Title: Volume FOIA 103

Release Date: 2014-03-20

Text: 33330

Volume 103 of 111
SJAR ROT
FOIA Version

VERBAT IM 1

RECORD OF TRIAL2

(and accompanying papers)

of
(Name: Last, First, Middie initiai) (Sociai Security Number) (Rank)
Headquarters and
Headquarters Company,
United States Army Garrison U-S- Army FCDIJC Ml/er: VA 22211
(Unit/Command Name) (Branch of Service) (Station or Snip)
By
GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL
Convened by Commander

(Titie of Con vening Authority)

UNITED STATES ARMY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
(Unit/Command of Con vening Authority)

Tried at

Fort. Meade, MD on see below

(Piace or Piaces of Triai) (Date or Dates of Triai-9

Date or Dates of Trial:

23 February 2012, 15-16 March 2012, 24-26 April 2012, 6-8 June 2012, 25 June 2012,

16-19 July 2012, 28-30 August 2012, 2 October 2012, 12 October 2012, 17-18 October 2012,
7-8 November 2012, 27 November - 2 December 2012, 5-7 December 2012, 10-11 December 2012,
8-9 January 2013, 16 January 2013, 26 February - 1 March 2013, 8 March 2013,

10 April 2013, 7-8 May 2013, 21 May 2013, 3-5 June 2013, 10-12 June 2013, 17-18 June 2013,
25-28 June 2013, 1-2 July 2013, 8-10 July 2013, 15 July 2013, 18-19 July 2013,

25-26 July 2013, 28 July - 2 August 2013, 5-9 August 2013, 12-14 August 2013,

16 August 2013, and 19-21 August 2013.

1 insert ?verbatirri or ?surrimarizeo? as appropriate. This form be used by the Army and Navy for verbatim records of triai

2 See inside back co ver for instructions as to preparation and arrangement.

DD FORM 490, MAY 2000 PREWOUS OBSOLETE Front Cover



33331

WORKSHEET

17. IAPRESSION

SND IS A 22 YEAR OLD SINGLE SOLDIER WITH AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE.
SND WAS COOPERATIVE DURING THE INTERVIEW.

SND WAS TALKATIVE DURING THE INTERVIEW.

SND DOES APPEAR. TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS.

SND HAS ADEQUATE LEVEL OF SELF AWARENESS.

SND HAS AN AVERAGE LEVEL OF TOLERANCE FOR STRESS.

SND IS NOT AWARE OF ANY KNOWN ENEMIES IN THE BRIG.

SND SHOWS NO SIGNS OF DEPRESSION.

SND CLAIMS HE DOES NOT WANT TO HARM HIMSELF.

SND DHNIIES THAT HE IS SUICIDAL.


DD FORM 2711. NOV 1999

ManningB_42953

Pa9o4af4Pa9u

33332
From: Averhart CWO4 James

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:39 PM

To: Papakie Bnan Fuller William Blenis Craig Buck Jason; Lee

Cums Jordan SSG Ryan Ellis Chanes

subject: FW: Weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

Categories: Green Category

FYI

CWO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5935





From: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2016 2:32 PM

To: Averhart CWO4 James

Cc: Greer Ltcol Christopher Broadston Major Christian Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj
Amy

Subject: Re: weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

CNO 4 Averhart,

The reports have not been provided to defense counsel. They will have to be provided in the
future. All of the records in the possession of the Government will be subject to the
discovery rules and absent an exception will have to be provided to the Defense.

Very Respectfully,
CPT Haberland

original Message
From: Averhart CNO4 James
To: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA

Cc: Greer Ltcol Christopher >3 Broadston Major Christian
Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj Amy


Sent: Med Dec 29 14:23:52 2016
Subject: RE: weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

Captain Haberland,

Per our previous conversation concerning the weekly progress report concerning PFC Manning
that I provide to the Security Battalion Commanding officer, you stated to me on the phone
that Manning defense attorney Mr. Coombs has received the report in the past.

1? Flsi?

MannmoB_oos143e7

33333

As the writer of the report, I have concerns that individuals are receiving this report that
shouldn't be and don't have the need to know. I've asked my leadership to address this issue
in an official capacity.

Respectfully,

CNO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC

Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.
MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5035



From: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:53 AM
To: Averhart CWO4 James

Subject: weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

CH0 4 Averhart,

The copy of the weekly progress report that we (the Army) receive is not currently being
provided to the Defense. The Rules for Court Martial will require use to provide those
documents to the Defense in the near future.

Very Respectfully,

CPT John B. Haberland

Regimental Judge Advocate

3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)
"2
I22



ManningB_00514388

1
33334

3? 1"1eaSe notify Via NW)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOU0

ManningB_0051-1389

33335

From: Averharl CWO4 James

Sent: Wednesday. December 15, 2010 1:47 PM
To: Blenis Craig Papakie Bnan
Subject: RE: Note for the manning repott

You crazy Gunnsl

CH04 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

antico VA 22134-5035





From: Blenis Craig

Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:09 AM
To: Papakie Brian

Cc: Averhart CNO4 James

Subject: Note For the manning report

Good morning gentlemen,
How is this verbage?

(2) On 13 December 2010, a package from Amazon.com was delivered to the Brig by a
construction worker who works at a nearby site. There was no previous request for a package
submitted by Det Manning and there was no previous approval for a package given by the Brig
OIC. when asked about any potential packages that may be coming, Det Manning stated that he
was not aware of any but thought that family members may be sending something due to his
upcoming birthday. The package is being rejected and returned to sender due to the manner in
which it was received and also because there was no prior request or knowledge of the package
by SND, and there was no pre-approval given by the Brig OIC, and we Felt like being dicks.


Blenis

APPELLATE EXHIBIT ?lg?
PAGE 2:11:
PAGE or PAGES

ManninoB_004498OO

33336

From: Blenis Craig

Sent: Wednesday. December 08, 2010 10:00 AM

To: Aveman CWO4 James Papakie Brian
Subject: Manning weekly

Attachments: Mannln week! 101208.pd1
sear-easy:

Good morning gentlemen,
If you're cold, the latest issue of the Manning times should help warn you.

RI
Blenis

APPELLATE EXHIBITFQ 35


ManningB_oos123a5

33337

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attacbments:
Signed By:

Papakie MSgt Brian R
Friday, March 04, 2011 8:45 AM
Boafo SSgt Michael J; Buck SSgt Jason; Terry Sgt Matthew L
Fuller GySgt William R; Blenis GySgt Craig M
FW: Manning's underwear (UNCLASSIFIED)
MSgt Papakie Voluntary Statement.pdf; MANNING NEW HANDLING LETTER 110302.pdf
(b) (6)

Gents,

Make sure he i s not standing at attention naked for evening count right before taps,
should be taking his panties right before he lays down.

You

Respectfully Submitted,
Master Sergeant Papakie, B.
Quantico Brig, Security BN
Brig Supervisor
Building 3247
Quantico, VA 22134
(b) (6)

Original Message
From: Barnes CW02 Denise V
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 8:36
To: Haberland, Dohn CPT MILUSA
Cc: Greer LtCol Christopher M^ Oltman Col Robert G^ Ebitz Maj Amy R^ PapakieMSgt Brian R
Subject: RE: Manning's underwear (UNCLASSIFIED)
Good Morning Sir, I attached the voluntary statement that MSgt Papakie wrote and the new
handling l e t t e r that was signed. Here are some key points:
1, Given the circumstances of that day, the receipt of new charges and the receipt o f t h e
Base Commander's response t o his a r t i c l e 138 complaint which did not support his allegations
on CWO Averhart, I f e l t i t necessary t o take precaution once MSgt Papakie briefed me on what
detainee Manning said.
2. The underwear i s only removed after TAPS which i s at 2200 and returned at reveille along
with his other gear. He was never t o l d to stand naked at any time by any s t a f f member. As a
matter of fact, he i s supposed t o cover himself with one of the blankets when he stands up.
Detainee Manning has always done that without being told t o in the past.
I f you need anything else S i r , please l e t me know.
CW02 Denise V. Barnes
Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134
(b) (6)

ManningB_00449794

APPELLATE EXHIBIT ^ j f .
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33338

(b)
(b)
(6) (6)

Original Message
From: Haberland, Dohn CPT MIL USA (b) (6)
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 7:49
To: Barnes CW02 Denise V
Cc: Greer LtCol Christopher M
Subject: Manning's underwear (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Sir and CW02 Barnes,

Due to Mr, Coombs most recent statements on his blog, we would like to send notice to the
defense of exactly the reasons that PFC Manning's underwear was taken and that i t was his
statements rather than brig personnel action that caused this to happen. In order to make
sure that we are on the same page and that the information that we send to the defense
identical to that which is in the brig reports. In order to write our memo, I would like
copies of the reports, notes and documents that were generated in response to PFC Manning's
statement about his underwear.

I w i l l not forward the documents to Mr. Coombs but I w i l l use them to write an email giving
him the facts and explaining that statements by his client w i l l be taken seriously and he
should advise his client appropriately.

Please let me know i f you have any c^uestions. I f possible I would like to get this memo out
this morning.

Very Respectfully,

CPT Dohn B, Haberland
Regimental Dudge Advocate
3rd U,S, Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)
(b) (6)

ManningB^00449795

33339

GYSGT Blenis: So, let's go back to when you fell down. Did you fall down or did you
sit down? Or...
PFC Manning: Ah, it was mixed. I mean, I was getting lightheaded because I was
hyperventilating. So, I was trying to stand up. I was trying to keep from falling because
I was worried that i f l fell, then everybody would panic and that would make matters
worse. So, I tried to stand up and I ended up falling...
GYSGT Blenis: Once you got to the [inaudible]
PFC Manning: I am not too sure because ...
GYSGT Blenis: You didn't come back to your cell, you stated in the [inaudible] and
exercise.

PFC Manning: Ijust continued on as normal.
GYSGT Blenis: Alright take me from end of rec hall to ... where we are now ...
PFC Manning: Ok, yes, I started, I got in here and it was normal. And then I started
reading my book. And then, I want to say it was MSGT [inaudible] that was the first to
show up. And then he came in and was asking me all these questions. I was, ah, trying
to figure out how to word the answers without causing any more anxiety. I was trying to
figure out ways of not sounding, or not being construed as
GYSGT Blenis: So you don't know? We don't have to go into it now...
PFC Manning: No ... ways that things weren't going to be construed so that... just
trying to figure out ways in which I could tactfully say what I was trying to say without
violating any rules and regulation or raise any concem about...
GYSGT Blenis: Concern's already raised... [inaudible]
PFC Manning: Yes, but I'm trying not, I'm trying, I'm trying to avoid the concem, and
it's actually causing the concern.
GYSGT Blenis: I understand.
PFC Manning: I mean, cause, I'm getting ... every day that passes by, I'm getting
increasingly frustrated, I'm not going to lie. Because I'm trying to do everything that I
can not to be a concem, therefore I appear as though I am causing more concem. Or I ...
Or it seems that I'm causing more concem or everybody's looking for something to cause
concem. So that's what frustrates me. ... Trying to work out the most politically correct
way of...
GYSGT Blenis: [largely inaudible] Let's go back to today. ... The anxiety here, today.
That's not the first time it's happened since you've been in confinement. As far as I
know, it is the first time it's happened since you've been here ... but a similar situation
happened in Kuwait...

APPELLATE EXHIBIT 4 3 5 " P ^ g e 1 of 4
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33340

PFCManning: Iwasn't, in Kuwait,Ihad no idea what was going on generally.
GYSGT Blenis: But, would you say it was similar situation?
PFCManning: No, no. The situation that happened today was more of...you know,
I'mlucid and aware and just trying to figure...It'sjustaquestion of trying not to appear
likelwas in Kuwait.
GYSGTBlenis:Okay...
PFCManning: Because that'smy main concem every day,is how dolget off ofPOI
status? How dolget off ofPOI status? When willlbe taken off ofPOI status? Whatis
being used tojustify the precautions? Youknow...What concems, you know, what am
Idoingthat'sconceming or whatever? So I'm constantly trying to figure out, run
through all ofthose things. And trying to make sure I'mnot doing anything...
GYSGT Blenis: [inaudible]...As time goes on,we have less ofaconcem, ok?
PFCManning: Yes, GYSGT. But the restrictions were still in place. Andlwas...
GYSGT Blenis: Right. And we continually...Weunderstand it'snot normal that we
have someone in POI forthis period oftime...
PFCManning: Yes.
GYSGT Blenis: It'snot[normal]...Iguess we'll just leave it at that. So as we go on,
we're going to lessen your restrictions. They're still be restrictions in place...
[inaudible] Butlwould have to disagree with you as far as what happened today
happened in Kuwait...anxiety attack...
PFCManning: No,inKuwait,Iwasn'tlucid. lhad....[guard interrupts]. Itwas likea
dream...
GYSGT Blenis: But, they both ultimately ended up in you having an anxiety attack...
controlled fall, but...
PFCManning: No,Idon't remember falling in Kuwait at all.
GYSGT Blenis: Well,Ican tell you, that'swhat was reported to us...Iwasn'tthere,
none ofus were there. [inaudible]okay,Iknow it was,Idon't know how much long
afier, but it wasn't too much long afier that^to where you actual [inaudible]to put you
on suicide watch because they fciundabed sheet. Iremember asking you about this when
you first got here about the bed sheet. You told me it was made from sand bag ties.
PFCManning:YesGYSGT
GYSGTBlenis:Soitwasn'tasheet.
PFCManning: Lim.

Page2of^

33341

GYSGTBlenis: Y^ou told me,Iasked you about that the very firsttime we talked and
you told me it was sand bag ties that you used for sandbags.
PFCManning: I^h,yes.
GYSGTBlenis: So going back to today'ssituation compared to Kuwait's. Ithink it is
similar. And that is also why you are on suicide watch [inaudible]. You have to
remember that us, asafacility,we have to always err on the side of caution, okay. And
notjustthe sideofcaution, but over-caution. Fspecially when we're talking about
suicide, okay?Nobody'ssaying you're going to kill yourself alright? Believe it ornot,!
understand what you are saying that you are not going to kill yourself. Alright? Weget
that,we got that,we understand that. But,we always have to be more cautious than that.
But you're saying that ^nobody else is on suicide watch.' The thing is what happened in
Kuwait, and now what happened today...
PFCManning: Those are totally diflerent. Iunderstand,Iunderstand,Iunderstand,
where you're getting that ...from the documentation. Imean,Iquite,IknowwhereIam.
IknowIam...IknowIam at quantico base facility. Iknow that I'matabrig. Imean,
I'mlucid and aware of wherelam. I'mnot...
GYSGTBlenis: You asked Master Sergeantaquestion...about why you're on suicide
watch, I'm trying to answerthat question, okay? Didlanswerthat? Does that make
sense?
PFCManning: LIh no. No, with context. Because the factthat...
GYSGT Blenis: [inaudible] fromafacility standpoint. Did you understand that? From
our point of view. Do you understand?
PFCManning: Iwould have understood had...hadlnot been ... Iwould have
understood had...hadlnot been...Imean, I'mtrying to think ofhow to word it. I
thinklwould understand...
GYSGT Blenis: Provoked? Provoked?
PFCManning: Yes,alittle. Yes GYSGT.Ifeel like the facility,honestly,Ifi2ellikethe
facility is looking for reasons to keep me on POI status.
GYSGTBlenis: Inaudible.Icantellyou^no'...
PFCManning: Imean, at least not at the stafflevel, I'm thinking the CO^me, myself
personally.
GYSGTBlenis: Inaudible...Iam going to tell you that that is not the case. lhave no
control over what you think, but that is not it. Nobody here finds anyjoy from having
you on POI or SR. especially SR. Fromalogistical standpoint, it'saburden on us....
PFCManning: Yes, MSGT.

Page3of4

33342

GY^SGTBlenis: Nobody finds that asajoy. It'snotapunitivething,Iunderstandwhy
someone would see it asapunitive thing because restrictions placed [inaudible] ...lean
tell you that as far as since you have been here, hell,lwishlhadahundred Mannings...
PFCManning: And that'swhat...And that'swhereldon't understand why the why the
continuation ofthe policy and restrictions beyond the time recommended by you and the
psychiatrist. Imean the psychiatrist, is saying. Imean, I've got my own forensic
psychiatristthat'ssaying now that the POI status is actually doing psychiatric harm and
not, you know,andit'sactually,youknow,increasing my chances, ratherthan
decreasing...
GYSGTBlenis: Did you feel like thattwo weeks ago?
PFCManning: What'sthat?
GYSGTBlenis: Did you feel like that two weeks ago?
PFCManning:YesGYSGT
GYSGTBlenis: Gh, two weeks ago,Iasked you, like, how you were feeling and you
said you were fine, do you remember that?
PFCManning: Yes.
GYSGTBlenis: Do you rememberthat?
PFCManning: Yes, andlstill feel fine. Imean,Ifeel,Ifeel fine, but at the same time,
I've been putting in, I've been putting in...

Page4ofi^

33343

SND was reviewed by t h e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and Assignment Board on
t h i s date. SND was s p e c i a l moved by t h e DBS on 20110120 from
MAX/DET/SR s t a t u s t o MAX/DET/POI. SND requested t o appear before
the board and was granted h i s request. During t h e board SND
s t a t e d t h a t he does not b e l i e v e t h a t SR o r POI s t a t u s i s
necessary because he has no i n t e n t i o n s o f harming h i m s e l f . SND
f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he does n o t f e e l t h a t MAX custody i s
necessary because he has no i n t e n t i o n s o f escape o r harming
other i n d i v i d u a l s . SND d i d s t a t e t h a t he b e l i e v e s t h a t he should
be segregated from general p o p u l a t i o n and p o s s i b l y placed i n a
p r o t e c t i v e custody s t a t u s . During t h e board, SND s t a t e d t h a t he
does not f e e l t h a t h i s emotional breakdown o r aggressive a c t i o n s
toward h i m s e l f on 20110118 should be taken i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n
because he f e e l s they were brought on by h i s being i n POI
s t a t u s . SND f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t the s i m i l a r i t y between these
i n c i d e n t s and t h e breakdown t h a t he had w h i l e c o n f i n e d i n Kuwait
should n o t be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . SND was asked why h i s
emotional breakdown happened i n Kuwait t o which SND r e p l i e d " I
was kept i n a dark room, n o t allowed t o w r i t e l e t t e r s , or
allowed t o make phone c a l l s . " SND was then asked i f those were
the reasons why he had h i s breakdown i n Kuwait, why i s i t t h a t
he chooses n o t t o make phone c a l l s or w r i t e l e t t e r s now t h a t he
i s allowed t o . SND s t a t e d t h a t he chooses n o t t o w r i t e l e t t e r s
or make phone c a l l s because o f t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on him.
The board members e x p l a i n e d t o SND t h a t t h e r e are no
r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on these p r i v i l e g e s and t h a t he may w r i t e as
many l e t t e r s o r make as many phone c a l l s as he wishes. SND
f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t , w h i l e he d i d make a noose i n Kuwait, t h a t
event happened a long time ago. The members o f t h e C&A board
explained t o SND t h a t , making a noose w h i l e i n confinement 6
months ago i s considered recent. SND was asked by t h e C&A board
why, on h i s Mental/Physical Health Background, he wrote "always
planning, never a c t i n g " i n the block t h a t asks "have you ever
considered s u i c i d e " . SND s t a t e d t o the members o f t h e board t h a t
" t h a t may have been f a l s e " . When asked by t h e senior member o f
the board " i f t h a t may have been f a l s e , should I b e l i e v e t h a t
your statement o f n o t wanting t o harm y o u r s e l f i s also f a l s e ? "
To t h i s q u e s t i o n , SND answered "yes". A f t e r t h i s , a separate
member o f t h e board asked i f SND understood the q u e s t i o n t h a t he
was asked, t o which SND r e p l i e d "yes". I t was e x p l a i n e d t o SND
t h a t t h e members o f t h e C&A board are n o t t h e f i n a l a u t h o r i t y on

ManningB_00515979

APPELLATE EXHIBIT J U S ]
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33344

^
^

any d e c i s i o n , and t h a t he may appeal any d e c i s i o n made by the
B r i g OIC and s t i l l maintains the r i g h t t o request mast. SND
s t a t e d t h a t he understands these r i g h t s . During the conduct o f
the board, SND was w e l l spoken but s l i g h t l y s t u t t e r e d , a l e r t t o
time and place, and was v i s i b l y nervous w i t h shaking hands. I t
i s recommended t h a t SND remain MAX custody, remain POI s t a t u s
and remain housed i n S ^ ^ l . ^ CySgt B l e n i s
Board Members:
CySgt B l e n i s
CySgt E u l l e r
SSgt Buck

ManningB^00515980

33345



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA



v. Updated Prosecution Witness List #3


Manning, Bradley E.
PFC, US. Anny,
US. Army Garrison, 2 December 2012
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

(U) The prosecution may call the below witnesses to testify on the merits at trial and/or
during the presentencing phase? of the above-captioned court-martial. After each witness name
is a brief description of the general substance of witness testimony, including whether the
prosecution currently intends to elicit classified information during their testimony.

(U) This witness list is provided as an update to the 26 October 2012 witness list to inform
the Court and the defense of the removal of witnesses, an update to a witness's name, and
updates to unit information for several witnesses. The removal of eight witnesses from testifying
during the sentencing portion of the trial is the only substantive update made to this witness list.

(U) The below witnesses are only offered to testify regarding information concerning the
accused, the charged misconduct, the classi?ed information used by the prosecution to prove the
charges and their specifications, and classi?ed information that is related to the impact or
damage resulting from the accused's charged misconduct. ?Dre prosecution does not intend to
elicit "Top Secret" or "Sensitive Compartrnented Infonnation" from any of these witnesses.

1- -



2. (U) SFC Paul Adkins. Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Battalion, 14th
infantry Regiment, 2d Brigade Combat Team, l0th Mountain Division (LI), Fort Drum,
NY, 13602, He will testify about the accused's training, activities; and

As ofthe dare ofthis ?ling, persons identi?ed with an asterisk are witnesses only for purposes ofthe
presentencing phase; persons identi?ed with a caret are witnesses for purposes of presentencing and merits.

1



I 513$
i

-to :52?

I
33346

11.

duties. For sentencing, he will testify about the impact of the accused?s actions on him
and the unit.


. She will testify concerning the accused's execution ofan SCI NDA.
(U) Office of Personnel Management, Boyers, PA, 16016:
She will testify as to the authenticity of the OPM records.
(U) Mr. Maxwell Allen, Central Intelligence Agency, McLean, VA, 22101, POC: Ms.

Jennifer M, . He will testify as to the authenticity ofthe OSC logs,
including classi?ed information concerning the administration of the logs and the

substance of the logs as it relates to the accused.

(U) Mary Amiatu, Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, APO AE, 09306,?-
She will testify as to the authenticity of the JAMMS records.

(U) SPC Kyra (Marshall) Amos, Bravo Company, 57th Signal Battalion, Ft. Hood, TX,
76544 (deployed to Afghanistan), . She will testify concerning her use
of the supply room computer.

(U) SFC Jose Anica, Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), National
Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), Charlottesville, VA, 2291 l, He
will testify about the accused's intelligence systems training and the accused's activities
at 2/l0, including potential classi?ed infonnation.

(U) Mr. Peter Artalc, 902d Ml Group, Fort Meade, MD, 20755, . He
will testify as to the authenticity of the ACIC logs, including classified information
concerning the administration of the logs and the substance of the logs as it relates to
the accused.

(U) Eric Baker, 10200 N. Riva Ridge Loop, Ft. Drum, NY, 13602,
2. He will testify about the accused's activity in his CHU and the accused's
activities at W10.

Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), 2nd
Brigade Combat Team (ZBCT), l0th Mountain Division (LI), Fort Drum, NY, 13602,
1 She will testify about her deployment with the accused and the duties
ofa 35F, including classified information.

(U) WOI Kyle Balonek, Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC),

Headquarters and Hand uarters Battalion (HHBN), 10th Mountain Division Fort
Drum, NY, 13602, He will testify about the requirements ofbeing a
35F, the accused's duties and work product, including classified information.



15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

33347

(U) CW4 t, US Anny Intelligence Center and Center of Excellence,
Fort Huachuca, AZ, 85613, He will testify as to the authenticity of the
AIT documents.

(U) Mr. Joseph Benthal, Watertown, NY, 13601, -5. He will testify about
the requirements for access to government systems at 10th Mountain Division.

(U) SA Troy Bettencourt, U.S. Department of Treasury, Washington, DC, 20220,
He will testify about the IA training the accused received, authenticati of
multiple pieces of evidence, and the information that the accused leaked to WikiLeaks,
including classified infonriation.

(U) SSG Peter Bigelow, US Arm NATO, Allied Forces Command South, Naples,
Italy, FPO AE, 09620. He will testify about the accused's duties

in the supply room and the accused's access to computer systems.

(U) Mr. Wyatt Bora, Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome, NY, 13440--
2 He will testify about the CIDNE database, its value, and how it appeared at a
particular time, including classified information.

(U) 3rd MP Group (CID), Ft. Eustis, VA, 23604,-. He

is a chain of custody witness.

(U) Mr. Steve Buchanan, Intelink, Fort Meade, MD, 20755, He will
testify as to the authenticity ofthe Intelink logs, including classified information
concerning the administration of the logs and the substance of the logs as it relates to
the accused.

(U) Mr. Scan Chamberlin, 902d MI Group, Fort Meade, MD 20755,
He will testify about how the ACIC logs data, how to read the logs, and the content of
the logs, including classified information.



(U) CPT Thomas Cherepko, NATO Force Command, Madrid, Spain, 28-

. He will testify about the 2/10 Mountain share drive and its contents, as well
as the requirements to access it. For sentencing, he will also testify regarding the
impact on the S-6 as a result of numerous investigations into the accused's misconduct.

3

25.

26.

28.

29.

33348

(U) SA Charles Clapper, Arizona Branch Office - Computer Crime Investigative Unit,
Fort Huachuca, AZ, 85613, He is a chain of custody witness.

(U) ,RedJacltestify about the Centaur logs, including potential classified information concerning the
administration of the logs and the substance of the logs as it relates to the accused.

(U) Mr. US Anny Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, KY,
40122, . He will testify as to the authenticity ofthe accused's OMPF.
(U) SGT Lorena DeFrank (Cooley), Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC),
2nd Brigade Special Troops Battalion Brigade Combat Team (2BCT),
10th Mountain Division Fort Drum, NY, 13602, . She will testify

about the accused's work product and the accused's activities within 2/10, including
classi?ed information.





(U) Ms. Elizabeth Dibble, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near
Eastern Affairs, De artment of State, Washington, DC, 20520, POC: Mr. Jonathan
Davis, iz Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor, . She will testify at
sentencing about the impact to Near Eastern Affairs, including classified information.



(U) Mr. Jim Downey, Defense lnforrnation Systems Agency,For1 Meade, MD, 20755,

. He will testify about Centaur logs, including potentially classified
information concerning the administration of the logs and the substance ofthe logs as it
relates to the accused.

(U) El Paso, TX 79924, He is a chain of custody

witness.

(U) SA Antonio Edwards, Homeland Security Investigations, National Security Unit,
Atlanta, GA 3030], He is a chain of custody witness.

(U) SA Kirk Ellis, Rock Island Fraud Resident Agency, Major Procurement Fraud Unit,
Moline, IL, 61265, He is a chain of custody witness.

?ll

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

33349

(U) Mr. John Feeley, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western
Hemisphere Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC, 20520, POC: Mr. Jonathan
Davis, Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor, . He will testify
about the content of the charged cables originating from and sent to the Western
Hemisphere on the merits (speci?cally, 07 Bogota 101; 07 Bogota 51 l8; 07
Bridgetown 23; 07 Buenos Aires 07 Caracas 2346; 07 Caracas 35; 07 Kingston
25; 07 La Paz 1949; 07 Lima 2400; 07 Panama 1 197; 07 Panama 1 07 San
Salvador 1375; 07 Santo Domingo 28; 09 Bogota 2873; 09 Brasilia ll 12; 09 Brasilia
1113; 09 Caracas 09 Lima 09 Mexico 2658; 09 Santiago 831; 09 Santiago
833; 09 Santiago 835; 09 Santo Domingo 09 Tegucigalpa 89]; 09 Tegucigalpa
892; 09 Lima 333; 09 State 92655) and the impact to Westem Hemisphere Affairs on
sentencing, including classi?ed infonnation.

(U) Mr. Nacon Consulting, LLC, Annapolis, MD, 2l403,

He will testify as to the authenticity of the accused's IA training.

(U) CPT Matthew Freeburg, Fort Sill, OK, 73503, 2. He will testify
about the accused's activities while deployed. For sentencing, he will testify about the
impact on the unit as the company commander.

(U) CPT Casey Fulton (formerly Martin), 2nd Brigade Combat Team (2BCT), 10th
Mountain Division (LI), Fort Drum, NY, 13602, She will testify about
the accused's training, duties, and work product, including classified information. For

sentencing, she will testify regarding the impact of the accused's misconduct on the S-2
shop.

(U) Mr. James ung, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, 11973,
2 He is a chain of custody witness.

(U) Ms. Shelia Glenn, Fort Meade, MD, 20755, -. She will testify about
unclassified contents ofthe ACIC document in Specification 15 of Charge ll.) The
prosecution does n_g_t intend to elicit classified testimony from this witness.

(U) Mr. Mike Goldman, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Uptonchain ofcustody witness.

(U) SA Toni Graham, Hawaii CID Office, I314 Lyman Road, Building 3026, Schofield

Barracks, H1, 968?. She will testify about the law enforcement
investigation in lraq.



42.

50.



52.

33350

(U) Mr. Jacob Grant, USCENTCOM, MacDill AFB, FL, 33621, . He
will testify about the USCENTCOM server logs, including potentially classi?ed

infonnation.

(U) CW3 Hondo Hack, Joint Multinational Readiness Center, Hohenfels Military
Community, Germany, APO AE, 09173, DSN: . He will testify about
the accused's work product, including classi?ed infonnation.

(U) Mr. HQDA 0-2, Washington, DC, 20310, He will

testify about information security.

(U) VADM Robert Harward, USCENTCOM, MacDill AFB, FL, 33621,
USCENTCOM OSJA, . He will testify as an original classi?cation
authority (OCA) that charged USCENTCOM information was properly classified,
including classified information.

(U) Mr. Ben Henwood, Senior System Administrator, USCENTCOM Intelligent
Software Solutions, Inc., Tampa, FL, 33609, He will testify about the
CIDNE database, including potentially classi?ed information.

(U) Mr. John Hodges, Senior Technician, USCENTCOM Intelligent So?ware
Solutions, Inc., Tampa, FL, 33609, (8-. He will testify about the CIDNE
database, including potentially classified information.

(U) Mr. Patrick Hoeffel, Intelligent So?ware Solutions, Inc., 2001 Jefferson Davis
Hwy, Suite 909, Arlington, VA, 22202, . He will testify about the

CIDNE database, including potentially classified information.



(U) Mr. Matthew Hosburgh, Westminster, co, 80021, He will testify
about the C3 document.

(U) LT (US Navy) Thomas Hoskins, USCENTCOM, MacDill AFB, FL, 3362l,
He will testify about the content of charged USCENTCOM docume
containing J-5 information, including classified information.

(U) Ms. n, 439 West Ten Eyck Street, Watertown, NY,
2. She will testify about the authenticity ofthe accused's SCI Indoctrination packet.

(U) Mr. y, HQDA Army Pentagon, Washington, DC, 20310,
. He will testify about OPSEC.

6









54.

55.

56.

57.

59.

60.

33351

(U) Ms. . Forensic Examiner, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC, 20535, She is a chain of custody witness.

(U) Ms. Elisa K. (Rubin) Ivory, S2 OIC. 305th Military Intelligence Battalion, US
Army Intelligence Center and Center of Excellence, Fort Huachuca, AZ, -
She will testify concerning requirements ofbeing a 35F.

(U) Mr. Albert J. anek, Director, Office of Continuity, Department of State,
Washington, DC, 20520, Duty Station: U.S. Embassy, Kabul, Af hanistan, POC: Mr.
Jonathan Davis, Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor, He will
testify about the authenticity and chain of custody of the server logs.

(U) Mr. Deputy Chief Information Officer for Operations, Messaging
Systems ice, Bureau of Information Resource Management, Department of State,

Washington, DC, 20520, POC: Mr. Jonathan Davis, I Ms. Elizabeth
O'Connor, . He will testify about NCD, including potentially classified
infonnation concerning how NCD originated, operated, and was maintained.

(U) Mr. Mark Johnson, Digital Forensics and Research Branch, Computer Crime
Investigative Unit, Quantico, VA, 22134, . He will testify about his
forensic analysis of the accused's digital media, including classi?ed information
concerning the contents of his forensic reports.

(U) AMB Patrick F. Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management, De artment of
State, Washington, DC, 20520, POC: Mr. Jonathan Davis, til Ms.
Elizabeth O'Connor, . He will testify on sentencing about the impact to
the Department of State, including classified information concerning impact on foreign
relations, foreign policy, and the management of the Department.

(U) Washington Metro Resident Agency, Computer Crime

Investigative Unit, Quantico, VA, 22l He is a chain of custody
witness.

(U) Mr. John Kirchhofer, Chief of Enterprise Strategies, Office of
Counterintelligence (Cl) Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Enterprise Management,
Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center, Defense Intelligence
Agency, Bolling AFB, DC, 20032, I. He will testify at sentencing about
the impact on the Department of Defense, including classified information concerning
specific impacts within the Department of Defense, the administration and operation of
the IRTF, and contents of the IRTF damage assessment.

(U) AMB Michael Kozak, Senior Adviser, Bureau of Democracy, Rights and Labor,
Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, POC: Mr. Jonathan Davis,?-

Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor, He will testify on sentencing about
the impact on individuals identified as persons at risk by the Department of State,

7

?ll

33352

including classi?ed information. _This testimony will not include of any speci?c
individual.

63. (U) Mr. Adrian Lamo, Carmichael, CA 95608, He will testify
regarding his digital chat with the accused. The United States does not intend to elicit
any classi?ed information contained within the digital chat log.

64. (U) Jon Larue, DAMO-AV, Pentagon, DC, 20310, He will
testify about the content of the Apache Video.

65. (U) Mr. Danny J. Lewis, Defense Intelligence Agency, Bolling AFB, DC, 20032,

. He will testify about counterintelligence and the value of information,
including classified information concerning the value of government information. For
sentencing, he will testify about the impact of the compromise on counterintelligence,
including classi?ed infonnation.

66. (U) CPT Steven Lim, HQ, Army Division-East, Fort Meade, MD, 20755,

He will testify about the 2110 Mountain share drive and its contents,
accused's training and duties, including potentially classified information. For
sentencing, he will testify regarding the impact of the accused's misconduct on the S-2
shop.

67. (U) SA Okinawa CID Office, Building 220 Unit 35139, Okinawa,
Japan APO AP 3. She will testify about the

investigation in Iraq.

68. (U) Mr. Forensic Examiner, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC, 20535, . He is a chain ofcustody witness for

classi?ed information concerning four digital files extracted from digital media
outlined at BATES 00505250-00505252.



70. (U) SGT Chad Madaras, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2d Battalion, 14th
Infantry Re iment, 2d Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (LI), Fort Drum,
NY, 136o2,g_ He will testify about the 35F training, 2/10 pre-
deployment training, and the use of his SIPRNET computers while deployed, including
potentially classified information.

71. (U) Mr. Brian Madrid, 21057 w. Western Dr. Buckeye, AZ, 85326;.
He will testify about the accused's training at

8


-1



33353

72. (U) Ms. Tamara Mairena, Headquarters, Computer Crime lnvestigative Unit, Quantico,
VA, 22134, She is a chain of custody witness.

73. (U) SA Mark Mander, Washington Metro Resident A ency, Computer Crime
Investigative Unit, Quantico, VA, He will testify about
Wikileaks operations, the investigation of the accused, and certain enemies of the
United States being in possession of information, including classified information.

74. (U) SGT Alejandro Marin, 800th MP Brigade, Uniondale, NY, I 1553,
He will testify about the accused's training at AIT.

75. (U) lntelink, Fort Meade, MD, 20755, He will
testify about the lntelink logs, including classified information concerning the
administration of the logs and the substance of the logs as it relates to the accused.



78. (U) Mr. Vince McCarron, HQDA G-2, Washington, DC, 203lO, . He
will testify about the DCGS-A system, including potentially classi?ed information.

79. MacDill AFB, He

will testify about the training received at AIT.

oo
9

81. (U) Mr. James McManus, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, 1 1973,
- He is a chain of custody witness.

82. U) Ms. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC, 20535,
She is a chain ofcustody witness.




84.

33354

(U) COL. David Miller, BDE Modernization Command, Ft. Bliss,
2 He will testify about the accused's misconduct and the multiple administrative
investigations.

(U) Mr. Jason Milliman, 262 Jefferson Drive West, Palmyra, VA, 22963,

2. He will testify about the accused's access to DCGS-A, including potentially

classi?ed information.

(U) Mr. James Moore, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian
Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC, 20520, POC: Mr. Jonathan Davis,
(202) 647-2227 Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor, . He will testify about the
content of cables originating from South and Central Asia on the merits (speci?cally,
06 Colombo 1889; 06 Kathmandu 3023; 06 Kathmandu 3024; 07 Ashgabat 1359; 07
Dhaka 24; 07 New Delhi 80; 09 New Delhi 267; 09 State 9264 including classi?ed
information.



(U) Mr. Ken Moser, USC ENTCOM, MacDill AFB, FL, 33621, . He
will testify about the infonnation posted to the USCENTCOM OSJA SIPRNET
website, including potentially classi?ed information.

(U) ?Mr. Jeffery Moles, JTF-GTMO, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, He
will testify about the JTF-GTMO database and the contents of compromised
information, including classified information. For sentencing, he will testify about the
impact resulting from the compromise of the JTF-GTMO database.

(U) Mr. Troy Moul, US Army Intelligence Center and Center of Excellence, Fort

Huachuca, AZ, 856] 3, He will testify about instructing the accused at
AIT.

(U) DISA, Pensacola, FL, 32503, He will

testify about the authenticity of the Centaur logs.

(U) Mr. Gerald Mundy, Information Systems Security Officer, Bureau oflntelligence
and Research, Department of State, Washington, DC, 20520, POC: Mr. Jonathan
Davis, Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor, (202) 647-7246. He will testify
about the authenticity and chain of custody of the DOS ?rewall logs, including
potentially classi?ed information.

(U) Mr. Nicholas Murphy, Reviewer, Of?ce of Global Information Services, Bureau of
Administration, Department of State, Washington, DC 205 20 (When Actually
Employed), POC: Mr. Jonathan Davis, Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor,

He will testify as an OCA that Department of State information was
properly classi?ed, including classi?ed information.

10

33355



93. (U) Lt Col (R) Martin Nehring, USCENTCOM, MacDill AFB, FL, 33621,?

I He will testify about the content of charged documents containing J3
information, including classi?ed information.

94. (U) cw4 Ronald Nixon, ARCYBER, Fort Belvoir, VA, He will
testify about the GAL.





95.
NIU at Bolling AFB),

A

IT.
96. (U) Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC, 20535,
He is a chain of custody witness for classi?ed information concerning
four iles extracted from digital media outlined at BATES 00505250-00505252.
97. (U) SGT Daniel Padgett, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 66027,?. He will

testify about the accused's training and duties and his interactions with the accused
while deployed, including potentially classi?ed information.

CGSC, Ft. Belvoir, VA, 22060 (until OCT, then
. She will testify about the accused's activities at

98. (U) AMB David Pearce, Deputy Assistant Secretary and Senior Deputy Special
Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Bureau of South and Central Asian
Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC, 20520, POC: Mr. Jonathan Davis,

Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor, He will testify about the
content of cables originating from Afghanistan and Pakistan on the merits (speci?cally,
06 Kabul 5420; O6 Kabul 542] O6 Kabul 5435; 99 Islamabad 495), including classi?ed
information.

99. (U) Mr. H. Dean Pittman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of lntemational
Organization Affairs, De artment of State, Washington, DC, 20520, POC: Mr.
Jonathan Davis, ix Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor, He will
testify about the content of cables originating from lntemational Organizations on the
merits (speci?cally O7 USUN New York 573; 07 USUN New York 575; 07 USUN
New York 578), including classi?ed information.

100. (U) Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Brigade Combat

Team, 10th Mountain Division Fort Drum, NY, 13602, He will
testify about access to computer systems within the brigade.



e, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC, 20535,

101. (U
. She is a chain of custody witness.

ll



102.

103.

I04.

105.

106.

I07.

108.

I 09.

Ill.

33356

(U) Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC, 20535,
. is a chain of custody witness.

(U) SA Calder Robertson, Europe Branch Office - Computer Crime Investigative Unit,
Funari Barracks, APO AE, 09003, DSN: He will testify about his
forensic analysis of the accused's digital media, including classified information.

(U) 1 Overcash Avenue, Chambersburg, PA, 17201,

. She will testify as to the authenticity of the IA awareness training.

(U) SA Ronald Rock, Assistant Regional Security Officer, Diplomatic Security
Service, Department of State, Washington, DC, 20520, Duty Station: Consulate,

Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan, POC: Mr. Jonathan Davis,lF Ms.
Elizabeth O'Connor, He will testify abo the chain of custody of the

?rewall and server logs, including potentially classi?ed infonnation. For
sentencing, he will discuss the impact of the compromise on the US Embassy at
Reykjavik, including classified information.

(U) Forensic Examiner, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC, 20535, He is a chain ofcustody witness for
classified information concerning four files extracted from digital media outlined at
BATES #2 00505250-00505252.

(U) CW4 Armond Rouillard, 033, US Army Network Enterprise Technology
Command, Ft. Belvoir, VA, 22060, He will testify about the value of
information stolen from the USF-I GAL, including potentially classified information.

(U) SGT David Sadtler, 709th MI BN, Harrogate, UK, APO AE, 09468, DSN: -
He will testify about his interactions with the accused at 2/10 Mountain and
the accused's activities during their deployment, including potentially classified
material.

(U) Mr. Doug Schasteen, Wilco Technologies, Inc., 4125 Broadway, Suite 200, Kansas
City, MO, 64l06, He will testify about the authenticity ofthe

acct5ed's annual lnforrnation Awareness training.

