Gangs in the US Army Documentary


“It seems like more and more gang members joined in order to get free military training and gain new skills that they can use when they are back in their street gangs. This epidemic of gang members in the US army, marines and even the navy is getting worse. It seems like the background checks aren’t that accurate and can’t always detect who’s legit vs who’s a criminal.”

Related Links:
Gangs infiltrate US military
Gang Activity in the U.S. Military
Gangs Penetrate the US Military
2011 National Gang Threat Assessment
The modern US army: unfit for service?
Military Overlooks the Hate in Its Ranks
Neo-Nazis, gangs and criminals in the US military
In the Army Now: Gangs, Nazis & the Mentally Ill
U.S. Army battling racists within its own ranks
Irregular Army : A Conversation With Matt Kennard
Reports Back Op-Ed Linking Vets to Hate Groups
The US Military Has Become A Haven For Hate Groups
American ISIS: The Domestic Terrorist Fallout of the Iraq War
The US Military Recruited Violent Felons to Support the War Efforts
The FBI Announces Gangs Have Infiltrated Every Branch Of The Military
Military-Trained Gang Members Worry FBI, Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Red, White and Gangs: The problem of street gangs in the military
Sikh temple shooter promoted extremist views during his Army years
Sikh Temple shooter formed White supremacist views in U.S. military
Author: Sikh Temple Massacre is the Outgrowth of Pervasive White Supremacism in U.S. Military Ranks
Matt Kennard presents his new book Irregular Army at the Baltimore Radical Bookfair Pavilion
How Neo-Nazis and Gangs Infiltrated the U.S. Military: Matt Kennard’s ‘Irregular Army’
Irregular Army: How the US Military Recruited Neo-Nazis, Gang Members, and Criminals to Fight the War on Terror
FBI says U.S. criminal gangs are using military to spread their reach (2006)
Criminal Gangs in the Military (2007)
Are Gang Members Using Military Training? (2007)
The Yale Law Journal: Gangs in the Military (2009)

Massachusetts School of Law Interviews Veteran Jennifer Norris About Violent Crime in the Military & Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

Massachusetts School of Law explored violent crime in the military with Jennifer Norris, Military Justice for All, and the impact it has on civilians too. Jennifer talked about her experiences with four different perpetrators within the first two years of her enlisted career, the reporting & adjudication process, and the retaliation that ensued and eventually ended a fifteen year career. Also discussed was the jurisdictional hurdles that arise with a transient population like the military. For example, Jennifer was not able to press charges against one perpetrator because he moved out of state after learning he was getting reported. Another perpetrator was active duty Air Force at Keesler Air Force Base, therefore a state National Guard commander did not have jurisdiction of a federal employee. And finally, although Jennifer was able to move forward with two other cases involving high ranking National Guard members with over eighteen years of service, unlike the civilian world, after the cases were adjudicated, they retired with full military retirement benefits and no public records.

Jennifer also shared that although the Department of Defense downplays violent crime in the military and sexual assault appears to be closely monitored by some female members of Congress, everything is not under control. The crime appears to be escalating. The military doesn’t just have a sexual assault issue, they have a domestic violence and homicide issue as well. They also have a pattern of ruling soldier’s deaths both stateside and overseas as suicides, training accidents, and illness despite families strongly protesting and evidence revealing otherwise. Domestic violence is more likely to lead to homicide and unfortunately the two issues have not been given the attention they deserve because until you do the research yourself and see how many families and communities have been impacted by the crimes, suspicious death, and homicide of a soldier or civilian, you wouldn’t know because Congress and the main stream media do not give it the attention it deserves. Homicide and independent investigations of all suspicious deaths should be given the highest priority not only because people have lost their lives and families deserve answers but because someone needs to be held accountable. We must prevent others from becoming victims of these crimes too.

Jennifer discussed the lasting impacts the crimes and retaliation had on her. Jennifer was empowered after doing all that she could do to protect others from getting harmed by the same people, but her squadron did not see it the same way. After the cases were adjudicated, Jennifer faced hostility from a couple of the perpetrator’s friends and her Chain of Command once she returned back to work. She eventually had to transfer to another squadron. It was the professional and personal retaliation that made her start feeling more intense feelings of anxiety, depression, and even suicidal thoughts. And unfortunately her next squadron wasn’t any more welcoming then the last. She was told shortly after arriving that ‘no female makes it in the satellite communications work center’ and that she was experiencing hostility from her new Chain of Command because the old squadron called and informed them she was a ‘troublemaker.’ The retaliation had a direct impact on her mental health and cemented an already traumatizing experience with further abuse, indifference, and judgement. By the time she got to her third squadron (almost ten years after the first attack), she learned that the Department of Veterans Affairs treated Post Traumatic Stress resulting from military sexual trauma.

