Ray Hrdlicka – Host – Attorneys.Media
Welcome to Part 4 of Save the Sailors Career
Let’s do a quick recap. Do we let stand….do we allow….. the actions of two Navy Commands, who denied a sailor’s constitutional right, the 5th amendment, Due Process, to speak to an attorney? Who punished that sailor far greater than any of the other students, simply because he asked to speak to an attorney? Who purposely chose to destroy that sailor’s future career because he asked to exert his constitutional right.
And when described as clearly as that, you have to ask yourself….what is going on with these two military commands? As I’ve said before, if our military service members and even our citizens have their constitutional rights trampled, at will, by persons in authority…where do we really live? In the USA…. or a version of Russia or China or North Korea. Where does the abuse of the Constitution stop?
In Part One, Two, and Three, we started by laying the foundation why Grant was accepted into the United States Naval Academy. We described the common violation…common violation that more than a dozen students committed during the school year at the Naval Academy Preparatory School, two with near exact violations.
Then, we’ve detailed the blatant constitutional violation by Command, promising more punishment if an attorney is involved. We’ve also detailed the extreme disparity between disciplinary actions towards Grant versus those…more than a dozen other students with similar violations. Again, because he asked to exert his 5th amendment right and talk to an attorney.
We’ve also illuminated the actions of NAPS command, the Naval Academy Preparatory School, at the disciplinary hearing, where a pre-determined outcome was decided, ignoring all the supporting character statements about leadership and military commitment.
Now, let’s talk about the appeal process for the disciplinary action. It’s the same as in a civilian legal action, either civil or criminal. The ONLY information included in the appeal are the actual documents submitted in the original hearing and results of that hearing. Nothing more. Remember that. Nothing more is to be included. That statement should give you a hint that TWO Commands violated that process.
Here is how the Naval Academy Preparatory School appeal process works. It is formalized in Navy Regulations. NAPS 1610.1G section 3.8. Let’s see what that section says, verbatim:
1. A summary of the CO’s hearing will be prepared.
2. A memorandum recommending separation will be prepared and forwarded to the Superintendent….(referring to the Superintendent of the United States Naval Academy, Admiral Sean Buck)…and include the basis for the recommendation. All documents relied upon during the hearing by the CO including a record of the CO’s hearing will be forwarded with the CO’s memorandum.
3. A copy of the CO’s memorandum and all enclosures will be provided to the Midshipman Candidate BEFORE the matter is forwarded to the Superintendent for review and action.
4. The Candidate may elect to appeal the CO’s recommendation to separate from NAPS. The Candidate then has five working days to submit their appeal, as outlined in paragraph 3-3, b. via their COC…..(which means chain of command.)
Okay, so there’s how the process is supposed to work. A summary is made, a memorandum is prepared, everything going to the Superintendent is packaged, right? And then a copy is provided to the Midshipman Candidate, right? And then the Midshipman Candidate has five days to submit an appeal, right?……..WRONG! That is NOT what happened. THREE violations of these regulations were committed by Navy personnel.
First, NO COPY of that complete submission was provided to Grant. Nothing was given to Grant, either hardcopy or in digital form. More about this issue in a moment. The other violation that subsequently came to light is the inclusion of BRAND NEW FALSE information that was presented to the Superintendent with the hearing package. We will detail this violation in a moment also.
But let’s step back a moment to the preparation of Grant’s appeal, which is where the THIRD violation committed by Navy personnel occurred. After the CO’s hearing, Grant emails the Legal Officer the following email:
“Do you know if the CO has finished writing the memorandum to the superintendent? I want to see what he wrote so I know what I may need to address in my appeal in addition to the facts of the case. Also after reading the section in the regs about separation, It states I will be provided with a copy of the memorandum and then have five working days to respond if I choose to do so. Is that correct? The section is 3.8 in the conduct manual. Thank You.”
As you can see, that email explicitly follows the NAPS regulation 3.8 as we previously showed you. The Legal Officers reply email FAILS to address the question Grant submitted:
“You need to drop by admin today and elect to appeal your disenrollment on the official letter. Reminder that your appeal for disenrollment from NAPS is due to the Superintendent on Friday, as is any appeal you want to make of the punishment awarded at NJP. Let me know if you have any questions.”
So after receiving this email, Grant attempted to get clarification from his direct chain of command. Grant’s request for clarification went up the chain of command and the Legal Officer sent Grant another email later that same day:
1. “The CO has extended the deadline for your appeal until Monday. Apparently PS1, (Grant’s direct supervisor) talked to him after your conversation with her earlier today. No need to request it in writing.