. (U) Ms. Jacqueline Scott, USCENTCOM, MacDill AFB, FL,

She will testify about the response to the FOIA request for the Apache video, including
potentially classi?ed material.

(U) AMB Stephen Seche, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs,

Department of State, Washington, DC, 20520, POC: Mr. Jonathan Davis,
con en 0

7/ Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor, He will testify about the
J: - es originating from the Near as on merits (speci?cally, 05 Algiers 06
Algiers 1961; 06 Baghdad 2646; 06 Baghdad 4205; 06 Beirut 3603; 06 Beirut 3604; 06

Beirut 3703; 06 Kuwait 4430; 06 Kuwait 4438; 06 Riyadh 881 1; 06 Tripoli 645; 06
12

?ll

112.

113.

114.

US.

H6.

H7.

H8.

119.

33357

Tripoli 648; 07 Baghdad 35; 07 Baghdad 36; 07 Baghdad 37; 07 Baghdad 42; 07
Baghdad 53; 07 Baghdad 56; 07 Baghdad 63; 07 Baghdad 64; 07 Baghdad 70; 07
Basrah 3; 07 Beirut 1958; 07 Riyadh 21; 07 Riyadh 22; 07 Riyadh 23; O7 Tunis 47; 08
Amman 535; 08 Cairo 569; 09 Baghdad 2390; 09 Riyadh I 156; 10 Rabat 294),
including classi?ed information.

(U) SA David Shaver, U.S. Department of Treasury, Washington, DC, 20220

. He will testify about his forensic analysis of the accused's digital media and
information posted to WikiLeaks, including classi?ed information, concerning the
contents of his forensic reports.

(U) Ms. Jihrleah Showman, Hamilton, GA, 31811, She will testify
about the training the accused received before deployment, the accused's statements and
activities before deployment, their duties during deployment and the accused's activities
during deployment, including potentially classified information. For sentencing, she
will testify about the impact of the accused?s misconduct.

(U) Forensic Examiner, Federal Bureau of investigation,
Washington, DC, She is a chain of custody witness for

classified infonnation concerning four files extracted from digital media outlined at
BATES 00505250-00505252.

(U) SA Thomas Smith, USACIDC, Fort Gordon, GA, 30905, He will
testify about the investigation in Iraq.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC, 20535, (-I
_He is a chain of custody witness.

Headquarters and Headquarters Battery (HHB), Battalion,
37th Field Artillery Regiment (l-37 FA), 3rd Brigade, 2d Infantry Regiment
(3/2 SBCT), Fort Lewis, WA (Deployed to Afghanistan), She will
testify that she was the 2-10 security manager and witnessed the accused sign NDAS
and acknowledgement of SCI brie?ngs.

(U) v, HQDA, G-1 (DAPE-MPT), Pentagon, DC, 20310,?-
He will testify to the authenticity of the accused's ATTRS logs.

Chief, Operations Support Division ozx, 902d Ml Monterey
He is a chain of custody witness.

Field Office, Monterey, CA,



l2l.

l22.

123.

I24.

l25.

l26.

127.

128.

I29.

130.

33358

(U) Ms. Susan Swart, former Chief lnfonnation Officer, Bureau of Information
Resource Management, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, POC: Mr.
Jonathan Davis, Ms. Elizabeth O?Comor-. She will
testify at sentencing about the impact to information systems at the Department of
State, including potentially classified information.

(U) Forensic Examiner, Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Washington, DC, 20535, . He is a chain of custody witness for

classified information concerning four ?les extracted from digital media outlined at
BATES 00505250-00505252.

(U) Ms. Tasha Thian, Agency Records Officer, Office of Global lnfonnation Services,
Bureau of Administration, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, POC: Mr.
Jonathan Davis, I Ms. Elizabeth She will
testify to the authenticity of all charged Department of State cables, including
potentially classified information.

(U) SSG Robert Thomas, Ill, Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, Support Squadron,
3d ACR, Fort Hood, TX, -. He will testify about the training received at
AIT.

(U) Ms. Louis Travieso, USCENTCOM, MacDill AFB, FL, 33621,
He will testify about the content of the charged document(s) containing 1-2 information,
including classified information.

(U) USCENTCOM, MacDill AFB, FL, 33621-
He will testify about the USCENTCOM Sharepoint Server logs, including potentially
classified information.

(U) Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 2nd Brigade
Special Troops Battalion (2 BSTB), 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY,

l3602, He is a chain of custody witness.

(U) Mr. Greg Weaver, Compliance Branch Chief, US Army Cyber Command, Ft.
Belvoir, VA, 22060 G36 Compliance Division, . He will testify about
information assurance.

(U) Ms. lorinda White, CERDEC So?ware Engineering Directorate, Aberdeen

Proving Ground, MD, 21005, She will testify to the authenticity of
DCGS-A documentation.

(U) SA John Wilbur, Department of Treasury, Washington, DC, 20220,
2 He is a chain of custody witness.



l3l.

I32.

133.

134.

135.

136.

I38.

33359

(U) SA Alfred Williamson, Digital Forensics and Research Branch, Computer Crime

Investigative Unit, Quantico, VA, 22134, He will testify about his
forensic analysis of the accused's digital media.

(U) Mr. Charlie Wisecarver, Bureau of Information Resource Management,
Department of State, Washington, DC, 20520 (When Actually Employed), POC: Mr.

Jonathan Davis, Ms. Elizabeth He will
testify about the NCD system, including potentially classi? information oonceming

how NCD originated, operated, and was maintained.

(U) Mr. Alex Withers, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY, 11973, --
F. He is a chain of custody witness.

(U) RDML David Woods, Commander, JTF-GTMO, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, POC:
CDR T. Welsh, ns_. He will testify as an OCA that JTF-GTMO
information was properly classi?ed, including classified information.

(U) AMB Don Yarnamoto, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African
Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC, 205 20, POC: Mr. Jonathan Davis,

Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor, . He will testify about the
content of cables originating from Africa on the merits (specifically, 07 Addis Ababa
2197; 07 Lagos 719; 08 Dar Es Salaam 206; O8 Khartoum 246; 08 Khartoum 428; 09
Addis Ababa 1063; 09 Bamako 85; 10 Pretoria 636), including classified information.

(U) Mr. Garon Young, Headquarters, Computer Crime Investigative Unit, Quantico,
VA, 22134, He is a chain of custody witness.

. (U) AMB Marie Yovanovitch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of

European Affairs, Department of State, Washington, DC, 20520, POC: Mr. Jonathan
Davis, /Ms. Elizabeth O'Connor, -. She will testify
about the content of cables originating from or sent to Europe or Eurasia on the merits
(speci?cally, l0 Reykjavik 06 Belgrade 1681; 06 Madrid 2955; 06 Madrid 2956; 06
Pristina 947; 06 Pristina 948; O7 Ankara 23; 07 Ankara 2468; 07 Bratislava 665; 07

"Minsk 07 Moscow 5824; 07 Moscow 5825; 07 Paris 4722; 07 Paris 4723; 07

Reykjavik 203; 07 Vilnius 09 Paris 217; 09 Prague 88; 09 Pristina 58; 09 State
92632; 09 State 92657; 09 Brussels 382; 09 Geneva 347, including classified
information.

(U) Mr. Joseph Yun, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian
Affairs, De artment of State, Washington, DC, 20520, POC: Mr. Jonathan Davis,
i Ms. Elizabeth O'ConnoI!i . He will testify about the
content of cables originating from East A a and the Paci?c on the merits (speci?cally,
06 Seoul 3882; 06 Seoul 3885; 06 Suva 489; 06 Taipei 3830; 07 Bangkok 1 ll; 07
Beijing 07 Kuala Lumpur 40; 07 Rangoon 22; O7 Suva 07 Vientiane l2; 10
Tokyo 627), including classified information.

15




33360

I39
M0.
ML
(U) Several of these witnesses may become unnecessary depending on the outcome of
subsequent Court rulings. The prosecution may add witnesses to this list, depending on the
outcome of subsequent Court rulings, to include those relating to Military Rule of Evidence
(MRE) 505 and any witnesses relating thereto. The prosecution may replace witnesses on this

list. should it become necessary due to a Permanent Change of Station. job relocation. change in
job position, or change in level of security clearance of a listed witness.

(U) The prosecution acknowledges an ongoing obligation to provide the defense prompt
notice of any other potential witnesses that come to its attention and will adhere to the local
rules. The prosecution will communicate its final witness list according to Rule 2.1.8 of the
Rules of Practice before Army Courts-Martial (2012) and the Court's order.

(U) If the defense intends to produce a witness who is listed above, the defense must
provide a separate, appropriate request for that witness in accordance with Rule for Couns-
Martial (RCM) 703 and the standard articulated in S2 98, I05
(1999) that a witness request include a ?synopsis of expected testimony,? not merely a list of



&s1pra note 3.

5 2; supra note 3.

?ll



topics to be covered. If necessary for a particular witness employed by the United States
Government, the defense shall also comply with 5 U.S.C. 301 and Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S.
462 (1951).



ASHDEN FEIN
MAJ, JA
Trial Counsel

(U) I certify that I served or caused to be served a true copy of the above, in person, on
Mr. David Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel, on 2 December 2012.


ASHDEN FEIN

MAJ A
Trial Counsel



33362

Appellate Exhibit 437
17 pages
classified
"SECRET"
ordered sealed for Reason 2
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated 20 August 2013
Stored in the classified
supplement to the original
Record of Trial

33363

From: Papakie Brian

Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 4:47 PM

To: Averhart CWO4 James

subject: RE: AP quety re: PFC Manning (UNCLASSIFIED)
Signed By:

1. How large is the cell in which Pfc. Manning is being held?
Answer: All prisoners/detainees are housed in single occupancy cells of the dimensions 6 foot
wide, 8 foot high and 8 foot deep.

2. How much time does Pfc. Manning spend confined to the cell?
Answer: Det Manning spends approx 23 hours of a 24 hour day in his cell.

6. what exercise opportunities is Pfc. Manning afforded?
Answer: He has the opportunity once a day for 20 minutes to walk, play basketball, or use
indoor stationary exercise equipment.

Respectfully Submitted,

Master Sergeant Papakie, B. R.

Quantico Brig, Security BN

Brig Supervisor

Building 3247

Quantico, VA 22134
I





From: Averhart cwo4 James

Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2016 16:38

To: Papakie Brian

Subject: Fw: AP query re: PFC Manning (UNCLASSIFIED)

CN04 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5035





From: Johnson Col Thomas

Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2016 4:31 PM

To: Averhart CWO4 James

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj Amy Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: Fw: AP query re: PFC Manning (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gunner Averhart,
'[lHg.a

ManningB_004-19803

33364

Need your help with questions 1, 2 and 6 in the original e-mail. Would like to get
back to the reporter in the next hour at the latest. Thanks!



Col T.V. Johnson
Quantico PAO



From: Langston Leonard

Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2610 16:07

To: Johnson Col Thomas

Subject: FW: AP query re: PFC Manning (UNCLASSIFIED)



From: Combs, Adrienne M. CIV PAO
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2610 16:64

To:

Cc: Langston Leonard Manning, Robert LTC USA Kelly, Shaunteh CIV
PAO

Subject: AP query re: PFC Manning (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Dave -

Your questions regarding conditions surrounding PFC Manning's confinement
should be addressed with Marine Corps Base Quantico Public Affairs.

Your request for information has been forwarded to them to assist you.

VR
Adrienne

Adrienne M. Combs

Deputy Director of Public Affairs

Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region
U.S. Army Military District of Washington

103 Third Avenue Building 32 - 2nd Floor

Fort McNair

Washington, DC 20319


Original Message

From: Dishneau, Dave
To: Manning, Robert LTC USA PAO



ManningB_00449804

33365

Sent: wed Dec 08 15:26:58 2916
Subject: AP query re PFC Manning

Hi, Rob,

Pfc. Manning's supporters are expressing dismay over the conditions of his
confinement. Can you please provide answers to these questions:

1. How large is the cell in which Pfc. Manning is being held?
2. How much time does Pfc. Manning spend confined to the cell?
3. Is Pfc. Manning still single-celled?

4. Is Pfc. Manning still on suicide watch?

5. To what extent does his suicide-watch status relate to his confinement
conditions such being single-celled and hours of confinement?

6. what exercise opportunities is Pfc. Manning afforded?

7. To what extent do his confinement conditions differ from those if
detainees in the general population?

Please respond ASAP and thanks,

Dave

David Dishneau
Correspondent

The Associated Press
P.0. Box 648
Hagerstown, MD 21746



The information contained in this communication is intended for the use of
the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this communication is
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received
this communication in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution
or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify The Associated Press immediately
by telephone at +1-212-621-1898 and delete this e-mail. Thank you.




Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

ManningB_0O449805

33366

From: Papakie Brian

Sent: Tuesday, November 30. 2010 5:23 PM

To: Alldredge Joseph Gamett Steven Hanks Richard Webb.Terrance
(NM2

Cc: Blenis Craig Boafo Michael Buck Jason; Ellis Charles Fuller
William Jondan SSG Ryan Lee Curtis Teny Matthew

Subject: INFORMATION

Signed By:

Leaders,

Due to the seasonal change and drastic changes forth coming in the weather, Maximum custody
prisoners will be authorized an INDOOR ?sunshine call/recreation call? on inclement weather
days e.g. constant rain, 32 degrees or below, show or ice on the deck. The indoor event for
maximum custody will be conducted in handcuffs only. The individual (MAX) will be escorted
to the dorm in full restraints and will have the belt and legs irons removed once in the
dorm. Handcuffs reapplied after the belt is removed. At no time should the individuals
hands be free while in the dorm. The two escorts and the DBS will be present for the INDOOR
activity. Dorm hatch will remain closed at all times. Master Control Camera will be on in
that dorm during the activity. Bike is acceptable with handcuffs treadmill is not. If you
have a question about other equipment, SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT, ASK.

First let me define the difference between REC CALL vs. SUNSHINE CALL - Rec Call is conducted
for ALL individuals that are not on Suicide Risk and/or Prevention Of Injury. Sunshine call
for SR and POI will be determined according to their handling letter.

Second - Let me clear up several confusions between CUSTODY vs. STATUS - Custody will dictate
the proper use of restraints according to SECNAV 1640.9C (READ IT) and will be noted on their
handling letter. Ensure special quarters supervisors are READING THE HANDLING LETTERS.

Example Detainee Manning is a 26 min sunshine call because he is on POI.

Example - is an hour of recreation call because he is a normal MAX on ER.
Example - is an MOI on LOP and should be escorted according to custody. This means no
restraints - LOP and DS do not require restraints unless programs has determined that the
individual will be noted on the HANDLING LETTER.



DUTY BRIG SUPERVISORS - You hold a position that is normally held by SNCO's - who have an
excellent working knowledge of the Correction Manual - when was the last time you looked
something up in one or even picked one up?

The subject of Detainee Manning comes up more often than you think. It's on the internet,
it's on the news and it's in our hands so long as he is confined in this brig. You must
ensure that you are following procedures correctly.

Respectfully Submitted,

Master Sergeant Papakie, B. R.
Quantico Brig, Security BN
Brig Supervisor

Building 3247

Quantico, VA 22134

Manning 0



1 . EX -3311? 3

r? . -


PAGE OF PAGES





33367

From: Barnes cwoz Denise

Sent: Friday, March 4, 2011 5:04 PM

Tm

Subject: Re: review

Awesome thanks!

Sent using BlackBerry

Original Message
From: Papakie Brian
To: Barnes CWO2 Denise
Sem: Fri Mar 04 l7:00:36 201 I
Subject: review

CWO2 Bames,

?The Board conducted their review and the recommendations are as follows: (although the results of Det Kreider are listed below
Troophandlers from HQ Support BN contacted the brig (SSG Jordan) at 1650 that Det Kreider will be released as "pre-trial
confinement is no longer deemed necessary,? and his ADSEP paperwork is ready.

Det Isenberg recommended to come off to and employed in the laundry room. Unanimous vote from the
board.

The medical review by Capt Moore and LTC I-Iemphill regarding Det Isenberg's SR and P01 status are not necessary from a
standpoint. The risk for self hann was low due to strong family ties and having no previous diagnosis of depression All
categories circled were of the lowest factor.

Det Kreider recommended to come off to and employed as the Interior Work detail. 2-1 vote in favor.

The medical review by Capt Moore and LTC Hemphill regarding Det Kreider's POI status is not necessary from a
standpoint. The risk for self hann was low due to previous stressors being resolved. SND cited strong reasons to not
harm himselfand also reported good social supports. All categories circled were of the lowest factor.

Det Manning recommended to remain Unanimous vote from the board.

The medical review by Col Malone regarding Det Mannirgs POI status was that SND was completely removed from his
medications. His anxiety disorder remains in remission. Risk assessment is stable and low. All categories circled were of the lowest
factor.

Respectfully Submitted,

Master Sergeant Papakie, B. R.
Quantioo Brig, Security BN
Brig Supervisor

Building 3247

Quantico, VA 22134

-



. I . Q3

ManningB_00511980

33368

o

u
DEPARTME

^ , - T H E NA VY

ML CDC QU ANTI CO BASE BRIG
2. DATE

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT
1

MSLM

20110118
make the following

Brian R. Piipakic

Tree ana voiuntarv statemeni to L"\\'Whom I know to be B r i " ()rilcor
1 make this statement of my own free will and without any th resits a promises extended to me. 1 fully understand that this
statement is given concerning my knowledge of

Detainee Manning having some anxiety from being correcicd by ihc guards. I approached Dei Manning LU
approx. 1545 on 110118, I asked SND what had taken place and he immediately displayed confusion and was
unable to complete a sentence. He began lo stutter and his breathing became heavy and liLSt. I asked him to calm
down and. made him awire. ofmy calm demeanor. I explained thai I vvas only there to find out what had taken
place on him way to recreation call. I reminded him that he fell backwards on his bullocks and asRed him to
explain what had taken place. He again became anxious and stuttering his word. He was able lo say ihai he did
not understand why he is always being analyzed by ihe guards. I proceeded Lo ask bim for example of how hc tell
he vvas being analyzed. He looked and starred at me for a while without saying anything and became frustrated
•incl quickly moved toward the bulkhead. He acted as though he vvas going lo punch the bulkhead, bui slopped
I himself. I mstrucied him lo sit on hi.s rack and he did so. SMD looked back al me and clearly ?iaied that he docs
not really understand why he is on POJ. He stated thai he does noi understand the rules or the guards. He pointed
at the guard olllce s mirrored porihole and stated i donH under.stand that." A.s I began to explain what POJ vva.s
and his status the Brig 0Ulcer. CW04 Averhan arrived aboard Special Quarters.
The C\\'04 Averhart asked what happened today and again SND became worked ttp and vvas not able to
complete a sentence. I told SND to calm down and j iist speak to the Brig Officer like lie was speaking to me. I
stepped oui ofSQ for approx 5 ininuies.and returned. SND vvas still not able to complete a sentence and continued
10 :5iutlcr. SMD then stales 'Jiat he does not tmdcrsiand why he is being looked at al I of ihe lime and doesn't
understand his POI status. As the CW04 Averhart begins to explain. SND interrupts and says that it sounds like
the CW04 .Averhart is yelling at him. CW04 Averhart explains lhat he has a deep voice and says that he is not
yelling. Hc explains to SND that he is jusl there lo talk with him and lind out what is going on vvith him. SND
quickly became extremely Irustrated and started lldgeling in his rack and covered h is ears. SND pulled his hands
back and quickly siappcJ both paims ofhis hands against the side ofhis head. Veiling, S?N'D stated 'that is what I
am talking about!" C'VV04 .Averhart stood up and directed mc to have SND placed on Suicide Walcli.
1 explained what SND's status vvas being changed to and told him I needed his clothing articles. He did nol
undcrsiand and I explained how his actions and demeanor were a cause for concern. I explained lhal he would be
e\ aiuatcd and liiai possibly alter a ic^v tiays his status vviil nc re\ ievvcd. Hc stan ed wiihoul coniineni and handed
i;\ or hi f :!ot!iing, I lunied ihe cnn\ crsiuion cniinselMi-'. i} Sgt BIcni-' ;ind deparlod SC.).

MSGT

ManningB_00043475

I . SMC

APPELLATE EXHIBIT 4 3
PAGE REFERENCED:
^
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33369

MSGT Papak:ie:1k^ow what you^rc getting at, ok7 Fmtellingyouthatweare
not outside the rules and regulations o^anything that we^re doing. Period, ^e^re
not. Solneed your clothes.
PFC Martning:That^sfine, sir, Master Sergeant. ^Manning strips to his
underwear.The rest of the conversation takes place with PFC Manning in his
underwear].
MSGT Papak:ie:SkiYYies say on7
GySGT Blenis: yes....that^s,that^syour boxers, rights ^oudon^t have anything
under that7
PFCManning: lhave nothing underneath it.
GySGT Blenis: Okay,IeaYe those.
MSGT Papakie:^e^re going to get someone over here to talk^ to you.
GySgt Blenis: ^Inaudible exchange between GM2^ebb and GySGT Blenis]
They will be fine. They will be fine. ^Inaudible]
PFCMattning: ^es,sir.
MSGT Papakie: youhave one mattress, rights youhave the one, the one, tih
suicide blank:et, rights
PFC Manning:^es.^es, Master Sergeant.
MSGT Papakie: Lim, shower shoes are fine. Let^sget the doc OYcr here. Doc
Hocter ^inaudiblejSitdow^ and see what^sgoing on. AIright7 Ineed you calm
right now,alright7 The, the escalation in your, your demeanor, alright, weighs tts
on the side of caution. Do you understand that7
PFC Manning: No, Master Sergeant.
MSGT Papakie: Okay,the best way to explain that to you is you had an outbtirst.
youwere moving around, ^ou almost punchedawall. AIright7^ou^rekindof
throwing yourself about yourself. Idon^tlikeit. The Brig Officer doesnot like it.
Tomake sure you don^tht^,ht^ yourself we^re putting you onasuiciderisk^
status, ^e^re upgrading your status.
PFCManning: ButFmnotasuicide risk Master Sergeant.
MSGT Papakie: That^snot for me to decide. lhave to mak^e sure, the brig officer
has to mak^e sure, that youare taken care of
APPELLATEEXHIBIT^I^
PAGEREFERENCED:
RAGE
^OF
PAGES

33370

PFCManning: lunderstand that Master Sergeant.
MSGTPapak:ie: In the matmer that youare not going to hurt yourself Right now,
Idon^tknowthat. ^ i t h the displaylsaw right now,Fmnot comfortable with.
He^snotcomfi:^rtabIewith. Ontil we get something otherwise, this is how it^s
going to be.
PFC Mantling: ^hywas1on,whywasIon prevention of status fi:^r,fi:^r almost^
months Master Sergeant7
MSGT Papakie: ^chuckles to himselfjlk^ow this is no secret to you. Okay7 I
know that Gunny Sergeant Blenis has talked to you. Idon^t have those one on
one conversations becauselam not your counselor. Okay7 lhave plenty of
doctm^entation. Plenty ofdocumentation based on things that you^ve said, things
that you^ve done. Actions thatlhave to, I,1haYe to make sure,we have to make
sure, that youare taken care of
PFCManning: ^es. Master Sergeant.
MSGTPapak:ie: Things that you^ve said and things that you^ve done don^t steer
t^s on the side of^^ok,weIl, he can just beanormal detainee.They make, they
make us stay on the side of caution.
PFCManning: But what about recommendations by the psychiatrist to remove
me offthe status7
MSGTPapak^ie: ^ho^shereeveryday7 ^ho^shereeveryday7 ^eare. ^Vho
sees you every day7 That^saIIheis,isarecommendation. behave, by law,
rules and regulations set fi::^rth to mak^e sure fromajail standpoint that Bradley
Manning does not hurt himself Maybe fromapsychiatric standpoint, the
reconm^endationhe^sgiven,Igetit,Igot it, understand, Okay7 Buthe^snotthe
only decision maker.
PFC Manning:^es, Master Sergeant.
MSGT Papakie: Ah,AmentaI health specialist is not the only decision that gets
made.
PFCManning: lunderstand that Master Sergeant.
MSGTPapaI^ie:0kay7
PFCManning: However, um.

33371

MSGT Papakie: ^e^ve got it^said to someone off screen]. Hold on. ^MSGT
Papakie walks away from the cell.]

33372
1. PLACE

D E P A R T M E N T OF THE N A V Y

Quantico Base Brig
2. DATE

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT
I,

2011 03 02

MSgt Brian R. Papakie 4511/5831

, make the following

free and voluntary statement to C W 0 2 Bames, D. V.

whom I know to be Quantico PCF Officer In Charge
1 make this statement of my own free will and without any threats or promises extended to me. 1 fully understand that this
statement is given conceming my knowledge of

A conversation between detainee Manning, B. E. and myself with reference to the relinquishing ofhis personal
items and clothing prior to TAPS.
Previously Cpl Sanders, T. R. had explained to me that on 110228, approx 10 min before TAPS, SND did not
understand why he had to relinquish his personal item and clothing. Cpl Sanders reiterated the procedures in
regard to his status of POI and then explained that SND complied.
I asked SND ifhe understood and he stated "no, I do not understand." When asked what he did not understand, he
referred to giving up his personal items and clothing. I briefly explained, due to his status he was not authorized
those items after TAPS. Tfurther explained that his status has not changed and that he is to comply with the
Marines and staff on security when given instructions. When asked again ifhe understood, he again said no and
that he does not understand why all ofhis items are taken with the exception ofhis underwear. He stated, "With
the elastic band, which is probably the most dangerous piece." At that time he chuckled briefly as if the
conversation we were having was absurd. I referred back to the begmning ofthe conversation and asked again if
he understood everything I had explained. He looked at me for approx 10 sec and then said, "No." I asked what
part did he not understand. He looked again for approx the same amount of time and asked i f l could explain
again. At that time I said, "Detainee Manning, do you imderstand that you will not question the guard staff and
that you will comply when told to do so and that if you have any questions about the orders or instructions given,
you are to bring it to the attention of the appropriate staff the next working day?" He waited a moment and stated,
"I understand Master Sergeant."
I told him carry on, I immediately approached the Brig OIC with regards to concems that SND may have had
recent thoughts or ideas as to the uses of the elastic band from his underwear. As a result this statement was
written. -EOS-

B. R. Papakie
MSgt USMC

OPNAV 5527/2 (12-82)

ManningB_00511982

S/N 0107-LF-055-2710

Designed Using FomiFlow 2.15, HQMC/ARAE, May 98

APPELLATE E X H l B I T J O l ^
PAGE REFERENCED:
_
PAGE
OF
PAGES.

33373

From: Papakie Brian

sent: Friday. March 04. 2011 8:45 AM

To: Boafo Michael Buck Jason; Terry Matthew

Cc: Fuller William Bienis Craig

subject: FW: Manning's underwear (UNCLASSIFIED)

Attachments: Pa kie Volunta MANNING NEW HANDLING LETTER 110302.pdf
sis-?way:

Gents,

Make sure he is not standing at attention naked for evening count right before taps. You
should be taking his panties right before he lays down.

Respectfully Submitted,

Master Sergeant Papakie, B. R.
Quantico Brig, Security BN
Brig Supervisor
Building 3247
Quantico, VA 22134





From: Barnes CHO2 Denise

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 8:36

To: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA

Cc: Greer Ltcol Christopher Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj Amy Papakie Brian
Subject: RE: Manning's underwear (UNCLASSIFIED)



Good Morning Sir, I attached the voluntary statement that Papakie wrote and the new
handling letter that was signed. Here are some key points:

1. Given the circumstances of that day, the receipt of new charges and the receipt of the
Base Commander's response to his article 138 complaint which did not support his allegations
on CWO Averhart, I felt it necessary to take precaution once Papakie briefed me on what
detainee Manning said.

2. The underwear is only removed after TAPS which is at 2260 and returned at reveille along
with his other gear. He was never told to stand naked at any time by any staff member. As a
matter of fact, he is supposed to cover himself with one of the blankets when he stands up.
Detainee Manning has always done that without being told to in the past.

If you need anything else Sir, please let me know.

CHOZ Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134

.
PAGE In?.
ManningB_00-149794

3

33374



From: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA
Sent: Friday, March 94, 2011 7:49

To: Barnes cwoz Denise

Cc: Greer LtCol Christopher

Subject: Manning's underwear (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Sir and (N02 Barnes,

Due to Mr. Coombs most recent statements on his blog, we would like to send notice to the
defense of exactly the reasons that PFC Manning's underwear was taken and that it was his
statements rather than brig personnel action that caused this to happen. In order to make
sure that we are on the same page and that the information that we send to the defense
identical to that which is in the brig reports. In order to write our memo, I would like

copies of the reports, notes and documents that were generated in response to PFC Manning's
statement about his underwear.

I will not forward the documents to Mr. Coombs but I will use them to write an email giving
him the facts and explaining that statements by his client will be taken seriously and he
should advise his client appropriately.

Please let me know if you have any questions. If possible I would like to get this memo out
this morning.

Very Respectfully,
CPT John B. Haberland

Regimental Judge Advocate

3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)

ManningB_00449795

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Manning

33375

33376

ManningB_D0449806

From: Papakie Brian

sent: Wednesday. December 01. 2010 10:09 AM

To: Averhart CWO4 James

Subject: RE: POI status (UNCLASSIFIED)

Attachments: MCO 1640.5B.?f; SECNAVINST 1640.9C - DON Corrections ManuaI.pdf
S?gnedlayz

CWO4 Averhart,

Here are the answers to questions from the prosecutor. Specifically on question 3; I believe
we should support someone from their office coming down and obtaining the proper information
(copies), but not a task for our Marines in Admin To include 5 logs will require
substantial paper thus the need for administrative supplies from their office.

1. MAX Custody procedures. I have been looking at the regulation regarding MAX custody
detainees and their movement and I have a few questions. The uniform section talks about
detainees being moved in the uniform of their service. Does this mean that PFC Manning
should be moved in ACU's rather than in the prison uniform? If the detainees should remain
in their detainee uniform then do we have another Army detainee where we adhered to these
standards. I would like to have some examples to cite to Defense for the reasons that we
have to move PFC Manning in his detainee uniform and why his restraints have to remain on.

(1a) No; both pre and post trial inmates will be housed and transported according to that
confinement facility under:

Orders and Directives: SECNAVINST 1640.9C and MCO 1640.50

SECNAV 4201. pg 4-9 (5) Person's uniform outside a Navy confinement facility shall not
identify the individual as a prisoner. Prisoners confined in Marine Corps confinement
facilities shall wear the standardized prisoner uniform per MCO 1640.58.

MCO 1640.58 1. Purpose. To establish procedures for wearing the standardized prisoner uniform
by pretrial and post-trial prisoners confined in Marine Corps brigs.

5. Policy - under sections and

a. All pretrial and post-trial prisoners in all custody grades, to include installation
custody, shall wear the standardized prisoner uniform.

f. The prisoner uniforms will be worn to all activities with the exception of courts-martial,
civil hearings, and when being transferred to other confinement facilities, at which time the
appropriate seasonal uniform or civilian attire, dependent on discharge status, shall be
worn.

Restraints:

SECNAV 1648.9C

4201. (5) MAX prisoners shall wear restraints at all times when outside the maximum-security
area and be escorted by at least two escorts (confinement facility staff or certified
escorts, per article 7406).

1131


01- '2

33377

(6) On a case?by-case basis, the may authorize additional restraint for movement
of specific MAX prisoners. A military judge may direct that restraints be removed from a
person in the courtroom if, in this judge's opinion, such restraint is not necessary. In all
cases, the limitations of article 1162 of reference shall be observed.

2. Determination of POI status. Defense has made a request that PFC Manning 's status
be reduced from POI to some other status where he is able to have more time outside or
workout in his cell. My understanding is that his status determination is made based on a
list of factors including his charges, mental health and behavior. Since the Defense has
made the request to lower his status it is something that we have to at least address. Is
there a lesser level of POI that PFC Manning could be moved to. If the recommendation of the
Brig personnel is to have him remain on POI status that is fine, we just need to have it
addressed to the Defense counsel.

(2a) There is no subsequent level to Prevention of Injury under the conditions of
Detainee Manning's previous suicidal gesture and the most recent note of behavior
abnormalities he will remain POI. The status of POI gives the facility commander the
flexibility of taking the necessary precautions for an inmate with the potential to harm
themselves, but reduce the number of restrictions placed on an individual. POI Status is not
a form of punishment but rather precautionary measure.

SECNAV 1646.9C - pg 4-14

a. Some prisoners require additional supervision and attention due to personality disorders,
behavior abnormalities, risk of suicide or violence, or other character traits. If required
to preserve order, the BRIG Os or, in their absence, the brig duty officers/duty brig
supervisors may authorize special quarters for such prisoners for purposes of control,
prevention of injury to themselves or others, and the orderly and safe administration of the
confinement facility. A hearing to determine the need for continued administrative
segregation of the prisoner shall be conducted. This hearing may be by board action or by a
member of the confinement facility

appointed in writing by the BRIG 0, and a written recommendation to the BRIG 0 will be
provided within 72 hours of the prisoner's entry into segregation.

d. Prisoners who have threatened suicide or have made a suicide gesture but are found fit for
confinement may be placed within special quarters under continuous observation while in the
category of suicide risk. may direct removal of prisoner's clothing when deemed
necessary. Prisoner must be under observation of a supervisor of the same sex. Closed circuit
television may be installed at a limited number of cells for observation, although cross
gender monitoring is not authorized.

SOP section 6604. CLASSIFICATION AND ASSIGNMENT

Prevention of Injury (POI). Those prisoners who have given an indication that they intend
or are contemplating harming themselves or others will be assigned Maximum Custody.

3. Sunshine Call Logs. The defense counsel is concerned about PFC Manning's mental and
physical health in relation to his small amount of time outside. In order to combat any
potential Article 13 issues I would like to get a copy of the logs that show when PFC Manning
went outside and how long he stayed there. I know that he usually gets 20 minutes daily but
I need to have the logs that show that.

(3a) we will provide copies of the logs, please provide a paralegal to schedule a visit to
the facility with administrative supplies and make the appropriate copies. Each log covers a
period of approx one month; due to his confinement length, the period covered would be approx
five (5) log books.

ManningB_00449807

33378

?--?-Original Message--?--

From: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA [mailto:

Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2910 2:54 PM

To: Averhart CNO4 James

Cc: Greer LtCol Christopher Broadston Major Christian Ebitz Maj Amy
Subject: POI status (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

Chief Averhart,

I wanted to touch base with you about a few questions that we have on policies, procedures
and status.

1. MAX Custody procedures. I have been looking at the regulation regarding MAX custody
detainees and their movement and I have a few questions. The uniform section talks about
detainees being moved in the uniform of their service. Does this mean that PFC Manning
should be moved in ACU's rather than in the prison uniform? If the detainees should remain
in their detainee uniform then do we have another Army detainee where we adhered to these
standards. I would like to have some examples to cite to Defense for the reasons that we
have to move PFC Manning in his detainee uniform and why his restraints have to remain on.

2. Determination of POI status. Defense has made a request that PFC Manning ?s status
be reduced from POI to some other status where he is able to have more time outside or
workout in his cell. My understanding is that his status determination is made based on a
list of factors including his charges, mental health and behavior. Since the Defense has
made the request to lower his status it is something that we have to at least address. Is
there a lesser level of POI that PFC Manning could be moved to. If the recommendation of the
Brig personnel is to have him remain on POI status that is fine, we just need to have it
addressed to the Defense counsel.

3. Sunshine Call Logs. The defense counsel is concerned about PFC Manning's mental and
physical health in relation to his small amount of time outside. In order to combat any
potential Article 13 issues I would like to get a copy of the logs that show when PFC
Manning went outside and how long he stayed there. I know that he usually gets 20 minutes
daily but I need to have the logs that show that.

Please let me know if any of these things need clarification. Thank you for your help.

Manning

33379

Very Respectfully,

CPT John B. Haberland
Regimental Judge Advocate

3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

ManningB_004-19809

1
33380

From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Thursday, December 30. 2010 11:55 AM

To: ?Shumake, Shawn COL OSD

Cc: Morlenson Col Royal; Kauzlanch Col Mark

subject: RE: PFC Mann! and the Quantico Brig
sis-e?wv=

Thanks Shawn, look Forward to the visitl

SF, Dan

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3259 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5091





From: Shumake, Shawn COL OSD PR
Sent: Thursday, December 38, 2016 11:52

To: Choike C01 Daniel 3

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig
Thanks Dan

I know you have this well in hand, but just want to be able to give my bosses a First?hand
look to be sure we can manage this up From my level than have it all tumble down hill when
they finally read an article or start asking questions.

I know it's all being handled by the book -- just want to say I have confirmed it.
Talk to you guys next week.
v/r

Shawn

Shawn Shumake

Colonel, US Army

Director, Of?ice o? Legal Policy

Pentagon 5A668


From: Choike Col Daniel
Sent: Thursday, December 36, 2010 11:18 AM
To: wright LtCo1 Troy
Cc: Oltman Col Robert Galaviz cues Abel; Averhart CWO4 James Shumake, Shawn COL OSD
Durham CIV Jan Geoffrey SE5 Raymond Mortenson Col Royal; Kauzlarich Col Mark
1
1 FXHIRIT 5 33 5

C.m .5

ManningB_00514280 I -3. i

33381

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

LtCol wright,

Appreciate the update and additional set of eyes/interest. On Monday, I had my own IG make
an unannounced visit to the brig and once I send that info report to the OCG I'll
provide a copy as a read ahead for the OSD/Chair, DOD Corrections Council visit next week.
Additionally, we are working on an info paper that outlines all the stated concerns from
discussion, visits and inspections over the past couple weeks and have prepared a brief for
MGen Hummer on 4 Jan. He is the new DCG, and was scheduled for an org brief and we are
adding this case as a discussion topic.

Standing by to coordinate the scheduled visit.

ss, oac

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134- 5001





From: wright Ltcol Troy

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2616 8:18

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Galaviz cwes Abel; Averhart cwo4 James COL Shumake (USA)

Durham CIV Jan Geoffroy SES Raymond
Subject: Fw: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Col Choike,

Sir, per our (PSL) request, COL Shumake (Chair, Corrections Council) has agreed to
conduct a courtesy visit at the Quantico Brig. This is not an official inspection. It is
primarily an opportunity for him to see the confinement conditions/facilities at Quantico.
Since the PFC Manning case continues to draw international attention I believe it wise to
have as many people possible, in their official capacity, be witness to the conditions PFC
Manning is subject to so they can personally attest that he is being treated in accordance
with regulations.

COL Shumake said his schedule is fairly flexible next week. If you are available I'm sure
he'd like to conduct the tour with you.



LtCol Troy V. wright

Head, Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch

Security Division Plans, Policies Operations
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (HQMC)



ManningB_00514281



33382



From: LtGen George [mailto

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:62

To: Geoffroy SES Raymond Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SES Robert Dunford Gen Joseph Tryon LtGen Richard
Costantini Col William Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham CIV Jan Salas
Col Bryan Wright LtCo1 Troy Choike Col Daniel Hummer MajGen Steven Dunford Gen
Joseph Oltman Col Robert

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

All,
Just what I was looking for. Thanks. GJF

LtGen. George J. USMC
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration



?-?--Original

From: Geoffroy SES Raymond

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 7:57 AM

To: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SES Robert Dunford Gen Joseph LtGen George Tryon
LtGen Richard Costantini Col William Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham
CIV Jan Salas Col Bryan Wright LtCol Troy Choike Col Daniel

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Vaughn -- Concur that we should be ahead of the disinformation campaign. The treatment that
PFC Manning is receiving as a maximum confinement detainee is in accordance with the American
Correctional Association (ACA) standards and is no different than what a maximum confinement
prisoner in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would receive.

We are coordinating with PA and developing a FACT SHEET that will do a side-by-side
comparison of the standards we are following with the protocols. We have been
coordinating with OUSD (who has Corrections policy) and recommended that they conduct
a visit to Quantico next week and endorse the care/treatment that PFC Manning is receiving.
They concur and we will be coordinating this with MCB Quantico. We have also discussed this
with the Army and have asked them to come along and verify the treatment/care as well.

I would recommend that Bryan coordinate with OSD PA for any formal publication/announcement
of the above.

Regards,

Jeff

ManningB_0051-1282

33383

Raymond Geoffroy

Assistant Deputy Commandant

Plans, Policies and Operations (Security)
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps

3000 Marine Corps Pentagon (4A324)
Washington, DC 20350-3000



From: Ary MajGen Vaughn A [mailto?]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 2:59 PM

To: Geoffroy SES Raymond

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SES Robert 0

Subject: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Jeff,

LtGen called today asking about PFC Manning and the recent press articles speculating
about PFC Manning's treatment at the Quantico Brig. Although LtGen has the utmost
trust and confidence in the way the brig is being run and that PFC Manning's treatment meets
standards, he would like to be proactive and see if there are a few steps we can take to
ensure we hold the moral high ground if the issue starts to take hold in the press. If we do
nothing, we would probably be left with a statement that "we are following He is
looking for ideas to show we are aggressively working to ensure Manning is receiving the care
and treatment to which he is entitled so that we have a better response.

I believe he has a point and that the story may get additional press interest, especially
given the suicide of Capt Webb at Quantico and the other sailor in pretrial confinement at
Pendleton last year. MajGen Lehnert was also an advocate of the open kimono approach to our
treatment of detainees at GTMO -- an approach that was very successful in the early days of
that issue.

I was hoping to get your thoughts about bringing in an outside team from the Executive
Agent for the brigs (Army?) or someone to give us a clean bill of health or recommendations
on handling Manning while in pretrial confinement. Again, LtGen is confident we are
doing everything right he just wants to make sure everyone else agrees from a strategic
messaging standpoint. I'm available to discuss.

Happy holidays and talk soon,

Vaughn

Vaughn Ary
Major General USMC
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant

ManningB_00514283

33384

From: Wright Ltcol Troy

sent: Tuesday. January 04, 2011 11:26 AM

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Galaviz CWO5 Abel; Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarlch Col Mark
Subject: RE: PFC Manni and the Quantico Brig

sway:

Sir,

I just spoke with Mr. Shelton, from CMC's IG office. Quantico brig should expect a dual
visit from Marine Corps and Army IG offices sometime next week. Detailed coordination to
follow. CNOS

Galaviz and I will also be present for the visit. OSD visit will be tentative, pending
outcome from the visit.

