USCG — UCMJ Proceedings

[BuoyJumper]

In this day and age if the Coast Guard did not give a reason for relief somebody would start asking questions and then the CG would be criticized for being secretive.  Damned if you do - damned if you don't.

I don't have a problem with the CG providing a reason for his being relieved Chuck.  I think you're right on that.  But instead of subjecting his family to the shame associated with his using a government computer to view porn why not a more general reason.  Why not something like "unauthorized use of government property"?

[marspec]

I don't have a problem with the CG providing a reason for his being relieved Chuck.  I think you're right on that.  But instead of subjecting his family to the shame associated with his using a government computer to view porn why not a more general reason.  Why not something like "unauthorized use of government property"?
[/quote]
Agree Ron.  I know of one instance where an O-6 was given 3 days to retire or face admirals mast or courtmartial.  You have to be careful with that though as you could be accused of being soft on senior officers and enlisted.  I do like the "unauthorized use of government property" because, if I remember correctly, the proceedings of a mast do not have to be made public.  A court martial is a public judicial trial. 

 

[spacecowboy]

Actually I think its a little silly that a guy is getting booted out for watching some porn.  Gawd knows that before the internet lots of guys on the ships loaded up on magazines before we went on Ocean Station.

Yeah, he should not have been using a CG computer, but getting the boot seems over the top.

I agree, Glad i survived and retired. If looking at porn is a reason to be booted honestly i should,nt have.

I am not sure if i would have used a goverment computer to do so (although my dumb butt might have)though the computers i had excess to were not internet friendly ..i believe they were unisis or something off beat nothing like the home computors we have.

[LTGunner]

You guys really think this is just about being "PC" or looking at porn?    Let's face it, he wasn't looking at a "gentleman's magazine" in the armory or in the galley while off duty.   From the information provided, the COMMANDING OFFICER was using a government asset (that he read, signed and agreed to use for official use only) to view unauthorized sites.  Again, we're referring to a senior officer, that should have known better.  He would also be the presiding officer for any UCMJ infractions, of the same issue, by subordinates under his command.    

As noted earlier in the discussion, what else is not being disclosed?  I guess your opinions would change if the type of porn & restricted sites he was viewing was the real issue....    No need to air anymore dirty laundry, he was relieved & the USCG provided a basic reason for relief.  Could be more; don't need to know.  If it effected others in the command, that's another story altogether; but doesn't seem to be the case.  
Fact remains, a senior officer agreed not to abuse the government asset assigned to him and got caught.  I'm sure it wasn't the first time.  

[EX-CG-GM]

Tim, I agreed earlier that he should not have been doing it.  My only point a letter of reprimand or something like that may have been closer to the way to go.

[LTGunner]

Understood Stan,    

Now if it were a junior officer or enlisted, I would agree with a letter of reprimand, record documentation or even a stern "one way conversation" on the red carpet.   Unfortunately, this is a senior officer, in command and should have lead by example.  Way too much of this stuff going on these days at the senior level.  
Just look a few pages back of this thread and count the O-6s who have made the headlines.  

[EX-CG-GM]

Yeah, it seems the last year or so has seen quite a few people err in judgement.  I don't know if the number of removed from command incidents has increased over the years or if we just never heard about it when I was in.   

[BuoyJumper]

Coast Guard officer under investigation, relieved of command
By MICHAEL NEWSOM - mmnewsom @sunherald.com  

GULFPORT — U.S. Coast Guard officials told the Sun Herald the man who had been in charge of Coast Guard Station Gulfport has been temporarily removed and is under investigation.

Chief Warrant Officer Brandt Martin has been “temporarily relieved for cause” after 8th Coast Guard District Commander Rear Adm. Mary E. Landry had “lost confidence in (Martin’s) ability to lead,” Lt. Suzanne Kerver, District 8 public affairs officer, told the Sun Herald. Kerver said the Coast Guard would not release any specifics about what accusations against Martin it was investigating, and it’s unknown how long the probe will take.

“Nothing is being released for the integrity of the investigation,” Kerver said.


Chief Warrant Officer Brandt Martin above left and to the right of Admiral Thad Allen when Station Gulfport was commissioned last year.  
Above right and assuming command of the station is Chief Warrant Officer Thomas Ponte.

Martin is still a member of the Coast Guard, but he’s been transferred, but she was unsure of his location. A Coast Guard official at Base Support Unit New Orleans told the Sun Herald that Martin is now working there, but Martin didn’t return several messages left for him there. Several U.S. phone listings under his name have been disconnected.

Coast Guard Station Gulfport is now being led by 41-year-old Chief Warrant Officer Thomas Ponte, who said he took over July 2. Ponte said he didn’t know any specifics about Martin’s case, other than speculation, which he wouldn’t comment on.