After Jennifer informed her third squadron that she was getting help for the PTS at the Department of Veterans Affairs, she was immediately red flagged and asked to leave the squadron until she could produce a note from her doctor giving her permission to be at work. She did this and jumped through the other hoops asked of her in an attempt to save her career but lost confidentiality in the process. Jennifer walked away from her career in the end because she refused to release her VA records for a security clearance investigation. The entire experience not only opened her up to judgement again (simply because she asked for some counseling due to what someone else did) but she had to prove that she was ‘fit for duty’ while the perpetrators were enjoying full military retirement benefits. Jennifer chose a second chance at a civilian career when she refused to release her confidential VA records for her security clearance investigation because she wanted to ensure a future free of a tainted security clearance. It makes zero sense that someone who is a victim of crime be negatively impacted by the crimes of others in yet another way. The hypocrisy of the system is truly revealed when you look at how the perpetrators were let off the hook but the victim of crime loses their military career because they had the strength to first report and then eventually ask for help.

Top Ten Problems with the National Guard Recruiting Assistance Program (G-RAP) Investigations

the-constitution-was-written-very-precisely-to-restrain-the-power-and-force-of-government-and-to-protect-the-liberties-of-each-and-every-one-of-us-ron-paul-2

Guest post submitted by:

Doug O’Connell
O’Connell & Associates, PLLC Doug@DougOConnell.com

Attorney Doug O’Connell has represented former Recruiting Assistants for the past two years in both criminal and civil matters. A former state and federal prosecutor, Doug is also a Special Forces Colonel in the Texas Army National Guard. In addition to his own practice, Doug is Of Counsel to Fluet, Huber + Hoang law firm.

The G-RAP accusations and investigations have now lingered for over five years. At least 90,430 (1) National Guard Soldiers (88% of all G-RAP participants) have been subjected to investigations as part of a massive dragnet to recover bonuses (2). 125 Soldiers have been prosecuted in Federal or State Courts; at least 2633 Soldiers remain under investigation (3). While a handful of unscrupulous participants took advantage of the ever-changing rules of this contractor-run program, those cases were adjudicated years ago. What the Army CID is now doing is nothing more than pursuing anyone whose G-RAP tenure spanned the years with the most rules’ changes in an effort to prove up the Army’s exaggerated fraud estimate.

It’s hard to pick the Top 10 issues with G-RAP. The items below represent issues apparent in almost every case. This list omits, but hardly overlooks, such things as inappropriate command pressure to participate in G-RAP, forcing accused Soldiers to undergo DNA collection (4), active surveillance of National Guard Soldiers by Army CID (5), coercion to make reimbursements to the Army (6) in lieu of punishment and other notable violations of Soldier’s rights.

1 Letter to Representative Mike Coffman from Daniel M. Quinn, Chief of Staff, USACIC.
2 The U.S. Army and U.S. Department of Justice consistently refers to G-RAP payments as bonuses in sworn testimony, official documents and court filings. The payments were paid by a contractor directly to the Soldier and IRS form 1099 was issued to every participant. Payments were not processed by DFAS and did not appear on a LES. Finally, Congress did not authorize a bonus related to this program. Nevertheless, Government officials consistently refer to G-RAP payments as bonuses, perhaps wishing it were true so that legal recoupment would be possible.
3 Per letter to Rep Coffman.
4 Collected by a cheek swab without a warrant in violation of the 4th Amendment.
5 Related to an allegation of fraud which if true occurred years prior.
6 Possibly an illegal augmentation of appropriations in violation of the Miscellaneous Receipts statute, 31 USC §3302.

1. GUILT BY ALGORITHM.

Auditors, instead of seasoned law enforcement professionals, launched the G-RAP investigations. Rather than using any type of proper legal standard like probable cause, the Army Audit Agency assembled lists of Soldiers branded “high risk” by the auditors. The definition for “High Risk” was listed as “an inability to follow the rules.” Because the rules changed 60 times in seven years, almost everyone who successfully participated in G-RAP became a target. Soldiers connected to the “high risk” Soldiers were in turn investigated. This self-perpetuating, system of guilt by association crushes any notion of justice and the rule of law. Years later, many of these Soldiers still are under the cloud of a CID investigation and are being forced to defend (at great financial and emotional cost) their names and careers.

