[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 28, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       DOUBLE STANDARD IN NAVAL INVESTIGATIVE AND JUSTICE SYSTEM

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly about a 
double standard that seems to be operating full bore within the naval 
investigative and justice systems.
  The basis for my remarks today is an article that appeared on the 
front page of the Washington Post on June 15. The article was written 
by Mr. Barton Gellman and is entitled ``Court Says Navy Brass Shielded 
Official's Son.''
  The information in the article was drawn from court documents.
  The main document is an opinion by the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court 
of Military Review in Washington, DC. It was issued on June 13, 1994.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to place the article in the 
Record.
  The double standard works this way. It's very simple.
  The big boys with political pull break all the rules and get rewarded 
for it. The little guys way down the line with no pull get hammered.
  We saw the double standard in the Tailhook scandal. We saw it in the 
Naval Academy cheating scandal.
  We saw it in the investigation of the explosion on the battleship 
Iowa. We saw it in the A-12 stealth bomber fiasco. And now we see it 
all over again in the case of Yeoman H. Lawrence Garrett IV.
  The double standard in military justice has been around for a long 
time, but it is very hard to set a handle on it. When we are able to 
identify and document it, like in the Garrett case, we in Congress 
should stamp it out.
  While Yeoman Garrett was at the bottom of the chain of command, he 
had high-level political connections. His father was the Secretary of 
the Navy, H. Lawrence Garrett III.
  According to court documents, Yeoman Garrett admitted to repeated 
marijuana use, credit card fraud, theft, and lying under oath to 
investigators.
  These crimes were committed in 1991-92, while his father was 
Secretary of the Navy. His father helped him skate.
  A number of senior naval officers intervened in the investigation to 
protect the Secretary's son. These persons included Vice Adm. Jeremy 
Boorda, then Chief of Naval Personnel and now Chief of Naval 
Operations; and Rear Adm. DuVal M. Williams, commander of the Naval 
Investigative Service Command.
  The court documents clearly indicate that Admiral Williams--the head 
Navy investigator--interfered and even obstructed the investigation.
  But two more junior officers played a central role in the operation 
to shield Garrett. They did the dirty deed. These persons are Capt. 
Carlson M. LeGrand and Commander Peter Fagan. These two individuals, I 
am sure, were eager to please the Secretary.
  Captain LeGrand and Commander Fagan were the political engineers. 
They designed the fix.
  They rigged the review, and Yeoman Garrett got extremely lenient 
treatment.
  Yeoman Garrett was restricted to the base for 30 days and fined $880 
for crimes that normally bring hard jail time of up to 23 years.
  Garrett's co-conspirator in the operation, Yeoman Seaman Apprentice 
Chad E. Kelly, by comparison, got hammered. They threw the book at him. 
Yeoman Kelly got 2 years in jail, a dishonorable discharge, and a 
$14,000 fine.
  The Garrett caper fits the mold perfectly, It's a pattern of behavior 
that is repeated over and over again.
  The big boys engage in abuse of power and political misconduct. They 
manipulate the system to their own advantage. They do the dirty work 
and get rewarded for it.
  Captain LeGrand and Commander Fagan were rewarded handsomely for 
their faithful service. Both received important promotions earlier this 
year.
  LeGrand was promoted in March 1994 to the rank of rear admiral. He is 
now Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Navy and commander of the 
Naval Legal Service Command. Fagan was promoted to the rank of captain 
at about the same time. He is in charge of the southwest division of 
Naval Legal Service Command.
  LeGrand and Fagan were promoted in 1994.
  The alleged misconduct occurred in 1991 or 1992.
  Mr. President, there is a question that needs answering:
  Was the Navy aware of the allegations against LeGrand and Fagan when 
these two officers were recommended for promotions and those 
nominations were sent to the Senate for confirmation? Was anyone aware 
of the alleged misconduct when these promotions were approved?
  Mr. President, I would like the Navy to give me an answer to the 
questions.
  This is another sad story about abuse of power and political 
misconduct at the highest levels of the Navy.
  There is one standard of conduct for the brass with political muscle. 
There is another standard for enlisted men and junior officers who have 
none.
  The leadership is setting a bad example. The double standard sends 
the wrong signal to the men and women serving in the Navy.
  So long as the double standard is allowed to operate, it will have a 
corrosive effect on morale and discipline in the Navy.
  Those at the top cannot break all the rules and then expect those at 
the bottom to follow them when the going gets tough.
  I ask unanimous consent to place this story from the Washington Post 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 15, 1994]

