[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 126 (Monday, September 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               THE NOMINATION OF ADM. HENRY H. MAUZ, JR.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, sometime this afternoon or tomorrow it would 
be my hope that the Senate go into executive session to take up the 
Mauz nomination. The leader has already indicated that would be his 
intent.
  I do not intend to call it up now because I know we are not going to 
be able to vote on it now, and there will be others coming in I hope 
this afternoon to debate the defense bill which is the pending 
business. But in an effort to use the Senate's time in a meaningful way 
this afternoon, while we are waiting for people who have indicated they 
want to speak on the DOD bill to come to the floor, I would like to 
discuss the Mauz nomination because all of my colleagues may be 
required to vote on or in relation to this nomination as early as 
tomorrow afternoon.
  Mr. President, I urge the Senate to confirm the nomination of Adm. 
Henry Mauz, Jr., U.S. Navy, to retire in grade. This nomination was 
received in the Senate on May 10, 1994--4 months ago--and has been 
thoroughly reviewed by the Committee on Armed Services.

  The nomination was reported to the Senate over a month ago by the 
Armed Services Committee, on August 12, 1994, following a unanimous, 
22-0 vote in committee in favor of the nomination.
   Mr. President, the committee thoroughly reviewed all issues, 
including allegations associated with this nomination, in accordance 
with the committee's standard procedures prior to the unanimous vote on 
August 12. I will describe in detail the committee's proceedings on 
this nomination and the results of our review of the issues.


                     admiral mauz' military record

  Before doing so, I would like to set forth the details of Admiral 
Mauz' 35-year career in the Navy. That career--his record of service in 
uniform to our Nation, I believe, must be considered by the Senate in 
reaching its decision on Admiral Mauz' retirement.
  Admiral Mauz has served on active duty continuously since 1959, with 
numerous shipboard assignments involving lengthy deployments and family 
separations.
  During the war in Vietnam, he served with distinction over a 4-year 
period in the Western Pacific and in Southeast Asia. His direct combat 
experience included 13 months of duty as the officer in charge of River 
Section 543, patrolling the rivers of Vietnam and supporting operations 
by Navy SEAL's and attack helicopters. His patrols frequently involved 
firefights and skirmishes with the Viet Cong, who controlled the river 
banks. For his Vietnam era service, he as awarded the Bronze Star with 
Combat ``V'' and the Navy Achievement Medal.
  Subsequent to his tours of duty in Vietnam, he served in a series of 
command and staff positions in which he demonstrated outstanding 
performance and leadership. His operational actions included emergency 
deployments to the Mediterranean in the early seventies in response to 
the Middle East crisis and deployment to the North Arabian Sea in the 
early eighties in response to the Iranian crisis.
  In 1986, he commanded the two carrier Battle Force consisting of the 
U.S.S. America and the U.S.S. Coral Sea, which conducted successful 
strikes against terrorist related targets in Libya. He was awarded the 
Distinguished Service Medal for these operations.
  In 1990, while serving both as the Commander of the Seventh Fleet and 
Commander of U.S. Naval Forces in the Central Command, he worked with 
General Schwarzkopf to establish the maritime embargo against Iraq 
after Iraq invaded Kuwait, and developed the plans for naval 
involvement in the Persian Gulf war. His performance earned him a 
second Distinguished Service Medal.
  In addition to the decorations previously mentioned, Admiral Mauz's 
awards include the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, 
and the Meritorious Service Medal.
  Since July 1992, he has served as the commander in chief, U.S. 
Atlantic Fleet. He has under his command 224 ships, 1,480 aircraft, 27 
bases, 12,000 military officers, 125,000 enlisted personnel, and 10,000 
DOD civilians.
  Mr. President, I hope that these numbers do not just go over people's 
heads as they are making their own conclusions about this debate and 
this vote that we will have on this nomination. Every complaint needs 
to be checked, and every allegation in this case has been checked. I 
think the scope of this has to be put in the context of the complaints. 
We have had two people complain in terms of the allegations we are 
dealing with, and I will detail these issues in a few moments. Out of 
the 125,000 enlisted personnel, 10,000 civilians, and 12,000 military 
officers who served under Admiral Mauz for 2 years in his most recent 
assignment--this does not count the previous assignments over his 
entire 35-year career--we have had two complaints. These complaints 
need to be seriously examined, and they will be. They will be seriously 
considered by the Senate. This does not diminish the seriousness of the 
complaints, but it does put them in context. The military nominations 
we consider involve Navy officers, Air Force officers, Marine officers, 
and Army officers, who have under their command tens of thousands of 
people. Thousands of things happen every day in personnel matters--not 
one or two, but thousands of them. I think this has to be put in that 
context.
  The Atlantic Fleet, which has an annual operations and maintenance 
budget of $4.6 billion, has been involved in operations ranging from 
the Arctic North to South America, including supporting the Haiti 
embargo, the war on drugs, and Cuban migration operations; providing 
forces for possible Haitian contingency operations; and providing 
forces for regular deployments to the Mediterranean and Central Command 
areas.
  In short, he is serving, and has served, with distinction in one of 
the most senior and responsible positions in the Armed Forces of the 
United States.
  Now the Senate is deciding whether his long and distinguished career 
of naval service warrants retirement in grade as a four-star Admiral; 
or whether--based on allegations which have not been substantiated--he 
should receive a two-grade reduction to rear Admiral. Such a reduction 
would not only constitute a penalty of almost $17,000 per year for the 
rest of his life, it would also constitute a repudiation of his 35 
years of distinguished service. At least that is the way it is 
perceived by me.


 consideration of military nominations by the armed services committee

  Mr. President, to put this nomination in context, I would like to 
describe the procedures used by the Armed Services Committee to 
consider general and flag officer nominations--including nominations 
for three- and four-star officers to retire in grade.
  Pursuant to the constitutional responsibility of the Senate to 
provide advice and consent on the nomination of officers of the United 
States, the Senate Armed Services Committee considers the promotion of 
virtually all military officers, as well as the appointment, 
reassignment, and retirement of all three- and four-star officers. The 
consideration of military nominations is one of the major activities of 
the Armed Services Committee. This year alone, we have considered over 
600 general and flag officer nominations and over 18,000 other military 
nominations.
  Our review of military nominations is in addition to our action this 
year on 26 civilian nominations--each of which required hearings. We 
have discharged this responsibility while also acting on major 
legislation, including the annual National Defense Authorization Act 
and the Federal Acquisition Streamlining of 1994.
  The committee gives particular attention to general and flag officer 
nominations. Each such nomination is scrutinized to ensure compliance 
with the joint service and educational requirements of the Goldwater-
Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act. In addition, the 
committee requires the Department of Defense to provide a letter on 
each general and flag officer nominee, advising the committee as to any 
substantiated adverse information.
  The committee also takes seriously its responsibility to consider 
allegations submitted by individuals. When the committee receives an 
allegation which contains information that could provide a basis for 
rejecting the nomination, the committee forwards the information to the 
Department of Defense for its review and report back to the committee.
  The committee reviews carefully the Department's adverse information 
letter and the information provided by the Department in response to 
allegations submitted by individuals. We do not simply defer to the 
judgment of the Department of Defense. We determine whether the 
Department's submission provides a sufficient basis for action on the 
nomination, or whether additional information is needed. When the 
committee determines that the information provided by the Department is 
not sufficient to provide a factual basis for considering the 
nomination, we require additional information.
  When there is substantiated adverse information, it is considered by 
the committee in the course of determining whether to recommend to the 
Senate that the nomination be confirmed. I want to make it clear that 
we do not simply defer to the executive branch. In recent years, we 
have rejected nominees for senior military positions in each of the 
military departments that we were strongly supported by the Department 
of Defense.


                   proceedings on the mauz nomination

  On May 10, 1994, President Clinton nominated Admiral Mauz to retire 
in grade as a four-star admiral, and the nomination was referred to the 
Armed Services Committee.
  On May 17, 1994, Under Secretary of Defense Edwin Dorn submitted the 
required information letter to the committee. This letter informed the 
committee that Admiral Mauz was counseled in writing for circumstances 
involving an official trip to the Naval Air Station Bermuda in November 
1992, a well-publicized incident that had been featured on the ABC-TV's 
``Prime Time Live'' program on December 10, 1992.
  The letter noted that although the matter involved legitimate 
official travel by Admiral Mauz, ``circumstances that evolved during 
the planning of the trip created the appearance that the travel was 
planned and executed as much for the personal recreation of some of the 
staff and their spouses as it was for the performance of official 
duties by Admiral Mauz.''
  The letter also noted that Admiral Mauz and members of his party and 
spouses were inappropriately provided with ground transportation, and 
the use of a military driver, while in leave status.
  As a result, he was counseled in writing that he should exercise 
greater care to avoid the appearance of impropriety when scheduling of 
official travel and use of Government aircraft are combined with leave. 
He was further counseled that he should exercised greater scrutiny in 
his use of military personnel while in a leave status.
  The DOD letter concluded:

       We have carefully considered this information; it should 
     not preclude favorable consideration of the nomination. When 
     considered in light of Admiral Mauz's performance spanning 35 
     years of service, proceeding with the nomination is clearly 
     in the best interests of the Department of the Navy and the 
     Department of Defense.

  Mr. President, pursuant to the committee's standard procedures, the 
nomination remained on the committee's calendar pending an opportunity 
to brief committee members and to discuss the adverse information that 
had been submitted by DOD. During June, the committee devoted almost 
all of our attention to markup and Senate floor debate on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995. We simply had no time 
for the kind of deliberate discussion that was required for this 
nomination.
  The committee was prepared to act on the Mauz nomination in early 
July, when we received a letter on the nomination from the Government 
Accountability Project, a nonprofit organization, dated July 11, 1994. 
In addition to discussing the trip to Naval Air Station Bermuda, the 
letter raised two additional matters.
  First, the letter alleged that Admiral Mauz retaliated against Senior 
Chief Master-at-Arms George R. Taylor, one of the individuals who had 
spoken to ABC-TV about travel of senior officers to Naval Air Station 
Bermuda. The letter alleged that Admiral Mauz and his staff removed 
Chief Taylor from his duties and attempted to prosecute him for 
insubordination. The letter implied that Admiral Mauz was also involved 
in court-martial charges against Chief Taylor at a subsequent duty 
station, Port Hueneme, which were later dismissed.
  Second, the letter alleged that Admiral Mauz was aware of sexual 
harassment against Lt. Darlene Simmons, a female officer in a 
subordinate command within the Atlantic Fleet, that he suppressed 
findings of his own command's inquiry into the matter, and that he 
failed to order any corrective action on behalf of Lieutenant Simmons.
  Mr. President, at the time we received this letter, the nomination 
had been pending in the committee for over 2 months. Admiral Mauz was 
not the only one affected. His replacement--and all replacements down 
the line--were held in abeyance pending action on the nomination. The 
management of the Navy, the careers of individuals, and the personal 
plans of families--all were placed on hold pending the confirmation 
proceedings.
  With due regard for the burdens on the Navy, the officers concerned, 
and their families, the committee recognized its obligation to the 
Senate to ensure appropriate review of these allegations. The committee 
followed its normal procedure and directed the Navy to address the 
issues set forth in the letter.
  On July 27, 1994, Adm. Jeremy M. Boorda, the Chief of Naval 
Operations, responded on behalf of the Navy. The letter from Admiral 
Boorda contains detailed, factual responses to the allegations against 
Admiral Mauz. And for any colleagues who would like to look at the 
letter--it will be placed in the Record today--they will have a chance 
to examine that.
  The Navy reported that the allegations of reprisal against Senior 
Chief Taylor by Admiral Mauz were not substantiated. According to the 
Navy, there is no substantiated evidence that Admiral Mauz had any role 
in the proceedings against Senior Chief Taylor in Bermuda or at Port 
Hueneme. Moreover, the DOD inspector general reviewed the proceedings 
in Bermuda and determined that they did not constitute a reprisal. In 
addition, the charges against Senior Chief Taylor in connection with 
his duties at Port Hueneme ultimately were dismissed by the Navy.
  The Navy also determined that the allegations that Admiral Mauz had 
failed to address the sexual harassment of Lieutenant Simmons were not 
substantiated. The Navy confirmed that Lieutenant Simmons had been the 
victim of sexual harassment on board the U.S.S. Canopus--there is no 
question she had been sexually harassed; that is not at issue here--a 
ship under a subordinate chain of command--but that Admiral Mauz had 
acted promptly when he was advised of the problem.
  The Navy reported that Admiral Mauz's intervention through 
appointment of Comdr. Cathleen Miller to monitor the case led to 
removal of the offending officer from the Canopus and a meeting of 
ship's officers in which the CO, the commanding officer, expressly 
condemned the offending behavior. In addition, when Lieutenant Simmons, 
a reserve officer, faced termination of her active duty service, 
Admiral Mauz personally intervened with the Chief of Naval Personnel to 
have her service extended.
  The Navy reported that Lieutenant Simmons allegations against Admiral 
Mauz had been referred to the Navy inspector general and that the 
allegations were not substantiated.
  At this point, the committee was again ready to consider the 
nomination. On July 29, the committee received a telephone call from 
the Government Accountability Project, indicating that they would be 
providing additional information on the Taylor matter during the week 
of August 1. The committee met on August 1 and decided to defer action 
on the nomination in view of the promised imminent receipt of 
additional information.
  The committee received a letter from the Government Accountability 
Project, dated August 3, 1994, alleging that inquiries by Admiral Mauz' 
staff concerning the Port Hueneme case represented an attempt to 
influence the prosecution of Senior Chief Taylor and to intimidate his 
military defense counsel.
  The committee once again deferred action on the nomination so that 
the allegations could be reviewed.
  On August 9, Navy Secretary Dalton responded to the second letter 
from the Government Accountability Project. The Secretary reported that 
the allegations were not substantiated. Chargess against Senior Chief 
Taylor were initiated, processed and dismissed by naval authorities in 
California without influence or intervention from Admiral Mauz or his 
staff.
  On August 10, during a public hearing on civilian nominations, I 
outlined a number of items on the committee's agenda, including the 
likelihood of a vote on the retirement of the nomination of Admiral 
Mauz. I noted that the committee had been briefed on the nomination 
during the previous week, and that additional information had been 
reviewed since that time. I added that I would be recommending, as 
chairman of the committee, that the nomination be approved.
  On August 12, the committee reported the nomination to the Senate. At 
this point, the nomination had been in the Senate for 3 months, action 
by the committee had been deferred two times, and all matters had been 
thoroughly reviewed by the Department of Defense and the committee.
  The vote was unanimous, with all the 22 members of the committee 
voting in favor of the nomination. In reviewing the nomination we had 
discussed both of these matters, the allegations in both cases, that I 
have referred to.
  In view of the media attention to nomination, the committee directed 
Senator Thurmond and me to issue a joint statement, summarizing the 
committee's proceedings and including the relevant correspondence from 
the Government Accountability Project and the Navy. That statement 
appeared in the Record of August 12, beginning on page S 11434.
  I might add the Government Accountability Project is a nonprofit 
organization. It has no connection with the U.S. Government. That is 
the name of it--the Government Accountability Project. But there is no 
governmental connection that I know of.
  On August 16, Senior Chief Taylor wrote to Senator Shelby stating 
that the letters from the Navy were inaccurate and misleading. Senator 
Shelby forwarded the letter to the committee. In response to a follow-
up call from the committee, the Government Accountability Project 
submitted a letter from the Senior Chief Taylor on August 9. According 
to Senior Chief Taylor, Admiral Mauz' alleged improper role in the case 
I referred to was substantiated because Admiral Mauz' staff had 
obtained a copy of a motion in that case at the direction of Admiral 
Mauz, and Admiral Mauz' staff judge advocate had called the prosecutor 
to tell him that he was upset that the charges had been withdrawn 
against Taylor.
  The committee forwarded this letter to the Navy for review.
  Admiral Boorda responded on August 22, 1994, stating that the parties 
to the conversation do not support Senior Chief Taylor's assertion that 
the request for the motion was made at Admiral Mauz' personal 
direction, or that anyone regarded the request as improper.
  Mr. President, this is a complicated series of conversations back and 
forth. It is all detailed in the Navy's response to the committee. It 
would take 3 or 4 pages of explanation, but the bottom line is there is 
no evidence that Admiral Mauz had any knowledge of the request. 
Instead, the evidence is that the material was forwarded at the 
initiative of Navy attorneys in California, not at the initiative of 
Admiral Mauz or his staff.
  With respect to the allegation that Admiral Mauz's staff judge 
advocate stated that he was upset that the charges were withdrawn, the 
Navy reported that the staff judge advocate denies making such a 
statement. Senior Chief Taylor did not allege in the court proceedings 
that the staff judge advocate had made such a statement, and the record 
of proceedings does not contain evidence of such a statement.
  But, in any event, relating to the allegations Senior Chief Taylor 
made to the committee, the staff judge advocate denies making such a 
statement.
  Mr. President, I assume we will have most of the debate on this 
matter tomorrow. But there are several reasons that I think our 
colleagues ought to keep in mind why the Senate should act on this 
nomination now without further delay.
  The committee adhered to our well-established procedures to ensure 
appropriate review of the allegations concerning Admiral Mauz by both 
the Department of Defense and the committee. The Navy provided detailed 
responses to the allegations concerning Admiral Mauz. With respect to 
the allegations concerning Lieutenant Simmons, the Navy concluded:

