Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 76 PageID# 241
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION
ALLEN L. LANCASTER ) 172 North Liberty Spring Rd. ) Suffolk, VA 23434 ) ) and ) Case No. 2: ______19cv95 ) BARBY EARL WILSON ) 5305 Roves Ct. ) Virginia Beach, Va 23464 ) ) and ) ) RICHARD ARNOLD ) 2113 Road M ) Emporia, KS 66801 ) ) and ) ) MICHAEL BELT ) 17722 North 79th Ave. ) Glendale, AZ 85303 ) ) and ) ) WILLIAM C. BLAIR ) 2658 Widdy Bostwick Ln. ) Jamestown, NY 14701 ) ) and ) ) RICK P. BRADLEY ) 2580 Grummer Lane ) Conway, Arkansas. ) ) and ) ) ANDREW CALHOUN ) 3269 East Bonnie Drive ) Oak Creek, WI 53154 ) ) and )
1 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 76 PageID# 242
MARTHA CARSON ) 7148 State Route 329 ) Guysville, OH 45735 ) ) and ) ) TIMOTHY DEMY ) 7 Ellen Rd. ) Middletown, RI 02842 ) ) and ) ) JOSEPH DUFOUR ) 1755 Campbell Rd. ) Waxahachie, TX 75167 ) ) and ) ) ALAN GARNER ) 9844 Rosemont Ave., Apt 205 ) Lone Tree, Co. 80124 ) ) and ) ) JOHN GORDY ) 371 Mill Hamlet Rd. NW ) Charleston, TN 37310 ) ) and ) ) FURNISS HARKNESS ) 400 Green Acres ) Memphis, TN 38117 ) ) and ) ) TOM KLAPPERT ) 7699 Kuhn Road ) Greencastle, PA 17225 ) ) and ) ) MICHALE LAVELLE ) 13921 East Poelstra Street ) Vail, AZ 85641 )
2 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 76 PageID# 243
and ) ) GEORGE W. LINZEY ) 1111 Seacoast Drive #61 ) Imperial Beach, CA ) ) and ) ) JAMES LOOBY ) 1713 County Rd. 318 ) Early, TX 76802 ) ) and ) ) WALKER MARSH, JR. ) 125 Whisperwood Blvd. ) Slidell, LA. 70458 ) ) and ) ) DENISE Y. MERRITT ) 4405 Biway Cir. ) Fayetteville, NC 28311 ) ) and ) ) DAVID MITCHELL ) 1423 Norton St. ) Durham, NC 27701 ) ) and ) ) JAIRO MORENO ) 2009 Oak Brook Dr. ) Portland, TX 78374 ) ) and ) ) RENE PORTER-STEWART ) 2028 Farmdale Lane ) Spearfish, S.D. 57783 ) ) and ) )
3 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 76 PageID# 244
RAFAEL J. QUILES ) 203 Orchard Grove Place ) Oldsmar, FL 34677 ) ) and ) ) DANIEL ROYSDEN ) 305 Sandalin Lane ) Peachtree City, GA 30269 ) ) and ) ) MARY HELEN SPALDING ) 610 Walk the Plank ) La Jolla, TX 78560 ) ) and ) ) ARMANDO TORRALVA ) 6637 LaBianca Dr. ) Corpus Christie, TX 78414 ) ) and ) ) DAVID S. WILDER ) 105 La Salle St. ) Wilmington, NC 28411 ) ) ) v. ) ) ) THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY ) Room 4E686 - The Pentagon ) Washington, D.C. 20350-1000 ) ) and ) ) The Chief of Naval Personnel ) 701 South Courthouse Road ) Arlington, Virginia 22204 ) )
4 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 76 PageID# 245
and ) ) The Navy Chief of Chaplains ) 2000 Navy Pentagon, Room 5E270 ) Washington, D.C. 20350 )
COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. This complaint raises claims of retaliation by the Navy Chaplain Corps (the “CHC”) and
some of its senior chaplains against these plaintiffs for various lawful exercises of their faith,
duties as Navy chaplains and other constitutional and statutory rights. It also raises claims of
unlawful interference with certain plaintiffs’ religious speech, including preaching and religious
services; and constructive discharge for some plaintiffs because the challenged retaliation
resulted in failures of selection (“FOS”) leading to either involuntary early separation from the
Navy or forced early retirement before reaching 20 years service.
2. This complaint is the continuation of a series of three federal cases brought by three
separate groups of Non-liturgical Navy chaplains1 challenging denominational preferences,
discrimination and retaliation in the U.S. Navy and its CHC. That litigation began in 1999. The
D.C. District Court consolidated those three cases, explained below, into In re Navy Chaplaincy,
07-mc-269, in 2007. The claims here were severed with leave granted to file them in other
1 The Navy categorizes its chaplains into four denominational groups generally based on religious practices and beliefs: (1) Roman Catholic (“RC”) (a single denomination); (2) Liturgical Protestant, denominations that follow a set liturgy, follow a lectionary in their worship services, wear vestments and baptize babies. They usually trace their origin to the Protestant Reformation, e.g., Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist; (3) Non-liturgical Protestant. Faih groups which do not follow a set liturgy or a lectionary, emphasize Bible preaching and baptize adults, e.g., Baptists, Bible churches, Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, congregations and fellowships; and (4) Special Worship, small Christian and non-Christian denominations with unique worship needs, e.g., Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish, Seventh-day Adventist, and other liturgical churches claiming to be “Catholic” but not allied with Rome.
5 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 76 PageID# 246
jurisdictions and/or venues.
a. The Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches (“CFGC”) and eight of its chaplains
filed suit in the D.C. district court, 11/5/99. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, et al., v. Danzig
[then Sec. of Navy], et al. [various subordinate Navy officials] (“CFGC”), 99-cv-2945 (D.D.C.),
ECF No.1.2
CFGC, a recognized Department of Defense (“DOD”) chaplain endorsing agency,
challenged Navy and CHC policies and practices that discriminated against CFGC, its chaplains
and chaplain candidates in accessions, promotions, continuation on active duty and other
personnel actions because of its chaplains’ charismatic or “Full Gospel” Non-liturgical religious
beliefs and practices. The Navy commissioned 32 CFGC chaplains between DOD’s July 1984
recognition of CFGC as a chaplain endorsing agency and November 1999 when it filed suit; only
seven had been promoted to Lieutenant Commander (“LCDR”), a promotion rate of 22% versus
the 80% statutory promotion LCDR rate, see 10 U.S.C. § 523 (establishing Navy Officer grade
limits); none of the seven had been promoted to commander (“CDR”), a zero promotion rate
versus the average expected CDR promotion rate of 60-70%.
CFGC’s Army and Air Force chaplains’ success contrasted starkly with its Navy
experience. The Army appointed as active duty Army chaplains four former CFGC Navy
chaplains, three separated for “failure of selection” (“FOS”) to LCDR, and one not continued
past his initial 3 year tour. All four were promoted to Major (the Army equivalent of LCDR), and
two were promoted to Lieutenant Colonel (Army equivalent of CDR) before retiring or being
2 CFGC initially filed suit as an organizational plaintiff and as representative on behalf of its endorsed Navy chaplains. Eight of its Navy and former Navy chaplains joined the suit as individual plaintiffs. The District Court dismissed CFGC as an organizational plaintiff but allowed it to remain as a representative of its CFGC endorsed Navy chaplains.
6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 7 of 76 PageID# 247
forced to retire because of age and/or time in grade. One of the LTC chaplains was the one the
Navy did not continue on active duty.
Acts of retaliation by senior Navy chaplains against CFGC chaplains for the exercise of
their faith included poor fitness reports (“fitreps”); prejudicial assignments; changing previous
agreements or assignments in ways that harmed the CFGC plaintiffs financially, emotionally and
professionally; communicating false negative information about CFGC and its chaplains to
commanders and selection board members; actual harassment and retaliation on the job, see e.g.
Roysden and Merritt, and allowing chaplains theologically hostile to CFGC and its chaplains’
beliefs and worship practices serve as promotion board members using practices that guaranteed
CFGC candidates’ FOS.
b. Adair, et al., v. England [then the Secretary of Navy], et al., 00-cv-566, filed
3/17/00, was the second chaplain case filed in the D.C. District Court. The 18 Non-liturgical
active duty, retired, and Reserve chaplains challenged Navy religious and denominational
preferences; retaliation and discrimination in CHC promotion, selective early retirement (“SER”)
and assignments; and a pattern and practice of senior chaplain retaliation and/or interference with
Non-liturgical (or “evangelical”) chaplains’ worship services, teaching, and speech.3 See Adair v.
England, 31 F.Supp.2d 31 (D.D.C. 2002) (explaining Adair and CFGC plaintiffs’ ). They sought
and were granted class action status on behalf of all Navy Non-liturgical chaplains. See Adair v.
England, 209 FRD 5, 12-12-15 (D.D.C. 2002) (approving class action). CFGC and Adair were
combined for pretrial discovery and motions to facilitate case management and discovery.
Twenty-five additional non-liturgical chaplains requested permission to join Adair as
3 Ron Tomlin was dismissed from Adair after he won a retroactive promotion CDR and assignment to active duty in a separate action challenging decisions by the Navy Board of Correction for Naval Records (“BCNR”) and the Secretary.
7 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 8 of 76 PageID# 248
plaintiffs before the court considered and granted class action status. The court initially granted
permission for them to join, but after more than a year’s delay, the court denied their joinder
motion after class action status was granted. Twenty-three of those 25 rejected chaplains later
joined the 2006 Gibson v. U.S. Navy litigation, after the Adair plaintiffs requested the class be
dissolved. This followed the District Court’s (i) permitting the Navy to discharge Adair’s last
active duty plaintiff, destroying the Adair class and (ii) refusal to apply strict scrutiny to the
Navy’s chaplain promotion procedures contrary to the court’s previously stated law of the case.
See Adair v. England, 217 F.Supp.2d 7, 14-15 (D.D.C. 2002).
CFGC and Adair were combined for pretrial discovery and pretrial motions to facilitate
case management and discovery.
c. Gibson, et al., v. U.S. Navy, 06-cv-1696 (RMU), was originally filed in the
Northern District of Florida, 3:06-cv-187, in May 2006, by 41 Non-liturgical Navy chaplains and
the Associated Gospel Churches (“AGC”), an evangelical Christian Chaplain endorsing agency.4
One AGC chaplain was an Adair plaintiff; other AGC chaplains who experienced gross
discrimination and retaliation sought to join Adair before it became a class action and joined
Gibson which sought to represent a class of Non-liturgical chaplains.
Gibson was transferred to the District of Columbia over the plaintiffs’ protests. Many
Gibson plaintiffs specifically directed their counsel not to file their case in the District of
Columbia because CFGC/Adair case law was hostile to the plaintiffs and contrary to law. The
courts rejected plaintiffs’ argument no competent attorney would file a military chaplain religious
discrimination case in the District of Columbia given its precedent and plaintiffs’ directions,
4 AGC filed as a plaintiff in its own right and in its representative capacity for its Navy chaplains.
8 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 9 of 76 PageID# 249
failing 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)’s transfer criteria. After Gibson’s appeal process ran its full course,
the District Court consolidated CFGC, Adair, and Gibson into one case, In re Navy Chaplaincy,
(“Chaplaincy”) 07-mc-269, see ECF No.1.
d. Chaplaincy. The District Court allowed no discovery in Gibson before or after
consolidation. The District Court then imposed a stay on all discovery in 2009 when the
Chaplaincy plaintiffs moved to compel production of discovery, including unredacted portions of
the DOD Inspector General (DODIG) investigation into the CHC’s FY 97 and 98 commander
promotion boards. The District Court rejected plaintiffs’ motion and consistent efforts to lift the
stay and compel the Navy to produce documents and other discovery it had refused to provide.
The D.C. Circuit denied plaintiffs’ motion for a mandamus to lift discovery before summary
judgment. Preserving testimony of older plaintiffs was the only Chaplaincy discovery allowed.
After the D.C. Circuit denied plaintiffs’ 2013 motion for a preliminary injunction
addressing the CHC’s unique promotion procedures described below, the District Court rejected
the plaintiffs’ arguments the Navy’s fraudulent concealment of the causes of action and other
equitable considerations required the six-year statute of limitations (“SOL”) waived. The court
applied D.C. Circuit precedent holding the SOL was jurisdictional.5 The District Court then
denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class action. After a series of subsequent motions addressing
jurisdiction, the court divided plaintiffs’ remaining claims into three constitutional claims
addressing challenges to CHC procedures and practices and “ad hoc” claims including
5 The District Court acknowledged U.S. v. Kwai Fun Wong, –––U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1625, 1633 (2015), held the government had the burden to show Congress’s clear intent. Otherwise, courts were to apply normal, appropriate equitable factors to the SOL at issue. a SOL’s words had to unequivocally communicate Congress’s intention the SOL was jurisdictional and Nonetheless, the District Court rejected plaintiffs’ attempts to schedule an interlocutory appeal in order to apply Wong.
9 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 10 of 76 PageID# 250
interference with the form of prayer (Count 9), constructive discharge (Count 11), and retaliation
(Count 12).
The District Court granted summary judgment to the Navy on the constitutional claims,
8/30/18 and the Court’s 11/8/18 Order, ECF No. 344, severed the remaining “ad hoc” claims
granting the plaintiff’s until March 1, 2019, to refile in other venues and jurisdictions. This
Complaint complies with the D.C. District Court’s order and addresses these plaintiffs’
retaliation, constructive discharge and interference with certain plaintiffs’ religious speech,
practices and forms of prayer.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 5 U.S.C. § 702.
Venue is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) since the defendants are a federal agency and its
officials and are located in this District’s territory along with some plaintiffs.
Joinder Is Appropriate with These 26 Plaintiffs
4. The 27 plaintiffs in this case reside in 15 different states. Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 20(a)
(1) allows plaintiffs to join in one action if:
(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative specific to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) the question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.
5. Some of these plaintiffs’ claims arise at different times, in different places, and from
interactions with different defendants but others arise at specific locations from interactions with
the same defendant(s). Careful analysis of plaintiffs’ underlying claims show common themes of
retaliation occurring at specific locations, arising from the same or similar sources and common
expressions of retaliation and religious hostility. These include and often involve the same senior
10 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 11 of 76 PageID# 251
chaplains, senior chaplains from specific denominations, offices or levels of authority, whose
retaliation arises because of their hostility to other denominations or challenges to their tyrannical
behavior, attitudes and discriminatory behavior.
6. Exhibit 1 provides a table identifying eight sources for the 26 plaintiffs’ claims and their
overlap and intersection with other plaintiffs’ claims. These are: Charismatic/Pentecostal (10
plaintiffs), a distinct religious group whose beliefs, and style, and manner of worship services are
rejected by many denominations; Naples (3) and San Diego (4), two distinct base chapels whose
command chaplains retaliated against and destroyed multiple plaintiffs; a board member hostile
to a plaintiff (6); offending a Catholic (12); offending the Chief (11); offending a Liturgical
Senior chaplain (14); and retaliation or hostility from the Chief’s office (9). For example, RC
chaplain CAPT Rock is alleged to have retaliated against Pentecostals Gordy (Naples) and
Morino (Okinawa) and two other non-liturgical chaplains in Naples (DuFour and Torralva).
Plaintiffs allege no Pentecostal or charismatic supervised by CH Rock was ever promoted.
7. The retaliation claims arising from Naples and San Diego involve RC command
chaplains openly hostile to non-Catholics, especially Non-liturgical evangelical and
charismatic/Pentecostal.
8. Exhibit 1 also illustrates negative effects of the unconstitutional influence of Catholics
due to their reserved seat on every CHC selection board not requiring admirals until FY 2003,
following the Chaplaincy litigation challenge to the practice. This denominational preference
explains why RCs increased their percentage at every rank from Lieutenant (“LT”)
(approximately 20%) until they were one third of CHC Captains (“CAPT”). Their large numbers
at the higher ranks and their reserved board seat facilitated the use of the CHC’s blackball
promotion system described below as an unchecked and unaccountable instrument of retaliation
11 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 12 of 76 PageID# 252
and denominational advancement.
Exhibit 2, “38 Years of Denominational Preference” by Dr. Harald R. Leuba, PhD, shows
a consistent denominational hierarchy and preference in promotion rates linked to those
denominations that had a Chief of Chaplains. Catholics have the highest promotion rates in every
rank, followed by Liturgicals, Southern Baptists, with minority Non-liturgicals and Special
Worship groups last or next to last.
The large number of RC Navy admirals saw no problem with this practice. The number
of RC CAPTs and CDRS has dramatically decreased since their private board seat was revoked
in FY 2003.
9. This grouping of plaintiffs supports and meets Rule 20's criteria. It allows the efficient
use of discovery and depositions, conserving resources and supports the speedy resolution of
specific groups of claims by allowing controlling questions of law to be decided and applied,
e.g., is a challenged practice or retaliation tool a denominational preference or result in one
triggering scrutiny of the challenged practice. This facilitates judicial economy. Plaintiffs reserve
the right to move for class action status if additional chaplains join the suit after its filing.
THE NATURE OF THIS CASE AND PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
10. This case addresses 27 Non-liturgical Navy Chaplains plaintiffs’ longstanding claims of
retaliation and low fitness reports (“Fitreps”); constructive discharge because of unlawful FOS;
and interference with their ministry, speaking, preaching and worship services based on
denominational prejudice.
This retaliation resulted in plaintiffs’ FOS and either separation for FOS or constructive
discharges. Senior Navy chaplains are the perpetrators and sources of these claims, primarily
Roman Catholic and/or Liturgical Protestants, in positions of authority, influence and supervision
12 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 13 of 76 PageID# 253
representing and acting under the authority of the Navy and its CHC. The actions represent a
pattern and practice of illegal retaliation and discrimination based on denominational hostility
and prejudice.
Chaplains’ Role as Military Denominational Representatives
11. Chaplains are religious ministry professionals (“RMP”), leaders or clergy of a church,
denomination or religious organization endorsed by the organization to represent it to the
military. Endorsement is the religious organization’s certification the RMP meets the DOD’s
educational requirement, the service’s ministry experience requirement and is qualified to
perform the ministry, ordinances and worship rites and services necessary to meet the free
exercise needs of the endorser’s military members. DOD Instruction 1304.28, Encl. 2, ¶ E2.1.7 .
In other words, chaplains represent their denomination or Endorsing Agent. Loss of endorsement
(a loss of professional qualification) is the Endorser’s sole decision regardless of reason and
requires separation from the Service. 10 U.S.C. § 643.
12. In keeping with their religious nature and role, chaplains have rank without command,
i.e., the authority to exercise the Sovereign’s authority and give orders with the expectation they
will be immediately obeyed. Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 1730.7B, Subj:
Religious Ministry Support Within the Department of the Navy, ¶ 4.a, and Navy regulations limit
chaplains’ activities solely to religious duties, barring chaplains from the duties and authority
common to all other naval officers:
In accordance with Article 1063 of [Navy Regulations, 1990], chaplains shall be detailed or permitted to perform only such duties as are related to ministry support. Chaplains shall not bear arms. Chaplains shall not be assigned collateral duties which violate the religious practices of the chaplain’s faith group, require services as director, solicitor, or treasurer of funds other than administrator of a Religious Offering Fund, serve on a court-martial or stand watches other than that of duty chaplain. (Emphasis added).
13 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 14 of 76 PageID# 254
If captured in time of war, chaplains are categorized as “retained personnel” under the Geneva
Convention, required to perform ministry and are exempt from provisions of the Code of
Conduct requiring resistence and escape.
The Nature of the Case
13. This is not an anti-Catholic suit or against the Roman Catholic church per se. The focus
here is on senior chaplains’ retaliatory actions and abuse of authority, not beliefs, and the CHC’s
affirmance and approval of those illegal actions. Plaintiffs attack Navy personnel systems’
procedures and practices that grant senior chaplains unbridled authority and discretion over the
promotions and careers of other chaplains with no accountability. IG evidence shows these
procedures become uncontrolled instruments of retaliation.
14. Within the CHC there are natural denominational networks. Plaintiffs allege some of
these networks have become conduits for senior chaplains to identify junior chaplain who oppose
or challenge senior chaplains’ abuse of authority and interference with ministry based on a
denominational perspective. These individuals are seen as problems or opponents in the eyes of
some chaplains who resent opposition to denominational abuse. These conduits, combined with
the unbridled discretion protected by the secrecy of many Navy personnel management
procedures, convert these challenged procedures into anonymous instruments of retaliation
against which there is no defense absent judicial intervention. IG inspections show these
procedures have no “effective guarantees” that exclude denominational factors from influencing
or determining promotions. This offends the Establishment, Free Exercise and Due Process
clauses and other constitutional protections.
15. These procedures and practices include the following:
a. Promotion procedures encouraging anonymous denominational preferences,
14 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 15 of 76 PageID# 255
prejudices and uncontrolled retaliation. IG investigations have identified three specific chaplain
promotion procedures unique to the Navy which use anonymous instruments of retaliation with
no accountability. At the time many of these challenged acts of retaliation occurred, Navy CHC
promotion boards were staffed primarily by chaplains selected by or approved by the Chief of
Chaplains (“Chief”).
(i). The Navy’s chaplain promotion board voting system with its small number of
board members, 10 U.S.C. § 613a’ bar of board proceedings disclosure, the anonymity of
board member votes, and the board member voting procedure’s choice of one of five
subjective promotability ratings that determine promotion, 0, 25, 50, 75, 100. Voting
Machine at Exhibit 3.
The Navy Inspector General (“NIG”) documented the unchallenged fact this
voting procedure allows one board member to both (A) anonymously deny promotion and
torpedo a chaplain’s career with no accountability and/or (B) manipulate the board to
allow low-quality chaplains to be promoted. This process is called “zeroing out”, see
NIG testimony of RADM Black describing “zeroing out” and its effect, Exhibit 4, and
CDR Washburn (NIG complainant) describing its common occurrence on promotion
boards she had served on, Exhibit 5 .
This “blackball” voting procedure places unbridled authority in hands of a
denominational representative acting as a government official with no means to ensure
accountability and denominational neutrality when selecting junior denominational
representatives for promotion. Despite the NIG and other evidence describing the voting
system’s use as an instrument of retaliation, prejudice and or favoritism, the Navy has
allowed it to continue and defends its unconstitutional use.
15 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 16 of 76 PageID# 256
(ii). Having other chaplains brief a candidate’s record of which no record is
kept after which the board votes for promotion based on the briefer’s evaluation. NIG
testimony shows the critical importance of a briefer’s briefing for a chaplain’s promotion
and the lack of objective criteria evaluating its accuracy. Omitting important positive
factors, whether intentional or unintentional, such as special accomplishments, a rater’s
positive comments and/or comparisons, overcoming of obstacles, difficult assignments,
and awards denies a promotion applicant the full and honest consideration of his record
law and regulations require. Omitting important negative information such as discipline
infractions, e.g., driving under the influence (”DUI”); administrative action; specific
negative counseling; or a rater’s negative comments provides an unfair advantage to a
chaplain who would otherwise appropriately FOS. The Army and Air Force require each
board member to personally review and evaluate/score each candidates’ record and record
each member’s vote.
(iii) Using the Chief or his/her Deputy as a chaplain selection Board President.
The Chief and Deputy are rear admirals (RADM) and given a great deal of deference by
board members of lesser rank both within and outside the CHC. The NIG investigation of
the FY 09 CHC CAPT board documents the negative impact of a subtle and seemingly
inconsequential comment by the Deputy, RADM Baker. The FY 97-98 boards IG
investigations also demonstrates the impact of the Chief; RADM Holderby admitted (A)
he lobbied for a candidate from his own denomination previously FOS and (B) he could
influence junior board members as a RADM and Chief.
Several plaintiffs allege the Chief or Deputy were personally hostile to them yet
served on promotion boards that denied them promotions.
16 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 17 of 76 PageID# 257
b. Granting Roman Catholics unlawful, unaccountable control over promotion
boards by placing at least one RC board member on every CHC promotion board for 54 years,
beginning in FY 49.6 This unfettered access to the procedures identified in “b” above combined
with the practice of RC chaplains meeting together regularly and exchanging information about
non-RC chaplains perceived to be hostile to RC interests or chaplains allowed RC chaplains to
retaliate against such perceived “enemies” through promotions with impunity. This gave rise to
the adage, “don’t cross a Roman Catholic if you want a career as a Navy chaplain.” RC chaplains
openly bragged about their network and its illegal effect on chaplains’ promotions and careers.
See Declaration of LCDR Jerry Dickerson, Exhibit 7 ¶¶ 13-15 (senior RC chaplain telling him
his career was finished because of a false report by another senior RC Chaplain)
c. Failing to provide “effective guarantees” denomination or perceived insults or
wrongs based on denominational differences did not become factors in chaplain promotion
proceedings and decisions. The testimony of numerous plaintiffs is they were threatened by
senior chaplains who claimed to have connections with the either the Chief or knew Senior
chaplains who would be on the boards. See e.g., Arnold, Roysden, Wilder. Evidence will show
there were denominational networks for large denominations whose chaplains occupied senior
billets and often served on selection boards.
d. Allowing board members to discuss a chaplain’s record based only on a board
member’s briefing with no record of the comments or guarantees that forbidden, extraneous or
unrelated factors outside the record are not introduced into the discussion. IG promotion board
investigations show this has happened.
e. Failing to provide “effective guarantees” assignments were made on factors
6 The Navy provided these records in Sturm v. Danzig, 99-cv-2272 (S.D. Cal). Exhibit 6.
17 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 18 of 76 PageID# 258
neutral to denomination, i.e, denomination did not become a negative factor in making
assignments. For chaplains to be successful and promoted, the CHC requires they have certain
assignments, including operational tours with either Marines or on a ship. Assigning a chaplain
to a “billet” (Navy term for a duty assignment) below the chaplain’s rank or to successive
nonoperational billets was and remains a means of retaliation. E.g,, Arnold, Carson, Dufour,
Gordy, Roysden, Spalding, Wilder.
