The Unrestricted Coast Guard Chronicles (UCGC) are a series of bio epics of interesting and sometimes strange events in the lives of Coast Guard personnel. They contain information about the Coast Guard, its Roles and Missions, including biographies, and histories of nautical subjects.
The founder is Judge London Steverson, United States Administrative Law Judge (Retired), and LCDR, USCG (Retired).
Showing posts with label UnifiedServices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UnifiedServices. Show all posts
This is the Story of Lieutenant Colonel Lance Annicelli, United States
Air Force. It is told in the first person in his own words. No one could
tell his story better. What comes across in his telling of this
unbelievable nightmare is his decency, compassion, and plain speaking.
This is also a shocking story. It is frank and honest but with an under
tone of anger. It cuts against the grain; it strains credulity. It is
one of many similar stories being told concerning the purge of the
American military senior officer corps during the period between 2008
and 2016.
(Cadet 1/C Michael Shermot, USCG, pictured above.)
Cadet 1/C Michael Shermot, USCG was charged with sexual assault by impairment, meaning
the alleged victim was unable to consent. His court-martial was held in Norfolk, Va.
Cadet Shermot was suspended from the corps of cadets on Dec. 29, 2015. He
was a member of the wrestling team and a native of Shillington, Pa.,
according to the academy’s athletics website.
He faces up to 30 years in prison, dismissal from the Coast Guard and total forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The alleged assault occurred in Westchester, Pa., sometime between Sept. 4 and 5 of 2015, according to Santos, a Coast Guard spokesman.
The Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) became involved in the case
after a civil investigation was started by local police in Westchester.
After concerns were made about Cadet Shermot’s military status and some of
the witnesses involved in the case, the decision was made to have the
Coast Guard take over jurisdiction of the case, said Lt. Cmdr. Rob
Stiles, a legal instructor at the academy.
LCDR Stiles was previously the chief of military justice for the Coast Guard Legal Service Command.
Cadet Shermot was been reassigned to the Coast Guard’s yard in Baltimore,
Md., while he awaited court-martial. He was assigned work that is
comparable to what a lower-grade enlisted member does.
Because the military has much more control over the movements of its
members, pretrial confinement is usually not used unless the person is a
flight risk or poses an imminent threat, Stiles said. THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN MILITARY JUSTICE, ONLY PUNISHMENT. https://www.amazon.com/Court-martial-Webster-Smith-Last-Word-ebook/dp/B01GZL6XR6/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8
The Uniform Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) specifically requires active
duty personnel to follow all applicable rules of military conduct,
whether on or off duty, or on or off base. Furlough, a temporary leave
of absence from the military, does not change this Rule.
The UCMJ is federal law and as such, is not enforced by civilian law
enforcement. The UCMJ is instead enforced by federal officers and
federal military courts. This has practical implications for
enforcement, especially because local law enforcement may not be aware
of certain proscriptions on military life. Further, local police have no
direct legal authority for enforcing breaches of the UCMJ.
Many crimes under the UCMJ such as murder, rape or robbery, are defined
the same way as they are in a civilian court. If a solider commits a
crime off-base, and is caught by local law enforcement, the solider will
still be under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. The soldier will be tried
for their crime in the military courts.
The military justice system also enforces crimes under the UCMJ that are
outside the realm of the civilian courts. However, this does not mean
that local law enforcement is required to enforce these UCMJ provisions
when a soldier is off-base. For example, the UCMJ prohibits certain
adulterous conduct by active military members. This means that if an
active military member is caught engaging in adulterous conduct, even if
they are off-base, they may be still be subject to military law. If
an off-base soldier engages in adulterous conduct, local law enforcement
does not have the responsibility of charging the solider with the
breach of the UCMJ. Law enforcement may inform the military that the
off-base solider breached the UCMJ, however, they are not obligated to.
Further, civilian agencies may have jurisdiction over some off-base
conduct that they are not required to inform the military of. Domestic
violence incidents are an example of this type of conduct.
The Issue of Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction was settled forever by the Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987). It was a COAST GUARD Case. The
case presented the question whether the jurisdiction of a court-martial
convened pursuant to the UCMJ to try a member of the Armed Forces
depends on the "service-connection" of the offense charged. It does not, and the decision in O'Callahan v. Parker, 395 U. S. 258 (1969) is overrule! The
petitioner Richard Solorio, USCG was on active duty in the 17th CG
Dist, Juneau, Alaska. He sexually abused two young daughters of fellow Coast
Guardsmen. He engaged in this abuse over a 2-year period until he was transferred by the CG Base Governors Island, NY. He later committed similar sexual abuse offenses while stationed in New York. He
was charged with 14 specifications alleging indecent liberties,
lascivious acts, and indecent assault in violation of U.C.M.J., Art.
