In 2019, three weeks prior to my involuntary separation, I filed an FOIA Request with the Coast Guard requesting:   “…digital copies of all electronic and hardcopy communication, files, logs, memos, notes or any other records or correspondence, to include video and audio recordings, initiated, received or held by the following units concerning or otherwise relevant to the suspicions, accusations, investigations, decision-making, and administrative processing leading to my uncharacterized discharge from the United States Coast Guard. The Coast Guard’s response was first, to largely ignore the request altogether for two weeks. The Coast Guard FOIA Office then tasked my FOIA Request to three distinct offices and personnel:  USCG Personnel Support Center, Coast Guard Investigative Service , and USCG Base Elizabeth City (CDR Warren Judge, Base XO). On 01 May, PSC provided me copies of eight documents, all but two of which had been either given to me, or authored by me during the separation process.  

CGIS eventually responded by USPS but only partially, citing FOIA Exemption 7(E) that protects law enforcement “techniques and procedures”; and redacting all names in accordance with the Privacy Act.  Most significantly, CGIS failed to provide my recorded interrogation by Special Agent Jarrett Swann or even a certified or uncertified transcript of same.  In his CGIS Action Report SA Swann introduced his paraphrased summary of my interrogation with the following:  “The below is an interview summary.  It is not intended to be a verbatim account and does not memorialize all statements made during the interview.”  Considering that the interrogation was recorded using the publically available “CaseCracker” audio/video laptop computer recording system and that I was the subject of the interrogation, CGIS’s refusal to provide the recording citing “techniques and procedures” was disingenuous and certainly obfuscation. The audiotapes of my interrogation, including the improperly administered Article 31(b) statement of rights, the verbal intimidation, the illegal use of juvenile records in coercion, and the actual (vice paraphrased) questions and responses, were of paramount import in the Coast Guard’s ostensible justification of my improper, inequitable and separation and unconstitutional discharge.

USCG Base Elizabeth City’s response was the most problematic.  In July 2019, the recently appointed, first-ever USCG Base Elizabeth City FOIA action officer, a juior Lieutenant , sent me an e-mail that included two memoranda as attachments.  In the first, backdated to to mid-June 2019, Base Elizabeth City stated that they were not tasked with responding to my FOIA Request until 11 June; one working day after I e-mailed USCG FOIA Office’s Ms. Amanda Ackerson, asking her to encourage Base Elizabeth City to reply.  The second memorandum, dated mid-July 2019 “explained” their delay in responding and attempted to justify their non-compliance with FOIA response requirements. Although the first memorandum was likely valid as Ms. Ackerson was notably unfamiliar with FOIA law, the second was a transparent “excuse” for CDR Judge’s disregard of the FOIA tasker.

In early August 2019, exactly four months to the day after I submitted my FOIA request, I received USCG Base Elizabeth City’s partial response to FOIA Request via FEDEX Priority Overnight mail. There were only two documents (six pages in total) in the small package that I did not already possess as they largely sent me the rebuttal statement I authored, and other discharge-related documents provided to me at the time (most of which PSC had sent me as well).  Both of the “new” documents Base Elizabeth City forwarded related to the EEO Complaint that I submitted in early February 2019:  The first being the 5-page result of CWO Whitehead‘s EEO investigation (minus key witness statements); and the second being CDR Meador’s 1-page cover letter ostensibly forwarding the results to the USCG Civil Rights Directorate. Notably, the USCG HQ Civil Rights Directorate could produce no record of any EEO complaint involving USCG Base Elizabeth City during the period 01 January 2018 to 31 December 2019 inclusive.  Further, Base Elizabeth City did not respond to 95% of the focused, specific requests I delineated in my e-mail to their action officer, withholding 105 pages of 140 considered germane, and redacting 24 others, citing FOIA Exemption 5, “deliberative process privilege”. FOIA Exemption 5 is the most abused exemption; the “withhold it ‘cause you want to” exemption.

Doubling-Down on the Cover-up

After numerous e-mails to the USCG HQ FOIA office and multiple letters to Coast Guard leadership brought no further substantive response, I submitted an FOIA Appeal that the Coast Guard chose not to adjudicate until 17 months after the required FOIA suspence - and only did so a day after I e-mailed Admiral Karl Shultz, then Commandant of the Coast Guard in early December. The recently appointed Chief of the FOIA Office (rather than a legitimate Appeal Authority), Ms. Kathleen Claffie, responded for the Coast Guard with a memorandum, once again denying me access to:

   - Well over 100 pages of documents that would have demonstrated that CDR Meador conspired with the chief of EPM,  CAPT Stephen Matadobra, to identify a means to punish me absent any legal proceeding, and

   - Either an audio/video recording or certified transcript of CGIS’ mid-December 2019 interrogation of me, which the Coast Guard continues to paraphrase and re-paraphrase to defend my involuntary separation.

Significantly, ignoring both FOIA and Department of Justice guidance, Ms. Claffie failed to take “…into account any arguments or facts presented by the requester” nor look “for any relevant information that may have been missed or applied incorrectly.”  In doing so, she also failed to “obviate unnecessary judicial review”.