       Admiral Mauz did not suppress the evidence of any inquiry, 
     did not fail to take corrective action on behalf of 
     Lieutenant Simmons, nor did he fail to follow proper 
     procedures in inquiring into allegations.

  With respect to the allegations concerning Senior Chief Taylor, the 
Navy concluded:

       There is simply no basis whatsoever for any claim that 
     Admiral Mauz took a personal interest in the case involving 
     Senior Chief Taylor.

  The committee has relied on these procedures in the past, both with 
respect to nominations that have been recommended for approval and 
nominations that have been rejected. There has been no showing that the 
circumstances of the Mauz nomination require the use of different 
procedures.
  Mr. President, Admiral Mauz has served his country faithfully and 
with distinction for over 35 years, including combat service in 
Vietnam, as well as in key operational roles in the Mediterranean and 
in the Persian Gulf. He continues to serve as commander of the Atlantic 
Fleet. He was there when America needed him, and he continues to be 
there at this very moment. His service has not been perfect--and I 
doubt if there are many, if any, people who have gone through a perfect 
career--and that was demonstrated by the counseling he received in 
connection with travel to Bermuda Naval Air Station. No doubt he made a 
mistake there, a mistake of judgment. In my judgment, however, that 
lapse in judgment pales in significance when compared to his 35 years 
of outstanding service.
  Finally, I would note that Admiral Mauz' replacement, Adm. Bud 
Flanagan--who many people in the Senate know; he was formerly Navy 
liaison--was confirmed by the Senate in June, but he cannot assume his 
new position until Admiral Mauz retires. The delay in moving Admiral 
Flanagan has in turn delayed appointment of Admiral Flanagan's 
successor, which in turn has delayed appointments all the way down the 
line.
  This is most disruptive on Navy's management and very difficult on 
the officers and families concerned.
  Mr. President, this disruption does not mean that serious allegations 
do not have to be taken seriously. And we have done that. This 
nomination has been delayed on three different occasions while we 
checked into each and every allegation. It does mean, however, that we 
cannot take allegations that do not have substance to them, based on 
all of our examinations, and make those the focal point of public 
hearings. If we do that, we go on and on and on with the process. There 
are times when hearings are required, but that is when we have 
substantial evidence to back up allegations.
  An allegation is not a fact. An allegation is not proof. And we need 
to keep that in mind. There are too many of these cases now coming 
before the Senate where allegations are being taken as tantamount to 
fact. That is simply not the way that any deliberative body adjudicates 
important matters.
  Mr. President, I understand the concern about the allegations made 
against Admiral Mauz. There are Senators who are legitimately 
concerned. They have legitimate questions. We have continued to work 
with those Senators. We are continuing to work with them now. We are 
getting to any other questions that concern this. I will be glad to 
send them over and make sure the Navy, Admiral Mauz, or Admiral Boorda, 
the Secretary of the Navy, or other appropriate people focus on them 
and give honest and thorough answers to those questions.
  So we are not saying there is not room for questions here. There is.
  But the committee has taken each allegation and we have gone through 
it. We have treated them as worthy of review. We did not act on the 
nomination until there was sufficient time for development of key facts 
and consideration of that information by the committee. We made that 
information available to the Senate. Every Senator can reach his or her 
own conclusion on the merits of the nomination.
  In the opinion of the Armed Services Committee, by unanimous vote, 
after looking at these allegations, the 35 years of dedicated service 
to the Nation by Admiral Mauz warrants retirement in grade. I urge my 
colleagues, when we vote on this nomination or in relation to this 
nomination tomorrow afternoon--I hope we will vote tomorrow afternoon--
to vote for his nomination.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the correspondence to the 
committee from the Government Accountability Project and responses to 
these allegations from the Department of Navy be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Government Accountability Project,

                                    Washington, DC, July 11, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Russell Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn: On behalf of the Government 
     Accountability Project (GAP) I am writing to bring 
     information to the attention of your committee bearing on the 
     merits of the retirement of Admiral Henry Mauz at the ``four 
     star'' level.
       GAP is a non-partisan, non-profit whistleblower protection 
     organization. GAP provides legal representation and other 
     support services to workers both within and outside federal 
     service. Two of our clients, Senior Chief Master-at-Arms 
     George R. Taylor and Lt. Darlene S. Simmons, JAGC, USNR, have 
     had direct, recent experiences with Admiral Mauz and their 
     letters are attached for your consideration [Attachments 1 
     and 2].
       As Senior Chief Taylor's letter indicates, Admiral Mauz 
     misused government facilities and property at the Bermuda 
     Naval Air Station for his and his family's personal use. When 
     these actions were brought to public attention, Admiral Mauz 
     and his staff retaliated against Taylor, stripping him of his 
     duties and attempting to prosecute him for insubordination. 
     Following his transfer to the base at Port Hueneme, 
     California, Taylor was faced with a 48-count court martial on 
     a supposedly unrelated matter. This incident was closely 
     monitored by Admiral Mauz's legal staff for the Atlantic 
     Fleet. All charges against Taylor were subsequently 
     dismissed.
       As Lt. Simmons's letter indicates, Admiral Mauz was aware 
     of sexual harassment against Lt. Simmons and the failure of 
     her command to take proper action. Admiral Mauz suppressed 
     the findings of his own command's inquiry into the issue. 
     Despite his personal involvement and knowledge of the 
     situation, Admiral Mauz failed to order any corrective action 
     to be taken on behalf of Lt. Simmons. Finally, the Vice Chief 
     of Naval Operations, Admiral S.R. Arthur, refused to accept a 
     formal complaint from Lt. Simmons alleging dereliction of 
     duty in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice 
     against Admiral Mauz.
       While the Secretary of the Navy, John H. Dalton, recently 
     ordered corrective action on behalf of Lt. Simmons (an 
     apology, clearing her record, a new duty station and letters 
     of censure for three officers in her former chain of command 
     [see Attachment 3]), no action was taken against any flag 
     commander who was responsible for the ongoing development of 
     this situation over several months.
       Besides reprisal for the reporting of wrongdoing, there is 
     one additional common element in these two cases--the role 
     played by the Inspector General of the Atlantic Fleet to 
     cover up the nature and extent of the underlying problems and 
     prevent any further remedial actions.
       These two cases, in our minds, bear directly on the merits 
     of the decision before your committee with respect to the 
     appropriate level of retirement grade for Admiral Mauz.
       Regardless of how this particular question is resolved, it 
     is clear that the system of accountability within the 
     military and the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, in 
     particular, are broken and in dire need of repair. GAP 
     strongly urges that a comprehensive review of these issues be 
     undertaken by the Armed Services Committee as soon as it is 
     practicable.
           Cordially,
                                                  Jeffrey P. Ruch,
                                                  Policy Director.
                                  ____



                                              Ponte Vedra, FL,

                                                     July 8, 1994.
     Senator Sam Nunn,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee, Russell Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn: I am writing this letter to express my 
     concern that Admiral Henry Mauz may retire at the Four Star 
     Level, a distinction indicative of extraordinary service. I 
     request that during the deliberation process of this issue 
     the information regarding Admiral Mauz's involvement in the 
     handling of my sexual harassment case be considered. I 
     believe Admiral Mauz was (1) Derelict in his Duty through his 
     culpable inefficient and negligent handling of my case of 
     sexual harassment. (2) Admiral Mauz failed to act on my 
     report of sexual harassment, retaliation and reprisal. I 
     specifically report to you that Admiral Mauz failed to follow 
     those procedures directed by the Department of Defense and 
     the Department of the Navy. (3) Admiral Mauz in his position 
     as Commander In Chief of the Atlantic Fleet Mauz 
     intentionally allowed sexual harassment, retaliation and 
     reprisal by senior officers in my chain of command to go 
     unchecked. Admiral Mauz used his official position to protect 
     those guilty of sexual harassment and then to cover up his 
     inefficient handling of the matter.
       Admiral Mauz had knowledge in October 1992 that I was 
     sexually harassed. This harassment was substantiated by a 
     member of his staff, Commander Cathleen Miller. Admiral Mauz 
     was also aware of the failure of my chain of command to 
     handle the matter from May 1992 until October 1992. A command 
     inquiry was conducted in October 1992. This command inquiry 
     substantiated the sexual harassment which I had reported in 
     May 1992. The command inquiry also substantiated the 
     existence of a hostile environment in which I worked from May 
     1992 until October 1992. Admiral Mauz was familiar with those 
     substantiated facts and took no action.
       On December 28, 1992 I suffered reprisal for my report of 
     sexual harassment when I received an adverse fitness report. 
     I reported this retaliation and reprisal directly to the aide 
     of Admiral Mauz. I was assured on that same day that Admiral 
     Mauz was personally involved and that proper corrective 
     action would follow. I relied in good faith on these 
     assurances. My good faith reliance was not justified. Instead 
     of taking corrective action the reprisal was covered up. 
     Admiral Mauz was personally involved in this negligent 
     handling of my report of reprisal. Admiral Mauz was the 
     highest level of leadership in my chain of command.
       I then reported the failure by my entire chain of command 
     to properly handle my report of sexual harassment and 
     reprisal to the Department of Defense, Inspector General's 
     office. This report was then referred to the Navy Inspector 
     General. I believe that Admiral Mauz used his position to 
     influence the report from the Navy Inspector General's office 
     in order to protect himself because he knew that he and the 
     chain of command had failed to take appropriate action in my 
     case of sexual harassment.
       I actually swore to these facts on a charge sheet for 
     violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 92 
     by Admiral Mauz. This charge sheet and supporting memorandum 
     was returned to me without any investigation whatsoever. This 
     too was inappropriate and not in accordance with applicable 
     instructions and orders.
       I believe Admiral Mauz has perpetuated the discrimination 
     against women in the U.S. Navy with his failure to take swift 
     and tough action against sexual harassment. I believe his 
     failure to hold anyone accountable in my case of sexual 
     harassment was Dereliction of his duties. One who is derelict 
     in the performance of duty should not be rewarded for 
     extraordinary service.
           Sincerely,
                                               Darlene S. Simmons.
                                  ____