2. COMPULSORY INTERROGATIONS.

Federal CID agents lack any authority to compel National Guard Soldiers (or veterans) to submit to interrogations. Unfortunately, neither CID nor most Guard Soldiers and veterans understand that they cannot be forced to appear or answer questions from Army-dispatched agents. CID agents repeatedly violate this bright line legal standard. Worse yet, some Guard Commanders aren’t sufficiently knowledgeable about the law to protect their Soldiers. Once confronted with apparent military authority, many individuals, honestly believing they did nothing wrong, provide answers, later cherry picked and twisted to supposedly show guilt. The unfortunate individual is left having to prove he or she didn’t say something or that the statement was taken out of context.

3. INVESTIGATORS WITH A PERSONAL FINANCIAL INCENTIVE.

The CID Investigators pursuing G-RAP allegations include Army Reserve CID Agents voluntarily on active duty orders. At a minimum, the perception exists that the Reserve Agents have a financial incentive to perpetuate the investigations. The longer the investigations continue, the longer these agents remain employed. Further compounding this problem is the very logical assumption that few agents would volunteer for active duty if it meant a pay cut from their civilian employment.

4. VIOLATIONS OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT.

National Guard Soldiers not mobilized into federal service, are like any other civilian citizen under the law. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits federal military personnel from investigating and enforcing the law. Yet, that is exactly what is happening. The PCA is a federal criminal offense punishable by a term in prison. In the G-RAP investigations, federal military agents are investigating allegations of criminal violations by Guard Soldiers, who are the same as civilians under the law (7). This is a clear violation of the PCA. Unfortunately, this flawed law requires the same prosecutors who are prosecuting Soldiers to levy charges against the same agents investigating the cases they prosecute.

7 See Perprich vs. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).

5. TRAMPLING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

In our system of justice, a statue of limitations exists to limit the Government’s ability to bring charges so remote that the defendant can’t reasonably mount an effective defense. In G-RAP cases, the Government is circumventing the statue of limitations with a World War II era tolling statute. Most applicable criminal offenses have a 5 year statute of limitations. Since G-RAP ended in 2012 the statute of limitations has long expired in most cases. However, in G-RAP investigations and prosecutions the Government is relying on the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (8) to continue to bring criminal cases. First enacted in 1948, the WSLA is designed to protect the Country from fraud during times of war. This law likely made sense during World War II, the Korea and Vietnam conflicts. However, the nature of warfare has changed. The current war against terrorism and global extremist groups will continue indefinitely. Relying on the outdated WSLA during today’s conflicts effectively terminates the deeply rooted equitable concept of a statue of limitations.

8 18 USC §3287

6. SPENDING $40 MILLION -TO COLLECT $3 MILLION.

Our Government has spent at least an estimated $40 million dollars (9) to investigate Soldiers. The ensuing recoupment actions and prosecutions have recovered, at most $3 million dollars (10). Army CID agents have repeatedly conducted full field investigations to determine if a Soldier’s single $2,000.00 bonus was righteous (11). In an era of constrained defense spending with persistent and emerging global terrorist threats, this massive boondoggle sets a new record for fraud, waste and abuse. The CID agents’ limited time and resources would be much better spent working to prevent the next Fort Hood terrorist attack.

9 This is a conservative estimate which includes the personnel cost associated with bringing the USAR agents onto duty status.
10 This figure is also an estimate based on all federal cases reported in the Pacer.gov system and media reports from around the country.
11 At least one National Guard officer is currently under indictment for a single G-RAP recruitment.

7. INACCURATE TESTIMONY TO CONGRESS & POLITICAL PRESSURE

The entire G-RAP controversy is based on inaccurate and irresponsible testimony to Congress. During Senate hearings chaired by Senator Claire McCaskill (12), Army General Officers testified that the total G-RAP fraud could be as high as $99 million (13). This estimate was wildly inaccurate (14). To date, the Government has only collected $3 million in fraudulent payments. Senator McCaskill immediately branded these Soldiers as criminals despite their Constitutional right to be presumed innocent (15). Many have speculated that the hearings and estimates of widespread fraud were designed to embarrass the National Guard during budget battles. Others suggest that it was an attempt to appease this powerful member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and self styled “accountability advocate.” Still others contend that the hearings were an attempt to shift focus from sexual assaults in the military. Whatever the reason, the McCaskill hearing set off a chain of events abrogating the presumption of innocence justice toward service members and veterans.