Rather, in concert with LT Pamela Tirado, a novice Coast Guard JAG attorney, Ms. Claffie cited inapplicable FOIA Exemptions and antiquated case law to justify the Coast Guard’s withholding of ALL requested documents other than the four documents PSC and Base Elizabeth City provided me that I neither authored nor had not been provided to me during my separation process.  Among the various exemptions cited, Ms. Claffie pointed to the Privacy Act to justify withholding documents solely referencing me.  In multiple instances, she literally withheld my personal information from me, including my name, my rank and rate and where I was stationed when I was separated.

More importantly, Ms. Claffie upheld the withholding of the audio/video recording of my CGIS interrogation citing exemption FOIA 7E. “Exemption (b)(7)(E) protects information compiled for law enforcement purposes, the release of which would disclose techniques and/or procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably to be expected to risk circumvention of the law... The disclosure of audio interview techniques might provide insight into the typical techniques and procedures used in law enforcement investigations.”  However, the courts have decided that in order for this exemption to apply, the technique or procedure must not be well known to the public. In my case, Ms. Claffie upheld the withholding of an audio/video tape of my interrogation recorded by SA Swann using a laptop computer and publically available software.  Does anyone in the U.S. not know that law enforcement uses audio/video recording devices?  I believe that the use of both “surveillance cameras” and “body-cameras” are well-known.  Ms. Claffie completely ignored my subsequent compromise to accept a transcript of the recorded interrogation.

In summary, Ms. Claffie, contrary to both FOIA law and Department of Justice guidance, upheld the Coast Guard’s withholding of every document previously identified by PSC, Base Elizabeth City and CGIS as inappropriate for release.  In total, the Coast Guard withheld 224 pages of documents that the Coast Guard identified as germane to this case, and after 17 months of blatant obfuscation provided me just four documents not previously in my possession - selectively redacted portions of CWO Whitehead’s EEO Investigation and SA Swann’s records of his Investigation.

I wish to repeat this figure again for emphasis:  224 pages of documentation regarding my discharge withheld.  When combined with the documents I received during my discharge process, the Coast Guard generated approximately 300 pages of documents in support of my separation.  300 pages is comparable to the size of most books. Three hundred pages to justify separating an E-4 for fraudulent enlistment is obviously excessive and leads one to wonder what it is that they were hiding. I believe the information the Coast Guard did not want to release and has since destroyed includes e-mail conversations among my accusers and their conspirators, as well as CGPD and CGIS; their seniors (to include RADM Bouboulis – CDR Meador’s direct senior); and Enlisted Personnel Management personnel - to include CAPT Matadobra – Head of EPM, and CDR Sean Fahey – PSC’s Staff Judge Advocate.

There is a term that criminal prosecutors use:  “consciousnessof guilt”.  This concept refers to a person or organization that demonstrates they are aware that they are guilty of wrongdoing, despite their denials or attempts to cover up the event.  On multiple occasions, leaders within the Coast Guard, through obfuscation, deceptive or false written statements, and pre-determined investigation and appeal outcomes, have demonstrated that they are fully aware that they separated me counter to existing USCG regulations and the UCMJ.

The Coast Guard’s refusal to release 224 pages of documents that they identified as germane to my case is analogous to the Government of China’s refusal to allow World Health Organization investigators full access to data related to the source of the Covid virus.  By denying the WHO access, the Chinese government not only failed to exonerate the Wuhan Virology Laboratory; they also demonstrated their tacit guilt. Comparably, the Coast Guard’s 14 month delay and subsequent rushed FOIA Appeal Denial citing inapplicable FOIA Exemptions, antiquated case law, and ridiculous Privacy Act claims (exempting documents that mentioned my name) demonstrate their knowledge of their own guilt and their derivative cover-up.

Lying to a Senator… twice

 In the Spring of 2019, faced with my impending separation after my discharge rebuttal letter had been completely disregarded, I contacted the office of Senator Maria Cantwell (WA) regarding my unjustified ejection from the Coast Guard.  I did so on the advice of a USCG lawyer, LT Patricia Ligget, DSO Southeast who incorrectly told me specifically that my only recourse was to contact my Senator and/or submit complaint to DHS’ Office of the Inspector General.  Senator Cantwell’s office contacted the USCG in mid-April 2019, prior to my discharge.  However, the Coast Guard, as part of their cover-up, did not to respond for six months; long after I was discharged.

The second week of October 2019, amazingly six months after Senator Cantwell’s office contacted them, the Coast Guard deemed it time to respond to her inquiry with a formal letter. However, the letter contained an outright lie and was replete with other misrepresentations of verifiable facts.  Their response included the following justification for my discharge:

He…” was discharged based on his failure to truthfully answer all accession questions accurately. Specifically, he did not fully disclose his previous drug use to the Coast Guard Recruiting Command.” His…”deception came to light when a Coast Guard Investigative Service agent interviewed him regarding statements he made about wanting to smoke marijuana.”