Also just an FYI, Gen Casey and Gen Amos will probably have a conversation about Manning
soon, if they haven't already had it.

PSL is working the MC Public Affairs on a press release, method/venue is being worked right
now. Release will be coordinated with all interested parties before we pull the trigger.


Ltcol wright

Message?--?-

From: Choike Col Daniel [mailto

Sent: Tuesday, January 64, 2611 8:37

To: wright Ltcol Troy

Cc: Galaviz cwes Abel; Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Ltcol wright,

Here is the copy of the MCBQ Deputy IG report that was sent to CG last week. I still
believe that a visit is warranted as requested by Mr. Geoffroy and LtGen specifically,
as highlighted in a previous email attached above. Need your support in encouraging that
this visit takes place. If you see the possibility fading, I need to know so I can inform my
boss, LtGen Standing by to coordinate a date or discuss this further, if canceled.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3256 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5091




From: wright Ltcol Troy
Sent: Tuesday, January 94, 2611 6:39

ManningB_D0517988

33385

To: Choike Col Daniel
Cc: Galaviz cwes Abel; Oltman Col Robert Averhart Cw04 James
Subject: Re: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Sir,
I spoke with COL Shumake (OSD) yesterday. He thinks that reviewing the results of the
Quantico IG visit last week may preclude the need For an in person visit. Can I tell him

when to expect the info report?


LtCol wright

LtCol Troy wright



Original Message

From: Choike Col Daniel

To: wright LtCol Troy

Cc: Galaviz cwes Abel; Oltman Col Robert Averhart cwo4 James
Sent: Mon Jan 63 08:06:35 2011

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

LtCo1 wright,
Thursday after 1100 until COB. Or, Friday morning until 1200.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001





From: wright LtCol Troy

Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 8:00

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Galaviz cwes Abel; Oltman Col Robert Averhart CHO4 James
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Sir,
what day/time works best for you this week?


LtCo1 wright


C01 Daniel 3 ?1
Sent: Thursday, December 36, 2610 11:18

ManningB_00517989

33386

To: wright LtCo1 Troy
Cc: Oltman Col Robert Galaviz CNOS Abel; Averhart CNO4 James COL Shumake (USA)

Durham CIV Jan Geoffroy SES Raymond Mortenson Col Royal;
Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

LtCol wright,

Appreciate the update and additional set of eyes/interest. on Monday, I had my own IG make
an unannounced visit to the brig and once I send that info report to the BCG I'll
provide a copy as a read ahead for the OSD/Chair, DOD Corrections Council visit next week.
Additionally, we are working on an info paper that outlines all the stated concerns from
discussion, visits and inspections over the past couple weeks and have prepared a brief for
MGen Hummer on 4 Jan. He is the new DCG, and was scheduled for an org brief and we are
adding this case as a discussion topic.

Standing by to coordinate the scheduled visit.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3256 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001



-?-?-Original Message??--?

From: wright LtCol Troy

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:18

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Galaviz CWBS Abel; Averhart cwo4 James COL Shumake (USA)

Durham CIV Jan Geoffroy SES Raymond
Subject: Fw: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Col Choike,

Sir, per our (PSL) request, COL Shumake (Chair, Corrections Council) has agreed to
conduct a courtesy visit at the Quantico Brig. This is not an official inspection. It is
primarily an opportunity for him to see the confinement conditions/facilities at Quantico.
Since the PFC Manning case continues to draw international attention I believe it wise to
have as many people possible, in their official capacity, be witness to the conditions PFC
Manning is subject to so they can personally attest that he is being treated in accordance
with regulations.

COL Shumake said his schedule is fairly flexible next week. If you are available I'm sure
he'd like to conduct the tour with you.



LtCo1 Troy V. wright

Head, Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch

Security Division Plans, Policies Operations
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (HQMC)

ManningB_O0517990



33387



?--?-Original

From: LtGen George [mailto

Sent: Nednesday, December 29, 2010 8:02

To: Geoffroy SES Raymond Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SES Robert Dunford Gen Joseph Tryon LtGen Richard
Costantini Col William Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham CIV Jan Salas
Col Bryan wright LtCo1 Troy Choike Col Daniel Hummer MajGen Steven Dunford Gen
Joseph Oltman Col Robert

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

All,
Just what I was looking for. Thanks. GJF

LtGen. George J. USMC
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration
Commanding General,





From: Geoffroy SES Raymond

Sent: wednesday, December 29, 2019 7:57 AM

To: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SES Robert Dunford Gen Joseph LtGen George Tryon
LtGen Richard Costantini Col William Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham
CIV Jan Salas Col Bryan wright LtCol Troy Choike Col Daniel

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Vaughn -- concur that we should be ahead of the disinformation campaign. The treatment that
PFC Manning is receiving as a maximum confinement detainee is in accordance with the American
Correctional Association (ACA) standards and is no different than what a maximum confinement
prisoner in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would receive.

we are coordinating with PA and developing a FACT SHEET that will do a side-by-side
comparison of the standards we are following with the protocols. we have been
coordinating with OUSD (who has Corrections policy) and recommended that they conduct
a visit to Quantico next week and endorse the care/treatment that PFC Manning is receiving.
They concur and we will be coordinating this with MCB Quantico. we have also discussed this
with the Army and have asked them to come along and verify the treatment/care as well.

ManningB_00517991



33388

I would recommend that Bryan coordinate with OSD PA for any formal publication/announcement
of the above.

Regards,
Jeff

Raymond Geoffroy

Assistant Deputy Commandant

Plans, Policies and Operations (Security)
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps

3000 Marine Corps Pentagon (4A324)
Washington, DC 20350-3000

3? FT


From: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 2:59 PM
To: Geoffroy SES Raymond

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SE5 Robert 0
Subject: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Jeff,

LtGen called today asking about PFC Manning and the recent press articles speculating
about PFC Manning's treatment at the Quantico Brig. Although LtGen has the utmost
trust and confidence in the way the brig is being run and that PFC Manning's treatment meets
D00 standards, he would like to be proactive and see if there are a few steps we can take to
ensure we hold the moral high ground if the issue starts to take hold in the press. If we do
nothing, we would probably be left with a statement that "we are following He is
looking for ideas to show we are aggressively working to ensure Manning is receiving the care
and treatment to which he is entitled so that we have a better response.

I believe he has a point and that the story may get additional press interest, especially
given the suicide of Capt webb at Quantico and the other sailor in pretrial confinement at
Pendleton last year. MajGen Lehnert was also an advocate of the open kimono approach to our
treatment of detainees at GTMO -- an approach that was very successful in the early days of
that issue.

I was hoping to get your thoughts about bringing in an outside team from the Executive

Agent for the brigs (Army?) or someone to give us a clean bill of health or recommendations
on handling Manning while in pretrial confinement. Again, LtGen is confident we are

doing everything right -- he just wants to make sure everyone else agrees from a strategic

messaging standpoint. I'm available to discuss.

Happy holidays and talk soon,

Vaughn

Vaughn Ary
Major General USMC
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant



ManningB_00517992



#

^

33389

(' 1

r )

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS V,
MARINE CORPS BASE
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5001
IN REPLYREFERTO:

1000
B052

FEB 11 2011
From:
To:

Commander, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, V i r g i n i a
Chief Warrant O f f i c e r 5 Abel Galaviz 6571/5804 USMC

Subj : SPECIAL INQUIRY INTO THE ARTICLE 138 COMPLAINT SUBMITTED ON 19
JANUARY 2011 BY PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING, U.S. ARMY
Ref:

(a) JAGMAN

Encl:

(1) PFC Manning's A r t 138 complaint w/ response

1. This appoints you, per chapter 3 o f t h e reference, t o conduct a
review of the f a c t s and circumstances surrounding the decisions made
by the Command of the Quantico p r e t r i a l confinement f a c i l i t y as
o u t l i n e d i n t h e enclosure. I n h i s complaint, P r i v a t e F i r s t Class
Manning (PFC Manning) alleges t h a t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as a maximum
custody detainee by Chief Warrant O f f i c e r 4 Averhart was an abuse o f
d i s c r e t i o n . He f u r t h e r alleges t h a t h i s assignment as a s u i c i d e r i s k
i s based upon an i n a p p r o p r i a t e reason and i s also an abuse o f Chief
Warrant o f f i c e r Averhart's d i s c r e t i o n . He also t h a t p l a c i n g i n a
p r e v e n t i o n of i n j u r y status f o r over f i v e months was outside Chief
Warrant O f f i c e r Averhart's d i s c r e t i o n .
2. I request that you review t h i s matter and provide s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s
on t h e f o l l o w i n g issues:
a. Are the c o n d i t i o n s of PFC Manning's confinement a u t h o r i z e d by
a p p l i c a b l e Navy and Marine Corps regulations?
b. Did Chief Warrant O f f i c e r 4 Averhart abuse h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n
c l a s s i f y i n g PFC Manning as a maximum custody detainee?
.
.
.
c. Did Chief Warrant O f f i c e r 4 Averhart abuse h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n .
p l a c i n g PFC Manning i n a prevention o f i n j u r y status?
d. Did Chief Warrant O f f i c e r 4 Averhart abuse h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n
p l a c i n g PFC Manning i n a s u i c i d e r i s k status?
3. I n accordance w i t h chapter 3 o f the reference, I am r e q u i r e d t o
r e s o l v e t h i s issue w i t h i n 90 days o f r e c e i p t o f t h e i n i t i a l complaint.
Accordingly, you w i l l provide a w r i t t e n report t o me no l a t e r than 28
February 2011. Should you r e q u i r e more time t o complete t h i s inquiry,,
you must request a d d i t i o n a l time v i a e-mail t o my S t a f f Judge
Advocate, LtCol Christopher M. Greer. A request f o r delay longer than
14 days should be addressed t o me.
4. By copy of t h i s a p p o i n t i n g order, the Commanding o f f i c e r . S e c u r i t y
B a t t a l i o n , i s d i r e c t e d t o f u r n i s h necessary access t o personnel and

APPELLATE EXHIBIT H H «•
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE OF PAGES
ManningB_00011414

33390

( )• ( )
D. J. CHOIKE

Subj : SPECIAL INQUIklf INTO THE ARTICLE 138 COMPLAINT SUBMITTED ON 19
JANUARY 2011 BY PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING, U.S. ARMY
documentation. As PFC Manning i s represented by counsel, should i t
become necessary t o speak w i t h him i n the course o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,
you must coordinate any communication t o hj-m-vJ.a the S t a f f Judae
Advocate.


ManningB_00011415

33391

From: Oltman Col Rober1G

Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 201] 5:53 AM

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: Re: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody

classi?cations

Agree and VVILCO. V\nll keep you posted

Sent from my BIackBerry Handheld

Original Message

From: Choike Col Daniel

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Sent: Mon Jan 1017219217 2011

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Roger. As long HQMC is here during the visit, then lets proceed. CG has been pushing
through his channels that we get just need to coordinate the conduct of
the visit, have HQMC present and before anything is reported up the chain, we get a chance
to comment. Arm-chair quarterbacks not experts that understand our
service procedures and local SOP under the existing they are willing to look
long and hard, rather than drive by and should be good. Your involvement every
step of the way with HQMC engaged is critical to these visits.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike. USMC

Commander, Marine Corps Base

3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134-5001





From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 17:00

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Anny Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Greg Stoebel, He works in Army Corrections Command. I have no problem pushing him off
easily done with an email we can request he up Col Shumake of OSD. I have heard
nothing about the OSD visit.

Col R.G. Oltman

Commanding Officer

Securiti MCB iuantico
APPELL


or moL??

ManningB_00514093

33392


From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 16:56

To: Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Bob,

When you say "he" will be here at 1330, are your talking about Col Shumake? I know that
CWO5 is scheduled to visit on Weds, but wasn't aware that Col Shumake is coming. Am I
correct here, or off base?

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC

Commander, Marine Corps Base

3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico VA 22134?5001



From: Oltman Col Robert
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 16:42

To: Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Dan

Based off discussions with the Chief he is slated to be here wed at 1330. The Chief and I will
be with him. I share you concerns, and have discussed with Galaviz. I recommend we hit him
up with it again on Wed a.m. when he is here and request he be present at the 1330 meeting
as well.

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Securit BN MCB Quantico





From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 16:33

To: Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Bob,

Concur with you concerns and I think we would be better served with OSD evaluating and not
just Anny Corrections. This may be one in the same, seeing that Col Shumake is an US Army
of?cer, but operates in a different capacity.

If we think through this process of evaluation (I think we need to do it even with some

Manning8_0O514094

33393

concerns), then what about HQMC PSL evaluating us first and have them sponsor the Army
or OSD Corrections experts to follow suit to compare notes. We need to stress the
importance of concurrence in what we are doing, in light of all the attention received. CWO5
Galaviz is still coming by to visit this Weds, we might need to discuss this beforehand.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC

Commander, Marine Corps Base

3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001



-?--Original
From: Oltman Col Robert
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 13:15

To: Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: FW: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Gentlemen

FYSA. This is a result of the email exchanges of the past few weeks. I am open to showing
our facility to anyone who wants to see it but I do have some reservations about an
independent assessment of our detainees. We should expect that if their opinion is different
from ours, Manning's defense council will get that information and exploit it in the press.

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantico




Message?--
From: Galaviz CWO5 Abel

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:33

To: Averhart CWO4 James

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Burris Richard Pagan CIV Radomet Wright LtCol
Troy

Subject: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Col Oltman, CWO Averhart, as agreed previously we have asked the Army Corrections HQ's
if they would conduct a review of your custody classification process and decisions made irt
Manning as an outside USMC source. Greg Stroebel has agreed and suggested
Wednesday the 12th between 1330 and 1400 as the best opportunity for him to make it down
there. Please advise on the supportability of this suggested date and time.

Respectfully Submitted,

CWO-5 Abel Galaviz

Head, Corrections Section

PS Division PSL Branch



ManningB_00514095

33394



"Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the
resunsf

ManningB_00514096

33395

o
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
WASHINGTON, DC 2O380-J77S
MFEPLYRSFSTa

1000
PS/PSL

23 Feb 11
From: Head, Corrections Section, Security D i v i s i o n , HQMC
To:
Commander, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, V i r g i n i a
Subj : SPECIAL INQUIRY INTO THE ARTICLE 138 COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
ON 19 JANUARY 2011 BY PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEY MANNING,
U.S. ARMY
Ref:

(a) SECNAVINST 1540.9C, Department of the Navy Corrections
Manual

Encl: (1) Special I n q u i r y Appointment L e t t e r
(2) Prisoner H i s t o r i c a l Log ICO PFC Bradley Manning
1. Per enclosure ( 1 ) , I conducted a special i n q u i r y i n t o the
complaint by P r i v a t e F i r s t Class (PFC) Bradley Manning regarding
actions and decisions made by Chief Warrant O f f i c e r 4 James
Averhart, i n h i s r o l e as the Commanding O f f i c e r of Marine Corps
Base Quantico's p r e t r i a l confinement f a c i l i t y (PCF). I have'
provided s p e c i f i c findings to each of your concems. I was
aided i n my review by various documents contained i n PFC
Manning's detainee f i l e , " reference (a), Chief Warrant O f f i c e r 4
James Averhart's response to PFC Bradley Manning's request f o r
redress, and enclosure (2).'
2. FINDINGS. I n accordance w i t h paragraph 2 of enclosure (1),
the f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s are submitted.
a. Question 2.a.: Are the conditions of PFC Manning's
confinement authorized by applicable Navy and Marine Corps
regulations?
Answer: Yes, reference (a) authorizes the current
conditions of PFC Manning's confinement.
b. Question 2.b. ; Did Chief Warrant O f f i c e r 4 Averhart abuse
his d i s c r e t i o n i n c l a s s i f y i n g PFC Manning as a maximum custody
detainee?
Answer: No, reference (a) r e s t r i c t s the B r i g Commander t o
assigning a custody c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f e i t h e r Maximum Custody
or Medium Custody-In to a l l p r e - t r i a l detainees. This i s
accomplished i n i t i a l l y through DD Form 2711, I n i t i a l Custody
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and subsequent reviews through completion of DD
Form 2711-1, Custody R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . I f the p o i n t values
used t o indicate the custody c l a s s i f i c a t i o n do not result, i n

Enclosure (5^)
APPELLATE EXHIBIT
PAGE REFERENCED:
— P A G E _ _ _ O F _ _ _ PAGES
ManningB_00011411

t

33396

^

^^^^

Subj: SPECIAL INQUIRY INTO THE ARTICLE 138 COMPLAINT SUBMITTED
ON 19 JANUARY 2011 BY PRIVATEFIRST CLASS BBADLEYMANI^ING,
U.S. ARMY
enough p o i n t s to j u s t i f y a maximui:iii custody c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,
reference ^a) authorizes t h e B r i g Comrnander t o consider an
o b j e c t i v e based o v e r r i d e , provided he f e e l s j u s t i f i e d a f t e r
considering a l l f a c t o r s and i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o him a t
the time. I n t h i s case, t h e CO had a v a r i e t y of supplemental
i n f o r m a t i o n provided t o him a n d h i s s t a f f froin Manning's
command and previous confinement f a c i l i t y t h a t they a l s o
considered.
c. Question 2.c.: Did Chief warrant O f f i c e r 4 Averhart abuse
h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n p l a c i n g PFC Manning i n a p r e v e n t i o n o f
i n j u r y status?
Answer: No, reference ^a) authorizes the B r i g Commander
or, i n h i s absence, the d u t y b r i g supervisor t o place
confinees i n a p r e v e n t i o n o f i n j u r y s t a t u s i f they d i s p l a y ,
adroit t o , or i f t h e s t a f f i s made a ^ r e o f by other means a
requirement f o r a d d i t i o n a l s u p e r v i s i o n and a t t e n t i o n . This i s
normally due t o r i s k o f s u i c i d e , v i o l e n c e , p e r s o n a l i t y
disorders, behavior a b n o r m a l i t i e s , or other questionable
character t r a i t s .
d. Question 2.d.: D i d Chief warrant O f f i c e r 4 Averhart abuse
h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n p l a c i n g PFC Manning i n a s u i c i d e r i s k
status?
Answer: No, reference (a) authorizes t h e b r i g s t a f f t o
place i n d i v i d u a l s i n a ^^suicide r i s k " s t a t u s ^ho have
threatened s u i c i d e , made a s u i c i d a l gesture, o r have a h i s t o r y
of s u i c i d e attempts. Documents contained i n I^FC Manning's
detainee f i l e support a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t a t s p e c i f i c times
he should have been considered a t h r e a t t o h i m s e l f . I t
vi^arrants mentioning hoiii^ever, t h a t on t ^ o occasions, ^ August
2010 and 18 January 2011, a medical o f f i c e r determined t h a t
s u i c i d e r i s k s t a t u s vi^as no longer warranted and t h e b r i g s t a f f
d i d not immediately take PFC Manning o f f t h e s u i c i d e r i s k
s t a t u s . PFC Manning ^as taken o f f s u i c i d e r i s k s t a t u s on 11
August 2010, follov^ing t h e medical o f f i c e r ' s recommendation o f
6 August 2010. PFC Manning v^as taken o f f s u i c i d e r i s k s t a t u s
on 21 January 2011, f o l l o w i n g t h e medical o f f i c e r ' s
recommendation o f 18 January 2011. Paragraph 4205,5b of
reference (a) s t a t e s ^^tn^lhen p r i s o n e r s are no longer considered
t o be s u i c i d e r i s k s by a medical o f f i c e r , they s h a l l be
r e t u r n e d t o a p p r o p r i a t e q u a r t e r s " , i n these cases, once t h e
^ medical o f f i c e r ' s e v a l u a t i o n v^as provided t o t h e b r i g s t a f f ,
steps should have been taken t o immediately remove him from
s u i c i d e r i s k , to a s t a t u s b e l o ^ t h a t .

ManningB^00011412

33397

^^^^^

^^^^

Subj: SPECIAL INQUIRY INTO THE ARTICLE 138 COMPLAINT St^BMITTED
ON 19 JANUARY 2011 BY PRIVATE FIRST CLASS BRADLEYMANNING,
U.S. ARMY
3. RECOMMENDATIONS. A f t e r the review of the c o n d i t i o n s of PFC
Manning's confinement, I recommended t h e f o l l o w i n g change. The
Ouantico P r e - t r i a l Confinement F a c i l i t y SOP should be updated so
t h a t i t i s inharmony w i t h reference ( a ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e SOP
should d i r e c t t h e b r i g s t a f f t o remove confinees from s u i c i d e
r i s k immediately upon r e c e i v i n g a medical o f f i c e r ' s e v a l u a t i o n .

^^^^B^^:^^^^4^

A. G A L A V I ^ ^

MannlngB^00011413

33398

From: Galaviz CW05 Abel

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 9:01 AM

To: Barnes CWO2 Denise Papakie Brian
cc: Pagan CIV Radomet

Subject: Manning

Signed By:

CWO Barnes and Papakie getting some questions on the Early Bird article. Could either
one of you call me so that I have a solid understanding of the conditions in which he was
placed after his underwear were taken from him the other day?

Respectfully Submitted,

CHO-5 Abel Galaviz

Head, corrections Section
PS Division, PSL Branch



"Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the
results.?

1 ST
Ii}!
PAGE OF

ManningB_O0511981


ManningB_O0449862 PA

33399

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Friday. March 04, 2011 1:39 PM
To: Oltman Col Robert

cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

subject: RE: Manning early bird article
Signed By:

Sir, when I made the decision to have detainee Manning's underwear removed after taps with
his other gear and still keep him POI, my thought process was that he did not threaten
suicide nor did he make a suicidal gesture as per the SECNAV. In addition, we did not feel
that the extra measures were necessary during regular day time hours. He never said he would
commit suicide nor did he act in a manner that was similar to the incident in January with
CWO Averhart where he was placed in SR status. His behavior was not erratic in any way, as
matter of fact, he was smiling when he was talking to Papakie. The SECNAV states that I
can remove clothing when deemed necessary. I found it hard to justify assigning him the SR
status, it is easier to explain why we left him in POI status than why we placed him in SR
status without adhering to the guidance in the SECNAV. I also could not justify not taking
action in the event of a possible suicide or an attempt at it after he made that comment to
Papakie. Papakie, Blenis and I all felt uncomfortable and almost at the same
time said we need to make adjustments. As a side note Sir, I do not always concur with the
board or items that are brought to me in other capacities. A good example was prisoner
Cantrell, on 26 January, the board voted 2-1 to keep him as interior work detail and I
disagreed and put him in protective custody status. My decision was based on the reason we
had him in confinement and since I did not know who he testified on that may come to the
Brig, I put his safety first. Thanks Sir.

b. Prisoners who have threatened suicide or have made a
suicidal gesture, but are found fit for confinement, may be
placed in the category of "suicide risk? for observation. They
shall be placed in special quarters under continuous
observation. may direct removal of the prisoner's
clothing when deemed necessary. Prisoner must be under
observation of a supervisor of the same sex."

CWO2 Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134



From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Friday, March 64, 2011 11:43

To: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: Fw: Manning early bird article

Heading towards office soon. CWO2 Barnes synopsize for me the rational for your action and
the authority vested and cited by you in the SECNAV. I will reply to this email.
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld



33400

Original Message

From: wright LtCol Troy

To: Oltman Col Robert 6

cc: Greer LtCol Christopher Galaviz cwes Abel; Durham CIV Jan Pagan CIV Radomet
Sent: Fri Mar 04 10:42:48 2011

Subject: Fw: Manning early bird article

Col Oltman:

Sir, I just wanted to pass on to you a professional opinion from PSL that we have some
concerns about recent (within the last 2-3 days) decisions made by the commanding officer of
the Quantico brig. To take measures that are consistent with suicide watch but not
officially place that person in a suicide watch status is inconsistent with the way we are
supposed to do business. we understand there may be some concern about taking actions which
may result in another Article 138 complaint but if we are doing business they way we are
supposed to there is nothing to worry about.

Very respectfully,
LtCol wright

LtCol Troy V. wright

Head, Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch

Security Division Plans, Policies Operations
Headquarters, U.5. Marine Corps (HQMC)





From: Galaviz cues Abel

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 8:45

To: Pagan CIV Radomet wright LtCol Troy Burris Richard Gillespie CTR Tab
Subject: Manning early bird article

Gentlemen, news from today's Early Bird.

Soldier In Leaks Case was Jailed Naked, Lawyer Says

By Charlie Savage

- A lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst accused of
leaking secret government files to wikiLeaks, has complained that his client was stripped and

left naked in his cell for seven hours on wednesday.

The conditions of Private Manning's confinement at the Marine brig in Quantico, Va., have
drawn criticism in recent months from supporters and his lawyer, David E. Coombs.

The soldier's clothing was returned to him Thursday morning, after he was required to stand
naked outside his cell during an inspection, Mr. Coombs said in a posting on his web site.

"This type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification," Mr. Coombs
wrote. "It is an embarrassment to our military justice system and should not be tolerated.

2

ManningB_00449863



33401

Pfc. Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other
detainee at the brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation."

First Lt. Brian Villiard, a Marine spokesman, said a brig duty supervisor had ordered Private
Manning's clothing taken from him. He said that the step was "not punitive" and that it was
in accordance with brig rules, but he said that he was not allowed to say more.

?It would be inappropriate for me to explain it,? Lieutenant Villiard said. can confirm
that it did happen, but I can't explain it to you without violating the detainee's privacy."

Private Manning is being held as a maximum security detainee under a special set of
restrictions intended to prevent self-injury, even though supporters say there is no evidence
that he is suicidal.

During an appearance on earlier on Thursday, Geoffrey Morrell, the Pentagon press
secretary, attributed the general conditions of Private Manning's confinement to "the
seriousness of the charges he's facing, the potential length of sentence, the national
security implications" and to protect him from potential harm.

Also, earlier on Thursday, one of Private Manning's friends, David House, said in a
conference call with reporters that he had visited the soldier the previous weekend and that
his mental condition was severely deteriorating as a result of being confined to his cell 23
hours a day, with one hour to exercise in an empty room, and largely isolated from human
contact.

But Mr. House said that Private Manning did not seem suicidal and contended that he was being
pressured to cooperate.

Investigators have been seeking evidence that could implicate Julian Assange, the wikiLeaks
founder, as a conspirator in the leaking of the military and diplomatic documents and videos.

Mr. House spoke on the conference call with Daniel Ellsberg, who compared the leaking of
documents to wikiLeaks to his own leaking of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war. On
Wednesday, the Army announced 22 additional charges against Private Manning, including
"aiding the enemy.?

The charge sheet did not explain who "the enemy" was, leading some to speculate that it was a
reference to wikiLeaks. on Thursday, however, the military said that it instead referred to
any hostile forces that could benefit from learning about classified military tactics and
procedures.

Respectfully Submitted,

CWO-5 Abel Galaviz

Head, Corrections Section
PS Division, PSL Branch



?Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the
results."

ManningB_O0449864

33402

CUSTODY RECLASSIFICATION
1. INTERVIEWER NAME

2.

3. IDENTIFICATION
a. PRISONER NAME (Last. First, twiddle)
d. PRESENT CUSTODY

(Xone)
DETAINED

b. SSN

ADJUDGED

c. RELEASE DATE (YYYYMIVIDD)

e. HOUSING UNIT

f. REGISTRATION NUMBER

4. ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS (Xas applicable)
a. SUICIDE RISK
b. PHYSICAL HEALTH PROBLEM
c. MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM
d. SPECIAL QUARTERS
e. VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PROGRAM
f. WAS THERE AN OVERRIDE ON LAST CLASSIFICATION?
5. CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA (Enterpoint values)
a. OFFENSE SEVERITY

NO

YES

POINTS

= 1-8

b. NUMBER OF DISCIPLINARY REPORTS (Last 90 days)
NONE = 0
ONE = 2
TWO-i- = 4
c. SEVERITY OF DISCIPLINARY REPORTS
NONE = 0
LOW MODERATE = 1

MODERATE = 3

d. NUMBER OF NEGATIVE SPOT REPORTS (Last 90 days)
NONE - THREE = 0
FOUR - SIX = 2
SEVEN - TEN = 4
e. CURRENT PROGRAMMING
PROGRAM AND JOB = MINUS 2 (-2)
f.

HIGH = 5

GREATEST = 7

ELEVEN + = 6

PROGRAM OR JOB = MINUS 1 (-1)

NONE = 0

FALSE DATA ON SCREENING FORM (Initial Classification only)
NO = 0
YES = 4

g- RESPONSIBILITY SHOWN
GOOD = -2
AVERAGE = 0

POOR = +2

h. LENGTH OF SENTENCE TIME REMAINING
DETAINEE OR 0 - 90 DAYS = 0
1 + TO 3 YEARS = 2 3 + TO 5 YEARS = 3
5 + TO 10 YEARS = 5
i.

PENDING CHARGES/WARRANTS/DETAINERS
NO = 0
YES = (Enter offense severity code)

j

TOTAL POINTS

6. CLASSIFICATION DECISION
a (X one)
REDUCE (0-6 Points)
b. RATIONALE

7. OVERRIDE
a. (X one)
NO
b. RATIONALE

91 DAYS - 1 YEAR = 1
lO-i- YEARS = 7
LIFE/DEATH = 8

0

SAME (7-10 Points)

INCREASE (11 +Points)

YES (Enter code)

NOT APPLICABLE (Policy)

8. RECOMMENDED DECISION

9. FACILITY COMMANDER/DESIGNEE
a. NAME, GRADE, TITLE

b. SIGNATURE

C. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

10. FINAL DECISION

DD FORM 2711-1, NOV 1999

Adobe Professional 7.0

APPELLATE EXHIBITJTH-h
PAGE REFERENCED:^
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33403

From: Averhart CWO4 James

Sent: Monday. August 16, 2010 8:42 AM

To: Papakie Brian

Subject: FW: MCBQ BRIG PROGRESS REPORT ICO PFC BRADLEY MANNING
Attachments: MCBQ Bn'g Progress Repon ICO PFC Bradley

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag status: Flagged

Categories: Green Category

CNO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.



Message-?--?

From: Averhart CNO4 James

Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2616 5:54 PM

To:

Subject: Fw: MCBQ BRIG PROGRESS REPORT ICO PFC BRADLEY MANNING

FYI



From: Averhart CNO4 James

Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2610 5:34 PM

To: oltman Col Robert 6

cc: Choike Col Daniel 3

Subject: MCBQ BRIG PROGRESS REPORT ICO PFC BRADLEY MANNING

Col Oltman,
Sir per your directive, the following progress is provided for your review and information.

NOTE: SND was confined at the Quantico Base Brig on 29 July 2619. Prior to confinement at
Quantico PCF, PFC Manning did receive several observation reports from medical doctor while
in theater which caused the unit to make the request for transfer to a facility more capable
to handle his needs and apply the necessary restraints to ensure PFC Manning safety mainly
from himself and the safety of the staff and other inmates. See enclosure 1 and 2.

Since confinement at our facility a week ago, PFC Manning has received daily observation
from Captain Hocter with the most recent evaluation on 6 August 2910 recommending PFC Manning
to be removed from suicide risk and placed on prevention of injury. This evaluation stated
that SND was still a substantial risk, needing to be sighted by Brig staff every five minutes
and not to have any bootlaces, belts, trash bags etc., in his possession. I am only aware of
SND being prescribed the medication ZOLOFT for depression. PFC Manning has also made what I
consider to be strong threatening language that he is a patient man. He has already proven

1
W0 -


ManningB_004-19824 C: - 2-



33404

that he is unpredictable and poises potentially violent and dangerous tendencies and more so
a threat to himself and others.

with enclosure one, two and the current information and observation time here at Quantico,
I've determined that I will continue to observe PFC Manning behavior and progress while in a
suicide watch status. Although I understand Captain Hoctor recommendation to down grade
Detainee Manning status to Prevention of Injury (POI), it is my professional opinion that
this would not be a good idea at this time. Per the attached progress report I will review
PFC Manning for down grade by 13 August, 2610 as this would allow me the opportunity to make
a fair assessment from a correctional stand point.

If you have any questions, I'm on standby.
Respectfully,

CNO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5035



ManningB_00449825

33405

From: Averhart CWO4 James

Sent: Wednesday. January 05. 2011 9:26 AM

To: Papakie Brian Bienis Craig
Subject: FW: Manning Update Meeting

Importance: High

(N04 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5035







From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2610 12:15 PM
To: Averhart CNO4 James

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: Fw: Manning Update Meeting
Importance: High

You and I will attend
Sent from my Blackserry Handheld

Original Message

From: Greer LtCol Christopher

Averhart W04 James T3
Ebitz Maj Amy Johnson Col Thomas Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark

Cc: Lyons Ltcol Stephen

Sent: Fri Sep 10 11:27:68 2010

Subject: Manning Update Meeting

ALCON,

Col Choike would like to have the weekly Manning update in person this next Wednesday, 1590
in the Conference Room at Lejeune Hall. He specifically requested that CAPT Hochter and CNO4
Averhart be there.

CPT Haberland,

Col Choike requests that one of the prosecution and one of the command reps be present as
well. we can conference call you in so you do not need to make the trip down.

Please hit me back on your availability next Wednesday and either myself or Ltcol Lyons will
send out a meeting invite this afternoon.

Thank You

CHRIS GREER

7 .5

ManningB_00512251



33406

LtCo1, USMC

StaF? Judge Advocate, MCB Quantico
3256 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134

ManningB_00512252

33407

From: Blenis Craig

Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:41 PM

To: Averhart CWO4 James (i
Cc: Papakie Brian

Subject: Phone call with Mr. Coom

Signed By:

Categories: Green Categoty

Good afternoon Sir,

I just got off the phone with Mr. David Coombs in regards to Det Manning. He asked me about
any unusual behavior that manning has exhibited recently and I replied, without giving any
specifics, that some guards have seen Manning act strangely. LtCol Coombs stated that he
heard that Manning has been licking the bars to his cell and sleep walking. Because he has
obviously been briefed from some party, I did confirm that Manning has been observed licking
the bars to his cell while appearing to be sleeping. I did not go into any other specifics,
at which time LtCo1 Coombs asked if Manning has been seen by Capt Hocter. I told LtCol Coombs
that Capt Hocter most recently saw Manning on 19 November, and unless Capt Hocter is on
leave/TAD, he sees Manning every Friday. I'm bringing this to your attention because the
specifics of Manning licking his bars was in the weekly report. The chain of this information
went from guard to me, and from me to Papakie and yourself via the weekly report. To my
understanding this report goes from yourself to our Commanding Officer, then to C01 Choike
who I assume briefs LtGen for the reason of them being "in the know" for anything
concerning Manning's confinement. It appears that information from this report is going in
other directions, and I'm just not sure if that is planned or appropriate, and if it is not,
who needs to know. This may all be by design above our heads, but I'm not comfortable sitting
on this information and potentially leaving you or Papakie open to being blindsided.

Respectfully,
Blenis, C.M.
Quantico Base Brig
Programs Chief



ManningB_00449942

33408

From: Averhan CWO4 James

Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:52 AM

To: Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj Amy

Cc: Blenis GySg1 Craig Papakie Brian
subject: DET MANNING WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT
Attachments: Manning weekly repon 1 Sep - 7Sep 2010.pdf
Sir,

Per your guidance I've scheduled a meeting for Monday 13 September 10, to discuss Detainee
Manning progress while in confinement. Although Capt. Hocter has recommended down grading
Det. Manning custody the Classification and Assignment board has disapproved this move and I
concur with the recommendation. I have approved for SND will remain present status. I am
prepared to speak to the decision of why I've disapproved the custody change.

I will have the Chief Counselor and Brig Supervisor present at the meeting.
Respectfully,

CN04 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

Mca, Quantico VA 22134-5935




4.
ManningB__00449823 .-. 1)



33409

I ID RI I IN I
From: Captain Hocter 20100805
To: Classi?cation and Assignment Board DATE
MANNING. 2-
Last, First. Middle lnit. SSN RCN

I . The following action is recommended for subject:

Custody: Squad Bay: Job:
MAXIMUM SR
[Zlnmate DOES pose a threat to himself Inmate DOES NOT pose a threat to himself
B/Further mental evaluation necessary Further mental evaluation is NOT necessary
natc DOES NEED to be segregated from general Inmate DOES NOT need to be segregated from
population general population
Inmate has a LOW TOLERANCE of frustration I stress inmate has an AVERAGE TOLERANCE of
frustration I stress

[_tIo
Ml? L.










-


wilffam . Hocter, MD

CAPT MC USN


I 5:311 LIHQQ
. .

pA :0 (J1



33410

From: Averhart CWO4 James

sent: Tuesday, November 23. 2010 4:58 PM

To: Ebitz Maj Amy

Cc: Oltman Col Roben Papakie Brian Blenis Craig
Subject: DR HOCTOR MENTAL EVALUATIONS ICO DET MANNING

Attachments: Dr Hoctor POI - SR REVIEWS ICO DET

Per my last email,

I request that we keep close hold until we can discuss in a meeting. I've had the opportunity
to review all of Dr. Hoctor's evaluations of Det. Manning since confinement. His evaluations
are not consistent and appears to be on both sides of the water to cover his six in the case


Attached are all of the reviews written by Capt Hocter. They are in chronological
order from oldest to newest. If you look at his comments and the boxes that are checked, they
show great contradiction at times.

If you look at the boxes that are checked from week to week, they go back and forth randomly.
These are serious trends that causes a Red Flag in my profession. I am unwilling to make any
recommendation in reducing his custody or status.

At this time, SND will remain in his present status of Prevention of Injury.

I request a meeting to discuss recommendations and the way ahead with the Commanding Officer
as I am now concern with the mental evaluation Det. Manning is currently receiving.

NOTE: Dr. Hoctor will be deploying in approximately one month.

Respectfully,

CWO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5035



Amfi'
- -



ManningB_O0-14981 2



33411
From: Averhart CWO4 James

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:39 PM

To: Papakie Brian Fuller William Blenis Craig Buck Jason; Lee

Curtis Jordan SSG Ryan Ellis Charles

Subject: FW: Weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

Categories: Green Category

FYI

CWO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5035



Message?-?--

From: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA 1

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:32 PM

To: Averhart CNO4 James

Cc: Greer LtCol Christopher Broadston Major Christian Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj
Amy

Subject: Re: weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

CH0 4 Averhart

The reports have not been provided to defense counsel. They will have to be provided in the
future. All of the records in the possession of the Government will be subject to the
discovery rules and absent an exception will have to be provided to the Defense.

Very Respectfully,
CPT Haberland
Original Message

From: Averhart CH04 James
To: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA

Cc: Greer LtCol Christopher Broadston Major Christian
Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj Amy


Sent: Ned Dec 29 14:23:52 2010

Subject: RE: weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

Captain Haberland,

Per our previous conversation concerning the weekly progress report concerning PFC Manning

that I provide to the Security Battalion Commanding officer, you stated to me on the phone
that Manning defense attorney Mr. Coombs has received the report in the past.

A ?No;

ManningB_00514387

33412

As the writer of the report, I have concerns that individuals are receiving this report that
shouldn't be and don't have the need to know. I've asked my leadership to address this issue
in an official capacity.

Respectfully,

CWO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5035





From: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA 1
Sent: wednesday, December 29, 2016 11:53 AM

To: Averhart CWO4 James

Subject: weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

CH0 4 Averhart,

The copy of the weekly progress report that we (the Army) receive is not currently being
provided to the Defense. The Rules for Court Martial will require use to provide those
documents to the Defense in the near future.

Very Respectfully,

CPT John B. Haberland

Regimental Judge Advocate

3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)



ManningB_00514388

51?? V13 Ni?)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO



33413

33414

From: Averhart CWO4 James

Sent: Thursday. December 09, 2010 4:39 PM

To: Habedand, John CPT MIL USA

Cc: Papakie Brian Fuller William Blenis Craig Lee Curtis

Ebitz Maj Amy Broadston Major Christian Greer LtCol Christopher Jordan SSG Ryan


Subject: RE: Manning POI status (UNCLASSIFIED)

Captain Haberland,
Your comment is correct regarding our prior conversation.

PFC Manning will not be allowed to conduct any physical training in his cell. He can conduct
physical training in the authorized area under the supervision of Brig staff in the allotted
time to ensure his safety. PFC Manning status will be reviewed at the Classification and
Assignment Board on 10 December 2610 at which time I will make the final determination and
approve his status after a recommendation from the board.

Respectfully,

CWO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5635



Message?--?-
From: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA
Sent: Thursday, December 69, 2610 4:13 PM
I To: Averhart CWO4 James
Cc: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA
Subject: Manning POI status (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

CWO4 Averhart,

I just wanted to follow up our conversation today regarding PFC Manning's prevention of
injury status. It is my understanding the PFC Manning's POI status will be reviewed tomorrow
and you, along with your staff, will determine if PFC Manning is eligible for increased
sunshine time and increased physical fitness time. PFC Manning will not be allowed to
exercise in his cell while he is in POT status. This is for his own safety. Please
response and acknowledge the facts in this email.







Thank you for your help.

Very Respectfully,

CPT John B. Haberland

Regimental Judge Advocate

3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (Ihe Old Guard)



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

ManningB_00-149802

33415

33416

L)

.

n

: ' 'O

0

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
HEADQUARTERS COMPANY
SECURITY BATTALTIOB
2043 BARWETT AVEMUE
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5013
I I I RCPIiY REFER l O l

1000
B 275
24 Jem 1 1
From:
To:
Via:

Chief Warrant O f f i c e r 4 James A v e r h a r t USMC, B r i g O f f i c e r i n Ch9rge
Commanding O f f i c e r , MCB Quantiao, Va
(1) Commanding O f f i a e r , S e c u r i t y B a t t a l i o n

Subj:

ESSPONSB TO RBQTraST FOR REDRESS (ARTICLE 138, UCMJ) OF PPC BRADLEY
MANNING DATED 19 JANUARY 2011

Ref:

(a) SECNAVINST 164C.9C
(b) B r i g Order P1640.1C ( P r i s o n e r Rules and R e g u l a t i o n s )
Ic) A r t i c l e 138, UCMJ

Encl:

(1) DD Forms 2710, 2711, ICuwait c o n f i n e m e n t documents
(2) C&A board Reoonmendations

.

