh “to discuss her ongoing efforts to address sexual assaults in the military.”

Just after 2 p.m. Central, I received a news release from the liberal Democrat in which she virtually screamed out, “Rape is the crime of a coward—and rapists in the ranks are masquerading as real members of our military” before adding, “The focus of our efforts should be on effective prosecution. There’s no reason a General who’s never heard the testimony of factual witnesses should be able to wipe out a verdict with the stroke of a pen.”

Lt. Col. James H. Wilkerson III

I’m not a lawyer, but it appears Senator McCaskill owes an apology to Air Force Lt. Col. James H. Wilkerson III, the man whose guilty verdict on a sexual assault charge was overturned by Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin, commander of Third Air Force and the convening authority over the case. And she could still face defamation charges afterward!

Upon what do I base my assertion? For starters, the fact that Colonel Wilkerson was never accused of rape by anyone during his prosecution on sexual assault charge at Aviano Air Base, Italy, where he was serving as the 31st Fighter Wing‘s inspector general in November 2012 when he was accused of aggravated sexual assault.

Heck, not even Kim Hanks, the 49-year-old physician’s assistant who took her case public for the first time this morning during a segment broadcast on NBC’s TODAY Show, accused him of rape. So where does Senator McCaskill get off making such slanderous accusation? No doubt, Colonel Wilkerson’s attorneys will ask that question.

Final thought: For anyone, especially residents of the Show-Me State, to claim they’re surprised by Senator McCaskill‘s antics would be disingenuous. Everyone knows she is simply grandstanding and pandering to the far-left in her party. Stay tuned for more as I understand Colonel Wilkerson has hired a very good attorney for Round Two.