Evidence shows there was always one RC in the detailer’s office as either the Senior or
Junior Detailer; very other Senior Detailer was an RC until the CFGC and Adair litigation began,
although RC’s were only about 20-25% of the CHC. That RC detailer primarily handled RC
assignments, but Roysden’s testimony shows he responded to RC requests affecting perceived
RC enemies.
f. Failure to ensure the integrity of the CHC official file system so important
documents were not removed or documents delivered were actually placed in a chaplain’s file.
The Detailer’s office was co-located with the Chief’s office until shortly before the chaplains’
litigation. Several plaintiffs report great difficulty attempting to ensure favorable fitness reports
were included in their official file for promotion board review. See, e.g., Bradley, Lancaster.
CAPT Stafford, the Navy’s Minority Affairs Officer, investigated the CHC’s fiscal year
(“FY”) 1997 and 98 Commander boards. Exhibit 8. He testified to the DODIG investigating
those same boards that he received an anonymous tip that one of the questionable RCs selected
for promotion, CH Clark, had received a DUI, an offense that disqualified him for promotion.
CAPT Stafford obtained a copy but did not find it in the chaplain’s file the board reviewed.
CH Clark’s missing DUI suggests it had been removed illegally, a deliberate act of
preference by some senior chaplain to enhance the candidate’s chance for promotion. Other
18 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 19 of 76 PageID# 259
examples abound. This points to the unrestrained influence and control over chaplains’ careers
and their records by the Chief of Chaplains, his Deputy, and senior chaplains.
g. Failure to ensure senior chaplains assigned to command chaplain billets,
assignments the Chief controlled or approved, were not denominationally hostile to others.
Senior RC chaplains at Balboa Naval Medical Center in San Diego, CA, and Naples, Italy, had
records of being pro-RC, pro-Liturgical and anti-Non-Liturgical/Evangelical. Evidence in
Chaplaincy shows Naples was known as the Evangelical graveyard and the CHC’s indifference
to gross discrimination against evangelical chaplains and their congregations by Naples’ RC
command chaplains. Similar egregious discrimination occurred at San Diego under CH Young.
h. Senior chaplains providing unregulated input into subordinate chaplains’ fitness
reports or actually drafting such reports without objective criteria. For some of these plaintiffs,
this has resulted in their damnation by faint praise, exclusion of significant events, contributions
or accomplishments and/or subtle negative comments.
IV. PARTIES
A. Chaplain Plaintiffs’ and Their Claims
16. Each of the 27 individual chaplain plaintiffs is identified alphabetically for ease of
reference below with each plaintiff’s original case indicted by ( ). Each plaintiff has suffered
injury(s) as a result of the Navy’s retaliation, messages of denominational preference, and other
harm as described herein which has deprived them of fair and equal opportunity for promotion
and a career in the Navy, and the corollary injuries flowing from (a) deprivation of their First and
Fifth Amendment and statutory rights, (b) violations of statues and regulations; and (c) the harms
identified herein. All plaintiffs have suffered from defendants’ message of second-class
citizenship expressed through their retaliation, retaliatory acts, and hostility to plaintiffs’ Non-
19 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 20 of 76 PageID# 260
liturgical beliefs and practices.
Individual plaintiffs’ incidents and injuries identified herein are used as examples to
provide factual support and notice of their claims, they are not a complete list of such injuries.
a. RICHARD ARNOLD (Gibson) lives at 2113 Road M, Emporia, KS 66801-8104.
CH Arnold was endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention (“SBC”), commissioned in the
CHC’s Theological Student Program as an Ensign in 1982 and entered active duty as a Navy
chaplain in August 1987. He entered the Navy with 3 years prior enlisted service in the Air Force
where he rose to the rank of Sargent. After various assignments, he was selected to go to
postgraduate school in 1993 and completed his work in 1994. During this time he was promoted
to LCDR.
He then reported to Mayport, FL where he worked under the supervision of Roman
Catholic (“RC”) Command Chaplain Charles Eis. CH Eis’ strange behavior and conduct led CH
Arnold and another chaplain at Mayport, then LCDR Aufderheide, to intercede with the
commanding officer to have CH Eis psychologically evaluated for his fitness for service. CH Eis
banished CH Arnold from the chapel for his attempt to help CH Eis and protect his command
and the Navy. Catholic chaplains accused CH Arnold of having “destroyed Charlie’s career.”
CH Eis was later chosen for Selective Early Retirement.
An acquaintance notified CH Arnold that RC CH (CAPT) Oddo made a comment at a
Senior CHC leadership meeting, “There is no place in the Navy for Rich Arnold.” This meritless
statement was a message from RC CH Oddo to other senior chaplains, particularly Catholics,
who might serve on promotion boards, that CH Arnold was “damaged goods.” This statement
had no other context except retaliation, given CH Arnold’s outstanding record and service.
That retaliation became evident in CH Arnold’s assignments following Mayport. The
20 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 21 of 76 PageID# 261
CHC detailed CH Arnold to LT (O-3) billets although he was a LCDR (O-4). Because the
promotion system operates with secret votes and small numbers, CH Arnold believes he was
blackballed in retaliation for his role in having CH Eis evaluated and/or as a result of the false
information and character assassination related to his role in reporting a senior chaplain’s
misconduct and strange behavior. The BCNR denied his appeal of his non-selection to CDR. CH
Arnold is now retired after multiple FOS.
b. MICHAEL BELT (Adair) enrolled in the Navy Chaplain Candidate Program
(“CC”) as a United Methodist; he changed his endorsement to the Non-liturgical Church of the
Nazarene before entering active duty in September 1991. He was stationed on Okinawa from
1991 to 1993. There his Liturgical Protestant rating chaplain, CH Ha, gave him a poor fitness
report after CH Belt failed to support CH Ha’s prayer breakfasts by selling tickets. This same
Liturgical Protestant chaplain later berated CH Belt for preaching that “men who call themselves
Christians should live as Christians” and gave CH Belt a low mark on his fitness report. CH Belt
and another Non-liturgical chaplain later reformatted a Protestant service in San Diego with low
attendance and the congregation grew from 40 to approximately 130. His rating Liturgical
Protestant chaplain recognized CH Belt’s accomplishment by calling his style of worship
“hogwash.” The Liturgical Protestant then took over the service, changed it back to a Liturgical
service and drove the congregation away, killing the service.
At his duty station at the Balboa Navy Medical Center in San Diego, he witnessed and
experienced Liturgical bias, prejudice and retaliation against himself and other Non-liturgical
chaplains from his RC command chaplain, CAPT Dave Young and the CHC. This included
exclusion exclusively Liturgical chaplain meetings that made decisions that affected him and
other Non-liturgical chaplains and seeing Catholic and Liturgical Protestant chaplains, whose
21 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 22 of 76 PageID# 262
work output was below their peers, nonetheless being given higher fitness reports.
Plaintiff LCDR Roysden was stationed at Balboa with CH Belt. He testified at his 2004
CFGC/Adair deposition:
CH Young “hated Michael Belt with a passion” although CH Belt “was willing to do
whatever he could to make an impact in the hospital. He never seemed to tire, he loved being
with patients and with staff.” [241:15-22]. CH belt and CH Smith developed a project providing
ministry to the operating rooms; at first, CH Young opposed it and didn’t want them to be doing
it. After it got off the ground and was termed a success, CH Young tried to claim credit for it,
saying it would never have happened had he not suggested to those two chaplains that they go do
it. [241:23-242:22].
As a result of his superior chaplains’ retaliation and denominational prejudice, CH Belt
was non-selected for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Commander (“LCDR”) by the fiscal
year (“FY”) 1999 and 2000 chaplain promotion boards.
CH Belt joined the Adair litigation in 2000 at the rank of Lieutenant. As result of interest
in the litigation by other chaplains in the San Diego area, CH Belt organized a briefing session on
the Adair litigation for San Diego area chaplains with the approval of his supervising chaplain,
CAPT Lineback. Other senior chaplains in the Medical Command and the Office of the Chief of
Chaplains became very hostile, forcing CH Belt to find another location at the last minute. That
hostility became manifest later.
CH Belt became an invalid when Navy medical malpractice complicated and
compounded the injuries he received on active duty; he could walk only with great difficulty and
pain. The Navy started the process for a medical board to evaluate CH Belt for medical
retirement. However, due to the Navy’s delay and broken promises, CH Belt was separated for
22 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 23 of 76 PageID# 263
FOS in March 2006 due to the low Fitness reports, the product of the retaliation described above,
despite the Navy’s failure to complete the medical evaluation board. The Adair court rejected his
attempt to obtain a TRO (Temporary Retaining Order) and allow the board process to be
completed. His separation in an invalid state inflicted great distress and hardship on CH Belt and
his family.
The CHC’s hostility and opposition to allowing CH Belt to complete the medical
evaluations necessary for him to complete a medical board and qualify for a medical retirement is
a manifestation of the CHC’s retaliation against CH Belt for challenging the CHC’s
denominational preferences, bias, and hostility to evangelical chaplains like himself. His injuries
include the obvious messages of second class citizenship, denial of his rights and intense
emotional stress on him and his family. CH Belt now resides at 17722 North 79th Ave.
Glendale, AZ 85303.
c. WILLIAM C. BLAIR (Adair) resides at 2658 Widdy Bostwick Ln., Jamestown, NY
14701. Before attending seminary, he had prior enlisted service in the U.S. Marine Corps from
September 1972 to August 1976. He became a Navy chaplain in July 1983 endorsed by the Non-
liturgical Assemblies of God faith group and was recalled to active duty in September 1983,
promoted to Lieutenant Commander and selected for post graduate school.
As a Non-liturgical chaplain, he was required to be able to officiate at Liturgical
Protestant services, but Liturgical Protestant chaplains were not required to know how to or to
officiate at Non-liturgical services.
The Navy assigned him to Naples, Italy, after completing post-graduate school. Navy
regulations required he fill a chapel education billet that matched his specialty code awarded after
completing Post-graduate school. CH Blair’s Liturgical command chaplain refused to assign him
23 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 24 of 76 PageID# 264
that “P” coded billet and transferred him to a NATO organization and chapel in Naples. Finding
there was no service for Pentecostal/charismatic military members in Naples, he initiated a “Full
Gospel” worship service around 1992 despite great hostility from senior chaplains and lack of
chapel support. His service became the largest on-base non-Catholic service. While the poorly
attended liturgical General Protestant service received full support and funding, his well attended
service had to improvise just to survive, including using a borrowed personal stereo amplifier to
run the service’s sound system.
The FY 97 CHC Commander selection board did not select CH Blair despite an
outstanding record superior to many of those selected for promotion as shown by CAPT
Stafford’s investigation of the FY 97 and 98 CDR promotion boards (the “97&98 Boards) in
response to LCDR Aufderheide’s complaint of religious discrimination.
When CH Blair attempted to learn the cause of his non-selection, a senior CHC official
told him his one rating (in 16 years of service) of 3 of 3 was the only indication in his record. He
appealed that rating and his non-selection to the Board of Correction of Naval Records which in
effect informed him that there was nothing wrong with the board and that he had no basis for a
complaint. His subsequent requests for an explanation were met with a “we can’t talk about the
board - it’s a secret.”
Following his second non-selection, the CHC told CH Blair to “either retire or be
retired.” In the face of the Navy’s threat and prejudice, he retired on September 1, 1999. The
result of the Navy’s prejudice, misconduct, and retaliation constitute a constructive discharge.
Examination of the Stafford Report’s information after his retirement showed CH Blair’s
record was superior to many chaplains promoted; some had in their records the very things CHC
senior officials had consistently said would keep a chaplain from being promoted, e.g., DUI.
24 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 25 of 76 PageID# 265
The DODIG’s follow on investigation of the 97&98 Boards found evidence of
denominational preferences on both boards. It concluded a Catholic board member had retaliated
against Protestant LCDR Aufderheide through negative comments resulting in Aufderheide’s
non-selection. Aufderheide alleged he had confronted RC CAPT Madden about his drinking and
womanizing years before and Madden promised he would deny Aufderheide promotion.
The resulting Chaplaincy litigation exposed the Navy’s blackball voting procedure that
allowed one board member to anonymously destroy another chaplain’s career. CH Blair had
previously served with one of the FY 97 liturgical board members, CAPT G. Cooper, with whom
he had experienced hostility over disagreements. Given CH Blair’s record compared with others
selected, he alleges he was the victim of that board member’s retaliation, not unlike LCDR
Aufderheide; or prejudice because of his Pentecostal background; and/or because the
denominational preferences exhibited by the board necessarily discriminated against him and
denied him a fair opportunity for promotion by illegally introducing religion and denomination
into the promotion process.
d. RICK P. BRADLEY (Gibson) currently resides at 2580 Grummer Lane, Conway,
Arkansas. He was endorsed by the Southern Baptist Convention, commissioned and entered
active duty as a chaplain in December 1997. Following Chaplain School and training at Camp
Lejeune, he was sent to Guam for his first assignment to the sub tender USS FRANK CABLE,
AS40. He left Guam in December 1999 and transferred to Paris Island for the period January
2000 to September 2003, when he was reassigned to Marine Air Group at Beaufort, SC. As a
result of a physical in his pre-deployment procedures, he was discovered to have an unknown
blood disease. This led to a two-year period of multiple visits to Walter Reed Army Medical
Center, Bethesda Naval Medical Center, and Johns Hopkins University, which finally determined
25 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 26 of 76 PageID# 266
the cause of his medical manifestations was a reaction to anthrax. This made him ineligible for
deployment and resulted in a medical board which subsequently discharged him. However,
during the time when he was being evaluated, he went before a promotion board in March of
2002 for FY03, for which he FOS to LCDR despite outstanding fitness reports.
Prior to his revisiting Walter Reed, he worked with the Deputy Command Chaplain to
ensure his file that appeared before the board was complete. However, when he reviewed his
Officer Personal Data Sheet after the board, he found it had been substantially altered with blanks
and other incorrect information, so much so that it did not accurately reflect in any meaningful
way his history, education or other information relied upon by the board. There is no explanation
as to how this information became corrupted. CH Bradley attempted to resolve this, but his
command chaplain told him he needed to talk to the Chief of Chaplains office. That office told
him he needed to work with his command chaplain. Before this could be resolved, CH Bradley
was medically discharged. During his time on active duty, he was reprimanded by his senior
chaplain for praying in Jesus’ name at a graduation while assigned to Paris Island, although it is a
practice consistent with his faith group’s beliefs and practices.
CH Bradley’s FOS to LCDR is believed to be the result of prejudice against him for his
consistent, effective performance and insistence on following the dictates of his conscience,
which included praying in the name of Jesus as authorized by his faith group despite criticism.
e. ANDREW CALHOUN (Gibson) currently resides at 3269 East Bonnie Drive,
Oak Creek, Wisconsin. He began his career as a Navy chaplain commissioned as an Ensign in
1984 in the Theological Student Program and endorsed by the Church of God in Christ, a Non-
liturgical denomination. He was subsequently given a superceding appointment to the CHC in
1988, came on active duty in 1990 and was assigned to the Naval Training Center, Great Lakes,
26 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 27 of 76 PageID# 267
Illinois. He was then assigned to the USS BAINBRIDGE. Because of his involvement with a
community service program, his ship was recognized as having the most outstanding community
service programs. In fact, the name of the Navy award given to ships for community service is
now known as the USS BAINBRIDGE Award, a recognition of the contributions CH Calhoun
made to both the Navy and his ship.
His subsequent assignments included a tour at the Milwaukee, Wisconsin Coast Guard
Station followed by postgraduate school, where he obtained a Masters of Theology degree, a
reassignment to Okinawa for a one year unaccompanied tour, and then to Little Creek, VA. He
was promoted to LCDR in 1994.
Two weeks prior to the FY2001 CDR board, CH Calhoun received a revised fitness
report delivered to him by FedEx which substantially reduced his final fitness report for the
period he was at the Milwaukee Coast Guard Station. This report was written outside the window
in which corrections were authorized to be made and he received no warning or opportunity to
rebut it, nor an explanation of the basis for the change. He came to believe this report was
instigated by RADM Iasiello since a letter accompanying the report indicated it had the approval
of RADM Iasiello, who also served as the president of the promotion board before which the
report was submitted. The apparent unfairness of the later report reduced, if not destroyed his
chances for promotion. RADM Iasiello should have recused himself from consideration as board
president given his involvement in the approval of the revised report, and subsequent difficulty in
attempting to resolve the question. That and RADM Iasiello’s apparent complicity in a retaliation
scheme convinced CH Calhoun the Navy had become hostile to him, there was no place for him
in the Navy CHC, and he submitted his resignation.
The CHC’s animosity against him is further exemplified in its rejection of CH Calhoun’s
27 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 28 of 76 PageID# 268
request for release from the Navy in the early summer of 2001 to pursue civilian employment
opportunities and minimize the impact of transition on his family. The Navy would not release
him until February of 2002. The Navy’s treatment of CH Calhoun is typical of the second class
treatment afforded many Non-liturgicals and reflects a determined effort to insure that gifted and
qualified Non-liturgicals are retaliated against because of their faith and removed from the
service.
RADM Iasiello’s and the CHC’s retaliation and hostility denied CH Calhoun promotion
to CDR, created a hostile environment, and resulted in a constructive discharge.
f. MARTHA CARSON (CFGC) was commissioned in the United States Marine
Corps in 1980 and served as a Marine until 1987 when she left active duty to obtain a Masters of
Divinity Degree at Duke University, Durham NC. Beginning the process to become a Navy
Chaplain under the endorsement of the United Methodist Church, she switched to CFGC’s
endorsement before reporting for active duty. The Navy’s and CHC’s actions suggest Navy
discrimination against her based on her identification as a CFGC endorsed chaplain. This
discrimination took various forms, including: (a) unreasonable delay and changes in bringing her
to active duty after she had changed her endorsement to CFGC and had quit her job based on a
specific reporting date and ship assignment (USS Simon Lake) the CHC had previously given
her; (b) denying her a fair opportunity for promotion by turning her prior outstanding military
service into a detriment and liability and giving her assignments that made her non-competitive
for promotion; (c) causing economic and other injury by unreasonably delaying her discharge
orders and interfering with her opportunity to seek commissioning in the Army Chaplain Corps.
She left the Navy after her failure of selection (FOS) of promotion to the grade of Lieutenant
Commander (“LCDR”), was commissioned as an Army chaplain, promoted to Major (the Army
28 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 29 of 76 PageID# 269
equivalent of LCDR), and retired April 2008 after completing 20 years commissioned service.
She lives at 7148 State Route 329, Guysville, OH 45735.
CH Carson’s injuries include being treated as a second class citizen because of her faith,
denied a fair opportunity to compete for promotions in the Navy, denial of promotion in the
Navy, delaying her promotion to Officer pay grade 4 (“O-4")7 (Major) because she had to
essentially start her career over again in the Army, subsequent denial of promotion to O-5, and
the financial delay in bringing her to and releasing her from active duty as mentioned above.
g. CH (CDR) TIMOTHY DEMY (Gibson) resides at 7 Ellen Road, Middletown,
Rhode Island. He was endorsed by the Bible Churches Chaplaincy, commissioned in the CHC in
1981 and came on active duty in July 1984. He was promoted to LCDR in 1988 and CDR in
1993.
CH Demy was the honor grad for the Chaplain Advanced Course and was assigned to the
Chief of Chaplains Office in the summer of 1990 where he worked in the detailing office first as
admin officer and then as the junior detailer. CH Demy has testified denominational
considerations color or influence all detailer’s office decisions and many of the CHC’s critical
personnel decisions. CDR Demy Declaration (Exhibit 9) ¶¶ 11, 29 (“as in all other matters
chaplains in the Chief’s office and detailing, denominational awareness was always part of the
deliberations of that process”) (emphasis in original), 40. He stated “if released from my oath of
secrecy about [selection board] proceedings, I would have relevant and material information
concerning the impact of denomination on the SERB selections.” Id. at ¶ 44.
7 Military services often identify rank with its equivalent paygrade, e.g., O-4, MAJ or LCDR. The “O” stands for “Officer” and the number equates to the grade above entry level, here 4.
29 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 30 of 76 PageID# 270
CH Demy was assigned to the Naval Chaplain School as the supervisory course officer
after a tour with the Coast Guard Headquarters, followed by attendance at the Naval War College
from March 1998 to 99. He was the first chaplain designated the honor graduate and was
subsequently assigned to teach at the Naval War College.
CH Demy FOS to CAPT. He was told this was due to “lack of operational time.”
However, his fitness reports all show top 1%, he worked for two Chiefs of Chaplains, and he was
specifically requested to go to the Chaplain School and the Naval War College. Any lack of
“operational” time was not due to a failure on his part, but a result of the system which assigned
him to these important positions based on his demonstrated abilities and skills.
Evidence suggests the real reason for CH Demy’s FOS was retaliation by the CHC and
RADM Black, reflecting hostility against his non-denominational beliefs and professional
jealousy over his recognized skills and abilities.
45. I was told by a reliable source shortly after one of my failures to be selected by the CAPT board on which the Chief of Chaplains, RADM Barry Black was President, either 2002 or 2003, that during the board break, i.e., not during the actual board deliberations, that RADM Black made a comment to [another board member] regarding my record: “I know what you are trying to do Norm. Demy is a good commander and the Navy needs good commanders. If we pass him over, he can sit in his office and write his books.” 46. This was reference to the fact that on my own time I have published extensively on religious issues. RADM Black’s comment falsely implied that I had used government time and resources to write books which was a false and prejudicial remark. It was also an irrelevant reference to a personal and private activity. It would be the same as if he had said, “this way he can play more golf”, something I do not play, or “coach Little League soccer.” After hours legal activities should not be a part of board considerations or discussions, formal or informal. The question for each board member is does my record as a CDR (which RADM Black indicated was good) indicate I have the potential to perform satisfactorily the duties at the CAPT level. The statement itself reflects personal prejudice or jealousy because of my professional accomplishments. 47. After my first FOS, I requested a special board due to incorrect data on a fitness report regarding my weight and a physical fitness test that had been administratively corrected. My request for a special board was denied.
30 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 31 of 76 PageID# 271
CH Demy was selected for involuntarily retirement by the FY08 Commander Selective
Early Retirement (“SER”) Board and retired in June 2008. The retaliation and hostility
documented here injured CH Demy by denying him promotion to CAPT, facilitating his selection
for SER, and conveying a message of second-class citizenship based on his faith and both
military and ministry skills.
h. JOSEPH DUFOUR (Gibson) resides at 1755 Campbell Rd, Waxahachie, TX
75167-8036. He entered active duty September 21, 1992, endorsed by the Bible Churches
Chaplaincy, a Non-liturgical faith group. CH Dufour had a successful and productive career prior
to his assignment to the Naval Support Activity at Naples, Italy (Naples) as evidenced by his
fitness reports and his promotion to LCDR. He is one of several named plaintiffs who have been
victimized by the Navy's oppressive culture of prejudice against Non-liturgical chaplains and
faith groups that became a pattern and practice of bias at Naples, orchestrated by its RC
command chaplains. For example, no evangelical chaplain who has served under his Catholic
command chaplain at Naples, CH (CAPT) Rock, has ever been subsequently promoted on active
duty. This systematic prejudice at Naples has resulted in a consistent pattern of threats,
harassment, and professional and personal attacks resulting in biased fitness reports designed to
destroy his opportunities for promotion and a Navy career.
CH Dufour challenged CH Rock over his prejudice and bias toward the Non-liturgical
chaplains, congregations and their programs at Naples. In retaliation, on information and belief,
CH Rock contacted CH Dufour’s Catholic command chaplain on the NIMITZ, a Boston priest
like CH Rock. His new command chaplain undermined CH Dufour’s ministry and career and
ensured CH Dufour’s FOS to CDR. CH Dufour retired after successive FOS.
i. ALAN GARNER (Gibson) resides at 9844 Rosemont Ave. Lone Tree, Co. 80124.
31 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 32 of 76 PageID# 272
He was a Chaplain Candidate Officer from January 1989 to April 1992 when he entered active
duty as a Navy chaplain. He is an ordained Independent Baptist minister and endorsed by the
Bible Churches Chaplaincy.
After an initial assignment aboard the guided missile cruiser USS LEAHY, CH Garner
was assigned to the Naval Medical Center San Diego, CA. There LT Garner covered more
hospital wards than any other chaplain on staff, facilitated two support groups, and helped train
hospital staff in patient pastoral care. He was handpicked to deploy with a Navy Fleet Hospital
for six months as part of the United Nations Protection Forces. He served as Division Officer
over nine enlisted Religious Program Specialists (“RPs”) and successfully prepared his
department for a major inspection. CH Garner was recognized for his excellent performance with
outstanding fitness reports until the new Catholic command chaplain, CH (CAPT) David Young,
reported to the Medical Center six months before LT Garner was scheduled to leave. In CH
Garner’s final Medical Center fitness report, CAPT Young deliberately ignored LT Garner’s
outstanding performance and accomplishments, downgraded him in the areas of professional
expertise and teamwork, and placed LT Garner in the “must promote” category, a significant
reduction from his previous rating of “early promote.” CH Young never offered any explanation
for the poor marks or the lower promotion recommendation. Compared with his previous
outstanding fitness reports, CH Young’s evaluation cast CH Garner’s performance in a bad light.