12 United States Senate Hearing: Fraud and Abuse in Army Recruiting Contracts, February 4, 2014.
13 Id.
14 It appears that this testimony has never been revised, amended or updated to correct the record.
15 Id.

8. AT LEAST 60 CHANGES TO THE “RULES.”

In the eyes of CID, violations of the program “rules,” indicates intentional fraud worthy of criminal investigation. However, the G-RAP “rules” changed at least 60 times during the life of the program (16). Understanding the “rules” of G-RAP at any given point in time requires a detailed analysis based on a significant review of multiple documents (17). In the vast majority of cases, if the Soldier violated the “rules,” it is more likely due to confusion rather than a deliberate desire to cheat the system. With unrelenting intensity, CID doesn’t investigate an alleged crime; they gather slanted “evidence” to prove that a crime was committed. CID, in fact, has been responsible for elevating an inability to follow the rules of a program run by a private contractor to the level of a crime. One example: at various times full time members of the National Guard were authorized to participate in G-RAP, at other times they were ineligible. If a Soldier entered G-RAP when full time members were allowed, but submitted data for payment months later when full time members were not allowed, that Soldier is investigated for fraud.

16 See Agent’s Investigation Report, CID Special Agent Julie Thurlow, November 22, 2013.
17 National Guard Bureau changed the rules via a contract change order sent to Docupak.

9. “SPHERE OF INFLUENCE” AND OTHER VAGUE GUIDANCE.

Soldiers participating in G-RAP received instruction to recruit from their “sphere of influence.” This term was never defined. It’s unclear if the intent of this language was to limit recruitment to pre-existing relationships. Regardless of NGB’s intent, the Soldiers received a very different message. For example, once hired by Docupak, Soldiers were provided marketing items such as t-shirts with the message “ask me about the National Guard.” None of the marketing items provided would have been necessary to recruit people already known to the Soldier. Now, these same Soldiers are investigated and some prosecuted for recruiting outside their sphere of influence. Likewise, Soldiers were told that they “shouldn’t” wear their uniform when conducting recruiting activities. If this were truly a prohibited action worthy of investigation, the “rule” would have been written as “you are prohibited from wearing your uniform.”

10. “I DON’T REMEMBER = GUILTY.”

When CID agents track down and contact recruits many years after their enlistment into the National Guard, most don’t remember the details of their interaction with the recruiting assistant. To the CID agents, this means the RA committed misconduct. The alternative explanation is unfathomable to the agents: the recruit, 7 years later, just doesn’t remember. This is especially problematic since Government prosecutors use this lack of memory to charge the Soldier with Aggravated Identity Theft (18), a charge that carries a mandatory minimum term of prison sentence of two years.

18 18 USC § 1028A.

“EXTRA CREDIT:” CID KNEW ABOUT ALLEGED FRAUD FOR FIVE YEARS BEFORE TAKING ACTION.

On May 22, 2007, five years before G-RAP was shut down, Agents from Army CID, Air Force OSI, and Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) met with Docupak to discuss potential fraud in the program (19). A representative of the United States Department of Justice (20) was also in attendance. The agents specifically instructed Docupak not to notify the State Adjutant Generals, National Guard Bureau, or the contracting officer regarding alleged fraud. This effectively cut off any ability to clarify confusing rules and or enhance fraud prevention measures. Importantly, it also prevented Governors and Adjutants General to execute their Constitutional duty of regulating their National Guard force and apply appropriate discipline (21). Likewise, notification the responsible contracting officer at NGB would have triggered remedial action. Instead, the CID sat on this information for five years, causing a relatively minor amount of confusion to escalate into what we have now – another major bonus scandal ensnaring thousands of junior Soldiers facing accusations.

19 2014 Inspector General Report, page 40, paragraph g, and footnote 142.
20 Presumably a licensed attorney.
21 The Governor’s and TAG’s Constitutional authority to regulate and discipline Guard members included the full time recruiting force in each state, some of whom were suspected of misconduct. These Soldiers operate under the exclusive military jurisdiction of the relevant State Military Code of Justice.