“I had spoken to (Martin) a few times leading up to what should have been our change of command and obviously nothing of that sort came up during those conversations,” Ponte said. “Then I got a call approximately three weeks before I was due to report and take over, saying he had been temporarily removed from this position and that I would never meet him. I have never met him.”

Ponte, a member of the Coast Guard since 1991, previously served on a cutter out of Pascagoula and worked on the Gulf Coast for hurricanes Ivan, Katrina and others. He said he had asked to be reassigned to the area before his latest assignment in Gulfport.

So far, Ponte hasn’t noticed any ill effects from the controversy involving Martin at the Gulfport station, where 39 active-duty personnel and seven reservists work. The station averages 300 search-and-rescue missions annually, and has been busy with the BP oil spill, among other duties.

“They do a fantastic job,” Ponte said. “I spent all this morning under way with one of the crews and they are still very professional. A lot of the time, when the head of an organization is removed, there are usually problems underneath, but I think here they have a solid training and operational base. They’ve continued on.”

Coast Guard Station Gulfport was wiped out by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, but in May 2009 a new $17 million, 26,000-square-foot station opened there. At the time of the opening, Martin told the Sun Herald the new building, with its foot-thick concrete walls, was strong enough to withstand a Category 4 hurricane. Ponte said he was very impressed with the new station.

“It’s an incredible building,” Ponte said. “They are trying to rebuild a few more Coast Guard stations that are essentially falling apart, and this building is what they’re using as the template.”

Ponte said he believes ultimately the results of the investigation will be made public.

“Chief Warrant Officer Martin was held in high regard by a lot of people,” Ponte said. “We’ll see what happens.”

Original Article

[BuoyJumper]

News Release
Date: September 03, 2010
Contact:  District 11 Public Affairs

Coast Guard to hold hearing on
San Diego boat collision charges

ALAMEDA, Calif. — The Coast Guard will conduct an investigative hearing scheduled for Tuesday for three crewmembers from Coast Guard Station San Diego charged with offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice in connection with their involvement in the December 20, 2009 collision between a Coast Guard Station San Diego small boat and a civilian boat in San Diego Bay that resulted in the death of a child and the injury of other passengers on the civilian boat.

The investigative hearing, referred to as an Article 32 hearing, is similar to a preliminary hearing or a grand jury in a civilian criminal case. Under Article 32 of the UCMJ, the investigation is used to examine the sufficiency of the evidence and to recommend a forum for disposition. After the hearing, the Investigating Officer will submit a recommendation to Rear Adm. Joseph Castillo, the convening authority for this case, who will determine how the case shall proceed.

The hearing, to be held at the 11th Coast Guard district headquarters in Alameda, will review the following alleged violations of Articles of the UCMJ:

• Petty Officer 3rd Class Paul A. Ramos, the boat coxswain, is charged with involuntary manslaughter (Article 119), aggravated assault (Article 128), hazarding a vessel (Article 110), and dereliction of duty (Article 92);

• Petty Officer 2nd Class Ian M. Howell, Station San Diego Officer of the Day, is charged with negligent homicide (Article 134), aggravated assault (Article 128), suffering a vessel to be hazarded (Article 110), and dereliction of duty (Article 92); and,

• Petty Officer 3rd Class Brittany N. Rasmussen, boat crewman, is charged with negligent homicide (Article 134), aggravated assault (Article 128), and dereliction of duty (Article 92).

A fourth boat crewman, Petty Officer 3rd Class Lavelle M. Teague, is charged with dereliction of duty (Article 92); however, his case will not be a part of this Article 32 investigation hearing.

It bears noting that UCMJ charges are merely accusations and an accused person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

To protect the rights of the accused, and out of respect for the rights and privacy of everyone affected by the tragic accident, no additional details about the investigation or pending legal matters may be released at this time.

The UCMJ is a body of criminal laws that applies to all members of the armed forces.

News Release

[BuoyJumper]

Hearing in deadly Coast
Guard crash enters day 2
By TERRY COLLINS Associated Press Writer
Updated: 09/08/2010 12:38:49 AM PDT


ALAMEDA, Calif. — More witnesses were expected to testify Wednesday as a military-style preliminary hearing entered a second day for three Coast Guard officers charged in a December boat crash that killed an 8-year-old boy.

David Endert, the first witness to testify Tuesday, said that he thought the Coast Guard boat was traveling too fast when it struck another vessel in San Diego Bay.

"When I first saw it, I said to my wife under my breath, 'That guy's going to kill somebody,'" Endert said of the Coast Guard vessel.

Endert said he and his family were onboard a friend's boat during the San Diego Bay Parade of Lights boat parade when he spotted the Coast Guard boat about 150 feet away traveling about 35 mph. Other boats were moving at just 2 or 3 mph, he said.

Endert, of Upland, Calif., said the Coast Guard boat was on top of DeWeese's boat for about "15 to 20 seconds" after the collision. A woman could then be heard screaming and saying she couldn't find her son, he said.