                                           Department of the Navy,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                     Washington, DC, May 12, 1994.
     Lt. Darlene S. Simmons, JAGC, USNR,
     Naval Legal Service Office, Naval Station, Mayport, FL.
       Dear Lieutenant Simmons: I am writing to discuss your 
     future in the U.S. Navy. Before doing so, however, I wish to 
     express my profound regret over the harassment that you 
     unfortunately experienced. No one in our Navy or Marine Corps 
     should be treated as you were. My goal is to send the message 
     to every Sailor, Marine, and civilian in our Department that 
     we are to treat others with the same respect and dignity we 
     expect ourselves.
       I believe we have made significant progress during the past 
     18 months to implement a comprehensive program aimed at 
     eliminating sexual harassment from the workforce. As you 
     know, we issued our revised policy guidance in January 1993 
     and also established an Advice and Counseling Line and an 
     Informal Resolution System. Our Department-wide Reporting and 
     Tracking System will provide us with information on formal 
     complaints, results of investigations and administrative and 
     judicial actions taken to resolve complaints. In March, we 
     released the ``Commander's Handbook,'' a single reference for 
     commanders that addresses investigation, resolution, and 
     prevention of sexual harassment. I thank you for your lessons 
     learned, which were integrated into the first edition. While 
     we have done much, I realize we still have far to go.
       After you testified, I directed my staff to thoroughly 
     review the circumstances of your case. Our review leads me to 
     conclude that: you were sexually harassed by a fellow officer 
     aboard USS CANOPUS; he retaliated against you by fostering a 
     hostile work environment and polarizing the wardroom against 
     you; the shipboard chain of command did not correct this 
     environment; and your fitness report for the period 9 
     February 1992 to 28 December 1992 was improperly handled by 
     the command.
       As a result of my review of your case, I am issuing a 
     Secretarial letter of censure to the officer who committed 
     the harassment. The Chief of Naval Operations is also taking 
     action with regard to two other officers in your former chain 
     of command who did not measure up to our standards.
       With regard to your specific situation, I recognize that 
     your harassment, and the energy required on your part to 
     address issues springing from it, impaired your ability to 
     demonstrate fully what you can contribute to the Navy. 
     Therefore, I have directed that the Navy make available to 
     you the option to transfer to a new duty station with orders 
     that you be retained on active duty until 1 September 1996. 
     This represents an additional two years beyond the date 
     currently established for your departure from active duty, 
     and will afford you the opportunity to compete again for 
     augmentation to the Regular Navy.
       I have been informed that you have applied to the Board for 
     Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) in accordance with 10 
     U.S.C. 1552 to correct any injustice in your performance 
     records. I have final authority to review the BCNR's 
     recommendation and will direct action to correct your 
     military record as necessary.
       While my actions can never wipe the slate clean, they 
     reflect my genuine desire that you have the opportunity to 
     continue to serve, if you wish. Should you nevertheless 
     decide to leave active duty on 1 September 1994, however, I 
     want you to know that you have my respect and gratitude for 
     your Navy service.
       I have directed Rear Admiral H.E. Grant, the Judge Advocate 
     General of the Navy, to meet personally with you to discuss 
     your decision.
                                                   John H. Dalton,
                                            Secretary of the Navy.
                                  ____

                                                     July 8, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn: I would like to introduce myself. My 
     name is George R. Taylor. I am a Senior Chief Petty Officer 
     (E-8) currently on active duty with the U.S. Navy stationed 
     at the U.S. Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port 
     Hueneme, California. Additionally, I am a whistleblower.
       Sir, In December 1992, I blew the whistle on fraud, waste, 
     and abuse concerning mismanagement at the U.S. Naval Air 
     Station Bermuda. I would like to give you a very brief 
     rundown on some of the events that transpired and are 
     continuing to unfold in regards to Admiral Henry Mauz Jr., 
     USN, Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.
       In November 1992, Admiral Mauz abused his power and 
     authority as CINCLANTFLT by traveling to NAS Bermuda along 
     with 12 other military and civilian personnel for a five day 
     vacation.
       Admiral Mauz was flown to Bermuda at government expense 
     along with the other personnel. During his time on the 
     island, his entire ``official'' visit consisted of playing 
     golf, dining in the best restaurants, and shopping. This was 
     in fact exposed on national television on ABC New's 
     ``Primetime Live'' program. I appeared on the show and 
     commented on the behavior of not only Admiral Mauz but 
     numerous flag officers within the Armed Forces who had 
     visited the beautiful island at taxpayer's expense. 
     Additionally, Senator McCain had visited the island with a 
     large group of family members and the nanny for his 
     grandchildren all at taxpayer's expense or at a reduced rate.
       As you know, this was not a popular thing for me to do. I 
     was not politically correct. Needless to say, numerous high 
     ranking officers within the Department of Defense were 
     offended. Representative Schroder made arrangements for me to 
     be transferred to NCBC Port Hueneme, CA. I was very naive, I 
     believed in the system. However, I have very little faith 
     left at this time. During the past 18 months numerous things 
     have occurred that in my opinion and the opinion of my 
     attorney have been nothing short of criminal.
       Admiral Mauz in my opinion has not only abused his power 
     but is a disgrace to the uniform of the Naval Service. He was 
     a key player in me being charged with over 48 offenses of 
     violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice in a supposed 
     ``unrelated to Bermuda situation''. His attorney requested 
     and received all legal documents and a brief in regards to my 
     status. All charges were dismissed by Admiral Kelley, 
     CINCPACFLT, 8 months later. Admiral Mauz took a personal 
     interest in the prosecution of a case where nothing had been 
     done wrong.
       Senator, there is no doubt that if you or I committed some 
     of the things that Admiral Mauz has, we would have been ran 
     out of town.
       As you know, the Navy has gone through a lot. However, I do 
     believe with the current leadership in the Navy things will 
     improve, but in order to correct wrongs and to ensure that 
     senior, military officers do not continue to abuse their 
     power and authority, you should take the lead in retiring 
     Admiral Mauz at a two-star level.
       You sir, are in the position to send a message to the 
     entire Armed Forces announcing that misconduct at any level 
     will not be tolerated, also that everyone in the Armed Forces 
     from E1 to O-10 will be held accountable for their actions.
       Sir, if you or your staff needs additional information feel 
     free to call me at (805) 388-3915 or my attorney, Jeff Ruch 
     at (202) 408-0034.
           Very Respectfully,
                                                George R. Taylor, 
                                                     MACS(SW) USN.
                                  ____



                                    Chief of Naval Operations,

                                                    July 27, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am responding to your letter of July 
     21, 1994 to the Secretary of the Navy which enclosed a letter 
     from the Government Accountability Project, concerning the 
     retirement confirmation of Admiral Henry Mauz, Jr., U.S. 
     Navy. I have reviewed the letter as well as the letters from 
     Lieutenant Darlene Simmons and Senior Chief George Taylor 
     that were included. It is my judgment that the allegations in 
     these letters are not correct. Admiral Mauz has served 
     faithfully and well in every assignment including this final 
     one as a four star officer and deserves to retire in grade.
       Before turning to these allegations, I want to state that 
     Admiral Mauz is completing a career that exceeds thirty-five 
     years of dedicated service to our Nation. He is scheduled to 
     retire and desires to do so. His relief has been confirmed 
     and is ready to assume the duties of Commander in Chief, U.S. 
     Atlantic Fleet. Admiral Mauz's plans to enter the next phase 
     of his personal and professional life are being delayed as is 
     the assumption of command by the relieving officer. Admiral 
     Mauz's performance has been outstanding throughout his career 
     including, especially including, this final tour as Commander 
     in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.
       With regard to LT Simmons, Admiral Mauz did not suppress 
     the evidence of any inquiry, did not fail to take corrective 
     action on behalf of LT Simmons, nor did he fail to follow 
     proper procedures in inquiring into allegations. Further, the 
     Inspector General of the Atlantic Fleet did not cover-up the 
     nature and extent of underlying problems nor prevent 
     appropriate remedial action in the case.
       The case of LT Simmons is an involved one with several 
     complaints, overlapping in time, and inquiries that took 
     place over nearly two years. It is clear that in 1992 LT 
     Simmons was sexually harassed while stationed aboard USS 
     CANOPUS (AS-34). While serving as Legal Officer in that ship 
     she received repeated requests for dates and comments about 
     her physical appearance from another officer who was one rank 
     senior to her and with whom she worked closely in the 
     performance of her duties.
       The case was initiated at the shipboard level on 1 June 
     1992, when LT Simmons reported to the ship's Executive 
     Officer that she was being sexually harassed by another 
     officer. The allegations involved repeated requests for dates 
     and comments about her physical appearance. On 5 June 1992, 
     the officer was counseled and administrative action was 
     taken. He requested retirement from the Navy as was his 
     prerogative.
       Unfortunately--and unacceptably--an atmosphere of 
     harassment and hostility persisted, particularly as the 
     retirement of the officer involved was not effective until 
     April 1993, and he remained on duty on the ship. On 9 October 
     1992, an anonymous DOD IG hot line call and a call by LT 
     Simmons to Congresswoman Schroeder and to the then Assistant 
     Secretary of the Navy, Barbara Pope, raised the visibility of 
     this case.
       Admiral Mauz responded promptly when informed of the matter 
     as a result of these calls. To assure fairness and high-level 
     attention, he directed his Special Assistant for Women's 
     Affairs, CDR Miller, to join an investigation by COMSUBGRU 
     10. Following a briefing by Commander Miller, the offending 
     officer was moved off the ship by the Commanding Officer in 
     October 1992. The CO assembled all officers and told them 
     that LT Simmons had been sexually harassed, condemned this 
     behavior, and emphasized that any harassment would not be 
     tolerated.
       LT Simmons states in her letter that Commander Miller 
     substantiated the sexual harassment. That is true. There is 
     no question that LT Simmons was sexually harassed. As the 
     Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Admiral Mauz acted 
     promptly and appropriately. He directed the necessary actions 
     to ensure a thorough and timely response to LT Simmons's 
     allegations. The expeditious assignment of Commander Miller 
     to examine the case and ensure that LT Simmons had a direct 
     conduit to his clearly substantiates his personal concern and 
     direct involvement in investigating LT Simmons's allegations.
       Nor was this the end of Admiral Mauz's concern. In December 
     1992, Admiral Mauz returned to this matter. He personally 
     intervened with the Chief of Naval Personnel to extend LT 
     Simmons on active duty and assure her assignment to another 
     command.
       At this time also, LT Simmons complained that her transfer 
     fitness report was issued in reprisal. The Inspector General 
     investigation, completed in the spring of 1993, substantiated 
     LT Simmons's original allegations of sexual harassment and 
     also concluded the Commanding Officer of CANOPUS failed to 
     recognize the development of a hostile command climate. 
     Accordingly, the Commanding Officer was counseled by his 
     immediate superior. While the Inspector General concluded the 
     fitness report was not reprisal, the Secretary of the Navy 
     later concluded that he would review, through the Board for 
     Correction of Naval Records, any alleged injustice in her 
     military record and that LT Simmons would be given the option 
     of a new duty station with orders retaining her on active 
     duty until September 1996. The Secretary stated that his 
     decision was based on his recognition that ``* * * your [LT 
     Simmons] harassment, and the energy required on your part to 
     address issues springing from it, impaired your ability to 
     demonstrate fully what you can contribute to the Navy.'' 
     The Secretary's action in correcting the fitness report, 
     intended to provide LT Simmons with an opportunity to 
     continue her naval career, was a decision that only the 
     Secretary is empowered to make.
       On his own initiative, Admiral Mauz returned to this matter 
     for a third time in 1993. In a series of actions he 
     manifested his concern that improvements should be made in 
     handling cases of this kind. To effect change in this regard, 
     Admiral Mauz, in April of 1993, issued a policy statement for 
     the ``Prevention of Sexual Harassment'' to all Atlantic Fleet 
     activities. It addressed Department of the Navy policy and 
     the need for training in place. It tasked every manager, 
     supervisor, and employee, military and civilian, within 
     Admiral Mauz's command with the responsibility for carrying 
     out the DON policy on prevention of sexual harassment.
       In June 1993, Admiral Mauz signed a combined LANT/
     PACFLTINST 5354.1 (Equal Opportunity) that revised the 
     Command Managed Equal Opportunity program and incorporated 
     sexual harassment requirements from a new SECNAVINST.
       In September 1993, Admiral Mauz issued a PERSONAL FOR to 
     ensure each commander was cognizant of the contents of the 
     combined LANT/PAC Equal Opportunity instruction. He directed 
     each commander to review the implementation of the program, 
     including sexual harassment, in his command to ensure 
     compliance. ISIC's were directed to include this as a special 
     interest item for command inspections, and were directed to 
     utilize Equal Opportunity Program Specialists in their 
     inspections to the maximum extent possible.
       Going well beyond normal bureaucratic requirements, in 
     April 1994, Admiral Mauz returned to this matter again. To 
     assure that fleet priorities and procedures would be as good 
     as they could be, he personally conducted a training session 
     for all flag officers assigned to the Atlantic Fleet. The 
     subject was a case study in sexual harassment, and on 
     addressing it, Admiral Mauz used both information obtained 
     from the inquiry about LT Simmons case and information 
     provided by LT Simmons herself. Finally, Admiral Mauz 
     recognized that additional training was needed beyond what 
     the initial curriculum in sexual harassment provided. 
     Accordingly, he directed the development and distribution of 
     a kit to assist commanders with the investigation and 
     disposition of sexual harassment complaints. This kit formed 
     the nucleus for the newly published Navy Sexual Harassment 
     Handbook.
       In January 1994, LT Simmons forwarded allegations of 
     criminal dereliction by Admiral Mauz in the handling of her 
     case. As the facts of the case did not, in fact, justify 
     criminal charges, they were determined to be more appropriate 
     for resolution under the provisions of Article 1150, U.S. 
     Navy Regulations, Redress of Wrong Committed by a Senior, 
     than under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 
     The allegations were accordingly returned to LT Simmons by 
     the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, on advice of counsel, 
     for forwarding as a matter under Article 1150. In 
     response, LT Simmons indicated she did not desire to 
     pursue an Article 1150 complaint. Nevertheless, LT 
     Simmon's allegations were referred to the Naval Inspector 
     General. The Inspector General found the allegations 
     against Admiral Mauz to be without merit. Admiral Mauz did 
     not influence or attempt to influence, the Inspector 
     General's decision in this matter.
       With regard to Senior Chief Taylor, the allegation that 
     Admiral Mauz influenced the charges against Senior Chief 
     Taylor after Senior Chief Taylor arrived at Port Hueneme, 
     California, is without basis.
       By way of background, there were charges brought against 
     Senior Chief Taylor after he began his tour of duty in 
     California. These charges addressed irregularities in the 
     manner in which Senior Chief Taylor performed his duties. 
     Senior Chief Taylor declined to have his case heard under 
     Article 15 of the UCMJ, as was his right. As a result, 
     charges were referred to a special court-martial. After 
     charges were referred, Senior Chief Taylor's chain of command 
     in the Pacific decided it was appropriate to move the case 
     out of the Port Hueneme area to ensure an independent review 
     of the case. Accordingly, the charges were considered by a 
     Flag Officer in command in the San Diego area.
       Following a newspaper account which stated that the charges 
     against Senior Chief Taylor had been withdrawn in response to 
     allegations of retaliation for his whistle-blowing activity 
     in Bermuda, Admiral Mauz's Executive Assistant asked the 
     senior Staff Judge Advocate to call his counterpart at Port 
     Hueneme for additional information. A call was made and the 
     situation was clarified. The senior Staff Judge Advocate 
     verbally reported his findings to the Executive Assistant who 
     then back briefed Admiral Mauz as to the action he had taken. 
     There was no influence on the case and, in fact, the charged 
     has already been withdrawn at the time of the call.
       Subsequently, unbeknownst to either the senior Staff Judge 
     Advocate or Admiral Mauz, a junior Staff Judge Advocate 
     obtained a copy of the defense motion that was the basis for 
     withdrawal of the charges, as well as a copy of the charge 
     sheets, from a friend who was then Officer in Charge, Navy 
     Legal Service Office, Port Hueneme. The Officer in Charge 
     believed that in providing that documentation, he was 
     responding to an official request from Admiral Mauz's staff 
     and acting quite properly he informed Senior Chief Taylor's 
     military counsel of the actions he had taken to comply with 
     that request. While these documents were shared with the 
     senior Staff Judge Advocate, he did not speak of them to 
     any other staff member. Clearly, the junior staff Judge 
     Advocate's inquiry and receipt of documents did not stem 
     from Admiral Mauz. In fact, Admiral Mauz did not become 
     aware of the documents until their existence was revealed 
     during my inquiry into Senior Chief Taylor's allegation 
     preparatory to making this letter response. In this vein, 
     Admiral Mauz's statement to Navy Times on July 21, 1994, 
     that ``I don't really recall this, but I think I said 
     ok,'' to an inquiry regarding the newspaper account was 
     not an accurate recollection. In fact, Admiral Mauz's 
     Executive Assistant states that he, independently and 
     without Admiral Mauz's knowledge, instituted that lawyer's 
     inquiry into the newspaper article. These matters taking 
     place after the withdrawal of charges at Fort Hueneme, 
     could not have had any impact in any event.
       The San Diego commander convened an Investigation under 
     Article 32 of the UCMJ to inquire into the matter and make 
     recommendations as to the appropriate disposition. The senior 
     Judge Advocate assigned to conduct the Article 32 
     Investigation concluded there were reasonable grounds to 
     believe that four offenses should be charged, with a total of 
     seven specifications thereunder. The senior Judge Advocate 
     recommended that the charges be adjudicated under Article 15 
     of the UCMJ, but noted that should Senior Chief Taylor 
     decline Article 15, referral of the charges to special court-
     martial would be appropriate. The Commander in Chief of U.S. 
     Pacific Fleet, however, determined that the nature of charges 
     did not warrant referral to court-martial and directed 
     counseling as the appropriate remedy, thereby closing the 
     case.
       In summary, Admiral Mauz was not involved in Senior Chief 
     Taylor's case in California. He played no role in the charges 
     themselves or in the disposition of the charges.
       Senior Chief Taylor had accused Admiral Mauz of misconduct 
     with regard to Admiral Mauz's travel to Bermuda. As a result 
     of Senior Chief Taylor's allegations regarding Admiral Mauz's 
     travel to Bermuda, the Naval Inspector General conducted a 
     complete and thorough investigation. The investigation did 
     not disclose any misuse of government facilities. The 
     Inspector General determined that Admiral Mauz conducted 
     significant official business while in Bermuda, including an 
     inspection of the air station's facilities, addressing base 
     personnel at an ``All Hands'' meeting and making calls on the 
     U.S. Consul General and the Governor of Bermuda. Admiral Mauz 
     took two days of leave while in Bermuda, in compliance with 
     Navy guidelines for combining leave and official travel. The 
     Inspector General determined that the scheduling of the trip 
     created the perception of impropriety and that there was a 
     violation in the use of government drivers during the period 
     of time that Admiral Mauz was on leave, as a result of which 
     Admiral Mauz received informal written counseling.
       Admiral Mauz did not remove Senior Chief Taylor from his 
     duties or attempt to prosecute Senior Chief Taylor for 
     insubordination as a result of Senior Chief Taylor having 
     publicly accused Admiral Mauz of misconduct, as alleged by 
     Mr. Ruch of the Government Accountability Project. Senior 
     Chief Taylor originally alleged that his Commanding Officer 
     in Bermuda had taken those actions as reprisals for his 
     whistle-blowing activity in Bermuda. After a thorough 
     investigation of the facts surrounding those actions, 
     however, the DoD IG concluded that the actions were warranted 
     under the circumstances and did not constitute reprisal. In 
     fact, at the time the actions were taken, no one was aware of 
     Senior Chief Taylor's whistle-blowing activity. The 
     difficulties Senior Chief Taylor was experiencing in Bermuda 
     preceded any knowledge by naval personnel, including his 
     Commanding Officer and Admiral Mauz regarding his complaints.
       Admiral Mauz has served his Navy and Nation for over 
     thirty-five years. He has served in positions of great 
     responsibility and he has served his Nation well.
       I have discussed this letter with the Secretary of the Navy 
     and he and I are in complete agreement that Admiral Mauz 
     should be confirmed to retire in his four star grade and that 
     he should be permitted to depart his command in a timely 
     manner.
       I am, of course, prepared to provide you any additional 
     information that you or the other members of the Committee 
     may require. Thank you for your consideration. I have sent an 
     identical letter to Senator Thurmond.
           Very respectfully,
                                                      J.M. Boorda,
                                               Admiral, U.S. Navy.
                                  ____