CONCLUSION

Few Soldiers have the financial resources to mount a proper defense to federal criminal charges. Faced with the possibility of prison time, many take a plea bargain to avoid the risk of prison, financial ruin or deepening emotional trauma to themselves and their families. Even if the accused Soldiers are not prosecuted, the collateral consequences seem never ending. The investigation will continue to haunt them for years to come. Security clearances will be revoked or suspended, and the Government will initiate proceedings to “debar” the Soldier from future employment as a government contractor. Eventually, the case file will be forwarded to the State National Guard headquarters for military justice or administrative action. The range of administrative sanctions includes separation boards, official reprimands and being required to rebut CID’s flawed conclusions to a promotion review board. The administrative flag on their personnel file will continue until all military administrative actions are complete (22). Finally, many of these same Soldiers, never prosecuted in a court of law will have a federal criminal history created as a result of being investigated, “titled” and “founded” by CID.

22 A “flag” prevents any favorable action including re-enlisting, awards, and promotions. The flag does not prevent orders to deploy overseas (again). Flags as a result of G-RAP investigations have been in place for four or more years at this point.

Lt Col Flando Jackson, US Air Force, Died of a Non Combat-Related Injury at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar

Screen Shot 2016-08-06 at 3.30.24 PM

Lt. Col. Flando E. Jackson, Washington National Guard, US Air Force

Lt. Col. Flando E. Jackson died of a non combat related injury at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on August 4, 2016. Lt. Col. Jackson was supporting Operation Inherent Resolve on behalf of the 194th Wing, Camp Murray, Washington National Guard. According to the Department of Defense, the incident is under investigation.

Related Links:
DOD Identifies Air Force Casualty
Air Force officer supporting fight against Islamic State dies
Pentagon identifies lieutenant colonel who died in Southwest Asia
Department of Defense identifies airman killed in Southwest Asia
Washington National Guard mourns loss of Air Guard Lt Col

Lt Col Teresa James Shares Experience with Sexual Assault & Reprisal at DoD IG Worldwide Hotline Outreach Conference

Screen Shot 2016-07-28 at 12.35.17 PM

The Department of Defense Inspector General’s office held a Worldwide Hotline Outreach Conference today July 28, 2016. One of their keynote speakers was Lt Col Teresa James, US Army, Retired, highlighted before on this site. The DoD IG twitter feed shared excerpts from her presentation summarized below. As she spoke, I tweeted with them to bring awareness to the specifics that Lt Col James noted and why they are so important. For a complete listing of the tweets by the DoD IG, please visit their Twitter feed here.

Continue reading

If You Look at the Dollars, Guard Recruiting Assistance Program Investigations Make No Sense

Guest Post Submitted By Liz Ullman

“We are looking at spending over $600,000 of tax payer dollars for $2,000 that was allegedly stolen, most likely over 3-6 years ago, under a program that was deemed to be flawed, mismanaged and inherently opaque by the US Army’s own leadership.”

10456822-Cash-dollar-signs-Texture--Stock-Photo-bill It is true, that our forefathers set out to create a judicial system that blindly judged the accused in a manner that afforded them the opportunity to receive a fair trial, regardless of race, sex, beliefs, political stature or societal standings. However, as shown in the Guard Recruiting Assistance Program (G-RAP) scandal, it appears today’s judicial system is more about your ability to secure good lawyers and your civil status than it is about determining guilt versus innocence.

Most soldiers charged for their participation in G-RAP cannot afford an attorney. They are bullied by Army Criminal Investigative Command (CID) Agents to take polygraphs, provide incomplete statements (which are then used as evidence against them) and to accept a plea for criminal acts they did not commit. Without adequate counsel these service members are given ultimatums or forced to accept deals that leave them powerless. At best they are issued overworked public defenders who place them in a pool of other criminals including rapist, murderers and thieves. Soldiers are pushed to take plea bargains by the prosecution in an effort to give CID a quick victory and take the case off the public defender’s plate. However, this system puts a hefty burden on the soldier regardless of what road they take.

Continue reading

The Conspiracy Behind the G-RAP War on American Soldiers

Screen Shot 2016-03-30 at 7.59.19 AM

Guard Recruiting Assistance Program

Guest Post Submitted by Darron Smith

In a complicated, twisted tale of alleged corruption and betrayal over budgetary wars, a presumed cover-up simmers at a colossal scale between the Army and the National Guard. Soldiers are the exploited pawns in the largest politically motivated fraud investigation ever conducted by a military component against its own forces. This may sound like suspenseful fiction, but as many National Guardsmen and women can attest, this is all too real. An estimated 24,000 National Guard soldiers have been caught in the dragnet, which all stems from a successful military-enlistment recruiting program that financially compensated citizen-soldiers who aided in efforts to boost military strength. Documents and public records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act along with credible sources points to a disturbing persecution of soldiers and veterans as well as the batch processing of mass indictments.