At the same time CH Young downgraded CH Garner’s performance, the Medical Center
recommended CH Garner be given the Navy Commendation Medal for his outstanding
performance in actions that occurred during the same time frame in which CAPT Young found
CH Garner’s performance deficient. While CH Young was savaging CH Garner’s career, the
Medical Center was thanking and rewarding him for the same performance of duty. CH Young’s
32 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 33 of 76 PageID# 273
evaluations resulted in CH Garner’s FOS to LCDR, a fact acknowledged by the Bureau of
Personnel (“LT Garner’s fitness reports for the period 1 February 1996 to 20 July 1996 display a
negative trend in performance and severely impacted the competitiveness of his record.”). CH
Garner was forced to leave active duty, but was subsequently promoted to LCDR in the Naval
Reserve and served in Iraq when his reserve unit was activated. He retired in the Naval Reserve
in January 2009.
CAPT Young was the subject of several investigations, including findings of retaliation
against other evangelical chaplains, racial discrimination against the department’s secretary, and
sexual harassment from a junior female chaplain. Evidence in Chaplaincy demonstrates he
favored Catholic chaplains in his ratings while trashing the careers of dedicated and productive
Non-liturgical chaplains.
j. JOHN GORDY (Gibson) lives at 516 Sage Rd. North, White House, TN. He
began his military career as an enlisted man in the U.S. Marine Corps from January 1978 to
December 1981. He then attended college and seminary and was commissioned as an Ensign in
the CHC in 1987 as a Chaplain Candidate. He entered active duty in August 1988, endorsed by
the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee. He compiled an excellent record and was promoted to
LCDR in September 1998. He was selected for and successfully completed postgraduate school
where he wrote a paper addressing how to heal fractured congregations. That article resulted in
his selection for assignment to NSA Naples, where disagreements between the Catholic
command chaplain, CAPT Ronald Buchmiller, and junior Protestant evangelical chaplains had
fractured the community and resulted in media coverage critical of the Navy and the CHC.
On arrival at Naples, CH Buckmiller told CH Gordy, “You know I have a reputation for
ruining evangelical careers.” CH Buchmiller is the same command chaplain who ended the
33 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 34 34 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 274 34
careers of several other Non-liturgical chaplains assigned to Naples. CH Buchmiller then
proceeded to rate CH Gordy in a manner that ruined his career, guaranteeing CH Gordy would be
FOS to CDR. CH Gordy’s failure to be selected despite his outstanding performance, as
indicated by his record prior to Naples, his promotion to LCDR and selection for postgraduate
school, is due to the CHC’s tolerance of known career killers like CH Buchmiller whose history
indicated he retaliated against chaplains because of their faith and ethnic background, see LCDR
Torralva below.
At his 2003 deposition in Naples, Italy, CH Gordy testified that when he first heard of the
Adair and CFGC lawsuits and allegations about denominational prejudice, he dismissed their
claims. However, his assignment at Naples changed his view after he was confronted by CAPT
Buchmiller’s anti-evangelical prejudice and hostility, and the CHC’s and Navy’s willingness to
condone his retaliation, prejudice and hostility rather than address it decisively.
RC CH Rock, Buckmiller’s successor, was also prejudiced and exhibited open hostility to
CH Gordy and retaliated against him because of his faith and Pentecostal practices. CH Gordy
retired due to his FOS. He was injured by RC Chaplains Rock and Buckmiller who destroyed his
career and continually conveyed a message of second-class citizenship because of his fulfillment
of his duties as a representative of a Pentecostal, Non-liturgical faith.
CH Gordy has served as a recorder on CHC promotion boards and testified if released
from his oath of secrecy he has evidence highly relevant to the issue of denominational neutrality
in promotion board proceedings.
k. FURNISS HARKNESS (Adair) is a Non-liturgical Navy Reserve chaplain
residing at 400 Green Acres, Memphis, TN 38117. He entered active duty in March 1987 under
the endorsement of the Non-liturgical Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Although he had
34 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 35 35 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 275 35
outstanding fitness reports, he found the Navy had two systems, one for Liturgical chaplains and
one for Non-liturgical chaplains. After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain the same information
concerning assignments after graduate school routinely provided to Liturgical chaplains, he
realized his efforts to obtain equal treatment by filing an Inspector General complaint had
effectively ended his Navy active duty career
He left active duty in June 1995 and attempted to return to his Reserve status. In an illegal
act of retaliation, the Navy CHC issued a new instruction requiring the CHC’s approval of his
Reserve affiliation in an illegal attempt to deny it. CH Harkness asked the Navy Inspector
General (NIG) to investigate the legality of that attempt. The NIG subsequently found the CHC’s
actions and its “new policy” to be without authority, vindicating CH Harkness’s position. The
report admonished several senior chaplains for retaliation. The CHC’s retaliation and
discrimination, based on religious prejudice and hostility to CH Harkness for challenging
denominational preferences and the CHC’s open preference for Liturgical chaplains, precluded
CH Harkness from drilling for a year and a half.
As an further act of retaliation, the Navy failed to select CH Harkness to the grade of
Commander in mid-2000, despite his outstanding record and his graduation from the Naval War
College. One of the board members on his selection board was implicated in his prior successful
NIG retaliation complaint and demonstrated open hostility to Harkness. The obvious reasons for
his non-selection was his prior successful complaint to the NIG concerning the CHC’s illegal
attempt to deny him Reserve affiliation, his participation in Adair, and his attempts to obtain
equality of treatment. These retaliatory acts illegally delayed CH Harkness consideration for
CAPT.
The record also demonstrates numerous other subsequent acts of retaliation against CH
35 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 36 36 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 276 36
Harkness by the CHC and its senior chaplains for challenging their “old boys” network and its
preference for Liturgical chaplains and practices.
l. TOM KLAPPERT (Gibson) resides at 7699 Kuhn Road, Greencastle, PA. He
graduated from the Naval Academy in 1973. He served five years in the Marines, rising to the
rank of Captain (O-3), and remained in the Reserves from 1978 to 1982 while he attended
seminary. He was endorsed by the Bible Churches Chaplaincy, commissioned as a chaplain
LTJG in September 1982, and promoted to LT in 1983, LCDR in 1991 and CDR in 1998.
CH Klappert was assigned to Marine Corps Headquarters, Quantico, Virginia, from June
1992 to June 1995. CH Klappert became a central figure in the investigation of the Quantico
command chaplain for serious misconduct resulting in the command chaplain’s relief for cause.
CH Klappert also became embroiled in a conflict between the Liturgical senior chaplains and the
Non-liturgical junior chaplains who were doing most of the ministry. General Krulak, Quantico’s
Commander and the USMC Deputy Commandant, placed Non-liturgical chaplains in leadership
positions and supported the evangelical ministry and services which found great support in the
military community. This caused resentment among the senior Liturgical chaplains at Quantico
as well as others in the CHC leadership, who resented the fact the liturgical command chaplain
was caught and disciplined and Non-liturgical chaplains placed in leadership positions. See
Declaration of LCDR Gary Heinke, Exhibit 10.
After Quantico, CH Klappert was assigned to the Portsmouth Naval Yard. There he
experienced great difficulty with a female organist-music director who caused division in the
congregation and other difficulties. CH Klappert finally determined to terminate her employment
because of the division she was causing in the chapel. Shortly prior to his scheduled rotation date
from Portsmouth and before he was able to terminate the organist’s employment, she filed a
36 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 37 37 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 277 37
complaint alleging discrimination and harassment against CH Klappert. She initially obtained an
ex parte protective order limiting CH Klappert from contact with her but the judge vacated that
order at a subsequent hearing, finding there was no substance in the complainant’s allegations
and “this is not sexual harassment.”
The Navy began an investigation despite the judge’s finding. CH Klappert submitted 16
witnesses’ names who would verify the falsity of the allegations, but the resulting investigation
only interviewed 6, and perverted the testimony of those who had made statements so the
meaning was entirely opposite to the witnesses’ testimony.
The base commander initially supported CH Klappert and expressed his confidence the
investigation would refute the false allegations, but it became apparent to CH Klappert that his
commander had been told supporting CH Klappert was not in the base commander’s career
interests. It became obvious to CH Klappert this situation was retaliation for his involvement in
the relief of the Quantico command chaplain, his support of Non-liturgical ministry at Quantico,
his career was over, he was not welcome in the CHC, and he was a target because of his previous
success. Faced with an expensive and protracted fight should he choose to legally dispute the
charges, he submitted his resignation. His discharge was involuntary because it was motivated by
retaliation, premised on coercion, and supported by official hostility and a corrupt investigation.
CH Klappert has also served as a recorder on CHC promotion boards. He has testified
that if granted relief from his oath of secrecy, he has evidence highly relevant to the question of
denominational neutrality on boards and the evidence he would present based on his experience
would “set your hair on fire”.
m. ALLEN L. LANCASTER (Gibson) resides at 172 North Liberty Spring Rd.,
Suffolk, VA 23434. His case represents a prime example of the Navy’s unconstitutional
37 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 38 38 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 278 38
retaliation, hostility and prejudice toward its Non-liturgical chaplains. His allegations here are
supported by his Chaplaincy deposition.
CH Lancaster began his naval career in 1957 as an active duty enlisted sailor, serving
until 1961 and thereafter in the Naval Reserve until August 1980 (23 years) when he was
commissioned as a Navy Chaplain. Endorsed by the Associated Gospel Churches, an evangelical,
Non-liturgical faith group, he then spent 21 years as a Navy Chaplain.
His record is truly outstanding career, every fitness report showing grades of “A” for all
performance categories and “early promotion” recommendations. He was promoted to LCDR.
Just prior to his first time in the primary zone for selection to CDR, CH Lancaster was
selected to attend the Chaplain Advanced Course on the basis of his stellar record, a course
normally available only for CDRs or those selected to be CDRs. He was not selected for
promotion to CDR in 1991. Because of his strong record, CH Lancaster was assigned to a high
visibility position as chaplain on the USS SAIPAN and was selected for promotion to CDR his
second time in zone.
Knowing he would be in the zone for CAPT in 1996, CH Lancaster reviewed his official
file and found it was missing an outstanding fitness report dated July 1995 from another high
visibility position. His rating officer sent a certified true copy of the missing July 1995 report to
the Chief of Naval Personal on June 19, 1996. When CH Lancaster again reviewed his official
file microfiche to make sure his record was complete, his July 95 fitness report was still missing.
In February 1997, CH Lancaster again sent a copy of the July 95 report to the Navy CHC detailer
for inclusion in his file. Following his fourth attempt to ensure his file was complete before the
Chaplain CAPT selection board met, the detailer’s office told CH Lancaster his missing report
was in his records. CH Lancaster was not selected for CAPT and then discovered his July 95
38 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 39 39 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 279 39
fitness report was still missing, despite his four attempts to provide the missing report and the
detailer’s assurance the record was complete.
Whether the board actually reviewed CH Lancaster’s record is in question. The
promotion board’s senior recorder’s duty is to notify a chaplain’s command if a record before the
promotion board is incomplete. After the board, CH Lancaster asked the CAPT selection board’s
senior recorder if his record was complete. CH Epperson replied all the records were complete
but a review of his record showed the July 95 report was still missing. CH Lancaster’s unit
reported it had received no communication from the CHC indicating his record was not complete
during the time the promotion board met. Several weeks later, he contacted board member CAPT
(later RADM) Barry Black who said, “I do not recall anyone not considered due to a missing
report.” How could the board have reviewed CH Lancaster’s record if all the records before the
board were complete, none were reported missing, yet his record was missing an important
fitrep?
En route to his new assignment to Camp Lejeune, NC in November 1997 CH Lancaster
stopped in Washington D.C. to again attempt to complete his record. He was introduced to
LCDR Burdec, Naval Personnel Officer Records Section, who took the report and said, “I will
personally ensure that it gets in your file.” However, when the next Chaplain CAPT board
convened in May 1998, it notified CH Lancaster’s unit his official record still lacked the July
1995 fitness report. Deployed with the Marines at the Twenty-Nine Palms, CA, Training Center,
CH Lancaster called Camp Lejeune. CH (CDR) Cash forwarded the missing report to the board
by fax (January 1997). The July 95 report still did not reach his official record, a fact the BCNR
noted in denying CH Lancaster’s subsequent request for a new promotion board. The Navy
retired CH Lancaster as a CDR October 31, 2001 after 44 years of Naval service.
39 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 40 40 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 280 40
Overt and deliberate retaliation against CH Lancaster, symbolic of the prejudice against
Non-liturgical Chaplains and their faith groups, is the only explanation for the consistent failure
of seven documented attempts to get an important, exceptional fitness report into CH Lancaster’s
record. CH Lancaster’s saga demonstrates a pattern and practice of retaliation and sabotage
against outstanding Non-liturgical chaplains so liturgically dominated Chaplain boards had an
excuse for denying Non-liturgical chaplains a fair opportunity for promotion, thereby maintaining
Liturgical domination of the CHC. CDR Demy’s declaration, ¶ 35, provides further evidence the
ease in which important documents can be removed from chaplains’ files on the order of senior
chaplains.
n. MICHALE LAVELLE (Adair) resides at 13921 East Poelstra Street, Vail, AZ
85641. Despite an outstanding career as a Non-liturgical Navy chaplain including participation
in Operation Desert Storm and a preponderance of duty with the Marines, he was passed over for
Commander in FY 1998. That required him to face the reality that few, if any, chaplains are
subsequently selected once they have been non-selected, Liturgical chaplains seemed to dominate
the boards, and a former liturgical supervisor who tried to sabotage and destroy his ministry in
Desert Shield/Storm claimed credit for CH Lavelle’s FOS, see below, implying CH Lavelle had
an overt enemy with connections to senior chaplains and/or board members. CH Lavelle applied
for early retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Act (TERA) to avoid further
humiliation, prejudice and the possible financial injury he and his family might suffer if he
continued to remain on active duty. He retired on October 1, 1998, and claims he was
constructively discharged as a result of his retaliatory and illegal FOS which created a hostile
environment and threatened his family, career, and retirement.
Before and during Desert Shield/Storm, then liturgical chaplain LCDR Richard Pusateri
40 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 41 41 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 281 41
was assigned as CH Lavelle’s supervisory chaplain with Marine Air Group-13 and CH Lavelle
deployed with 2nd LAAM BN (as they had no chaplain and the whole BN had orders to deploy).
CH Pusateri covertly attempted to destroy CH Lavelle’s ministry, reputation and standing in his
battalion by spreading falsehoods, innuendo and lies masquerading as rumors. Since CH Lavelle
was new to the unit, he had no history to fall back upon to refute these rumors. CH Pusateri has a
history of destroying evangelical careers using that same pattern and practice. CH Lavelle
exposed CH Pusateri’s efforts and was successful in transferring to another unit (from MAG-13
to MAG-16), as directed by the senior 3rd Marine Air Wing chaplain, who was the direct superior
of Chaplain Pusateri and who removed CH Lavelle from CH Pusateri’s reach. Even tainted with
a transfer at a most unfortunate time (in the middle of a military conflict), CH Lavelle was able to
obtain an outstanding fitness report indicative of his ability and skills.
Years later (1994-95) and right before the selection board, while stationed at 3rd Light
Armored BN, the senior supervisory chaplain (who was friends with and came from Pusateri’s
faith group) informed CH Lavelle that CH Pusateri claimed to have the ability to make sure that
CH Lavelle would FOS to CDR. CH Lavelle had an outstanding reputation at this duty station
and was well respected by this supervisory chaplain. This story indicates that CH Pusateri had
contacted someone on the CDR promotion board who zeroed out CH Lavelle in retaliation on
CH Pusateri’s behalf. In fact, one of the board members shared a domination with CH Pusateri.
The DODIG investigation of the FY 97-98 CHC CDR produced evidence the board had
illegally used faith group as a promotion criterium and promoted Liturgical chaplains with
records inferior to those not selected, including CH Lavelle. The Navy’s failure to address its
chaplain promotion system allowing one chaplain board member to anonymously destroy a
chaplain’s career with no accountability and its other legal problem provided a well-known
41 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 42 42 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 282 42
avenue of illegal retaliation and denominational preference. The Navy’s faith group prejudice and
the realities of the Navy’s promotion and separation policies constitute a constructive discharge.
o. GEORGE W. LINZEY (Adair) resides at 1111 Seacoast Drive #61, Imperial
Beach, CA 91932. He was endorsed by the non-denominational National Association of
Evangelicals, commissioned as a chaplain in the Naval Reserve in April 1975 and entered active
duty as a Navy chaplain on September 6, 1975. CH Linzey was the youngest chaplain to make
Captain but the FY 1998 SERB selected him for involuntary early retirement despite his
outstanding record.
In the spring of 1997, RADM Koeneman, a former Chief of Chaplains, made a special
trip to visit CH Linzey at Great Lakes Naval Training Center (the “Center”) where CH Linzey
was the Command Chaplain. RADM Koeneman told CH Linzey to “get your resume ready”, it
was time for him to return to civilian life, and gave him the name and contacts of a church
looking for a music minister. CH Linzey was selected for SER in January 1998 as predicted.
RADM Koeneman’s warning and advice is evidence CH Linzey was personally pre-
selected by the Chief rather than by an unbiased SER board based on an objective records review.
CH Linzey’s father was the first Navy Assembly of God chaplain to be promoted to CAPT. He
warned George about the CHC’s bias against Non-liturgicals and told him he would have to work
harder than the other chaplains. His success aroused jealousy amongst other senior chaplains.
CH Linzey attempted to correct the CHC’s Non-liturgical bias when he encountered it
and change the CHC’s culture. As the Center’s Command Chaplain, CH Linzey exposed and
helped correct an injustice to a CFGC endorsed chaplain, LT Patrick Sturm. LT Sturm’s former
supervisory chaplain torpedoed CH Sturm’s career with a mediocre/poor fitness report through
the use of code-words while telling CH Sturm the report was a good one and the code-words
42 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 43 43 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 283 43
were good for him. CH Linzey helped LT Sturm expose the former command chaplain’s
duplicity and the CHC’s hostility to Pentecostal and charismatic chaplains.8
CH Lindsay compounded his offense against the CHC’s Liturgical leadership by rating
LT Sturm above an RC LT chaplain.
CH Linzey believes his preselection for early retirement retaliation was based on (1) his
efforts to correct injustices against Non-liturgicals, e.g., LT Sturm, (2) his efforts to challenge
and change the CHC’s “good old boys” liturgical network, and (3) denominational reasons,
rather than an objective review of his record compared with other eligible chaplains.9 The
president of his SER Board was the Chief, four of the five SER CAPT selectees were Non-
liturgical.
p. JAMES LOOBY (Gibson) resides at 1713 County Rd. 318, Early, TX. He began
his military career with the U.S. Air Force in June 1967 and served there until June 1971. He
completed seminary in 1975 and entered the CHC in February 1984 endorsed by the SBC.
He served in a variety of assignments and was promoted to LCDR in April 1991 and
subsequently to CDR by the FY96 promotion board but was not selected by the FY03 CAPT
board. He subsequently learned a rumor was circulating among the CHC leadership that CDR
Looby had been injured on active duty, was ineligible for promotion and had performance
8. The Navy and CHC’s treatment of LT Sturm in opposition to his efforts to correct his prejudicial, erroneous fitrep resulted in a 1999 lawsuit challenging his non-selection to LCDR.
9 The Navy kept Naval reservists on active duty who should have been separated in compliance with Secretary of Navy Instructions implementing Title 10's emphasis on maintaining an all Regular Navy. A 10/24/1994 CHC Community Manager memo warned the Chief SERs would be necessary to maintain the CHC’s “denominational balance” if certain steps were not taken, clearly an illegal motive for SER since selections, like promotions, must be based on merit, not denomination.
43 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 44 44 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 284 44
problems. On information and belief, this view was shared by RADM Iasiello, the president of
his first CAPT board, in retaliation against CH Looby. There is no other explanations for his FOS
given his record except the board reliance on RADM Iasiello’s unfounded and malicious rumor
contrary to his record or retaliation by being “zeroed out.” CH Looby retired in 2005, in effect a
constructive discharge. Like all the other chaplain plaintiffs, CH Looby was injured by being
denied promotion as a means of unjust retaliation and the message of second or third class
citizenship communicated by the CHC’s and Navy’s twin messages of denominational
preference and prejudice.
q. WALKER MARSH, JR. (Gibson) resides at 125 Whisperwood Blvd., Slidell, LA.
He was endorsed by the SBC, commissioned as a Navy chaplain in October 1982, entered active
duty in January 1984 and promoted to LCDR in November 1990.
In September 1985, he was assigned to the Naval Training Station, San Diego, CA. The
Liturgical command chaplain, CH Dempsey, told CH Marsh in his initial interview: “I hope that
you’re not planning on making this a career because you already have three strikes against you.
You are the wrong sex, the wrong color and the wrong religion.” This was a prophetic utterance.
CH Marsh began an alternative Non-liturgical worship service with two other Non-liturgical
chaplains, LTs, Michael Lavelle and Robert Yourek after he arrived at the Naval Training
Station. Despite being restricted by the command chaplain to an unreasonable time (7:00 am) and
still being required to participate in the Liturgical General Protestant service, under CH Marsh’s
leadership the Non-liturgical service soon grew to approximately 60 attendees. At this point, the
command chaplain terminated the service.
CH Marsh was assigned to the U.S. Marine Corps School of Infantry, Camp Pendelton,
CA after selection for and completion of postgraduate school. The base’s Liturgical command
44 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 45 45 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 285 45
chaplain, CH Ha, established a chaplain meeting schedule and other procedures for the chaplains
he “supervised” that created direct conflicts between his demands on their time and the time and
priority requirements of the unit commanders to whom the chaplains were assigned and who
rated them. CH Ha did not address the resulting conflict he had created with the unit
commanders themselves but demanded his junior chaplains convince their commanders that he
was the appropriate authority to determine the responsibilities and priorities for the battalion
chaplains, rather than the battalion commanders. CH Marsh rightfully objected to this as a breach
of discipline and custom.
CH Ha promised CH Marsh he would make sure CH Marsh would never be promoted.
CH Ha made it clear to CH Marsh Liturgical chaplains controlled the chaplain promotion boards
and used that control and its threat to chaplains’ careers to keep Non-liturgical chaplains in line.
This control kept junior chaplains subservient to senior chaplains rather than their unit
commanders to whom the junior chaplains were assigned and accountable for ministry. This is
another example of the well known CHC’s truism, “the line may rate you, but the CHC promotes
you.” The fact CH Marsh was FOS despite his outstanding record gave support to CH Ha’s claim
he would destroy CH Marsh’s career in retaliation for obeying his commander’s instructions and
meeting his unit’s ministry needs.
CH Marsh’s assignment to the USS BELLEAU WOOD after his first FOS to CDR
exemplified the CHC’s retaliation, deceit and religious prejudice against CH Marsh. His detailer,
a member of the board that had not selected CH Marsh for CDR, said CH Marsh needed an
unaccompanied tour (i.e., no family) to better his chance for selection by the next promotion
board because the BELLEAU WOOD assignment would be a supervisory position. When CH
Marsh questioned the detailer about his first FOS and the fact that the next board results were not
45 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 46 46 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 286 46
yet known, his detailer said, “Don’t you know you’ll get picked up?” When he reported to the
ship, he discovered he was not assigned to a supervisory position.
After his second FOS while on the BELLEAU WOOD, the CHC told him the Navy
would separate him under 10 U.S.C. § 632 and then gave him a series of changing return and
separation dates that resulted in a two year involuntary, extended, unaccompanied tour. He spent
two years separated from his family as a result of CHC deceit, religious hostility and retaliation
for exercising his duty to represent his endorser and serve his commander. This is not the type of
service or treatment given to Liturgical chaplains.10
r. DENISE Y. MERRITT (CFGC), endorsed by CFGC, entered active duty in the
CHC in February 1990 with prior enlisted service in the U.S. Marine Corps. She was first
stationed at Charleston, SC, then Quantico, VA, and finally the National Naval Medical Center in
Bethesda, MD. The Navy subjected her to prejudice and retaliation because of her endorsement
by CFGC.
CH Merritt’s Liturgical supervisor undermined all her ministry efforts at Quantico. For
example, after scheduling an inter-service chapel concert with Army and Air Force bases in
neighboring states, her command chaplain told her to cancel it at the last minute. Also during her
time at Quantico, she became embroiled in a conflict between the Liturgical and Non-liturgical
chaplains over the type and quality of ministry and turmoil surrounding the relief of the
Liturgical command chaplain.
CH Merritt’s fitness reports at Bethesda cited shortcomings provided by her Liturgical
10 CH Dufour reports his RC command chaplain, CH Jerome Dillon, had been reassigned several times before his tour of duty was complete and assigned as command chaplain on several other ships in an apparent effort to boost his record and career.
46 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 47 47 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 287 47
command chaplain, Jane Viera, for which CH Merritt had received no prior notice or counseling.
Her efforts to correct or challenge the ratings were ignored or rebuffed. CH Merritt served on
twelve hospital committees and performed eight collateral duties at Bethesda. This contrasted
with a Catholic chaplain at the same rank who served on no committees and performed no
collateral duties because he did not speak English well, yet CH Vieira rated the Catholic chaplain
above CH Merritt. Evidence shows CH Jane Viera did not like Non-liturgicals and left a wake of
ruined evangelical chaplain careers wherever she was assigned.
CH Merritt left the Navy in May 1998 after her FOS for LCDR and was commissioned as
an Army chaplain assigned to Ft. Eustis, VA when CFGC filed its suit and joined as a plaintiff.