1.
I n the performance o f ray d u t i e s as t h e B r i g O f f i c e r , MCB Q u a n t i c o , 1 am
governed by r e f e r e n c e s (a) t h r o u g h (c) . I have b e e n a p p o i n t e d and chaarged t o
p e r f o r m my d u t i e s i n a f a i r , f i r m and i m p a r t i a l manner, w h i l e e n s u r i n g t h e ^
c u s t o d y and s a f e t y o f a l l p e r s o n n e l , be i t p r i s o n e r s , s t a f f o r v i s i t o r s .
2.
I n response t o the A r t i c l e 138 c o m p l a i n t d a t e d 19 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 1 , PFC
Manning was i n i t i a l l y c o n f i n e d a t MCB Quantico B r i g on 29 J u l y 2 010, a n d
c l a s s i f i e d as a maximum custody d e t a i n e e on s u i c i d e r i s k s t a t u s . A t t h e t i m e
o f h i s i n i t i a l confinement, I was the B r i g Commander.
I r e l i n q u i s h e d command
on 24 January 20011 pursuant t o PCS o r d e r s ,
During the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w ,
PFC Manning s t a t e d t h a t he has had s u i c i d a l t h o u g h t s and d i d make a p l a n t o
oommit s u i c i d e . PFC Manning a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he has been d i a g n o s e d w i t h
depression and a n x i e t y d i s o r d e r . D u r i n g the i n i t i a l r e c e p t i o n phase, PPC
Manning a l s o s t a t e d t o the c o u n s e l o r t h a t he was a "woman". D u r i n g t h i s p h a s e
o f confinement, PFC Manning c o m p l e t e d a DD forra 2710 (Inmate B a c k g r o u n d
Summary) i n which be wrote "always p l a n n i n g , n e v e r a c t i n g " where asked i f h e
has ever considered s u i c i d e . See e n c l o s u r e (1) .
3,
P r i o r t o r e c e i v i n g PFC Manning, MCB Quantico B r i g r e c e i v e d d o o u n e n t a t i o n
frora the confinement f a c i l i t y i n Kuwait s t a t i n g t h a t PFC Meuming became
unresponsive t o s t a f f and w o u l d have a n x i e t y a t t a c k s a t t i m e s . PFC M a n n i n g
was p l a c e d on s u i c i d e watch w h i l e c o n f i n e d i n K u w a i t and was a l s o f o u n d t o
have made a noose out o f h i s bed s h e e t . PPC Manning was e v a l u a t e d s e v e r a l
t i m e s by mental h e a l t h p r o f e s s i o n a l s w h i l e i n K u w a i t and f o u n d t h a t h.e was a
h i g h r i s k harm t o h i m s e l f . I t was f u r t h e r r e q u e s t e d t h a t PFC Manning be
t r a n s f e r r e d t o a f a c i l i t y w i t h s p e c i a l i z e d resources f o r h i s mental s t a t e .
4.
D u r i n g the i n i t i a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h h i s c o u n s e l o r i n Quantico, PFC M a n n i n g
was asked i f he was c u r r e n t l y s u i c i d a l t o v/hich PFC Manning r e p l i e d " n o " ,
D u r i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w , PFC Manning was asked about t h e noose he made o u t o f a
bed s h e e t . PFC Manning s t a t e d t h a t he made a noose o u t o f sand bag td.es, n o t
a b e d sheet. The discrepemcy between t h e d o c u m e n t a t i o n r e c e i v e d and PFC

./ S l

ManningB_00011474

-APPEtLAT&EXHmrn^^Ml
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33417

r

'

:0.

•lO
\

n

-,o

Subj:

RESPONSE TO REuOEST FOR REDRESS (ARTICLE 138, UL-tfJJ) OF PFC BRADLEY
MAMNI1S3G DATED 19 JANUARY 2011
Manning's statement raised the concern of PEC Manning's mental a b i l i t y to
d i f f e r e n t i a t e between a bed sheet or sand bag t i e s , or i f PFC Manning made
multiple nooses. Due to the documentation provided, PFC Manning's v e r b a l and
written statements, and the act of making at least one item t o commit s u i c i d e
with, I decided that PPC Manning would remain on suicide watch. I also
decided that PFC Manning would be c l a s s i f i e d as a maximum custody inmate.
5, Per SECNAVINST 1640.9C, inmates r e q u i r i n g immediate and continuous
supervision or requiring special custodial supervision w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d as
a maximum custody detainee. Per SECNAVINST 1S40.9C, inmates wlio have
threatened suicide or have made a suicide gesture but gre found f i t f o r
confinement may be placed w i t h i n special quarters under continuous
observation while i n the category of suicide r i s k . The f o l l o w i n g are
requirements stated i n SECNAVINST 1640.9C:
(a) Supervision must be immediate and continuous. A DD 509, I n s p e c t i o n
Record of Prisoner i n Segregation, s h a l l be posted by the c e l l door and
appropriate entries made at least every 15 minutes.
(b)

They shall not be assigned to work details outside t h e c e l l .

(c)

They shall be assigned to the most secure quarters.

(d) Two or more s t a f f members s h a l l be present when maximum custody
inmates are out of t h e i r c e l l s ,
(e) Maximum custody prisoners s h a l l wear r e s t r a i n t s a t a l l times when
outside the maximum-security area and be escorted by a t l e a s t two e s c o r t s .
|f)

The Brig OIC may d i r e c t removal of clothing when deemed necessary.

(e)

Inmates must be under observation of a supervisor o f t h e same sex.

(f)

Prisoner must be under observation of a supervisor of the same sex.

(g) Such prisoners s h a l l be berthed i n special quarters and p h y s i c a l l y
checked every 5 minutes.
6. Per SECNAVINST 1640.9C, inmates i n a maximum custody status r e q u i r e two
esoortB at a l l times while outside of t h e i r c e l l . While outside of the c e l l ,
maximum custody inmates w i l l normally wear f u l l r e s t r a i n t s i . e , l e g
r e s t r a i n t s , hand r e s t r a i n t s and a r e s t r a i n t b e l t . The B r i g OIC may a u t h o r i z e
less form of r e s t r a i n t or a d d i t i o n a l escorts when necessary. Normally l e s s
form of r e s t r a i n t i s authorized w h i l e showering, p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n
recreational a c t i v i t i e s , medical exams or i n a court room. While a maximum
custody inmate i s outside of a secured area, the f a c i l i t y w i l l commence a
lockdown u n t i l the inmate i s returned t o a secured area. No other inmates are
allowed to move throughout the f a c i l i t y w h i l e a maximum custody inmate i s
outside of a secured area. At no time w i l l two maximum custody inmates be
outside of a secured area a t any time. Due t o t h i s requirement, maximum
custody inmates do not co-mingle w i t h other inmates during r e c r e a t i o n o r
group a c t i v i t i e s . Maximum custody inmates are not p r o h i b i t e d from speaking
- i f i t h inmates i n other c e l l s provided t h a t i t does not i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e good
order and d i s c i p l i n e of the f a c i l i t y .
7. On 30 July 2010, CAPT Hoctor, the B r i g P s y c h i a t r i s t , made h i s f i r s t
assessment o f PFC Manning and recommended PFC Manning remain on s u i c i d e

-ij
ManningB_00011475

AAl.

33418

f )

v3

' ,0
Subj ;

RESPONSE TO REuJEST FOR REDRESS (ARTICLE 138, ULrlJ) OF PFC BRADLEY
MANNING DATED 19 JANQARY 2011
watch. The Brig Psychiatrist also stated that PFC Manning should not have
access to bootlaces, trash bags, b e l t s etc. One week l a t e r on 6 August 2010,
the Brig Psychiatrist recommended that PFC Manning be removed f r o m s u i c i d e
watch and placed on prevention of i n j u r y . On 27 August 2010, t h e B r i g
Psychiatrist recommended PFC Manning be removed of a l l s u i c i d a l precautions
because no suicidal thoughts were reported. The B r i g P s y c h i a t r i s t also noted
that PFC Manning had an average t o l e r a t i o n to f r u s t r a t i o n and s t r e s s , During
following reviews made by the B r i g Psychiatrist, i t was noted t h a t PFC
Manning sometimes had a low t o l e r a t i o n f o r f r u s t r a t i o n and s t r e s s and a t
other times PFC Manning had an average t o l e r a t i o n f o r f r u s t r a t i o n and s t r e s s ,
per SECNAVINST 1640.9C, a low t o l e r a t i o n f o r f r u s t r a t i o n and s t r e s s i s a
f a c t o r for determining i f maximum custody i s warranted. Due to t h e s h o r t
period of time since PPC Manning made a nooae, PFC Manning's v ; r i t t e n and
verbal statements on planning t o harm himself, the short timeframe between
the Brig Psychiatrists' recommendation f o r PFC Manning to be on s u i c i d e r i s k
and removal of a l l precautions and the f l u c t u a t i o n s of the B r i g
Psychiatrist's evaluations, i t was determined that PFC Manning remain i n a
prevention of i n j u r y status f o r h i s ovm safety. He also remained i n a maximum
custody c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
8. Per SECNAVINST 1640.9C, a C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and Assignment (C&A) board s h a l l
he established and w i l l be responsible f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g the i n d i v i d u a l
prisoner's program upon completion o f o r i e n t a t i o n . This board s h a l l be
composed, at a mininum, of the next senior s t a f f member to the B r i g OIC, or
designated representative, one senior s t a f f member from s e c u r i t y , one f r o m
programs, and any other members appointed by the B r i g OIC. Representatives
from outside the confinement f a c i l i t y , including s t a f f s p e c i a l i s t s , such as a
psychologist or chaplain, raay be appointed to the board. Inmates maj' appear
before this board to discuss t h e i r program or changes thereto i f considered
necessary. The C&A Board's racommendations s h a l l be recorded and signed by
the Brig DIC or designated representative as approving o f f i c e r . When
circumstances indicate necessity f o r immediate a c t i o n , the
Brig OIC or designated representative may make changes i n custody,
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , etc., without board a c t i o n . Changes s h a l l be a p a r t o f the
agenda of the next C&A board meeting.
Currently the c&A Board i s comprised of the Programs Chief, Senior Coiaiselor,
Operations Chief, Admin Chief, Security Operations Chief or the Duty B r i g
Supervisor. The C&A Board consists of three v o t i n g members and a r e c o r d e r .
The C&A Board's recommendation i s normally forwarded t o the B r i g OIC f o r
approval. PFC Manning's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and status i s reviewed by the C&A
Board v/eeldy. An evaluation by the B r i g P s y c h i a t r i s t i s normally conducted
p r i o r to the C&A Board's convening and h i s recommendation i s forwarded t o the
C&A Board. I make a f i n a l determination regarding an inmate's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
and status based upon the C&A board's recommendation and my personal
observations and experience. The proceedings o f the C&A boards f o r PFC
Manning are attached as enclosure ( 2 ) .
U n t i l 18 January 2011, CAPT William Hocter was assigned as the B r i g
P s y c h i a t r i s t . Colonel Ricky Malone, an Army p s y c h i a t r i s t , had been consulted
by CAPT Hocter, Col Malone d i d not malce a recommendation to the C&A Board, as
he i s not a member of the Brig s t a f f and only a consultant of CAPT Hoctor.
During CAPT Hocter's tenure, he has also consulted CAPT Brian Moore, who the
' defense has now i d e n t i f i e d as a member of PFC Manning's defense team. This
information was not provided to the c o r r e c t i o n f a c i l i t y previously and i s , i n
my-opinion, a c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t . I t cannot be determined t o what, e x t e n t

-^-O-^SiL
ManningB_00011476

I

33419

O

"

o

n


Subj:

'•

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR REDRESS (ARTICLE 138, UCi/jJ) OF PFC BRADLEY
MAMNIMG DATED 19 JANdARY 2011
CAPT Moore's opinions affected CAPT Hector's recommendations.
However, I
feel i t i s important that t h i s relationship be h i g h l i g h t e d f o r the r e c o r d .
9. Upon PFC Manning's i n i t i a l confinement i n Quantico, he was placed on
suicide r i s k status u n t i l 11 August 2010, when he was placed on p r e v e n t i o n of
i n j u r y status. Both SR and POI status r e q u i r e maximum s e c u r i t y custody.
Inmates on SR or POI status are not denied any p r i v i l e g e s or r i g h t s . For t h e
purpose of safety and security, the Brig OIC may r e s t r i c t c e r t a i n p r i v i l e g e s
f o r inmates i n SR or POI status. •
a.

Clothing.

(1) Inmates on SR status are normally clothed i n o n l y underwear and
shower shoes and provided w i t h one tear proof s e c u r i t y b l a n k e t . A second
blanjtet i s provided a f t e r taps.
(2) Inmates on POI status are normally clothed i n seasonal PT gear
I and shower shoes and provided with one s e c u r i t y blanket. D u r i n g hours a f t e r
taps, the inmate is clothed i n only underwear and given one a d d i t i o n a l
security blanket.
b.

Bedding.

(1) Inmates on SR or POI status are not provided w i t h bed sheets or a
p i l l o w , but are provided w i t h the same type of mattress as a l l other inmates.
(2) Due to the extended amount of time PFC Manning has been p l a c e d on
POI status, a safety mattress was acquired from the Rappahannock County J a i l .
This i s a is, a one piece mattress with a b u i l t i n p i l l o w .
c.

Personal effects/hygiene items.

(1) During daylight hours, inmates on SR or POI s t a t u s m a i n t a i n a l l
personal items i n an adjacent c e l l , w i t h the exception of the c l o t h i n g b e i n g
worn, one book and one copy of rules and r e g u l a t i o n s . Hygiene items, t o
include t o i l e t paper, are only g.iven t o the inmate during hygiene c a l l ox as
needed. No inmate, regardless of custody or c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , i s a u t h o r i z e d t o
maintain shoes or boots while inside of h i s c e l l . Inmates are only g i v e n
razors a t r e v e i l l e and they are returned t o the Special Quarters s u p e r v i s o r
immediately a f t e r shaving,
d.

Correspondence time/phone c a l l s .

(1) Inmates on SR or POI status are not denied correspondence or
phone p r i v i l e g e s . Inmates, regardless of custody or c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , are o n l y
allowed to make phone c a l l s or w r i t e l e t t e r s during f r e e time as o u t l i n e d i n
the p l a n of the day (POD) . The only r e s t r i c t i o n to an inmate on SR or POI
status concerning correspondence material i s the length o f t i m e .
(2) U n t i l 27 October 2010,. inmates on SR or POI s t a t u s received
correspondence material f o r one hour d a i l y during f r e e time. Due to t h e
extended duration of PFC Manning's POI s t a t u s , I authorized t h i s time t o be
-"extended by one hour. A l l inmates are a f f o r d e d the same o p p o r t u n i t y and
duration to make personal phone c a l l s .
(3) A l l inmates are afforded the same opportunity t o speak w i t h t h e i r
parent command or attorney v i a government phone. Inmates are r e q u i r e d t o

.f G l

i^of 9
ManningB_00011477

33420

^3
Sub:ii

RESPONSE TO RE^i^ST FOR ^EDR.ESS (AR^TICLEl38, U^^^^) OFPFC BRADLEY
^^ANNIN(^DATED19 JANUARY2011
submit ^DD^IO to their counselor s t a t i n g the nature of t h e i r request, ^ h e i r
counselor or designated staff memberwill normally respond to t h e i r request
within three business days and make every attempt to get the inmate i n
contactwith thereguestedparty. PFC Manning i s r o u t i n e l y placed on t b e
phonewithhis attomey approximately two times aweek f o r approximately ^5
minutes.
e.

visitation.

(1) A l l inmates, regardless of custody or c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , are
required t c r e c e i v e a coramandvisit weel^y. I f t h i s requirement i s n o t ^ e t , a
s t a f f member from the Programs sectionmakes l i a i s o n ^:iith the inmates command
and informs them of t h e i r deficiency.
(2) A l l inmates, regardless of custody, are allowed to r e c e i v e
p e r s o n a l v i s i t s onweekends o r h o l i d a y s as the POD s t a t e s . The o n l y inmates
denied p e r s o n a l v i s i t s a r e t h o s e i n a d i s c i p l i n a r y segregation or l o s s o f
privileges status. The only l i m i t a t i o n placed onmaximum custody inmates i s
t h a t t h e y must m e e t w i t h t h e i r v i s i t o r s i n a n o n ^ c c n t a o t b o o t h . This
l i m i t a t i o n i s only due to the requirement of a f a c i l i t y loc)^down w h i l e a
maximimicustody inmate i s outside of a secured area.
(3) A l l inmates are allowed t o r e c e i v e l e g a l v i s i t s d u r i n g normal
business hours. Bxception^ to these hours may be m a d e u p o n p r i o r request of
the v i s i t i n g p a r t y . A l l legal v i s i t s are conducted i n a non-^contact b o o t h .
f.
.B^

l^elevisionBrecreation.

(1) inmates ar^e o ^ y allowed t o watch t e l e v i s i o n d u r i n g f r e e t i m e as
prescribed i n the POD, There i s one t e l e v i s i o n i n the r e c r e a t i o n roora l o c a t e d
i n thehousing areaand another on a c a r t . The t e l e v i s i o n i n the day r^oom i s
used by a l l generalpopulationinmates. The t e l e v i s i o n on the c a r t i s used by
allmaximum custody inmates. The c a r t i s r o l l e d i n f r o n t of the i n m a t e ' s c e l l
duringauthori:^ed t e l e v i s i o n v i e w i n g hours. The viewing time i s dependent
upon thenumber of maximumcustody inmates being housed at one time. :5^FC
banning i s currently the only maximum custody inmate and may view t e l e v i s i o n
from his c e l l during f r e e time. There a r e n o viewing r e s t r i c t i o n s p l a c e d on
maximum custody inmates. The only exception to t h i s was when i t was r e p o r t e d
on the news that PFC M i n i n g had connmitted s u i c i d e , l ^ e n t h i s was r e p o r t e d ,
PFC Manning was not allowed to view thenews. The d u r a t i o n of TV t i m e may
f l u c t u a t e depending cn how many maximum custody inmates are present.
I f more
than one i s p r e s e n t , they share the TV on the c a r t .

^
i

(2^ A l l inmates a r e a u t h o r i ^ e d onehour of r e c r e a t i o n c a l l d a i l y .
:^aximum custody inmates conduct r e c r e a t i o n c a l l i n d i v i d u a l l y i n a secured
area inside the r e c r e a t i o n y a r d . ^ i l e i n t h i s secured area, the i n m a t e ' s
r e s t r a i n t s are removed. During i n c i d e n t weather or when the temperature i s
below3^degrees, recreation c a l l i s conducted i n d o o r s .
(3) Because t h e i n d o o r r e c r e a t i o n area i s not a secured area,
r e s t r a i n t s are not normally removed f r o m maximum custody inmates. ^11
inmates, unless i n a SR, POI or d i s c i p l i n a r y status are allowed to e x e r c i s e
.^Bwhile i n t h e i r c e l l s provided that i t doesnot d i s r u p t the good order and
d i s c i p l i n e of the f a c i l i t y . Due to the extendedperiod of time t h a t PFC
l^anninghasbeen i n a SR or POI s t a t u s , a n d n o t allowed to exercise w i t h i n
h i s c e l l , I authorised PFCManning's r e s t r a i n t s t o be removed while
conducting recreation c a l l inside a l t b o u g h h e i s not i n a s e c u r e d a r e a .

^^^^
M8nningB^00011478

33421

f

•o
SUBJ:

1

• ,0

RESPONSE TO REQOEST FOR REDRESS (ARTICLE 1 3 8 , UCT'IJ)
MATOUNG DATED I S JAWJARY 2011

OF PFC BRADLEY

Within this recreation area, there are stationary b i c y c l e s , e l l i p t i c a l
machines, weight training equipment, treadmills and s t a i r masters. There i s a
foosball table and ping pong tables that may be set up so he does not need
another inmate to participate. PFC Manning i s allowed t o choose his a c t i v i t y
but chooses to walk i n c i r c l e s or f i g u r e eights on h i s own f r e e w i l l . He w i l l
occasionally do push-ups,, crunches and sit-ups on a mat t h a t i s p r o v i d e d . On
several occasions he has requested that his recreation- c a l l be secured e a r l y
and that he be returned to h i s c e l l . When he makes t h i s request, he i s
escorted back to his c e l l and asked to provide a w r i t t e n statement saying
that he chose to have his recreation c a l l secured e a r l y . PFC Manning has
provided a couple of these statements but has also r e f u s e d as. w e l l .
10. Per SECNAVINST 1640.9C, there must be p e r i o d i c bed checks of a l l inmates
at night. Per prisoner rules and regulations, inmates are not authorized t o
cover t h e i r entire face with blankets while sleeping. Inmates are not t o be
awakened f o r the purpose of bed checks, however p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n must
be made i f no part of an inmate i s v i s i b l e . The only way f o r t h i s t o .be
possible i s to either awaken the inmate or i n s t r u c t him to uncover h i s f a c e
or have the c e l l opened, enter and uncover the inmate which i s a r i s k t o
s t a f f safety and not authorized.
11. Recent Incidents: Cto 18 January 2011, PFC Manning had what appeared as
an anxiety attack in the recreation room as h i s r e s t r a i n t s were being
removed. PFC Manning f e l l to the f l o o r and was caught by two s t a f f meinbers
which softened his f a l l . PFC Manning then p u l l e d away from the s t a f f members
and ran behind an exercise machine appearing t o c r y . A f t e r PFC Manning gained
his cong)oBure he was allowed t o continue h i s r e c r e a t i o n c a l l a f t e r speaking
with the operations chief who authorized the continued r e c r e a t i o n c a l l . L a t e r
the same date, PFC Banning became agitated when speaking to the Brig
Supervisor and the Brig OIC. While I was conducting my d a i l y rounds i n
Special Quarters, I spoke to PFC Manning as always w h i l e observing h i s
actions. I n i t i a l l y he appeared t o be p h y s i c a l l y okay. I asked him how he -was
doing and he r o l l e d " f i n e s i r " . I then asked PFC Manning was he sure? He
said "yes s i r " . I questioned detainee Manning regarding reports from B r i g
Staff i n which detainee Manning became anxious and e x h i b i t e d labored
breathing during recreation c a l l . I ttien asked PFC Manning about the i n c i d e n t
of f a l l i n g while at recreation c a l l . PFC Manning s t a t e d t h a t he became l i g h t
headed. I again asked him how was be f e e l i n g and he began y e l l i n g ,
s t u t t e r i n g , and f l a i l i n g h i s arms, PFC Manning began t o y e l l out t h a t he
wanted to go home. He asked, "Why d i d a l l those Marines show up".. He a l s o
yelled out '*why are you psycho-analyzing me?" PFC Manning also said "Why are
you s t a r i n g at me?" He then said "stop y e l l i n g at me". I i n s t r u c t e d PFC
Manning to relax and calm down. I also i n s t r u c t e d him t o s i t down on the r a c k
and breathe. PFC Manning said he wanted to go home and began p h y s i c a l l y
s t r i k i n g himself i n the head very v i o l e n t l y and aggressively. Due to PFC
Manning's actions, v;hich caused an immediate conoem, I d i r e c t e d the B r i g
Supervisor to "special move" PFC Manning's status and ordered that he be
placed back i n a suicide r i s k s t a t u s . A f t e r PFC Manning's outburst, and
jAiysical contact to himself, the B r i g P s y c h i a t r i s t was contacted and asked to
meet w i t h PFC Manning. A f t e r PFC Manning was informed t h a t he was going t o be
placed i n a suicide r i s k status, PFC Manning began to attempt to n e g o t i a t e t o
not be placed on t h i s status and delayed i n g i v i n g the requested c l o t h i n g
items. He was i n i t i a l l y non-compliant and r e f u s e d t o g i v e the c l o t h i n g items
to the B r i g Supervisor when asked. When I noticed that PFC Manning was b e i n g
nancon^liant I ordered the dialogue and actions to be videotaped. Once PFC
Manning noticed that he was being videotaped, he immediately iDecame compliant

»f &1
ManningB_00011479

6of^

33422

B^^3
Subj:

^^^3

RESPONSE TORE^^EST FO^R^RESS (ARTICl^E 138, UCi^J) OF PFC BRAOLBY
MANNINI^ DATED 19 JA1^UA^Y2011

andprovided the clothing item as requested. He also calmed down but
continued to cogent about not wanting t o b e on SR and POI.
12. Prior to the arrival of Dr Hoctor, I d i r e c t e d that PFC Manning remain i n
this status u n t i l 20 January 2011 and, provided that PFC Manning's a c t i o n s do
notcontinue, thathe be reviewedby t h e C & A b o a r d at that t i m e . CAPT Hocter
andCAPT Moore met withPFCl^anning cn the same date and recommended t h a t PFC
M a n n i n g b e p l a c e d o n a 2 4 h o u r POI status. PFC ^^nningwas removed from SR
status on20 January 2011 and assigned on POI status.
13. On 21 Januan 2011, I r e c e i v e d a D D 5 1 0 fromPFC Manning r e q u e s t i n g t h ^ t
h e b e t a k e n o f f of maximumcustody andPOI s t a t u s . T h i s r e q n e s t was deted 7
January 2011. PFC Manning was reviewedby the C^ABoardon 21 J a n u a n 2011
andwas a l l o w e d t o ^ p e a r b e f o r e t h e b o a r d . The C ^ Board recommended t h a t
PFC Manningremainclassified as amaximum custody inmate i n p r e v e n t i o n of
i n j u r y status dueto previous w r i t t e n a n d v e r b a l statements, s u i c i d a l
ideations and statements that he made t o the ambers of the C&A Board.
A l t h o u ^ PFCManningdenied any s u i c i d a l thoughts or f e e l i n g s , PFC Manning
also implied t h a t h e may not be completely t r u t h f u l , ^hen asked about the
date of 7 January 2011 as the date of submission on tbeDD510, FFC Manning
j u s t lodged at me and stated that i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r his dates t o be o f f and
provided no f u r t h e r explanation. I d e n i e d h i ^ r e q u e s t t h a t he taken o f f
maximum custod^i^and^OI status. This i s the only t i m e h e has formally^
requested that I t a k e s u c h a c t i o n through the BD ^10 process. T h i s i e tbe
grievance that PFCManning i d e n t i f i e s i n p a r a g r a p h 6 of h i s c o ^ l a i n t .
^

14, Since i n i t i a l confinement, PFCManningh8.s displayed unusual behe.vior
causing me concem. There has been unusual behavior such as waking up and
l i c k i n g the c e l l bars, sleep walking, sword f i g h t i n g , p l a y i n g peek-a-boo i n
the mirror, waking u p a t n i ^ t t a l k i n g , simuli^ted l i f t i n g weights, t a l k i n g ,
mumblingand g i g g l i n g a t himself, beating on h i s chest, and r o c k star-head
banging simulation. Since confinement, PFCl^anninghas ^Iso v i o l a t e d i ^ r i s o n e r
rules and regulations by not f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s . He has r e c e i v e d a
negative hard card entry f o r disobedience and several counseling f o r f a i l u r e
to f o l l o w instructions. Although miner i n n a t i : ^ e , a l l prisoners are r e q u i r e d
to f o l l o w t h e r u l e s and regulations of the f a c i l i t y . I h a v e n o t imposed any
d i s c i p l i n a r y segregation, but these incidents do cause me c o n t i n u i n g concem
r e g a r d i n g h i s safety and i n t e n t i o n s ,
15. I n t h i s f a c i l i t y , a l l prisoners and detainees are berthed i n Special
quarters. A l i v i n g a r e a comprised of 30 i n d i v i d u a l c e l l s w i t h each c e l l
dimension s i z e o f 6x8x8. Each c e l l has one t o i l e t , rack, sink a n d w a t e r
faucet, iheQuantico base p r e t r i a l confinement f a c i l i t y does n o t have
s o l i t a r y confinement. I t does have a d i s c i p l i n a r y segregation u n i t ,
^ince
confinemeot PFC Manning hasbeen berthed i n SpecialQuarters i n c e l l ^1192.
16. .^8 t h e B r i g O l C w i t h over 20 years of c o r r e c t i o n experience, I
understand the duties a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of t h e b i l l e t which I am assigned.
I am chargedwith the s e c u r i t y , custody and c o n t r o l of a l l inmates i n my
custody while remaining f i r m , f a i r and i m p a r t i a l . At no ti:i^ehave I acted o u t
of the scope o f my duties or abused the a u t h o r i t y given t o m e per the
d i r e c t i v e s t h a t govem my decisions regarding PFC Manning. Due t o PFC
.^^Manning's continuous, sporadic, unusualbehavior, w r i t t e n a n d v e r b a l
statements, past s u i c i d a l ideations and gestures, i t is my p r o f e s s i o n a l
opinion that prevention of i n j u r y status i s c u r r e n t l y uecessary t o ensure FFC
Manning's personal safety, as well as the s a f e t y of other p r i s o n e r s and
s t a f f . Further, i t i s my professional o p i n i o n t h a t PFCManning'smaximum

A
ManningB_00011480

lo-f &

33423

~^

Subj:

0

, O

RESPONSE TO EEgUEST FOR REDRESS (ARTICLE 138,
DLifJ) OF PFC BRADLEY
mmiNQ DATED 19 JANUARY 2011

custody classification s j u s t i f i e d based upon his charges, n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y
concerns and his iiehavior while i n the f a c i l i t y . At a l l times my d e c i s i o n s
have been guided by recommendations from the Brig s t a f f , the C&A board, and
mental health providers and also through interactions w i t h PFC Manning.
However, I must make the f i n a l determination based upon my judgment and
experience and have continued to do so.

^.'^^LugLZ^L.
/O. T. AVERHART JR

/o

ManningB_00011481

of

"goA^

33424

From: Averhan CWO4 James

Sent: Wednesday. December 15. 2010 1:47 PM
To: Blenis Craig Papakie Brian
Subject: RE: Note forthe manning report

You crazy Gunns!

CNO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5935



--?--Original

From: Blenis Craig

Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2610 11:09 AM
To: Papakie Brian

Cc: Averhart cw04 James

Subject: Note for the manning report

Good morning gentlemen,
How is this verbage?

(2) On 13 December 2010, a package from Amazon.com was delivered to the Brig by a
construction worker who works at a nearby site. There was no previous request for a package
submitted by Det Manning and there was no previous approval for a package given by the Brig
OIC. when asked about any potential packages that may be coming, Det Manning stated that he
was not aware of any but thought that family members may be sending something due to his
upcoming birthday. The package is being rejected and returned to sender due to the manner in
which it was received and also because there was no prior request or knowledge of the package
by SND, and there was no pre?approval given by the Brig OIC, and we Felt like being dicks.


Blenis

..

ManningB_00449800 2.7 .7 L.

33425

ManningB_00449938

From: Greer Christopher

Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 11:43 AM

To: Choike Col Daniel Oltman Col Robert Kauziarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: UN Manning Doc

Sir, Sent the Following as a result of the meeting tot the Manning SJA and trial counsel. I
think it also summarizes the main issues.


Gentlemen,

Had a meeting this morning at the Brig with the staff and CAPT Hocter (forensic pych) and
CAPT Moore (forensic

Background: Dr Hoctor is Manning primary mental health provider. He is deploying next week.
As part of the regular mental health care at the Brig, Dr Moore has also been involved with
Manning's care. Hoctor was approached at one time to be a defense expert but he declined.

Dr Moore has also been approached by the Defense as a potential expert. He declined.

Manning has allowed access to his medical records to Defense. I found out this morning that
the Brig has an ongoing incarceration residency program in agreement with Walter Reed. There
are four residents (actually one intern, two residents and one fellow) how come 0 the Brig
every Friday as part of a forensic rotation/residency program. These residents
treat all of the brig residents as well as Manning as there was no distinction between him
and other detainees NRT mental health care. The new rotation of residents is on deck and had
their first day today. Based on my discussion with CPT Haberland yesterday, we have told
them NOT to be involved in Manning's treatment until the CA authorizes it due to potential
clearance issues. Col Malone, from Walter Reed, is going to assume primary care for Manning.
He was supposed to be there this morning but was not. He supervises the residency program
but our expectation that he will not treat the Brig population but will only treat Manning.

Issue 1: Request guidance from the CA (or you) regarding guidelines for the residents to be
involved in Manning's ongoing mental health care. My understanding is that the residents
would conduct/sit in on interview with Manning as part of his care plan. we frankly do not
care what the decision is, we just want to know if you wish to restrict the number of people
who have access to Manning as a legal issue (perspective witnesses) or for security reasons
(clearances, disclosures, etc.) we DID NOT vet past residents in the program nor did we vet
the current group regarding clearances. I do know that one of the residents (actually a
fellow) will be on Manning's 766 so she stepped out during much of our discussion this
morning. Obviously she does not participate in Manning's care.

Issue 2: Dr Moore requested guidance from the CA (or you) on how much information they
should disclose to the DC. They have a great deal of experience working with DC's but he
wanted to know if there were any areas of concern regarding disclosures. They have a waiver
from Manning that protects them for HPPA purposes and ethical purposes but are looking for
left and right lateral limits, if they exist.

Issue 3: Dr Hoctor expressed his concern about the POI status. He felt that POI was not
justified from a medical viewpoint. The Brig OIC explained that the medical component was
part of the overall classification assessment and that the process was continuously
evaluated. Hoctor stated clearly that he did not support the POI status.

Issue 4: Suggest that you request from CA to MCB that he provide you with all
classification and assignment documentation regarding Manning. You could simply state to

1





lfxbilf L1

33426

build SA For the CA and to prepare for possible litigation, you request the classification
documentation and that this request is ongoing. That way we have an official request we can
respond to.

Issue 5: This is related to 3 and 4. Stand by for heavy rolls if the CA decides to request
the Base commander to review and consider removing Manning's POI status. we are continuously
reviewing that status. Unless you want to run our Brig, I think you undercut your own legal
position if you actually recommend that the POI status be removed. we are the jailors,
either you trust us or you don't. if you don't, then move him. The best thing would be to
get this through the 796 process so we can have that additional info to consider in the
status review. Again, the Brig makes a team decision on his status, it is based on
experience, training, input form the personnel who interact with Manning, and the medical
input. You all know that he is not is solitary, that all the detainees have their own cell,
that no detainees may PT in their cells, etc. As I told John last night, unless someone
wants to come down and accept responsibility for the daily safety and welfare of Manning, it
is our job.

I need a Fairly quick turn on 1 and 2 as this residency program was new info for me. Again,
we DO NOT care who sees Manning. we leave the National Security concerns, clearances, etc,
to you.



LtCol Greer
SJA, MCB

?--?-Original Message--?--

From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Friday, January 14, 2611 11:26

To: Greer LtCol Christopher Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: UN Manning Doc

Roger all, thanks. Need an update on the medical transition visit today.

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001



From: Greer LtCol Christopher

Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 9:00

To: Choike Col Daniel Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: UN Manning Doc

Sir,

Rather than send up an e?mail string with a lot of lawyers mulling over implications and who
is going to say what to whom, I have attached the actual diplomatic note from the UN to the

2



33427

1 Dos. It focuses on the "solitary confinement" of Manning. As we all know, he is not being

held in solitary confinement. The response is not ours although we will have input into the
final product that is submitted to Dos. I will keep you apprised as that product is
developed. I have been engaged with Gen Ary and his staff on this as well. The US has faced
similar inquires NRT GITMO and has provided a somewhat "stock" response.

I also had a long talk last night with Manning SJA personnel IRT litigation schedule (still
none but "closer" to the 766 kicking off), Col Malone (they concur no interns unless there is
some medical necessity and Col Malone has the proper clearance and the SJA has already talked
to Col Malone regarding his role as treating physician), the UN inquiry, and their position
on Manning's status. I made it clear to them again that we have the day to day
responsibility for Manning and if they are unhappy with Manning current status, then someone
in the Army needs to take custody of him or relive us of the responsibility of his welfare.
Until there is someone with an Army letterhead actually accepting responsibility for his
welfare, then we will consider their input like any other Command, but the decision would
rest with the Brig officer and SecBn. I reiterated our concern that if something goes wrong,
there is not a single Army person that would be held responsible or found to be accountable
as long as he stays with us.

v/r

CHRIS GREER

LtCol, USMC

Staff Judge Advocate, MCB Quantico
3250 Catlin Avenue



ManningB_00449940

33428

From: Oltman Col Robert A
Sent: Tuesday, January 18,
To: Kauzlarich Col Mark 2; Choike Col Daniel

2

Subject: Fw: STATUS CHANGE ICO MAX DET MANNING



ManningB_O0449882

His meds were not increased. He remains in SW for time being until we can better evaluate
his behavior/temperment. I have instructed Brig to inform when his status in dowgraded
to POI. I expect he will remain in SW through the night.

R/rgo

Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld

Original Message

From: Averhart CWO4 James

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

Sent: Tue Jan 18 17:22:17 2011

Subject: RE: STATUS CHANGE ICO MAX DET MANNING

Sir.

Sir I've spoken with Dr. Hoctor and he recommended POI. He stated that Det Manning
unusual behavior has diminished and he is relaxed at this time after their conversation. Dr.
Hoctor did not administer any more medication to Det Manning in order to keep him relaxed.
We will continue to monitor SND in a Suicide Watch status and downgrade according to his
behavior to confinement.

Respectfully,

CWO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC

Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.





rigina
From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:21 PM

To: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Cc: Averhart CWO4 James

Subject: FW: STATUS CHANGE ICO MAX DET MANNING

Chief

Dr. Hoctor is with the detainee right now. Expectation is he will remain in this status at least
24 hours. I expect Dr. Hoctor to increase his medication. SND was exercising and fell down
due to being light headed. The escorts helped him to his feet and he stated he wanted to
terminate his exercise session. Once he got back to the cell he started to act out similar to his
behavior in Kuwait. At that point BRIG OIC met with SND and he started to talk in a loud and
distressed voice and began to hit himself in the head. At that point SW was initiated. Please
advise if there are any questions.

Col R.G. Oltman

Commanding Officer




l"
. ,1 us
PAUL: *0 .

33429



rigina

From: Averhart CWO4 James

Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 15:49

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: STATUS CHANGE ICO MAX DET MANNING

Sir,

At my direction, at 1520 today I directed the special move of Det Manning from POI to Suicide
watch. I requested that Captain Hoctor report to the brig to see SND and conduct a medical
assessment. Captain Hoctor arrived at 1545.

I will provide you a follow-up brief once completed.

Respectfully,

CWO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC

Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.



ManningB_O0449883

33430

From: Wright LtCol Troy

Sent: Tuesday, January 04,2011 11:26 AM

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Galaviz CW05 Abel; Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Signed By:

Sir,

I just spoke with Mr. Shelton, from CMC's IG office. Quantico brig should expect a dual
visit from Marine Corps and Army IG offices sometime next week. Detailed coordination to
follow. CNOS

Galaviz and I will also be present for the visit. OSD visit will be tentative, pending
outcome from the visit.

Also just an FYI, Gen Casey and Gen Amos will probably have a conversation about Manning
soon, if they haven't already had it.

PSL is working the MC Public Affairs on a press release, method/venue is being worked right
now. Release will be coordinated with all interested parties before we pull the trigger.


LtCol wright



From: Choike Col Daniel [mailto

Sent: Tuesday, January 64, 2611 8:37

To: wright LtCol Troy

Cc: Galaviz CHGS Abel; Oltman Col Robert Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

LtCol wright,

Here is the copy of the MCBQ Deputy IG report that was sent to CG last week. I still
believe that a visit is warranted as requested by Mr. Geoffroy and LtGen specifically,
as highlighted in a previous email attached above. Need your support in encouraging that
this visit takes place. If you see the possibility fading, I need to know so I can inform my
boss, LtGen Standing by to coordinate a date or discuss this further, if canceled.

sr, onc

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001



Message-?--?
From: wright LtCol Troy
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 6:38


5:9 1 s.
ManningB_00517988 PAGE PACE





33431

To: Choike Col Daniel
Cc: Galaviz cwes Abel; Oltman Col Robert Averhart cwoa James
Subject: Re: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Sir,

I spoke with COL Shumake (OSD) yesterday. He thinks that reviewing the results of the
Quantico IG visit last week may preclude the need For an in person visit. Can I tell him
when to expect the info report?


LtCol wright

LtCol Troy wright

Original Message

From: Choike Col Daniel

To: wright LtCo1 Troy

Cc: Galaviz cues Abel; Oltman Col Robert Averhart CHO4 James
Sent: Mon Jan 63 68:66:35 2611

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

LtCo1 wright,
Thursday aFter 1166 until COB. Or, Friday morning until 1266.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3256 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5661





From: wright LtCol Troy

Sent: Monday, January 63, 2611 8:66

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Galaviz cwes Abel; Oltman Col Robert Averhart CWO4 James
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Sir,
what day/time works best for you this week?


LtCo1 wright

?-?-?Original

From: Choike Col Daniel [mailto
Sent: Thursday, December 36, 2616 11:18

ManningB_0O517989

33432

To: wright LtCol Troy
Cc: Oltman Col Robert Galaviz CNOS Abel; Averhart cwo4 James COL Shumake (USA)

Durham CIV Jan Geoffroy SES Raymond Mortenson Col Royal;
Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

LtCol wright,

Appreciate the update and additional set of eyes/interest. On Monday, I had my own IG make
an unannounced visit to the brig and once I send that info report to the OCG I'll
provide a copy as a read ahead for the OSD/Chair, DOD Corrections Council visit next week.
Additionally, we are working on an info paper that outlines all the stated concerns from
discussion, visits and inspections over the past couple weeks and have prepared a brief for
MGen Hummer on 4 Jan. He is the new DCG, and was scheduled for an org brief and we are
adding this case as a discussion topic.

Standing by to coordinate the scheduled visit.

SF, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3256 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5601



?--?-Original

From: wright LtCol Troy

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2610 8:18

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Galaviz CNOS Abel; Averhart CNO4 James COL Shumake (USA)

Durham CIV Jan Geoffroy SES Raymond
Subject: Fw: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Col Choike,

Sir, per our (PSL) request, COL Shumake (Chair, Corrections Council) has agreed to
conduct a courtesy visit at the Quantico Brig. This is not an official inspection. It is
primarily an opportunity for him to see the confinement conditions/facilities at Quantico.
Since the PFC Manning case continues to draw international attention I believe it wise to
have as many people possible, in their official capacity, be witness to the conditions PFC
Manning is subject to so they can personally attest that he is being treated in accordance
with regulations.

