thedrifter
04-16-07, 02:58 PM
Airmen rebuked for Kabul clash
Investigator cleared them, but commander issues punishment
By Bruce Rolfsen - brolfse@militarytimes.com
Posted : April 23, 2007
While an Air Force general dismissed charges that would have led to courts-martial for two lieutenant colonels accused of assaulting a Blackwater USA contractor in Afghanistan, he nonetheless took administrative action that one of their lawyers believes will seriously damage their careers.
On March 29, Lt. Gen. Gary North, commander of the 9th Air Force and the general in charge of most airmen in Afghanistan, issued a letter of reprimand to Lt. Col. Gary W. Brown. Brown is a C-17 pilot from Charleston Air Force Base, S.C. North gave Lt. Col. Christopher R. Hall, an instructor pilot from Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas, a lesser sanction, a letter of counseling.
Charles Gittins, Brown’s civilian attorney, responded to North’s decision in a scathing letter dated April 4.
The decision to issue the letter of reprimand “demonstrates your lack of moral courage to admit error and do the right thing; to drop the charges and apologize to two officers,” Gittins wrote.
When the Air Force announced March 31 that North had decided against taking Hall and Brown to courts-martial, the release failed to mention the letter of reprimand and the letter of counseling.
Defense attorneys object
News of the written sanctions came from Gittins and Greg Pavlik, Hall’s attorney, who thought the Air Force’s March 31 statement was misleading.
Air Combat Command spokesman Col. Chris Geisel said the press release didn’t mention other sanctions because the Air Force won’t discuss administrative actions taken against an airman unless the airman gives permission.
An Air Force investigative officer found that Brown and Hall acted within the rules of engagement for self-defense.
But North overruled the investigative officer’s recommendation and found the officers’ actions to be “reckless, undisciplined and a discredit to the armed forces.”
In his letter of reprimand to Brown, North wrote “you shoved, kicked, pointed your loaded M4 rifle at, and threatened the life of, Mr. Jimmy Bergeron, a US civilian contractor employee who did not pose a reasonable threat to you or others.”
Through spokesmen, North declined to discuss with Military Times what evidence led him to override the conclusions of the investigating officer and issue the letters.
The Sept. 19 incident began when the officers’ Toyota Land Cruiser collided with Bergeron’s black-windowed sport utility vehicle — twice — on the road leading to the U.S. Embassy and Camp Eggers, the American military headquarters in Kabul. Who hit whom is disputed.
Fearing a terrorist attack, the two officers sped off, they testified during a late February Article 32 hearing in Kabul. As they waited at an embassy traffic gate, Bergeron, bearded and dressed in civilian clothes, allegedly approached their car, screaming and threatening them.
Hall and Brown got out of the Land Cruiser with their weapons and ordered Bergeron to the ground, according to their testimony. Bergeron refused, so the officers tried to force him down. When that proved unsuccessful, Brown raised his M4 rifle and clicked off the safety.
According to the officers, only then did Bergeron comply and tell them he was American. Before leaving, Brown threw Bergeron’s keys into a bush so he wouldn’t be able to follow them.
The officers then went to the Camp Eggers provost marshal’s office to report the incident.
Bergeron apparently complained to the U.S. Embassy security office. The two lieutenant colonels soon found themselves accused of assault and conduct unbecoming an officer.
Lt. Col. Leslea Pickle, the Air Force judge advocate who conducted the Article 32 investigation, concluded March 16 that either a court-martial jury or a military judge would defer to Hall’s and Brown’s perception that their lives were in danger from Bergeron’s actions and that they had followed the rules of engagement for self-defense.
Pickle also found that one piece of evidence, a videotape purportedly of the confrontation at the gate, was not admissible because it didn’t show what several witnesses agreed had occurred. Nor could an Air Force prosecutor explain the tape’s origins.
Defense attorneys called the videotape a fabrication.
Pickle also wrote that after the hearing, an Afghan police commander told her there were attempts to bribe Afghan guards in return for their testimony about what happened at the gate.
Pickle relayed the bribe allegation to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division in Kabul.