134, 10 U.S.C. § 934, 6 specifications alleging assault in violation of
Art. 128, 10 U.S.C. § 928, and 1 specification alleging attempted rape
in violation of Art. 80, 10 U.S.C. § 880. The specifications alleged to
have occurred in Alaska included all of the Article 128 and Article 80
specifications and 7 of the Article 134 specifications.
The CO convened a general court-martial to try Solorio. There is no "base" or "post" where Coast Guard personnel live and work in Juneau. The offenses were committed in his privately owned home. The the fathers of the 10-12-year-old victims were active duty members of the CG assigned to the same command as Solorio. The NY offenses involved daughters of fellow Coasties; they were committed in Government quarters on the Governors Island. Solorio
moved to dismiss the charges for crimes committed in Alaska on the
ground that the court lacked jurisdiction.
Ruling that the Alaska
offenses were not sufficiently "service-connected" to be tried in the
military criminal justice system, the court-martial judge granted the
motion to dismiss. The Government appealed.
The Court of Military Appeals
reversed stating that "not every off-base offense against a
servicemember's dependent is service-connected," but "sex offenses
against young children . . . have a continuing effect on the victims and
their families, and ultimately on the morale of any military unit or
organization to which the family member is assigned." The test for
jurisdiction . . . is one of status, namely, whether the accused in the
court-martial proceeding is a person who can be regarded as falling
within the term 'land and naval Forces.' . . ." Military jurisdiction has always been based on the "status" of the accused, rather than on the nature of the offense. Military
courts have identified numerous categories of offenses requiring
specialized analysis of the service-connection requirement. For example,
the courts have highlighted subtle distinctions among offenses
committed on a military base, offenses committed off-base, offenses
arising from events occurring both on and off a base, and offenses
committed on or near the boundaries of a base, and other jurisdictional
factors, such as the status of the victim of the crime, and the results
are difficult to reconcile. DISSENTING OPINION: The limitations may not, in the view of the majority, be desirable, but that does not mean they do not exist. The
requirement of service-connection recognized in O'Callahan has a
legitimate basis in constitutional language, and a solid historical
foundation. It should be applied in this case. Application of the
service-connection requirement of O'Callahan, as further elaborated in
Relford v. Commandant, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, 401 U. S. 355 (1971),
demonstrates that petitioner's Alaska crimes do not have an adequate
service-connection to support the exercise of court-martial
jurisdiction. Petitioner's offenses did not detract from the performance
of his military duties. He committed these crimes while properly absent
from his unit, and there was no connection between his assigned duties
and his crimes. Nor did petitioner's crimes threaten people or areas
under military control. The crimes were committed in petitioner's
private home in the civilian community in Juneau, where there is not
even a base for Coast Guard personnel. Petitioner's acts were not likely
to go unpunished; the court-martial judge determined that the offenses
were of a type traditionally prosecuted by civilian courts, that such
courts were available, and that, while the Alaska courts had deferred
prosecution in light of the court-martial proceeding, the State had not
declined to prosecute the offenses. Nor did the crimes implicate any
authority stemming from the war power; they were committed within the
territorial United States while the Nation was at peace.
Moreover, the crimes caused no measurable interference with military
relationships. Though the victims were dependents of Coast Guard
members, the court-martial judge found that there was only de minimis
military interaction between petitioner and the fathers of the victims,
and that the relationships between petitioner and the families of the
victims "were founded primarily upon the ages and activities of the
children, and additionally upon common sporting interests, common
spousal interest, and employment and neighborly relationships," rather
than the connection of petitioner and the families through the Coast
Guard. Because the crimes did not take place in an area within military
control or have any effect on petitioner's military duties, their
commission posed no challenge to the maintenance of order in the local
command. The military judge found that the Government had not
demonstrated any impact of the offenses on "morale, discipline, [or] the
reputation or the integrity of the Coast Guard in Juneau." The only
connection between the military and the offenses at issue was the fact
that the victims were military dependents. But the military judge found
explicitly that the military association of petitioner and the victims'
fathers did not facilitate petitioner's crimes, and that "[t]he impact
apparent in this case, that is, on the parents and the victims
themselves, is no different than that which would be produced by
civilian perpetrator."
Army Maj. Gen. David Haight had been relieved from a key post in
Europe after determining he had misused government resources while
having an extramarital affair
WASHINGTON
— Army Maj. Gen. David Haight, Army Ranger, decorated combat veteran
and family man, held a key post in Europe this spring and a future with
three, maybe four stars.