At a time when US forces were scattered among Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, the overall end strength numbers were low. Army National Guard Director, Lt. General Clyde A. Vaughn (ret), and his staff had an idea to resupply the branches with fresh bodies—make anyone a potential recruiter by offering a financial incentive of $2,000.00 for each successful enlistment. Vaughn deeply felt that a peer-enlistment program might ease the hemorrhaging of a nationwide manpower shortage. And he was correct. The program, dubbed G-RAP (Guard Recruiting Assistance Program), ran from 2005-2012 and was an enormous success, as it replenished the ranks. Other branches of the military ultimately mirrored that recruiting program, but none to the magnitude of the NGB (National Guard Bureau). And none of them received the amount of government money that the Guard received to achieve this success.

Though G-RAP stood as a great achievement in strengthening the reserve forces, by 2012, all RAPs (Recruiting Assistance Programs) were suspended indefinitely, primarily due to media publicity of widespread fraud. NGB took the most heat, consistently projected as having lost upwards of $100 million. The truth, however, has been largely obscured. After four years of costly investigations, only $2 to 3 million “has been successfully prosecuted in civil courts.” But what is more disconcerting is that NGB, routinely criticized for its lack of oversight, no longer had the supervision in their control. Based on a previously unpublished Army Inspector General Report, a closed door meeting took place in May 2007 where it was decided by an ad hoc committee comprised of representatives from Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID), Defense Criminal Investigation Service (DCIS) and the Air Force Office of Special Bureau (AFSOI) “that Docupak would turn over any suspected occurrences of fraud directly to CID,” and that NGB, specifically the State Adjutants General (TAG), would be deliberately left out of the information loop. The rationale given at the time was that the DCIS did not want interference from high-ranking Guard officials.

There is evidence, however, that some TAGs were successfully handling all reported incidents of fraud internally in their own states up until that point with detection and prevention controls. It was not until these controls were halted in the May 2007 meeting that the Guard lost the ability to monitor, discipline and correct such incidents of fraud. Perplexingly, all of this was done without the Guard’s knowledge. In a recent interview in the Washington Times, General Vaughn reported that “he was kept in the dark” about the occurrence of fraud in the field and that CID purposely did not inform him about fraud cases. “No one can correct a problem if you do not know it exists,” stated Vaughn.

The CID did not have any prerogative to make such changes to regulation, as it would require a Congressional act; yet, in 2009 (and again in 2014), changes were made to the CID Manual that removed the language to report crimes through the TAG. But simply changing the manual did not mean it was constitutional to do so under the sovereign rights of each state and US territories. What’s more, there has been discussion in legal circles as to whether or not CID is operating outside its jurisdiction in the investigation of National Guard members. According to the Constitution as well as Department of Defense Directives (DoDD) 5105.77, the NGB is under the direct command of the state TAG and ultimately the governor unless a battalion has been mobilized for federal duty, at which point they then fall under Title 10 (active duty status) and the command of the President. The majority of those indicted are known as “M-day soldiers.” In other words, they are “weekend warriors” working for the Guard once a month and two weeks a year in official drill status (aka, Title 32). If an individual under Title 32 were to come under some criminal deed, it is the role of the TAG to take action. In fact, the TAGs have guidance on enforcing discipline and protecting soldier’s rights as it is articulated in the 2015 Commander’s Legal Handbook. The CID, as a faction of the big Army, only has command over Title 10 soldiers; it does not, to this day, have any authority over most members of the National Guard in these investigations, save a select few individuals who were deployed on active duty while participating in G-RAP.

This then raises the question, why is the regular Army harassing National Guard soldiers and violating their constitutional rights in the first place? Most of the soldiers under suspicion for theft of government property are not subject to regular Army discipline. Before that question can be answered, there is another piece of the puzzle to be scrutinized—the alarming results of CID’s investigations.

The U.S. Army Audit Agency had concern regarding the potential of individual fraud within RAPs. After reviewing over 150,000 enlistments ($339 million in payments), the June 2012 Audit identified 3,200 soldiers in the fraud-risk assessment. They found 1,256 recruiters suspicious of medium to high risk for fraud. Additionally, there were 2,022 RAs that “potentially violated program rules.” Of those RAs, only a quarter of them were found to be intentional acts. The remaining 1,400 recruiting assistants appeared to have unknowingly and unintentionally violated the rules of G-RAP, which is entirely plausible considering there were 60 changes to G-RAP rules during its seven years in existence .