  Court Says Navy Brass Shielded Official's Son: Lenient Treatment Is 
                        Latest Blight on System

                          (By Barton Gellman)

       A criminal case against the son of the Bush 
     administration's Navy secretary was ``infected throughout by 
     senior naval officers'' who acted improperly to protect him 
     and ``dispose of an awkward situation,'' according to a 
     senior military appellate court.
       The 26-page opinion by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of 
     Military Review, issued Monday and made public yesterday, 
     described a systematic attempt by the Navy chain of command 
     to shield Yeoman H. Lawrence Garrett IV after he admitted to 
     marijuana use and credit card fraud in 1991 and lying under 
     oath in 1992.
       The three-judge panel said Garrett received ``extremely 
     lenient'' treatment on charges for which ``any other sailor 
     in the U.S. Navy'' would have been court-martialed. Garrett 
     was restricted to base for 30 days and fined $880. One of his 
     collaborators in the credit card scheme received a two-year 
     prison sentence, a bad conduct discharge and $14,000 in 
     revoked pay.
       The court's rebuke comes as another black mark on a naval 
     justice system that repeatedly has been found wanting in 
     cases involving suspects with rank or influence. Two of those 
     singled out in the opinion, former Navy secretary H. Lawrence 
     Garrett III and retired Rear Adm. Duvall M. Williams, former 
     chief of the Naval Investigative Service (NIS), already had 
     been forced out in part for failing to hold senior officers 
     accountable in the Tailhook sexual abuse scandal.
       Some of those criticized by the court in the Garrett case 
     remain in important posts. Among them is Adm. Jeremy M. 
     Boorda, then chief of naval personnel and now the Navy's top-
     ranking admiral, who granted the younger Garrett an 
     unusual transfer to Washington at his father's behest.
       Two officers who played far more central roles in shielding 
     the sailor, according to the court, have since risen to the 
     top of the Navy justice system. Rear Adm. Carlson M. 
     LeGrand--who chose to try Garrett in a ``captain's mast,'' a 
     private administrative hearing reserved for minor 
     infractions--is now chief of the Naval Legal Service Command. 
     Capt. Peter Fagan, who was legal adviser to the Navy 
     secretary, is about to become southwest regional chief of 
     that command.
       The court found that Fagan helped arrange for an 
     extraordinary telephone call to the younger Garrett from his 
     mother, the Navy secretary's wife, which interrupted a 
     polygraphed interrogation and effectively ended it. At the 
     senior Garrett's request, the court found Fagan also gave 
     legal advice to the younger man and warned him about ``NIS 
     interrogation techniques.''
       The senior Garrett denied in a telephone interview that he 
     asked Boorda to transfer his son from San Diego, where the 
     investigation was centered. He said he did not recall asking 
     Fagan to advise his son and did not know his wife planned to 
     interrupt his son's interrogation, but added he saw ``nothing 
     sinister'' about either event.
       ``I scrupulously avoided any involvement,'' Garrett said.
       Rear Adm. Kendell Pease, the Navy spokesman, declined last 
     night to make ``any speculative remarks'' about the effect of 
     the case on Fagan and LeGrand. Fagan said he did nothing for 
     Garrett that he would not have done for any other sailor. 
     LeGrand was traveling in Japan and could not be located to 
     comment. Williams, who declined to discuss the substance of 
     the case, said the court made its findings without ``any 
     semblance of due process.''
       Because Garrett was punished administratively, the court 
     had no authority over his case. Its opinion was issued in the 
     appeal of Yeoman Seaman Apprentice Chad E. Kelly, an 
     acquaintance of Garrett who was convicted of credit card 
     theft following the same investigation and stood trial at a 
     general court-martial.
       The court found that the ``disparate treatment'' resulted 
     ``solely from [Garrett's] status as the son of the secretary 
     of the Navy.''
       ``Not only is it uncommon, but it is extraordinary that a 
     sailor could be found to have used marijuana repeatedly, to 
     have stolen property using credit cards taken from a Navy 
     mail room, to have received stolen property stolen by using 
     these cards . . . and to have lied to NIS agents under oath 
     and then be retained on active duty without being processed 
     for discharge,'' the court wrote of the younger Garrett.
       ``Based on our experience, we state with confidence that, 
     absent extraordinary circumstances, any other sailor in the 
     U.S. Navy who faced such charges would have been tried by 
     court-martial,'' it said.

   lMr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Wofford] for 10 minutes

                          ____________________