He also led a double life: an 11-year
affair and a “swinger lifestyle” of swapping sexual partners that put
him at risk of blackmail and espionage, according to interviews and
documents. Jennifer Armstrong, 49, a government employee, said she and
Haight had been involved in the torrid love affair that began more than
10 years ago in Baghdad and ended this spring. Badly.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/24/new-details-show-how-swinger-army-generals-double-life-cost-him-his-career/89220810/
His
secret discovered, Haight was investigated by the Army inspector
general, who issued a report in April, and fired him in May from his job
running operations and plans at U.S. European Command,
the Pentagon’s front-line bulwark against Russia. The Army hauled him
back to Washington, reprimanded him based on an internal investigation
and put him a placeholder job awaiting retirement. A board will
determine the rank that he last served honorably. A demotion to colonel
or lower would cost him tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Haight's
removal from European Command was not disclosed. It was first revealed
in July by USA TODAY, which received the Army inspector general's report
Wednesday after a Freedom of Information Act request.
Armstrong,
who told USA TODAY in interviews that the relationship began with a
flirty email and ended after assignations with multiple partners at
swingers’ clubs, hotels and her home, says Haight had promised a future
together. “I gave him the best years of my life,” she said.
In a
statement issued after news of his reprimand broke, Haight vowed to work
with Army investigators untangling his dark, off-duty life.
"I am
truly sorry for the pain I have caused my wife and family," Haight said
in a second statement Wednesday. "On their behalf, I ask that their
privacy be respected during this difficult time."
Security risks
How
Haight, the married father of four adult children who has held a
succession of increasingly influential jobs, maintained his
intimate secret is unclear. His superiors promoted him three times since
his affair with Armstrong began. Screeners of officials for security
clearances — particularly those trusted with access to the nation’s most
sensitive information like Haight — scrutinize financial and family
stability to guard against vulnerability to bribes or blackmail.
If
an adversary such as Russia had learned of Haight’s affair and sexual
adventures, he would have been a prime target to blackmail, said four
senior government officials who were not authorized to speak publicly
about the matter. Russia, one of the officials said, aggressively
intercepts telephone calls. An investigative report showed that from
June to November 2015 Haight used his government cellphone to make 84
private calls for more than 1,400 minutes of conversation. Further,
testimony showed that Haight frequently left his office in Stuttgart, Germany, because it was in a building designed for secure communication, a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF.
At European Command, he was in charge of the military’s plans and operations to confront Russia’s increasing aggression in Eastern Europe.
"When
MG Haight disappeared and someone need to get a hold of him, (name
redacted) knew to check the hallway, outside of the SCIF, where he was
usually on his cellphone," the report notes.
Haight, in his job overseeing operations at European Command and previously as a top aide to Adm. Mike Mullen,
the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would have had access
to the most sensitive national security information. Indeed, Haight was
a key adviser to Mullen at the time of the 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden and during the peak of the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.
Haight’s
case also underscores the military’s continuing problem with misconduct
among its most senior officers. In November, Defense Secretary Ash Carter abruptly fired his senior military adviser, Army Lt. Gen. Ron Lewis
for allegations of personal misconduct still under investigation; the
Pentagon inspector general continues to investigate Lewis. In March, the
Air Force fired one of its top officers, Lt. Gen. John Hesterman, after
investigators determined that he had sent sexually suggestive emails to
a married female officer. And the Navy continues to investigate a slew
of commanders ensnared in the “Fat Leonard” bribery scandal in which
they traded secret information about ship movements for prostitutes and
other blandishments to enrich Glenn Defense Marine Asia and its flamboyant owner “Fat Leonard” Glenn Francis.
A
senior Army official indicated that incidents of misconduct are rare
among its 1,000 senior leaders. Less than 6% of allegations made against
senior leaders were substantiated in fiscal year 2015, said the
official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because officials were
not authorized to comment publicly. Haight was removed promptly,
reprimanded and effectively forced to retire after the allegations
against him were substantiated, the official said.
How it began
The
inspector general's report dates the affair to Feb. 12, 2005,
when Armstrong was working as a contractor in Iraq handling the remains
of combat fatalities. Smitten after seeing Haight at a base, she emailed
every David Haight in the Army directory, saying that he had a
“terrific smile.” Eventually, she found the right Haight — Lt.
Col. David B. Haight, commander of the 2nd Ranger Battalion, elite troops who accompanied commandos on sensitive, dangerous raids. Haight is also a distant relation of an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Haight eventually responded to Armstrong’s email, and they hit it off.
Haight’s
honesty and sociability were attractive, she said. But he had a “hard
part,” a mark left by the war. They quickly became romantic, and he
promised her they would spend their lives together after he left the
military, she said.
Armstrong’s account of their affair is backed
up by emails she said the two shared, indicating trysts involving other
women, other couples and encounters with strangers at swingers’ clubs.
However, Armstrong also misrepresented her educational background in the
interview. She claimed to have a nursing degree from the University of California at San Diego. A check there revealed she did not, prompting Armstrong to claim a degree from California State University San Marcos. She does not. Records also show that she has twice declared bankruptcy, including last year in Virginia.