Tears soon streamed down the face of Anthony's mother, Caroline DeWeese, during Endert's recollection.

Petty Officers Paul Ramos, Ian Howell and Brittany Rasmussen face each criminal charges in the case.

Ramos, the boat's coxswain, faces the most serious charge, involuntary manslaughter, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Howell and Rasmussen are each charged with negligent homicide and could spend up to three years in prison.

The three defendants sat mostly without expression during Endert's nearly hour-long testimony.
Earlier Tuesday, attorneys for the defendants argued that each should receive a separate hearing. Government lawyers want to try the three together.

The defense teams also said the hearing should be moved to San Diego to make it easier for witnesses to attend. About 20 witnesses are expected to testify either in person on by phone.

The hearing at the Coast Guard district headquarters in Alameda—just across the bay from San Francisco—is scheduled to last through Friday. Rear Adm. Joseph Castillo, the Coast Guard district commander, will decide whether the defendants should be court-martialed.

A preliminary hearing for Petty Officer Lavelle Teague, a fourth officer charged in the crash who is facing lesser charges, has been postponed.

Original Article

[EX-CG-GM]

three Coast Guard officers

Petty Officer Lavelle Teague, a fourth officer

 

[BuoyJumper]

News Release
Date: October 06, 2010
Contact:  District 11 Public Affairs

Coast Guard crewmembers face courts-
martial in San Diego Bay boat collision case

ALAMEDA, Calif. — Three members of a Coast Guard boat crew involved in a fatal collision in San Diego Bay late last year face courts-martial for criminal charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Rear Admiral Joseph Castillo, commander of the 11th Coast Guard District, decided to proceed with courts-martial following an Article 32 investigation into the incident.  The dates and locations for the trials have not been determined. 

Those charged and the types of courts-martial are:

Petty Officer Paul A. Ramos, the boat coxswain, charged with involuntary manslaughter (Article 119), negligent homicide (Article 134), aggravated assault (Article 128), negligently hazarding a vessel (Article 110), and dereliction of duty (Article 92), referred to general court-martial.
 
Petty Officer Ian M. Howell, charged with negligent homicide (Article 134), assault (Article 128), negligently suffering a vessel to be hazarded (Article 110), and dereliction of duty (Article 92), referred to special court-martial.

Petty Officer Brittany N. Rasmussen, charged with negligent homicide (Article 134), assault (Article 128), and dereliction of duty (Article 92), referred to special court-martial.

The charges are based on information discovered by Coast Guard investigators and evidence presented during the Article 32 investigation, which included four days of testimony at the 11th Coast Guard District headquarters in Alameda in early September.  Details of all charges are contained in the official charge sheets that are being released today along with the Article 32 investigating officer's recommendations.
 
There are three types of courts-martial -- general, special and summary.  A general court-martial is composed of not less than five members, presided over by a military judge, and may impose any sentence authorized in the manual for courts-martial for offenses of which the accused is found guilty.  A special court-martial is composed of not less than three members, presided over by a military judge, and may impose a maximum punishment of up to 12 months confinement, forfeiture of two-thirds pay for 12 months, reduction to lowest pay grade and a bad conduct discharge.

A fourth crew member, Petty Officer Lavelle M. Teague, was charged with dereliction of duty (Article 92).  His case is being addressed through military non-judicial punishment, an administrative process that can result in punishments such as:  up to 30 days of correctional custody, reductions in rank, forfeitures of pay, and restriction to base.

All UCMJ charges are accusations.  The accused are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.  To protect the rights of the accused, and out of respect for the rights and privacy of everyone affected by the tragic collision, no additional details about the investigation or pending legal matters may be released at this time.

The UCMJ is a complete set of criminal laws that covers most crimes contained in civilian law in addition to other military-specific offenses such as failure to obey an order, desertion, etc.

LINKS TO CHARGE SHEETS
Petty Officer 3rd Class Paul Ramos Charges
Petty Officer 2nd Class Ian Howell Charges
Petty Officer 3rd Class Brittany Rasmussen Charges

LINK TO ARTICAL 32 INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Petty Officer 3rd Class Paul Ramos Report
Petty Officer 2nd Class Ian Howell Report
Petty Officer 3rd Class Brittany Rasmussen Report

News Release

[vftb]

The Courts Martial is the right thing to do under the circumstances, but, it's a sad situation for all concerned.

[vftb]

Since it's a "Special" Courts Martial I guess none of them can be imprisoned for more that 12 months.  I'm not saying this is good or bad, just saying.

[EX-CG-GM]

Since it's a "Special" Courts Martial I guess none of them can be imprisoned for more that 12 months.  I'm not saying this is good or bad, just saying.

True, but I think at least one (the Coxswain) if not more will end up with the BCD.