She was promoted to Major as an Army chaplain and was selected for and completed
postgraduate school. CH Merritt retired after completing 20 years of service but was offered and
accepted the opportunity to return to active duty. She has retired for the second time and lives at
4405 Biway Cir., Fayetteville, NC 28311.
CH Merritt’s injuries include being denied a fair opportunity to compete for a full career
and promotions in the Navy, denial of promotion to LCDR in the Navy and the opportunity to
compete for other promotions, and delay in being promoted to O-4 in the Army because she had
to essentially restart her military chaplain career. The CHC placed CH Merritt under abusive and
hostile chaplain supervisors who retaliated against her on the basis of her faith and inflicted great
stress and strain on her and her family.
CH Merritt was an assistant board recorder for the FY 96 CHC Commander promotion
board. She testified she has relevant and material evidence addressing the influence and conduct
of the Board President, denominational preferences, and other issues addressing denominational
considerations discussed during the board if she is released from her oath of secrecy concerning
47 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 48 48 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 288 48
the proceedings.
s. DAVID MITCHELL (Gibson). Dr. Mitchell resides in Durham, NC. He was
endorsed by the Progressive National Baptist Convention, a Non-liturgical denomination, entered
the Navy CHC in Sept. 1987 with 4 years prior service in the USAF. He had completed his work
for his PhD and had held 3 supervisory billets in which he had received outstanding fitness
reports when he entered the primary zone for promotion to CDR in 2001. He was not selected for
CDR despite his outstanding record and career.
The president of the CDR promotion board was RADM Iasiello, then the director of the
Chaplain School. He had supported a female chaplain candidate’s unsupported and false
allegation that Dr. Mitchell had sexually harassed her during an interview required for the
chaplain commissioning program. The subsequent investigation proved his innocence, but CAPT
Iasiello (who later became Chief) indicated to Dr. Mitchell he believed the candidate’s
allegations and would find a way to end Dr. Mitchell’s career. The 2001 CDR Board with
RADM Iasiello as president, denied Dr. Mitchell’s promotion but selected two Catholic
chaplains above zone who did not have records as strong as Dr. Mitchell’s.
Consideration of factors other than the record is improper, forbidden by the Secretary of
Navy’s instructions, Equal Opportunity regulations and the Equal Protection component of the
Fifth Amendment. Dr. Mitchell believes the Navy’s secret voting process and small boards allow
one chaplain board member to prevent a candidate’s selection by voting “zero” with no
accountability, presenting a dishonest briefing of the candidate’s record, and allowing comments
not in the record during discussion. Dr. Mitchell believes this process allowed RADM Iasiello to
retaliate against him by preventing his promotion and ending his career. Dr. Mitchell retired in
2003, after two FOS to CDR.
48 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 49 49 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 289 49
t. JAIRO MORENO (Gibson) resides at 2009 Oak Brook Dr., Portland, TX. He
entered the Navy Chaplain Corps in 1987 endorsed by the Church of God of Cleveland,
Tennessee, a Pentecostal Non-liturgical denomination. CH Moreno is Hispanic, and the
combination of being Pentecostal and Hispanic resulted in retaliation, bias and prejudice
throughout his chaplain career.
He was assigned to work under CAPT Rock, the Catholic command chaplain, in
Okinawa. CH Rock expressed his view CH Moreno should have been Catholic rather than
Pentecostal because he was Hispanic and retaliated against him accordingly. CH Rock subjected
CH Moreno to a series of degrading and insulting incidents and gave CH Moreno fitness reports
that made him non-competitive for CDR. CH Moreno suffered numerous FOS to CDR. No
Pentecostal chaplain who worked for CAPT Rock has been promoted.
The command chaplain who followed CH Rock was CH Lesak, another Catholic. On
arrival, CH Lesak told CH Moreno, “I don’t want anything to do with you because you have been
passed over” and treated CH Moreno with disrespect and disdain.
The command chaplain who followed CH Lesak gave CH Moreno increased
responsibilities and outstanding fitness reports, although nothing had changed in CH Moreno’s
approach to ministry. CH Moreno’s FOS was due in large part to the animosity of his former RC
command chaplains, who savaged his career with prejudiced fitreps. This was aggravated by the
policy of always having a RC on every promotion board until FY 2003. CH Moreno was
considered for promotion to CDR during that time. CH Moreno is one of two plaintiff chaplains
with Hispanic ethnicity. Non-liturgical Hispanic chaplains were not promoted while Catholic
Hispanic chaplains were.
u. RENE PORTER-STEWART (Gibson). CH Porter-Stewart was an active duty
49 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 50 50 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 290 50
Navy Chaplain assigned to the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California, until she was
discharged March 1, 2006, for multiple FOS to LCDR, She currently lives at 2028 Farmdale
Lane, Spearfish, S.D. 57783.
CH Porter-Stewart entered active duty as a Navy chaplain in September 1988, endorsed
by the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, an evangelical, pentecostal, Non-liturgical
faith group. CH Porter-Stewart’s career is filled with examples of the Navy’s overt and covert
retaliation and hostility to effective, Non-liturgical chaplains, and retaliation for the exercise of
her Pentecostal faith. During Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm (Persian Gulf War), she
established an airport ministry at Cherry Point, NC for all Marines leaving or coming home. She
also developed and hosted several episodes of a television program for the Cherry Point, NC
military community addressing such topics as reunion (when a service person returns after a
deployment and combat) and suicide prevention. Despite these highly effective programs, she
experienced hostility from her command chaplains who recommended she be given low marks
on her fitness report. Her commander disregarded her command chaplain’s career harming
recommendations, writing higher and more accurate fitness reports on her.
CH Porter-Stewart’s command chaplain reassigned her from her highly effective
Headquarters Squadron ministry, placed in a closet for an office and gave her no job description,
no budget, and no religious program support personnel. Several months later, after she defined
her duties and began building an effective ministry, she was placed in a CDR’s position as a LT
with no overlap or support. The senior Second Marine Air Wing Chaplain subjected her to
hostility, inappropriate language and harassment.
She was assigned to Balboa Naval Hospital, aka the Naval Medical Center, San Diego,
CA, in 1995-1997, and again faced great harassment, a hostile work environment and retaliation
50 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 51 51 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 291 51
from the RC command chaplain, CAPT Dave Young. CH Porter-Stewart, another female (LT)
chaplain, two male chaplains and the Command Chaplain’s civilian secretary filed complaints
against CAPT Young.
The Navy placed CH Young on CH Porter-Stewart’s LCDR Chaplain Selection Board,
which failed to select her. The Board of Corrections removed CH Young’s fitness reports on CH
Porter-Stewart, but did not grant her a special board.
No active duty Non-liturgical chaplain who worked under CH Young was promoted. CH
Young rated his Catholic chaplains above Protestant chaplains, both Liturgical and Non-
liturgical, not on the basis of performance but because they were Catholic. See also claims of
Belt, Garner, and Roysden who also suffered retaliation under CH Young.
v. RAFAEL J. QUILES (Adair). Rafael J. Quiles resides at 203 Orchard Grove
Place, Oldsmar, FL 34677. CH Quiles had prior enlisted service in 1970-1972 and 1973-1977.
He reentered the Navy as a chaplain in January 1984, endorsed by the Church of God, Cleveland,
TN, a Pentecostal denomination. He reached the rank of LCDR. CH Quiles’ career and his
exemplary record should have qualified him for promotion to Commander. He was non-selected
for promotion to Commander by the FY 1997 and 1998 chaplain promotion boards.
The evidence from the Navy and DOD Inspector General investigations clearly shows (1)
faith group played a determining part in the selection of chaplains for promotion during those
boards, and (2) chaplains with records inferior to CH Quiles were selected for promotion while
he was not. The reason he was not promoted was because he was a Non-liturgical and a member
of a disfavored faith group, whereas those with inferior records who were promoted were from
favored Liturgical faith groups. After his non-selection, CH Quiles was told to leave the Navy.
His retirement in December 1998 following his second FOS was a constructive discharge.
51 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 52 52 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 292 52
At first, CH Quiles thought his non-selection was “the luck of the draw.” Through one of
the co-Plaintiffs, he learned of the Stafford Report and by comparing his record objectively with
those who had been promoted, he knew his FOS was not based on his record but other factors,
including retaliation. Liturgical chaplain CAPT George Cooper was a board member on the FY
97 board. He had been CH Quiles senior chaplain previously, during which time CH Quiles
confronted CAPT Cooper over what appeared to be an illegal practice. CAPT Cooper remained
hostile to CH Quiles and should have recused himself from the board. CH Quiles believes CAPT
Cooper zeroed him out in retaliation for CH Quiles’ confrontation over CAPT Cooper’s
wrongdoing.
CH Quiles’ improper FOS resulted in an illegal and constructive discharge.
w. DANIEL ROYSDEN (CFGC) was an active duty Navy Chaplain. His August 4-5,
2000 board deposition captures many of the CHC’s incidents of retaliation against him. CH
Roysden joined the chaplain candidate program in 1981, was initially commissioned as a
chaplain endorsed by the United Methodist Church and accessed into the Navy reserve. Roysden
Deposition [28:1-21]. He had numerous assignments as a Naval Reserve chaplain filling short-
term recalls for active duty. He had good reports and a good reputation.
Before coming to active duty, CH Roysden changed his endorsement from United
Methodist to CFGC. His detailer warned him against changing endorsements from the Liturgical
United Methodist to the Non-liturgical CFGC:
When he found out I was switching from United Methodist to CFGC his statement was, “You just signed your death sentence.” He said, “If you had switched from Non-liturgical to Liturgical, you’d probably be okay.” He said, “In fact, I had done that”-himself-but he said, “by switching the opposite way, it will be very difficult for you in the future.”
[51:5-12].
52 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 53 53 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 293 53
Roysden’s first assignment as an active duty chaplain was to a ship stationed in Japan.
Just before his first deployment, the SURPAC senior chaplain, CAPT O’Donnell, visited
Roysden’s ship and requested an interview with the Captain without telling Roysden the specific
purpose. The Captain later informed him CAPT O’Donnell had warned the CO “do not be
surprised if we have to relieve [Roysden] for cause. He’s from a church group that has no good
track record, they’re a brand-new denomination.” [79:4-25]. His captain gave CH Roysden
outstanding fitness reports.
Other Navy chaplains told CH Roysden he had made a mistake changing his endorsement
from Methodist to CFGC and that it would hurt his career if he did not get out of “that group.”
CH Roysden’s next duty station was Naval Station Pearl Harbor. He found a place for a
charismatic group to meet when the command chaplain, CAPT Craycraft, would not permit them
to use the chapel for services. CH Craycraft told CH Roysden, “[p]eople like them, people who
were Pentecostal Charismatics not only had no business holding worship on naval property, they
had no business being in the Navy”, knowing CFGC endorsed CH Roysden. [139:2-7].
His command chaplain at Balboa Medical Center, San Diego, CA was RC CAPT Dave
Young. A female chaplain, Fran Stuart, reported to Roysden CH Young was sexually harassing
her. She filed a complaint and CH Young attacked Roysden and removed him from his
responsibilities in administration and as his number two person when Young was gone. When
told he could not do that, CH Young said, “I can do whatever I want. You betrayed me by not
telling me that Fran Stewart was going to file a sexual harassment complaint against me”
[189:25-190:10]. CH Roysden was obligated not to reveal CH Stuart’s information and claims.
When Roysden complained of CH Young’s retaliation, the JAG and the EEO at the San
Diego Medical center “filed it illegally, as I understand it now, under Fran Stewart’s sexual
53 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 54 54 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 294 54
harassment complaint.” [127:7-12].
The EO investigation found Roysden’s removal “as the administrative second-in-
command had the appearance of retaliation. And [CH Young] was directed to reinstate me to all
the responsibilities I had before his removal of me from those responsibilities, and he refused to
comply with that directive.” [128:25-129:10].
Roysden points out numerous deficiencies in the resulting investigations of both Stewart
and his complaints suggesting official interference to protect CH Young. Roysden’s
whistleblower complaint, which should have been handled by the JAG, was sent to the Equal
Opportunity office for investigation along with CH Stewart’s complaint but he was not given an
“advocate”, a requirement under the EEO regulations. [191:7-25].
CH Young barred Roysden from “any official part of the office”, refused to talk to him,
and tried to have him reassigned to an isolated post in Puerto Rico on short notice, contrary to
regulations. The Catholic Junior detailer told Roysden that he would take the orders despite
regulations which precluded this assignment. Roysden called Mrs. Berto at the Chief’s office.
She informed the detailer the reassignment was improper and canceled the orders. [192:2-
194:10].
When CH Roysden returned from the Korean Air Crash Disaster on Guam, Young told
him not to discuss anything about what happened, what he saw, and the ministry with any others,
greatly increasing Roysden’s PTSD. “I want you to shut up about this crap. You’re not allowed to
talk to anybody else about this” [207:1-2].
CH Young also attempted to degrade Roysden’s performance by failing to address his
significant participation in the Korean Airlines crash where he “had done more debriefings than
anyone else on the team” and played a significant role in the post crash operations and memorial
54 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 55 55 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 295 55
ceremonies. [195:17-196:19].
Young favored Catholics who did not like evangelicals and always gave them the highest
ranking, [34:6-7], but acted with prejudice to those who did a good job in their ministry,
cooperated with other chaplains and/or objected to his high-handed prejudice. CH Young
retaliated against any priest or anyone else who objected to his decisions while being very
favorable to his fellow priests that just toed his party line. CH Young gave RC CH D’Auarora the
lowest ranking, [234:8-13], despite “doing more work than most of the other lieutenants.” [235:7-
12]; he was given the “early promote” and the number one ranking after CH Young left.
CH Young moved Catholic CH Dombrowski early because he challenged CH Young’s
ranking him above CH Paul. [235:20-to 36:17]. Dombrowski was “highly respected throughout
the hospital and a person who was open to friendship and ministry to anyone of any faith
background.” [238:7-18].
CH Young moved RC CH Klarer early so he would not have to compete against the other
LCDRs under a new command chaplain. [237:1-11]. CH Young ranked CH Livingood, who was
not liked on the wards or by staff, the number one Lieutenant among six. “CH Livingood, was
ranked dead last.” when CH Young left [243:13- 245:24].
CAPT Young had told Roysden “he would make sure that I did not make commander”,
[85:23-25]; CAPT Young was a personal friend of the Chief, RADM Holderby, because they were
roommates in chaplain school and “most of the 0-6's have a connection system and will talk up or
talk down certain chaplains.” [86:2-12].
In fact, the person from San Diego that was on that board, after the board met, was in the hospital perhaps a month later and he was meeting the chaplains. The statement he made to me was, “oh, you’re CH Roysden.” Which, for some reason, I couldn’t understand why he would make the statement. Instead of “Oh, it’s nice to meet you,” his statement was “Oh, you’re CH Roysden.” [86:16-23].
55 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 56 56 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 296 56
The BCNR recognized Roysden had been harmed but refused to follow logic or reason in
denying his appeal of CH Young’s damaging reports. The BCNR said,
“we recognize the appearance of discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment, but we feel that this in no way impacted your fitness reports and your chances for promotion.” [122:12-16]
When Roysden attempted to mentor and train Junior chaplains who had come to the San
Diego Middle Center, or attempted to get CH Young to discuss issues with his Junior chaplains
who were having troubles, CH Young berated him. [80:13-84: 1]. CH Young said “I will make
sure you never make 0-5. You can count on that.” [83:25-84:1]. While CH Young would give
others “glowing reports” about Roysden, “in my personal encounters with him, he was always this
very abusive, I don’t like you, you’re this way or that way.” [84:6-10].
CH Young would get together with the other two Catholic priests and “make policy for the
Protestant Chapel”. “The three of them would decide on promotion recommendations for their
chaplains” [105:12-15], and made decisions affecting ministry, including Protestant worship,
without consultations with the Protestant chaplains. [239:22-240:9].
Admiral Diaz, the Medical Center commander, spoke to CH Roysden as he checked out of
the hospital and apologized for what happened with the investigation. He said he never dreamed
that his biggest problem at the Hospital would be the chaplains’ office. He was amazed at what
went on. He said,“I couldn’t control the investigation [but] could only go on the
recommendations”, not recommendations he would’ve made. Admiral Diaz said immediately
upon the release of investigation, he, [Diaz] fired CH Young. CH Young was not fired “due to the
reported intervention of Young’s three-star friend.” [281:4-25].
CH Roysden’s record was superior to others selected by the FY 98 board, a fact known
because the Stafford Report provided the rankings and scores of those selected. His record, with
56 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 57 57 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 297 57
the exception of “two Bs as a reservist, all his active duty evaluations were all “As”.[72:23-73:9].
CH Roysden requested an investigation of “an improper removal of a fitness report from
my records and an attempted cover-up of that removal by the individual who did it [at] BUPERS.”
That was a special fitness report by Admiral Diaz “documenting my participation in the Hurricane
Mitch recovery efforts in Honduras and Nicaragua”, a very good report which was removed from
his file before the FY 2000 board for commander, a fact admitted by Mr. Pool at BUPERS.
[288:6-290:9]. The investigation was a farce, like those before it.
CH Roysden’s injuries include consistent treatment as a third class citizen by senior
chaplains because he was endorsed by CFGC, and because of retaliation and denominational
prejudice denial of recognition awards for his outstanding performance, promotion to Commander
in the Navy, the opportunity to compete for other promotions, a full career, and promotions in the
Navy. The CHC placed CH Roysden under abusive and hostile chaplain supervisors who inflicted
great stress and strain on CH Roysden and his family. Senior Navy officers allowed, facilitated
and covered-up RC CAPT Young criminal and mental abuse. CH Roysden retired after multiple
FOS 2007 and now resides at 305 Sandalin Lane, Peachtree City, GA 30269.
x. MARY HELEN SPALDING (CFGC) enlisted in the Navy in September 1983,
attended and graduated from officer’s candidate school in 1986, and transferred into the Navy’s
Chaplain Corps in August 1990, endorsed by CFGC. She was hand picked as the first woman
chaplain to serve on an aircraft carrier after service in the Gulf War and the Parris Island Marine
Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island. She was named Navy Chaplain of the Year in 1995 while at
Naval Air Station Key West, FL after service on the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal. At Key West,
the CHC then assigned as her command chaplain supervisor a Protestant Liturgical chaplain who
had previously demonstrated his inability to get along with female chaplains and other faith
57 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 58 58 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 298 58
groups. Upon his arrival at Key West, he told CH Spalding he could not work with her because
she was a woman.
Rather than deal with the Protestant Liturgical command chaplain who created the
problem, the Navy then reassigned her in a prejudicial manner that ensured she would not be
competitive for selection to Commander. She was transferred to the 2d Marine Division. As a
LCDR she was initially given a supervisory position normally assigned to a Commander. That
changed when the new Division chaplain took over her responsibility and effectively ruined her
career by giving her degraded assignments and fitness reports. The only explanation for that
treatment is retaliation and denominational prejudice.
Faced with the prospect of being separated after FOS because of the damaging impact on
her career due to her Key West and subsequent experience and assignments, she retired at 15 years
under the Temporary Early Retirement Act (“TERA”) in October 1998. The Navy’s overt and
official hostility to her as a CFGC chaplain resulted in her being uncompetitive for promotion,
amounting to a constructive discharge. Had it not been for this prejudice, CH Spalding would
have been promoted and finished her career as a Navy chaplain. She now resides at 610 Walk the
Plank, La Jolla, TX 78560.
CH Spalding’s injuries include being treated as a second-class citizen because of her
CFGC endorsement, being denied a fair opportunity to compete for a full career and promotions
in the Navy, denial of promotion to Commander in the Navy and the opportunity to compete for
other promotions. The CHC placed CH Spalding under abusive and hostile chaplain supervisors
who retaliated against her based on her religion and her appropriate complaints about
denominational preference, inflicting great stress and strain on CH Spalding.
y. ARMANDO TORRALVA (Gibson) began his military career as a Chaplain
58 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 59 59 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 299 59
Candidate endorsed by the Associated Gospel Churches, and was commissioned a 2LT in the
USAF Reserve in August 1981. He was commissioned in the Air Force Chaplain Service,
remained in the Air Force Reserve from 1984 to 1988, and was promoted to CAPT (O-3). He
then entered the Navy as a chaplain in July 1988.
CH Torralva was chaplain for the Marine 1 Squadron which flies the presidential
helicopters during the presidency of George Bush, Sr. In 1997 CH Torralva was selected for
postgraduate school and attended Princeton Theological Seminary. The normal chaplain
postgraduate education program does not have sufficient hours to qualify for a degree, but CH
Torralva took extra hours and earned a Master of Theology degree. Despite the fact the
Secretary’s instructions require boards to look at postgraduate experience in a positive light, and
the fact he was selected for postgraduate school based on the strength of his record, CH Torralva
was not selected by the FY99 CDR Board. He was scheduled to fill a CDR’s billet at
COMFAIRMED Headquarters in Naples, Italy. Although he reminded the detailer that he had
been FOS, the detailer reviewed his records and indicated to CH Torralva he had a competitive
record and would probably be picked up by the next board.
Reporting to COMFAIRMED in August 1999, CH Torralva discovered his billet was
unfunded, meaning it had no financial support, and the billet had been withdrawn from the
Headquarters. Nonetheless, he was assigned as a force chaplain, which normally would have
meant exercising supervisory responsibilities over subordinate chaplains as a member of the
Admiral’s staff. CH Torralva did an inspection of a chapel program at Rota, Spain in his role as
force chaplain. The command chaplain was Catholic CAPT McLaughlin.
CH Torralva found minor improprieties and problems, including numerous complaints
against the junior RC chaplain from his parishioners and staff who complained he was not doing
59 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 60 60 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 300 60
his job. CH Torralva also found minor discrepancies in the Religious Offering Fund. The report
embarrassed the command, particularly since a Protestant Hispanic pointed out their difficulties.
CH Torralva’s senior chaplain, CH (CAPT) Gentolli at CINCUSNAVEUR, the command
chaplain of Naval Forces in Europe, directed CH Torralva to evaluate the problems at the Naval
Support Activity at Naples. CH Torralva found the Religious Ministries Department under the
Roman Catholic CH Ronald Buchmiller was divided, demoralized and dysfunctional due to CH
Buchmiller’s lack of leadership and hostility toward Protestant evangelicals. CH Torralva
recommended in a white paper to CH Gentolli that they initiate team building exercises to help
remedy the problem. He was criticized for his inspection and recommendation by both CH
Buchmiller and the NSA Commander, CAPT Gray, who blamed the problems on a previous
chaplain, Phil Veitch, who allegedly stirred up division and dissension. However, CH Veitch had
been gone for some time and an objective evaluation showed the real problem was CH
Buchmiller’s anti-evangelical attitudes and prejudice. The Navy then transferred CH Torralva
from COMFAIRMED to NSA Naples, working under CH Buchmiller, the same command
chaplain he had just criticized.
While at COMFAIRMED, CH Torralva assumed the pastorship of a evangelical
congregation of American military personnel assigned to NATO Headquarters at Armed Forces
South (AFSOUTH). When he was reassigned to NSA Naples, CH Torralva retained his position
as the chaplain/pastor for that congregation. When the new command chaplain, CH (CAPT) Steve
Rock, another Catholic, reported in, his first words to CH Torralva were he wanted the
AFSOUTH congregation disbanded. CH Torralva communicated that to AFSOUTH personnel
who pointed out under Title 10 and the Memorandum of Support among the Armed Forces the
Navy had to provide support for the religious needs of AFSOUTH and therefore CH Rock could
60 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 61 61 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 301 61
not shut down the evangelical congregation. This became a continuing bone of contention
between RC CH Rock who wanted to eliminate the evangelical congregation, and CH Torralva,
their pastor.
CH Torralva was supposed to be the deputy command chaplain because of his seniority as
a LCDR, but CH Rock refused to allow CH Torralva to function as such. CH Rock made, and
permitted others to make, openly disparaging anti-Hispanic comments about CH Torralva.
When the base commander, CAPT Gray, planned to initiate a “teen clinic” which would
dispense birth control and provide sexual disease treatment to teenagers without parental consent,
CAPT Gray directed the chaplains to help sell the program to the community. CH Torralva
preached a sermon on parental responsibility, including their obligation to instruct their children
in sexual matters, and mentioned the opening of the Teen Clinic without either criticizing or
preaching against it. The sermon caused a firestorm in his congregation, which included high
ranking Army and Navy officers, because the program was being imposed without parental
involvement or warning. CAPT Gray was embarrassed and accused CH Torralva of violating an
order not to discuss the Teen Clinic until such time as the command was ready to announce it to
the community. CAPT Gray and CH Rock retaliated against CH Torralva on his fitness reports. A
subsequent Article 138 investigation initiated by CH Torralva exonerated CAPT Gray. The
investigator was a member of CH Rock’s congregation; several of the witnesses claimed the
investigator misrepresented their testimony and refused to sign statement or statement summaries.
The investigation highlighted the dysfunctional and divisive Chaplain Department under CH Rock
but nothing was done.
The promotion rate of Hispanic Protestants is clearly below that of Hispanic Catholics. It
is believed this is due to a perception among many Catholic board members Hispanic personnel
61 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 62 62 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 302 62
should be Catholic, not Protestant or evangelical, a perception flowing from comments made to
several Hispanic non-Catholic chaplains, including CH Torralva. The fact that CH Torralva could
be selected to be the chaplain for Marine 1 Squadron, postgraduate school, and sent to occupy a
CDR’s billet while still a LCDR is clearly inconsistent with his FOS. The only explanation is
something other than his record influenced the board in retaliation for his beliefs and record. The
Navy system of secret votes and small numbers of board members gave unbridled discretion to
denominational representatives with historic animosities to denominations such as CH Torralva’s.
In summary, the CHC placed CH Torralva under abusive and hostile chaplain supervisors
who retaliated against him for defending his congregation and beliefs, and inflicted great stress
and strain on him and his family. His injuries include treatment as a second-class citizen, being
denied a fair opportunity to compete for Commander, further promotions and a full career in the
Navy as a result of the CHC’s unlawful retaliation and failure to address remove the tools that
allow such retaliation.