This report fueled an investigation of another style from the Senate Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight. Despite the Audit’s fraud findings, the Army CID quickly dispatched approximately 200 field investigators under “Task Force Raptor” to scrutinize all 106,364 individuals who participated in G-RAP for any possibility of fraud. Senator Claire M. McCaskill (D, MO) set a directive that CID should flood the nation’s landscape and courageously return ill-gotten dollars to the American taxpayers. CID agents were encouraged to flash badges, obtain DNA swabs, issue polygraph tests and secure fingerprints in an effort to scare soldiers into revealing any useful material that could be later used against them. One former CID agent admitted that they were urged to lie to potential witnesses and persons-of-interest if usable information could be extracted. They were then instructed to report the numbers of potential indictments back to Senator McCaskill’s office on a quarterly basis, ostensibly to ensure they were meeting her demands of accountability. But a federal indictment of fraud is a crime requiring specific intent. In other words, conviction relies on the government’s ability prove the individual knew of the specific rules and guidelines and intentionally broke them for monetary enrichment.

Nevertheless, CID’s report prepared for the February 2014 Senate Subcommittee hearing led by Senator McCaskill found over 22,000 soldiers associated with payments that were at risk for fraud. This number is over seven times greater than the original Army Audit estimation at a rate of 1.7-3%. The FBI estimates that insurance fraud—one of the highest areas of civilian fraud—is at a rate of 3-10% of all insurance cases. Conversely, CID is now suggesting that those who proudly wear the uniform are felons at a rate of over 20%. Put differently, 1 in 5 soldiers are alleged criminals, 2 to 7 times more likely to commit fraud than the civilian population. This is clear evidence that these claims are audacious.

How is it possible that so many service members are accused of fraud? How is it that the CID investigations found an additional 18,000-20,000 offenders from the Audit’s estimation? Is it possible that this is a witch-hunt? This fishing expedition turned into a conspiracy theory as Sen. McCaskill stated, “I mean, it is almost like word got out and nobody was paying attention, and all of a sudden everybody was, okay, the bank is open. Let us go for it.” The moderate democrat further opined, “I mean there is no way that there was not a culture of people saying, hey, here is the deal. There is a bounty and we know these people are signing up.” But rather than a vast number of soldiers intentionally scamming the government they swore to protect, a much more plausible answer would be that most all were following a set of murky rules as they understood them.

Senator McCaskill’s supposed effort directed to bring about justice for the American people instead turned into a catastrophe where the wrath eventually rolled downhill to the most vulnerable of peoples, our service members. Let off the hook were Docupak and military Brass who were responsible for the proper administration and oversight of G-RAP. One possible explanation for the morass is a skirmish over federal defense dollars when the Guard received the lion share of contract monies to operate G-RAP. Or perhaps it is something as simple as an attempt to justify the military drawdown of troops currently underway. This time, the scapegoat would be the American soldier, more specifically National Guardsman, as McCaskill’s goons sought to manufacture felons. Unfortunately, those are the casualties of politics, but these service members deserve more. They deserve answers and accountability from our leaders.

[1] Unpublished U.S. Army Inspector General Agency Report of Investigation (ROI) (Recruiting Assistance Program) 2014.
[2] Memorandum from U.S. Army Audit Agency to Recruiting Assistance Program Task Force Regarding Audit of Recruiting Assistance Programs – Reserve Components (June 4, 2012) (Report A 2012 0115 IEF), Enclosure 1.
[3] CID Investigators report (G-RAP Training) Nov, 2013.

Learn more at Stop G-RAP Injustice on Facebook.

Ating Eminue, US Army (2015)

Sgt. Ating Eminue

Honoring Sgt Ating Eminue, US Army, who was shot and killed outside a homeless shelter in Atlanta, Georgia on August 30, 2015. Harold Dodson was arrested and charged October 23rd in connection with the fatal shooting of the Georgia Army National Guardsman. A judge denied bond for Dodson in November 2015. Dodson had a history of crimes and made a living dealing drugs. He had five felony convictions before the age of 21. He will remain in jail while he awaits trial. Atlanta police have asked that individuals who may have further information about the incident contact them via Crime Stoppers Greater Atlanta.