Geisel said that 9th Air Force’s staff judge advocate’s office is looking into the videotape and bribery allegations.
North sanctioned the officers despite Pickle’s recommendation that the charges be dropped.
“You acted with unreasonable force and intimidation over an automobile collision dispute,” North wrote to Brown.
He cited Brown for shoving Bergeron, pointing his loaded M4 rifle at him and then throwing Bergeron’s car keys into a bush.
North went on to warn the veteran airlift pilot, “In light of your behavior, you are forewarned that future misconduct on your part will result in serious consequences.”
Pavlik, Hall’s attorney, said he is asking North to reconsider the letter of counseling in view of the investigative officer’s report, which advised against prosecuting the officers.
If North doesn’t change his mind, the next step would be to appeal the decision to the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records.
Gittins, the attorney for Brown, said Brown isn’t asking North for a second look.
“No jury would convict either officer on these facts,” Gittins wrote North. He wrote that the right thing to do would be to “drop the charges and apologize to two officers who were needlessly and without reason subjected to personal humiliation and torment.”
Through Geisel, North declined to comment about Gittins’ letter.
The long-term effect that North’s letters will have on the pilots’ careers remains to be seen.
Speaking in broad terms about letters of counseling and reprimand, Col. Nancy Richards, chief of military justice for Air Combat Command, said the letters don’t affect a pilot’s flying status.
A reprimand will be placed in an officer’s unfavorable information file and could be considered when making assignment and personnel decisions, Richards said.
A letter of counseling goes into an officer’s personnel information file.
It likely would not greatly affect an officer’s career, Richards said. Typically, when an officer changes assignments, the letter doesn’t follow him.
Pavlik isn’t so certain. The defense attorney said an evaluator deciding Hall’s future would be hard-pressed not to consider a counseling letter signed by a three-star general.
“Someone is going to have to decide what goes into his officer performance report,” Pavlik said.
Gittins wrote that in the long term it is the credibility of North that has been harmed.
“At the end of the day,” Gittins wrote North, “your reprimand of my client is a laugh-out-loud joke.”
Ellie
Investigator cleared them, but commander issues punishment
By Bruce Rolfsen - brolfse@militarytimes.com
Posted : April 23, 2007
While an Air Force general dismissed charges that would have led to courts-martial for two lieutenant colonels accused of assaulting a Blackwater USA contractor in Afghanistan, he nonetheless took administrative action that one of their lawyers believes will seriously damage their careers.
On March 29, Lt. Gen. Gary North, commander of the 9th Air Force and the general in charge of most airmen in Afghanistan, issued a letter of reprimand to Lt. Col. Gary W. Brown. Brown is a C-17 pilot from Charleston Air Force Base, S.C. North gave Lt. Col. Christopher R. Hall, an instructor pilot from Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas, a lesser sanction, a letter of counseling.
Charles Gittins, Brown’s civilian attorney, responded to North’s decision in a scathing letter dated April 4.
The decision to issue the letter of reprimand “demonstrates your lack of moral courage to admit error and do the right thing; to drop the charges and apologize to two officers,” Gittins wrote.
When the Air Force announced March 31 that North had decided against taking Hall and Brown to courts-martial, the release failed to mention the letter of reprimand and the letter of counseling.
Defense attorneys object
News of the written sanctions came from Gittins and Greg Pavlik, Hall’s attorney, who thought the Air Force’s March 31 statement was misleading.
Air Combat Command spokesman Col. Chris Geisel said the press release didn’t mention other sanctions because the Air Force won’t discuss administrative actions taken against an airman unless the airman gives permission.
An Air Force investigative officer found that Brown and Hall acted within the rules of engagement for self-defense.
But North overruled the investigative officer’s recommendation and found the officers’ actions to be “reckless, undisciplined and a discredit to the armed forces.”
In his letter of reprimand to Brown, North wrote “you shoved, kicked, pointed your loaded M4 rifle at, and threatened the life of, Mr. Jimmy Bergeron, a US civilian contractor employee who did not pose a reasonable threat to you or others.”