2. While the CO will entertain you seeing his endorsement of your appeal, he won’t do so until your appeal is submitted. His endorsement is just that, an endorsement on correspondence from you to the Superintendent, via him. It makes sense that he’d need to see that correspondence before writing an endorsement. If you want to know what the Superintendent will be considering when reviewing your case, look at the investigation and all other evidence presented during NJP. “
That’s right….you read those words correctly. The CO, under the “auspices” of an endorsement, is sending a document to the Superintendent THAT YOU CANNOT SEE! An endorsement, really? It doesn’t matter what you call it…it’s an action in violation of Navy regulations. It’s an action contrary to civilian legal doctrine regarding appeals. And calling it an endorsement? Really? The CO just handed down disciplinary action in the hearing and now is going to write an endorsement for the appeal? How ridiculous is that on its face?
And remember that last sentence? “If you want to know what the Superintendent will be considering….look at the evidence presented”…that statement is explicitly contrary to the prior sentence! We are NOT going to let you see a document, NOT going to GIVE you a complete copy of everything submitted for the appeal, but you can believe us when we tell you that the Superintendent will use the evidence previously presented. Receiving a copy of whatever documents are submitted is supposed to confirm what is being used, to prevent more information unknowingly added, but that’s not what happened here.
Now here’s a preview of Part 5. As you can probably guess, that was not the truth. By the Superintendents own words, he received additional information outside of the appeal package, which was blatantly false information….LIES….and confirmed he made his decision based on those LIES, to deny Grant’s appeal.
But I jumped ahead to the next chapter. Let’s step back to the appeal process.
So now Grant prepares his appeal submission. As you recall in Part 3, we told you about another Midshipman Candidate charged with nearly the exact same violation in a Captain Mast also. Received shorter restriction time than Grant. Received shorter loss of privileges time than Grant. Also recommended for separation/no appointment to the Naval Academy.
Now, that sailor simply submitted a ONE page appeal with no supporting documents. No character reference statements, no additional awards or commendations. We have that appeal. And it says what it should say. I screwed up. I made a mistake. I will do better. That mistake does not reflect who I am. Please don’t allow that singular mistake derail my career, let me go to the Naval Academy. And as you may remember from Part 3, after 60 days of deliberation, the Superintendent of the Naval Academy, Admiral Sean Buck, granted that appeal, and that sailor was admitted to the Naval Academy in May 2022.
Now, to me, that process seems to be appropriate corrective disciplinary action. You made a mistake. You broke the rules. You’re going to get disciplined. We’re going to make you jump through hoops. But we’re not going to derail your career as an Naval Academy commissioned officer.
And that makes sense, considering the Navy DID NOT meet its officer recruiting goals in 2022. Not even close. In fact, recently, the Navy has raised the maximum enlistment age to 41 years old in order to help meet its 2023 goals.
Back to Grant’s appeal submission. Given the positive blueprint of that other sailor with the appeal process, Grant prepares his submission. A three-page appeal. In addition to….taking responsibility for his mistake…does not reflect who he is….will learn from his mistake……Grant details his path to the Naval Academy. Graduating from NNPTC, which is the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command….Nuke School…arguably the most difficult academic program in the military…a diploma with distinction in the first of the three schools…included as an enclosure. Two recommendation letters from officer staff at the third school, Prototype, describing Grant’s work ethic…finishing a full month ahead of the progress curve, ahead of hundreds of fellow students. Also included as enclosures. And lastly, a commendation letter from the Captain at his prior duty station, a submarine in Hawaii, and an award from his Chief from that same boat. Two more enclosures.
Grant submits the appeal. A week later, we learn the appeal was denied. And we learn it was denied after just a single day review. One day. Superintendent Admiral Sean Buck issued the denial one day after submission. The previous appeal review process took 60 days. Why? What was different?
In Part 5, we will detail how Superintendent Admiral Sean Buck’s own words inadvertently admit to violations of those previous detailed Navy regulations. We will describe how those violations were designed to punish Grant, to destroy his future career, rather than corrective disciplinary action. And tell you about one additional, a 4th, violation of those Navy regulations.
Go to our petition page at Attorneys.Media/SaveTheSailor. Sign your name to the appropriate petition, retired/former military, donors to the USNA, lawyers, elected officials-staff, and the general public. Show your support to correct the actions of those few people, military personnel in command authority, who not only abuse their rank, but violate the Constitution and other areas in our nations rule of law.
See you in Part 5
English 
Español de México