Armstrong's
name is redacted in the Army inspector general's report about Haight.
But she identified herself to USA TODAY as his longtime girlfriend and
swinging companion.
Armstrong provided copies of emails from
Haight’s official military account that show their relationship
continued into 2015. One of the emails in December 2010 has explicit
sexual chatter, and shows him asking about the availability of another
woman for a tryst. The report also shows that Haight and Armstrong
exchanged other emails with references to types of sexual activity. "I
love hearing about women who like and giggle about (oral sex)," he wrote
in a September 2012 email cited by the inspector general.
Their
relationship, however, wasn’t all about sex. Armstrong furnished a copy
of a handwritten letter from Haight who encouraged her while she fought
breast cancer. She also bears a tattoo with his name on it.
Their
affair continued through his postings, including at the Pentagon. The
two lived not far from each other in Northern Virginia, and Haight
stopped at her house most nights after work before going to his own
home, she said.
Armstrong found partners for the couple, and email
on his military account shows that he asked after them and their
availability. These encounters took place for about a year when Haight
asked Armstrong whether she wanted to involve men. “Do you want another
guy?” She declined.
Soon, a friend suggested that they should go
to a club where members engage in sex with strangers. They went to clubs
in Baltimore and near the Army War College in Carlisle Barracks,
Pa., Armstrong said. They visited others when he traveled, including
Tampa and Atlanta where they were almost recognized by another soldier
when Haight was the Army’s Chief of Infantry, she said. Armstrong has
also recognized other swingers at the Pentagon when her job took her
there, she said.
The inspector general's report refers to
testimony that indicates Armstrong and Haight "visited swingers' clubs
while he was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia." Haight was assigned to Benning from July 2012 to October 2013.
They
also had “parties” at Armstrong’s house. Some of the sex parties were
arranged with partners through emails pinged back and forth to find
convenient times. She described the sex as “non-emotional intimacy.”
There were no drugs or alcohol involved, she said.
She and Haight
knew their relationship and “alternative lifestyle” put him at risk of
being blackmailed. But they felt they were discreet enough — his face
did not appear on their online profile for Swing Life Style’s website
— that he would not be recognized.
In one December 2011 email attributed to Haight, he asked Armstrong whether Tabu Social Club
in Maryland was open the night of “22/23 Dec?” Tabu is a members-only
club in Maryland whose web site touts it as “Where Sexy Adults Come and
Play.” Haight at the time was deputy director of the Joint Staff’s
efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Erotic
photos were shared among those in the swinging community. They didn’t
stay there, however. Some of the photos were emailed to USA TODAY.
How it ended
Haight’s trajectory in the Army had been ever upward after graduating from the Army ROTC program at Brigham Young University
and commissioning as a second lieutenant in 1986, according to his
EUCOM biography. He graduated from the Army’s Ranger school and would go
on to command its elite platoons and battalions in combat in Panama,
Iraq and Afghanistan.
In January 2009, he commanded the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division
in a restive part of eastern Afghanistan. Successful command of a
brigade is a key steppingstone to the highest reaches of the Army’s
ranks.
It also earned him a coveted spot in June 2010 as a top aide to Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Haight
parlayed that position — all the while conducting his extramarital
affair and swinging — to become commandant of the Army’s School of
Infantry at Fort Benning and promotion to brigadier general in 2013.
News clips from the time show him crediting his wife and family for
supporting him. His wife Bonnie told the Ledger Enquirer of Columbus, Ga., that his career had seen them move 15 times, uprooting their four children from their friends.
The
story added that outside the Army, Haight was most proud of his family.
We “provided well and raised our four fabulous children that have all
been successful contributors to society,” Haight said. “They turned out
to be much better children than I was a father.”
With one star, he
became deputy commander of U.S. and NATO forces in eastern
Afghanistan. In Pentagon parlance, Haight had checked all the boxes for
professional and personal accomplishment.
His last post, as a
two-star officer, saw him heading plans and operations for U.S. European
Command. EUCOM ihas responsibility for key Middle East allies Israel
and Turkey.
In 2015, anonymous tips about Haight’s extramarital
affairs were brought to the Pentagon’s inspector general. Ultimately,
the Army’s inspector general took the case. The Army ordered Haight to
sever contact with Armstrong. Investigators interviewed her and others
and substantiated allegations that he had "had an affair and lived a
'swinger lifestyle.' " Investigators also determined that he had spent
nearly 24 hours on his government cellphone and sent more than 800
emails on his military computer to Armstrong.
Haight, the report noted, declined to testify or answer questions provided through his attorney.
The
letter of reprimand effectively ended his 30-year career. A board will
determine his retirement rank. A clean record could have earned Haight
as much nearly $123,000 in his first year of retirement. If he’s busted
back to colonel, his pay could drop to about $98,000.
Tom Vanden Brook