COL Shumake said his schedule is fairly flexible next week. If you are available I'm sure
he'd like to conduct the tour with you.



LtCol Troy V. wright

Head, Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch

Security Division Plans, Policies Operations
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (HQMC)

ManningB_0051799O



33433



-?-??Original

From: LtGen George [mailt

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2019 8:92

To: Geoffroy SES Raymond Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SES Robert Dunford Gen Joseph Tryon LtGen Richard
Costantini Col William Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham CIV Jan Salas
Col Bryan wright LtCo1 Troy Choike Col Daniel Hummer MajGen Steven Dunford Gen
Joseph Oltman Col Robert

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

All,
Just what I was looking for. Thanks. GJF

LtGen. George J. USMC
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration
Commanding General,





From: Geoffroy SES Raymond

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2610 7:57 AM

To: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SES Robert Dunford Gen Joseph LtGen George Tryon
LtGen Richard Costantini Col William Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham
CIV Jan Salas Col Bryan Wright LtCol Troy Choike Col Daniel 3

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Vaughn -- Concur that we should be ahead of the disinformation campaign. The treatment that
PFC Manning is receiving as a maximum confinement detainee is in accordance with the American
Correctional Association (ACA) standards and is no different than what a maximum confinement
prisoner in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would receive.

We are coordinating with PA and developing a FACT SHEET that will do a side-by-side
comparison of the standards we are following with the protocols. We have been
coordinating with OUSD (who has Corrections policy) and recommended that they conduct
a visit to Quantico next week and endorse the care/treatment that PFC Manning is receiving.
They concur and we will be coordinating this with MCB Quantico. We have also discussed this
with the Army and have asked them to come along and verify the treatment/care as well.



33434

I would recommend that Bryan coordinate with OSD PA for any formal publication/announcement
of the above.

Regards,
Jeff

Raymond Geoffroy

Assistant Deputy Commandant

Plans, Policies and Operations (Security)
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps

3666 Marine Corps Pentagon (4A324)
Washington, DC 26356-3666

--?-?Original Message??-??

From: Ary MajGen Vaughn A [ma

Sent: Monday, December 27, 2616 2:59 PM
To: Geoffroy SES Raymond

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SES Robert 0
Subject: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Jeff,

LtGen called today asking about PFC Manning and the recent press articles speculating
about PFC Manning's treatment at the Quantico Brig. Although LtGen has the utmost
trust and confidence in the way the brig is being run and that PFC Manning's treatment meets
standards, he would like to be proactive and see if there are a few steps we can take to
ensure we hold the moral high ground if the issue starts to take hold in the press. If we do
nothing, we would probably be left with a statement that "we are following He is
looking for ideas to show we are aggressively working to ensure Manning is receiving the care
and treatment to which he is entitled so that we have a better response.

I believe he has a point and that the story may get additional press interest, especially
given the suicide of Capt webb at Quantico and the other sailor in pretrial confinement at
Pendleton last year. MajGen Lehnert was also an advocate of the open kimono approach to our
treatment of detainees at GTMO -- an approach that was very successful in the early days of
that issue.

I was hoping to get your thoughts about bringing in an outside team from the Executive
Agent for the brigs (Army?) or someone to give us a clean bill of health or recommendations
on handling Manning while in pretrial confinement. Again, LtGen is confident we are
doing everything right he just wants to make sure everyone else agrees from a strategic
messaging standpoint. I'm available to discuss.

Happy holidays and talk soon,

Vaughn

Vaughn Ary
Major General USMC
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant

Manning 7992

33435

From: Averhart CWO4 James

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 1:23 PM

To: Blenis Craig Buck Jason; Fuller William

Cc: Papakie Brian

Subject: FW: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody classifications
FYI,

As previously discussed, they want to come in and review our Classification
procedures . . . . . . ..Ensure we are on point and be ready to discuss this evening.

CWO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5035



From: Galaviz cwes Abel

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 12:36 PM

To: Oltman Col Robert Averhart CWO4 James

Cc: Burris Richard Pagan CIV Radomet wright LtCol Troy

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

Sir, this is to provide an independent review of the custody classification process used to
produce a Maximum custody. Additionally, I believe a previous email sent by Mr. Geoffroy to
LtGen and Col Choike implied that we had asked the Army to come down for this reason. I
will see if I can find that correspondence and send it to you as a reference.

Respectfully Submitted,

CWO-S Abel Galaviz

Head, Corrections Section
PS Division, PSL Branch



"Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the
results."



From: Oltman Col Robert 6

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2911 12:11

To: Galaviz CNQS Abel; Averhart CWO4 James

Cc: Burris Richard Pagan CIV Radomet wright LtCo1 Troy

Subject: RE: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody
classifications

1

"?0n
. rat?; . to ova
MannungB_00512224 PA

33436

Let me discuss with the Base Commander, a point of clarification, is this to review our
procedures and insure compliance or to conduct an independent assessment?

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantico





From: Galaviz CWBS Abel

Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 10:33

To: Averhart CWO4 James

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Burris Richard Pagan CIV Radomet wright LtCol Troy
Subject: Army Corrections Command independent review of Manning custody classifications

Col Oltman, CWO Averhart, as agreed previously we have asked the Army Corrections HQ's if
they would conduct a review of your custody classification process and decisions made irt
Manning as an outside USMC source. Greg Stroebel has agreed and suggested Wednesday the 12th
between 1339 and 1490 as the best opportunity for him to make it down there. Please advise on
the supportability of this suggested date and time.

Respectfully Submitted,

CWO-S Abel Galaviz

Head, Corrections Section
PS Division, PSL Branch



"Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the
results."

ManningB_0O512225



33437

From: Averhart CWO4 James

Sent: Monday. January 03. 2011 7:25 AM

To: Papakie Brian Blenis Craig Fuller William Buck Jason;

Boafo Michael Jordan SSG Ryan Ellis Charles Lee Curtis

Subject: FW: Weekly progress report

FYI

CNO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB uantico VA 22134-5635





From: Greer LtCo1 Christopher

Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2910 8:15 AM

To: Oltman Col Robert Averhart CNO4 James

Cc: Broadston Major Christian Ebitz Maj Amy
Subject: RE: weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

Sir,

All of the weekly progress reports are sent on to the Army POC, CPT Haberland. These are not
released to defense. However, it is probable that Defense will ask for these documents, and
more, including documentation of the status review committee, the Brig SOP, visitor logs,
etc. as litigation progresses.

I realize my concerns may be different from SecBn's, but these reports are absolutely factual
and contain nothing that expose any weakness in the Brig's handling of this detainee. In my
view, these are the most important documents that we have that show a weekly assessment of
every aspect of Manning's detention.

v/r

Ltcol Greer
SJA, MCB



From: Oltman Col Robert 6

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 14:28

To: Averhart CNO4 James

Cc: Greer LtCo1 Christopher Broadston Major Christian Ebitz Maj Amy
Subject: RE: weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

I will discuss with Cos. If we are going to send outside the MCB C0 chain of command then I
think we should change a few things.

Col R.G. Oltman


. . - -I):
*Af

33438

Commanding Officer

Securit BN MCB uantico





From: Averhart cwo4 James

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 14:24

To: Haberland, John CPT MII USA

Cc: Greer ltCol Christopher Broadston Major Christian Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj
Amy

Subject: RE: weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

Captain Haberland,

Per our previous conversation concerning the weekly progress report concerning PFC Manning
that I provide to the Security Battalion Commanding officer, you stated to me on the phone
that Manning defense attorney Mr. Coombs has received the report in the past.

As the writer of the report, I have concerns that individuals are receiving this report that
shouldn't be and don't have the need to know. I've asked my leadership to address this issue

in an official capacity.

Respectfully,

CWO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.

MCB, Quantico VA 22134-5935



-?--?0rigina1

From: Haberland, John cm mu USA nna?

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2016 11:53 AM
To: Averhart CWO4 James
Subject: weekly progress report (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

CH0 4 Averhart,

The copy of the weekly progress report that we (the Army) receive is not currently being
provided to the Defense. The Rules for Court Martial will require use to provide those
documents to the Defense in the near future.



33439

Very Respectfully,

CPT John B. Haberland

Regimental Judge Advocate

3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard)



Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: FOUO

ManningB_00512257





33440

From: Averhart CWO4 James

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 7:30 AM

To: Blenis Craig

Subject: FW: Anicle 138 Complaint

Attachments: Article 138 Complaint - RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR REDRESS ART 138

COMPLAINT FOR

Categories: Green Categoty

Blenis,

Over the next week I need to formulate the responses for the Manning Art 138 complaint. As
the respondent, I have the opportunity to explain why I made the decision in this case re:
his assignment to MAX and his POI status. The response need not be but I would
appreciate you assisting in drafting a reasoning for MAX and POI.

Under Art 138, he is arguing that I abused my discretion in making these decisions. I am not
justifying, I am explaining my decision. Please use the attached document and change as you
see fit. This piece is talking about the suicide watch

Thanks,

CWO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 Elrod, Ave.


From: Averhart CWO4 James

Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 7:09 AM
To: Greer LtCol Christopher

Cc: Oltman Col Robert 6

Subject: Fw: Article 138 Complaint

Sir,
I am forwarding this to you per Col Oltmans guidance.

Respectfully,

From:

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Averhart CWO4 James Ashden Fein
3 9

>3

ou<




Sent: Wed Jan 19 21:16:33 2011


I

ManningB_OO514375 Oi?





33441

Subject: Article 138 Complaint

Sir,

Please see the attached Article 138 complaint. The defense requests that you address this
issue as soon as possible. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at

Respectfully,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs

45 North Main Street, 5th Floor

Fall River, MA 02720

Office: 1-800-588-4156

Fax: (568) 324-9896





Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain confidential
attorney-client information and is intended for the person(s) or company named. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized
disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is

ManningB_0051-1376

33442

SECNAVINST 1640.9G
03 Jan 2006
APPENDIX A
FORMS
1.
I n Navy c o n f i n e m e n t f a c i l i t i e s , some forms have been r e p l a c e d
by r e p o r t s g e n e r a t e d b y t h e C o r r e c t i o n s Management I n f o r m a t i o n
System (CGRMIS) and p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n e l e c t r o n i c a l l y v i a t h e
Oefense Data Network.
2. F o l l o w i n g forms a r e a v a i l a b l e i n t h e Navy I n v e n t o r y C o n t r o l
P o i n t u s i n g r e q u i s i t i o n i n g procedures c o n t a i n e d i n CD-ROM NAVSUP
PUB 600(NLL), Navy Stock L i s t o f P u b l i c a t i o n s and Forms:
DO 504
(Sep-01)

Request and R e c e i p t f o r H e a l t h and
Comfort S u p p l i e s
S/N 0102-LF-000-5041

DO 509
(Rev. 7-70)

I n s p e c t i o n Record o f P r i s o n e r i n
Segregation
S/N 0102-LF-005-2500

00 510
(Rev. 5-51)

Request f o r I n t e r v i e w
S/N 0102-LF-005-2510

DO 512
(Aug-01)

I n s t a l l a t i o n Parolee/Minimum
Agreement

Custody

3. The f o l l o w i n g forms are a v a i l a b l e a t
http:BBwebl.whs.osd.mil/ICOHOMEBNICDHOME.HTM:
00 1569
(Jul-72)

I n c i d e n t / C o m p l a i n t Report

00 2704
(Mar-99)

V i c t i m / W i t n e s s C e r t i f i c a t i o n and E l e c t i o n
Concerning Inmate S t a t u s

00 2705
(Dec-94)

V i c t i m / W i t n e s s N o t i f i c a t i o n o f Inmate
Status

00 2707
(Nov-99)

Confinement

00 2708
(Nov-99)

R e c e i p t f o r Inmate o r D e t a i n e d Person

Order

A-1

Appendix A t o
E n c l o s u r e (1)
, , •

Page 325 of 388

APPELLATE EXHIBIT HHU
ManningB_00408695

PAGE REFERENCED:

PAGE

OF

PAGES

1250 of 1505

33443

SECNAVINST 1640.90
03 Jan 2006
00 2709
(Nov-99)

P r i v a c y A c t Statement

00 2710
(Nov-02)

Inmate Background Summary

00 2 7 1 0 - i
(Jun-04)

P r i s o n e r Sentence Computation

00 2 7 i i
(Nov-99)

I n i t i a l Custody C l a s s i f i c a t i o n

00 2711-1
(Nov-99)

Custody R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

00 2711-2
(Nov-99)

Custody I n i t i a l / R e c i a s s i f i c a t i o n Summary
Addendum

00 2712
(Nov-99)

Inmate ^ o r k and T r a i n i n g E v a l u a t i o n

00 2713
(Nov-99)

Inmate O b s e r v a t i o n Report

00 2714
(Nov-99)

Inmate O i s c i p i i n a r y Report

002715
(Nov-99)

Clemency/Parole

00 2715-1
(Nov-99)

D i s p o s i t i o n Board

00 2715-2
(Nov-99)

Inmate Summary Oata

00 2715-3
(Nov-99)

Inmate R e s t o r a t i o n / R e t u r n t o Duty,
Clemency and Parole Statement

00 2716
(Nov-99)

000 Parole Acknowledgement

00 2716-1
(Nov-99)

C e r t i f i c a t e o f Parole

A-2

Submission

Recommendation

Letter

Appendix A t o
E n c l o s u r e (1)
Page 32^0^388

ManningB^00408690

t25toft505

33444

SECNAVINST 1640.9C
03 Jan 2006
00 2718
(Nov-99)

Inmate^s Release Order

00 2719
(Nov-99)

C o n t i n u a t i o n Sheet

00 2791
(Nov-99)

N o t i c e o f Release o f M i l i t a r y O f f e n d e r
C o n v i c t e d o f Sex Offense

00 2791-1
(Nov-99)

P r i s o n e r ' s Acknowledgement o f Sex
O f f e n d e r R e g i s t r a t i o n Requirements

4.

The f o l l o w i n g forms a r e a v a i l a b l e f r o m t h e Navy Supply System:

NAVMEO 6550/8
(Rev.4-74)

M e d i c a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Record
S/N 0105-LF-216-5581

NAVPERS 1626/7
(Rev. 12-88)

Report and D i s p o s i t i o n o f Offense(s^
S/N 0106-LF-005-2700

NAVPERS 1640/8
(Rev. 4-78)

Conduct Record
S/N 0106-LF-016-4040

NAVPERS 1640/11
(Rev. 10-80)

M o n t h l y Report o f P r i s o n e r s / C o r r e c t i o n a l
Custody Personnel
S/N 0106-LF-016-4055

NAVPERS 1640/13
(Rev. 6-81)

Prisoner/Awardee E v a l u a t i o n Report
S/N 0106-LF-016-4065

NAVPERS 1640/15
(Rev. 6-81)

M a i l and V i s i t i n g L i s t
S/N 0106-LF-016-4078

NAVPERS 1640/16
(Rev. 7-78)

P r i s o n e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Badge
S/N 0106-LF-016-4080

NAVPERS 1640/17
(Rev 4-81)

I n v e n t o r y and R e c e i p t o f V a l u a b l e ,
C l o t h i n g and Personal E f f e c t s
S/N 0106-LF-016-4085

NAVPERS 1640/18
(Rev. 6-72)

Prisoner Escort I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
S/N 0106-LF-079-3000

A-3

Appendix A t o
E n c l o s u r e (1)
Page 32^ 0^388

ManningB^00408097

t252oft505

33445

SECNAVINST 1640.9C
03 Jan 2006
NAVPERS 5000/64
(Rev. 12-86)

Records T r a n s m i t t a l
S/N 0106-LF-150-6403

The f o l l o w i n g forms a r e a v a i l a b l e
5.
Administration:

f r o m t h e (general

SF 135
(Rev. 7-85)

Records T r a n s m i t t a l and Receipt
S/N 7540-00-634-4093

SF 135A
(Rev. 7-85)

Records T r a n s m i t t a l and Receipt
Continuation
S/N 7540-00-823-7952

Services

6. The f o l l o w i n g two forms may be o r d e r e d t h r o u g h t h e Marine
Corps L o g i s t i c s Base, Albany, Ceorgia:
NAVMC 604
(Rev. 4-94

Combined I n d i v i d u a l C l o t h i n g R e q u i s i t i o n
and I s s u e S l i p (Men^s)
(10120)
S/N 0000-00-000-8613

NAVMC 604b
(Rev. 5-94)

Combined I n d i v i d u a l C l o t h i n g R e q u i s i t i o n
and I s s u e S l i p (Women^s) (10120)
S/N 0000-00-000-8811

7. The f o l l o w i n g form may be o r d e r e d t h r o u g h t h e F e d e r a l Bureau
o f I n v e s t i g a t i o n s ( F B I ) , U n i t e d S t a t e s Oepartment o f J u s t i c e ,
Washington OC 20537:
FO 249
(Rev 12-84

F i n g e r p r i n t Card
U.S. l^.P.O. 1987-179-226

A^4

Appendix A t o
E n c l o s u r e (1)
Page 3280^388

ManningB^00408898

t253ofl505

33446

SECNAVINST 1640.9C
03 Jan 2006
APPENDIX B
NAVY PA SYSTEMS OF RECORDS NOTICE N O 1 6 4 0 - 1
I N D I V I D U A L CORRECTIONAL RECORDS
Go t o h t t p : / / p r i v a c y . n a v y . m i l / n o t i c e n u m b e r / N 0 1 6 4 0 - 1 . p d f
copy o f t h i s system n o t i c e .

B-l

for a

Appendix B t o
E n c l o s u r e (1)
Page 329 of 388

ManningB_00408699

1254 of 1505

33447

D E P A R T M E N T OF THE

NAVY

BUREAU OF NAVAL PERSONNEL
5 7 2 0 INTEGRITY DRIVE
MILLINGTON, TN 38055-0000

BUPERSINST 1640.22
PERS-OOD
29 Mar 2011
SUPERS INSTRUCTION 1640.22
From:

Chief o f Naval Personnel

Subj:

NAVAL CORRECTIONS MANUAL

Ref:

(a) SECNAVINST 1640.9C

Encl:

(1) Naval C o r r e c t i o n s Manual

1.
Purpose. To implement the p r o v i s i o n s o f r e f e r e n c e (a) and
issue supplemental p o l i c y governing the o p e r a t i o n and
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f naval shore b r i g s .
2.

Background

a. Per r e f e r e n c e ( a ) , a r t i c l e 1201.5a, Navy Personnel
Command (NAVPERSCOM), C o r r e c t i o n s and Programs (PERS-OOO) and
Commandant o f the Marine Corps (CMC) (PSL C o r r e c t i o n s ) are
designated t o a d m i n i s t e r naval shore b r i g s per 10 U.S.C,
Department o f Oefense D i r e c t i v e s and I n s t r u c t i o n s , Navy
Regulations, and reference ( a ) .
b. NAVPERSCOM (PERS-OOD) exercises primary and f i n a l
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " f o r developing and i s s u i n g c o r r e c t i o n s p o l i c y and
procedures w i t h i n the naval s e r v i c e i n a l l matters not endemic
to the Marine Corps. Matters endemic t o the Marine Corps
c o r r e c t i o n s program s h a l l be p u b l i s h e d by CMC (PSL C o r r e c t i o n s )
v i a separate Marine Corps Order. Changes t o t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n
s h a l l be a d m i n i s t e r e d by NAVPERSCOM (PERS-OOO) a f t e r
c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h CMC (PSL C o r r e c t i o n s ) .
3. Scope. This i n s t r u c t i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e t o a l l Navy and
Marine Corps shore b r i g s . As used w i t h i n t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n , t h e
term " b r i g " r e f e r s t o Navy and Marine Corps shore confinement
f a c i l i t i e s , both p r e - t r i a l and p o s t - t r i a l , designated by the
Secretary o f the Navy as an a u t h o r i z e d naval place o f
confinement.
Unless otherwise noted, the term " p r i s o n e r " r e f e r s
to both p r e - t r i a l and p o s t - t r i a l p r i s o n e r s and Service members
awarded confinement t o bread and water o r d i m i n i s h e d r a t i o n s
under the Uniform Code o f M i l i t a r y J u s t i c e (UCMJ), a r t i c l e 15.

APPELLATE EXHIBIT 4l| I W
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33448

BUPERSINST 1640.22
A r t i c l e 1640-140
Page 1 o f 4
29 Mar 2011

NAVAL CORRECTIONS MANUAL
ARTICLE 1640-140
FORMS
Responsible
Office

NAVPERSCOM
(PERS-OODl)

Phone:

OSN
COM
FAX

882--4444
(901) 874--4444
882--2626

1. I n naval b r i g s , some forms have been replaced by r e p o r t s
generated by the C o r r e c t i o n s Management I n f o r m a t i o n System (CORMIS)
and provide i n f o r m a t i o n e l e c t r o n i c a l l y v i a the Oefense Oata
Network.
2. Following forms are a v a i l a b l e v i a the f o l l o w i n g Web s i t e s :
http;//www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/formsprogram.htm
Request and Receipt f o r Health and
Comfort Supplies
DD 509
I n s p e c t i o n Record o f Prisoner i n
J y J I ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^ ^ Segregation
•DD 51-Q-

Request f o r I n t e r v i e w

-Bfr-51r2-

I n s t a l l a t i o n Parolee/Minimum Custody
Agreement

3. The f o l l o w i n g forms are a v a i l a b l e a t
http://webl.whs.osd.mil/ICOHOME/NICDHOME.HTM:
DD 1569

C/)A.CC=-M60

c^^^^^/^aT^Z

Incident/Complaint Report
Victim/Witness C e r t i f i c a t i o n and E l e c t i o n
Concerning Inmate Status

-eD-2?e5-^

Victim/Witness N o t i f i c a t i o n o f Inmate
Status

-DU 2/aT>

Confinement Order

DD 27TT&~

Receipt f o r Inmate or Detained Person

Enclosure (1]

33449

BUPERSINST 1640.22
A r t i c l e 1640-140
Page 2 of 4
29 Mar 2011
Privacy Act Statement

^

^D^^^^^^

Inmate Background Summary

^^^^1^^^^^^^^^^

Prisoner Sentence Computation

D^^^^^^

I n i t i a l Custody C l a s s i f i c a t i o n

DD 2 ^ 1 ^

Custody R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

DD

Custody I n i t i a i / R e c i a s s i f i c a t i o n Summary
Addendum

^

2 7 1 1 - 2 ^ ^ ^ ^
^

^

^

^

^

^

Inmate Work and T r a i n i n g E v a l u a t i o n

^

DU 2 7 1 ^

Inmate Observation Report

DD 2714-^

Inmate D i s c i p l i n a r y Report

D^^^^^^^^

Ciemency/Paroie

^^^^-^2715^^^

Submission

D i s p o s i t i o n Board Recommendation
Inmate Summary Oata

^ ^ J ^ 2715^3
^^^^^^^9^
DD 2716-^
^^^^^^^^

Inmate Restoration/Return t o Duty,
Clemency and Parole Statement
Parole Acknowledgement L e t t e r
Department of Defense C e r t i f i c a t e of Parole
Inmate^s Release Order
Continuation Sheet

(Nov-99)
^^^^2^^^

4.

Notice of Release/Acknowledge of
Convicted Sex Offender R e g i s t r a t i o n
Requirements

The f o l l o w i n g forms are a v a i l a b l e from the Navy Supply System:

NAVMEO 6550/8

Medication A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
S/N 0i05-LF-216-5581

Record

Enclosure (1)

33450

BUPERSINST 1640.22
A r t i c l e 1640-140
Page i o f 4
29 Mar 2011

NAVAL CORRECTIONS MANUAL
ARTICLE 1640140
FORMS
Responsible
Office

NAVPERSCOM
(PERS-OODl)

Phone:

DSN
COM
FAX

882-4444
(901) 874-4444
882-2626

1. I n naval b r i g s , some forms have been replaced by r e p o r t s
generated by the Corrections Management I n f o r m a t i o n System (CORMIS^
and provide i n f o r m a t i o n e i e c t r o n i c a i i y v i a the Defense Data
Network.
2. Following forms are a v a i l a b l e v i a the f o l l o w i n g Web s i t e s :
http://www.dtic.mii/whs/directives/infomgt/forms/formsprogram.htm
00 504

Request and Receipt f o r Health and
Comfort Supplies

DD 509

I n s p e c t i o n Record o f Prisoner i n
Segregation

DO 5 i 0

Request f o r I n t e r v i e w

DD 512

I n s t a l l a t i o n Paroiee/Minimum Custody
Agreement

3. The f o l l o w i n g forms are a v a i l a b l e a t
http://web1.whs.osd.mii/ICDH0ME/NICDH0ME.HTMi
DD 1569

Incident/Compiaint Report

DD 2704

Victim/Witness C e r t i f i c a t i o n and E l e c t i o n
Concerning Inmate Status

DD 2705

Victim/Witness N o t i f i c a t i o n o f Inmate
Status

DD 2707

Confinement Order

DD 2708

Receipt f o r Inmate or Detained Person

Enclosure (1)

33451

BUPERSINST 1640.22
A r t i c l e 1640-140
Page 2 of 4
29 Mar 2011
DD 2709

P r i v a c y A c t Statement

DD 2710

Inmate Background Summary

00 2710-1

Prisoner Sentence Computation

DD 2 7 i i

I n i t i a l Custody C l a s s i f i c a t i o n

DO 2711-1

Custody R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

DD 2711-2

Custody I n i t i a i / R e c i a s s i f i c a t i o n Summary
Addendum

DD 2712

Inmate Work and T r a i n i n g Evaluation

DO 2713

Inmate Observation Report

00 2714

Inmate O i s c i p i i n a r y Report

DD 2715

Ciemency/Paroie

00 2715-1

D i s p o s i t i o n Board Recommendation

DD 2715-2
DO 2715-3
DD 2716

Inmate Summary Data
Inmate Restoration/Return t o Duty,
Clemency and Parole Statement
Parole Acknowledgement L e t t e r

DO 2716-1

Oepartment of Defense C e r t i f i c a t e of Parole

00 2718

Inmate^s Release Order

DD 2719
(Nov-99)

Continuation Sheet

DD 2791

Notice of Release/Acknowledge of
Convicted Sex Offender R e g i s t r a t i o n
Requirements

4.

Submission

The f o l l o w i n g forms are a v a i l a b l e from the Navy Supply System:

NAVMEO 6550/8

Medication A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
S/N 0105-LF-216-5581

Record

Enclosure (1)

33452

REQUEST AND RECEIPT FOR HEALTH AND COMFORT SUPPLIES
(Read Privacy Act Statement

1. TO:

form.)

3. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

2. INSTALLATION

4. REQUESTED BY (Last Name - First Name - Middle Initial
6. SSN

on back before completing

Printed or Typed!

5. GRADE OR RATE

7. ORGANIZATION

8. DEPT. OF MIL. SERVICE

9. 1 authorize the Confinement/Correctional Facility Commanding Officer to withdraw sufficient funds from my personal
deposit fund account to pay for the health and comfort supplies described below. 1 understand that the cost of these
supplies will be charged against my military pay account if the balance of my personal deposit fund account is insufficient
to cover the total cost of these supplies. No cliarge will be made against my military pay account if 1 am in a nonpay and
allowance status.
a. QUANTITY
11) Requested 12) Issued

c. UNIT
COST

b. ARTICLE

d. COST

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10. REQUESTED BY (Signature)

e. TOTAL
COST

11. APPROVAL AND AUTHENTICATION
a. NAME, GRADE OR RANK & TITLE OF APPROVING OFFICER
(Printed or Typed)

0.00

b. SIGNATURE OF APPROVING OFFICER

12. RECEIPT

a. 1 acknowledge receipt of the issued b. DATE (YYYYMMDDl
health and comfort articles costing
Dollars
Cents.

DD FORM 504, SEP 2001

c. SIGNATURE

PREVIOUS EDITION MAY BE USED.

Adobe Professional 8.0

APPELLATE EXHIBIT 4"// c
PAGE REFERENCED:
_
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33453

PRIVACV ACT STATEMENT

AUTHORITY: C h a p t e r 4 B , T i t l e 1 0 U . 8 . C . , M i l i t a r y C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t i e s : 1 0 U 8 C

^301^,

Secretary ot the A r m y : D o D D i r e c t i v e 1 0 3 0 . 1 , V i c t i m and Witness Assistance: DoD Directive
10^0.2, Victim and Witness Assistance Procedures: ArrTiyBegulations190-47, Army Corrections
System: and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): This intormation is used a s a r e c e i p t and to accurately identity individuals
reguesting health and comtort supplies.
ROUTINE USES: Information may be disclosed to locaL state, and tederal law enforcement and
investigation agencies for investigation and possible criminal prosecution, civil court actions or
regulatory orders.
Toconfinement/correctional agencies for use in the administration of correctional programs including
custody classification,employment,training and educational assignments,treatment programs,
clemency,restoration to duty or parole actions,verification of offender'scriminal records,
employment records, and social histories.
Tostate and local authorities for purposes of providing (Dnotification that individuals,who have
been convicted o f a s p e c i f i e d sex offense or an offense a g a i n s t a v i c t i m who i s a m i n o r , w i l l be
residing in the state upon release from military confinement and (2) information about tho individual
for inclusion i n a s t a t e operated sex offender registry.
T o t h e Oureau of Prisons for purpose of providing notification that the military transferee has been
convicted o f a s e x u a l l y violent offense or an offense a g a i n s t a v i c t i m who i s a m i n o r .
Tovictims and witnesses of crime for purposes of notifying them of date of parole or clemency
hearing and other release related activities.
The "Blanket Routine Uses"set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of
records notices also apply to this system.
DISCLOSURE: Voluntary, liowever, failure to provide the reguested information may result in the
denial of the reguested health and comfort supplies.

DO FORM 504 (BACI^^, SEP 2001

33454
REQUEST FOR INTERVIEW
(Read Privacy Act Statement on back before completing form.)
1. TO:

2. DATE lYYYYMMDDI

Confinement Officer
REQUEST THAT 1 BE AUTHORIZED AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PERSON NAMED BELOW
3. NAME OR TITLE
4 . SUBJECT AND PURPOSE OF THE INTERVIEW

5. PRISONER'S NAME ILast, First. Middle Initial)

6. SERVICE NO.ISSN

7. DEPT. OF MIL. SERVICE

ACTION (To be filled in by Confinement
9a. INTERVIEW W A S
1 1 AUTHORIZED

8. SIGNATURE OF PRISONER

Officer)
b. DATE lYYYYtiAMDDI

[ ^ j NOT AUTHORIZED (Show reasons under Remarks)

10a. FORWARDED TO (Name, Grade, and Organization, printed)

b. DATE (YYYYMMDDl

11a. INTERVIEW WAS HELD WITH IName. Grade, and Organization, printed)

b. DATE (YYYYMMDDl

12. REMARKS

13. NAME AND GRADE OF CONFINEMENT

DD FORM 510, SEP 2001

OFFICER (Printedj

14. SIGNATURE OF CONFINEMENT OFFICER

PREVIOUS EDITION MAY BE USED.

Adobe Professional 7.0

33455
PRIVACY AOT STATEMENT
AUTFIORITY: Chapter 4 8 , T i t l e l O U . 8 . C , M i l i t a r y Correctional Facilities: 1 0 0 . S . C . 3 0 1 3 , s e c r e t a r y of the Army^ DoD
Directi^e 1 0 3 0 . 1 , Victim and Witness Assistance: DoD D i r e c t i ^ e 1 0 3 0 . 2 , Victim and Witness Assistance Procedures:
Army Flegulations190-47, Army Corrections System: and E.O. 9397 ^88N).
PRINCIPAL PUBPOSE^S): The primary use of this information by Correction Officials is for appro^al/disappro^al, to
maintain accurate records of rei^uests and remarks pertinent to the interview.
ROUTII^EUSES: Information may be disclosed to local, state, and federal law enforcement and investigation agencies for
investigation and possible criminal prosecution, ci^il court actions or regulatory orders.
Toconfinement/correctional agencies for use in the administration of correctional programs including custody
classification, employment, training and educational assignments, treatment programs, clemency, restoration to duty or
parole actions, verification of offender's criminal records, employment records, and social histories.
T o s t a t e a n d l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s f o r p u r p o s e s o f providing ^t^notification that individuals,who havebeen convicted of a
specified sex offense or an offense a g a i n s t a v i c t i m who i s a m i n o r , w i l l be residing in the state upon release from military
confinement and ^2) information about the individual for inclusion i n a s t a t e operated se^ offender registry.
T o t h e Bureau of Prisons for purpose of providing notification that the military transferee has been convicted of ase^ually
violent offense or an offense a g a i n s t a v i c t i m who i s a m i n o r .
T o v i c t i m s and witnesses of crime for purposes of notifying them of date of parole orclemency hearing and other release
related activities.
The"Blanket routine Llses"set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices also apply
to this system.
DISCLOSURE: Voluntary. Flowever, failure to provide the rei^uested information ma^ result in the denial of the rei^uested
interview.
OD F O R M 5 1 0 ( B A C I ^ ^ , SEP 2 0 0 1

33456

INSTALLATION PAROLEE - MINIMUM CUSTODY AGREEMENT
(See Privacy Act Statement on back.)
1. LAST NAME - FIRST NAME - MIDDLE INITIAL

2. SSN

3. BRANCH OF SERVICE

4. INSTALLATION

5. DATE

In consideration of being placed in [ ]

Installation Parolee

[ ]

Minimum Custody status and

permitted t o w o r k w i t h o u t armed supervision. 1 agree that 1 will abide by the restrictions specified
below, realizing that violation of these or of local regulations may result in loss of accrued good
conduct time and may subject me to disciplinary action under the UCMJ.
(a) 1 will not leave the officially specified limits o f this reservation.
(b) 1 will be in my quarters for bed check at the specified time and will not leave therefrom
w i t h o u t permission.
6. SIGNATURE

7. WITNESS (Conrinement Ofricer)

DD FORM 512, AUG 2001

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE.

8. DESCRIPTION
RIGHT-HANDED

AGE

HEIGHT

WEIGHT

HAIR COLOR

LEFT-HANDED

(Photograph)

9. REMARKS

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT.
AUTHORITY: Chapter 48. Title 10 U.S.C: 10 U S C. 3013; DoD Directive
1030.1; DoD Directive 1030.2; Army Regulations 190-47; and E.O. 9397.
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE: This information is used to identify and authenticate
your status as a trustee.
ROUTINE USES: Information may be disclosed to local, state, and federal law
enforcement and investigation agencies for investigation and possible criminal
prosecution, civil court actions or regulatory orders. To
confinement/correctional agencies for use in the administration of correctional
programs including custody classification, employment, training and
educational assignments, treatment programs, clemency, restoration to duty or
parole actions, verification of offender's criminal records, employment records,
and social histories. To state and local authorities for purposes of providing
(1) notification that individuals, who have been convicted of a specified sex
offense or an offense against a victim who is a minor, will be residing in the
state upon release from military confinement and (2) information about the
individual for inclusion in a state operated sex offender registry. To the Bureau
of Prisons for purpose of providing notincation that the military transferee has
been convicted of a sexually violent offense or an offense against a victim
who is a minor. To victims and witnesses of crime for the purpose of
notifying them of date of parole or clemency hearing and other release related
activities. The "Blanket Routine Uses " set forth at the beginning of the Army's
compilation of systems of records notices also apply to this system.
DISCLOSURE: Required. Execution of this form and the requested information
is mandatory for the prisoner to be designated as a trustee.

DD FORM 512 (BACK), AUG 2001

Adobe Professional 7.0

33457

/
VICTIM/WITNESS CERTIFICATION AND ELECTION CONCERNING INMATE STATUS
(This form is exempt from Freedom of Information Act release.)
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 10606 et sec, Victim's Rights and Restitution Act of 1990; 18 U.S.C. 1501 et sec. Victim and Witness
Protection Act of 1982.
PRINCIPAL PURPOSES: To inform victims and witnesses of their post-trial rights; to determine whether the victim or witness of a crime
elects to be notified of changes in tbe confinement status of a convicted criminal offender; and to record the election by the victim or
witness of their desire to be notified about subsequent changes in inmate status.
ROUTINE USES: None.
DISCLOSURE: Voluntary; however, failure to provide identifying information will prevent tbe corrections facility from notifying victim or
witness of changes in a criminal offender's status.

SECTION I - ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
Installation

City

State

Incident Number

Organizational Identifier (ORI)

ZIP Code

SECTION II - CERTIFICATION OF NO VICTIM OR WITNESS
(Complete this section only if there are no victims or witnesses who are entitled to notification under the Victim's Rights and Restitution Act
of 1990, and DoD Instruction 1030.2.)
As representative for the Government in the court-martial case of United States v.
(Name of accused) (Last, first, middle initial)
,

convened by

(Social Security Number)

(Court-manial convening order number, date, and issuing command)

I certify that this case does not involve a victim or witness entitled to receive information about the confinement status of
the defendant as required by the Victim's Rights and Restitution A c t of 1990 (Public Law 1 0 1 - 6 4 7 ; 104 Stat. 4820).

(Signature of person certifying)

(Typed name (Last, first))

(Date) (YYYYMMDD)

(Grade and title)

SECTION III - CERTIFICATION OF A D V I C E T O V I C T I M ( S ) A N D WITNESS(ES)
(Complete this section when there are victims or witnesses entitled to notification.)
I certify that on this date 1 personally notified the victim(s) and witness(es) in the court-martial case of United States v.
(Name o f accused) (Last, first, middle initial)

(Social Security Number)

convened by
(Court-manial convening order number, date, and issuing command)
whose sentence included confinement, of their right under the Victim's Rights and Restitution A c t of 1990 (Public Law
101-647, 104 Stat. 4820), to receive information about the status o f t h e Inmate, to include length of sentence, anticipated
earliest release date, likely place of confinement, the possibility of transfer, and the right to receive notification of a new
place o f confinement. I advised of the possibility of parole or clemency w i t h an explanation of these terms. Additionally,
I advised of the right to prior notification of the inmate's parole hearings, release from confinement, escape and death.
I advised that to receive notification of the inmate's transfer, parole hearings, and release from confinement, the victim or
witness must provide the information required in Section IV of this form. I advised all victims and witnesses that if they
elect to terminate or reinitiate notifications, or if they change their address listed above, they must contact the Military
Service Central Repository listed in Section V.

(Signature ofperson providing notification)

(Typed name (Last, first))

(Date) (YYYYMMDD)
0 0 FORM 2 7 0 4 , M A R 1 9 9 9

(Grade and title)
PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE.

Adobe Professional 7.0

33458

SECTION IV

ELECTION TO BE NOTIFIED

The victim(s) and witness(es) listed below have elected the right to receive information about changes in the status of
the inmate by initialing the "Yes" block. If the inmate is transferred, they understand that they will be notified of the address
of the new confinement facility. They also understand that if they move or their telephone number changes, they must
notify the confinement facility of the new address or telephone numbers in order to be notified.
LIST ALL VICTIMS AND WITNESSES INVOLVED IN THE CASE. (Indicate whether a victim or witness by entering "V" or "W" In the appropriate column. Those who elect to be notified of inmate status changes should initial in the "Yes" column; otherwise initial the "No" column.)
NAME
(Last. First, Middle Initial)

ADDRESS
(Street, Apartment No., City, State, ZIP Code)

TELEPHONE NUMBER
(Include Area Code)

V OR
W

NOTIFY
YES

SECTION V - DISTRIBUTION
ADDRESSES (Include 9-digit ZIP Code and telephone number.)
MILITARY SERVICE CENTRAL REPOSITORY

LAW ENFORCEMENT/SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

DD FORM 2704 (BACK), MAR 1999

LOCAL CONFINEMENT FACILITY (Name and address)

VICTIM/WITNESS (Individual will receive a copy with all other
victim/witness addresses blacked out.)

NO

33459

VICl IM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION OF INMATE STATUS
(This form is exempt from Freedom of Information Act release.)
EXPLANATION: This form is being used to give basic information on changes in an inmate's status to victims and witnesses who elected, on
the DD Form 2704, to be notified. The confinement facility holding the inmate must promptly notify victims and witnesses of initial entry into
confinement and of confinee status changes in accordance with DoD Instruction 1030.2.
SECTION I - DISTRIBUTION
1. TO: (Victim or Witness)

2. FROM: (Victim/Witness Assistance Coordinator at Confinement Facility)

a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)

a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)

b. STREET ADDRESS (Include apartment no.)

b. STREET ADDRESS

c. CITY

d. STATE

e. ZIP CODE

f. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

c. CITY

d. STATE

e. ZIP CODE

f. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

SECTION II - INMATE STATUS
3. INMATE NAME (Last, First, Middleinitial)

4. REGISTER NUMBER

5. MINIMUM RELEASE DATE 6. MAXIMUM RELEASE DATE
(YYYYMMDD)
ON/ABOUT (YYYYMMDD)

7. ADDRESS OF SERVICE CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD
a. STREET

b. CITY

c. STATE

d. ZIP CODE

NOTE 1: Clemency Boards will meet annually from the date of the initial board until the inmate is released. Clemency Boards will be held in
conjunction with Parole Boards when the inmate becomes eligible for parole after serving one third of the sentence.
NOTE 2: You may submit documentation to Clemency and Parole Boards wben tbe inmate is scheduled to appear. If you would like to submit
a Victim Impact Statement to the Board, please send it to the address above approximately two weeks prior to the scheduled board meeting.
Your statement may be submitted in the form of a letter, or audio or video cassette. A personal appearance may also be permitted.
SECTION III - RELEASE ELIGIBILITY
8. RESTORATION AND CLEMENCY ELIGIBILITY
a. INMATE IS INITIALLY ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR RESTORATION AND CLEMENCY ON (YYYYMMDD)
b. INMATE IS SCHEDULED TO MEET A SERVICE CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD FOR RESTORATION AND CLEMENCY
ON (YYYYMMDD)

.