                              Attachment 3


                        Gap Government Accountability Project,

                                                   August 3, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn: Last month my client, Senior Chief 
     Master-at-Arms George R. Taylor (USN) wrote to you concerning 
     the pending four-star retirement of Admiral Henry Mauz. In 
     his letter, Senior Chief Taylor wrote that Admiral Mauz had 
     taken ``a personal interest'' in the prosecution, that was 
     later dismissed, against Senior Chief Taylor and the members 
     of his security detachment. This personal interest raised 
     questions concerning retaliatory motive since the attempted 
     prosecution took place within the Pacific Command at a time 
     when Admiral Mauz served as Commander of the Atlantic Fleet.
       In the August 1, 1994 edition of Navy Times, Admiral Mauz 
     told reporter Patrick Pexton that Taylor's allegation was 
     ``without foundation'' and ``nonsense.'' Mauz told the 
     reporter that his staff contacted Port Hueneme authorities 
     only once and then only for the purposes of learning the 
     status of the case. In fact, Captain Joseph Baggett, the 
     legal advisor to Admiral Mauz, did contact the legal advisor 
     for the base at Port Hueneme after the withdrawal of the 48-
     count court martial against Taylor and his detachment on 
     April 9, 1994.
       Prior to Captain Baggett's call to Port Hueneme, however, 
     Lt. Noreen Hagerty-Ford, a JAG attorney on Admiral Mauz's 
     staff, contacted Lt. John Tamboer, the supervisor of Taylor's 
     military defense counsel, Lt. Carter Brod. Lt. Hagerty-Ford 
     asked Lt. Tamboer to provide her with a copy of a motion 
     filed by Lt. Brod seeking dismissal of all charges against 
     Taylor on the grounds of ``vindictive prosecution'' 
     [attached]. Lt. Tamboer refused her request, on the grounds 
     that the Atlantic Fleet had no legitimate reason to obtain 
     defense filings. Lt. Hagerty-Ford called Lt. Tamboer later 
     that same day and demanded a copy of the motion stating that 
     her call was at the personal request of Admiral Mauz. Lt. 
     Tamboer acceded to this direct request from a flag officer 
     and provided a copy of the motion to Lt. Hagerty-Ford.
       Admiral Mauz's public statements with respect to his role 
     and the role of his personal staff in the Taylor prosecution 
     do not square with the facts. The lack of candor displayed 
     here is consistent with the ``damage control'' approach to 
     high profile personnel cases Admiral Mauz has exhibited. More 
     disturbingly, these repeated contacts represent an attempt to 
     influence the prosecution of Taylor and to intimidate his 
     military defense counsel.
       As always, if you or your staff desire any further 
     information from my clients, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Jeffrey P. Ruch,
                                                  Policy Director.
                                  ____


  Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary, Southwest Judicial Circuit, Port 
                              Hueneme, CA

       United States versus Taylor, George R., MACS/E-8, 000-00-
     0000, U.S. Navy.
       Special Court-Martial: Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive 
     Prosecution Pursuant to the Fifth Amendment.
       Date: 23 March 1994.
       1. Nature of Motion. This is a Motion to Dismiss for 
     Vindictive Prosecution filed pursuant to the Fifth Amendment 
     of the U.S. Constitution. This motion is filed as a direct 
     result of an unlawful decision by Commander, Naval 
     Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, to prosecute 
     MACS George R. Taylor, USN, the accused in this case.
       2. Summary of Facts.


                prior to MACS taylor's reporting at ncbc

       a. In 1992, MACS George R. Taylor, USN, held the position 
     of Chief of Military Police at Naval Air Station Bermuda. 
     While serving at NAS Bermuda, MACS Taylor produced evidence 
     that the air station existed as a resort for top military 
     officials at the expense of taxpayers. MACS Taylor and 
     another ``whistleblower'' were featured on the 10 December 
     1992 episode of ABC's ``Primetime Live'' (tape of which will 
     be hereinafter referred to as ``the Bermuda tape''), which 
     prompted Defense and Inspector General investigations. As a 
     result of MACS Taylor's activities, Congress voted to close 
     the Bermuda base in 1995.
       b. MACS Taylor was transferred to Naval Construction 
     Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, (hereinafter ``NCBC''), in 
     January 1993, under the protection of the Military 
     Whistleblowers Protection Act.
       c. Before MACS Taylor arrived at NCBC, members of the base 
     security department posted an article about MACS Taylor's 
     activities in Bermuda on the security department bulletin 
     board. In addition, members of the security department 
     gathered in a conference room to view the Bermuda Tape.
       d. Before MACS Taylor arrived, a file was sent to NCBC from 
     Bermuda which included a non-punitive letter of caution and 
     materials related to MACS Taylor's activities at Bermuda.
       e. Prior to MACS Taylor's arrival at NCBC, RADM David Nash, 
     USN, Commanding Officer of NCBC, requested a copy of the 
     Bermuda tape from Kari Lee Patterson, a civilian employee at 
     NCBC. Ms. Patterson delivered the tape to Mr. W.E. Hudson, 
     NCBC Security Officer, who delivered the tape to RADM 
     Nash.


                        after reporting at ncbc

       f. Upon MACS Taylor's arrival, RADM Nash held a meeting 
     with top base officials to discuss the arrival of MACS 
     Taylor.
       g. Upon reporting on board NCBC, MACS Taylor was taken to 
     Executive Officer's Inquiry for activities in Bermuda. At the 
     XOI, Taylor was awarded the Nonpunitive Letter of Caution 
     sent from Bermuda. The charge was for disrespect to a 
     commissioned officer at Bermuda.
       h. Immediately upon arriving at NCBC, MACS Taylor was 
     directed to meet with LCDR Cole in his office. At that 
     meeting, which was attended by BMCS Kossman, LCDR Cole told 
     MACS Taylor that ``this isn't Bermuda'' and ``You aren't 
     going to get away with that s--t here'', or words to that 
     effect.
       i. In January 1993, LCDR Cole was called by Jeff Ruch, an 
     attorney with the Government Accountability Project, a public 
     interest organization which was involved with the incident in 
     Bermuda. Mr. Ruch called LCDR Cole to discuss the pending 
     Captain's Mast for Disrespect in Bermuda. After the phone 
     conversation, LCDR Cole confronted MACS Taylor, saying he had 
     just gotten a call from his ``liberal lawyers'' and ``this is 
     bulls--t,'' or words to that effect. LCDR Cole told MACS 
     Taylor that ``they're not gonna get you out of this. * * * 
     This package was sent here. We're going to adjudicate this 
     here'', or words to that effect.
       j. Approximately one month after MACS Taylor reported 
     aboard, MACS Taylor suggested to LCDR Cole that one of his 
     practices was improper. LCDR Cole had, on several occasions, 
     sent sailors to the Long Beach Brig with full knowledge that 
     there would never be a court-martial. This was typically done 
     on a Friday afternoon, where the magistrate would be unable 
     to release the sailor until the following Monday. When MACS 
     Taylor suggested to LCDR Cole that this practice was 
     improper, LCDR Cole became incensed, telling MACS Taylor 
     ``I'm the f---ing lawyer on this base; who made you the base 
     lawyer?'', or words to that effect.
       k. A meeting to discuss Workman's Compensation issues was 
     held in September 1993 and was attended by LCDR Cole, MACS 
     Taylor, NCBC Executive Officer, NCBC Command Master Chief, 
     and other officials. At the meeting, LCDR Cole confronted 
     MACS Taylor due to rumors he had heard about members of the 
     Special Investigations Unit, of which Taylor was a member, 
     being deputized by the federal government. MACS Taylor denied 
     ever spreading the rumor. LCDR Cole responded by admonishing 
     MACS Taylor for not addressing him as ``Sir'' when making a 
     statement.
       1. In a Memorandum dated 5 September 1993, LCDR Cole 
     requested to the Commanding Officer, NCBC, that MACS Taylor 
     be relieved of his duties. RADM Nash, however, declined to 
     carry out LCDR Cole's request.
       m. MACS Taylor has also had numerous personal 
     confrontations with Mr. W.E. Hudson, NCBC Security Officer, 
     since reporting aboard. Mr. Hudson is MACS Taylor's direct 
     superior in the Security Department.
       n. On 30 September 1993, MACS Taylor received a performance 
     evaluation which covered the period since MACS Taylor's 
     arrival on board NCBC and was signed by RADM Nash. Taylor 
     received straight 4.0 evaluations on this evaluation. There 
     was no mention whatsoever of any problems with MACS Taylor's 
     performance. MACS Taylor was described as having ``great 
     depth of professional knowledge'' and a ``keen sense of 
     responsibility''. He was praised for ``drafting and immediate 
     implementation of the department's quality-focused Standard 
     Operating Procedures.'' He was also praised for conducting a 
     special task force to curtail the flow of drugs onto the base 
     and for assisting civilian police in drug operations.


