-Caveat Lector-
>From www.cmrlink.org
>
>
> UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND QUESTIONS FOR INVESTIGATION
>
>
>
> The following is a partial list of questions associated with Navy
> decisions made from 1993 to the present, relating to the assimilation
> of female pilots into tactical aviation. Previous official probes,
> which focused primarily on charges of sex discrimination in naval
> aviation, failed to investigate specific information revealed by Lt.
> Patrick J. Burns, USN, or to pursue questions regarding safety and
> preferential treatment that were raised by Lt. Burns and others in the
> aviation community.
>
> These questions cannot be answered fully and credibly at the present
> time. Principle figures who are in a position to provide answers have
> yet to be interviewed. In the case of Lt. Burns, certain answers were
> disregarded or misrepresented in reports to higher authorities.
> Official inquiries regarding the following issues may provide insight
> into what is causing serious morale and retention problems in the
> aviation community, and possible ways to resolve them.
>
> 1) During the days and weeks immediately following Lt. Hultgreen�s
> death in October of 1994, several COMNAVAIRPAC officials and spokesmen
> for the Navy in Washington began making statements that misled the
> public about the primary cause of her fatal crash, and the training
> that preceded it. These statements were wholly inconsistent with
> normal procedures discouraging premature public comment about an
> aircraft mishap. As a result, journalists and commentators nationwide
> reported conflicting information; i.e., that Lt. Hultgreen was an
> above average pilot, and that her death was primarily caused by an
> engine malfunction.
>
>
>
> �Where and how did this cover story start, and why did Navy spokesmen
> do nothing to correct the misinformation?
>
>
>
> 2) During the nationally-publicized news conference on February 28,
> 1995, and a subsequent appearance on ABC "Nightline," Navy officials
> showed the videotape of Lt. Hultgreen�s accident, claimed that she had
> not received preferential treatment in aviation training, and
> continued to mislead the public by suggesting that the mishap was
> primarily due to engine failure. This was done even though a) Rear
> Adm. Lyle G. Bien had already confirmed that Lt. Hultgreen had
> received low scores and four pink sheets during her training, two of
> which were for landing approach errors similar to those that caused
> her death; and b) the Navy�s own JAGMAN report, released the same day,
> was full of technical information that contradicted the cover story.
>
>
>
> �Why was the Office of Naval Information not held accountable for
> issuing statements that were at variance with evidence to the
> contrary, as compiled in official Navy reports?
>
>
>
> 3) Shortly after Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness
> wrote a detailed letter to Sen. Strom Thurmond, concerning the request
> of Navy Lt. Patrick J. Burns, Adm. Bien was dispatched to conduct a
> field investigation. Adm. Bien, who was accompanied by JAG Cmdr.
> Maxwell Jenkins, conducted individual interviews with 27 officers
> assigned to the training squadron. Lt. Burns specifically told Adm.
> Bien that the women were unprepared, unsafe, and dangerous to pilot
> the F-14 in carrier operations. He has reason to believe that others
> made similar comments. Not only did Adm. Bien fail to convey the
> instructors� warnings to superiors who charged him to find the truth,
> he falsely wrote in his January 31, 1995 report to COMNAVAIRPAC that
> "...no interviewee claimed that any of the women were unsafe or
> unqualified to fly the aircraft."
>
>
>
> �Was Rear Adm. Bien, since promoted to Vice Admiral, questioned or
> held accountable for the difference in facts presented in an official
> report, especially one that dealt with questions of safety?
>
>
>
> 4) Adm. Bien confirmed that information contained in Elaine Donnelly�s
> January 16, 1995, letter was "largely accurate," while simultaneously
> denying its importance. Despite considerable documentary and
> testimonial evidence to the contrary, plus the death of Lt. Hultgreen
> and subsequent performance by Lt. Lohrenz that was described by her
> peers to be "unsafe, undisciplined, and unpredictable," Adm. Bien
> concluded that the training squadron did "what was right."
>
>
>
> �Does the Navy consider the record of this training squadron, since
> disbanded, to be an example of acceptable procedures that may be
> repeated elsewhere, regardless of the costs and elevated risks? �If
> the Navy considers Lt. Lohrenz� record of performance to have been
> acceptable for graduation to the fleet, what sort of record would have
> rendered it unacceptable? Would low scores and 10 pink sheets have
> been sufficient to wash her out? What about 15? Or 20? �Will future
> aspiring aviators with similar records be accorded similar concessions
> to ensure that they will not fail? �What, if anything, has been said
> or done to convey the message that aspiring pilots should be selected,
> trained and deployed to the fleet by meeting standards of excellence,
> not mediocrity?
>
>
>
> 5) In the Bien Report and in a Department of Defense Information Paper
> (DoD IP) dated July 12, 1995, it was conceded that Lt. Lohrenz
> received extraordinary concessions that were sometimes extended to
> individual pilots, but usually not to a single pilot. Both reports
> also conceded that the frequent provision of a turning (warmed up)
> spare aircraft when she repeatedly blamed the plane she was flying for
> problems in flight was "unprecedented."