9. PAROLE ELIGIBILITY
a. INMATE IS INITIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE ON (YYYYMMDD)
b. INMATE IS SCHEDULED TO MEET A SERVICE CLEMENCY AND PAROLE BOARD FOR PAROLE ON (YYYYMMDD)

SECTION IV - CHANGE IN INMATE STATUS
10. CLEMENCY/PAROLE APPROVAL
a. INMATE WAS APPROVED FOR

[

PAROLE ON (YYYYMMDD)

CLEMENCY

AT (Location)

b. PAROLE OFFICER'S NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)

TELEPHONE NUMBER (Incl. area
code)

c. INMATE'S SENTENCE HAS BEEN CHANGED AS FOLLOWS:

11. RELEASE
c. PLANNED RELEASE DESTINATION CITY

a. INMATE IS BEING RELEASED ON (/YYYMMDD)

STATE

b. INMATE'S RELEASE IS UNDER NO COMMUNITY SUPERVISION.
12. INMATE IS DECEASED (Date of death)
13. INMATE ESCAPED

b. DESTINATION (If known)

c. DATE, TIME, AND PLACE OF APPREHENSION
(If apprehended)

a. DATE AND TIME OF ESCAPE

d. PLACE OF RECONFINEMENT

14. INMATE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER CORRECTIONS FACILITY ON (YYYYMMDD)
a. STREET ADDRESS

b. CITY

c. STATE

d. ZIP CODE

16. WE HAVE CANCELLED YOUR REQUEST TO
BE NOTIFIED OF THIS INMATE'S RELEASE
DUE TO:

15. OTHER
a. WORK RELEASE PROGRAM BEGAN ON (YYYYMMDD)
b. RELEASE ON TEMPORARY HOME PAROLE FROM (YYYYMMDD)

a. YOUR REQUEST

TO (YYYYMMDD)

b. OTHER (Specify)

c. (Specify)

SECTION V - VICTIM/WITNESS ASSISTANCE COORDINATOR
17.a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)

0 0 FORM 2705, DEC 94

b. RANK

c. SIGNATURE

d. DATE SIGNED

33460

CONFINEMENT ORDER
2. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

1. PERSON TO BE CONFINED
a. NAME (Last, First. Middle)

c. BRANCH OF SERVICE

b. SSN

e. MILITARY ORGANIZATION (From):

d. GRADE

TYPE OF CONFINEMENT
3.a. PRE-TRIAL

NO

Q



c. RESULT OF COURT MARTIAL



TYPE:

I

SCM

d. DNA PROCESSING

Q

IS

b. RESULT OF NJP

YES

Q

| ^ YES

• YES

NO

I SPCM

Q N O



GCM

•VACATED

SUSPENSION

IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER 10 U.S.C. 1 5 6 5 .

4 . OFFENSES/CHARGES OF UCMJ ARTICLES VIOLATED:

b. ADJUDGED DATE
(YYYYMMDD):

5. SENTENCE ADJUDGED:

6. IF THE SENTENCE IS DEFERRED, THE DATE DEFERMENT IS TERMINATED:
7. PERSON DIRECTING CONFINEMENT
b. SIGNATURE

a. TYPED NAME, GRADE AND TITLE:

c. DATE
(YYYYMMDD)

c. DATE
(YYYYMMDDl

b. SIGNATURE:

8.a. NAME, GRADE, TITLE OF LEGAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL

d. TIME

MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
a n d f o u n d t o be

9a. The above n a m e d inmate w a s e x a m i n e d by me at
ITimel
for confinement.
I



F i t D Unfit

lYYYYMMDDI

I certify that f r o m this examination the execution of the foregoing sentence to confinement

I

[will

I will not produce serious injury t o the inmate's health.

b.

The following

c.

HIV Test administered

d.

Pregnancy

test

irregularities

on

administered

were

noted

during

the examination

(If none, so state):

(YYYYMMDD):
on



(YYYYMMDD):

N/A

10. EXAMINER
a. TYPED NAME, GRADE AND TITLE:

b. SIGNATURE

c. DATE
(YYYYMMDD)

d. TIME

RECEIPT FOR INMATE
I l . a . THE INMATE NAMED ABOVE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FOR CONFINEMENT A T :
(Facility Name and

AND TIME:

ON
(YYYYMMDD)

b. PERSON RECEIPTING FOR INMATE
TYPED NAME, GRADE AND TITLE:

DD FORM 2707, SEP 2005

Location)

(Time)
c. SIGNATURE:

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE.

d. DATE
(YYYYMMDD)

e. TIME

Adobe Professional 7.0

33461

RECEIPT FOR INMATE OR DETAINED PERSON
1. RECEIVED FROM (Unit or Agency and Station)

2. TIME

3. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

4. INMATE NAME (Last, First. Middle)

5. SSN

6. GRADE

7. ORGANIZATION

8. STATION

9. OFFENSE

10. PERSONAL PROPERTY

11. REMARKS

12. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON RECEIVING ABOVE INDIVIDUAL

13. SSN

15. RECEIVING UNIT OR AGENCY AND STATION

16. SIGNATURE

0 0 FORM 2708, NOV 1999

14. GRADE

Adobe Professional 7.0

33462
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
(To be presented

to the prisoner when information

for DD Form

and/or DD Form 2711 is provided in an interview
1. PRISONER NAME

2. SSN

2710

setting.)
3. IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

4. FACILITY NAME

AUTHORITY:

5 U.S.C. 301 and E.O. 9 3 9 7 .

PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): To collect personal history information from the prisoner to assist in the
classification and assignment process. In addition, the information will be used to evaluate the prisoner's
progress toward rehabilitation or suitability for parole or clemency.

ROUTINE USE(S): To the Department of Justice, in instances where the prisoner is transferred to a Federal
Bureau of Prisons facility for incarceration.

DISCLOSURE AND EFFECT ON THE INDIVIDUAL OF NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION: Voluntary; however,
failure to provide the requested information may prevent the staff of the correctional facility from fully
evaluating the prisoner.

DATE (YYYYMMDD)

5. PRISONER SIGNATURE

6. WITNESS
a. NAME

0 0 FORM 2 7 0 9 , N O V 1 9 9 9

b. SIGNATURE

c. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

Adobe Professional 7.0

33463
REPORT DATE
(YYYYMMDD)

INMATE 8 A C K 0 R 0 U N 0 SUMMARY
SECTIONI
1. NMHE (Last. First.

2. SSN

Middle)

4 . MAIDEN NAME

7. AGE

PERSONAL DATA

5. NICKNAME

8. SEX:

3. ID NUMBER

6. ALIASIES)

10. DATE OF BIRTH

9. PLACE OF BIRTH (City, County and State)

(YYYYMMDD)

MALE
FEMALE
11. RACE (X one or more)

12. ETHNICITY ( X o n e )

AMERICAN INDIAN/ ALASKA NATIVE

NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER

HISPANIC OR LATINO

ASIAN

WHITE

NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO

BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN

DECLINE TO RESPOND

DECLINE TO RESPOND

13. NATIONALITY

14. RELIGION

15. HEIGHT

16. WEIGHT

17. IDENTIFYING MARKS /Scars, tattoos, etc.) (If Yes. see attached)

NO
18. HAIR COLOR ( X o n e )

I

I YES
19. EYE COLOR ( X o n e )

AUBURN

BROWN

SILVER

BLACK

GREEN

BLACK

GRAY

WHITE

BLUE

GRAY

BLOND

RED

BALD

BROWN

HAZEL

20. GANG ASSOCIATION:
NO

I

I

GANG NAME/LOCATION (City, Statel

I YES

2 1 . CULT/EXTREMIST ASSOCIATION:

NO

VIOLET

CULT NAME/LOCATION (City, Statel

I YES

2 2 . DOES YOUR FAMILY KNOW YOUR WHEREABOUTS:
NO

I

I YES

2 3 . DO THEY NEED TO BE NOTIFIED:
NO

YES III Yes, Name, Relationship, Phonel

24.a. HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO COMMIT SUICIDE?

NO

I

b. DO YOU FEEL SUICIDAL AT THIS TIME?

I YES

25. ARE THERE ANY ISSUES THAT NEED IMMEDIATE

NO
MEDICAL ATTENTION?

I

I YES

(Communicable diseases or disabilitiesi

2 6 . ARE THERE ANY ISSUES THAT NEED IMMEDIATE ATTENTION?

27.a. FORM COMPLETED BY:

b. DATE

(YYYYMMDD)

c. TIME

b. DATE

(YYYYMMDD)

c. TIME

2 8 . ACTIONS TAKEN IF NECESSARY:

29.a. ACTION TAKEN BY:

DD FORM 2 7 1 0 , NOV 2 0 0 2

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE.

Page 1 of 5 Pages
Adobe Professional 7.0

33464
REPORT DATE lYYYYMMDDI

SECTION 2 - MILITARY BACKGROUND
1. ^Mn£

(Last. First,

Middle)

2. SSN

3. ID NUMBER

4 . BRANCH OF SERVICE
AIR FORCE

ARMY

NAVY

5. MILITARY UNIT

7. HOME OF RECORD (City,

State):

10. END OF ACTIVE DUTY OBLIGATION

8. ACTIVE DUTY BASE DATE

(YYYYMMDD)

RESERVES

MARINES
COAST GUARD
6. MILITARY INSTALLATION

(YYYYMMDD)

9. DATE ENTERED CURRENT TERM
(YYYYMMDD)

1 1 . TOTAL ACTIVE LENGTH OF SERVICE

12. METHOD OF ENTRY (Choose one)
INDUCTION
INITIAL ENUSTMENT
REENLISTMENT
13. HIGHEST PAYGRADE ATTAINED:
14. CURRENT MOS/RATE OR SPECIALTY:

16. PRIOR SERVICE
NO

YES

DIRECT APPOINTMENT
15. PREVIOUS DISCHARGE RECEIVED
(Type and Date - YYYYMMDD):

PRIOR BRANCH OF SERVICE
AIR FORCE

ARMY

NAVY

MARINES

COAST GUARD

RESERVES

17. MILITARY AWARDS AND DECORATIONS

18. MAJOR MILITARY SCHOOLS ATTENDED
COURSE TITLE

DATE COMPLETED
(YYYYMMDD)

COURSE LOCATION
b.

19. PREVIOUS MILITARY OFFENSES
ARTICLE 15 OR COURT MARTIAL

DATE OF INCIDENT
OR ACTION (YYYYMMDDl
b.

OFFENSES
c.

DISPOSITION
d.

CONFINEMENT
(Y/NI

2 0 . MILITARY HISTORY NARRATIVE
a. GENERAL MILITARY SERVICE BACKGROUND

DD FORM 2710, NOV 2002

Page 2 of 5 Pages

33465
REPORT DATE (YYYYMMDDl

SECTIONS
1. NimE

(Last, First,

CIVILIAN BACKGROUND
2. SSN

Middle)

4. CIVILIAN EDUCATION (List High School, Colleges, and Trade
NAME AND ADDRESS OF SCHOOL

AGE
b.

3. ID NUMBER

Schools)

DATE ENTERED
lYYYYMMDDI

GRADE(S) COMPLETED
d.

g. HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETED

10

11

DEGREE
e.

12

13

14

15

DATE
(YYYYMMDDl

16

17

18

h. REASON FOR LEAVING SCHOOL:
5. CIVILIAN EMPLOYMENT
NAME AND CITY/STATE OF EMPLOYER

TYPE OF WORK
b.

SALARY

FULL OR
PART TIME
d.

DATES
FROM/TO
(YYYYMMDDl

REASON FOR LEAVING
f.

6. CIVILIAN ARREST RECORD
OFFENSE (Exclude minor traffic
offenses - include DUl/DWII

PLACE OF ARREST
b.

DATE
(YYYYMMDDl

DISPOSITION
OR SENTENCE
d.

CONFINED
lY/NI

7. PERSONAL HISTORY
a. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
b. OCCUPATIONAL BACKGROUND
c. GENERAL BACKGROUND

DO FORM 2710, NOV 2002

Page 3 of 5 Pages

33466
REPORT DATE (YYYYMMDDl

SECTIONS
1. tiMAZ

(Last, First,

FAMILYBACKGROUND

Middle)

4. MARITAL STATUS CODES
1 MARRIAGE ANNULLED

2. SSN

3. ID NUMBER

3 INTERLOCUTORY

5 MARRIED

7 WIDOWED

4 LEGALLY SEPARATED

6 NEVER MARRIED

(Current)

2 DIVORCED
5. LIVING STATUS:
ALONE

SINGLE PARENT/HEAD
WITH SPOUSE
OF HOUSEHOLD
COHABITING
MILITARY QUARTERS
HOME ADDRESS (Street, City, State and ZIP Code)

WITH PARENTS

DATE
(YYYYMMDDl:
OTHER:
7. NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS

WITH RELATIVE
6. INMATE'S

8. FAMILY
RELATIONSHIP
(Ust Spouse, Children,
and Parents)
b.

NAME

ADDRESS
(Street, City. State)

TELEPHONE NUMBER
(Include Area Codel
d.

AGE

9. NEXT OF KIN
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initiall

b. ADDRESS IStreet, City, State, ZIP Codel

10. EMERGENCY CONTACT (If Next of Kin, indicate
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)

1 1 . LENGTH OF RESIDENCY
AT CURRENT ADDRESS:

c. TELEPHONE (Incl, Area Code)

SAME):
c. TELEPHONE (Incl. Area Code)

b. ADDRESS (Street, City, State, ZIP Code)

12. LENGTH OF RESIDENCY
IN THE LOCAL AREA:

13. LENGTH OF TIME
APART FROM PARENTS:

14. HAS ANY FAMILY MEMBER EVER BEEN
CONVICTED OF A FELONY?

YEARS

MONTHS
YEARS
MONTHS
YEARS
MONTHS
NO
YES
UNKNOWN
15. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN REFERRED TO OR PARTICIPATED IN A MILITARY FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAM OR CHILD/SPOUSE
PROTECTIVE SERVICES AGENCY?
YES /// Yes, state where, when and reason,I

NO

16. ARE YOU PRESENTLY UNDER A COURT ORDER CONCERNING FAMILY/OTHERS
NO

I

(restraint order, no-contact

order)?

I YES III Yes, give dates, persons, conditions and name of jurisdiction.!

17. FAMILY NARRATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION:
a. GENERAL FAMILY BACKGROUND
b. IF APPLICABLE INCLUDE:
- STATUS OF MARRIAGE
- FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR FAMILY

DD FORM 2710, NOV 2002

Page 4 of 5 Pages

33467
REPORT DATE (YYYYMMDDl

SECTION 5 - MENTAL/PHYSICAL HEALTH BACKGROUND
1. NMAE (Last. First.

Middle)

2. SSN

4 . HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR CURRENT PHYSICAL CONDITION:

3. ID NUMBER

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

1POOR

5. LIST ANY PAST SERIOUS ILLNESS, INJURY OR PHYSICAL AILMENT YOU HAVE SUFFERED OR ARE CURRENTLY SUFFERING AND
DATE OF OCCURRENCE:

6. DO YOU HAVE A PHYSICAL HANDICAP:

7. LAST HIV TEST DATE

(YYYYMMDD)

8. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN HOSPITALIZED

IN A MENTAL INSTITUTION:

9. HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED SUICIDE:

10.

YES (Explain!

NO

[

NO

HAVE YOU EVER ATTEMPTED SUICIDE:

NO

YES (State facility, reason and date)

YES (Explain)

NO

|

| YES (Explain)

OCCASIONAL

I

I MODERATE

I

I YES

1 1 . PERSONAL HABITS
ALCOHOL USE CLAIMED:

NONE

WAS ALCOHOL ABUSE APPARENT?

[

^ NO

HAVE YOU EVER RECEIVED ALCOHOL TREATMENT? ^I

^I

NO

DRUG USE CLAIMED:

|

| NONE

|

| OCCASIONAL

DRUG USE APPARENT?

|

| NO

|

| YES

HAVE YOU EVER RECEIVED DRUG TREATMENT?
GAMBLING:

'

I FREQUENTLY

I

|

| NO

' OCCASIONALLY

HEAVY

OTHER (Explain!

I YES (State facility and date!
I MODERATE

|

| HEAVY

OTHER (Explain!

YES (State facility and date!
I NEVER

12. MENTAL/PHYSICAL HEALTH BACKGROUND INFORMATION
a. SPORTS AND HOBBIES
b. SPECIAL SKILLS/ABILITIES
c. NOTES (Is there anything on this form which is not covered that you feel should be brought to the attention of the confining facility?!

DD FORM 2710, NOV 2002

Page 5 of 5 Pages

33468
DATE

(YYYYMMDD!

PRISONER SENTENCE COMPUTATION
1. PRISONER'S

HMAt

(Last, First, Middle Initial)

(AKA)

2. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER

3. \D NUMBER (If

applicable)

4 . REASON FOR COMPUTATION
ADJUDGED

SENTENCED/CA ACTION

APPEALS COURT DECISION

CLEMENCY

VACATED SENTENCE

ADDITIONAL SENTENCE

AUDIT

RETURN FROM PAROLE/
SUPERVISED RELEASE

OTHER

5.b. OTHER SENTENCE TO CONFINEMENT CHANGES

5.a. SENTENCE TO CONFINEMENT INFORMATION
YEARS

MONTHS

DAYS

EFFECTIVE DATE

AUTHORITY

YEARS

MONTHS

DAYS

EFFECTIVE DATE

1)ADJUDGED
(2) PTA
13) CA
(4) APPEAL
6. SENTENCE COMPUTATION
YEAR

ACTION

MONTH

DAY

EXPIRATION TABLE NUMBER

a. DATE SENTENCE ADJUDGED
b. CURRENT LENGTH OF SENTENCE
c. RESULT OF a. PLUS b. lUnadjusted maximum release date, UMXRDI

-1

d. LESS ONE DAY
e. RESULT OF c. MINUS d. (Maximum release date, MXRDI
f. INTERNATIONAL

DATE LINE, IDL (If none, enter 0!

-1

g. RESULT OF e. MINUS f.
h. ADMINISTRATIVE
i.

CREDIT (If none, enter 0!

-1

RESULT OF g. MINUS h.

j . JUDICIAL CREDIT//Anone, enrero;
k. RESULT OF i. MINUS j .
I.

INOPERATIVE TIME ///none, enrer 0!

m. RESULT OF k. PLUS I. lAdjusted MXRD, AMXRDI
n. GOOD CONDUCT TIME
o. RESULT OF m. MINUS n.
p. ADD FORFEITED GCT
TOTAL FORFEITED

• RESTORED

-1

q. RESULT OF o. PLUS p.
r. LESS ABATEMENTS
EARNED

-FORFEITED

s. RESULT OF q. MINUS r.:

+ RESTORED

MINIMUM RELEASE DATE (MRD)

DD FORM 2710-1, JUN 2004

PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE.

-1
Adobe Professional 7.0

33469

INITIAL CUSTODY CLASSIFICATION
1. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

2. INTERVIEWER NAME

3.

(Xone)
DETAINED
ADJUDGED

4. IDENTIFICATION
a. PRISONER NAME (Last, First. Middle)

b. SSN

c. GRADE

d. SEX (Xone)
MALE
FEMALE

5. ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS (X as applicable)

NO

YES

a. SUICIDE RISK
b. PHYSICAL HEALTH PROBLEM
c. MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM
d. SPECIAL QUARTERS
6. MANAGEMENT FACTORS (Enterpoint values)

POINTS

a. OFFENSE
OFFENSE SEVERITY =

1-8

b. SUBSTANCE ABUSE
YES X 1 = 1
YES X 2 = 2

YES X 3 = 3

YES X 4 = 4

c. PENDING CHARGES/WARRANTS/DETAINERS
NO = 0
YES = (Enter points from Offense Severity Scale)
d. HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
QUESTION (2) - YES = 2

QUESTION (3) - YES = 4

QUESTION (4) - YES = 6

QUESTION (5) - YES = 8

e. HISTORY OF ESCAPE
NO = 0
YES = 6
f. LENGTH OF SENTENCE TIME REMAINING
DETAINEE OR 0 - 90 DAYS = 0
91 DAYS - 1 YEAR = 1
5 + TO 10 YEARS = 5
lO-i- YEARS = 7

1 + TO 3 YEARS = 2
LIFE/DEATH = 8

3-1- TO 5 YEARS

g. TOTAL POINTS
7. SCREENING DECISION (Xone)
MEDIUM-IN (0-11

MAXIMUM (12-1- Points)

Points)

8. FINAL DECISION
a. OVERRIDE (Xone)
NO

YES

CODE

NOT APPLICABLE (Policy)

b. RATIONALE

9. DECIDING AUTHORITY
a. NAME

b. GRADE

c. TITLE

d. SIGNATURE

10. CUSTODY DECISION

0 0 FORM 2711, NOV 1999

Page 1 of 4 Pages
Adobe Professional 7.0

33470

CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEET
11. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

12. TIME

13. INTERVIEWER NAME

14. ('X one)
DETAINED
ADJUDGED

15. ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS
a. SUICIDE RISK
(1) HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT BEING HERE?

(2) HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT COMMITTING SUICIDE? (X)

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

(3) DID YOU MAKE A PLAN TO COMMIT SUICIDE?
(4) HAVE YOU EVER ATTEMPTED SUICIDE? (If Yes, when and how?)

b. PHYSICAL HEALTH PROBLEM
(1) DO YOU HAVE A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE? (If Yes, what?)

(2) DO YOU HAVE ANY PHYSICAL PROBLEMS? (If Yes. what?)

(3) ARE YOU TAKING ANY MEDICATIONS? (If Yes, give reason)

c. MENTAL HEALTH
(1) DO YOU HAVE ANY MENTAL PROBLEMS? (If Yes, what?)

(2) WERE YOU EVER HOSPITALIZED FOR MENTAL PROBLEMS? (If Yes. when?)

d. SPECIAL QUARTERS
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DO YOU HAVE ANY ENEMIES IN THIS FACILITY? (If Yes, who and why?)

DO FORM 2711, NOV 1999

Page 2 of 4 Pages

33471
CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEET (Continued)
16. MANAGEMENT FACTORS
a. WHAT CHARGE(S) ARE YOU CONFINED FOR?

b. SUBSTANCE ABUSE (X)

NO

YES

c. PENDING CHARGES/WARRANTS/DETAINERS
DO YOU HAVE ANY OUTSTANDING WARRANTS/DETAINERS OR ADDITIONAL PENDING CHARGES? (If Yes, explain)

NO

YES

d. HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (X)

NO

YES

NO

YES

M\
AWC vTUU
n i 1 cvcr\
FWFP uocu
1 i*^Fnurvuoo
nni
n nMLUunuLf
AI r n i i n i ?
^ 1 /I-lnrtvc
UK

DRUGS
ALCOHOL
DRUGS

O C U UnKm
U oi c
O /f A
M iL Lr*ni!ni
f U n U L IIM
1 r l i o TMI
L I M L Ii*^TMrMT9
O 1 IVICiM 1 i
fn\ i i A v r vwnUi U1 UM^rn
IM Tiri^

\£.) n r t V u

^

(If answer to both (1) and (2) is No, skip to 16.c. Ifeittier (1) or (2) is Yes, continue lines (3) through (6).)
(3) HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DISCIPLINED IN THE SERVICE OR FIRED FROM A JOB BECAUSE OF DRUG OR ALCOHOL
USE?
(4) HAS DRUG/ALCOHOL USE EVER LED TO FAMILY PROBLEMS OR CONFLICTS?
(5) HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ARRESTED WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR ALCOHOL?
(6) HAS USE OF DRUGS/ALCOHOL RESULTED IN OTHER PROBLEMS, SUCH AS BLACKOUTS OR LOSS OF FRIENDS?

(1) HAVE YOU EVER ASSAULTED ANOTHER PERSON?
(If No, skip to 16.e. If Yes. answer (2) through (7).)
(2) NON-PHYSICAL ALTERCATION
(3) ASSAULT WITHOUT A WEAPON
(4) ASSAULT WITH A WEAPON
(5) MULTIPLE ASSAULTS
(6) AGE AT TIME OF INCIDENT(S)

(7) EXPLAIN INCIDENT(S)

e. HISTORY OF ESCAPE (X as appropriate. Assign 6 points in Item 6.e. if answer Is Yes to any ofthe following questions.)
(1) HAVE YOU EVER ESCAPED OR ATTEMPTED TO ESCAPE CONFINEMENT?
(2) WERE YOU EVER APPREHENDED ON A PAROLE VIOLATION?
(3) HAVE YOU EVER RESISTED ARREST?
(4) DID YOU EVER INITIATE A PERIOD OF UNAUTHORIZED ABSENCE WHILE OTHER CHARGES WERE PENDING?

DD FORM 2711, NOV 1999

Page 3 of 4 Pages

33472
CLASSIFICATION WORKSHEET (Continued)
17. INTERVIEWER'S IMPRESSION

0 0 FORM 2 7 1 1 , N O V 1 9 9 9

Page 4 of 4 Pages

33473

CUSTODY RECLASSIFICATION
1. INTERVIEWER NAME

2.

3. IDENTIFICATION
9 . PRISONER NAME (Last, First, Middle)
d. PRESENT CUSTODY

(Xone)
DETAINED

b. SSN

ADJUDGED

c. RELEASE DATE (YYYYMMDD)

e. HOUSING UNIT

f. REGISTRATION NUMBER

4. ADMINISTRATIVE FACTORS (X as applicable)
a. SUICIDE RISK
b. PHYSICAL HEALTH PROBLEM
c. MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM
d. SPECIAL QUARTERS
e. VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATION PROGRAM
f. WAS THERE AN OVERRIDE ON LAST CLASSIFICATION?
5. CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA (Enter point values)
a. OFFENSE SEVERITY

NO

YES

POINTS

= 1-8

b. NUMBER OF DISCIPLINARY REPORTS (Last 90 days)
NONE = 0
ONE = 2
TWO-t- = 4
c. SEVERITY OF DISCIPLINARY REPORTS
NONE = 0
LOW MODERATE = 1

MODERATE = 3

d. NUMBER OF NEGATIVE SPOT REPORTS (Last 90 days)
NONE - THREE = 0
FOUR - SIX = 2
SEVEN - TEN = 4
e. CURRENT PROGRAMMING
PROGRAM AND JOB = MINUS 2 (-2)
f.

HIGH = 5

GREATEST = 7

ELEVEN + = 6

PROGRAM OR JOB = MINUS 1 (-1)

NONE = 0

FALSE DATA ON SCREENING FORM (Initial Classification only)
NO = 0
YES = 4

9 RESPONSIBILITY SHOWN
GOOD = -2
AVERAGE = 0

POOR = -1-2

h. LENGTH OF SENTENCE TIME REMAINING
DETAINEE OR 0 - 90 DAYS = 0
1 + TO 3 YEARS = 2 3 + TO 5 YEARS = 3
5 + TO 10 YEARS = 5

91 DAYS - 1 YEAR = 1
10-H YEARS = 7
LIFE/DEATH = 8

i. PENDING CHARGES/WARRANTS/DETAINERS
NO = 0
YES = (Enter offense severity code)
j.

TOTAL POINTS

6. CLASSIFICATION DECISION
a (X one)
REDUCE (0-6 Points)
b. RATIONALE

7. OVERRIDE
a. (X one)
NO
b. RATIONALE

0

SAME (7-10 Points)

INCREASE (11-h Points)

YES (Enter code)

NOT APPLICABLE (Policy)

8. RECOMMENDED DECISION

9. FACILITY COMMANDER/DESIGNEE
a. NAME, GRADE, TITLE

b. SIGNATURE

C. DATE (YYYYf/lfi/IDD)

10. FINAL DECISION

0 0 FORM 2711-1, NOV 1999

Adobe Professional 7.0

33474
REPORT DATE (YYYYMMDD)

INMATE WORK ANO TRAINING EVALUATION
1. NAME (Last, First,

Middle)

2 . SSN

4 . BRANCH OF SERVICE

5. HOUSING UNIT

IF FOR DISPOSITION BOARD

I

I OTHER (Specify)

PERIOD COVERED:
(YYYYMMDD)

:

FROM:

CLASSIFICATION BOARD
RESTORATION/RETURN
TO DUTY
CLEMENCY



COMPLETED BY:

TO:

7. CUSTODY LEVEL

6. DETAIL

• DISPOSITION BOARD •
(Check type):



8. PURPOSE OF EVALUATION

3. ID NUMBER




DORM SUPV





WORK ASSIGNMENT




PAROLE
SPECIAL WORK



WORK/CUSTODY
FEDERAL TRANSFER



WORK SUPV

OTHER

OTHER

AREAS OF EVALUATION: (Check the appropriate
spaces)
The dormitory supervisor completes Section 1 only. The w o r k supervisor completes Sections 1 and 2.
SECTION 1 - ATTITUDE AND TRAITS (Circle one box per

row)

POINTS

(2)

Conforms
(3)

(4)

Exemplary
(5)

(if

(2)

Minor Infractions
(3)

(4)

No Infractions
(5)

Constant
(1)

(2)

Moderate
(3)

(4)

Minimal
(5)

Poor
(1)

(2)

Borderline
(3)

(4)

Respectful
(5)

0)

(2)

Moderate
(3)

(4)

Cooperative
(5)

Unfavorable
(1)

(2)

Fair
(3)

(4)

Exceptional
(5)

GROUP CONFORMITY

Easily Led
(1)

(2)

Complies
(3)

(4)

Self-Rellant
(5)

INFLUENCE ON OTHERS

Disruptive
(1)

(2)

Neutral
(3)

(4)

Positive
(5)

INITIATIVE

Minimal
(1)

(2)

TEMPERAMENT

Volatile
(1)

(2)

INTEREST IN FACILITY
TREATMENT PROGRAM

Minimal
(1)

(2)

CONDUCT
DISCIPUNE

Unsatisfactory
(1)
Disciplinary Action

SUPERVISION REQUIRED
ATTITUDE TOWARD
SUPERVISOR
COOPERATION
PERSONALITY

Uncooperative

Energetic

Av^age
(4)

(S)

Indifferent
(3)

(4)

Stable
(5)

Participates
(3)

(4)

Active Participation
(5)

TOTALS
OVERALL EVALUATION
SUBTOTAL

Unsatisfactory
11-21

Average
33-43

Below Average
22-32

Outstanding
55

Above Average
44-54

SECTION 2 - WORK PERFORMANCE

POINTS
Poor
(1)

(2)

Acceptable
(3)

(4)

Outstanding
(5)

PRODUCTIVITY

Minimal
(1)

(2)

Average
(3)

(4)

Excellent Output
(5)

SAFETY

Careless
(1)

(2)

Follows Rules
(3)

(4)

Safety Conscious
(5)

QUALITY OF WORK

TOTALS

OVERALL EVALUATION
GRAND TOTAL Q

Unsatisfactory
14-27

Below Average
28-41

Average
42-55

INMATE SIGNATURE

DATE (YYYYMMDD)

EVALUATOR S NAME

SIGNATURE

OD FORM 2712, NOV 1999

Above Average
56-69

Outstanding
70

DATE (YYYYMMDD)

Adobe Professional 7.0

33475
REPORT DATE (/YYYMMDD)

INMATE OBSERVATION REPORT
1. INMATE NAME (Last, First. Middle)

4.CUSTODY LEVEL

2. SSN

5. QUARTERS AND DETAIL

3. ID NUMBER

6. CELLBLOCK/DORMITORY

7. CELL #/BUNK #

8. OBSERVATION
a. TYPE OF OBSERVATION:
b. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

[ ^ j FAVORABLE
c. TIME

UNFAVORABLE

| ^

d. LOCATION

INJURY

|

| BEHAVIORAL

e. WAS INMATE NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS
REPORT:
Q
YES
Q NO

9. OBSERVATION REPORTED BY
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle)

b. GRADE

c. TITLE

d. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

10. WITNESS
a. NAME (Last, First. Middle)

b. GRADE

c. TITLE

d. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

11. OBSERVATION SUMMARY (Give an in-depth description of the observation; include all necessary information, provide attachment if
necessary):

12. SIGNATURE OF REPORTING PERSON

b. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

13. WAS IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION NEEDED?
YES

b. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

c. TIME

b. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

c. TIME

NO

d. DESCRIBE ANY IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION GIVEN:

14. OBSERVATION REPORTED TO
a. SUPERVISOR NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)

15. ACTIONS OF CORRECTIONS SUPERVISOR:

16. ACTIONS OF REVIEWING AUTHORITY:

17. COMMANDING OFFICER REVIEW
a. NAME, GRADE, TITLE

DD FORM 2713, NOV 1999

b. SIGNATURE

c. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

Adobe Professional 7.0

33476
REPORT DATE (YYYYMMDD)

INMATE DISCIPLINARY REPORT
1. INMATE
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle)

b. SSN

2. CUSTODY LEVEL

5. INCIDENT
a. CHARGES

c. ID NUMBER

4. DETAIL

3. CELLBLOCK/DORMITORY

b. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

d. LOCATION

c. TIME

e. DETAILS OF CHARGE(S)

6. INCIDENT REPORTED BY
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle)

b. GRADE

d. SIGNATURE

c. TITLE

7. INCIDENT REPORTED TO
a. SUPERVISOR NAME (Last, First, Middle)

e. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

b. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

c. TIME

b. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

c. TIME

d. DISPOSITION TAKEN:

8.a. WAS MEDICAL ATTENTION NEEDED?



YES



9. INVESTIGATION REQUIRED?



YES



NO

lO.a. ADVISEMENT OF RIGHTS GIVEN? (Ifyes,
attach original rights acknowledgment form)



YES



NO

b. INMATE WAIVED RIGHTS? (Ifyes, attach)



YES



NO

c. INMATE STATEMENT (Ifyes, attach statement)•

YES



NO



YES

NO

d. DESCRIBE ANY MEDICAL ATTENTION GIVEN:

11 .a. INVESTIGATIVE SUMMARY?






(Please attach copy of report)

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A



NO

b. BRIEF SYNOPSIS:

c. NAME AND TITLE OF INVESTIGATOR

d. SIGNATURE

e. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

12. ATTACHMENTS (Use DD Form 2719)

DD FORM 2714, NOV 1999

Page 1 of 2 Pages
Adobe Professional 7.0

33477

INMATE DISCIPLINARY REPORT
13. INITIAL REVIEWINGAUTHORITY DISPOSITION

b. INITIAL REVIEWING AUTHORITY NAME, GRADE AND TITLE

cSIGNATURE

d. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

14. RESULTS OF DISCIPLINARY AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD
a. FINDINGS:

INMATE DID COMMIT THE OFFENSE REPORTED
INMATE DID NOT COMMIT THE OFFENSE REPORTED

FINDINGS ARE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:

b. RECOMMENDATION OF DISCIPLINARY AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD

c. NAME AND TITLE OF BOARD PRESIDENT

d. SIGNATURE

e. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

c. SIGNATURE

d. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

c. SIGNATURE

d. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

15. RECOMMENDATION OF THE REVIEWING OFFICER

b. NAME AND TITLE OF REVIEWING OFFICER

16. ACTION TAKEN BY THE APPROVING AUTHORITY

b. NAME AND TITLE OF APPROVING AUTHORITY

DO FORM 2714, NOV 1999

Page 2 of 2 Pages

33478

CLEMENCY/PAROLE SUBMISSION
1. SERVICE CLEMENCY/PAROLE BOARD

2.SERVICEFACIL1TY

3. SUBJECT: PAROLE PACKAGE
INMATE NAME:

SSN:

ID NUMBER

(Last, First, Middle)
MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE:

ADJUDGED SENTENCE INFORMATION:

PACKAGE INCLUDES:

P A R T I . PAROLE SUMMARY
a. DISPOSITION BOARD RECOMMENDATION (DD Form 2715-1)
b. INMATE SUMMARY DATA (DD Form 2715-2)
c. INMATE RESTORATION, RETURN TO DUTY, CLEMENCY AND PAROLE STATEMENT
(DD Form 2715-3)
PART 2. INMATE BACKGROUND SUMMARY
a. PERSONAL DATA (DD Form 2710, Section 1)
b. COURT MARTIAL DATA
c. MILITARY BACKGROUND (DD Form 2710, Section 2)
d. CIVILIAN BACKGROUND (DD Form 2710, Section 3)
e- FAMILY BACKGROUND (DD Form 2710. Section 4)
f. MENTAL/PHYSICAL HEALTH BACKGROUND (DD Form 2710, Section 5)
g. INMATE SENTENCE INFORMATION (DD Form 2710-1)
PART 3. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (List)

DOES CASE INVOLVE VICTIM/WITNESS NOTIFICATIONS?

I

I NO



YES

REPORT PREPARED BY
NAME, GRADE, TITLE

SIGNATURE

DATE (YYYYMMDD)

SIGNATURE

DATE (YYYYMMDD)

REVIEWED AND FORWARDED BY
NAME, GRADE, TITLE

DD FORM 2715, NOV 1999

Adobe Professional 7.0

33479
REPORT DATE (YYYYMMDD)

DISPOSITION BOARD RECOMMENDATION
1. NMAE (Last. First, Middle)

2. SSN:

3. ID NUMBER

4. CORRECTIONAL FACILITY:
5. REASON FOR BOARD ACTION: (Check one)
I

I INITIAL CLEMENCY

I

I INITIAL PAROLE

I

I RESTORATION/RETURN TO DUTY

I

I SUPPLEMENTAL/SPECIAL CLEMENCY

I

I OTHER

6. RECOMMENDATION
a. RESTORATION/RETURN TO DUTY
b. CLEMENCY
c. PAROLE
d. TRANSFER
e. OTHER

7.9. TYPED NAME AND GRADE OF RECORDER

c. DATE

b. SIGNATURE

(YYYYMMDD)

8.a. TYPED NAME AND GRADE OF BOARD CHAIRMAN

c. DATE
C/YYYMMDD)

b. SIGNATURE

9. RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMANDER

TYPED NAME AND GRADE OF COMMANDER

DATE

SIGNATURE

(YYYYMMDD)

DO FORM 2 7 1 5 - 1 , NOV 1999

Page

of
Adobe Professional 7.0

33480
REPORT DATE (YYYYMMDD)

INMATE SUMMARY DATA
1. NAME (Last, First, Middle)

4. CONTENTS:

ADMISSION SUMMARY (Complete 5, 6, and 7) |

2. SSN

|

3. ID NUMBER

PROGRESS SUMMARY fComp/ete 7, S, a/7c/9;

[

[

5. CURRENT OFFENSE
9. OFFICIAL INFORMATION
b. PRISONER'S VERSION
6. PRIOR OFFENSE
a. CIVIL
b. MILITARY
7. EVALUATION AND PLANNING
9. IMPRESSIONS BASED ON PERSONAL HISTORY
b. CURRENT MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION (INITIAL)
8. ASSIGNMENT PROGRAM
a. CURRENT CUSTODY
b. CURRENT QUARTERS
c. CURRENT TRAINING
d. CURRENT WORK ASSIGNMENTS
e. SPECIAL TREATMENT PROGRAMS
f. PLANNED DISPOSITION
9. CONFINEMENT PROGRESS
a. NEW INFORMATION
b. PROGRESS IN CONFINEMENT
c. CURRENT MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION
d. PAROLE OFFICER EVALUATION

0 0 FORM 2715-2, NOV 1999

Page

of
Adobe Professional 7.0

33481
REPORT DATE (YYYYMMDD)

I N M A T E R E S T O R A T I O N / R E T U R N T O D U T Y , C L E M E N C Y A N O PAROLE S T A T E M E N T
1. INMATE NAME (Last, First, Middle)

2. SSN

3. ID NUMBER

4. CORRECTIONS FACILITY
SECTION 1 - RESTORATION/RETURN TO DUTY
I request suspension of the discharge/dismissal adjudged by court-martial in my case, and restoration/return to duty on
probation. I understand that any unsatisfactory conduct on my part may violate the probation and vacation of
suspension could result in execution of the remainder of the court-martial sentence in addition to further disciplinary
action.


6. I

11 do not request to be restored/returned to duty.

SECTION 2 - CLEMENCY
7. •

I hereby waive my right to be considered for clemency.

a. I understand my case will not be reviewed administratively for remission, mitigation, or suspension of the
unexecuted parts of my sentence. I further understand that I will not receive consideration for annual clemency until one
year after my current clemency board date.
b. I also acknowledge that if my sentence Includes an unsuspended punitive discharge or dismissal:
(1) 1 may be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both Federal and state laws.
(2) I may expect to encounter substantial prejudice In civilian life.
(3) This waiver will remain part of my permanent military service record.
(4) I may not reenlist w i t h o u t special permission (enlisted members only).
8. I hereby request to be considered for clemency in the following form(s):
I

I Reduction in length of sentence

I

I Reduction or remission of forfeitures.

I

I Reduction or remission of fine.

I

I Substitution of administrative discharge for punitive discharge.

I

I Remission of dismissal (officers and cadets only).



Mitigation of a DD to a BCD.



Restoration to pay grade

I

I Restoration of precedence (officers only).

9. MY REASONS FOR REQUESTING CLEMENCY ARE AS FOLLOWS:

10. INMATE SIGNATURE

12. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

11. WITNESS SIGNATURE

CERTIFICATION TO BE COMPLETED FOR CLEMENCY WAIVER ONLY
CERTIFIED: 1 certify that the above
individual signed this waiver In my
presence, and that his right to request
clemency and the effect of this waiver
have been fully explained to him/her.

CERTIFYING OFFICIAL (Name, Grade and

DD FORM 2 7 1 5 - 3 , N O V 1 9 9 9

Title)

SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING OFFICIAL

DATE (YYYYMMDD)

Page 1 of 2 Pages
Adobe Professional 7.0

33482
SECTION 3 - PAROLE
13. UNDER REGULATIONS 1 BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR

|

| INITIAL

|

| ANNUAL PAROLE CONSIDERATION )N
C
(YYYYMMDD)

14.