                           16 november arrest

       o. On 16 November 1993, MACS Taylor participated in the 
     arrest of CE3 Richard Miller, USN, a deserter who had escaped 
     from the Long Beach Brig. There were three other NCBC police 
     officers at the scene. The arrest took place in the City of 
     Oxnard with the participation of the Oxnard Police. No 
     complaints were made by any persons involved in the arrest. 
     Officers Ernie Eglin and L.E. Robertson of Oxnard Police 
     executed the arrest and believe that MACS Taylor acted 
     entirely properly.
       p. On 17 November 1993, Mr. Hudson called MACS Taylor into 
     his office and accused him of acting improperly during the 
     previous night's arrest. Mr. Hudson then discussed with MACS 
     Taylor the possibility of an early retirement for MACS 
     Taylor.
       q. On 18 November 1993, Mr. Hudson met with LCDR Cole to 
     discuss this situation. At this meeting, the two men agreed 
     to have Naval Investigative Service investigate MACS Taylor's 
     activities on the night of the arrest.
       r. On 22 November 1993, Mr. Hudson informed MACS Taylor 
     that he planned to have NIS investigate the arrest.
       s. Pursuant to advice from military defense attorneys, MACS 
     Taylor and each of the other three officers consistently 
     invoked his right to remain silent during the investigation.
       t. On 3 January 1994, MACS Taylor was given a Report Chit 
     citing one specification of violation of Article 92 related 
     to the arrest of CE3 Miller. LCDR Cole's signature appears on 
     the Chit for ``person submitting report''. Along with the 
     Report Chit, MACS Taylor received formal notification of 
     contemplated Nonjudicial Punishment.
       u. On numerous occasions after the Report Chit was drafted, 
     LCDR Cole attempted to persuade MACS Taylor and the other 
     three NCBC officers involved to answer questions about the 
     arrest. On or about 3 January 1994, LCDR Cole informed MACS 
     Taylor that the Incident Complaint Report for the incident in 
     question had never been received, and he gave MACS Taylor a 
     direct order to write a report describing what happened on 
     the night in question. MACS Taylor has consistently 
     maintained that he submitted the report immediately after the 
     arrest. Pursuant to advice from LT Carter F. Brod, JAGC, 
     USNR, Defense Counsel, MACS Taylor nevertheless prepared a 
     new report to avoid violating a direct order.
       v. When discussing with MACS Taylor his potential Captain's 
     Mast, LCDR Cole ordered MACS Taylor to sit locked at 
     attention. LCDR Cole told MACS Taylor that he would ``add 
     twenty more f--king charges'' if Taylor refused Captain's 
     Mast.
       w. On or about 6 January 1994, LCDR Cole called LT Brod and 
     asked LT Brod to give MACS Taylor pre-Mast advice. LCDR Cole 
     told LT Brod that MACS Taylor was being really stupid in his 
     attitude and that if he did not accept Mast then they were 
     going to ``throw the book at him.'' LCDR Cole told LT Brod 
     that, if MACS Taylor refused Mast, ``we have lots of other 
     stuff on him to use which we will throw on there'', or words 
     to that effect.
       x. On 10 January 1994, MACS Taylor refused Nonjudicial 
     Punishment.
       y. LCDR Cole has made numerous attempts to persuade the 
     other three NCBC officers to discuss the details of the 
     arrest. On 6 January 1994, LCDR Cole told LT Brod in a 
     telephone conversation that ``the command is unlikely to 
     dismiss the charges against Senior Chief Taylor but would 
     probably dismiss on the others if they opened up.''
       z. In a telephone conversation with civilian police 
     lieutenant Byron Frank, which lasted over one hour, LCDR Cole 
     told Lt. Frank that ``if you all had just cooperated with the 
     NIS investigation, then you would have just gotten a slap on 
     the wrist'', or words to that effect. LCDR Cole stated that 
     ``Senior Chief Taylor is manipulating the other three 
     officers. I feel really sorry for them'', or words to that 
     effect. LCDR Cole stated that ``ABC bailed his a-- out in 
     Bermuda. They won't come to his rescue now'', or words to 
     that effect. LCDR Cole asked Lt. Frank, who was also an 
     African-American, ``why won't you just tell me what happened? 
     I'm the smartest black attorney in the JAG Corps. Let's just 
     talk brother to brother'', or words to that effect.
       aa. On 21 January 1994, 48 specifications of UCMJ 
     violations were preferred against MACS Taylor. Many of the 
     specifications related to the 16 November arrest, but 16 of 
     the 47 new specifications related to incidents in April, May 
     and June of 1993.
       bb. Naval Criminal Investigative Service conducted an 
     extensive investigation of the charges against MACS Taylor. 
     Included as part of the NCIS investigation were interviews of 
     over twenty-one witnesses. Many of the witnesses, including 
     Petty Officer Pringle, Detective Wunsch and Lieutenant Frank, 
     were asked questions about MACS Taylor's activities in 
     Bermuda.
       cc. LT Robert P. Morean, JAGC, USNR, Trial Counsel, 
     conducted several witness interviews at NCBC on or about 15 
     February 1994. LCDR Cole was present for many of these 
     interviews and occasionally participated in questioning. In 
     the Interview with BMCS Kossman, USN, LCDR Cole corrected 
     BMCS Kossman for giving an answer LCDR Cole believed was 
     incorrect. When MS3(SS) Doyle was interviewed, LCDR Cole was 
     ``right there, only two feet away from me.'' When MS3 Doyle 
     told LT Morean that he felt MACS Taylor was an excellent cop 
     and excellent leader, LCDR Cole stormed out of the meeting 
     and slammed the door. LCDR Cole also assisted LT Morean in 
     the questioning of Dan Gordon, Security Department Training 
     Officer.
       dd. On 9 February 1994, LCDR Cole approached DT3 Fredia 
     Wright, USN, who had a son living on base who had been barred 
     from the base for juvenile delinquency. LCDR Cole offered DT3 
     Wright that her son could continue to live on the base if he 
     would testify in the court-martial of MACS Taylor. LCDR Cole 
     told her that she could disregard the barring notice if her 
     son would cooperate.
       ee. On or about 18 February 1994, LCDR Cole discussed the 
     16 November arrest while teaching a class to new NCBC 
     security officers. While teaching this class, LCDR Cole 
     referred to the four officers who made the 16 November arrest 
     as ``the four'', and used their arrest as an example of 
     illegal police activities.


                   other similar NCBC security cases

       ff. In the past, there have been several other arrests by 
     NCBC Police with the same characteristics as the 16 November 
     arrest. No prosecution or disciplinary action was taken in 
     any of the other arrests. There have also been egregious 
     cases of clear dereliction of duty by NCBC Military Police 
     where no prosecution was undertaken.
       gg. On 23 September 1992, NCBC Detective A. Carpenter, MA1 
     Woods, USN, and NCBC Detective P. Wunsch arrested EOCN Jason 
     S. Tyree, USN, a deserter from NMCB-40, off-base in the City 
     of Oxnard. The facts of that arrest were effectively 
     identical to those in the case at bar. There was no 
     disciplinary action of any kind taken against any of the 
     officers.
       hh. In December 1993, a complaint was filed alleging that 
     GSM2 E.J. Beman used unlawful force in an arrest of a female 
     suspect. The investigation of the incident was handled 
     internally; NCIS was never asked to investigate. Beman was 
     not court-martialed for his actions.
       ii. In mid-1992, evidence existed that civilian NCBC police 
     officer Carlos Tangonan used unnecessary force by hitting a 
     suspect in the mouth with a baton. No investigation of any 
     kind was undertaken, and no disciplinary action followed.
       jj. On 21 January 1992, F.D. Forbes, a civilian NCBC police 
     officer, arrested a suspect in the City of Port Hueneme by 
     pursuing him on an off-base street, drawing his service 
     revolver and ordering the suspect to freeze. The suspect was 
     unarmed and seen climbing over the base fence from on-base to 
     off-base, which is not an offense under any criminal code. 
     The ``suspect'' was not charged with any crime. Forbes was 
     not disciplined in any way for making this off-base arrest.
       kk. Many members of the NCBC Security Department believe 
     that, based on their knowledge of the facts, the 16 November 
     arrest was entirely legal and consistent with NCBC policy 
     practices.


                              recent facts

       ll. On 11 February 1994, LCDR Cole offered LT Brod that 
     MACS Taylor could still go to Captain's Mast if he wanted. 
     LCDR Cole told LT Brod that, if MACS Taylor accepted Mast, 
     the charges would include only two specifications of 
     dereliction of duty.
       mm. On 9 March 1994, LCDR Cole ordered an administrative 
     questioning of Byron Frank regarding the arrest of 16 
     November 1993. LT Morean told LT Caroline Goldner, JAGC, 
     USNR, that this was done as a ``discovery tool'' for the 
     court-martial of MACS Taylor.
       nn. On 17 March 1994, LT Morean told LT Brod in a telephone 
     conversation, that ``it is my understanding that if everyone 
     had been forthcoming, there would have been no charges. The 
     Admiral just got ticked when everyone clammed up.''
       3. Statement of Law.
       a. R.C.M. 907, MCM 1984. Motions to Dismiss.
       b. Fifth Amendment, United States Constitution. ``No person 
     shall be * * * compelled in any case to be a witness against 
     himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
     without due process of law.''
       c. Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978). ``To punish 
     a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him 
     to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.''
       d. Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 (1973). For an agent 
     of the state to pursue a course of action whose object is to 
     penalize a person's reliance on his constitutional rights is 
     ``patently unconstitutional.''
       e. U.S. v. Davis, 18 M.J. 820 (AFCMR 1984). For a claim of 
     prosecutorial vindictiveness to succeed, it must be 
     established that the decision to prosecute was based on 
     impermissible considerations such as race, religion, or the 
     desire to prevent the exercise of a legal right. ``In the 
     classic prosecutorial vindictiveness case the subsequent 
     charges are harsher variations of the same decision to 
     prosecute.'' See Also U.S. v. Spence, 719 F.2d 358 (11th Cir. 
     1983), Hardwick v. Doolittle, 558 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1977).
       f. U.S. v. Spence, 719 F.2d 358 (11th Cir. 1983). ``To help 
     simplify prosecutorial vindictiveness claims, the Supreme 
     Court developed a `presumption of vindictiveness'.'' 719 F.2d 
     at 361. ``Courts in this circuit construing post-Blackledge 
     decisions have held that whenever a prosecutor brings more 
     serious charges following the exercise of procedural rights, 
     `vindictiveness' is presumed, provided that the circumstances 
     demonstrate either actual vindictiveness or a realistic fear 
     of vindictiveness.'' 719 F.2d at 361.
       g. U.S. v. Krezdorn, 718 F.2d 1360 (5th Cir. 1983). If the 
     defendant challenges as vindictive a prosecutorial decision 
     to increase the number or severity of charges following the 
     exercise of a legal right, the court must examine the 
     prosecutor's actions in the context of the entire 
     proceedings. If ``the course of events provides no objective 
     indication that would allay a reasonable apprehension by the 
     defendant that the more serious charge was vindictive, i.e. 
     inspired by a determination to `punish a pesky defendant for 
     exercising his legal rights,' a presumption of vindictiveness 
     applies which cannot be overcome unless the government proves 
     by a preponderance of the evidence occurring since the time 
     of the original charge decision altered that initial exercise 
     of the prosecutor's discretion.'' 718 F.2d at 1365.
       h. U.S. v. Blanchette, 17 M.J. 512 (AFCMR 1983). ``The test 
     for prosecutorial vindictiveness is whether, in a particular 
     factual situation, there is a realistic likelihood of 
     vindictiveness for the preferral of charges against the 
     accused.'' 17 M.J. at 514.
       i. U.S. v. Hagen, 25 M.J. 78 (CMA 1987). Once a prima facie 
     case of vindictiveness is made out, the burden shifts to the 
     prosecution to disprove the misconduct. See Also U.S. v. 
     Garwood, 20 M.J. at 154 (CMA 1985).
       j. U.S. v. Falk, 479 F.2d 616, 620 (7th Cir. 1973). If a 
     defendant alleges intentional or purposeful discrimination 
     and presents facts to raise a reasonable doubt about the 
     prosecutor's purpose, then the prosecutor can be called to 
     the stand to testify.
       k. U.S. v. Green, 37 M.J. at 384 (CMA 1993). ``This Court 
     has previously stated that `in referring a case to trial, a 
     convening authority is functioning in a prosecutorial 
     role'''. See Also U.S. v.  Fernandez, 24 M.J. at 78 (CMA 
     1987), Cooke v. Orser, 12 MJ 335 (CMA 1982), U.S. v. 
     Hardin, 6 M.J. at 404 (CMA 1979).
       1. In assessing a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness, 
     the Supreme Court focusses on practices which tend to chill 
     the assertion of defendant's rights. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 
     U.S. 21 (1974), NC v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969), 
     Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978)
       4. Discussion.
       a. There are essentially three independent bases upon which 
     the prosecution of MACS Taylor is vindictive. The first basis 
     is due to retaliation for MACS Taylor's whistleblowing in 
     Bermuda and his personal relationship with the convening 
     authority's attorney, LCDR Cole. These two issues have been 
     grouped together because they support the premise that MACS 
     Taylor is being prosecuted for who he is, not what he has 
     done. Second, MACS Taylor is being prosecuted for exercising 
     his Constitutional right to remain silent. Third, MACS Taylor 
     is being prosecuted for exercising his right to refuse 
     Captain's Mast.
       b. In light of the nature of these charges, the fact that 
     forty-eight total specifications were preferred in this case, 
     in itself, is strong evidence of the government's 
     vindictiveness. An inference can be drawn that by charging 
     MACS Taylor with such a large number of charges, the 
     government intended to intimidate him, ``show'' him, or 
     otherwise ``retaliate'' against him for any one of the three 
     bases supporting this motion. The context of these charges, 
     including the content and tone of statements made by the 
     convening authority's attorney, further clarifies that this 
     prosecution was undertaken with a vindictive purpose.