CH Torralva retired in Corpus Christi, TX because of multiple FOS. He resides at 6637
LaBianca Dr., Corpus Christie, TX
z. DAVID S. WILDER (Adair) resides 105 La Salle St., Wilmington, NC 28411. He
entered active duty in September 1985 endorsed by the SBC. He was non-selected for
Commander in 1999 and 2000 despite an outstanding record but in fulfillment of several
Liturgical chaplains who swore they would prevent him from promotion. Those hostile promises
are easy to keep due to the Navy’s promotion procedures which facilitate retaliation and religious
discrimination without accountability.
CH Wilder’s many examples of retaliation and religious hostility based on his status and
performance as a Non-liturgical chaplain are described in his 12/16/2003 Adair Deposition. The
62 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 63 63 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 303 63
samples and highlights provided here and in his deposition in no way encompass all of the blatant
and obvious incidents of retaliation and faith group prejudice he experienced.
His first senior Liturgical chaplain, CH Ha, improperly expected Wilder, a Southern
Baptist, to be able to do a Liturgical service. His command assigned him to pastor the General
Protestant service at his base in Okinawa. His General Protestant service with Baptist overtones
averaged approximately 100 to 125 per week. In June 1992, Episcopal CH Williams, the
incoming Marine Expeditionary Force chaplain who was not in Wilder’s chain of command,
visited CH Wilder’s service. CH Williams made “suggestions” to“improve” CH Wilder’s service
which converted the General Protestant service into an Episcopal service. CH Wilder refused and
CH Williams, not in CH Wilder’s chain of command, “fired” CH Wilder in front of his family and
congregation without prior notice but with the collusion of CH Wilder’s own command chaplain,
CDR Wilson, who refused to meet with Wilder after his humiliating removal. CH Williams
converted it into an Episcopal mass, reducing attendance to about 12 people per week.
CH Wilder subsequently started a Baptist service in the base theater which grew ten times
larger than CH Williams’ service. CH Williams tried to close CH Wilder’s service, claiming
sabotage. CH Wilson subsequently unsuccessfully attempted to destroy CH Wilder through a low
fitness report, despite CH Wilder’s outstanding accomplishments as a pastor and chaplain,
evidenced by the size of his congregation. The Commanding General defeated CH Wilson’s
attempt by ordering him to rewrite the fitness report. CH Wilson retaliated further by not
processing a reward promised to CH Wilder by the General for his performance.
CH Williams became enraged when he discovered CH Wilder was promoted to LCDR
because “Wilder had managed to keep him from intervening” with CH Wilder’s promotion
opportunity. Wilder Deposition (“Wilder”) [175:15-20]. CH Williams promised “he would ensure
63 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 64 64 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 304 64
that I never get selected for promotion” because “he had the power to do it.” Id. [179:18-20].
CH Wilder became an Adair plaintiff in March 2000 while assigned to Camp Lejeune,
NC. Fox News contacted him after Adair’s Motion for Class Certification was granted. CH
Wilder contacted the appropriate USMC authorities and asked for permission and guidance,
including about wearing his uniform. He was told that was okay as long as he did not say anything
inflammatory, i.e., something not factual. [189:1-192:21]. CH Wilder reported after the interview
aired his command chaplain, Chaplain Moson, whose office was close to his, began receiving “a
lot of phone calls from Chaplain Iasiello [the Deputy Chief of chaplains] office.” [194:1-7].
Subsequently, CH Moson ordered CH Wilder to “not appear with the media in uniform again”
[196: 1-4] and also told Wilder “Chaplain Iasello was hot about [the interview]” and “wanted me
charged. Wanted this thing taken care of.” [197:10-11].
CH Wilder also testified CH Scordo, a RC who became the acting command chaplain after
Chaplain Moson left, told CH Wilder “he [Scordo] was a man under orders, and that his most
important vow that he takes as a Catholic priest is his vow of obedience to his seniors and the
Church, and this is in context of what had taken place here at Camp Lejeune. [200:16-20]. This
referred to CH Wilder’s removal from the training and operations billet, which was a
“Commander” billet, and being placed in a Lieutenant Junior Grade billet over at the Brig, and
that I not be utilized as the Senior Protestant, and ... everything that I could contribute to the
Protestant program be totally not allowed”, which CH Wilder described as marginalization.
[200:24-201:8]. During his time, CH Scordo was running the chaplain’s office from Virginia
where he was recuperating from surgery,
CH Scordo directed a backdated fitness report be submitted for CH Wilder which was
unfavorable, prompting CH Wilder to file a request for an investigation based on the retaliation
64 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 65 65 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 305 65
following his Fox News appearance. [224:7-229:17].
The investigator was a Reserve chaplain who told both CH Wilder and his counsel if CH
Scordo had placed CH Wilder in a Lieutenant Junior Grade [LTJG] billet, that would be
retaliation. The investigator was provided an official document describing the Brig chaplain’s
positions and the authorized rank, LTJG. The investigator did not find retaliation despite clear
evidence of negative personnel actions against CH Wilder after his Fox News interview.
The CHC placed CH Wilder under abusive and hostile chaplain supervisors who retaliated
against him and inflicted great stress and strain on CH Wilson and his family. His injuries include
treatment as a second-class citizen, being denied a fair opportunity to compete for Commander,
further promotions and a full career in the Navy as a result of the CHC’s unlawful retaliation and
failure to address and remove the tools that allowd destruction of his career.
CH Wilder was forced to retire due to statutory limits on FOS LCDRs.
aa. BARBY EARL WILSON (CFGC) entered the CHC in 1977 under an initial
endorsement of the Church of God in Christ, a Non-liturgical Christian denomination. He served
tours of duty at Governors Island, NY; Norfolk, VA; Little Creek Amphibious Base, VA;
Okinawa; Fleet Religious Support Activity; duty as ship’s chaplain; and Director of Pastoral Care
Services in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. In 1983, he filed a religious discrimination charge
against a Liturgical chaplain who would not allow CH Wilson to conduct religious services
according to his Non-liturgical practices. His superior chaplain, a Lutheran, told him that if he
expected to make the Navy a career he should drop his charge or change it from a religious to a
racial discrimination charge. CH Wilson refused to do so on principle. In retaliation, his
supervisory chaplain gave him bad fitness reports and promised he would make sure CH Wilson
was not promoted to CDR, a promise which turned out to be true.
65 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 66 66 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 306 66
In 1986, he changed his endorsement to CFGC. Although promoted to LCDR, he was not
selected for CDR, filling his Lutheran senior chaplain’s promise. Throughout the remainder of his
career, CH Wilson experienced continuing retaliation and prejudice in his treatment and
assignments. The Chief of Chaplains, RADM Koneman, also a Lutheran, intervened several times
to prevent CH Wilson from receiving career enhancing assignments. CH Wilson’s command
chaplain at Portsmouth Naval Hospital selected CH Wilson to accompany a hospital medical team
sent to support the First Gulf War. The Chief make sure someone else was assigned to the team. A
friend reported to CH Wilson, after the large number of expected casualties was briefed, the Chief
said, “if things work out the right way, that [referring to estimated deaths] will take care of our
problem” referring to CH Wilson.
CH Wilson retired in 1994 with 17½ years of service, having seen that religious and racial
discrimination would not let him be promoted. That discrimination included clear retaliation from
the Chief and his superior chaplains in assignments and fitness reports based on CH Wilson’s
religious practices and faith, and his opposition to interference in the conduct of his ministry,
chaplain duties and worship services. He now lives at 505 Roves Court, Virginia Beach, VA.
CH Wilson’s injuries include being treated as a second-class citizen, being denied a fair
opportunity to compete for Commander, further promotions and a full career in the Navy. The
CHC placed CH Wilson under abusive and hostile chaplain supervisors who unlawfully retaliated
against him and inflicted great stress and strain on CH Wilson and his family.
B. The Defendants
17. The following U.S. Navy officials are sued as defendants in their official capacity only
a.. Defendant Secretary of Navy is an appointed official responsible for civilian
66 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 67 67 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 307 67
control of the U.S. Navy, including the Naval Reserve of which CH Harkness is a member. He is
responsible for promotion boards and their procedures.
b. The Commander of the Naval Personnel Command administers the promotion
boards at issue, including establishing and monitoring the promotion procedures, and establishes
personnel management policies.
c. The Navy Chief of Chaplains. The Navy is organized into several branches or
categories, i.e., subordinate groupings of individuals possessing similar qualifications or skills.
The Navy Chaplain Corps (“CHC”)is one of these branches, 10 U.S.C. § 5142, whose members
are commissioned officers possessing specialized religious education, training and experience to
meet the spiritual needs of those who serve in the Navy and their families. The Chief of Chaplains
(the “Chief”) is responsible for administering the CHC and meeting the Department of Navy’s
free exercise needs. He/she is a Rear Admiral (“RADM”), the highest ranking chaplain.
V. THE CHC’S ILLEGAL RETALIATION AND PREJUDICIAL ACTIONS
COUNT 1
ILLEGAL RETALIATION
18. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 17 above are incorporated herein by reference as
though pleaded in full.
19. LCDR (Ret) Gary Heinke’s Declaration at Exhibit 10 shows the depth of hatred, prejudice,
arrogance and animosity by the senior CHC leadership, including the Chief, against plaintiffs,
junior Non-Liturgical chaplains doing their duty to faithfully represent their endorsing agencies,
serve the military personnel they represent and their commanders and ministry will do all
Department of Navy (“DON”) personnel. This animosity is reflection of the historic animosity of
Liturgical versus Non-liturgical theologies the religion clauses are supposed to prevent. The
67 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 68 68 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 308 68
CHC’s illegal retaliation and motivation, destroying plaintiffs’ careers seemingly out of spite, is
unconstitutional.
20. The Navy’s failure to provide objective criteria for measuring chaplain performance in its
fitness reports allowed hostile supervisory chaplains and commanders to use subjective criteria
unrelated to chaplain ministry to facilitate discrimination and/or retaliation against plaintiffs.
21. The Navy and/or CHC through certain senior chaplains have illegally retaliated, punished,
harmed or otherwise deprived these plaintiffs of their established rights to provide service to Navy
personnel; a fair opportunity to compete for appropriate promotions, assignments and career
opportunities; and a career. These illegal actions responded to plaintiffs’ exercise of their
constitutional, statutory and regulatory rights and objecting to senior chaplains’ abuse of power
that clearly conveyed the message of second-class citizenship. This included improper and illegal
burdens on plaintiffs’ ministry, restrictions on their rights to represent their endorsing
organizations, and marginalization of their actual service and limitation on career opportunities.
a. Such retaliation and its harmful consequences are in response to plaintiffs’ exercise
of their rights and responsibility to represent their endorsing faith group; meet Non-
liturgical DON personnel religious needs; expose CHC or Navy misconduct, prejudice,
bias, and illegality; and/or in bringing Chaplaincy to defending their rights.
b. Whether the retaliation was the result of individuals acting on their own or
responding to real or imagined slights, denominational bias, “payback” for exposing
wrongdoing, or advancing the CHC’s policy of protecting its pro-Liturgical culture is
immaterial. The CHC and Navy leadership condoned and encouraged the abuse of
unbridled power delegated to chaplain board members by failing to effectively address
abuses, retaliation and denominational preference despite numerous warnings and
68 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 69 69 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 309 69
evidence.
c. The Navy and the CHC was aware of the actual denominational preferences,
retaliation and prejudice by IG investigations, CAPT Larry Ellis’ report on Non-liturgical
detailing, Exhibit 11, and complaints from chaplains that led to the Center for Naval
Analysis (“CNA”) study of CHC promotions, Exhibit 12 (showing consistent
denominational preferences in promotion rates each rank with RC’s always highest,
Liturgical second). The Navy and the CHC were aware of certain senior chaplains had a
pattern of abusive conduct, retaliation and religious and racial prejudice.
d. IG inspections, the CNA report and BCNR appeals and decisions made the Navy
and CHC aware of the potential for and actual abuse and retaliation through
denominational networking and the challenged selection board procedures’ delegated
unbridled power and lack of accountability. Defendant failed to prevent or remediate
retaliation, denominational preferences and abuse.
22. The Navy and the CHC were on notice and aware of the ability of senior chaplains to
retaliate against junior chaplains through the use of denominational networks and personal
relationships with board members but failed to provide effective guarantees such illegal practices,
denominational factors or considerations would not influence selection board decisions or violate
religious neutrality in awarding government benefits such as promotions.
23. The challenged procedures are unconstitutional under the First and fifth Amendments
because they lack effective guarantees denominational or religious factors cannot influence or
determine selection for promotion or selective early return. These procedures also preclude court
carefully examining the decision process that uses denominational representatives to award
benefits to similar or other denominational representatives in order to ensure that decisions are
69 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 70 70 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 310 70
denominationally neutral
24 Statistical analysis of 38 years of CHC promotions, Exhibit 2, show 80% of promotion
board memberships were filled by five denominations, producing consistent denominational
hierarchies. This is per se an unconstitutional religious preference.
COUNT 2
25. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 24 above are incorporated herein by reference as
though pleaded in full.
26. 10 U.S.C. § 613a’s ban on discovery is unconstitutional under the First and Fifth
amendments as applied to claims of unconstitutional retaliation and denominational preferences.
a. Witness of CHC selection board proceedings, including some plaintiffs, can and
are willing provide personal testimony of retaliation and religious preference and prejudice
supporting plaintiffs’ claims.
b. The Secretary’s waiver of the oath of secrecy and § 613a’s protection of broad
proceedings for some denominational representatives but not for plaintiffs violates the First and
Fifth Amendments.
COUNT 3
CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE OF CERTAIN PLAINTIFFS
27. The allegations in paragraphs 1 through 26 above are incorporated herein by reference as
though pleaded in full.
28. The CHC through its challenged procedures enabling retaliation created a hostile
environment, and used the realities of the “up or out” Navy promotion system and separation
process to make working conditions intolerable for certain of these plaintiffs who (a) after being
FOS, left the Navy rather than endure more hostility, abuse, family stress, and humiliation; or (b)
70 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 71 71 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 311 71
when eligible, chose to retire under the TERA or other programs lest they be separated from the
Navy with nothing.
29. The following plaintiffs were constructively discharged because, as a result of retaliation,
they had to retire due to FOS and/or statutory time in service or grade limits, or other hostile
action: Blair, Klappert, LaValle (98), Quiles, Spalding (TERA), and Wilson (TERA).
COUNT 4
THE NAVY HAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST NON-LITURGICAL CHAPLAINS’ RELIGIOUS FREE SPEECH
30. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Complaint are incorporated
herein by reference as though pleaded in full.
31. Defendants, through some of its senior chaplains, illegally disapproved of, censored, or
criticized the Non-liturgical religious speech of chaplains Belt, Lindsay, Royston, Torralva,
Wilder and Wilson. Such speech is inherent in their Non-liturgical tradition, practice and worship
and protected by the First Amendment and 10 U.S.C.§ 6031 (allows chaplains to conduct public
worship according to the customs and norms of the churches of which they are members), and
Naval Regulation 0817 which mirrors § 6031.
Count 5
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA” )Violations.
32. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 31 above of the Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as though pleaded in full.
33. Plaintiffs claim the challenged actions and procedures result in unconstitutional retaliation
and denominational preferences and therefore violate the Constitution, statutes and Navy
regulations. If the Court finds the challenged procedures neutral, the Navy’s actions taken against
71 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 72 72 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 312 72
these plaintiffs as described in this Complaint and which may be further identified or expanded
through discovery will have violated RFRA. The challenged procedures and alleged retaliatory
actions have also substantially burdened his free exercise of religion without a compelling
government purpose and are not the least restrictive means to achieve any such government
purpose or objective. This violates RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 bb.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for a declaration, judgment and other relief against the
defendants as described below.
A. Declaratory Relief and Judgement. The allegations in ¶¶ 1 through 32 above
show there are bona fide disputes between the plaintiffs and defendants concerning whether (1)
the above challenged actions by senior chaplains and the CHC constitute retaliation against the
plaintiffs’ lawful exercise of their rights under the First Amendment’s Establishment, Free
Exercise, Free Speech and Right to Petition Clauses and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
(equal protection) Clause, RFRA, and DOD and Navy regulations; and (2) the legality of the
defendants’ challenged procedures as instruments of retaliation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201
and 2202, plaintiffs request this Court render a Declaratory Judgment and an Order that provides
the following specific relief.
Count 1. A declaration and order that:
a. The defendants’ actions against plaintiffs as described herein and as later
developed during the litigation was illegal retaliation and denominational prejudice;
b. The challenged promotion procedures are improper and unconstitutional tools and
means of retaliation because they delegate unbridled discretionary power to persons defined by
their religious identity with no guarantees denominational factors, including retaliation, do not
72 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 73 73 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 313 73
influence decisions concerning promotion and SER boards and career enhancing assignment;
c. Require the defendants to address and remove the penalties to specific plaintiffs’
careers caused by retaliation and hold new promotion and SER boards using procedures with
effective guarantees that denominational factors or undue religious influence do not influence the
new CHC selection board decisions;
d. Enjoin the defendants to remedy the harms to plaintiffs’ records, including
retaliatory fitness reports that harmed plaintiffs. This should include, where necessary, the
Secretary’s directive to board members that certain negative reports were illegal and retaliatory,
should be viewed in that light, and the plaintiffs performance should be considered exemplary
lacking unbiased evidence to the contrary, and reminding the board members of their duty to to
make the plaintiff whole by remedying the CHC’s retaliation, prejudice, and misconduct; and
e. Other remedies as appropriate to compensate for the damage done to plaintiffs’
careers and families by the defendants’ failure to protect plaintiffs from retaliation and other
unlawful acts.
Count 2. A declaration and Order that
a. 10 U.S.C. § 613a’s ban on discovery is unconstitutional under the First and Fifth
amendments as applied to claims of unconstitutional retaliation and denominational preferences,
and,
b. an Order requiring the Secretary to release board members from their oath of
secrecy and cooperate with plaintiffs’ discovery efforts.
Count 3. A declaration and Order that
a. declares defendants constructively discharged certain plaintiffs as alleged; and
b. requires the Navy to remedy the harms to plaintiffs’ records, including addressing
73 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 74 74 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 314 74
retaliatory fitness reports that harmed plaintiffs;
c. remedies the harm to plaintiffs’ careers caused by their illegal discharges, including
reinstatement to active duty and back pay until they can be considered by validly constituted
promotion boards, and if selected for promotion, appropriate remedies to compensate for the
illegally terminated careers, consistent with the guiding principle of making the plaintiffs whole
for the government’s misconduct.
Count 4. A declaration and order finding the Navy discriminated against certain non-liturgical
chaplains’ religious free speech and an order requiring defendants to remedy the damage to
specific plaintiffs’ careers by senior chaplains’ or commanders’ prejudicial actions resulting from
hostility to plaintiffs’ Non-liturgical religious speech.
Furthermore, plaintiffs request a declaration and an order that defendants have pursued
this litigation in bad faith, ignoring their own investigations, evidence, reports and studies, and
their obligation under Rule 11 and duty of candor to the court. Defendants litigation tactics,
including failure to provide relevant documents, have harmed plaintiffs by delaying justice and
allowing the spoilation, loss or destruction of evidence, including faded memories. This has
caused plaintiffs to incur unnecessary expenses.
Count 5. In the event the Court finds the above challenged procedures are neutral, plaintiffs
request a declaration and an order the challenged procedures violate RFRA by burdening ITS’
religious exercise without a compelling government purpose or using the least restrictive means
possible.
B. Attorneys’ Fees and Other Relief
1. Plaintiffs request this Court award plaintiffs the reasonable costs and expenses of
this action, including expert and attorneys’ fees in accordance with the Equal Access to
74 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 75 75 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 315 75
Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412; the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988; the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000-bb; and/or any other applicable statue or rule
of law or equity.
2. Plaintiffs request this Court:
a. Retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purposes of enforcing the Court’s
orders and ensuring full relief; and
b. The Court provide other such relief as may become apparent in the course
of litigation.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: February 28, 2019 / S/ Arthur A. Schulcz Sr. ARTHUR A. SCHULCZ SR. Chaplains Counsel, PLLC Counsel for the Plaintiffs VA Bar. No. 70 31 21043 Honeycreeper Place Leesburg, VA, 20175 [email protected] 703-645-4010
75 CaseCase 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document Document 1 1 Filed Filed 03/01/19 03/01/19 Page Page 76 76 of of 76 76 PageID# PageID# 316 76
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit No. Description of Exhibit
1. Table identifying eight sources for the 27 plaintiffs’ retaliation claims
2. Dr. Harald R. Leuba, PhD, “38 Years of Denominational Preference”
3. Chaplain Corps Selection Voting Machine with Five Buttons: 0, 25, 50, 75, 100
4. Testimony of RADM Barry Black, Chief of Chaplains, to the Naval Inspector General Describing “Zeroing Out” and How the Zero Vote Destroys Careers and Manipulates the Board
5. Testimony of CDR Mary Washburn (NIG complainant) to the Naval Inspector General Describing Common Occurrence of “Zeroing Out” on Promotion Numerous Boards She Had Served on
6. Denominational makeup of CHC promotion board members from FY 49 through FY 2002 from records Sturm v. Danzig, 99-cv-2272 (S.D. Cal) and Adair
7. Declaration of LCDR Jerry Dickerson, CHC, USN
8. CAPT Jack Stafford, Report on his investigation of the CHC’s FY 1997 and 98 Commander boards in response to a complaint of religious discrimination
9. Declaration CDR Tim Demy
10. Declaration of LCDR Gary Heinke
11. CAPT Larry Ellis’ report on Non-liturgical detailing
12. Center for Naval Analysis study of CHC promotions 1972-2000
76 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 77
Plaintiffs’ Retaliation Claims No. Plaintiff Charismatic/ Naples San Diego Hostile Bd Offend a Offend the Offend Lit Chief’s Pentecostal Member Catholic Chief Sr. Chap Office
a Arnold X X X b Belt X X c Blair* X X X X d Bradley X X e Calhoun X X f Carson X g Demy X X h DuFour X X i Garner X X j Gordy X X X k Harkness X X X X 1 Klappert* X X X m Lancaster X X n LaVelle* X X o Linzey X X X X X p Looby X q Marsh X X r Merritt X X
Page 1 of 2 Exhibit 1 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-1 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 78
Plaintiffs’ Retaliation Claims No. Plaintiff Charismatic/ Naples San Diego Hostile Bd Offend a Offend the Offend Lit Chief’s Pentecostal Member Catholic Chief Sr. Chap Office
s Mitchell X X t Moreno X X u Porter-Stewart X X X X v Quiles* X X X w Roysden X X X X x Spalding * X X X y Torralva X X X z Wilder X X X X aa Wilson* X X X X Total 11 4 4 7 12 11 15 9 * Plus constructive discharge
Page 2 of 2 Exhibit 1 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-2 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 1 PageID# 79
Lancaster v. Secretary Complaint
Exhibit 2
38 Years of Denominationalism
Exhibit B to Dr. Harald R. Leuba PhD’s 5/15/2013 Simple Explanation Declaration Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-3 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 80
Lancaster v. Secretary Complaint
Exhibit 3
CHC PROMOTION VOTING MACHINE
From U.S. Navy explanation of the Officer promotion process Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-3 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 81
In Re: Navy Chaplaincy 07-mc-269 (JDB)
EXHIBIT 15 Picture of Blackball Voting Machine Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-3 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 82 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-4 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 83
Lancaster v. Secretary Complaint
Exhibit 4
Testimony of RADM Barry Black, Chief of Chaplains, to the Naval Inspector General Investigating the FY 2000 CHC CAPT Promotion Board: Describing “Zeroing Out” and How the Zero Vote Destroys Careers and Manipulates the Board Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-4 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 84
REPORT OF INTERVIEW" was interviewed in person on 14 June 2000 by RADM Barry C. Black, CNC, USN, [Redacted] [Redacted] 1, and [Redacted] , BUPERS IG regarding the conduct of the FY00 Chaplain Corps (CHC) 0-6 Selection Board and its failure to select [Redacted] for promotion to [Redacted]. RADM Black was President c7the FY00 CHC 0-6 Selection Board. RADM Black is assigned as the Deputy Chief of Chaplains.
I. How many female officer records did tie board review? Do you recall reviewing the service record of ? Who briefed the record?
RADM Black did not recall how many female officer records were reviewed by the FY-00 CHC O-6 Selection Board.
2. How would you characterize [Redacted] record? Was it competitive with the Chaplains who were selected for promotion? In your opinion, why wasn't she selected for promotion?
RADM Black stated that he know: [Redacted] and may have even briefed her record to the board. He said that [Redacted] had a ""strong" and "competitive" record. RADM Black said, "I have admired her [Redacted] work.” He reiterated that he felt [Redacted] record was "quite competitive.” RADM Black recalled that the board reviewed eligible records at least twice. He said record might have been reviewed three times in the crunch. RADM Black stated that all briefers provided good records presentations. He continued that at the 0-6 level, Chaplain Corps rarely selects "above zone" and the fact tha [Redacted] selected "above zone" on the FY-01 board was indicative of her strong record.
3. Was there any discussion about [Redacted] record? What was said? By whom? Did this influence how you voted? In what way?
RADM Black stated that no board member said anything negative about [Redacted] record. RADM Black indicated he was absolutely certain that there was no discussion. He reaffirmed that never once did a board member make negative comments about any record. He said, “I monitored that very closely.