I DESIRE



DO NOT DESIRE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PAROLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

15. PROPOSED PAROLE RESIDENCE
^Sfate fully where and with whom you will Uve):
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)

b. RELATIONSHIP

c. TELEPHONE NUMBER
(Include area code)

d. STREET ADDRESS (Include apartment number)

e. CITY

f. STATE

16. PROPOSED PAROLE/PROBATION OFFICER
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial)

1

1 EMPLOYER

|

ZIP CODE

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER
(Include area code)

c. STREET ADDRESS (Include apartment number)

17. PROPOSED

g

d. CITY

e. STATE

f. ZIP CODE

| SCHOOL
b. TELEPHONE NUMBER
(Include area code)

a. EMPLOYER OR SCHOOL NAME

c. STREET ADDRESS (Include apartment number)

d. CITY

g. TITLE OR POSITION

e. STATE

f. ZIP CODE

h. RATE OF PAY
(1) FULL TIME

(2) PART TIME

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authority to request this information is contained in Title 10 United States Code, sections 874(a) and 952-954. The information which you
provide will become a permanent part of your correction record. It will be referred to by official military personnel in conjunction with the
initial and any periodic review of your eligibility for clemency or parole. You are not required to provide this information; however, your failure
to respond fully may prevent the board from considering your eligibility for clemency or parole. Further authority to request your social
security number is contained in Executive Order no. 9397. Disclosure of your social security number is voluntary. Failure to disclose your
social security number will have no effect on your eligibility for clemency or parole.
19. DIKTE (YYYYMMDD)

18. INMATE SIGNATURE

20. WITNESS NAME AND TITLE (Last, First, Ml)

DO FORM 2715-3, NOV 1999

21. SIGNATURE

22. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

Page 2 of 2 Pages

33483
REPORT DATE (YYYYMMDD)
PAROLE A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T LETTER
1. INMATE NAME (Last, First, Middle)

2. SSN

3. ID NUMBER

4. CORRECTIONS FACILITY

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I have read and understand the attached notice of approval/disapproval of my parole.
6. PAROLE APPROVAL



I

I accept parole release. I understand my release is conditional upon continued good behavior and acceptance for
supervision by a US Probation/Parole Officer. .

11 do not accept parole release.

7. PAROLE DENIAL
INSTRUCTIONS
You have the right to appeal the determination of the Service Clemency and Parole Board denying your release on parole.
You may submit your appeal through the commanding officer of your confinement facility within 30 days of receipt of the
attached denial letter. The appeal application may include any new or additional information which was not previously
considered by the Service Clemency and Parole Board.
APPEAL SELECTION


I

I desire to appeal the denial of my parole by the Service Secretary Clemency and Parole Board. I understand the
decision on my appeal by the designee of the Service Secretary is final.

11 do not desire to appeal the denial of my parole by the Service Secretary Clemency and Parole Board.

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

AUTHORITY: 10 U.S.C. § 9 5 1 , P L. 9 0 - 3 7 7 , and E.O. 9 3 9 7 .
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): To notify an offender of approval for parole release and record the individual's acceptance or
rejection of parole. This form is also used to notify an offender of a negative determination by the Service Clemency and
Parole Board and to record an offender's decision to appeal or not appeal the decision denying parole.
ROUTINE USE(S): To the Department of Justice, in instances where the prisoner is incarcerated in a Federal Bureau of
Prisons facility for incarceration.
DISCLOSURE: Voluntary; however, failure to provide the requested information may result in denial of parole or forfeiture of
opportunity to elect appeal rights as to parole denial.

9. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

8. INMATE SIGNATURE

10. WITNESS NAME. GRADE AND TITLE (Last, First,
Middle)
0 0 FORM 2 7 1 6 , NOV 1 9 9 9

11. SIGNATURE

12. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

Adobe Professional 7.0

33484

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

CERTIFICATE OF PAROLE

Dated
(YYYYMMDD)
(Last, First, Middle)

being eligible for parole under the terms and conditions prescribed by his/her respective branch of service, will
be released on parole from the
provided that his/her parole plan for home, employment, and parole officer has been completed and he/she
agrees to and complies w i t h the provisions and conditions prescribed in the Parole Agreement on the reverse
side of this Certificate and further provided that all conditions set forth by the respective branch of service and
facility commander are met and he/she continues to perform satisfactorily until his/her release on parole.

The term of parole hereby granted will become effective

and will expire on
(YYYYMMDD)

(/YYYMMDD)

unless sooner suspended or revoked for violation of its conditions or otherwise terminated by competent
authority. (For Navy personnel, parole will terminate at the end of ninety days unless the Naval Parole and
Clemency Board acts before the termination date to extend the term of parole.)
(Seal)

Signed
(Chairman, Parole and Clemency Board)

ENDORSEMENT
The above named individual was released from confinement and placed on parole
the

day of

Dated

Signed
(/YYYMMDD)

(Commander of Regional Corrections Facility)

DISTRIBUTION
Upon completion of confinement, the original of the Certificate of Parole and the Parole Agreement will be
given to the paroled inmate. One copy will be mailed to the probation officer, and one copy will be placed in the
inmate's Correctional Treatment Folder.
DO FORM 2 7 1 6 - 1 , NOV 1999

Page 1 of 3 Pages
Adobe Professional 7.0

33485
PAROLE A G R E E M E N T
l.a.

PROBATION/PAROLE OFFICER NAME (Last. First. Middle)

c. AGENCY ADDRESS

d. CITY

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
e. STATE

f. ZIP CODE

2. PROBATION/PAROLE DESTINATION (Limitation of travel will be designated by Parole Ofricer)

3. CONDITIONS
This Certificate of Parole shall not become operative until the following conditions are agreed to by the inmate and have
been subscribed thereto in writing:
a. When released on parole, 1 will go w i t h o u t delay to my parole destination as specified above.
b. Within three working days of release, I will report in person to my parole officer, unless directed otherwise by my
parole officer. I will follow my parole officer's reporting instructions and report as directed. After reporting I will complete
the Notification of Arrival and Parolee letter and forward it to
c. I will remain within the limits prescribed by my parole officer, and, if I have justifiable cause to leave these limits
temporarily, I will first obtain permission from my parole officer.
d. I will not change the residence and employment approved in my parole plan without first receiving permission from my
parole officer. In the event my residence or employment is involuntarily terminated, 1 will report these events to my parole
officer within one working day of being notified of such termination.
e. I understand that failure to maintain contact w i t h my parole officer constitutes absconding parole.
f.

I will promptly and truthfully answer all inquiries directed to me by my respective Branch of Service, my Commander,

my parole officer, or other persons acting in an official capacity.
g. I will not associate w i t h persons of bad or questionable reputation, nor enter or frequent places where controlled
substances are sold, used, distributed or administered.
h. I will in all respects conduct myself in an honorable manner, work diligently at a lawful occupation, support those
dependent on me, meet other family and financial responsibilities to the best of my ability, and avoid unnecessary or
excessive debt.
i.

I will live and remain at liberty w i t h o u t violating the law. In accordance w i t h 18 USC I am a convicted felon and I

understand that all laws regulating convicted felons apply to me.
j.

I will refrain from the excessive use of alcohol and will not purchase, possess, use, distribute or administer any

narcotic or other controlled substance or any paraphernalia related to such substances, except as prescribed by a physician.
k. I will notify my parole officer within 24 hours of being arrested, detained, or questioned by a law enforcement ofHcer.
I.

I will not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or special agent of a law enforcement agency without the

permission of my respective Parole and Clemency Board.
m. I also understand and agree that if I violate any of the conditions of my parole, I may be apprehended or returned to
military control, and be held liable to serve the remainder of my sentence to confinement and forfeit my time served on
parole.
n. I further understand that by accepting parole I waive all good conduct time earned up to my parole release date,
o. I will not possess a firearm, ammunition, or other dangerous weapon,
p. I will not possess pornographic material.
q. I will comply with any additional conditions

0 0 FORM 2 7 1 6 - 1 , N O V 1 9 9 9

of my parole. (List below)

Page 2 of 3 Pages

33486
4. ^APPLICABLE ONLYIF THE APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE COURTS-MARTIAL SENTENCE IS NOT COMPLETE)
a. Ivoluntarily apply for excess leave without pay and allowances to become effective in the event of expiration of my
term to confinement prior to completion of appellate action on my court-martial sentence, lunderstand that for pay purposes,
I am in excessleavestatusduring the period of parole, e x c e p t t o t h e e x t e n t l m a y b e e n t i t l e d to pay andallowances for
accrued leave which was not forfeited by my court-martial sentence.

b

lagree n o t t o w e a r t b e m i l i t a r y u n i f o r m following releaseon parole

c. lunderstand that in tbe event my court-martial sentence is set aside by appellate r e v i e w , l m a y be ordered to return to
an active duty status.

PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

AUTHORITY: 1 0 U . S C . ^ 9 5 2 , P . L . 9 0 3 7 7 , a n d E . O . 9 3 9 7 .
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): T o c e r t i f y an offender for parole release from confinement, notify the individual of the conditions
of the parole, and record the individual's release from confinement and placement on parole.
ROUTINE USE^S): T o t h e Department of Justice,in instances where the prisoner is incarcerated InaFederal Bureau of
Prisons facility for incarceration, and to inform U.S. Probation Officers and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of
the conditions of parole.
DISCLOSURE: Voluntary; however,failure to provide the requested information as required in block 5 a . m a y result in denial
or revocation of parole.

5. INMATE CERTIFICATION.
ITHOROUGHLYUNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS AND SOLEMNLYPROMISE AND AGREE NOT TO VIOLATE ANY OF THEM.
a. INMATE SIGNATURE

6. WITNESS
a. NAME (Last, First, Middle)

DD FORM 2 7 1 6 - 1 , N O V 1 9 9 9

b. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

b. GRADE

c. TITLE

d. SIGNATURE

Page 3 of 3 Pages

33487

INMATE'S RELEASE ORDER
1. TO:

2. INSTALLATION:

3. DATE (YYYYMMDD):

Confinement or Brig Officer
4. THE INMATE NAMED BELOW WILL BE RELEASED FROM CONFINEMENT
THE ORGANIZATION SHOWN.
5. INMATE NAME (Last, First. Middle)

8. SERVICE BRANCH

AND DELIVERED TO
(YYYYMMDD)
6. SSN

7. GRADE

9. ORGANIZATION

10. REASON FOR RELEASE :

FOR THE COMMANDER
11. AUTHENTICATING OFFICER NAME (Last, First, Mt)

12. SIGNATURE

13. GRADE, ORGANIZATION, AND TITLE

RECEIPT
14. RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE NAMED RELEASED PERSON IS
ACKNOWLEDGED.

15. DATE (YYYYMMDD)

17. NAME, GRADE, ORGANIZATION, TITLE

18. SIGNATURE

16. TIME

19. REMARKS:

DD FORM 2718, NOV 1999

Adobe Professional 7.0

33488
REPORT DATE (YYYYMMDD)

CONTINUATION SHEET
1. TITLE OF FORM
3. INMATE'S NAME (Last, First, Middle)

DO FORM 2719, NOV 1999

2. DDFORM
4. SSN

5. ID NUMBER

Page

of_
Adobe Professional 7.0

33489

NOTICE OF RELEASE/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
1. TO

STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT

STATE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION OFFICIAL

LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

a. ADDRESS Itnclude ZIP Code)

b. DATE lYYYYMMDDI

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 951 (Note) and DODI 1 3 2 5 . 7 , paragraph 6.18.5, the Department of Defense is notifying your office of the release of
an offender w h o , based on available information, was convicted of a sex offense or a crime against a victim w h o was a minor. The offender is
subject to sex offender registration under Federal law. For additional information, please contact the point of contact w i t h facility of release
w h o is identified below.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
AUTHORITY: 10 U.S.C. 951 (Note); DODI 1 3 2 5 . 7 , paragraph 6.18.5; and E.O. 9 3 9 7 .
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): To notify an offender of the requirement to register upon release from confinement or military service with the state
authorities as a sex offender, to record the offender's acknowledgement of receiving notice of and information pertaining to the requirement,
and to obtain an offender's expected place of residence following release.
ROUTINE USE(S): To State and local law enforcement authorities for purposes of notification that a sex offender will be residing in a local
community and to State or local officials for purposes of registering the individual as a sex offender.
DISCLOSURE: Voluntary; however, failure to provide an expected place of residency may result in denial of your request for parole or delay
your release from confinement or military service.
4 . SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
3. DATE OF BIRTH lYYYYMMDDI
2. NAME OF OFFENDER (Last. First, Middle Initiall

5. CURRENT AND PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY OF SEXUAL OFFENSE(S)
SPECIFIC OFFENSE TITLE AND DESCRIPTION
(5 words or more!

6. FINAL RELEASE DATE
(YYYYMMDDl

DATE OF CONVICTION
(YYYYMMDD!

PLACE OF CONVICTION

7. RELEASE CONDITIONS OR RESTRICTIONS

8. OFFENDER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
I,

was convicted and sentenced for

,
(Full Name - Last. First. Middle!

the commission of |

| a sexual offense|

(Rank!
| sexual offenses |

(Service!

(Social Security Number!

| an offense involving a

year old minor.

I have been informed that I will be released from confinement or military service on or about:

(YYYYMMDDl.

I certify that upon release from confinement or military service I will reside at the following address:
(Initial!
(Street, Apartment Number, City, State and ZIP Codel
I hereby acknowledge that I was informed that upon my release from confinement or military service, I am subject to registration requirements as a sex offender in any State or U.S. territory in which I will reside, be employed, carry on a vocation, or be a student. I was further
informed that the chief local law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction in which I will reside upon release from confinement or military service
is being provided written notice of the date of my release from confinement or military service, the offense(s) of which I was convicted, and
that I am subject to a registration requirement as a sex offender. This notice will also be submitted to state law enforcement and sex offender
officials. I understand that I must contact the office that follows, to ensure that sex offender registration requirements are met:
(Initial!

lOrganization, Address (Include ZIP Code!, and Telephone Number!
I acknowledge that I was informed that every change in my address must be reported in the manner provided by State law. I also
acknowledge being informed that if I move to another state, I must report the change of address to the responsible agency in the state I am
leaving, and comply w i t h the registration requirements in the new state of residence. I understand that the failure to register may constitute
grounds to revoke parole. Finally, I understand that if I fail to register and/or change or update such registration information as required under
a State sex offender registration program, I may be subject to criminal prosecution.
Signed on this
WITNESS:

day of

(Signed Name!

OFFENDER:

(Signed Name!
(Printed Name!

(Printed Name!
9. CONFINEMENT FACILITY OR COMMAND RELEASING OFFENDER
a. NAME OF FACILITY OR COMMAND
b. ADDRESS llnclude ZIP Codel

10. CONFINEMENT FACILITY OR COMMAND POINT OF CONTACT
a. NAME ILast, First. Middle Initiall
b. ADDRESS llnclude ZIP Codel

1 1 . CONFINEMENT FACILITY COMMANDER OR COMMANDER RELEASING OFFENDER
a. TYPED NAME (Last. First. Middle Initiall
b. SIGNATURE

c. TELEPHONE NUMBER
llnclude Area Codel

c. DATE SIGNED lYYYYMMDD!

In the event you are not the law enforcement agency w i t h jurisdiction authority consistent w i t h the offender's release address, please
forward these documents to the appropriate authority.

DD FORM 2791, APR 2003

REPLACES PREVIOUS EDITION AND DD FORM 2791-1, WHICH ARE OBSOLETE.
Adobe Professional 7.0

33490

2ND was reviewed by t h e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n and Assignment Board on
t h i s date. SND was s p e c i a l moved by t h e DBS on 20110120 from
MAX/DET/SR s t a t u s t o MAX/DET/POI. SND requested t o appear before
the board and was granted h i s request. During t h e board SND
s t a t e d t h a t he does not b e l i e v e t h a t SR or POI s t a t u s i s
necessary because he has no i n t e n t i o n s o f harming h i m s e l f . SND
f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t he does not f e e l t h a t MAX custody i s
necessary because he has no i n t e n t i o n s o f escape or harming
other i n d i v i d u a l s . SND d i d s t a t e t h a t he b e l i e v e s t h a t he should
be segregated from general p o p u l a t i o n and p o s s i b l y placed i n a
p r o t e c t i v e custody s t a t u s . During t h e board, SND s t a t e d t h a t he
does n o t f e e l t h a t h i s emotional breakdown o r aggressive a c t i o n s
toward h i m s e l f on 20110118 should be taken i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n
because he f e e l s they were brought on by h i s being i n POI
s t a t u s . SND f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t the s i m i l a r i t y between these
i n c i d e n t s and t h e breakdown t h a t he had w h i l e c o n f i n e d i n Kuwait
should n o t be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . SND was asked why h i s
emotional breakdown happened i n Kuwait t o which SND r e p l i e d " I
was kept i n a dark room, n o t allowed t o w r i t e l e t t e r s , o r
allowed t o make phone c a l l s . " SND was then asked i f those were
the reasons why he had h i s breakdown i n Kuwait, why i s i t t h a t
he chooses not t o make phone c a l l s or w r i t e l e t t e r s now t h a t he
i s allowed t o . SND s t a t e d t h a t he chooses n o t t o w r i t e l e t t e r s
or make phone c a l l s because o f the r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on him.
The board members e x p l a i n e d t o SND t h a t t h e r e are no
r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on these p r i v i l e g e s and t h a t he may w r i t e as
many l e t t e r s o r make as many phone c a l l s as he wishes. SND
f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t , w h i l e he d i d make a noose i n Kuwait, t h a t
event happened a long time ago. The members o f t h e C&A board
explained t o SND t h a t , making a noose w h i l e i n confinement 6
months ago i s considered recent. SND was asked by t h e C&A board
why, on h i s Mental/Physical Health Background, he wrote "always
planning, never a c t i n g " i n the block t h a t asks "have you ever
considered s u i c i d e " . SND s t a t e d t o t h e members o f t h e board t h a t
" t h a t may have been f a l s e " . When asked by t h e s e n i o r member o f
the board " i f t h a t may have been f a l s e , should I b e l i e v e t h a t
your statement o f n o t wanting t o harm y o u r s e l f i s also f a l s e ? "
To t h i s q u e s t i o n , SND answered "yes". A f t e r t h i s , a separate
member o f t h e board asked i f SND understood t h e question t h a t he
was asked, t o which SND r e p l i e d "yes". I t was e x p l a i n e d t o SND
t h a t t h e members o f the C&A board are not t h e f i n a l a u t h o r i t y on

ManningB_00515979

APPELLATE E X H I B I T J I l O
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33491

any d e c i s i o n , and t h a t he may appeal any d e c i s i o n made by the
B r i g OIC and s t i l l maintains the r i g h t t o request mast. SND
s t a t e d t h a t he understands these r i g h t s . During the conduct of
the board, SND was w e l l spoken but s l i g h t l y s t u t t e r e d , a l e r t t o
time and place, and was v i s i b l y nervous w i t h shaking hands. I t
i s recommended t h a t SND remain MAX custody, remain POI s t a t u s
and remain housed i n S ^ ^ l . ^ i^ySgt B l e n i s
Board Members:
CySgt B l e n i s
(5ySgt d u l l e r
SSgt Buck

ManningB^005159^0



33492

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Tuesday, April 12. 2011 4:01 PM

To: Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj Amy Greer LtCol Christopher
Cc: Papakie Brian

Subject: BRIG WITH MANNING

Signed By:

Good Afternoon,

1. Dr. Yeaw (Forensic is currently on deck talking to detainee Manning and I
will talk to her after she is done. If it is before I leave, Papakie will talk to her.
I missed her when she came in.

2. At the request of Blenis and after consideration of the circumstances, I am
allowing all POI inmates (currently Breitenbach and Manning) to have one highlighter and a
pen or pencil while they are reading during the day vice just having them on correspondence
time in the evening. Both expressed a desire to write more and I don't have an issue with
that. Inmates are not allowed to have retractable pens/pencils etc. so that should decrease
risk. The guards know that the second they are observed trying to do any harm to themselves
or others; that privilege will be taken away quickly.

3. I spoke to detainee Manning extensively yesterday and the goal was to engage him in
meaningful conversation and to remind him that communication between him and the staff is
vital and very much to his benefit. Here are the points I covered:

a. I reminded him that all the benefits CHO Averhart extended to him are still being offered
by me and that he has not asked me for anything: rec call, his underwear back, changes in
handling etc.

b. I told him that it is important for him to follow his attorney's guidance but that at
times, it can interfere with me having a clear understanding of his needs. I reminded him
about refusing to fill out the voluntary statements for rec call for example and the reason
that it is important for me to know that he chose not to go vice my staff not giving him the
opportunity. I reminded him that I hold the staff accountable and that he heard me mention
that with Papakie standing right there.

c. I informed him that when he always appears angry and only gives me two word answers, it
does not allow me to continue to establish rapport as we did early on in my tour. I made it
clear that I see a huge difference in his behavior and I reminded him that even after
counseling him for disrespect, he could sit down with me at anytime to discuss issues. I let
him know that since he has chosen to limit his interactions, it is a cause for concern
especially coupled with his recent decision to remove friends and family from his visitation
list and increased agitation which appears to happen easily.

d. I told him that when he does not capitalize on opportunities such as using the DD Form 510
process, appearing in front of the board etc. he is not helping his case. In addition to
that, I told him that I have to take into consideration his comments and behavior which
frankly does not make me feel comfortable. I told him that I have no issues giving him his
underwear back or making adjustments to his handling instructions but he has to do the work.
He was told that he had to communicate and establish trust and rapport. I told him that just
as he has to trust me to keep other inmates from harming him, I have to be able to trust him
enough to make adjustments.

APPELLATE EXHIBIT
PAGE

I,

33493

After all that and even on my tour to SQ this morning, I still got the two word answers with
little contact. I never heard a sentence from him. we have to remember that he has
personality issues and social issues so I am not going to talk to him at length every time communicate. Frankly it annoys him, he does not want people to talk
to him a lot, he has said that himself. The ball is in his court.

cwoz Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134

Office: DSN: 2

BB: Fax:





ManningB_004-19853



33494

From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Friday, April 8, 201 1 6:09 PM

To: Choike Col Daniel
Cc: Barnes cwoz Denise Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: Fw:

Concur
Sent from my BlackBer1y Handheld

Onginal Message

From Bames CWO2 Denise

To Oltman Col Robert G, Ebitz Ma] Amy
Sent Fri Apr08 1806 16 20ll



Good Evemng Sir, the board is complete After talking to the members 1 went along with the recommendation to have Manning
remain as a MAX Detainee on Admin Obviously the factors to consider for the custody such as the alleged charges, poor
family relationships etc have not changed and that is beyond our comm] Here are the key points that were considered

1 There has been no positive change in his interactions with the Brig staff 1 can count on one hand how many times he has maintained
good contact with me in the last 30 days He does interact well with chasers and anyone else who is not on the Brig Staff

2 He did not appear in front of the board today so that was another opportunity wasted to present matters to the board for
consideration As a matter of fact he did not say anything to Morales when she went to irifonn him that he was being reviewed today
and that he could appear in front of the board if he so chose

3 He has not submitted any chits to me asking for a change in his handling instructions, extra rec call etc When I go to Special Quarters
he usually has very short two word answers for me 1 usually ask about issues with sta??, chow, chasers etc and it is always no Ma'am
with a lot of abniptness He always looks upset and stares at the wall when I talk to him

4 Just today I noticed him talking to himself again in his cell He did this yesterday as well after I gave him my response to his
complaint Papakie and I observed him sitting on his rack last week making motions as though he was casting a rod, fishing
These actions do not mean that he has mental health issues I received a debnef from Col Malone and he stated that he is fine from a
standpoint and that there is nothuig to treat him for I hope that once Dr Yeaw starts to lend her services here for
that we will see a difference I told Col Malone that Manning has to do the leg work to give us the tools necessary to
make adjustments I have no issues taking lum or anyone of P01 but I need the tools to do that There have been others in his shoes and
have been taken off SR and P01 but they gave us the tools we needed such as good communication, good behavior etc

Capt Lluy was called but they did not get an answer, frankly there were no issues that were different from the ones she was consulted on
before in terms of helping us to make a more informed decision

Thanks

W02 Demse Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134

/ll

ManningB_00513183 I i



33495

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Friday. April 08. 2011 11:03 AM

To: Papakie Bn?an Blenis Craig Fuller William
subject: FOR MANNING

Signed By:

Good Morning. I spoke to Col Malone and he informed me that Dr. Yeaw who is a forensic
with corrections experience, will start seeing detainee Manning on Tuesday 12
April. She lives in Silver Spring Maryland and travels a lot but is willing to come down
weekly as her schedule allows. Dr. Yeaw is looking forward to coming down. Since she will
be working with him on the personality issues, it will be a while before we see change so we
should not expect results right away. How fast he builds a relationship with her is key
since he took a long time to develop a good rapport with Col Malone. on the flip side of
that, he established rapport with Lt. Col Russell immediately so there is no telling how
things will go with Dr. Yeaw. I will do an in-brief with her when she comes on Tuesday so
she understands our protocol here. Thanks.

CWO2 Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134

Office: DSN:

BB: Fax:

rxi 3


ManningB_00449854 2 (J







33496

From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Friday, April 1,2011 9:11 PM
To: Choike Col Daniel I Kauzla?ch Col Mark
Subject: Fw:
Dan

As discussed on phone message. ack receipt.

Sent from my B|ackBerry Handheld

Original Message

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

To: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Fri Apr 01 21:08:44 2011

Subject:

Good Evening Sir, I just got done engaging the members of the Board.

1. LtCol Russell came on deck at 1605 and was briefed by Blenis on detainee
Manning's behavior/interactions from that last two weeks.

2. After speaking to Blenis, Russell saw Manning and that lasted over two hours.
3. Once the interview with Russell and Manning was complete, Blenis called
Capt. Lluy to brief her on Manning's behavior and to seek her input for the board. She did not
see any red ?ags and she concurred that his behavior was not due to anything

4. LtCol Russell completed his eval and then debriefed the board in detail.

5. The custody classification and status were looked at separately and after deliberation and a
complete review, I concurred with the board to have Manning remain Max
custody/Administrative Segregation/POI. He chose not to appear in front of the board today,
his behavior has not improved, communication has been degraded all at Manning's choosing
and he expressed frustration with the guards earlier in the week for correcting him. He was
also counseled again on 28 March for covering his head completely so he is showing that he
will not follow rules. This was the second time he was told to refrain from covering his entire
head. Although Blenis explained that the guards are just doing their jobs, he was just
upset and felt that the corrections he was given should not have even been discussed.

6. I spoke to Russell as well prior to him leaving the facility and he informed me that
basically Manning is the reason why he is still on POI but that he (Manning) does not see that.
He drastically reduced his communication because he feels that whatever he says gets
distorted or blown out of proportion. He also stated that he is at low risk for self harm and
violence but that we should pay attention to any sudden changes in mood or an increase in
anger because it may mean that he is turning. There are some more notes he wants to add to
the eval and will complete those and forward it to me on Monday.

Thanks Sir.

CWO2 Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion



FXHIBIT ?ltn
l-jl):
ManningB_00449885



33497

From aamescwo2oenisev

Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2011 4: 18 PM
To: onmanconaobenoj
Subject: Re: PFC

Sir he is the doc from OCS who comes over to support us that's why I responded. He sees all inmates not just manning.

Sent using BlackBerry

Original Message
From: Oltman Col Robert 0

To: Barnes CWO2 Denise
Sent: Wed Feb 09 15:59:13 2011
Subject: RE: PFC

Who is this guy and why is he making this recommendation?

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantico
Cell
BB
Email:






Message-?-?

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Wednesday, Fcbmary 09, 2011 15:16
To

Cc: trnan rt

Subject: Re: PFC

Good afternoon sir, I appreciate the concern. He has been briefed by me and my predecessor on occasions too numerous to count on
asking for extra rec call or anything for that matter. I have spoken to him in the absence of staff and he never asked me for extra rec
call. Correspondence time went from 1 hour to 2. We can certainly work something out. As a matter of fact he refused rec call one
day this past weekend. 1 am willing to sit down soon Sir ifthere are more questions. thanks.

Sem using BlackBerry

Original Message

From: am, Han Q. can NHCQ
To: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Wed Feb 09 131482012011

Subject: PFC

Hello,

HM3 Dodson and I stopped by yesterday to see you but you were not in the
building. I'd to recommend that you allow PFC more time outside of his

cell. He has been here for many months now and it's very hard on him

getting only an hour outside his cell. 1 understand that you may have your
own constraints, but we don't even know how much longer he is going to be at
the brig. I strongly believe that more time outside his cell would be very
therapeutically beneficial for PFC M.

Please let me know. I am looking forward to hearing back from you.


LII i
so
ManningB_00513372 PAGE PAGES



33498

Han Bui

"FaIlujah Veterans of America?
Family Physician

CDR USN


ManningB_00513373

33499

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 8:56 AM

To: Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj Amy Papakie Brian Blenis Craig
Subject: FW: EVAL (UNCLASSIFIED)

Attachments:

By:

Categories: Green Category

Good Morning FYI, the one I attached will be the one to go into the o
cwoz Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134

Of?Fice: DSN:
Fax:

BB:
1





--?--Original

From: Russell, Robert LTC MIL USA MEDCOM [mailto:
Sent: Thursday, April 97, 2011 22:00

To: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Subject: RE: EVAL (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

I understand, but I cannot back date a medical eval write up. The eval was
conducted on the 1st, but written on the 6th. I'll take the hit on that.
You did as is required of you to have him evaluated on the 1st and did
receive a verbal report by myself on the 1st. It is my Fault the report was
not written until the 6th. I hope that covers you. If challenged I can
explain to whomever. You can alternatively use the original copy with the
crossed out mistake. I would recommend that course of action. It was
appropriately crossed out with a single line, initialed and dated. That is
medically and legally acceptable. Again, I can explain if questioned.

Dr. Russell



From: Barnes CWO2 Denise [mai1t
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:25 AM

To: Russell, Robert LTC MIL USA MEDCOM

Subject: RE: EVAL (UNCLASSIFIED)

Ok Sir, don't kill me, but you dated the eval For the 6th instead of the 1st
of April. I am so sorry. Thanks.

CWO2 Denise V. Barnes
Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134

L:


1

ManningB_00514409







33500

Office:
BB: 549-498-5595 Fax:




DSN:






From: Russell, Robert LTC MIL USA MEDCOM
Imai1t?=?l
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 12:02

To: Barnes cwoz Denise

Subject: RE: EVAL (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

All right, here you go. Please save previous drafts. Thanks again
Dr. Russell



From: Barnes cwoz Denise
Sent: wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:01 AM

To: Russell, Robert LTC MIL USA MEDCOM

Subject: RE: EVAL (UNCLASSIFIED)

Sir, you make me laughl Thanks. As long as I have it by tomorrow, I am
good. I am sorry that I am even bugging you about it. LOL.

cwoz Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134

Office: DSN:
BB: ax:



From: Russell, Robert LTC MIL USA MEDCOM

sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 15:44

To: Barnes cwoz Denise

Subject: RE: EVAL (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

My apologies for making this infinitely more difficult. I will rewrite
without changes and resend. Thanks for your patience. Dr. Russell



From: Barnes cwoz Denise [mailt
Sent: Tuesday, April 65, 2011 10:1

To: Russell, Robert LTC MIL USA MEDCOM

Subject: RE: EVAL (UNCLASSIFIED)

He Sir, I thought about something and wanted to run it by you. The defense
side may try to pick apart your eval because you lined out one and circled

2

ManningB_00514410



33501

another answer on the eval. It is a well written eval of course but I have
experience testifying and this is something that they will put a lot of
weight into to try to question "what you really meant.? You do not have to
change it but these are tactics defense attorneys use especially when they
are struggling to present a good case. Thanks.

CNOZ Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134





From: Russell, Robert LTC MIL USA MEDCOM

[mailto

Sent: Mon ay, pri

To: Russell, Robert LTC MIL USA Barnes cwoz Denise
Subject: RE: EVAL (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

cwoz Barnes, Changes made. Please save first Two drafts which I will pick
up the next time I am in. Thanks

Dr. Russell



From: Russell, Robert LTC MIL USA MEDCOM
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2911 1:11 PM

To: ?Barnes cwoz Denise

Subject: RE: EVAL (UNCLASSIFIED)

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Email keep bouncing back. 3rd attempt

-?--?Original

From: Barnes cwoz Denise [mailt
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 8:16
To: Russell, Robert LTC MIL USA MEDCOM

Subject: Fw: EVAL

Here you go Sir, thanks!

cwoz Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134



ManningB_0O514411



33502



From: Jordan SSG Ryan

Sent: Friday, April 61, 2611 20:61
To: Barnes cwoz Denise

Subject: EVAL

SSG Jordan, Ryan
Army Liaison
MCB Quantico Base Brig

offi
Brig
Fax

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

ManningB_0O514412



33503

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Friday. Januaty 28. 2011 4:00 PM

To: Oltman Col Robert

subject: COL EVAL 110128
Attachments: Manning review 110128.pdf

signed By:

Good Afternoon Sir, today I had a long talk with C01. Malone and it was very productive. I
explained that I wanted communication between us to be constant. I also explained that I did
not like the one line assessments on the forms that were being filled out which mostly asked
to take Manning off Max or POI. He understands what I want on the evals so it better
prepares the staff for reviews on the board. As you can see, it is very different from
that of Capt Hocter's. The way I have it set is that we talk before and after the visits and
he now understands why detail is important to me.

Side note- since I am new coming in, I told Gy Blenis that I needed to ensure all the
prisoners were properly classified so I had the board review all inmates this week. I
spoke to Manning today to advise him that I kept him in POI status and that he can submit a
00 form 519 to me if he is not happy with the custody classification and assignment. He was
asked if he wanted to talk to me in private about it and he stated no. He took the news well
and stated that he understands. Thanks Sir.

CWO2 Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134

Office:

33=





or
MannIngB_00449872



33504

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Thursday, March 17. 2011 10:56 AM

To: Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj Amy

Cc: Papakie Brian Fuller William Blenis Craig
Subject: NOTES TO CONSIDER IRT MANNING

Attachments: A IEW NOTES FROM GY
Signed By:

Sir/Ma'am, I have been speaking to Papakie and Blenis extensively this morning and
we were discussing Manning's suicide comments from his initial interview. See the attached.
IF we go by what he stated which is that he was not suicidal once he was put on meds, then we
have to ask ourselves, how come he is not suicidal now that he is off meds? It goes back to
what I have been saying; anyone who wants to kill themselves will not give signs or do a memo
for everyone to see. when we combine his statements, his manipulative actions, recent
removal of meds, and yesterday's removal of 18 people from his visitation list, this is cause
for concern. we all know that certain things such as mail, visits, meals and phone calls are
instrumental to the well-being of inmates. This is why I told Col. Malone that I wanted him
to see everything we have in his record book when he and I first sat down. He quickly told
me that he was aware of everything regarding the suicide and what took place in Kuwait etc.
This is why communication on all fronts is key. Thanks.

CWO2 Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico VA 22134



I-ZXI
PAGI9.
ManningB_OO449855



33505

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Wednesday, Februaty 23, 2011 12:01 PM

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

subject: RE: CLARIFICATION ON MEDS ISSUE WRT MANNING
Attachments: Manning eval 110218.pdf

Signed By:

Sir, no he is not saying that now because taking him off meds or
reducing them. They just both decided in general that he does not need it. I am looking at
someone who is not an out?patient who is in the friggin Brig, so that alone will add to his
stress/depression especially once the pace of the legal proceedings pick up. It will only
get worse once the true weight of his legal situation/future hits him. As per Gy Blenis, a
couple weeks ago, he felt that this will wash over and he will get acquitted. Ever since he
received the ART 138 response, he has been less talkative and certainly does not smile as
much as before, much more guarded. In terms of the eval from last week, I told Col. Malone
that I was concerned because it was identical to detainee Millers? eval and he said it was
accurate. That is why I told him that although the new form is much better, I want more
details in the remarks box from now on especially when there are changes from the previous
eval. Ma'am, the new eval is attached. Thanks.

CWO2 Denise V. Barnes

Brig officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134

Office:
BB:



-?-?-Original Message-?-?-

From: Oltman Col Robert 6

Sent: wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:41

To: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: RE: CLARIFICATION ON MEDS ISSUE WRT MANNING

So he is saying that since he is on POI we can reduce his meds? Let's just make sure we are
I clear on what he is saying.

Also the evaluation you sent me last week, was that the correct one For Manning?

Good luck with the Blood draw, do not give them more then they ask for

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Securit BN MCB uantico




From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

_rg\



ManningB_00449867 PAGE

L:x


I A.)



33506

Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:38

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: CLARIFICATION ON MEDS ISSUE NRT MANNING

Sir, after doing some more legwork I realized that Manning did not refuse his meds. when Doc
Malone saw him Friday, they both agreed that he should be off Colonapin (spelling) one 0? his
anti-depressants, so that's why he said he did not want the meds. As per Col. Malone, both
HM3 Dodson and HM3 Burr were told about the change and somehow it wasn't adjusted on his
chart. Additionally, Col. Malone is in the process of weaning him of? the other anti-
depressant, Zoloft which I have a concern with. I spoke to Col Malone today to Find out the
reason because if the limitations of confinement and the uncertainty of his future are
additional stressors I did not see why he would take him off the meds. His response to me
was that since he has the extra supervision, he feels comfortable taking him off the meds.

In terms of the weekly evals, I also asked him to put some amplifying notes in the remarks
box from now on especially when things change from one eval to the next. Anyway Sir, I have
blood drawn and will talk to Bui about the communication piece
with the junior Corpsmen. Thanks.

cwoz Denise V. Barnes
Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue



ManningB_00449868





33507

From: Oitman Col Robert

Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 4:10 PM

To: Greer Christopher Johnson Col Thomas Han.Bui@med.navy.miI

Cc: Neill CAPT Mary; Choike Col Daniel Kauzlarich Col Mark Streng CIV Peter
Subject: FW:

signed By:

FYSA

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Securit BN, MCB uantico
Cell
BB
Email:





From: Barnes cwoz Denise

Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2911 15:51

To: Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj Amy Papakie Brian Blenis Craig
Subject: Fw:

FYI. He did fill out a $10 but was annoyed he had to update the list. Oh well!

CNOZ Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134



?-?--Original

From: Sanford Jason 3

Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 15:36
To: Barnes CN02 Denise

Subject:

Good Afternoon Ma'am

The names Det. Manning removed from his mail and visitation list are,

Becky Manning (cousin)
Daniel Clark (friend)
David House (friend)
Jon Hoadley (friend)
Jason Edwards (Friend)
Toby Quaranta (friend)
Drew Perragut (friend)
Nathan Kennedy (Friend)
Jordan Davis (Friend)



up H): y_

ManningB_00513868

33508

Joshua Silvey (friend)
George Lawson (friend)
Chris Hood (friend)

Paul Steven Lopez (friend)
Glen Greenwald (friend)
Jeff Patterson (friend)
Patrick Kendell

Trevor Fitzgerald (friend)

SND also removed his father (Brian Manning) from the visitation list but left him on the
mailing list.

Respectfully Submitted
Sanford,



33509

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Wednesday. March 16, 2011 2:21 PM

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

subject: DETAINEE MAIL AND VISITATION LIST
Signed By:

Good Afternoon Sir, Sanford just informed me that detainee Manning removed his father and
David House ?rom his list of authorized visitors. we are going to have him fill out a new
visitation list and a DD from 510 requesting the action. we have to be ready for negative
media coverage on this because if House does not know he is no longer on the list and he is
turned away this weekend, it will be on the blogs very quickly. our Duty Brig Supervisors
Fills out paperwork whenever someone is turned away to properly document what occurred. This
weekend also coincides with the planned protest and it may be a setup because for all
protests or other contingencies, the MP's call back to the Brig to verify who is on the
inmates? visitation lists. Once he hears that sure it will be a
dramatic event and will appear as though we have "stopped his visits for no good reason."

CWO2 Denise V. Barnes

Brig officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134

Office: DSN: -




APPELLATE IEXI sum W1 0

ManningB__00449857 PAGE OF



335m

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:46 AM
To: Papakie Brian

subject: FW: PFC Manning on suicide watch
Signed By:

CN02 Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue
Quantico VA 22134

Off
BB:






--?--Original

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 19:47

To: Greer LtCo1 Christopher Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj
AmyR

Subject: Re: PFC Manning on suicide watch

Sir I did inform my staff that from today on his underwear will be taken at night along with
his other clothing due to a statement he made to Papakie today. In summary, he stated he
did not understand the P01 status since he gets to keep his underwear with the waistband
which is the most dangerous piece. In my opinion, that means he at least thought about it. It
is very easy for me to defend my position on this matter than to explain a suicide or an
attempt Sir. Hope this helps.

Sent using B1ackBerry

From: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA

To: Barnes CWO2 Denise Greer LtCo1 Christopher Oltman C01 Robert Ebitz Maj Amy
Sent: wed Mar 02 19:31:33 2011

Subject: Re: PFC Manning on suicide watch

cwoz Barnes,

I heard from the company commander that PFC Manning had his underwear taken from him. I
wanted to confirm with you whether that is true.

According to the Company Commander PFC Manning said something about suicide to the guards
involving his underwear and then it was taken. I just want to get the ground truth so that I
can defuse any rumor. Any update would be a huge help.

Very Respectfully,

APPELLATF,
I
ManningB_00511986 PAGE






I

ManningB_00511987


33511

CPT John Haberland

iudie Advocate

Sent From Blackberry

From: Barnes cwoz Denise

To: Haberland, John CPT MIL Greer LtCo1 Christopher

Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj A
Sent: wed Mar 02 19:

Subject: Re: PFC Manning on suicide watch

Sir neither my staff nor I placed Manning on sw. Given the fact that a new charge sheet and
the Base Commander's response to his article 138 complaint was given to him today, we Felt
that it would be a good idea to have someone talk to him to determine if today's events has
caused some distress. we are simply erring on the side of caution Sir.

Sent using B1ackBerry

From: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA

To: Barnes cwoz Denise Greer LtCo1 Christopher
Sent: Wed Mar 02 18:52:41 2011

Subject: PFC Manning on suicide watch

CNOZ Barnes and Sir,

I heard that PFC Manning went on suicide watch. I just wanted to discuss a possible issue.
Very Respectfully,

CPT John Haberland

Regimental Judge Advocate

Sent from Blackberry

33512

From: Galaviz CW05 Abel

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 9:01 AM

To: Barnes CWO2 Denise Papakie Bn'an
Cc: Pagan CIV Radomet

subject: Manning

Signed By:

CHO Barnes and Papakie getting some questions on the Early Bird article. Could either
one of you call me so that I have a solid understanding of the conditions in which he was
placed after his underwear were taken from him the other day?

Respectfully Submitted,

CWO-S Abel Galaviz

Head, Corrections Section
PS Division, PSL Branch
Com
BBerry
Email:
SIPR:




"Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the
results."