               BASIS 1: BERMUDA AND PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP

       c. Under this basis, this motion seeks dismissal of all 
     charges pending against MACS Taylor. None of these charges 
     would have been brought but for MACS Taylor's whistleblowing 
     in Bermuda and his personal relationship with LCDR Cole. 
     Pursuant to U.S. v. Davis and Blackledge v. Perry, these are 
     both impermissible bases for undertaking a prosecution.
       d. There is substantial evidence that the convening 
     authority knew about MACS Taylor's activities in Bermuda and 
     had distaste for those activities. RADM Nash requested a copy 
     of the Bermuda tape before MACS Taylor arrived. Articles were 
     posted and the tape was watched at the security department 
     prior to MACS Taylor's arrival. LCDR Cole's statements to 
     MACS Taylor when he arrived at NCBC shows his distaste for 
     MACS Taylor's prior whistleblowing. MACS Taylor was taken to 
     XOI by the convening authority for activities in Bermuda. The 
     convening authority awarded him a letter of caution at this 
     XOI for activities in Bermuda. NCIS, in conducting the 
     investigation of these charges for the convening authority, 
     asked numerous witnesses if they knew anything about the 
     Bermuda incident. Furthermore, LCDR Cole's statement that 
     ``ABC bailed him out of Bermuda, they won't come to his 
     rescue here'', shows the vindictive tone of LCDR Cole 
     based on MACS Taylor's activities in Bermuda.
       e. There is also substantial evidence that LCDR Cole had a 
     personal animosity for MACS Taylor. The statements by LCDR 
     Cole at the meeting upon MACS Taylor's arrival is evidence of 
     that animosity. MACS Taylor questioned LCDR Cole's 
     professionalism by challenging his practice with regard to 
     pretrial confinees. LCDR Cole was incensed at MACS Taylor's 
     complaint. The 5 September 1993 memorandum shows that prior 
     to this arrest, LCDR Cole sought to have MACS Taylor fired 
     from his job. Ever since the first meeting when MACS Taylor 
     reported at NCBC, there have been continual confrontations 
     between the two men.
       f. In addition to the evidence of vindictiveness, there is 
     considerable evidence of fact situations similar to those in 
     the case at bar that were not prosecuted. The off-base 
     arrests involving detectives Forbes and Wunsch were very 
     similar to this arrest, and no disciplinary action followed. 
     There was evidence of dereliction by GSM2 Beman, but no 
     disciplinary action was initiated. There was evidence of 
     dereliction by Officer Tangonan, and no investigation was 
     initiated. An examination of these other situations 
     demonstrates that the government would not have ordinarily 
     prosecuted this case but for MACS Taylor's activities in 
     Bermuda and his personal relationship with LCDR Cole.
       g. The vigor with which the command initiated this 
     prosecution is further evidence of the other-than-official 
     interest is seeing MACS Taylor prosecuted. For example, NCIS 
     was called in to investigate and devoted a great deal of 
     resources to this investigation. NCIS jurisdiction, however, 
     is normally over major offenses only. LCDR Cole used his 
     influence as base SJA over other legal matters to affect the 
     investigation in this court-martial. LCDR Cole used the 
     pressure of a barring order to enlist the support of an 
     unwilling witness, Doug Lively. He used his administrative 
     power to order a civilian, Byron Frank, to give, against his 
     will, information to use against MACS Taylor. LCDR Cole also 
     actively participated in interviewing witnesses with the 
     Trial Counsel.
       h. In sum, there is substantial evidence that this 
     prosecution would not have normally been initiated but for 
     the fact that MACS Taylor was the subject. Dislike of a 
     sailor based on his past legal activities (Bermuda) and his 
     personality is not a permissible basis upon which to initiate 
     a prosecution. For the foregoing reasons, all pending charges 
     against MACS Taylor should be dismissed.


                    basis 2: right to remain silent

       i. Ever since initially being accused of dereliction, MACS 
     Taylor has exercised his Constitutional right to remain 
     silent. There is substantial evidence that all forty-eight 
     charges in this court-martial are a result of vindictiveness 
     due to MACS Taylor's invoking this constitutional right. 
     Under this basis, this motion seeks dismissal of all charges.
       j. On 17 March 1994, the Trial Counsel told the Defense 
     Counsel that it was his understanding, based on his 
     discussions with the Convening Authority, that no charges 
     would have been brought but for MACS Taylor's invocation of 
     this right. The Trial Counsel further stated that it was his 
     understanding that the Admiral ``got ticked'' when MACS 
     Taylor invoked this right. The Trial Counsel's statement is 
     clear evidence that the government's decision to prosecute 
     was based on MACS Taylor's decision to remain silent.
       k. In discussing Taylor's court-material charges with Byron 
     Frank, LCDR Cole stated that ``if they had just cooperated 
     with NIS, then it would've been a slap on the wrist'', 
     implying that the charges would not have been brought at all 
     but for MACS Taylor's invocation of his right to remain 
     silent.
       l. LCDR Cole has made numerous attempts at pressuring MACS 
     Taylor to give up his right to remain silent, including 
     attempts to persuade LT Brod and * * * appeals to MACS 
     Taylor. LCDR Cole further told MACS Taylor that if he didn't 
     ``open up'' there would be ``twenty more f---ing charges.''
       m. The convening authority has taken several other actions 
     which demonstrate the vigor with which it has attempted to 
     get MACS Taylor to give up his right to remain silent. First, 
     LCDR Cole gave MACS Taylor a direct order to write a new 
     Incident Complaint Report, alleging that the original had 
     been lost. Second, LCDR Cole administratively ordered 
     civilian police lieutenant Byron J. Frank, who participated 
     in the arrest, to give details of the arrest. LT Morean 
     described this administrative order as a ``discovery tool''.
       n. In sum, there is considerable evidence that the 
     convening authority was angered by MACS Taylor's silence, and 
     was in fact motivated to prosecute in retaliation for MACS 
     Taylor's silence. In fact, the convening authority expressly 
     told the Trial Counsel that there would have been a 
     prosecution at all had Taylor not ``clammed up''. It is 
     evident that all forty-eight charges are in direct 
     retaliation for MACS Taylor's exercise of a constitutional 
     right, the right to remain silent.
       o. To allow the government to prosecute as retaliation for 
     exercising the right to remain silent would be to chill the 
     exercise of this important constitutional right. Based on the 
     foregoing, all charges now pending should be dismissed.


                basis 3: right to refuse captain's mast

       p. After MACS Taylor refused Captain's Mast, the charges 
     against him rose from one specification of dereliction of 
     duty to 48 specifications in total at special court-martial. 
     There is substantial evidence that the additional 47 
     specifications were preferred in retaliation for MACS 
     Taylor's refusal to accept Mast. Under this basis, the motion 
     seeks dismissal of all charges added after the refusal of 
     Captain's Mast. The charges sought to be dismissed include 
     all additional specifications related to the 16 November 
     arrest (beyond the one specification from Mast) as well as 
     all specifications related to previous incidents.
       q. LCDR Cole explicitly told MACS Taylor and LT Brod that 
     if Taylor refused Mast ``there would be twenty more charges'' 
     and that he would ``throw the book at him''. These statements 
     demonstrate LCDR Cole's intentions to retaliate if MACS 
     Taylor refused Mast.
       r. Supreme Court and Military decisions support that a 
     large increase in charges after the invocation of a legal 
     right is a strong sign of prosecutorial vindictiveness. Here, 
     the charges jumped from one to forty-eight after MACS Taylor 
     exercised his right to a court-martial. In U.S. v. Davis, the 
     court states that the classic prosecutorial vindictiveness 
     case involves a harsher variation of the same decisions to 
     prosecute. Clearly, if the first decision to prosecute was 
     for only one specification, then a second decision for 48 
     specifications is a harsher variation.
       s. In U.S. v. Martino, 18 M.J. 526 (AFCMR 1984), the 
     government raised the number of charges after the accused 
     refused NJP. The court held such prosecution to be proper. 
     Martino can be distinguished on several bases. First, the 
     court emphasized that the defense counsel asserted 
     prosecutorial vindictiveness with no evidence whatsoever of a 
     vindictive motivation. Further, the government showed 
     evidence of a valid motivation for the difference in number 
     of charges. In the case at bar, however, there is 
     considerable evidence of vindictiveness and there is no 
     evidence of valid government motive for increasing the 
     charges from 1 to 48.
       t. In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, the Supreme Court held that 
     in the normal give and take of plea bargaining, a prosecutor 
     has valid discretion to increase and decrease the number of 
     charges in order to secure a guilty plea. Bordenkircher is 
     distinguishable on several grounds. First, in Bordenkircher, 
     the only evident motive on the part of the prosecutor was the 
     non-vindictive motive to receive a guilty plea. In the case 
     at bar, there is considerable evidence of vindictiveness 
     unrelated to the desire to secure a Mast conviction. Second, 
     in Bordenkircher, it was not disputed that the defendant was 
     properly chargeable for the additional charges. In the case 
     at bar, however, there is considerable evidence that there 
     was no valid basis for the additional charges. MACS Taylor's 
     performance evaluation of September 1993 shows the convening 
     authority's acknowledgement that there was no case of 
     dereliction for any prior incidents. Third, the additional 
     charges in the case at bar were not part of the course of 
     normal plea bargaining. MACS  Taylor was ordered to attention 
     and threatened with more charges if he did not accept 
     Mast. Further, the military relationship between a 
     Lieutenant Commander and a Senior Chief Petty Officer is 
     one of unequal bargaining power.
       u. In U.S. v. Davis, a claim of prosecutorial 
     vindictiveness was rejected. In Davis, however, there were no 
     additional charges brought in the move from Mast to court-
     martial. In the case at bar, the charges rose from one to 
     forty-eight. Justifying its rejection of the prosecutorial 
     vindictiveness claim, the Davis court stated that the classic 
     case of prosecutional vindictiveness occurs when the number 
     of charges is raised.
       v. U.S. v. Blanchette also involved a rejected 
     prosecutorial vindictiveness claim. That case can be 
     distinguished in that the reason for not charging the accused 
     initially was due to insufficiency of evidence. The court 
     found that the additional charges were justified due to the 
     availability of new evidence. No such evidentiary 
     justifications exist for the government in the case at bar.
       w. In sum, because MACS Taylor refused Mast on one 
     specification of dereliction of duty, the convening authority 
     retaliated by preferring forty-seven additional charges 
     against him at a court-martial. The possibility of 
     retaliation is clearly ``realistic'', and the impression made 
     on the accused is clearly one of intimidation. The statements 
     by LCDR Cole are evidence that the convening authority was in 
     fact motivated by vindictiveness. Dismissing the additional 
     charges would be consistent with Supreme Court and Military 
     case law. To allow vindictive charging as occurred here would 
     be to chill the exercise of a sailor's legal right to refuse 
     Captain's Mast. For the foregoing reasons, all charges beyond 
     the initial specification of dereliction of duty should be 
     dismissed.
       5. Evidence.
       a. Witnesses. The defense offers the testimony of the 
     following witnesses in support of this motion: Detective 
     Wunsch, Sergeant Forbes, LCDR Cole, MACS Taylor, Lieutenant 
     Frank, Officer Elgin, Officer Robertson, MACS Kossman, Kari 
     Lee Patterson, DT3 Wright, MS3 Doyle, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Flynt, 
     R.J. Bryan, Petty Officer Bassett, Petty Officer Pringle, 
     Andrew Stewart, LT Morean, Petty Officer Beman Officer 
     Tangonan.
       b. Documents. The following documents will be presented as 
     evidence in support of this motion: Incident Complaint Report 
     (ICR) for Wunsch arrest, ICR for Forbes incident, report of 
     Beman incident, 5 September 1993 Memorandum from LCDR Cole, 
     Bermuda file, MACS Taylor evaluation, Mast charges, Report 
     chit, NJP Refusal Form, Court-martial charges, letter of 
     caution, Bermuda tape, new ICR for 16 November arrest, 
     Barring notice for Doug Lively.
       6. Relief Requested. Pursuant to Basis 1, the defense 
     respectfully requests that all charges be dismissed. Pursuant 
     to Basis 2, the defense respectfully requests that all 
     charges be dismissed. Pursuant to Basis 3, the defense 
     respectfully rests that all charges other than the one 
     specification charged at Mast be dismissed.
       7. Oral Argument. The defense desires to make oral argument 
     of this motion.