>
>
>
> �What was the cumulative cost of Lt. Lohrenz� additional training,
> including the admittedly unprecedented provision of extra aircraft so
> that Lohrenz could pass the Tactics phase? �In view of severe budget
> cuts that have reduced funds available for training, how can the Navy
> justify the additional funds spent to ensure that Lt. Carey Lohrenz
> would not fail to graduate? �Given what is now known, why do some Navy
> officials keep insisting that there is no evidence of "preferential
> treatment" or "double standards" for the two female aviators in
> question?
>
>
>
> 6) The Air Wing 11 Report released by the Navy Inspector General in
> July 1997 acknowledges that at an all-instructors meeting, several
> members of the fleet replacement squadron expressed concerns about the
> abilities and safety of the first two women trained to fly the F-14.
> Lt. Burns and several others said that preferential treatment and
> extraordinary concessions extended to the women would lead to major
> problems, including a catastrophic accident. The Navy IG also reported
> that the squadron CO Cmdr. Tom Sobiek ended all discussion by
> announcing that the issue was bigger than all of them, and the women
> would go to the fleet no matter what. Despite accounts of this event
> acknowledged in the Air Wing Eleven Report, and statements
> acknowledging a gender quota that were recently made by Cmdr. Sobiek
> on CBS "60 Minutes," Lt. Burns has been denied whistleblower
> protection because he supposedly did not express his concerns first to
> his local chain of command.
>
>
>
> �Why have Navy officials ignored sworn testimony from Lt. Burns and at
> least three others regarding this key event? �Why were others who
> corroborated his account not interviewed as part of an investigation
> into questions raised not by Lt. Lohrenz, but by Lt. Burns?
>
>
>
> 7) VF-124 was due to be disbanded, and failure to graduate the women
> on time would have made it necessary to send them to an east coast
> fleet replacement squadron (FRS) to complete their training. The Air
> Wing Eleven Report acknowledged that a "race" was on with the Air
> Force to get women into combat aviation. Two of the pink sheets
> attributed to Lt. Lohrenz were disregarded or overruled by the CO
> himself, who had previously stated that the issue was bigger than
> anyone, and the women were destined to graduate to the fleet on time.
>
>
>
> �Given these actions, which appear to be contrary to the squadron�s
> own grading criteria, why is it not reasonable to suspect that Cmdr.
> Sobiek found it necessary to intervene in order to meet the squadron�s
> de facto deadline for graduating the women to the fleet "on time?" �Do
> these actions, as endorsed by Adm. Bien, constitute proper operating
> procedure, even though safety considerations may have been compromised
> by political and budget concerns?
>
>
>
> 8) The Secretary of the Navy punished Lt. Burns by removing his name
> from the list of Lt. Commander selectees, and by placing a severe
> letter of censure in his personnel file that does not reference the
> October 2, 1997 statement prepared by Lt. Burns in his own defense.
> These actions appear to be the only ones taken in response to the Air
> Wing Eleven Report.
>
>
>
> �Why have Defense Department or Navy officials not pursued any
> disciplinary action against civilians or uniformed officials who
> pressured COMNAVAIRPAC and the squadron commander to graduate the
> women on time, no matter what?
>
>
>
> 9) In a two page memorandum dated 31 May, 1995, the Commanding Officer
> of VF 213 listed numerous major errors and pink sheets issued to Lt.
> Carey Lohrenz at VF 124, all of which confirm information conveyed to
> Congress by Lt. Burns and subsequently published in the CMR Special
> Report: Double Standards in Naval Aviation. The memorandum was
> withheld from public view until 1997, when it was finally released to
> CMR in response to a FOIA request.
>
>
>
> �Official Navy emissaries met with certain members of Congress and
> their staff during the summer of 1995, to provide information
> regarding the FRS training performance of Lts. Hultgreen and Lohrenz.
> Given the existence of the 31 May, 1995 document, why was information
> presented to Congress at variance with facts already confirmed by the
> squadron commanding officer?
>
>
>
> 10) For example, the July 12 DoD Information Paper presented behind
> closed doors to members of the HNSC staff by Rear Adm. H. T. Rittenour
> confirmed many facts already published by CMR, but was contradictory
> in many respects. The DoD IP drew artificial distinctions between the
> terms "down" and "signal of difficulty" (SOD), both of which are
> commonly used terms for failing grades marked by "pink sheets." (As
> explained in squadron grading criteria, a down requires a refly while
> an SOD does not. Both are indicators of unsatisfactory
> performance--one or two of which have historically been enough to end
> the career of aspiring aviators, depending on other factors.)
>
> The DoD IP failed to mention the pink sheet issued to Lt. Hultgreen on
> March 31, 1994, the second signal of difficulty in that phase of
> instruction. Both SODs demonstrated Lt. Hultgreen�s tendency to make
> glide slope errors similar to those made on the day she died. The DoD
> IP also criticized the June, 1995 condensed version (6 pages) of the
> CMR Special Report: Double Standards in Naval Aviation, for failing to
> include information that was actually attached to the full-length
> version released on April 25, 1995.