None of the above statement is true.  I answered all accession questions truthfully.  Although I signed a page in the application where I admitted to pre-Coast Guard marijuana use, I did not see nor sign/initial the addendum detailing “amounts” that the recruiter filled out on a computer in my absence.

My comment about “wanting to smoke marijuana” was, in fact, a “text” from a seized online “locker room talk” text conversation with another Coastguardsman and specifically referred to a possible future after I left the Coast Guard.  From the CGIS-acquired transcript: “so im gonna try to finish my bachelors by the time my contract ends and then go ocs or get out and get a job where I can smoke weed”  (OCS = Officer Candidate School).  It is important to note that I was a legal resident of Washington state, where recreational marijuana use was legal. Thus, my statement referred to possible legal civilian use of marijuana following my USCG service. My statement is equivalent to a shipboard Coastguardsman saying:  “I can’t wait to get to a port where I can drink a beer.”

The USCG response letter also contained the following:

“Coast Guard policy allows members to be discharged for procuring a fraudulent enlistment through any material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment which, if known at the time, may have resulted in rejection. The appropriate discharge basis is by reason of misconduct for fraudulent enlistment.”

The first sentence of the above quote is misleading as it is based on a judicial premise referring to fraudulent enlistment as a felony.  I was not afforded any judicial due process of any kind, including representation by a lawyer.  I was not charged with nor convicted of anything.  Nothing in my separation process took place in a legal setting.  I was “administratively” discharged because my Commanding Officer could find no evidence that I had used illicit drugs while in the Coast Guard, as my selectively misandrist, dishonest, unqualified temporary divison officer affirmed.  With no evidence, my Commanding Officer then “determined” that prior to joining the USCG, I may have used more marijuana than what the recruiter entered on my enlistment application; enough, in fact, to have forced the USCG to reject my application – a completely false and unproven assertion requiring one to predict an alternate result of a past event that has already occurred.  That is simply nonsense.

The second sentence of the above quote is also misleading. Paragraph 1.B.17. (Misconduct) subparagraph 1.B.17.a. (Policy) of the USCG Separations manual states:  “…only Commander (CG PSC) may direct a discharge for misconduct and the type of discharge (under other than honorable, general, or honorable) as warranted by the particular circumstances of a given case.”  Yet, counter to written USCG policy, I was administratively discharged with an Uncharacterized Discharge, losing VA benefits retained by the great majority of Coastguardsmen convicted in judicial settings of actual drug offenses. Further, neither the Commandant of the Coast Guard nor Commander, Personnel Support Center signed any document authorizing my discharge as required.

The USCG response letter additionally stated: “Per service policy, members who have been found to be on a fraudulent enlistment receive this type of discharge” (i.e. an Uncharacterized Discharge).  This statement is patently false.  In late December 2019 “final response” to my FOIA Request, Personnel Service Center revealed that there is no written USCG policy that links suspected fraudulent enlistment to an Uncharacterized Discharge. This was reaffirmed by PSC in response to a second FOIA Request.

In early January 2020, nine months after Senator Cantwell initially contacted them, the Coast Guard responded to a second letter from Senator Cantwell that attempted to clarify the deceptions of the Coast Guard’s above referenced letter.  On their second attempt to justify my completely inequitable entry-level Uncharacterized Discharge, the Coast Guard selectively quoted the following legalese catch-all stipulation of the USCG Military Separations manual:

“1.B.19.b. Authority (2) Commander (CG PSC-EPM-1) has the authority, when compelling circumstances exist, to award an uncharacterized discharge to any member with any amount of total active service. This may be determined to be appropriate when additional administrative processing solely for the purpose of characterizing the member’s service is unnecessarily burdensome, costly, or inefficient, and is not in the Coast Guard’s best interest.”

The above quote aligns precisely with the Separation Authorization given me a month prior to my discharge that includes the following sentence:  “THIS SEPARATION ACTION HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO CGPSC-EMP WRITTEN DECISION AND IS ISSUED CG PSC-EPM-1”. (sic)

However, in response to another FOIA Request, in June 2019, PSC wrote that EPM-1 had confirmed that there was no written document signed by CG PSC-EPM-1 authorizing my Uncharacterized Discharge. Additionally, in EPM’s response to another FOIA Request, the USCG was unable to define what the “compelling circumstances” in my case were; nor what “burdensome, costly, or inefficient… additional administrative processing” would have been required to have characterized my service.  Characterizing my service should have been as simple as anyone else’s:  Read my performance evaluations and disciplinary record over my 35 months of service.  Make a fair and unbiased decision and follow the guidance of the USCG Military Separations manual.  To wit: Paragraph 1.B.1.f. (Definitions) of the USCG Separations Manual states: “As used in this Article, these definitions apply:

(13) Characterization of Service for Administrative Separation.  A determination reflecting a member’s military behavior and performance of duty during a specific period of service. The three characterizations are honorable, under honorable conditions, and under other than honorable conditions.” An Uncharacterized Discharge is not noted as a possibility.

The Coast Guard’s outright lies to Senator Cantwell and cherry-picking of segments of the Military Separations manual in response to her inquiry were disrespectful, disingenuous and intended to deceive.