RADM Black stated that he did make positive comment that [Redacted] was a “class act”. He said that one board member made a disapproving facial expression. RADM Black continued, “I would rather not say who it was.” He said he did not discuss anything with the person who made the facial expression. He felt hews the only one on the board who could have identified the non-verbal cue.
4. During the voting was: [Redacted] 1 "zeroed out"? Was a revote conducted? What was the result of the revote? How did you vote?
RADM Black commented that [Redacted] was not selected because a board member vote, :”zero". He said he was disturbed by that fact. RADM Black indicated he might have called for a re-vote in the event someone had hit the wrong button while voting. He continued that every time [Redacted] record came up it was "zeroed out". RADM Black also recalled that the record of [Redacted] was "zeroed out" and he fel [Redacted] , record was the strongest in terms of narrative remarks. He said that at least twice [Redacted] record was zeroed out". As Board President, he called attention to it. RADM lack said, “I felt the need to speak out on this one.” RADM Black stated that he voted “100" for [Redacted]
07-mc-269 (GK) Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT 25 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-4 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 85
RADM Black said that he has spoken to CHNAVPERS about concerns with the selection process. He indicated that a board member can vote “zero” in a “preemptive strike” and take out a record. RADM Black gave an example of how 4 members voting “100" and 1 member voting “0" can affect the selection of a record without accountability.
5. Did [Redacted] make any comments about [Redacted] or her record? Were the comments positive or negative? What did she say? What was the response of the other board members to her comments?
RADM Black stated that [Redacted] did not make a single negative statement about [Redacted] During the board. He also said that outside of the board he never heard [Redacted] make any negative comments. 6. Have you ever heard [Redacted] Make any derogatory statements about [Redacted] ? When were these comments made; before, during, or after the selection board?
RADM Black stated that outside of the board he never heard [Redacted] make any negative comments about [Redacted].
07-mc-269 (GK) Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT 25 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-5 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 86
Lancaster v. Secretary Complaint
Exhibit 5
Testimony of CDR Mary Washburn to the Naval Inspector General Investigating the FY 2000 CHC CAPT Promotion Board: Describing Common Occurrence of “Zeroing Out” on Promotion Boards Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-5 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 87
REPORT OF INTERVIEW
[Redacted] was interviewed telephonically on 18 May 2000 by [Redacted ], BUPERS IG regarding her allegation of misconduct by [Redacted] , during the FY00 Chaplain Corps (CHC) 0-6 Selection Board which resulted in her failure of selection.
[Redacted] motivation for filing the complaint was to preserve the integrity of the selection process. She noted there are lots contesting board results and the number will rise. She stated there is a perception in the Chaplain Corps that board members can’t be trusted, tenets are ignored, and private agendas are pursued. She knew of instances where chaplains who were known to be dishonest or who had “caught red-handed” acting improperly on a board, continued to be allowed to sit on selection boards [Redacted] [Redacted] as one who had been improperly passed over by a selection board. She stated his record was eventually corrected and he receive the promotion, however the board member concerned, an 0-6, continued to sit on selection boards. She also stated [Redacted] (sp?), a senior chaplain a [sic] at Naval Hospital, complained about certain officers serving on boards to the detailer [Redacted] but nothing was done. [Redacted] stated she was not concerned about her own promotion date and had not initially questioned the board’s result or membership until other chaplains began expressing their concerns to her.
The following questions were discussed with [Redacted] 1. Do you know [Redacted] personally? When and how did you meet? Have you ever served with her?
[Redacted] stated she had met [Redacted] 17-18 years ago when they were both assigned to sub tenders. Their contact with each other over the years has been limited to brief encounters and professional correspondence. She remembered both had once attended a 1-2 day seminar on ministering to submariners but did not recall having daily discussions wit! [Redacted] remembered exchanging greetings with her once in the Chief of Chaplains office and that [Redacted] had given a lecture at the Supervisor Chaplain course while [Redacted] the Basic Course. [Redacted] current position at CNETis not in [Redacted] chain of command, however, she is in [Redacted] chain of influence. They exchange business e-mails concerning statistics and notices.
2. Were you aware of the opinions expressed by [Redacted] to [Redacted] concerning you? How did you become aware? When?
[Redacted] stated she initially had not been concerned about not making 0-6, even knowing that [Redacted] had been a member of the board. Two-three weeks after she heard she had been passed over [Redacted] called her to offer his condolences. During the call he told her "here's some information regarding why you may have been passed over" and related the information contained in her complaint [Redacted] stated he had never mentioned this information to her before. [Redacted] told her he believed [Redacted] was entirely capable of working to get her passed over intentionally and dishonestly and that he would help [Redacted] if she contested the board [Redacted]
INn re Navy Chaplaincy 07-mc-269 (GK) Exhibit 27 18 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-5 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 88
stated she was surprised at the information he told her.
3. Have you ever heard of her expressing these opinions to anyone else? Has she ever expressed them to you?
[Redacted] stated that soon after receiving the phone call from [Redacted] she received one from [Redacted] saying similar things. [Redacted] told her [Redacted] and everything she stood for, and as soon as she heard [Redacted] member of the board she knew [Redacted] was doomed. [Redacted] many other chaplains called her after she failed to select and indicated they felt [Redacted] had precluded her promotion but did not have any specific information. She described it as an "outpouring of concern" not just toward her but geared toward the promotion possibility of conservative women chaplains. [Redacted] stated she was unaware of [Redacted] opinions toward her and indicated she was always "sweet and smiley to her face".
4. Why do you think [Redacted] holds these opinions?
[Redacted] stated that [Redacted] has a service reputation of being a militant feminist and is, according to the Chaplain Corps grapevine, a "femi-nazi" feeling that the more conservative female chaplains were bad for the cause of women. [Redacted] indicated there were four other female O-6 chaplains who all had the same reputation. She stated [Redacted] emphatically believed all these officers “were in cahoots” together to keep conservative females from getting anywhere in the Chaplain Corps. Chaplain Graham told [Redacted] she feared reprisal and would not write a letter regarding the information she had her to include in the complaint. When asked why she felt [Redacted] might make the comments [Redacted] had related to her, she indicated she could only base an opinion on gossip and innuendoes. [Redacted] did state that she and [Redacted] present themselves differently as women officers [Redacted] stated she does not downplay her femininity when in uniform, while [Redacted] does not emphasize hers. It was her opinion that [Redacted] may feel threatened by that and based or [Redacted] experience counseling rape victims she felt [Redacted] seemed to fit the pattern of someone who had been sexually assaulted or abused.
5. When did you learn [Redacted]was a member of the selection board? How did you find this out?
[Redacted] stated board membership is secret until the board convenes, then the detailers put out a message. She did not find out [Redacted] was on the board until then. While she recognized [Redacted] name, no flags were raised until she received the phone calls from [Redacted] and [Redacted] stated she had not corresponded with the board.
6. Do you believe these opinions prejudices [Redacted] against you and prevented her from carrying out her oath as a member of the selection board?
[Redacted] answered this question with a very strong yes. It was her belief that
INn re Navy Chaplaincy 07-mc-269 (GK) Exhibit 27 19 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-5 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 89
[Redacted] did not want to put her opinions aside in order to rate [Redacted] solely on the contents of her service record.
7. Have you ever served on a selection board? Based on that experience do you feel that one officer can influence the vote of the blard for or against someone’s promotion? Why do you feel this way? [Redacted] stated she had served on approximately six selection boards. She has seen the process and how it could be perverted if someone wanted because of the vehicle of secret voting. She felt [Redacted] could have influenced the board by voting 100 for other officers (inflating their score) and then zeroing her record out. She could not believe other board members would have tolerated comments. [Redacted] stated she would like to see the votes not be anonymous and be open like the Marine Corps does.
8. Selection boards review many outstanding records but can only select a finite number for promotion. Why do you feel [Redacted] opinions caused you to fail to select rather than it simply being a matter of the board not being able to select everyone who was qualified?
[Redacted] stated she would agree with this statement if her record had been ranked 25. However, she recalled a conversation Commanding Officer of SUBSCHCOOL [Redacted] at the time she was passed over. She stated he had offered condolences to her and told her RADM Padgett, Northwest Region, had told him the board could only select 12 and she had been ranked 13. Additionally, she receive a letter of condolence from Chaplain Black stating he was “personally disappointed that she did not make it.” [Redacted] felt this indicated he may have had some suspicions. Based on the above and the information from other chaplains discussed earlier [Redacted] it was not simply a matter of her record not making the cut.
9. Have you had any contact with [Redacted] since the selection board reported out?
[Redacted] Stated her contact with [Redacted] Has been limited mostly to business e-mails and sending reports. [Redacted] stated she had sent [Redacted] a card when her father was ill and she had received a thank you note from her. [Redacted] sent her an e-mail of condolences when [Redacted] was passed over, however, she did not send any congratulations when [Redacted] was selected for promotion.
INn re Navy Chaplaincy 07-mc-269 (GK) Exhibit 27 20 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-5 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 90
COUNSEL’S STATEMENT CONCERNING CDR WASHBURN’S IDENTIFICATION AS THE WITNESS FOR THIS SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY TO THE NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL
The interview here, and Exhibits 14 (the investigation report) and 15 (RADM Black),
were obtained under a Freedom of Information Request for the Naval Inspector General’s
investigation concerning the complaint by then CDR Mary Washburn about misconduct on the
FY 2000 Chaplain Captain selection board that led to her non-selection. The Navy’s FOIA
response provided documents specifically identifying CDR Washburn, her endorser, and the
investigation of her complaint. The FOIA response fit with what was publicly known about the
case, e.g., she wrote Sen. Santorum for help and was subsequently selected for Captain in FY
01. The opening NIG statement identifies the witness as the originator of the complaint, then
CDR Mary Washburn:
[Redacted] was interviewed telephonically on 18 May 2000 by [Redacted ], BUPERS IG regarding her allegation of misconduct by [Redacted] , during the FY00 Chaplain Corps (CHC) 0-6 Selection Board which resulted in her failure of selection. [Emphasis added]
That could only be then CDR Washburn, the person who filed the complainant based on “her
allegation of misconduct ... which resulted in her failure of selection.” (Emphasis added). See
NIG Report, B-2, ¶ 6.a. Question 8 also asks about her failure of selection.
The second numbered question asks: “Were you aware of the opinions expressed by
[Redacted] to [Redacted] concerning you? How did you become aware? This could only be
directed at the complainant, CDR Washburn, given the context of the questions and
investigation.
Many of the NIG’s questions address issues and questions that could only be answered
by CDR Washburn or had relevance only in the context of her as the complainant or victim, e.g.,
Nos. 8 and 9. There is no question this is CDR Washburn’s testimony.
/S/ Arthur A. Schulcz, Sr. Arthur A. Schulcz, Sr.
INn re Navy Chaplaincy 07-mc-269 (GK) Exhibit 27 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-5 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 91
Counsel for Plaintiff
INn re Navy Chaplaincy 07-mc-269 (GK) Exhibit 27 22 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 30 PageID# 92
Lancaster v. Secretary Complaint
Exhibit 6
Denominational makeup of CHC promotion board members FY 1949-2002 From Sturm v. Danzig, 99-cv-2272 (S.D. Cal) Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 30 PageID# 93
CHAPLAIN ACTIVE DUTY PROMOTION BOARD MEMBERS Fiscal Years (FY) 49 to 02
Roman Catholic Board Members (RC) indicated in Bold; NA = denomination not available
Denominational Codes or abbreviations, some of which have changed, are in the Appendix at last page
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
49 Not Available CAPT T.C. Miller, Pres. DC CAPT T.C. Miller, Pres. DC CAPT Dumstrey Ref CAPT Dumstrey Ref CAPT R.E. Miller M-No CAPT R.E. Miller M-No CAPT Gerhart L CAPT Gerhart L
CAPT Hugues RC CAPT Hugues RC Meehan, LCDR, (Rec.) RC Meehan, LCDR, (Rec.) RC
50 Not Available CAPT Truitt, Pres. M-So CAPT Truitt, Pres. M-So
CAPT Markle PUSA CAPT Markle PUSA CAPT Hamilton Cong CAPT Hamilton Cong
CAPT Linaweaver E CAPT Linaweaver E CAPT Marken, CAPT DC CAPT Marken, CAPT DC
CAPT Meehling RC CAPT Meehling RC Meehan, LCDR, (Rec.) RC Meehan, LCDR, (Rec.) RC
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 1 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 30 PageID# 94
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
51 Not Available CAPT T.C. Miller, Pres. DC CAPT T.C. Miller, Pres. DC CAPT Albert Bapt CAPT Albert Bapt CAPT Brooks M-So CAPT Brooks M-So CAPT Johnson ELCA CAPT Johnson ELCA
CAPT Cutheriell AB CAPT Cutheriell AB CAPT Gorski RC CAPT Gorski RC Hemphill, (Rec.) UM Hemphill, (Rec.) UM
52 Gatlin, Pres. UM CAPT Thomas, Pres. UM CAPT Thomas, Pres. UM Bishop UM CAPT Harp UCC CAPT Harp UCC Goldberg J CAPT Gerhart L CAPT Gerhart L
CAPT Mannion RC CAPT Linaweaver PE CAPT Linaweaver PE
CDR Stultz Unit CAPT Markle PUSA CAPT Markle PUSA
Lyons (Rec.) CAPT Meehling RC CAPT Meehling RC Brink, (Rec.) Brink, (Rec.)
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 2 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 30 PageID# 95
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
53 CAPT Albert, Pres. SB CAPT Ackiss, Pres. SB CAPT Ackiss, Pres. SB Dreith L CAPT Cutheriell AB CAPT Cutheriell AB CAPT McNally RC CAPT Martin UCC CAPT Martin UCC CDR Young UM CAPT Hagen PUSA CAPT Hagen PUSA
CDR Faye UCC CAPT Rosso RC CAPT Rosso RC Snelbaker (Rec.) CAPT Bishop UM CAPT Bishop UM Covert, (Rec.) RC Covert, (Rec.) RC
54 Hamilton, Pres. Cong CAPT Markle, Pres. PUSA CAPT Markle, Pres. PUSA Goldberg J CAPT Marken DC CAPT Marken DC
Redman L CAPT Faulk UM CAPT Faulk UM
CDR Lawler RC CAPT Gorski RC CAPT Gorski RC
CDR McLaughlin RC CAPT Gerhart L CAPT Gerhart L Ditmer (Rec.) CAPT McNally RC CAPT McNally RC
Covert, (Rec.) RC Covert, (Rec.) RC
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 3 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 30 PageID# 96
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
55 CAPT Gorski, Pres. RC CAPT Harp, Pres. UCC CAPT Harp, Pres. UCC Shearer PE CAPT Rosso RC CAPT Rosso RC Dreith L CAPT R.E. Bishop UM CAPT R.E. Bishop UM CAPT Twitchell UM CAPT Redmann NA CAPT Redmann NA
Collins RC CAPT Zimmerman PE CAPT Zimmerman PE Driscoll UM CAPT Howe AB CAPT Howe AB Dennis (Rec.) CAPT Redman L CAPT Redman L
CAPT Witwer Meth CAPT Witwer Meth CAPT Collins RC CAPT Collins RC Elliott, (Rec.) UM Elliott, (Rec.) UM
56 CAPT Marken, Pres. DC CAPT Salisbury, Pres. PUSA CAPT Salisbury, Pres. PUSA
CAPT Zimmerman PE CAPT Dreith L CAPT Dreith L Redman L CAPT Bennett UM CAPT Bennett UM
Mannion RC CAPT Claypool Meth CAPT Claypool Meth McNally RC CAPT Mahler RC CAPT Mahler RC
Garrett (Rec.) CAPT Meehan RC CAPT Meehan RC CAPT Goldberg J CAPT Goldberg J
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 4 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 30 PageID# 97
Radcliffe, (Rec.) UM Radcliffe, (Rec.) UM FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
57 Faulk, Pres. UM CAPT Rosso, Pres. RC CAPT Rosso, Pres. RC O’Neill RC CAPT Collins RC CAPT Collins RC Glenn PE CAPT Howe AB CAPT Howe AB CAPT McQuaid RC CAPT Gerhart L CAPT Gerhart L
Morgan SB CAPT Stultz Unitar CAPT Stultz Unitar -ian -ian Peck, W. S. UP CAPT Martin UCC CAPT Martin UCC
Howland (Rec.) CAPT Driscoll UP CAPT Driscoll UP Radcliffe, (Rec.) UM Radcliffe, (Rec.) UM
58 Dreith, Pres. L CAPT Harp, Pres. UCC CAPT Harp, Pres. UCC Howe AB CAPT Zimmerman PE CAPT Zimmerman PE
CAPT Goldberg J CAPT Schwyhart AB CAPT Schwyhart AB McCann RC CAPT McQuaid RC CAPT McQuaid RC
O’Neill RC CAPT O’Leary RC CAPT O’Leary RC
CAPT Stultz U CAPT Townsend UM CAPT Townsend UM Radcliffe (Rec.) Garrett, (Rec.) UM Garrett, (Rec.) UM
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 5 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 7 of 30 PageID# 98
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
59 CAPT Cuthreill, Pres. AB CAPT Rosso, Pres. RC CAPT Rosso, Pres. RC CAPT Zimmerman PE CAPT Arendt UCC CAPT Arendt UCC CAPT Marken DC CAPT Witwer UM CAPT Witwer UM CAPT Mahler RC CAPT Driscoll UP CAPT Driscoll UP
Glenn PE CAPT Gerhart L CAPT Gerhart L Townsend UM CAPT Meehan RC CAPT Meehan RC CDR O’Neill, M.P. RC CAPT J.W. Kelly SB CAPT J.W. Kelly SB
Hutcheson (Rec.) Adams, (Rec.) NA Adams, (Rec.) NA
60 Witwer, Pres. UM CAPT Harp, Pres. UCC CAPT Harp, Pres. UCC
Dreith L CAPT Faulk UM CAPT Faulk UM
Bishop UM CAPT Redman L CAPT Redman L
CAPT Kelly, Don RC CAPT McGann RC CAPT McGann RC Driscoll UP CAPT McQuaid RC CAPT McQuaid RC
CAPT Meehan, D.F. RC CAPT Glenn PE CAPT Glenn PE Smith (R.L.?) UP CAPT Townsend UM CAPT Townsend UM
Lonergan (Rec.) Parkinson (Rec.) NA Parkinson (Rec.) NA
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 6 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 8 of 30 PageID# 99
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
61 Dickman, Pres. L CAPT Dreith, Pres. L CAPT Dreith, Pres. L CAPT Shilling UM CAPT Lumpkin E CAPT Lumpkin E Glenn PE CAPT Young UM CAPT Young UM McLaughlin RC CAPT O’Neill RC CAPT O’Neill RC
CAPT Rotrige RC AB SB CAPT J.W. Kelly SB Townsend UM CAPT Coe UCC CAPT Coe UCC Schneck (Rec.) CAPT Covert RC CAPT Covert RC
Chambers (Rec.) NA Chambers (Rec.) NA
62 Bishop, Pres. UM CAPT Mahler, Pres. RC CAPT Mahler, Pres. RC
Slattery, E.A. RC CAPT Meehan RC CAPT Meehan RC
Smith UP CAPT McLaughlin RC CAPT McLaughlin RC
CAPT Ingvoldstad L CAPT Kleckner L CAPT Kleckner L CAPT Murray, A.L. AB CAPT Tubbs UM CAPT Tubbs UM
CAPT MacInnes RC CAPT Stephenson UM CAPT Stephenson UM CAPT Kelly, J.W. SB Ham, (Rec.) DC Ham, (Rec.) DC
Lonergan (Rec.)
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 7 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 9 of 30 PageID# 100
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
63 CAPT Redman, Pres. L RADM Rosso, Pres. RC RADM Rosso, Pres. RC Bennett, S. UM CAPT Young UM CAPT Young UM McLaughlin RC CAPT McGann RC CAPT McGann RC Kelly**** RC CAPT Jones AB CAPT Jones AB
Craven SB CAPT Ingvoldstad L CAPT Ingvoldstad L MacNeill AB CAPT (Paul) Olander Cong CAPT (Paul) Olander Cong Lane, W.P. RC CAPT Raynal PUSA CAPT Raynal PUSA
Schneck (Rec.) CDR J.A. Kelly, (Rec.) RC CDR J.A. Kelly, (Rec.) RC **** CAPT James Kelly, SB, on 62 Bd; to RADM July 63; other CAPT Kellys are RC
64 CAPT McGann, Pres. RC CAPT Kelly (not RADM) RC CAPT Kelly (not RADM) RC Larson CAPT Ricker UM CAPT Ricker UM
CAPT MacInnes RC CAPT Albrecht L CAPT Albrecht L CAPT Tuxbury AB CAPT McManus RC CAPT McManus RC
CAPT Swinson UM CAPT Ham DC CAPT Ham DC Lyons, E.V. UP CAPT Burke RC CAPT Burke RC CAPT Quinn, Robt. James RC CAPT Brink UP CAPT Brink UP Darkowski (Rec.) Chambers, (Rec.) UP Chambers, (Rec.) UP
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 8 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 10 of 30 PageID# 101
Note: Board Presidents were not RADM during this time frame FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
65 McLaughlin, Pres. RC CAPT Schwyhart, Pres AB CAPT Schwyhart, Pres AB CAPT Markley M CAPT McLaughlin RC CAPT McLaughlin RC Ingvoldstad L CAPT Wright UM CAPT Wright UM CAPT Lindquist PE CAPT Reaves UM CAPT Reaves UM
CAPT Walsh, Wm. J. RC CAPT Ferris UM CAPT Ferris UM Jones, G. AB CAPT Lonergan RC CAPT Lonergan RC CAPT Chambers UP CAPT Chambers UP CAPT Chambers UP
Auel (Rec.) Hardman, (Rec.) PE Hardman, (Rec.) PE
66 CAPT Faulk, Pres. UM RADM Rotrige, Pres. RC RADM Rotrige, Pres. RC
Burke, T.J. RC CAPT McComas UM CAPT McComas UM
CAPT Menges SB CAPT MacNeill AB CAPT MacNeill AB
Lane RC CAPT F.W. Kelly RC CAPT F.W. Kelly RC Sobel J CAPT Sargent UM CAPT Sargent UM
CDR Jolly UP CAPT Fenning L CAPT Fenning L Albrecht LMS CAPT Lyons UP CAPT Lyons UP
Tuxbury (Rec.) Zeller (Rec.) UM Zeller (Rec.) UM
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 9 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 11 of 30 PageID# 102
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
67 CAPT McComas, Pres. UM CAPT Schwyhart, Pres AB CAPT Schwyhart, Pres AB CDR Geary RC CAPT Lindquist PE CAPT Lindquist PE Below SB CAPT Tubbs UM CAPT Tubbs UM CAPT Trower L CAPT Cahill RC CAPT Cahill RC
Brink PUSA CAPT Swanson L CAPT Swanson L CAPT Wissing RC CAPT MacInnes RC CAPT MacInnes RC Parkinson UM CAPT Chambers UP CAPT Chambers UP
Begg (Rec.) Fitzsimmons, (Rec.) PUSA Fitzsimmons, (Rec.) PUSA
68 Reaves, Pres. UM CAPT McComas UM CAPT McComas UM
Danielsen SB CAPT Schnurr RC CAPT Schnurr RC
Maguire RC CAPT Albrecht L CAPT Albrecht L
CAPT Ernstmeyer L CAPT Craven SB CAPT Craven SB CAPT Chambers UP CAPT Brink UP CAPT Brink UP
CAPT Casazza RC CAPT Quinn RC CAPT Quinn RC CAPT Vincer PE CAPT Wissing RC CAPT Wissing RC
Murray (Rec.) Seim, (Rec.) PUSA Seim, (Rec.) PUSA
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 10 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 12 of 30 PageID# 103
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
69 Albrecht, Pres. LMS CAPT Menges, Pres. SB CAPT Menges, Pres. SB Craven SB CAPT Lane RC CAPT Lane RC Geary RC CAPT Lonergan RC CAPT Lonergan RC Noce PE CAPT Chambers UP CAPT Chambers UP
Humphreys UP CAPT Sobel J CAPT Sobel J Wissing RC CAPT Sargent UM CAPT Sargent UM CAPT Harrison UM CAPT Schenck L CAPT Schenck L
Sweeny (Rec.) Dodson, (Rec.) N Dodson, (Rec.) N
70 Reaves, Pres. UM Brink UP
Jones UM
Vincer E
Maguire RC Hammerl RC
Fite SB Senieur (Rec.)
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 11 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 13 of 30 PageID# 104
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
71 Ernstmeyer, Pres. LMS CAPT Harrison, R.S.A. Pres. UM Dimino RC Jolly UP Senieur RC Hardman EC Stevenson UP Boyd SB
Dodson N Stewart RC Simmons SB Kirkbride UCC Donoher (Rec.) Grace RC
Senieur (Rec.)
72 Craven, Allen Pres. SB Craven, Pres. SB Vincer E Vincer E
Ray UM Ray UM
Sargent UM Sargent UM
Johnson, P.A. EC Johnson, P.A. EC Lavin RC Lavin RC
Ryan RC Ryan RC Weeks (Rec.) Weeks (Rec.)
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 12 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 14 of 30 PageID# 105
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
73 Carpenter, Pres. UM Carpenter, Pres. UM Sobel J Sobel J Maguire RC Maguire RC Bevan, L.A. N Bevan, L.A. N
Shaw SB Shaw SB Grace RC Grace RC Frimenko RC Frimenko RC
Starling (Rec.) Starling (Rec.) Toner (Asst. Rec.) Toner (Asst. Rec.)
74 Swanson, Pres. L Swanson, Pres. L
Carnes SB Carnes SB
Osman UP Osman UP
Boreczky RC Boreczky RC Beck SB Beck SB
Schultz UM Schultz UM Dressler (Rec.) Dressler (Rec.)