Through spokesmen, North declined to discuss with Military Times what evidence led him to override the conclusions of the investigating officer and issue the letters.
The Sept. 19 incident began when the officers’ Toyota Land Cruiser collided with Bergeron’s black-windowed sport utility vehicle — twice — on the road leading to the U.S. Embassy and Camp Eggers, the American military headquarters in Kabul. Who hit whom is disputed.
Fearing a terrorist attack, the two officers sped off, they testified during a late February Article 32 hearing in Kabul. As they waited at an embassy traffic gate, Bergeron, bearded and dressed in civilian clothes, allegedly approached their car, screaming and threatening them.
Hall and Brown got out of the Land Cruiser with their weapons and ordered Bergeron to the ground, according to their testimony. Bergeron refused, so the officers tried to force him down. When that proved unsuccessful, Brown raised his M4 rifle and clicked off the safety.
According to the officers, only then did Bergeron comply and tell them he was American. Before leaving, Brown threw Bergeron’s keys into a bush so he wouldn’t be able to follow them.
The officers then went to the Camp Eggers provost marshal’s office to report the incident.
Bergeron apparently complained to the U.S. Embassy security office. The two lieutenant colonels soon found themselves accused of assault and conduct unbecoming an officer.
Lt. Col. Leslea Pickle, the Air Force judge advocate who conducted the Article 32 investigation, concluded March 16 that either a court-martial jury or a military judge would defer to Hall’s and Brown’s perception that their lives were in danger from Bergeron’s actions and that they had followed the rules of engagement for self-defense.
Pickle also found that one piece of evidence, a videotape purportedly of the confrontation at the gate, was not admissible because it didn’t show what several witnesses agreed had occurred. Nor could an Air Force prosecutor explain the tape’s origins.
Defense attorneys called the videotape a fabrication.
Pickle also wrote that after the hearing, an Afghan police commander told her there were attempts to bribe Afghan guards in return for their testimony about what happened at the gate.
Pickle relayed the bribe allegation to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division in Kabul.
Geisel said that 9th Air Force’s staff judge advocate’s office is looking into the videotape and bribery allegations.
North sanctioned the officers despite Pickle’s recommendation that the charges be dropped.
“You acted with unreasonable force and intimidation over an automobile collision dispute,” North wrote to Brown.
He cited Brown for shoving Bergeron, pointing his loaded M4 rifle at him and then throwing Bergeron’s car keys into a bush.
North went on to warn the veteran airlift pilot, “In light of your behavior, you are forewarned that future misconduct on your part will result in serious consequences.”
Pavlik, Hall’s attorney, said he is asking North to reconsider the letter of counseling in view of the investigative officer’s report, which advised against prosecuting the officers.
If North doesn’t change his mind, the next step would be to appeal the decision to the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records.
Gittins, the attorney for Brown, said Brown isn’t asking North for a second look.
“No jury would convict either officer on these facts,” Gittins wrote North. He wrote that the right thing to do would be to “drop the charges and apologize to two officers who were needlessly and without reason subjected to personal humiliation and torment.”
Through Geisel, North declined to comment about Gittins’ letter.
The long-term effect that North’s letters will have on the pilots’ careers remains to be seen.
Speaking in broad terms about letters of counseling and reprimand, Col. Nancy Richards, chief of military justice for Air Combat Command, said the letters don’t affect a pilot’s flying status.
A reprimand will be placed in an officer’s unfavorable information file and could be considered when making assignment and personnel decisions, Richards said.
A letter of counseling goes into an officer’s personnel information file.
It likely would not greatly affect an officer’s career, Richards said. Typically, when an officer changes assignments, the letter doesn’t follow him.
Pavlik isn’t so certain. The defense attorney said an evaluator deciding Hall’s future would be hard-pressed not to consider a counseling letter signed by a three-star general.
“Someone is going to have to decide what goes into his officer performance report,” Pavlik said.
Gittins wrote that in the long term it is the credibility of North that has been harmed.
“At the end of the day,” Gittins wrote North, “your reprimand of my client is a laugh-out-loud joke.”
Ellie