>
>
>
> �In view of these kinds of significant omissions, contradictory
> information and contrivances, what was the purpose of the DoD IP
> report to members of Congress? �Were any disciplinary actions taken
> against Adm. Rittenour and other Navy spokesmen who prepared documents
> and made presentations that were known to be incomplete,
> contradictory, or highly misleading to members of Congress?
>
>
>
> 11) In a memorandum sent on November 21, 1997, to Rep. Roscoe
> Bartlett, the Bureau of Naval Personnel asserted that "all allegations
> of ineffective or substandard performance or deceit by the Navy chain
> of command were thoroughly investigated and found unsubstantiated by
> the Naval Inspector General." In support of this statement, the Navy
> IG provided a copy of an affidavit filed in federal court by attorney
> Susan Barnes in support of litigation filed against the Department of
> the Navy by Lt. Carey Lohrenz. The affidavit, labeled "Plaintiff�s
> Exhibit A," describes a theory that is totally devoid of supportive
> evidence.
>
> In particular, Ms. Barnes claims that Elaine Donnelly did not write
> her own letter of January 16, 1995, to Sen. Strom Thurmond. Nor did
> Donnelly write the CMR Special Report: Double Standards in Naval
> Aviation, first published in April of 1995. Rather, Barnes claims that
> these documents were produced by members of a "conspiracy" group
> called the "Tailhook Underground," which included Rear Adm. Jay
> Yakeley, Air Wing Eleven Commander Capt. Dennis Gillespie, VF-213 CO
> Cmdr. Fred Killian, and several F-14 instructors, including Lt.
> Patrick J. Burns.
>
> This affidavit or allegations contained in it were apparently revealed
> to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest, who reported the story as
> fact on June 21, 1997. She also quoted an unnamed spokesman who said
> that the Navy would return Lt. Lohrenz to land-based flight status, in
> order to "make amends" to her for being victimized by the conspiracy
> group�s alleged "smear campaign."
>
> A letter from Elaine Donnelly categorically denying any knowledge of
> such a conspiracy group--much less any involvement in such a
> campaign--was published by the Washington Post on July 12, 1997. With
> the exception of Lt. Burns, Donnelly had never met or spoken to any of
> the Navy personnel named.
>
>
>
> �Given these facts, why did the Bureau of Naval Personnel supply the
> affidavit signed by Susan Barnes to a member of Congress? �If
> allegations made by Ms. Barnes are considered credible by BUPERS, what
> action has been taken regarding the other "conspirators" named in the
> affidavit? �Given her central involvement in the alleged "conspiracy,"
> why was Elaine Donnelly not interviewed by appropriate authorities?
>
>
>
> 12) An October 23, 1997, letter from Washington Post Assistant Counsel
> Katharine Weymouth to Lt. Burns� attorney, Robert B. Rae, affirmed
> that Dana Priest�s July 21, 1997, story should have stated that it was
> Defense Department officials who described actions by Elaine Donnelly
> and Lt. Burns to be part of a "smear campaign."
>
>
>
> �If the "smear campaign" allegations made by Ms. Barnes are not
> considered credible by BUPERS, why did a Defense Department spokesman
> tell the Washington Post that it was necessary to "make amends" to Lt.
> Lohrenz, whose charges of sex discrimination were found
> unsubstantiated? �Which Defense Department officials are responsible
> for this false statement? �Have the officials in question been
> disciplined for spreading false and derogatory information to the
> media, regarding Lt. Burns and Elaine Donnelly, a private citizen?
>
>
>
> 13) The July 21 Washington Post story announced a decision by BUPERS
> to return Lt. Lohrenz to naval aviation, which was made by a Naval
> Aviation Evaluation Board (NAEB) composed of persons who had no
> first-hand knowledge or experience with her flying record. In doing
> so, the Washington-based board overruled the specific recommendations
> of all others in her immediate chain of command.
>
>
>
> �Was that decision based in whole or in part on the alleged "Tailhook
> Underground" story? �Was the decision to allow Lt. Lohrenz to fly
> land-based aircraft part of an explicit or implied trade-off for
> withdrawal or settlement of her lawsuit against the Navy? �Has the
> Navy offered or agreed to any settlement with Lt. Lohrenz regarding
> her lawsuit?
>
>
>
> 14) During an NBC "Dateline" segment aired July 3, 1996, Lt. Lohrenz
> accused her commanding officer, Capt. Dennis Gillespie, of "lying"
> about her performance as a carrier aviator. This was an obvious
> violation of rules forbidding public statements impugning the
> character of a commanding officer, even if true.
>
>
>
> �Why has Lt. Lohrenz not been disciplined for attacking her CO�s
> integrity on national TV? �Why was Lt. Lohrenz not disciplined for
> disciplinary rule violations that were mentioned or documented in the
> Air Wing Eleven report?
>
>
>
> * * * * * *
>
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