Gilbert (Asst. Rec.) Gilbert (Asst. Rec.)
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 13 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 15 of 30 PageID# 106
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
75 Hardman, Pres. E Hardman, Pres. E Boyd SB Boyd SB Senieur RC Senieur RC Howard SB Howard SB
Saeger L Saeger L Stevenson UP Stevenson UP Drake (Rec.) Drake (Rec.)
Cook (Asst. Rec.) Cook (Asst. Rec.)
76 CAPT Moore, W. Pres. UM Roberts, M. UP
Auel L
O’Connor, W. RC
Howland ABC Murphy, M. RC
Angus, R. USNR-R Heyer, J. USNR-R
Simon, M. USNR-R
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 14 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 16 of 30 PageID# 107
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
77 RADM Withers M. Moore, P UM RADM Withers M. Moore, P CAPT Ross A. Trower, P LCA *CAPT Maurice E. Roberts UP *CAPT Maurice E. Roberts UP CAPT John W. Cohill PUSA CAPT Carl A. Auel ALC CAPT Carl A. Auel ALC CAPT Leo J. McDonald RC ***CAPT Robert C. Angus CAPT William B. O'Connor RC CAPT Michael Frimenko ORTH
***CAPT John J. Heyer *CAPT Joseph A. Howland ABC CAPT John F. Laboon, Jr. RC CAPT William B. O'Connor RC CAPT Michael A. Murphy RC *CAPT Lucian R. Brasley RC *CAPT Joseph A. Howland ABC
CAPT Matthew H. Simon J CAPT Michael A. Murphy RC
78 CAPT Carroll R. Chambliss AME CAPT George T. Boyd SB CAPT Leon S. Darkowski RC
CAPT Max A. Eller SB CAPT Michael Frimenko ORTH CAPT Stacy L. Roberts, Jr. UP
CDR Ben Rice PUSA *CAPT Jude R. Senieur RC *CAPT Charles L. Keyser EC
*CDR Richard J. Dempsey RC *CAPT Lucian R. Brasley RC CAPT Ferdinand E. Slejzer RC *CDR Philip J. Holwager DC CAPT John C. Haney UM CAPT William W. Newman DC
*CDR James E. Cronin RC CAPT Owen F. Hardage ABC CAPT Marlin D. Seideo UM
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 15 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 17 of 30 PageID# 108
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
79 CAPT Marlin D. Seiders UM CAPT Marlin D. Seiders UM CAPT Joseph E. Ryan RC *CAPT Charles L. Keyser E CAPT Leroy A. Bevan N CAPT William C. Fuller SB CAPT Leroy A. Bevan N *CAPT Charles L. Keyser E CAPT Neil M. Stevenson PUSA CAPT Billy J. McKee SB CAPT Billy J. McKee SB *CAPT Lucian R. Brasley RC
CAPT John J. Glynn RC CAPT John J. Glynn RC CAPT William G. Willson UM *CDR Alan P. Sullivan RC *CDR Alan P. Sullivan RC CAPT Murray H. Voth E
80 RADM W. M. Moore, Pres. UM RADM W. M. Moore, Pres. UM W.R. Samuel, Pres DC CAPT G.W. Evans LCA CAPT G.W. Evans LCA D.N Dillard SB CAPT R.W. Kukler RC CAPT R.W. Kukler RC A.F. Van Beck RC CAPT J. E. McMorrow RC CAPT J. E. McMorrow RC J.R. Senieur RC
CAPT D. Parham UP CAPT D. Parham UP C.E. Lemasters UM
CAPT O. Schneider UCC CAPT O. Schneider UCC H.F. Necky Sr. LCA
CAPT J.W. Conte RC CAPT J.W. Conte RC E.D. Cook, Recorder FM CAPT W. A. Stewert SB CAPT W. A. Stewert SB W.B Bolden, Ast Rec NBCUSA
CDR C.E. Bartholomew UCC CDR C.E. Bartholomew UCC
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 16 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 18 of 30 PageID# 109
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
81 CAPT William C. Fuller, P. SB CAPT William C. Fuller, P. SB RADM Neil M. Stevenson, P PUSA CAPT Carroll B. Chambliss AME CAPT Carroll B. Chambliss AME CAPT Peter I. Ota PUSA CAPT Alan P. Sullivan RC CAPT Alan P. Sullivan RC CAPT Clark B. McPhail ELCA CAPT Richard F. Wicker UM CAPT Richard F. Wicker UM CAPT George T. Boyd SB
CAPT Harry F. MacCall III PUSA CAPT Thomas J McDermott RC CAPT Lucian R. Brasley RC CAPT Angelo J. Libera RC CAPT Oliver H. Wetzel LMS CAPT John W. McElroy RC
82 CAPT George T. Boyd, P SB CAPT James W. Conte, P RC RADM Ross H. Trower, Pres. ELCA CAPT Bernard J. RC CAPT Richard E. Barcus ABC CAPT Charles L. Greenwood PUSA CAPT Peter I. Ota PUSA CAPT Samuel Baez UP *CAPT Aaron Landes ORTH CDR James W. Moor PUSA CAPT Joe H. Parker SB CAPT Max E. Eller SB
CDR Kenneth F. Kieffer RC CAPT John J. Glynn RC CAPT William G. Willson UM
CDR Albert J. Roon CR CDR Alvin B. Koeneman ELCA CAPT Laurence F. Keefe RC
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 17 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 19 of 30 PageID# 110
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG
83 CAPT Adna W. Riggs, P SB CAPT Billy J. McKee SB RADM Neil M. Stevenson, P PUSA CAPT Laurence F. Keefe RC CAPT John W. McElroy RC CAPT Alfred F. Van Beck RC CAPT Robert J. Ecker RC CAPT Alan P. Sullivan RC CAPT Thomas W. Kelley RC CAPT Richard D. Black PUSA CAPT Stanley J. Beach GARB CAPT Ernest McD. Reagan UM
CAPT Richard Kukler RC CAPT William A. Smith UM CAPT Carroll R. Chambliss,P AME CAPT John F. Weaver ELCA CAPT Alvin B. Koeneman ELCA
84 COMOJohn R. McNamara,P RC CAPT Carroll B. Chambliss,Pres AME RADM Ross H. Trower, Pres. ELCA CAPT Herbert T. Lewis PUSA CAPT Eli Takesian PUSA CAPT Charles L. Keyser EC CAPT Wallace B. Turner LMS CAPT Richard E. Barcus ABC CAPT Peter I. Ota PUSA CDR Wilfred D. Fournier RC CAPT Kevin J. Cortney RC CAPT Eugene C. O’Brien RC
CDR Herman L. Kibble SDA CAPT Kenneth F. Kieffer RC CAPT Frederick J. Murray RC
CAPT William H. Bell PUSA
85 CAPT Charles L. Keyser, P EC COMO John McNamara, P RC RADM Neil M. Stevenson, P PUSA CAPT Adna W. Riggs SB CAPT Peter I. Ota PUSA CAPT Richard E. Barcus ABC
CAPT Angelo J. Libera RC CAPT Murray H. Voth E CAPT Robert J. Ecker RC
CAPT Donald K. Muchow LMS CAPT Alan P. Sullivan RC CAPT Kenneth F. Kieffer RC
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 18 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 20 of 30 PageID# 111
CDR James C. Williams PNBC CAPT James R. Perdew SB CAPT Aldon E. Purdham ELCA CDR Charles E. Bourke RC CAPT Barry H. Greene
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG 86 RADM Neil M. Stevenson, P PUSA CAPT Alvin B. Koeneman, P ELCA COMO John McNamara,P RC CAPT Peter I. Ota PUSA CAPT Stanley J. Beach GARB CAPT Carroll R. Chambliss AME CAPT Robert J. Ecker RC CAPT Thomas W. Kuhn RC *CAPT Nisson E. Shulman J
CAPT Alfred M. Clark SB CAPT Martin J. Witting RC CAPT Thomas F. Johnson PUSA CDR Richard P. Beck RC CDR Herman L. Kibble SDA CAPT John J. Glynn RC CDR Merle L. Metcalf ELCA CAPT Gordon A. Read DC
87 CAPT Clark B. McPhail, P ELCA RADM John McNamara, P RC RADM Alvin B. Koeneman, P ELCA CAPT Robt R. Cunningham PUSA CAPT Carroll R. Chambliss AME CAPT Peter I. Ota PUSA CAPT Conall Coughlin RC CAPT George W. Evans ELCA CAPT Robert J. Ecker RC
*CAPT Loren W. Richter DC CAPT Dudley C. Hathaway CN CAPT William H. Bell PUSA
CAPT Paul Everts ECCA CAPT Earl L. Boyette SB CAPT Martin J. Witting RC
CDR Leroy Gilbert NBCUS *CAPT William A. Stewart PUSA CAPT Robert G. Moffitt ABC
87 RADM Alvin B. Koeneman, ELCA Spcl Pres CDR Kenneth F. Kieffer RC CAPT Adna W. Riggs SB
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 19 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 21 of 30 PageID# 112
CAPT Joseph J. Thompson PUSA CDR James C. Williams PNBC
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG 88 CAPT Walter A. Hiskett, P ELCA RADM Alvin B.Koeneman,P ELCA RADM John McNamara, P RC *CAPT Thomas B. Handley PUSA CDR Kenneth F. Kieffer RC CAPT John J. Mowry UM CAPT James F. Kirstein SB CAPT Adna W. Riggs SB CAPT David E. White RCA
CAPT John F. Baldwin RC CAPT Joseph J. Thompson PUSA CAPT Jerry D. Moritz GARB CAPT William C. L. Asher ABC CDR James C. Williams PNBC CAPT Carl W. Flick SB CDR Young C. Ha DC *CAPT William A. Stewart PUSA
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG 89 CAPT John J. Mowry, P UM RADM John R. McNamara, RC RADM Alvin B.Koeneman, ELCA Pres Pres CAPT Carl W. Flick SB CAPT Thomas F. Johnson PUSA CAPT Conall R. Coughlin RC CAPT Thomas R. Pocock LDS CAPT Jerry D. Moritz GARB *CAPT Charles K. Elliott CC(DC)
CDR James C. Williams PNBC CAPT Ira C. Starling UM CAPT Ivan R. Fuller CC(DC) CDR Marshall R. Larriviere RC *CAPT Walter D. Volz LMS CAPT Gerald T. Richards SB
CDR Leroy Gilbert NBCUS CAPT William A. Smith UM
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 20 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 22 of 30 PageID# 113
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG 90 CAPT Ira C. Starling UM RADM Alvin B.Koeneman, ELCA Pres
CAPT Lawrence A Shoberg ALC CAPT Philip J. Holwager CC(DC) CDR Leroy Gilbert NBCUS CAPT Thomas W. Kuhn RC *CDR William G. Condon RC CAPT Eddy B. Moran CP CDR Constance E. Civiello CAPT Alger C. Wilson **
CDR Douglas W. Lawson CHCCC CDR George C. Paul BGC
91 CAPT Joseph F. O’Donnell, RC RADM David E. White, Pres RCA RADM Alvin B.Koeneman, ELCA Pres Pres CDR John W. Grove UM CAPT Harry T. Jones SB CAPT Eddy B. Moran CP
CDR Thomas C. Marsden RCA CAPT Edward J. Kelley RC CAPT Thomas F. Johnson PUSA *CDR George C. Paul BGC CAPT James C. Williams PNBC CAPT George P McCloskey RC
CDR Barry Black SDA CDR Richard R. Gates ALC CAPT Chancellor Tzomes ** CDR Marcia A. Kruse ** CDR Sarah S. McCullom ** CAPT Homer T. Hiers SB
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 21 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 23 of 30 PageID# 114
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG 92 CAPT Donald K. Muchow LMS RADM Alvin B.Koeneman,P ELCA RADM David E. White, P RCA CAPT John R. Wall ** CAPT James L. Apple J CAPT Donald L. Krabbe LMS CAPT Vincent W. Carroll UCC CAPT Lee S. Gurke ** CAPT John M. Wright RC
CDR George A. Langhorne ABC CAPT FrederickR. Zoebel UM CAPT Herman L. Kibble SDA CDR Marshall R. Larriviere *RC CDR Charles E. Bourke RC CAPT Allen R. Latty IFCA CDR Eileen O’Hickey UCC CDR Mary Anne Walker **
CDR Timothy T. Morita SB
93 CAPT Larry Ellis SB
CAPT Joseph A. Ferraro RC CAPT George C. Paul PCA
CDR Thomas K. Chadwick PUSA CDR Barry Black SDA
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 22 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 24 of 30 PageID# 115
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG 94 CAPT Fred A. Rothermel, P SB RADM Donald K. Muchow, P LMS RADM David E. White, P RCA CAPT Thomas J. Benedum LMS CAPT Donald E. Dendulk RCA CAPT Harry C. Benson ** CAPT Peter A. Oddo RC CAPT John F. Friel RC CAPT John R. McNeil RC
CDR John W. Morrison AME CAPT Dennis G. Murphy ** CAPT Anderson B. Holderby ELCA CDR Julia T. Cadenhead SB CAPT Glenn H. McCranie UM CAPT Bernard W. Patton ** *LCDR Raymond Vanzwienen CDR Eileen L. O’Hickey UCC CAPT Victor H. Smith CS
CDR David J. Funsch, ** CAPT Michael H. Kennedy CC(DC) CDR Robert P. Beltram SB CAPT Moses L. Stith PUSA
95 CAPT Glenn H. McCranie, P UM RADM David E. White, P RCA RADM Donald K. Muchow, P LMS CAPT Patrick L. Fryer RC CAPT Paul J. Connors ** CAPT John D. Craycraft CHCCC
CDR Alphonso Jones CGIC CAPT Leroy Gilbert NBCUS CAPT George C. Paul BGC CDR Bruce W. Cavey ** CAPT Ronald Livojevich RC CAPT Thomas K. Chadwick PUSA
CDR Martin R. Stahl LMS CAPT Thomas C. Carter SB CAPT Jacqueline O. Allison ** LCDR Mary E. Washburn PUSA CDR Albert I. Slomovitz J CAPT George W Pucciarelli RC
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 23 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 25 of 30 PageID# 116
CDR Cathy L. Good ** CAPT Barry C. Black SDA
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG 96 RADM Anderson B. Holderby ELCA RADM Donald K. Muchow, P LMS RADM Ernest F. Tedeschi, P ** CAPT Michael F. Gallagher RC CAPT Peter A. Oddo RC CAPT James C. Williams PNBC CDR James G. Harwood SB CAPT Loy B. Hamilton UCC CAPT Patrick L. Fryer RC
CDR Jonathan A. Panitz J CDR Lynn J. Robertson ** CAPT Patricia M. Spishock ** CDR Henry Nixon, Jr. NBCUS CDR Alphonso Jones CGIC CAPT Richard R. Gates ELCA CDR Gary G. Simons UM CDR Mary E. Washburn PUSA
LCDR Michelle J. Howard **
97 RADM Donald K. Muchow,P LMS RADM Anderson Holderby, P ELCA RADM Anderson Holderby, P ELCA
CAPT Joseph A. Ferraro RC CAPT Leroy Gilbert NBCUS CAPT Carol A. Harrington ** CAPT Thomas J. Benedum LMS CAPT George D. Cooper CR CAPT Charles H. May ABC
CAPT Eileen O’Hickey UCC CDR Linda D. Long ** CAPT E. F. Blancett UM
CDR Ernest A. Poe ABC CDR George L. Tumlin SB CAPT Wayne K. Bumbry PNBC CDR Craig A. Wilson ** CDR James J. MacNew RC CAPT James W. Anderson RC CAPT Jan C. Gaudio
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 24 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 26 of 30 PageID# 117
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG 98 CAPT Russell O. Gunter, P PHC RADM Donald K. Muchow LMS RADM Donald K. Muchow LMS CAPT Stephen J. Linehan RC CAPT John R. Madden RC CAPT Charles B. Young ** CDR Carolyn C. Wiggins CME CAPT E. F. Blancett UM CAPT Edwin D. Condon RC
CDR Nevin P. Carr ** CDR Julia T. Cadenhead SB CAPT George C. Paul BGC CDR William M. Petruska RC CDR Ronald A. Soutiere RC CAPT Barry C. Black SDA CDR Charles L. Meyers ** CAPT Eileen L. O’Hickey UCC
99 RADM Barry Black SDA CAPT David T. Hart, P ** *RADM Richard D. West, P ** CAPT Wilson CGIC CAPT Thomas C. Carter SB CAPT Leroy Gilbert NBCUS CAPT Belanus CR CAPT Timothy T. Morita SB CAPT Joseph W. Estabrook RC
CAPT Dave Young RC CAPT Carolyn C. Wiggins CME CAPT Arnold E. Resnicoff J
CDR Mary E. Washburn PUSA CDR David G. Kloak RC CAPT Jane F. Vieira UCC
CDR Angelini **
00 CAPT Charles Soto, P RC RADM James K. Moran, P ** RADM Barry C. Black SDA CDR Ronald F. Meyer EPC CAPT Louis V. Iasiello RC CAPT Robert J. Phillips UM
CDR Karl K. Fung UCC CDR Luther C. Alexander NBCUS CAPT Stephen J. Linehan RC CDR Timothy E. Coolidge ** CDR Mary E. Washburn PUSA CAPT Anthony L. Winns **
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 25 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 27 of 30 PageID# 118
LCDR Wendy L. Bausman PUSA CDR James R. Fisher ECCA CAPT Julia T. Cadenhead SB
FY O-4 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-5 BOARD MEMBERS FG O-6 BOARD MEMBERS FG 01 RADM Barry C. Black SDA RADM Barry C. Black SDA RADM Timothy R. Beard, P ** CAPT Robert F. Burt OBSC CAPT Lawrence J. Mack, Jr. ** CAPT Timothy T. Morita SB CDR Patrick D. Smith ** CAPT Stephen B. Rock RC CAPT Jane F. Vieira UCC
CDR Robert C. Kallio ** CAPT Eileen L. O’Hickey UCC CAPT Paul F. Mclaughlin RC CDR Robert P. McClanahan RC CDR Billy Joe Washington ** CAPT Douglas J. Olauson LDS LCDR Margaret G. Kibben PUSA CDR Charles J. Anderson CMA CAPT Charles T. Bush **
02 RADM Louis V. Iasiello, P RC RADM Louis V. Iasiello, P RC RADM Barry C. Black SDA CAPT Mary E. Washburn PUSA CAPT John S. Linebeck LDS CAPT Maggi ** CDR Hunt NACCC CAPT Ollis J. Mozon, Jr. ABC CAPT Thompson **
CDR Blacketter ** CAPT Ronald L. Swafford,Sr. PCA CAPT Malene RC
CDR Marrero ABC CAPT David H. Thieman ** CAPT Simonds **
LCDR Lambert ** CDR Dennis R. Kennetz ** CAPT Magness EC CDR Ann C. Phillips ** CAPT James Poe AGC
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 26 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 28 of 30 PageID# 119
APPENDIX: DENOMINATION CODES:
AB OR ABC = American Baptist Convention, formerly know as Northern Baptist
ALC = American Lutheran Church, merged with other Lutheran Churches to become the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
AME = American Methodist Episcopal
AGC = Associated Gospel Churches
Baptist
BGC = Baptist General Convention
CC (DC) = Christian Churches and Disciples of Christ (merger of two denominations)
CHCCC = Christian Churches and Churches of Christ
CMA = Christian Missionary Alliance
CME = Christian Methodist Episcopal
CN = Church of the Nazarine
Cong = Congregational
CGIC = Church of God in Christ
CP= Cumberland Presbyterian Church
CS = Christian Scientist
DC = Disciples of Christ
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 27 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 29 of 30 PageID# 120
E or EC = Episcopal Church (same as PE)
ECCA = Evangelical Christian Church Alliance
ELCA = Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
FM = Free Methodists
GARB = General American Regular Baptist
IFCA = International Fundamental Churches America
J = Jewish
L = Lutheran
LCA = Lutheran Church in America, merged with other Lutheran churches to become ELCA
LDS = Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons)
LMS = Lutheran Missouri Synod
Meth = Methodist
NACCC = National Association of Congregational Christian Churches
NBCUS =National Baptist Convention of United States
M-No = Methodist-Northern, later merged with Southern Methodists to become United Methodists
M-So = Methodist-Southern, now United Methodists
M-No = Methodist-Northern, now United Methodists
N = Nazarene
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 28 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-6 Filed 03/01/19 Page 30 of 30 PageID# 121
ORTH = Orthodox
PE = Protestant Episcopal (same as EC)
PUSA = Presbyterian Church of the United States of America
PHC = Pentecostal Holiness Church
PNBC = Progressive National Baptist Convention
RC = Roman Catholic
RCA = Reform Church of America
Ref = Reformed
SB = Southern Baptist
SDA = Seventh Day Adventist
UCC = United Church of Christ
UP = United Presbyterians
UM = United Methodists
UNIT = Unitarian
Promotion Board Members * - USNR-R ** Non-CHC *** Reservists not listed in CHC active duty biographies 29 Exhibit 6 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-7 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 122
Lancaster v. Secretary Complaint
Exhibit 7
Declaration of LCDR (Ret) Jerry Dickerson Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-7 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 123
1 Arthur A. Schulcz, Sr. LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR A. SCHULCZ, SR., PLLC 2 2521 Drexel Street Vienna, VA 22180 3 703-645-4010 703-645-4011 (fax) 4 Dean R. Broyles, Esq. CBN 179535 5 LAW OFFICE OF DEAN BROYLES 300 Grand Ave., Suite 200 6 Escondido, CA 92025 760-746-1672 7 760-746-1274 (fax) 8 Attorneys for plaintiff, RONALD G. WILKINS 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RONALD WILKINS ) 11 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 99-cv1579 12 ) vs. ) 13 ) DECLARATION OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) LCDR JERRY L. DICKERSON, 14 ) CHC, USN, RET Defendants. ) 15 ______) 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Jerry L. Dickerson, declare as follows: 17 1. My name is Jerry L. Dickerson. I live at 118 Marina Reach, Chesapeake, VA. I am 18 competent to testify on and have personal knowledge of the matters addressed or discussed in 19 this declaration. 20 2. Recognizing God’s call to ministry, for nine years after high school I prepared myself 21 educationally, professionally and spiritually for service in the chaplaincy. During graduate 22 school at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, I received a Commission within the Navy’s 23 Theological Student Program. 24 3. After graduation and service as pastor of a local Baptist church, I received endorsement 25 from the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention and was allowed the privilege 26 of entering active duty in July 1974. For two decades I served the men and women of the Navy, 27 Marine Corps and Coast Guard.
