BY FEDEX & FAX
Hon. Gordon R.
Secretary of the Navy Inspector General
2000 Defense Pentagon 1000 Defense Pentagon
ADM Vern Clark, USN
Chief of Naval Operations
2000 Navy Pentagon
Reference: Paragraph 116.2, SECNAVINST 1650.1G
This letter appeals a decision by the
Naval Inspector General (“IG”),
As we have yet to receive response to our letters from you requesting an investigation, we hope that the Naval IG’s letter is not the final word on the matter.
Specifically, at 5:12 PM on Friday, September 17, 2004, IG Route transmitted a letter via facsimile (Enclosure 1) to our offices addressing limited aspects of a request for investigation Judicial Watch made on August 18 and September 8, 2004 concerning the awards and conduct of Lieutenant (junior grade) John Forbes Kerry, USNR.
news report from
on Friday evening indicates
It is not clear to us how Senator Kerry’s political campaign organization could become aware of the IG’s letter before Judicial Watch.
In his letter,
Now that the IG has concluded John Kerry’s award paperwork was, to be blunt, properly stamped, a real investigation must commence. No serious investigation would merely examine whether the right individuals signed the right documents. The uninvestigated questions are whether the facts in the documents are correct, and if they are not correct, did John Kerry knowingly put forward these falsehoods. Furthermore, a careful investigation would also consider facts outside the documentary record, such as new sworn statements concerning Kerry’s conduct. That is the reason Paragraph 116.2 of SECNAVINST 1650.1G exists. Paperwork, administration, signatures, filing and recordkeeping are neither the predicates for valorous conduct nor ends unto themselves. The Navy IG has elected to ignore Paragraph 116.2 and focus solely on process and procedure. In doing so he is derelict in his affirmative duty to investigate the credible substantive claims set forth in Judicial Watch’s letters (and exhibits) of August 18 and September 8, 2004.
Paragraph 116.2 clearly states: “Any award for a distinguished act, achievement or service may be revoked . . . after presentation by SECNAV, if facts subsequently determined, would have prevented the original approval of the award, or if the awardee’s service after the distinguishing act, achievement or service has not been honorable.” [Emphasis added]
Further, 10 U.S.C. ' 6249 states: “No medal, cross, or bar, or associated emblem or insignia may be awarded or presented to any person or to his representative if his service after he distinguished himself has not been honorable.” [Emphasis added]
In another egregious omission, no
discussion or explanation is provided in
me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me.”
In an effort to document
1) The subject of
Letter response to Judicial Watch President Thomas Fitton,
(See Exhibit 1, attached)
2) Records of the Inspector General report, review, procedure
examination, investigation, audit, inspection and/or findings
predicated upon the subject of Judicial Watch’s requests for
dated August 18 and
subsequent Department of Defense Inspector General referral
for “information and action as appropriate.”
3) Name(s) of person(s) contacted, interviewed, consulted,
deposed, or relied upon as an eyewitness, subject matter expert,
historian or archivist for the matters identified in Items 1 and 2
4) The legal and/or regulatory basis for the decisions of Navy
5) Records, instructions, regulations, orders and other things
that document the lawful delegation of authority, approval process
and procedures for awards to LT(jg) John Forbes Kerry, USNR.
(To include copies of the Navy Instructions and regulations
for U.S. Naval Forces Vietnam and Pacific Fleet for the awards
process the Navy Inspector General “carefully examined.”)
6) Any award or decoration presented by the U.S. Navy to LT
(jg) John Forbes Kerry in 1968.
7) Communication between the Navy Inspector General, the
Defense Department Inspector General and the Secretary of the
Navy concerning the matters identified in Items 1 and 2 above.
8) Communications with any party other than the Defense
Department Inspector General and the Secretary of the Navy
concerning the matters identified in Items 1 and 2 above.
We anticipate the Navy IG will reply
substantively to our request in an expeditious manner consistent with the 10
day statutory requirement. Secretary
Finally, this letter serves as our formal
request to meet with Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England to discuss
and request for investigation. Judicial
Watch, in consultation with military, naval and historical experts, has
produced additional briefing material, timelines and analyses concerning the
subject of our request. We wish to
provide a briefing to Secretary
Thank you for your consideration and cooperation. We look forward to hearing from you shortly.
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
CC: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
Rejects Probe of Kerry’s War Medals,” Reuters,
Freddoso, “Stolen Honor Shows Kerry's Effect on POWs,” Human Events,