Guardsman shot, killed outside Atlanta homeless shelter
Active duty sergeant killed while trying to help homeless
Active Duty Soldier Killed Near Midtown Homeless Shelter
Man shot outside Atlanta club identified, no arrests made
Guardsman shot, killed outside Atlanta homeless shelter
Harold Bernard Dodson | Crime Stoppers Greater Atlanta
Arrest made in Pine Street murder of Guardsman
Arrest made in murder of Army sergeant who was helping homeless shelter
Police arrest Harold Dodson in murder of Army sergeant helping homeless shelter
Man held in Georgia Army National Guardsman’s slaying
Father has message for son’s accused killer
Judge denies bond for accused killer of Army sergeant
Ating Eminue (1991-2015) Forever Missed

Highlights of Lt Col Teresa James, Army National Guard, Military Sexual Assault Case

Lt Col Teresa James

Lt Col Teresa James

Lt Col Teresa James had a stellar career in the Army National Guard for over 30 years until she reported being sexually assaulted by a senior officer. Shortly after reporting the crime, she took convalescent leave for 30 days to seek medical treatment and eventually was medically retired because “she refused to come into work” according to leadership in the West Virginia Army National Guard. Lt Col James states that she asked for an extension to her convalescent leave (while continuing to seek medical treatment) or to work at an alternate location away from those who were retaliating against her. She did not want to retire and fought the forced medical retirement process but lost those appeals. She is now speaking up about the sexual assault and retaliation she experienced after reporting the assault.  This case is a good example of the complications associated with the expedited transfer policy and how it is applies to the National Guard when both the accused and the victim are permanently stationed at the same location.

In May 2016, news broke that the Department of Defense Inspector General found that a brigadier general in the West Virginia Army National Guard did in fact retaliate against Lt Col James after she reported that she had been sexually assaulted by another officer. This is the first time that the DoD IG has confirmed a report of retaliation in the military. This case highlights the need for coordinated reform on the part of the Chief, the National Guard Bureau, and all of the state National Guard headquarters. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over the States therefore only the Governor and State Congressional members have authority to enact new laws for the National Guard. The National Guard must enact it’s own policies. The DoD IG has no jurisdiction over the West Virginia Army National Guard therefore cannot court martial or admonish the individuals involved. Lt Col James is focusing on ensuring that all State’s enact legislation to protect their National Guard members.

“My whole reason for speaking out is to educate other survivors,” she said,“ ‘That you are not alone. There are people out there that will help you, and that the best thing to do if you are assaulted is report it.’” (via Charleston Gazette-Mail)

Lt. col. says speaking up about assault hurt her career
Serving in Silence: Rape in the National Guard
Troops who report sexual assault face retaliation
Retiring National Guard officer: Leadership should have done more in sexual assault case
62 Percent of Military Sex Assault Reports Result in Retaliation (A Taste of Creole)
62 Percent of Military Sex Assault Reports Result in Retaliation (NBC Washington)
US: Military Whistleblowers At Risk, Retaliation for Reporting Sexual Assault
WVNG Sexual Assault Claims; Female Officer: Leaders Didn’t Act Fast Enough against Superior
Reporting and Law Enforcement Facts For LTC Teresa James, West Virginia National Guard
One-star general retaliated against LTC sex assault victim, IG finds
First time: IG confirms retaliation against rape whistleblower
Lt. col. says speaking up about assault hurt her career
IG: Rape whistleblower saw retaliation
DOD report: WV National Guard general retaliated against assault victim
Lt Col Teresa James Shares Experience with Sexual Assault & Reprisal at DoD IG Worldwide Hotline Outreach Conference
Serving in Silence: Sex Assault Retaliation Complaints Investigated

Serving in Silence: Survey Shows Only One Dishonorable Discharge for Sexual Assault in the National Guard

National Guardby Tisha Thompson

ONE-FIFTH OF THE NATION’S MILITARY ISN’T PROTECTED BY REFORMS…

What happens to those accused of rape or sexual assault in the National Guard varies dramatically depending on what state you work in.

The National Guard is unlike any other branch of the military. Serving as the state militia, the governor is the commander in chief, not the president. During wartime or when they are sent overseas for a federal mission, guardsmen become federalized under Title 10 and receive all the benefits and protections offered by the U.S. Army or Air Force.

Read more here.

Related Links:
National Guard Bureau’s Response to NBC4ITeam Survey (June 22, 2015)
Serving in Silence: Two-Star General Wants to Change How National Guard Deals With Sexual Assaults (April 2015)
Military Sexual Assault Testimony to Congress in January 2013 (National Guard & AD)
Military Women: We Got Fired for Being Raped
CA Military Sexual Assault Bill Becomes Law