                                               Carter F. Brod,

                                                   LT, JAGC, USNR,
                                                  Defense Counsel.
     Date: 23 Mar 94


                         certificate of service

       I, Lieutenant Carter F. Brod, JAGC, USNR, certify that on 
     this 23rd day of March 1944, I personally served upon 
     government trial counsel a true and correct copy of this 
     Motion.
                                  ____

                                           Department of the Navy,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                   Washington, DC, August 9, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, I am responding to your letter of August 
     5, 1994, concerning the retirement confirmation of Admiral 
     Henry Mauz, Jr., U.S. Navy.
       The latest GAP letter alleges improper communications 
     between members of Admiral Mauz' staff and persons assigned 
     in the Port Hueneme area who had knowledge of the court-
     martial case involving Senior Chief Taylor. In order to be 
     able to assure the Committee that we were providing all 
     information relevant to this matter, OPNAV staff spoke with 
     the persons concerned and confirmed the accuracy of those 
     parts of the Chief of Naval Operations' 27 July letter to you 
     that addressed this issue (pages 4 and 5).
       Senior Chief Taylor had charges brought against him arising 
     out of actions in November 1993 while serving at the Naval 
     Construction Battalion Center (NCBC), Port Hueneme, 
     California. He had previously requested in writing to be 
     transferred outside the Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic 
     Fleet (CINCLANTFLT) chain of command, and the Bureau of Naval 
     Personnel approved that request by assigning him to an 
     appropriate billet in his rating at Port Hueneme. He reported 
     to NCBC Port Hueneme for duty in December 1992.
       After referral to trial of the November 1993 charges, the 
     convening authority (NCBC Port Nueneme) decided it was 
     appropriate to move the case out of the Port Hueneme area to 
     ensure the fair and independent disposition of the case. To 
     this end, the convening authority withdrew the charges on 
     March 26, 1994. My inquiry revealed no communications between 
     Admiral Mauz or anyone on his staff and those involved with 
     bringing the charges, and ultimately withdrawing the charges, 
     against Senior Chief Taylor prior to the withdrawal of 
     charges in March 1994.
       The proceedings in Senior Chief Taylor's case were 
     mentioned in a short Orlando Sentinel article of March 29, 
     1994, which appeared in a Pentagon compilation of news 
     articles on 1 April. In describing the withdrawal of charges 
     relating to Senior Chief Taylor's alleged negligent and 
     improper arrest of a service member, the article stated that 
     his attorneys had filed documents ``contending the misconduct 
     charges were retaliation for Taylor's comments'' in the past 
     regarding Bermuda. Admiral Mauz' Executive Assistant saw 
     the article and asked the senior Staff Judge Advocate to 
     ascertain what, if any, connection there could have been 
     between Senior Chief Taylor's current situation in Port 
     Hueneme and Bermuda. Both officers were confident that 
     CINCLANTFLT had taken no action whatsoever in retaliation 
     against Senior Chief Taylor, and they were understandably 
     concerned that such a suggestion might have been made and 
     believed it important to ascertain the basis, if any, for 
     such an allegation.
       The CINCLANTFLT Staff Judge Advocate called the NCBC Staff 
     Judge Advocate, who confirmed the news article was indeed 
     misleading and that there was no suggestion during the 
     proceedings of any involvement by CINCLANTFLT or his 
     subordinates in Senior Chief Taylor's case. The NCBC Staff 
     Judge Advocate explained the charges involved Senior Chief 
     Taylor's law enforcement activities while assigned to NCBC 
     Port Hueneme. The charges included an allegation that Senior 
     Chief Taylor engaged in unauthorized off-base law enforcement 
     activities, including carrying a government-issued firearm 
     off-base. The CINCLANTFLT Staff Judge Advocate recounted this 
     information to the Executive Assistant, who then spoke 
     briefly to Admiral Mauz about the matter. The request for 
     clarification of the short news article was appropriate in 
     order for CINCLANTFLT to ascertain whether there were grounds 
     for investigation into any alleged impermissible actions by 
     anyone under the command of CINCLANTFLT.
       Neither Admiral Mauz, nor any other CINCLANTFLT official, 
     was involved with the referral or withdrawal of the charges, 
     which arose solely from events centered in NCBC Port Hueneme 
     nearly a year after Senior Chief Taylor's transfer to that 
     command. On 23 March 1994, Senior Chief Taylor's defense 
     counsel in the pending case filed a ``motion to dismiss for 
     vindictive prosecution,'' alleging the Port Hueneme convening 
     authority had an unlawful decision to prosecute Senior Chief 
     Taylor. The defense motion complained mainly about the vigor 
     with which the Port Hueneme command pursued the charges 
     against Senior Chief Taylor, alleging that members of that 
     command ``had distaste'' for his previous whistleblowing 
     activities and the charges were being pursued because Senior 
     Chief Taylor exercised his rights to remain silent and to 
     refuse nonjudicial punishment for his alleged improper law 
     enforcement activities. The defense pointed to alleged 
     statements by officials in Port Hueneme suggesting that they 
     had focused inordinate attention on his previous, well-
     publicized disclosures relating to Bermuda. The defense 
     motion did not allege ``personal interest'' or any actions or 
     involvement relating to this case by Admiral Mauz or anyone 
     subordinate to him.
       With regard to receipt of a copy of the defense motion by a 
     member of the office of the CINCLANTFLT Staff Judge Advocate, 
     the GAP letter is incorrect in stating that this occurred 
     prior to the call seeking clarification of the news article. 
     I have reconfirmed the office of the CINCLANTFLT Staff 
     Judge Advocate received the motion more than a week after 
     the charges were withdrawn. This occurred when the Navy 
     judge advocate assigned to an NCBC Port Hueneme tenant 
     command called some of his lawyer colleagues to offer to 
     send them copies of the document, which he found to be 
     unique and very interesting from a professional 
     perspective. One of these officers was an attorney in the 
     office of the CINCLANTFLT Staff Judge Advocate with whom 
     he had worked closely in the past. The two officers had 
     maintained a close professional association and 
     friendship, and spoke with each other and exchanged faxes 
     regularly on professional issues. The CINCLANTFLT 
     Lieutenant accepted the offer, but upon receipt noticed 
     that portions of it were illegible. In order to obtain a 
     better copy, she called the Officer in Charge, Naval Legal 
     Service Office Detachment, Port Hueneme, who was reluctant 
     to provide the document, despite the fact that it was one 
     of the papers in a public court proceeding, to people who 
     were merely curious about the case and had no official 
     reason to have it. The CINCLANTFLT Lieutenant replied that 
     when allegations relating to a command appear in the 
     press, the command has a valid interest in ascertaining 
     the basis, if any, of such allegations. The Officer in 
     Charge agreed that this was a valid reason and, believing 
     that he had received a reasonable request from the 
     CINCLANTFLT staff, he faxed her a copy. Since the Officer 
     in Charge viewed the call as a CINCLANTFLT request, he so 
     informed Senior Chief Taylor's defense counsel.
       The request for the document did not stem from Admiral 
     Mauz. During the further inquiry by OPNAV staff, the Officer 
     in Charge verified the CINCLANTFLT Lieutenant neither 
     demanded a copy of the motion, nor stated that her call was 
     at the personal request of Admiral Mauz. Moreover, the 
     document was not shared outside the CINCLANTFLT Staff Judge 
     Advocate's office. Since the document included no allegations 
     of impropriety by Admiral Mauz or anyone in CINCLANTFLT, and 
     had not been requested by Admiral Mauz or anyone else on his 
     staff, there was no reason for the Staff Judge Advocate to 
     provide the document to, or discuss in with, others.
       There is simply no basis whatsoever for any claim that 
     Admiral Mauz took a personal interest in the case involving 
     Senior Chief Taylor. The facts as confirmed by thorough 
     inquiry show the accuracy of Admiral Mauz' public statement 
     categorically denying any such allegation. The communications 
     by members of his staff were permissible and in no way alter 
     this conclusion. There was no attempt or intent in any of 
     these communications to affect the case.
       I have sought to answer the GAP letter's claims candidly, 
     thoroughly and accurately in order to assist the Committee in 
     its deliberations on Admiral Mauz' confirmation to retire in 
     his four-star grade. I believe strongly that there is no 
     basis for the GAP claims and that Admiral Mauz' 
     confirmation--and the assumption of command by his 
     successor--should not be further delayed.
       I am available at any time to discuss this matter further 
     with you or to provide you any further information you 
     desire. Please do not hesitate to call on me. I have sent a 
     similar letter to Senator Thurmond.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John H. Dalton,
                                            Secretary of the Navy.
                                  ____

                                                    Camarillo, CA.
     Senator Sam Nunn,
     Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nunn and Members of the Committee: I am 
     writing to address the inaccurate and misleading information 
     provided to the committee concerning my case as it pertains 
     to the retirement status of Admiral Henry Mauz. My primary 
     concerns focus on the involvement of Admiral Mauz and his 
     staff in charges (since dropped) that were brought against me 
     while at Port Hueneme. I believe this involvement, and the 
     Navy's obfuscation of the facts, provide more than enough 
     reason why the committee should hold a full investigation 
     into this matter, before bringing the matter to a vote.
       Below is an outline of the most serious errors in the 
     Navy's communications with the committee. It is by no means 
     comprehensive, and full committee investigation would flush 
     out the full details.


      I. Manner by which Mauz's staff acquired defense proceedings

       Not only do the Navy responses differ from the actual chain 
     of events, the accounts from Admiral Boorda and Secretary 
     Dalton differ from each other concerning the same events.

                     Statement from Boarda letter:

       ``Subsequently, unbeknownst to either the senior Staff 
     Judge Advocate of Admiral Mauz, a junior Staff Judge Advocate 
     obtained a copy of the defense motion that was the basis for 
     withdrawal of the charges, as well as a copy of the charge 
     sheets, from a friend who was then Officer in Charge, Navy 
     Legal Service Office, Port Hueneme. The Officer in Charge 
     believed that in providing that documentation, he was 
     responding to an official request from Admiral Mauz's staff 
     and acting quite properly, he informed Senior Chief Taylor's 
     military counsel of the actions he had taken to comply with 
     the request. While these documents were shared with the 
     senior Staff Judge Advocate he did not speak of them to any 
     other staff member.''

                     Statement from Dalton letter:

       ``With regard to receipt of a copy of the defense motion by 
     a member of the office of the CINCLANFLT Staff Judge 
     Advocate, the GAP letter is incorrect in stating that this 
     occurred prior to the call seeking clarification of the news 
     article. I have reconfirmed the office of the CINCLANFLT 
     Staff Judge Advocate received the motion more than a week 
     after the charges were withdrawn. This occurred when a Navy 
     judge advocate assigned to an NCBC Port Hueneme tenant 
     command called some of his lawyer colleagues to offer to send 
     them copies of the document, which he found to be unique and 
     very interesting from a professional perspective. One of 
     these officers was an attorney in the office of the 
     CINCLANFLT Staff Judge Advocate with whom he had worked 
     closely in the past. The two officers had maintained a close 
     professional association and friendship, and spoke with each 
     other and exchanged faxes regularly on professional issues. 
     The CINCLANFLT Lieutenant accepted the offer, but upon 
     receipt noticed that portions of it were illegible. In order 
     to obtain a better copy, she called the Officer in Charge, 
     Naval Legal Service Office Detachment, Port Hueneme, who was 
     reluctant to provide the document, despite the fact that it 
     was one of the papers in a public court proceeding, to people 
     who were merely curious about the case and had no official 
     reason to have it. The CINCLANFLT Lieutenant replied that 
     when allegations relating to a command appear in the press, 
     the command has a valid interest in ascertaining the basis, 
     if any, of such allegations. The Officer in Charge agreed 
     that this was a valid reason and, believing that he had 
     received a reasonable request, he faxed her a copy.''

            The actual chain of events occurred as follows:

       The junior Staff Judge Advocate contacted a friend of hers 
     at Port Hueneme, a Lieutenant Wilson. Lieutenant Wilson 
     approached Taylor's defense counsel supervisor, Lieutenant 
     Tamboer, and asked for a copy of the defense proceedings. 
     Lieutenant Tamboer refused the request. The junior Staff 
     Judge Advocate contacted Lieutenant Tamboer directly and said 
     it was a direct request from ADM Mauz. Lieutenant Tamboer 
     then complied with the request.


      II. Admiral Mauz's Involvement in the Charges against Taylor

                     Statement from Boorda letter:

       ``There was no influence on the case and, in fact, the 
     charges had already been withdrawn at the time of the call.''