28 Wilkins\Dickerson 99-cv1579 (IEG) Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-7 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 124
1 4. The unfortunate aspect of my career was that through systemic bias and deception within 2 the Chaplain Corps, my contributions both in terms of years of service and opportunities for 3 ministry were diminished. In spite of a competitive fitness report record, an exemplary Navy 4 Chaplains School Advanced Course record, and years of command chaplain assignments, I was 5 passed over on nine occasions for the rank of Commander and forced to retire after twenty years 6 of naval service at the end of June 1994. 7 5. Although I was told over and over by numerous senior chaplains within the Chaplain 8 Corps that this was simply due to my lack of competitiveness, I suspected then and know now 9 that this was not the case. What really happened in my case, and I believe with hundreds of other 10 evangelical chaplains, was that my opportunities for service were sabotaged through a practice of 11 bias within the Chaplain Corps that was systemic and reached even, indeed especially, into the 12 promotion selection process. 13 6. My fifth active duty assignment was at Naval Station, Charleston from 1982-1985. In 14 addition to my responsibilities as one of the Protestant chapel pastors and serving as admin 15 chaplain for the Naval Station, I was assigned as the Naval Station Brig Chaplain. In this 16 capacity I held Sunday morning worship services and Thursday evening Bible studies and 17 visitation at the brig. Additionally, when requested by the brig authorities, I would counsel the 18 prisoners. 19 7. During most of my years with the brig, only Protestant worship services were held on 20 Sunday. In spite of the numerous requests I made to the Naval Station Command Chaplain for 21 the services of a priest on Sunday at the brig, I was told that this was not possible due to the 22 heavy schedule of the Catholic chaplains who served in Charleston. 23 8. On a Monday morning in 1984, the brig administration requested that I visit with a young 24 sailor who was completing his last week of confinement. In our conversation, he had questions 25 concerning what I had preached about at the Sunday worship service. Specifically, he wanted to 26 know what I had meant about being “born again”. After reading with him from the Gospel of 27
28 Wilkins\Dickerson 2 99-cv1579 (IEG) Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-7 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 125
1 John and sharing my understanding of Christian faith, he prayed to ask God into his heart. 2 9. During our conversation, he told me that he had been raised as a Roman Catholic but had 3 not been to Mass for many years. As his ship’s chaplain was a priest, I encouraged him to 4 contact his chaplain upon release from the Brig, tell him of our conversation, and work with his 5 chaplain in his spiritual growth and renewal. I also told the young sailor that while his chaplain , 6 as a priest, would perhaps have a somewhat different slant on what we talked about, that 7 basically all Christian, Catholics as well as Protestants, stress the importance of a personal 8 relationship with God and His Son, Jesus. 9 10. Two weeks after my conversation with the young sailor, I received a phone call from his 10 Catholic Command Chaplain, CDR Charles Bourke, CHC, USN of COMDESRON 6. Father 11 Bourke opened the phone conversation by yelling the following, “Dickerson, what is this born 12 again syndrome you are teaching my people?” His tone of voice, as well as his accusatory 13 comments, was hostile and angry. 14 11. Although I attempted to explain myself as well as speak with him about what I had shared 15 with the sailor, he would not hear me out. During the phone call he was extremely critical and 16 disrespectful of my faith tradition and tole me with much anger to “Leave my people alone.” 17 12. Later that morning, I was called into the Naval Station’s Command Chaplain’s Office and 18 directed to go to every Navy priest in the Charleston area and to “apologize” for what I had done. 19 Although the Command Chaplain, CDR Robert B. Needham, was Orthodox Presbyterian, when I 20 explained what had happened I received no support and was simply directed to contact the 21 priests. 22 13. Later that week, I visited with CDR (Select) Carroll Andre Izac, the priest assigned to the 23 NRMC, Charleston. In our conversation, Chaplain Izac told me the following: “Jerry, the 24 Catholic chaplains in the Navy are very close. We meet together on a regular basis and discuss 25 many issues. The Catholic chaplains in the Navy have a lot of power and if we say your career is 26 over, it is over.” 27
28 Wilkins\Dickerson 3 99-cv1579 (IEG) Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-7 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 126
1 14. The next selection board in the Spring of 1985 was my first time in zone. I was passed 2 over for Commander. This was the first of nine pass overs in my naval career. Both Chaplains 3 Bourke and Izac were subsequently selected for promotion to Captain. 4 15. A few months after this incident, I was contacted by a Southern Baptist Chaplain, LCDR 5 Jerry W. Shirley, assigned to the USS Frank Cable (AS 40). He told me at that time that the 6 word among the Catholic chaplains in Charleston was that over the years, I had prevented priests 7 from saying Mass at the Naval Station Brig and that this was the reason that Catholic ministry 8 had not been occurring there. 9 16. The irony of this is surpassed only by its absurdity. In fact, I was the only chaplain who 10 had over the years been working to establish, although unsuccessfully, regular Sunday Catholic 11 worship at the brig. To think that a Lieutenant Commander Protestant chaplain could, over the 12 years, successfully prevent the numerous Charleston area priests who were Commanders and 13 Captains from entering the Brig is obviously beyond reason. 14 17. I sincerely believe that a fair review of my record will speak for itself and indicates that I 15 was, in fact, competitive for selection to Commander. I also believe that an honest comparison 16 of my record with many liturgical and Catholic chaplains who were promoted above me will 17 suggest that I was unfairly prevented from achieving my full career potential through systemic 18 bias. 19 18. The tragedy of this, of course, extends far beyond my personal loss. Such a system within 20 the Chaplain Corps, where one can have his or her career and ministry limited and cut short 21 simply because of religious affiliation and theology, robs not only the chaplain but in a more 22 profound way diminishes ministry to the men, women and families of the naval service. 23 I make this declaration under the penalty of perjury, it is true and accurate to the best of 24 my ability, and it represents the testimony I would give if called upon to testify in a court of law. 25
26 Dated: February 26, 2005 /S/ JERRY L. DICKERSON 27
28 Wilkins\Dickerson 4 99-cv1579 (IEG) Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-8 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 127
Lancaster v. Secretary Complaint
Exhibit 8
CAPT Jack Stafford’s Investigation of CHC’s FY 97 and 98 Promotion Board in Response to LCDR Aufderheide’s Complaint of Denominational Preference Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-8 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 8 PageID# 128 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-8 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 8 PageID# 129 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-8 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 8 PageID# 130 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-8 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 8 PageID# 131 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-8 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 8 PageID# 132 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-8 Filed 03/01/19 Page 7 of 8 PageID# 133 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-8 Filed 03/01/19 Page 8 of 8 PageID# 134 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-9 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 135
Lancaster v. Secretary Complaint
Exhibit 9
Declaration of CDR (Ret) Timothy Demy Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-9 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 136
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______) IN RE: NAVY CHAPLAINCY ) Case No. 1: 07-mc-269 (GK) )
DECLARATION OF CDR TIMOTHY J. DEMY, CHC, USN (Ret.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, CDR Timothy J. Demy, declare as follows:
1. I reside at 7 Ellen Rd., Middletown, RI, 02842. I am competent to testify on and have
personal knowledge of the matters addressed or discussed in this declaration.
2. I am an involuntarily retired Navy chaplain.
3. From August 1989 to June 1990, I was a student at the Advanced Chaplains Course in
Newport, RI, where I was the top academic graduate. During one visit to the Course by the Chief
of Chaplains, RADM Al Koeneman, we were told that the reason there were so many Lutheran
chaplains in supervisory roles and key Chaplain Corps (the “CHC”) positions was because
Lutherans were better administrators. It was given as a serious response.
4. This was the year that for the first time I also began to hear openly of “thirds” applying to
selection boards, referring to what was termed the “Thirds Policy”, which divided the CHC into
Liturgical Protestants, Non-liturgical Protestants and Catholics for accessions.
5. During the time period 14 June 1990 to 15 January 1993, I was dually assigned (meaning
I was assigned to 2 different offices) to (a) BUPERS (the Bureau of Personnel) 4414, the office
for CHC detailing which determined the assignment of chaplains, and (b) OP-973 (the Chief of
Chaplains Office).
6. Our offices were physically located in the space of the Chief of Chaplains Office, Room
G-840 of the Navy Annex.
Page 1 of 10 Exhibit 9 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-9 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 11 PageID# 137
7. The Detailer’s office at that time had three chaplains assigned to it, the Detailer who was
a Captain (CAPT), the Deputy Detailer, either a Commander (CDR) or Lieutenant commander
(LCDR), and an administrative officer, normally a Lieutenant (LT) or LCDR.
8. For the first part of my time in the Detailer’s Office, I was responsible for all
administrative matters pertaining to CHC detailing that did not involve the actual
placement/detailing of the chaplains; I held the title Head, Inventory Systems Branch.
9. In that duty, my responsibilities included but were not limited to liaison with appropriate
BUPERS offices in order to assist chaplains with issues concerning retirements, release from
active duty (voluntary and involuntary), continuation, the issue of the 4109s1, fitness reports and
duty preferences, review of fitness reports when requested by the officer due to a failure of
selection (FOS) and administration of selection board membership nomination packages.
10. This later responsibility included preparation of information on chaplains whose names
were being forwarded to the Selection Board Services for CHC promotion boards so they could
sit as a member on active duty CHC selection boards. A list of board dates and a required number
of chaplain board members would be sent down to us (4414) through the BUPERS offices of
Selection Board Services for each selection board cycle. My usual contact in that office was a
LCDR Marty Cavins.
11. Once we knew the dates of the board and the number of officers we were to provide, we
1 4109 is a personnel code that identifies a retired Reserve chaplain who has been recalled to active duty. The CHC had a policy of continuing on active duty Catholic Reserve chaplains who had assessed to active duty past the statutory age limits and who had not reached the necessary time in service to qualify for a pension when they reached age 60, the mandatary separation age for Reservists. The CHC extended them on active duty until age 67 and then, if still not eligible for retirement, placed these overage Catholic chaplains in the Retired Reserve although they did not legally qualify as “retired” and recalled them to active duty so they could reach the necessary time in service to qualify for a pension.
Page 2 of 10 Exhibit 9 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-9 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 11 PageID# 138
compiled a list of projected board membership, excluding the one or two (usually one) other line
or staff officers that would be a member of the board.
12. The Chief of Chaplains, for at least one of the two Chiefs under whom I served, was
aware of the names of proposed chaplain board members; usually the list was informally walked
into his office for approval before we in BUPERS sent the list forward to Selection Board
Services.
13. There were times when names on the proposed list were removed and others substituted
in when the list came out of the Chief of Chaplains Office.
14. Denominational awareness and consideration was part and parcel of everything we did in
BUPERS 4414, especially with respect to promotion board memberships.
15. After review by the Chief of Chaplains Office, a one page nomination form for each
officer was sent forward to Selection Board Services that listed each proposed board member’s
duty stations, officer data, and prior board service.
16. In our office, I was responsible for keeping the list of previous boards and the CHC
officers who had served on them. The list contained each chaplain board member’s name, rank,
religious denomination, and year(s) and type of previous board(s) served. In part, this was kept
because an officer could not sit on the same board two years in a row.
17. However, it was not unusual for a select group of officers to sit on boards year after year.
For instance, if we couldn’t put him or her on an O-6 (the pay grade for CAPT) board, we would
put them on an O-5 (the pay grade for CDR) or a O-4 (the pay grade for LCDR) board.
18. It was not uncommon to have senior chaplains tell how many boards they had been
members of in the past; I remember one saying 25 or 26 boards.
19. I also remember one officer being rejected by Selection Board Services who, when they
Page 3 of 10 Exhibit 9 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-9 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 11 PageID# 139
reviewed her record, sent it back down to us saying that the quality of her performance indicated
in her record was such that she was not qualified to ever sit on a promotion board and to make a
note in the ODIS/OASIS computer system that we used for personal management so that her
name would not be submitted in the future. She was subsequently selected for CAPT in the CHC
and served on at least two CHC promotion boards.
20. With respect to the officers placed on boards, it was BUPERS practice that the CHC
community would fill the slots first and only if the CHC was unable to find enough “qualified”
officers in the community would BUPERS go outside for other board members. The exception
was the single membership that always went to a non–CHC officer.
21. It was specifically part of my turnover (a Navy term referring to the process of
acquainting the officer replacing the occupant of a duty position with the responsibilities and
duties inherent in the position) from my predecessor (LCDR Anthony Dean), that one Roman
Catholic priest would be placed on each board; to the best of my memory, that was done for
every board for which I prepared approval packages.
22. At the same time the membership packages were being forwarded up the chain, the Chief
of Chaplains sent a letter, prepared by our office, to the commanding officer of the proposed
board member stating that the Chief was proposing the officer for a board and the officer would
likely be receiving orders to the board. As stated previously, denominational awareness and
consideration was very important with respect to promotion board membership, as well as
everything else that we did in BUPERS 4414.
23. The BUPERS 4414 goal was to have on every board one Roman Catholic, one Protestant
Liturgical, and one Protestant non-liturgical, one chaplain serving with the Marine Corps, and
one chaplain from the East Coast and one from the West Coast and one Reserve officer, although
Page 4 of 10 Exhibit 9 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-9 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 140
Reserve promotion boards themselves were put together by another office. If a chaplain filled
more than one of those subgroups, that was fine.
24. My recollection is that there was a distinct lack of evangelical or Non-liturgical chaplains
placed on promotion boards. To that end, I was very pleased when for example, I was able to
suggest putting an Independent Fundamental Church of America evangelical chaplain on a senior
board and he was accepted, much to the subsequent anger of his force chaplain at AIRPAC,
CAPT Ed Kelly, a Roman Catholic.
25. I personally received the angry phone call from CAPT Kelly, and after listening to his
anger, passed the phone to the Senior Detailer, Chaplain (CAPT) Holderby.
26. It is personally important to me to have the responsibilities of BUPERS 4414 understood
for these years because I understand the Navy has since argued that I personally did not have
anything to do with the promotion boards since I was assigned to the Chief of Chaplains Office.
That is false. The orders and assignment was to BUPERS (or “PERS”) 4414 and then additional
duty to OP-973. The Block 85 “Reporting Senior” on my fitness reports was signed by the Chief
of Chaplains, and Block 87, “Regular Reporting Senior”, was signed by the PERS 4414 CAPT.
27. I interfaced daily with both the Chief of Chaplain’s office and BUPERS as did the other
two chaplains in our Division, First Chaplains Byron Holderby (Lutheran, who was the Detailer)
and his Deputy, Roman Catholic John Friel, and then Chaplains Charles Bourke, the Catholic
who replaced Holderby as Detailer, and Deborah Maguire, who relieved me as administrative
officer in PERS 4414 when I moved up to be the Deputy Detailer.
28. During those years the CHC was still involuntarily releasing officers at the end of their
initial three-year obligation (IRAD = involuntary release from active duty). Twice a year, an
administrative board, comprised of the O-6 division heads in the Chief of Chaplains Office made
Page 5 of 10 Exhibit 9 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-9 Filed 03/01/19 Page 7 of 11 PageID# 141
the selections of those that would not be continued. It was part of my responsibility along with
the other two officers in CHC Detailer’s Office to prepare information for those boards and
facilitate them.
29. As in all other matters affecting chaplains in the Chief’s office and in detailing,
denominational awareness was always part of the deliberations of that process.
30. At one point when we were dealing with a personnel issue involving a chaplain, RADM
Frank Gallo who was Deputy Chief of Naval Personnel (I think that was his title) came down to
talk with the Deputy Detailer informally about a personnel concern with a Roman Catholic priest
chaplain.
31. I was standing with them outside the building while the Deputy Detailer, Chaplain Friel
was smoking with RADM Gallo, who knew the Catholic Deputy Detailer from his attendance at
daily mass in the building. RADM Gallo said to the Deputy Detailer: “Well you know father, I
believe in justice and all that, but sometimes we have to put our fingers on the scales.”
32. When I first arrived in the Chief’s office in June 1990, a senior chaplain in the Chief’s
office jokingly said to me, “Welcome aboard, I guess you are going to be the ‘duty’ evangelical
in the office.” I took his reference to the ‘duty’ evangelical to mean I was a “ token.”
33. Part of my responsibility in the Detailer’s Office was to keep a list reflecting an
awareness of chaplains who were under the “care” of PERS 81/82. These are officers who had
legal, medical or other special circumstances.
34. We also had in our offices, a file folder on all chaplains containing their preference cards,
i.e., where they wanted to be assigned, and any correspondence from or concerning the chaplain.
35. I was at one point told to go through the files of certain officers and purge them of letters
and information that was not favorable to them so that the Detailer’s Office would not have a
Page 6 of 10 Exhibit 9 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-9 Filed 03/01/19 Page 8 of 11 PageID# 142
record of such information. I particularly remember this because one was the file of a Catholic
chaplain, Charles Soto, who had been a part of my Basic Chaplain Course class and had gotten
into serious trouble while assigned to the Marines.
36. My position in PERS 4414 also involved selecting names for Chaplains to attend post-
graduate school out of a previously board-selected “pool”of candidates, the Naval War College,
the Personal Exchange Program, and the Pastoral Care Residency program for approval by the
Chief of Chaplains. I noted during my time what I thought to be a prejudicial imbalance in that
evangelical/Non-liturgical chaplains were not being sent to post-graduate school and I worked to
change the imbalance.
37. For the second-half of my time in PERS 4414, I was responsible for detailing all non-
Catholic, non-Jewish, or non-special worship (LDS, SDA, etc.), Categories of O-2, O-3, and O-4
chaplains, and worked in conjunction with the Senior detailer who handled all Catholics and all
O-5 and 0-6s. Essentially, I did O-2, O-3 and O-4 Protestant chaplains.
38. CHC detailing is responsible for what was known as both distribution and placement. We
were the command representatives for the receiving command and also that chaplain’s
representative.
39. I relieved a Roman Catholic priest and, after Protestant CAPT Holderby was reassigned,
my senior detailer then became a Roman Catholic priest, CAPT Charles Bourke, in accord with
the then long-standing practice that one CHC detailer would be Catholic and the other one would
be Protestant.
40. In our detailing duties, denominational awareness was a part of every detailing action and
move. I had posted on my desk a list of all CHC additional skill designators or AQDs, which
identified each denomination, for example 500 = Roman Catholic, 527 = Southern Baptist, etc.
Page 7 of 10 Exhibit 9 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-9 Filed 03/01/19 Page 9 of 11 PageID# 143
with each AQD identified by their faith group category, L = Liturgical, NL = Non-liturgical, Sp =
Special Worship.
41. I inherited the list from my predecessor and I passed it on to my relief. In that way, if a
document or computer screen came up with a chaplain’s AQD, I could readily identify his or her
denomination and whether they were liturgical or non-liturgical. This list was the most important
tool for the day to day functioning of the CHC Detailer’s Office. It was part and parcel of the
office and just as important as the computer.
42. I and another chaplain in the office served as a projectionist for the Selective Early
Retirement Board that was held December 1990 and for which about 26 or 27 CDR and CAPT
chaplains were involuntarily retired.
43. The Chief of Chaplains, RADM Koeneamn, did not want other chaplains to be part of or
witnesses to the board process. He objected to our presence as projectionists but was overridden
by the President of the Board and/or BUPERS who allowed us to stay.
44. Without discussing the SERB proceedings, if released from my oath of secrecy about
those proceedings, I would have relevant and material information concerning the impact of
denomination on the SERB selections.
45. I was told by a reliable source shortly after one of my failures to be selected by the CAPT
board on which the Chief of Chaplains RADM Barry Black was President, either 2002 or 2003,
that during the board break, i.e., not during the actual board deliberations, that RADM Black
made a comment to board member Chaplain (CAPT) Norman Holcomb regarding my record: “I
know what you are trying to do Norm. Demy is a good commander and the Navy needs good
commanders. If we pass him over, he can sit in his office and write his books.”
46. This was reference to the fact that on my own time I have published extensively on
Page 8 of 10 Exhibit 9 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-9 Filed 03/01/19 Page 10 of 11 PageID# 144
religious issues. RADM Black’s comment falsely implied that I had used government time and
resources to write books which was a false and prejudicial remark. It was also wrong and an
irrelevant reference to a personal and private activity. It would be the same as if he had said, “this
way he can play more golf”, something I do not play, or “coach Little League soccer.” After
hours legal activities should not be a part of board considerations or discussions, formal or
informal. The question for each board member is does my record as a CDR (which RADM Black
indicated was good) indicate I have the potential to perform satisfactorily the duties at the CAPT
level. The statement itself reflects personal prejudice or jealousy because of my professional
accomplishments.
47. After my first FOS, I requested a special board due to incorrect data on a fitness report
regarding my weight and a physical fitness test that had been administratively corrected. My
request for a special board was denied.
48. The December 2007 SER board selected me for early retirement and I was involuntarily
retired as a CDR, August 1, 2008.
49. My current job brings be in contact with naval officers on a frequent basis. In the summer
of 2012, a CDR Chaplain told me of an O-6 chaplain’s comment in their conversation: “Be
careful talking to Tim, you know he is one of the people in the lawsuit.”
50. This Declaration corrects the date of my assignment to (a) BUPERS (the Bureau of
Personnel) 4414, the office for CHC detailing which determined the assignment of chaplains, and
(b) OP-973 (the Chief of Chaplains Office) in ¶ 5 of my April 13, 2013, Declaration which
incorrectly indicates it was June 14, 1992, instead of June 14, 1990, the date reflected in my
records. Other than that, this Declaration mirrors in every way my April 13, 2013 Declaration.
I make this declaration under the penalty of perjury, it is true and accurate to the best of
Page 9 of 10 Exhibit 9 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-9 Filed 03/01/19 Page 11 of 11 PageID# 145
my ability, and it represents the testimony I would give if called upon to testify in a court of law.
Dated: June12, 2017 /S/ Timothy J. Demy TIMOTHY J. DEMY
Page 10 of 10 Exhibit 9 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-10 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 146
Lancaster v. Secretary Complaint
Exhibit 10
Declaration of LCDR (Ret) Gary Heinke Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-10 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 147
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
) IN RE: NAVY CHAPLAINCY ) Case No. 1: 07-mc-269 (GK) ) ______)
DECLARATION OF GARY HEINKE, LCDR, USN, CHC, (Ret.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, GARY HEINKE, declare as follows:
1. I reside at 2030 Rockvale Road, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. I am competent to testify on
and have personal knowledge of the matters addressed or discussed in this declaration.
2. I was commissioned as a chaplain in March 1982, endorsed by the Baptist General
Conference.
3. The quality of my outstanding career is reflected in the fact after the Chaplain Corps (the
“CHC”) first selected me for postgraduate school at Duke University, it then selected me as its
first chaplain to attend and graduate from the Marine Corps Command and General Staff College
(“C&GSC”), an opportunity for which only a few Armed Forces officers with outstanding
records are selected each year.
4. Following completion of C&GSC, I was assigned to the U.S. Marine Corps (“USMC”)
Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. Although I was only a Lieutenant
Commander (LCDR), I was initially assigned to a Commander (CDR) billet in the Marine
Security Guard battalion (which works with the Department of State).
5. During that assignment, the base’s command chaplain was relieved for cause.
6. Lieutenant General (LTG) Krulak, the base commander and Deputy Commandant of the
Marine Corps, assigned me, a LCDR, as the base’s deputy command chaplain, a CDR billet,
placing me over several senior Liturgical chaplains.
Page 1 of 5 Exhibit 10 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-10 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 148
7. The entire time I was at Quantico, there was constant conflict over approaches to ministry
between the Liturgical chaplains, who held the higher ranks, and the Non-liturgical chaplains,
who performed most of the ministry.
8. The Non-liturgical chaplains started a “Family Worship Center,” a contemporary worship
service initially located in a remote location, the high school cafeteria.
9. The service grew and had to be moved to larger and newer accommodations, and
competed with the base’s liturgical General Protestant Service.
10. LTG Krulak started to attend the Family Worship Center on a regular basis, which
created jealousy among the senior Liturgical chaplains.
11. The tension and conflict between Liturgicals and Non-liturgicals was evident in staff
meetings and assignments. The Quantico chaplains’ office was a hostile work environment which
necessitated LTG Krulak’s personal intervention. The hostility continued after he left.
12. When I received orders to duty on a ship in California, LTG Krulak used his influence to
change those orders so I would remain at Quantico to keep the momentum and ministry in the
evangelical Family Worship Center, and to provide stability in the base’s Chaplain Department.
13. When the General told me of his plans to extend my time at Quantico, I told him doing so
“would put me on the skyline” (i.e., would put a target on my back). He said he and the chapel
program at Quantico needed my skills and the extension would not harm me.
14. In addition to putting me over chaplains who were senior in grade and having my orders
changed to enable me to stay at Quantico, LTG Krulak also awarded me a Meritorious Service
Medal, which angered the Liturgical senior chaplains at Quantico.
15. Despite being selected for postgraduate education, the Marine C&GSC, my assignment to
two CDR billets and my reputation as demonstrated by (a) LTG Krulak’s assigning me over more
Page 2 of 5 Exhibit 10 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-10 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 149
senior chaplains, (b) his subsequent intervention in changing my orders to keep me in CDR billet,
and (c), eight personal awards from the line community, I failed of selection (“FOS”) to CDR in
FY93.
16. Subsequent to my FOS, I was told by a confidential source that the president of the board,
RADM White, the liturgical Chief of Chaplains, did not like LTG Krulak and because of LTG
Krulak’s recognition of me as an outstanding chaplain, used the board process to ensure that I
would not be promoted.
17. In other words, my FOS was RADM White’s perverted means of retaliation against LTG
Krulak, as well as a manifestation of the Liturgical hostility toward successful evangelicals.
18. A board recorder, without divulging board proceedings, commented to me that “I thought
you were in, you had made it, but something happened at the last minute, I can’t explain it, you
did not make it.”
19. Before the next board, the CHC assigned CH Mike Burt, a Liturgical chaplain, as the
command chaplain at Quantico shortly before both I and LTG Krulak were scheduled to leave
and just before my fitness report was due.
20. CH Burt indicated to me he was an emissary from RADM White and stated his mission
was to make sure I did not get promoted.
21. CH Burt said, “We can’t let you leave here [Quantico] without being punished.” When I
asked, “Punished for what?”, CH Burt said, “You know, the evangelical ministry here and
Krulak.”
22. When I asked who “we” referred to, CH Burt replied, “The Chief of Chaplains.”
23. CH Burt also said, “If you try to fight this, you’ll lose.”
Page 3 of 5 Exhibit 10 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-10 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 150
24. CH Burt marked my fitness report down one letter grade to harm my career, an action
calculated to ensure my subsequent non-selection.
25. When I wrote a letter to GEN Krulak, who had become the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, to protest the lowering of my fitness report grade, I received a letter from CH (CAPT)
Pucherrelli, a Catholic, stating that if I had issues, I needed to submit them through CH
Pucherrelli. This indicated to me my letter to GEN Krulak had been “intercepted” and he had not
received it.
26. CH Pucherrelli had been at Quantico a portion of the time I was there. I had been told,
“You were either one of Puche’s boys or not....” Since I had been in conflict with CH Pucherrelli
over numerous issues, I was not one of his boys.
27. I wrote a follow on letter to GEN Krulak, but received no response.
28. I believe the reason for my FOS was the CHC’s religious hostility towards Non-liturgicals
and my outstanding record, on information from confidential sources, RADM White’s personal
hostility and retaliation against GEN Krulak. It is well known that Chiefs exert influence over
selection boards and the voting system allows one board member to manipulate the system. I
allege this allowed RADM White to deny me promotion and end mycareer without
accountability, in violation of the Establishment and Due Process Clauses, through the CHC’s
secret, career ending votes with no accountability.
29. Having FOS twice and facing separation with a loss of pension and other benefits unless I
chose retirement. I retired May 1, 1997, under the Temporary Early Retirement Act (TERA).
30. I had no real choice, and view that process as a constructive discharge.
/////
Page 4 of 5 Exhibit 10 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-10 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 151
I make this declaration under the penalty of perjury, it is true and accurate to the best of
my ability, and it represents the testimony I would give if called upon to testify in a court of law.
Dated: July 10, 2012 /S/ Gary D. Heinke GARY HEINKE
Page 5 of 5 Exhibit 10 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-11 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 152 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-11 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 153 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-11 Filed 03/01/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 154 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-11 Filed 03/01/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 155 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-11 Filed 03/01/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 156 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-11 Filed 03/01/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 157 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-12 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 158
Lancaster v. Secretary Complaint
Exhibit 12
Center for Naval Analysis Statistical Study of CHC Promotions from 1972-2000 as Briefed to Navy and CHC Leadership Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-12 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 159 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-13 Filed 03/01/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID# 160 Case 2:19-cv-00095-HCM-DEM Document 1-13 Filed 03/01/19 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 161