                                 Facts:

       This statement is highly misleading. Although the 
     extraordinarily high number of charges (48 total) were 
     withdrawn at the time of the call, approximately two weeks 
     later, Taylor was sent to an Article 32 hearing where he was 
     re-charged.
       In fact, the CINCLANTFLT Staff Judge Advocate called the 
     Staff Judge Advocate for the Port Hueneme base, Lt. Cdr. 
     Derrick Cole, to tell him that he was upset that the charges 
     had been withdrawn against Taylor. Lt. Cdr. Cole assured the 
     CINCLANTFLT Staff Judge Advocate that Taylor would be re-
     charged. This information is in the record of trial. The Navy 
     withdrew charges, in all likelihood, because they were 
     rightly concerned that if the case was brought before a 
     judge, that judge would promptly dismiss the case.
       Many of the key people involved in my case, who dispute the 
     Navy's account of the chain of events, would be happy to 
     provide the committee with statements or testify. Please 
     contact me if I can be of any assistance. My work phone is: 
     (805) 982-2007. My home phone is (805) 388-3915. My beeper 
     number is: 1-800-482-3366, ext. 10397. I am at your service.
           Very Respectfully,
                                                 George R. Taylor,
                                                    MACS (SW) USN.
                                  ____



                                    Chief Of Naval Operations,

                                                  August 22, 1994.
     Hon. Sam Nunn,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to a recent undated 
     letter from Senior Chief George R. Taylor, USN, to ``Senator 
     Nunn and Members of the Committee.'' Senior Chief Taylor's 
     letter was passed from the Armed Services Committee Staff to 
     the Navy Chief of Legislative Affairs on 19 August asking for 
     ``. . . the Navy's review of the letter and information 
     therein.''
       This is the third in a series of letters concerning Senior 
     Chief Taylor and the pending retirement confirmation of 
     Admiral Henry Mauz, Jr., U.S. Navy. This most recent letter 
     provides no new allegations or information that have not 
     already been addressed in the prior two letters. 
     Nevertheless, the following paragraphs will address in 
     additional detail each of Senior Chief Taylor's allegations.
       With respect to Part I of his letter, Senior Chief Taylor 
     states that the accounts in my 27 July letter and the 
     Secretary of the Navy's 9 August letter ``. . . differ from 
     each other concerning the same events.'' That is not correct. 
     The Secretary's letter simply provided a more detailed 
     description of the interactions between LT Hagerty-Ford (a 
     junior staff judge advocate at CINCLANTFLT), LT Wilson (a 
     legal officer at a Port Hueneme tenant command), and LT 
     Tamboer (OIC Naval Legal Service Office Detachment, Port 
     Hueneme).
       The actual chain of events as stated in my 27 July letter 
     and amplified in Secretary Dalton's letter is accurate. LT 
     Wilson, a friend of LT Hagerty-Ford and a judge advocate 
     assigned to a tenant command in Port Hueneme, called LT 
     Hagerty-Ford to offer her a copy of the defense motion. When 
     she received the copy with some illegible parts, LT Hagerty-
     Ford asked LT Wilson to send a better copy. LT Wilson asked 
     the OIC, LT Tamboer, for a better copy for this purpose, but 
     LT Tamboer was reluctant to provide it for the reasons stated 
     in Secretary Dalton's 9 August letter. LT Wilson so informed 
     LT Hagerty-Ford, who then phoned LT Tamboer to explain her 
     reason for requesting a copy. As stated in attachments 1 and 
     2, LT Tamboer and LT Hagerty-Ford agree that my previous 
     letter and Secretary Dalton's letter accurately describe 
     their phone conversation. Specifically, LT Hagerty-Ford did 
     not say she was making a direct request from Admiral Mauz. In 
     addition, her statement indicates she never met Admiral Mauz 
     or ever discussed this or any other case with him.
       The foregoing reaffirms that Admiral Mauz played no role in 
     a staff member's request for a copy of the defense motion to 
     dismiss Senior Chief Taylor's case.
       With respect to Part II of Senior Chief Taylor's letter, my 
     27 July letter stating that there was no influence exerted on 
     the case and, in fact, that the charges had already been 
     withdrawn at the time of the call, is absolutely accurate and 
     not misleading. CAPT Baggett (Staff Judge Advocate at 
     CINCLANTFLT) called LCDR Cole after the case had been 
     forwarded to COMNAVBASE San Diego for disposition. At the 
     time of the call, LCDR Cole no longer had any influence on 
     the outcome because of the withdrawal of the charges and the 
     case's transfer to a new convening authority. CAPT Baggett 
     states in Attachment 3 that he never called the new convening 
     authority, who later recharged Senior Chief Taylor.
       On the final page of his letter, under the section entitled 
     ``Facts'', Senior Chief Taylor notes that approximately two 
     weeks after the charges against him were withdrawn, new 
     charges were preferred and sent to an Article 32 hearing. He 
     fails to note, however, that this action was taken by a 
     different convening authority, COMNAVBASE San Diego, after a 
     review of Senior Chief Taylor's alleged misconduct and 
     redrafting of charges against him based on his actions in 
     November 1993 as a member of the Naval Construction Battalion 
     Center, Port Hueneme, Security Force.
       In his next to last paragraph, Senior Chief Taylor says 
     that CAPT Baggett was ``upset'' that the charges had been 
     withdrawn and that LCDR Cole assured CAPT Baggett that Senior 
     Chief Taylor would be recharged. CAPT Baggett rejects this in 
     Attachment 3. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record of 
     the Article 32 investigation that supports Senior Chief 
     Taylor's assertions. Secretary Dalton's letter accurately 
     states that the purpose of Captain Baggett's call to LCDR 
     Cole was to clarify information contained in a newspaper 
     article.
       The foregoing demonstrates again that Admiral Mauz played 
     no role whatever in Senior Chief Taylor's case in California.
       In summary, as stated in the Secretary's and my prior 
     letters, Senior Chief Taylor's accusations are inaccurate and 
     should not be allowed to further delay the confirmation of 
     Admiral Mauz for retirement in the grade of Admiral, which he 
     so deservedly has earned.
       I am sending a similar letter to Senator Thurmond.
           Very respectfully,
                                                      J.M. Boorda.
                                  ____



                                             Grand Rapids, MI,

                                                  August 20, 1994.
       To Whom It May Concern: Regarding the call I received from 
     Lieutenant Noreen Hagerty-Ford of the CINCLANTFLT Staff Judge 
     Advocate office in mid-April, the letters from the Chief of 
     Naval Operations and the Secretary of the Navy to the Senate 
     Armed Services Committee of July 27, 1994 and August 9, 1994, 
     respectively, fairly and accurately describe my part in 
     responding to her request. In April 1994, I was serving as 
     Officer in Charge, Navy Legal Service Office, Port Huename. I 
     have since left the Navy. My April discussion with Lieutenant 
     Hagerty-Ford was about the purpose of her request for a copy 
     of the notice filed by the defense in the Senior Chief Taylor 
     case. She explained that Admiral Maus was CINCLANTFLT. I knew 
     the motion included allegations about the CINCLANTFLT/Bermuda 
     matter and therefore understood the command (CINCLANTFLT) 
     would want to know about the allegations made in this motion. 
     I recall being very busy when she called and that it did not 
     take long at all for me to make the judgment that it would be 
     appropriate to send her a copy of the motion. I agreed she 
     had provided a valid reason and, believing I had received a 
     reasonable request from the CINCLANTFLT staff, I faxed her a 
     copy and so informed Senior Chief Taylor's defense counsel.
                                                     John Tamboer.
                                  ____



                                                  Norfolk, VA,

                                                  August 22, 1994.
       To Whom It May Concern: The letter of 27 July 1994 and 
     Secretary of the Navy's letter of 9 August 1994 are correct 
     in describing my actions in April 1994 in obtaining a copy of 
     the defense motion in Senior Chief Taylor's case. I was first 
     afforded the document by my friend, LT Wilson, whom I know 
     from a previous duty station. The copy I got had some 
     illegible parts, so I called LT Wilson to ask him to send me 
     a better copy. LT Wilson said he would ask LT Tamboar for 
     one. Later that day LT Wilson called me to say LT Tamboar was 
     reluctant to send out copies of the document unless there was 
     a reason for the person to have it. I told him I would call 
     LT Tamboar and ask him for it myself. Just as Secretary 
     Dalton's letter states, I told LT Tamboar that I was on the 
     CINCLANTFLT staff and explained that when allegations are 
     made about a command, as apparently had been made in this 
     case, the command has a valid reason to know about those 
     allegations. LT Tamboar said he was satisfied I had provided 
     a valid reason and agreed to send me a copy. I did not demand 
     the document. I had no reason to do that and I simply do not 
     work that way. It was a short and business-like conversation. 
     I did not say the request was from Admiral Mauz because it 
     most certainly was not. In fact, I am a relatively junior 
     member on a large fleet staff and have never actually met 
     Admiral Mauz or discussed this or any other case with him. No 
     one else asked me to get it either. I did not provide it to 
     anyone outside my office.
                                                    ------ ------,
                                                   LT. JAGC, USNR.
                                  ____



                                                  Norfolk, VA,

                                                  August 20, 1994.
       To Whom It May Concern: I became the Staff Judge for 
     Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, in mid-February 
     1994. The purpose of my phone conversation on 4 April 1994 
     with the Staff Judge Advocate at Port Hueneme was exactly as 
     stated in Secretary Dalton's letter of 9 August 1994 to the 
     Senate Armed Services Committee. At no time during the 
     conversation did I indicate the LCDR Cole in any way that I 
     was upset that charges against Senior Chief Taylor stemming 
     from occurrences at Port Hueneme had been withdrawn. LCDR 
     Cole explained that, contrary to an Orlando Sentinel 
     newspaper article, the charges had not been dropped because 
     of retaliation for being a whistleblower at Bermuda. He 
     stated that the charges had been withdrawn and the case had 
     been sent to another convening authority solely due to events 
     at Port Hueneme which had prompted Senior Chief Taylor's 
     defense counsel to raise a motion for dismissal based on 
     vindictive prosecution. Upon being told the real reason for 
     the withdrawal of the charges and transfer of materials 
     pertaining to the case, I believed that the processing of the 
     case had no connection with anything that had happened at 
     Bermuda. The disposition of the investigation of Senior Chief 
     Taylor had already been passed to a command in San Diego to 
     determine independently at the time I talked with LCDR Cole. 
     I had no further conversations with LCDR Cole and I never 
     talked to anyone at San Diego about the case.
                                                Joseph E. Baggett,
                                                  Capt. JAGC, USN.

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I know Senator Thurmond has been thoroughly 
involved in this nomination and I will yield for whatever remarks he 
would like to make.
  I again urge our colleagues--I understand there are hours and hours 
being requested on this DOD bill. I do not mind that at all. But it is 
a little frustrating to come back and be told that there were going to 
be a lot of people wanting to speak on the bill today and there were a 
number of people who wanted to speak anywhere from 2 hours, 3 hours, 
and so forth, and have nobody here to speak on the bill.
  That is our job and we will be here to do the job. I hope we can 
conclude this defense authorization before tomorrow afternoon. If there 
are several hours being requested for people to speak on it and we are 
here for hours this afternoon with no one speaking, the question is, Is 
it going to cause us to delay tomorrow and not be able to take up other 
important matters of the Senate?
  So I hope anyone who does want to make remarks on the DOD 
authorization bill would be able to come over and discuss that at this 
time.
  In the meantime, I know Senator Thurmond has already made his 
statement on the DOD bill, but if he has any comments on the Mauz 
nomination, even though we are not officially on that nomination, it 
would probably be an efficient use of time if those could be made now.
  Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of Adm. 
Henry Mauz to retire in grade. Admiral Mauz has had a long and 
distinguished career spanning over 35 years of service during some of 
the most turbulent times in our Nation's history. He has commanded 
river boats in Vietnam, mighty ships of war, the U.S. 7th Fleet and is 
currently serving as Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet.
  Senator Nunn, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, has provided a detailed history of this nomination, so I 
will not repeat those details, except to reiterate that the Armed 
Services Committee received this nomination on the 10th of May and has 
been actively pursuing it ever since.
  Mr. President, three allegations have clouded this nomination. The 
first concerns a trip Admiral Mauz took to Bermuda in November 1992. 
That incident was the subject of a television news show aired 
nationally and was thoroughly investigated. Although Admiral Mauz 
admitted to an error of judgment in this incident, Admiral Mauz was 
censured by the Vice Chief of Naval Operations for the appearance of 
impropriety as a result of this incident.
  The second issue concerns allegations by Lt. Darlene Simmons that 
Admiral Mauz had not sufficiently protected her from reprisal in a 
verbal sexual harassment case.
  Mr. President, Lieutenant Simmons concedes that Admiral Mauz was not 
involved in the incident and that he directed his Special Assistant for 
Women's Affairs, Commander Miller, to investigate the incident. The 
investigation led to the offending officer's removal from the ship. 
Also, Admiral Mauz intervened on behalf of Lieutenant Simmons to extend 
her tour of duty and her reassignment.
  Lieutenant Simmons also believes the admiral let her down by not 
being more active in protecting her from what she felt to be reprisal 
in her fitness report.
  Mr. President, after extensive review of the allegations, the Armed 
Services Committee found that Admiral Mauz responded correctly and 
positively to the incident and did not suppress evidence, cover up 
allegations, or fail to take corrective action. He intervened with the 
Chief of Naval Personnel on behalf of Lieutenant Simmons and ensured 
that she was provided appropriate action in her case.
  The third issue involves an allegation from Senior Master Chief 
Taylor that Admiral Mauz used command influence to punish him for 
blowing the whistle on the admiral's trip to Bermuda. Master Chief 
Taylor was the individual who reported Admiral Mauz' trip to NAS 
Bermuda. Later, Master Chief Taylor had charges brought against him 
arising from actions while he was serving in California almost a year 
after leaving Bermuda. The charges were investigated and subsequently 
dismissed, however, Master Chief Taylor alleged that Admiral Mauz 
exercised undue command influence in the case in reprisal for the 
whistle blowing. The Department of the Navy investigated Master Chief 
Taylor's allegations and determined that there were no communications 
between Admiral Mauz, or anyone on his staff, with those who brought 
the charges against Taylor.
  Mr. President, I join Chairman Nunn in urging my colleagues to vote 
in favor of retiring Admiral Mauz in the grade of admiral. He is a fine 
officer who deserves to retire as an admiral.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, again, I urge any of our colleagues who 
would like to speak on the DOD authorization bill to come over and 
speak now. We have time this afternoon and we may run into other 
matters tomorrow, so I hope they will come over and speak.

                          ____________________