Mannin9B_00511981 PAC -



33513

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Friday. March 04. 2011 1:39 PM
To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: RE: Manning early bird article
Signed By:

Sir, when I made the decision to have detainee Manning's underwear removed after taps with
his other gear and still keep him POI, my thought process was that he did not threaten
suicide nor did he make a suicidal gesture as per the SECNAV. In addition, we did not feel
that the extra measures were necessary during regular day time hours. He never said he would
commit suicide nor did he act in a manner that was similar to the incident in January with
CWO Averhart where he was placed in SR status. His behavior was not erratic in any way, as
matter of fact, he was smiling when he was talking to Papakie. The SECNAV states that I
can remove clothing when deemed necessary. I found it hard to justify assigning him the SR
status, it is easier to explain why we left him in POI status than why we placed him in SR
status without adhering to the guidance in the SECNAV. I also could not justify not taking
action in the event of a possible suicide or an attempt at it after he made that comment to
Papakie. Papakie, Blenis and I all felt uncomfortable and almost at the same
time said we need to make adjustments. As a side note Sir, I do not always concur with the
board or items that are brought to me in other capacities. A good example was prisoner
Cantrell, on 26 January, the board voted 2-1 to keep him as interior work detail and I
disagreed and put him in protective custody status. My decision was based on the reason we
had him in confinement and since I did not know who he testified on that may come to the
Brig, I put his safety first. Thanks Sir.

b. Prisoners who have threatened suicide or have made a
suicidal gesture, but are found fit for confinement, may be
placed in the category of ?suicide risk" for observation. They
shall be placed in special quarters under continuous
observation. may direct removal of the prisoner's
clothing when deemed necessary. Prisoner must be under
observation of a supervisor of the same sex.?

CWOZ Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134

Office:





From: Oltman Col Robert 6

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 11:43

To: Barnes CNOZ Denise

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: Fw: Manning early bird article

Heading towards office soon. cwoz Barnes synopsize for me the rational for your action and
the authority vested and cited by you in the SECNAV. I will reply to this email.
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld

1
zixz

PAGE OF

ManningB_O0449862





33514

Original Message

From: wright Ltcol Troy

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Greer Ltcol Christopher Galaviz CWBS Abel; Durham CIV Jan Pagan CIV Radomet
Sent: Fri Mar 04 10:42:48 2911

Subject: Fw: Manning early bird article

Col Oltmanz

Sir, I just wanted to pass on to you a professional opinion from PSL that we have some
concerns about recent (within the last 2-3 days) decisions made by the commanding officer of
the Quantico brig. To take measures that are consistent with suicide watch but not
officially place that person in a suicide watch status is inconsistent with the way we are
supposed to do business. we understand there may be some concern about taking actions which
may result in another Article 138 complaint but if we are doing business they way we are
supposed to there is nothing to worry about.

Very respectfully,
Ltcol wright

Ltcol Troy V. wright

Head, Law Enforcement and Corrections Branch

Security Division Plans, Policies Operations
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (HQMC)

Commercial:



?-?-?0riginal

From: Galaviz cwos Abel

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2911 8:45

To: Pagan CIV Radomet wright LtCol Troy Burris Richard Gillespie CTR Tab
Subject: Manning early bird article

Gentlemen, news from today's Early Bird.

Soldier In Leaks Case was Jailed Naked, Lawyer Says

By Charlie Savage

WASHINGTON - A lawyer for Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst accused of
leaking secret government files to wikiLeaks, has complained that his client was stripped and

left naked in his cell for seven hours on Wednesday.

The conditions of Private Manning's confinement at the Marine brig in Quantico, Va., have
drawn criticism in recent months from supporters and his lawyer, David E. Coombs.

The soldier's clothing was returned to him Thursday morning, after he was required to stand
naked outside his cell during an inspection, Mr. Coombs said in a posting on his web site.

"This type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification," Mr. Coombs
wrote. ?It is an embarrassment to our military justice system and should not be tolerated.

2

ManningB_00449863

33515

Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other
detainee at the brig is Forced to endure this type oF isolation and humiliation."

First Lt. Brian Villiard, a Marine spokesman, said a brig duty supervisor had ordered Private
Manning's clothing taken From him. He said that the step was "not punitive? and that it was
in accordance with brig rules, but he said that he was not allowed to say more.

"It would be inappropriate For me to explain it," Lieutenant Villiard said. can conFirm
that it did happen, but I can't explain it to you without violating the detainee's privacy."

Private Manning is being held as a maximum security detainee under a special set oF
restrictions intended to prevent selF-injury, even though supporters say there is no evidence
that he is suicidal.

During an appearance on earlier on Thursday, GeoFFrey Morrell, the Pentagon press
secretary, attributed the general conditions oF Private Manning's conFinement to "the
seriousness oF the charges he's Facing, the potential length oF sentence, the national
security implications" and to protect him From potential harm.

Also, earlier on Thursday, one oF Private Manning's Friends, David House, said in a
conFerence call with reporters that he had visited the soldier the previous weekend and that
his mental condition was severely deteriorating as a result oF being conFined to his cell 23
hours a day, with one hour to exercise in an empty room, and largely isolated From human
contact.

But Mr. House said that Private Manning did not seem suicidal and contended that he was being
pressured to cooperate.

Investigators have been seeking evidence that could implicate Julian Assange, the wikiLeaks
Founder, as a conspirator in the leaking oF the military and diplomatic documents and videos.

Mr. House spoke on the conFerence call with Daniel Ellsberg, who compared the leaking oF
documents to wikiteaks to his own leaking oF the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war. On
Nednesday, the Army announced 22 additional charges against Private Manning, including
"aiding the enemy."

The charge sheet did not explain who "the enemy" was, leading some to speculate that it was a
reFerence to wikiLeaks. on Thursday, however, the military said that it instead reFerred to
any hostile Forces that could beneFit From learning about classiFied military tactics and
procedures.

RespectFully Submitted,
CWO-5 Abel Galaviz
Head, Corrections Section



?Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the
results."

ManningB_00449864

33516

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2011 6:23 PM
To: Papakie Brian
Subject: Re: Brig Update

Hey based on PSL's guidance(making him SR) we would have to now "retum him to appropriate quarters (POI) right? Then
what do we do with the underwear issue based on his statement? Food for thought!

Sent using BlackBerry

Original Message
From: Barnes CWO2 Denise
To: Papakie Brian
Sent: Fri Mar 04 17:43:12 2011
Subject: Fw: Brig Update

FYI. This is what our professionalism, knowledge and hard work yields. 1 am proud to have you and the rest of the gang on my
staff!

Sent using BlackBerry

Original Message

From: Oltman Col Robert

To: Ebitz Maj Amy Barnes CWO2 Denise
Sent: Fri Mar04 17:13:51 2011

Subject; FW: Brig Update

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantico

Cell#


emu:






From: Choilce Col Daniel

Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 17:07

To: LtGen George

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Neill CAPT Mary; Miner Col Christopher LtCol Christopher
Subject: Brig Update

Sir.
Mental Health visit by Col Malone is complete. This initial report came from Capt Neill, CO Naval Health Clinic and the Brig
Medical O?icer, who was just debriefed by Col Malone this afternoon after his visit with Manning. PFC Marming is doing well,
appeared in good spirits and has been taken olT a medication for an anxiety disorder, the removal is in response to his improved
status. His recent actions and statements are not related any mental disorder.


I 4_
ManningB_00511976 OF PAGES



I

33517

Initial report from Col Oltman - the Brig OIC is going to leave Manning in the same status (P01) and his handling instructions will
remain the satne for the immediate future; meaning he will only have his blankets from Taps to Reveille. CWO2 Barnes and Col
Oltman discussed at length the situation and CWO Barnes will continue to review his behavior/actions and review the
recommendations of the Board. The Board goes every he will remain "as is" for handling
instructions can be changed at arty time. based upon his observed ongoing behavior.

Manning's recent comments and behavior have the entire Brig Staff concerned, and they are trying to only add minimal precautionary
measures necessary, that will allow him to have some space and reduce the stress, while protecting him/keeping him safe.

VR, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001



ManningB_00511977



33518

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Thursday, March 10. 2011 10:54 AM
To: Dunn Capt John

Cc: Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj Amy
Subject: RE: Manning RFI

Sdgnedly:

Good Morning Sir, Detainee Manning started sleeping without his underwear on the evening of
wednesday 2 March. He still retained his 2 suicide blankets that night as he always had in
the past. The suicide blankets were never taken. Suicide smocks are not mandatory and our
higher headquarters, PSL took the liberty of purchasing those. Since Monday 7 March, the day
the smock arrived; Detainee Manning has slept in it and was still given the two suicide
blankets so he could cover himself. Let me know if you need additional assistance Sir,
thanks.

CWO2 Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134

Office:
BB:

-?-?-Original

From: Dunn Capt John

Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2011 16:39
To: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Subject: Manning RFI

CWO2 Barnes,

I work up here for MajGen Ary. They were just in a meeting with the Under Secretary of the
Navy who asked how long it was that Manning was sleeping naked before he got his smock.

I have an info paper that says his underwear was taken on 1 March and the smock was expected
to arrive on 7 Mar but I need to confirm that actually happened.

Apologies if you've already been hit with this question. Please give me a call with any
questions. Many thanks,

Very Respectfully,

John Dunn

Captain, U.S. Marine Corps
Judge Advocate Division
Headquarters Marine Corps



1 -


ManningB_004-19859 - -

33519

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise









Sent: Friday, March 4, 2011 9:38 PM
To: Buck Jason Boafo Michael
Tenv Matthew
Cc: Oltman Col Robert
Fuller
William
Subject: Weekend visitation/calls to Brig

DBS's with the new changes I made IRT detainee Manning not keeping his underwear at night comes a lot of disdain from others who
support detainee Manning. Continue to be vigilant and prepare for verbal attacks on the phone or at visitation from now on. Things
will heat up so continue to be professional and refer calls regarding his status to PAO. Documentdocument, document. If you have
to turn away an unruly visitor then do so. Thanks for continuing to make us look good.

Sent using BlackBeny

?l Ll I
i

PAGES





ManningB_00511975



From: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:21 AM
To: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Subject: FW: Response to Fox and NBC

Signed By:

Chief we need to make sure all are read into these just the Lt to my CHO

Col R.G. Oltman

Commanding Officer
Secur'
Cell
BB
Email





Message--?--
From: Barnes cwoz Denise

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:18
To: Villiard 1st Lt Brian

Cc: Oltman Col Robert

Subject: RE: Response to Fox and NBC

Sir your response is very good however; I am screaming right now, we never say solitary
confinement! In terms of discipline, they can be given extra duty, have a loss of privileges
imposed or placed in disciplinary segregation if they are violent. The excerpt from chapter
4 of the SECNAV is below, Thanks Sir.

d. Prisoners who have threatened suicide or have made a

suicide gesture but are found fit for confinement may be placed
within special quarters under continuous observation while in
the category of suicide risk. may direct removal
of prisoner's clothing when deemed necessary.

cwoz Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134







From: Villiard 1st Lt Brian

Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2611 11:65
To: Barnes CNOZ Denise

Subject: Response to Fox and NBC

Denise,


nix



33521

Below is my proposed response to Fox News and NBC, both of whom ran stories with major
inaccuracies. Please review/advise.

The brig commander has not only the authority, but the responsibility, to adjust the status
of a detainee as deemed appropriate. Assignment of suicide watch or prevention of injury is
a precaution taken when a detainee expresses some form of uncharacteristic activity or
demonstrates behavior that causes the brig commander to presume a detainee may be a danger to
himself/herself.

The brig commander has a panel of advisors composed of medical experts, mental health
providers and brig staff. This panel makes recommendations to the brig commander, but the
brig commander makes the final decision on a detainee's status based on the information at
hand.

Suicide watch or prevention of injury is never assigned as a punitive measure. If a detainee
becomes disruptive or violates rules and regulations, there are appropriate forms of
disciplinary actions the brig commander can take, ranging from removal of privileges to
assignment to solitary confinement.

Respectfully,
Lt Villiard

1st Lt. Brian "Scott" Villiard
Media Officer

MCB Quantico Public Affairs
Desk:
Bbry:



ManningB_0O514040

33522

From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Thursday, March 10. 2011 3:55 PM

To: Oltman Col Robert

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy Kauzlarich Col Mark
Subject: RE: Manning Status

Signed By:

Bob,

what you have listed below is on target. The instructions given to me were best passed on
personally to cwo2 Barnes, based upon the last two meetings with the CG. I don't
prefer this approach and would rather go through you, but your TAD trip and absence creates
this situation. Much is lost in email missives.

I just got off the phone with cwo2 Barnes and let her know about your email and the CG's
intent. I know how things go and what you have done in the past in terms of notifying me, I
only ask/reconfirm that any decisions to change handling instructions or assignment status is
briefed first, before executed. Actions required to save life and/or protect from injury are
not included in this for obvious reasons.

You and I supporting/concurring with the Brig OIC's decisions that change handling
instructions or assignment status, without passing that info to CG for consideration,
is no longer acceptable. we/you are not going to get anything in writing from CG if he
rejects/modifies a recommendation. Memo's for the record can be discussed more between you
and I, in an effort to address your concerns about proper documentation/file keeping.

Summary - #1 - yes adhere to the chain of command, and hopefully you understand why that
didn't happen right now. #2 Yes - recommendations forwarded to me for discussion and
concurrence and then recommendation forwarded to CG, before implementation. I will not
blindly forward a recommendation to the CG, instead I'll discuss it with you so you will know
exactly what I forward. #3 Non-concurrence in writing - we need to discuss and determine the
best way to document decision/final actions for the record. CG wants to be able to determine
political impact, media interest, legal ramifications, and senior leadership reactions, and
can't do so without him being in the loop upfront.

SF, Dan

PS- when do you get back?

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5861

Office
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:
Email:



Message-?--?
From: Oltman Col Robert
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 14:02
To: Kauzlarich Col Mark Choike Col Daniel
1
ICXHHEIT

-
nngB_0O449914



33523

Cc: Ebitz Maj Amy
Subject: Manning Status

Gents

Just got off phone with X0. She has informed me that any changes in Manning Status must be
approved by Base CO. I think there is an assumption being made that CNOZ Barnes is acting
alone and unafraid in her decision process with regard to status and or handling instruction
changes with regard to Manning. That is not the case. She and I discuss, same as I did with
Averhart, every decision and every change and to date I have concurred with all. Also every
change has been discussed with the Boss. Not sure how much more involved we can be.
Understand where guidance is coming from and we will do as directed. However I respectfully
make the following requests 1) we adhere to the chain of command. Barnes will conact me and
I will contact Base C0. 2) Based on conditions etc we, Sec BN will make a
recommendation/request to implement the change. Should there be non concurrence and different
guidance given we would like to have it in writing in order to annotate in the file. we can
set up whatever paperwork is required.

we are on board just want to ensure the files are properly documented.

R/rgo
Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld

ManningB_00449915



33524

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2011 8:01 PM
To= Oltman Col Robert
Subject: Re: PFC Manning on suicide watch

Sir I just explained to Capt Haberland that he is not on SW and that the underwear will only be taken at night. I also
reinforced the fact that I looked at things in totality. He gets it and is brie?ng his boss.

Sent using BlackBeny

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise

To: Oltman Col Robert

Sent: Wed Mar 02 19:48:27 2011

Subject: Re: PFC Manning on suicide watch

I will call now to clarify sir.

Sent using BIackBerry

From: Oltman Col Robert

Barnes CWO2 Denise V: Greer Christopher M:

B)it2 Maj Amy
Sent: Wed Mar 02 19:46:40 2011
Subject: Re: PFC Manning on suicide watch

Removal of underwear does not constitute SR. CWO2 Barnes engage in direct dialogue with the Capt and answer his
question and clarify his concerns no email. To much interpretation.
Sent from my BlackBeny Handheld

From: Haberland, John CPT MIL USA

To: Barnes CWO2 Denise Greer Christopher Oltman Col Robert Ebitz Maj Amy
Sent: wed Mar 02 19:31:33 2011

Subject: Re: PFC Manning on suicide watch

CWO2 Barnes,

I heard from the company commander that PFC Manning had his underwear taken from him. I wanted to con?rm with you
whether that is true.

According to the Company Commander PFC Manning said something about suicide to the guards involving his undenrvear
and then it was taken. ljust want to get the ground truth so that i can defuse any rumor. Any update would be a huge
help.

Very Respectfully,

CPT John Haberiand

Regimental Judge Advocate

Sent from Blackbeny

From: Barnes CWO2 Denise
To: Haberland, John CPT MIL reer ol hristopher Oltman Col Robert

APPELLATE
PAGE REFER
ManningB_00513315 PAGE

33525

gut: Wed Mar 02 19:10:01 2011

Subject: Re: PFC Manning on suicide watch

Sir neither my staff nor I placed Manning on SW. Given the fact that a new charge sheet and the Base Commanders
response to his article 138 complaint was given to him today, we felt that it would be a good idea to have someone talk to
him to determine if today's events has caused some distress. We are simply erring on the side of caution Sir.

Sent using BIackBeny

From: Haberland, John cm MIL USA ml?

To: Barnes CWO2 Denise Greer LtCol Christopher

Sent: Wed Mar 02 18:52:41 2011
Subject: PFC Manning on suicide watch

CWO2 Barnes and Sir,

I heard that PFC Manning went on suicide watch. I just wanted to discuss a possible issue.
Very Respectfully,

CPT John Haberland

Regimental Judge Advocate

Sent from Blackberry

ManningB_O0513316

33526

From: Barnes CW02 Denise

sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:32 AM
To: Papakie Brian

subject: FW: PVT MANNING BRIG ISSUES

Signed By:

FYI, the big thing is that MajGen Ary is saying that he thinks we are doing business the
right way.

cwoz Denise V. Barnes

Brig Officer, Security Battalion
3247 Elrod Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134

office:
BB:



DSN:







5 Fax:





From: Sanceda 1stLt Vic

Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:14
To: Barnes CW02 Denise

Subject: FN: PVT MANNING BRIG ISSUES

Denise,

I got this thread Forwarded to me and I didn't see you on any of the emails.
I don't know if you need to take any action. It may just be an FYI.

R/Adj

--?--Original

From: Streng CIV Peter 3

Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:50
To: Sanceda 1stLt Vic

Subject: Fw: PVT MANNING BRIG ISSUES

Pete Streng

Director of Operations
3250 Catlin Avenue
Quantico, VA 22134



From: Streng CIV Peter 3

Sent: wednesday, March 09, 2911 8:43
To: Ebitz Maj Amy

Subject: Fw: PVT MANNING BRIG ISSUES

1
APPELLATE EXHIBIT j?jj?

PAGE
PAGE OF Lao



ManningB__O0511959





33527

Message-?-?-

From: Choike Col Daniel 3

Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 8:34

To: LtGen George

Cc: Mortenson Col Royal; Kauzlarich Col Mark Streng CIV Peter Oltman Col Robert
Greer LtCol Christopher

Subject: Fw: PVT MANNING BRIG ISSUES

Sir,
FYI, and connected to email sent yesterday. I'm sure we'll be contacted by PSL to support.

VR, DJC

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001

Office:
Cell:
Fax:
DSN:



From: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 7:47

To: Galaviz cwos Abel; Durham CIV Jan

Cc: Ewers Col John Francis LtCo1 Leon 3; Geoffroy SES Raymond Choike Col Daniel
Miner Col Christopher Greer LtCol Christopher Hogue SES Robert Pagan CIV Radomet
Burris Richard wright LtCol Troy

Subject: RE: PVT MANNING BRIG ISSUES



Gents,
I'm confident that the brig is doing business the right way, but in order to demonstrate that
to interested parties we need the following info:

1) Orders identifying/classifying Quantico as a
2) orders SecNav, MCO) defining mission/role of and
3) ACA Standards applicable to an PCF.

we will need help to analyze the difference between our standards and the ACA standards.

we are going to need this info ASAP to ensure we provide the proper standard of review for
the Article 138 complaint that is headed to SecNav. LtCo1 Francis -- please get with CNOS
Galaviz on these items. Thanks again,

V/r.

VA



From: Galaviz cwes Abel

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 2:00 PM

To: Durham CIV Jan Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Cc: Ewers Col John Francis LtCo1 Leon 3; Geoffroy SES Raymond Choike Col Daniel
Miner Col Christopher w; Greer LtCol Christopher Hogue SES Robert Pagan CIV Radomet
Burris Richard wright LtCol Troy

ManningB_00511960

33528

Subject: RE: PVT MANNING BRIG ISSUES

MajGen Ary, Sir, it is safe to safe that our facilities meet a majority, if not all of the
ACA standards however, because the ACA has various levels of accreditation/certification
(dependant on the mission of the facility) and the recent change of the Quantico's mission
from a post-trial confinement facility to a strictly pre-trial facility we have not obtained
the appropriate standards material from the ACA. It would be difficult at best for me to say
what percentage of the ACA standards Quantico currently meets since accreditation requires
compliance with close to 460+ individual standards. I wish I had a more definitive answer.

Respectfully Submitted,

CWO-5 Abel Galaviz

Head, Corrections Section
PS Division, PSL Branch



?Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the
results.?



From: Durham CIV Jan

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 13:47

To: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Cc: Ewers Col John Francis LtCol Leon Geoffroy SES Raymond Choike Col Daniel
Miner Col Christopher w; Greer Ltcol Christopher Galaviz cwas Abel; Hogue SES Robert
Subject: RE: PVT MANNING BRIG ISSUES

Sir, I will ask Abel to jump on this. From our discussions this morning I understand the
process will be several months in duration, but I will let Abel chime in and provide better
has been through this process with some of our Jan



From: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:42 PM

To: Durham CIV Jan

Cc: Ewers Col John Francis LtCol Leon Geoffroy SES Raymond Choike Col Daniel
Miner Col Christopher Greer Ltcol Christopher Galaviz cwes Abel; Hogue SES Robert
Subject: RE: PVT MANNING BRIG ISSUES

Jan,

Thanks. The first email in this string noted that we do not have a copy of the ACA
standards. I believe we need to see the current standards to determine whether our practices
substantially comply with them. Can we get a current copy and do you know how long the
accreditation process takes? Talk soon,



VA



From: Durham CIV Jan

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2311 11:38 AM

To: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Cc: Ewers Col John Francis Ltcol Leon Geoffroy SES Raymond Choike Col Daniel
Miner Col Christopher Greer LtCol Christopher Galaviz CWOS Abel

3

ManningB_00511961



33529

Subject: RE: PVT MANNING BRIG ISSUES
Sir,

Abel and I just came out of a hour and a half with Mr. Hogue and his folks in re Manning.

Mr. Hogue is meeting this afternoon with the 000 C05. Part of those discussions centered on
ACA accreditation and Quantico. In a nutshell, as you know, we do not have ACA accreditation
For Quantico; however, the Facility does meet or exceed most of the standards. we think it
appropriate to begin pursuing that accreditation. This is something I will engage in a
conversation with Dan Choike. Lots of other good ideas were generated which we need to share
with all relevant parties.

I think some of those ideas are better discussed via telephone.

I need to put some stuff together, but will give you a call later this afternoon, if you are
available.

Jan



From: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:14 AM

To: Durham CIV Jan

Cc: Ewers Col John Francis Ltcol Leon 3; Geoffroy SES Raymond Choike Col Daniel
Miner Col Christopher Greer Ltcol Christopher

Subject: PVT MANNING BRIG ISSUES

Jan,

Inquiries on Manning have turned to general inquiries on the Quantico brig. we're going to
have to be ready to answer them.

The attached DODD and the SECNAVINST require that: "To the greatest extent possible,
national accreditation standards issued by the American Correctional Association shall be
followed in determining corrections policies and administering correctional Facilities and
Functions."

According to the below email From CWOS Galaviz, our Facilities are not accredited and since
they are not accredited, we do not maintain a copy of the ACA standards. In a quick review
of the inquiries/reviews conducted by Maj Zelek and CWOS Galaviz, I did not see a discussion
of the ACA standards and how our treatment o? Manning comports or departs from the ACA
standards.

I have asked Ltcol Francis to Follow up on these issues to determine what standards we are
using to defend the performance of the Quantico PCF. I believe we will need these answers
ASAP given the interest in this case.

Talk soon,
V/r,

Vaughn Ary
Major General USMC
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant

05"?



ManningB_00511962



33530

From: Francis LtCol Leon

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2611 9:43 AM
To: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Subject: FN: PVT MANNING ISSUES

Sir,

I just spoke to cwos Galaviz. He told me the closest confinement facility that is ACA
accredited is Norfolk.


LtCo1 Francis

-?-?-Original Message-?-?-

From: Francis Ltcol Leon

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 8:12

To: Ewers Col John

Cc: Thompson Maj Suzan Fara; Dunn Capt John
Subject: Fw: PVT MANNING ISSUES

Sir,

Attached are the documents you requested from PSL. The first attachment is Zelek's inquiry.
The second is Galaviz response to the Art. 138 complaint. The third is the that directs
that Quantico serve as the PTC facility for our region. The applicable paragraph is 4.7.
According to Galaviz, Quantico is the PTC facility for all the military services in the NCR
because there is no other confinement facility near this area. The last attachment is
the DON Corrections Manual.

Per the below, Quantico brig is not ACA certified and PSL does not possess the requested ACA
manuals.


Ltcol Francis



From: Galaviz CNOS Abel

Sent: Tuesday, March 08,

To: Francis Ltcol Leon 3

Cc: wright LtCol Troy Pagan CIV Radomet Burris Richard
Subject: RE: PVT MANNING ISSUES

Sir, I will follow up this email with a phone call. Since the Quantico facility is not ACA
accredited, there are no documents to support this. Additionally, because our facilities are
not currently ACA accredited, we do not have copies of the updated Standards books requested
in question (4).

Respectfully Submitted,

CWO-5 Abel Galaviz

Head, Corrections Section
PS Division, PSL Branch
Com
BBerry
Email:
SIPR:





ManningB_O0511963



33531

"Don't tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them surprise you with the
results."

Message??-?-

From: Francis Ltcol Leon 3

Sent: Monday, March 97, 2011 17:32
To: Galaviz CNOS Abel

Subject: PVT MANNING ISSUES
Importance: High

CNOS Galavis,

Just spoke to Col Ewers, DSJA to CMC. He received a recent RFI. He wanted me to locate the
following things and get a copy:

1) Document that states Quantico is the consolidated brig for

2) The reviews that were done of the Quantico brig by Major Zelek and yourself in reaction to
an Art. 138 complaint;

3) Document that indicates Quantico Brig is accredited with the American Correctional
Association;

4) Copy of two Manuals listed on ACA website - (1) Adult Local Detention facilities and (2)
Small Facilities.

Thanks.


LtCol Francis

ManningB_0O511964



33532

From: Bames CW02 Denise

Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 10:08 AM
To: Papakie Brian R?r; Blenis Craig
Fuller William

Subject: Fw: "Hardly waterboarding"

Sent using BlackBerry

Original Message

From: Oltman Col Robert

To: Barnes CWO2 Denise Ebitz Maj Amy Harvey SgtMaj William
Sent: Fri Apr 22 09:42:57 20Il

Subject: FW: "Hardly waterboarding"

Col R.G. Oltman
Commanding Officer
Security BN, MCB Quantico







From: LtGen George

Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 20:38

To: Oltrnan Col Robert Choike Col Daniel I

CC: Akst SES George; Ayers Maj Danyl Brinegar Col Gregg Bullard BGen John Coia Col Raymond Garay Col Roger
King CIV Douglas Monahan BGen Marcela Mortenson Col Royal; O'Donohue BGen Daniel Reed SgtMaj Dennis
Smith Col Russell

Subject: W: "Hardly waterboarding"
Just in case you had not seen.
LtGerL George J. USMC

Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration
Commandin General,

NY Daily News, 21 April 2011
lame pajama gamehtml

The lawyer for the Army intelligence specialist believed respomible for the largest U.S. security breach in history has done yeoman's
work in portraying his client as the victim of abuse while in military custody.

APPELLATE Ll? )2
PAGE

ManningB_00511907

33533

(9 David Coombs has masterfully created the impression that Bradley Manning, accused of aiding the enemy in the release of 250,000
diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, might as well have been in Abu Ghraib as in the Marine brig at Quantico.

Why, even the United Nations special rapporteur on torture felt compelled to check up on Marming's handling. Torture? Ifthat's what
he was subjected to in the brig, then torture is widespread across the American penal system.

Manning complained that he was placed on suicide watch, kept in his cell alone for 23 hours a day and given only an hour of
recreation by himself. At night, he had to sleep in a smock that was designed to be useless in a suicide attempt.

Hardly waterboarding. Hardly electrodes on the genitals. Hardly beatings. Hardly bums.

Although President Obama said the brig's protocol had "to do with Pvt. Manning's safety," Coombs alleged that Manning's rights were
being violated because had determined he was not a threat to himself. He has begun legal proceeding to press the
argument.

Now, the military is moving Manning to Fort Leavenworth, where, the government says, he will reside in a "more open" facility.
Manning will undergo assessment with the aim of allowing him three hours of recreation a day and the ability to interact
with other inmates.

Presumably, he will no longer sleep in a smock, eliminating all claims that the U.S. is violating international standards of decency.
The idea was absurd from the start, but it shows you how ready much of the world is to ?nd America guilty if taking away a man's
right to regular pajamas can be elevated into a crime against human rights.

ManningB_00511908



33534

From: Averhart CWO4 James

Sent: Wednesday. December 15, 2010 1:47 PM
To: Blenis Craig Papakie Brian
Subject: RE: Note for the manning report

You crazy Gunns!

CNO4 James T. Averhart, Jr. USMC
Security Battalion

Brig Officer

3247 lrod Ave .

MCB, antico VA 22134-5635





--?--Original

From: Blenis Craig

Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2019 11:09 AM
To: Papakie Brian

Cc: Averhart CNO4 James

Subject: Note For the manning report

Good morning gentlemen,
How is this verbage?

(2) on 13 December 2010, a package from Amazon.com was delivered to the Brig by a
construction worker who works at a nearby site. There was no previous request for a package
submitted by Det Manning and there was no previous approval for a package given by the Brig
OIC. when asked about any potential packages that may be coming, Det Manning stated that he
was not aware of any but thought that family members may be sending something due to his
upcoming birthday. The package is being rejected and returned to sender due to the manner in
which it was received and also because there was no prior request or knowledge of the package
by SND, and there was no pre-approval given by the Brig OIC, and we Felt like being dicks.

RI
Blenis

IA ,4
1 PAGE
PAGE OF moss



ManningB_0O449800

33535

From:
Seot:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachmeots:
SignedBy:

Blenis GySgt CraigM
Wednesday,March 02, 2011 1:11 PM
Barnes CW02DeniseV
Papakie MSgt BrianR
Manning report
Manningweek1y 110302.pdf
(b) (6)

Good afternoon Ma'am,
Attached is this week's issue of the manning Times.
R/
GySgt Blenis

^

APPELLATE EXHIBIT 44 j A S
PAGE REFERENCED:

PAGE
OF
PAnps

ManningB_00511994

33536

From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Thursday. December 30, 2010 11:42 AM

To: LtGen George

Cc: Hummer MajGen Steven Mortenson Col Royal; Kauzlarich Col Mark Oltman Col

Robert Johnson Col Thomas

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Attachments:

Sir,

Last week before the holidays, I asked the Deputy IG, Major Zelek to coordinate an
unannounced brig visit with my Chief of Staff, and that visit went on Monday of this week and

the final report is complete and attached in this email for your SA.

I

I have also received notice from - (quote from LtCol wright "per our (PSL)

request, COL Shumake (Chair, Corrections Council) has agreed to conduct a courtesy visit
at the Quantico Brig. This is not an official inspection. It is primarily an opportunity
for him to see the confinement conditions/facilities at Quantico. Since the PFC Manning case
continues to draw international attention I believe it wise to have as many people possible,
in their official capacity, be witness to the conditions PFC Manning is subject to so they
can personally attest that he is being treated in accordance with regulations."

In addition to this report attached, we are preparing a brief and point paper for MGen
Hummer's visit, next week on 4 Jan (1330). I also plan on sitting down with C01 TV Johnson
to use this report for developing a more comprehensive PAG and info campaign, in order to put
things in better perspective in the media.

will provide a copy of the point paper and read ahead brief on Monday AM, both are still
under draft.

VR, ojc

Col Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3256 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5061



Message--?-?

From: LtGen George

Sent: wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:02

To: Geoffroy SES Raymond Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SES Robert Dunford Gen Joseph Tryon LtGen Richard
Costantini Col William Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham CIV Jan Salas
Col Bryan wright LtCol Troy Choike Col Daniel Hummer MajGen Steven Dunford Gen
Joseph Oltman Col Robert

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

1 APPELLATE EXHIBIT
PAGE
PAGE OF PAGES





33537

All,
Just what I was looking for. Thanks. GJF

LtGen. George J. USMC
Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration
Commandin General






From: Geoffroy SES Raymond

Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2610 7:57 AM

To: Ary MajGen Vaughn A

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SES Robert Dunford Gen Joseph LtGen George Tryon
LtGen Richard Costantini Col William Mortenson Col Royal; Shumaker Col Bradley; Durham
CIV Jan Salas Col Bryan wright LtCo1 Troy Choike Col Daniel

Subject: RE: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

Vaughn -- Concur that we should be ahead of the disinformation campaign. The treatment that
PFC Manning is receiving as a maximum confinement detainee is in accordance with the American
Correctional Association (ACA) standards and is no different than what a maximum confinement
prisoner in the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) would receive.

we are coordinating with PA and developing a FACT SHEET that will do a side-by-side
comparison of the standards we are following with the protocols. we have been
coordinating with OUSD (who has Corrections policy) and recommended that they conduct
a visit to Quantico next week and endorse the care/treatment that PFC Manning is receiving.
They concur and we will be coordinating this with MCB Quantico. we have also discussed this
with the Army and have asked them to come along and verify the treatment/care as well.

I would recommend that Bryan coordinate with OSD PA for any formal publication/announcement
of the above.

Regards,
Jeff

Raymond Geoffroy

Assistant Deputy Commandant

Plans, Policies and Operations (Security)
eadquarters, U.S. Marine Corps



Message--?-?

From: Ary MajGen Vaughn A
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2816 2:59 PM

To: Geoffroy SES Raymond

Cc: Ewers Col John Hogue SES Robert

Subject: PFC Manning and the Quantico Brig

ManningB_00514285

33538

Jeff,

LtGen called today asking about PFC Manning and the recent press articles speculating
about PFC Manning's treatment at the Quantico Brig. Although LtGen has the utmost
trust and confidence in the way the brig is being run and that PFC Manning's treatment meets
standards, he would like to be proactive and see if there are a few steps we can take to
ensure we hold the moral high ground if the issue starts to take hold in the press. If we do
nothing, we would probably be left with a statement that "we are following He is
looking for ideas to show we are aggressively working to ensure Manning is receiving the care
and treatment to which he is entitled so that we have a better response.

I believe he has a point and that the story may get additional press interest, especially
given the suicide of Capt webb at Quantico and the other sailor in pretrial confinement at
Pendleton last year. MajGen Lehnert was also an advocate of the open kimono approach to our
treatment of detainees at GTMO -- an approach that was very successful in the early days of
that issue.

I was hoping to get your thoughts about bringing in an outside team from the Executive
Agent for the brigs (Army?) or someone to give us a clean bill of health or recommendations
on handling Manning while in pretrial confinement. Again, LtGen is confident we are
doing everything right he just wants to make sure everyone else agrees from a strategic
messaging standpoint. I'm available to discuss.

Happy holidays and talk soon,
V/r,
Vaughn

Vaughn Ary
Major General USMC
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant





33539

{ )
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
MARINE CORPS BASE
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5001
INREPLYREFEHTO:

0581
5800

28 Dec 10

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD .
From: Deputy' Inspector General
To:
Base Commander .
Subj : •• INSPECTION OF QUANTICO BRIG ICO PFC MANNING
ia) Newspaper a r t i c l e Christian Science Monitor d t d 17
December 2010
(b) Newspaper a r t i c l e , Associated- Press dtd 22 December
2010
(c) Newspaper a r t i c l e , Salon, com'dtd 23 December 2010
(d) SECNAVINST 1640.9C
(e) Quantico Brig Order P1540.1C, Standing Operating
Procedures

Ref:

1. Purpose. This memorandum f o r the record reports the
findings of my b r i g inspection on 27 December 2 010.
2. Scope. AS the Deputy inspector General, I inspected and
evaluated the Quantico Brig on 27 December 2010. During my
comprehensive b r i g tour, I observed the environment and l i v i n g
conditions of the individuals i n p r e t r i a l confinement. The b r i g
tour was given by CW04 James Averhart, the Brig CO. I also .
interviewed Capt William Tomaszek and MSgt Brian' Papakie, the
b r i g supervisor, to complete t h i s memorandum.
3. Background Information. During the past several weeks, there
have been numerous media reports regarding the care and
treatiment of Pfc Bradley Manning i n the Quantico b r i g . Thre.e of
these a r t i c l e s are included as references to t h i s memorandum
(ref a-c). These articles have pronpted numerous emails and
phone calls to the base from concerned citizens. To date, the
command duty o f f i c e r has received 119 phone c a l l s . I n a d d i t i o n
to these phone calls, the inspector general's- o f f i c e has
received f i v e emails from individuals expressing t h e i r concerns.
These inquiries have pronpted a command b r i g inspection t h a t was
conducted on 27 December 2010 and reduced to w r i t i n g i n t h i s
memorandum.
4.

FindingsB I n i t i a l Observations.
a. At 1330 on 27 December 2010, CW04 Averhart provided a

Enclosure (H)
APPELLATEEXHIBIT 4 HZB

-PAGE REFERENCED
ManningB_00011439

PAGE

pF

PAGES

33540

^

Subj:

INSPECTIO^OFQUANTICOBRIGICO PFCM^ING

comprehensive tour of t h e b r i g that included the c h o w h a l l ,
supply, the recreational areas, the s o l i t a r y confinement c e l l s
andspecial i^arters.
b. My i n i t i a l observation of the b r i g , was that i t was a
well l i t and clean f a c i l i t y . A l l areas appeared to be well-^kept
and i n a state of good repair. Throughout my v i s i t , I d i d not
observe any dangerous or unsanitary conditions.
c. The f i r s t area I observed was the chow h a l l . The chow
Hall was neat and tidy and the workers I observedpreparing the
foodwerewearinggloves. A l l p r e t r i a l detainees a r e p r o v i d e d
the same meal choices as the other Marines i n the various chow
h a l l s aboard the base f o r eachparticular day. The food offered
andprovided on the l i s t look:ed well-balanced and adequate.
d. The ne^t area I observed was the s o l i t a r y confinement
section of tbe brig. This area of the b r i g hadmore access
control measi^res andwas more secluded than the special quarters^
confinement area. There were no detainees housed i n t h i s area
of the b r i g .
e. There are currently eight individuals being held i n
p r e t r i a l confinement. A l l eight o f these individuals, including
Manning are being held i n the special quarters area of the b r i g .
f. Every detainee a t Quantico is i n a c e l l by themselves,
including Pfc Manning. There are walls between the cells w i t h
bars on the front of the c e l l . ^ Due t o the arrangement of c e l l s ,
no detainee a t Ouant::ico can see another detainees
g. Tbe indoor recreational f a c i l i t y ismore than adequate
f o r p h y s i c a l training. There are numerous machines which
provide a wide range of e:x:ercise to include cardiovascular and
weight t r a i n i n g . Theoutdoor f a c i l i t y also provides ample room
f o r p h y s i c a l training. However, t:hearea forma:^mumsecuril^y
deatainees i s much smaller and l i m i t e d which does not provide a
wide range of physical t r a i n i n g options outside of basketball. ^

I

h. There i s a complaint system i n place and detainees also
have the option to request mast. There are several anon^^ous
bc^es located throughout the b r i g where a detainee can drop o f f
a form 510-^ prisoner request form. These bo^es are locked and
only accessible to CW04 Averhart.

Page 2 of 5

ManningB_00011440

I

33541

Subj:

INSPECTION OFQUANTICO BRIGICOPFC MANNING

5. Findings regardingPfcManning.
a. I t has been alleged that Pfc Manning i s b e i n g h e l d i n
s o l i t a r y confinement. When detainees are processed into the
b r i g , t h e i r f i l e goes before a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and assignment
board, ^ r e f ^d))
b. This board assigns both a custody c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and
also a status c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
c. Each detainee i s assigned a custody c l a s s i f i c a t i o n based
on the charges of the case., Theboard has assigned Pfc Manning
a maximum custody c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
d. Prior to his a r r i v a l at the Quantico b r i g , Pfc Manning
exhibited suicidal tendencies, so he was assigned a prevention
of i n j u r y (POI) status. Pfc Manning^s custody and status
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are i n place f o r his own protection, so that he
does not harmhimself andso that other detainees do not have
the opportunity t o causehimharm.
e. While his custody and status c l a s s i f i c a t i o n does a f f e c t
some of t h e p r i v i l e g e s that Pfc Manning would otherwise rate,
t h i s determination has hadno affect on his location i n the
b r i g . Pfc Manning i s being held i n the same special quarters
section of the brig, i n the same type of c e l l as t h e other seven
p r e t r i a l detainees. A l l detainees i h the special quarters
section of the b r i g are under constant supervision. Pfc Ma^niT^^
i s not being held i n s o l i t a r y confinement. '
f. Pfc Manning^s c e l l i s located r i g h t i n f r o n t of the duty
hut so that he can be monitoredby the guards 24^7. I asked i f
Pfc Manning was allowed and able to interact with other
detainees i n his area andwas informed that detainees could
spea^ to one another as long as i t does not become d i s r u p t i v e or
contrary to good order a n d d i s c i p l i n e .
g. There were no detainees on either side of Pfc Manning, but I was informed that there was a detainee located i n t h e ^ c e l l
n e ^ t t o P f c Manning j u s t l a s t week. PfcManningis n o t b e i n g
i n t e n t i o n a l l y isolated i n the special quarters section of the
b r i g , as every detainee i n the b r i g d i d n o t have another
detained located i n an adjacent c e l l .
h.

Due to Pfc Manning^s prevention of i n j u r y status, he i s ^

Page 3 of 5

ManningB_00011441

33542

Subj:

INSPECTIONOF QUANTICOBRIG ICO PFC MANNING

not a f f o r d e d t h e same privileges as another detainee without
t h i s status. Examples of t^ese privileges include: Pfc Manning
does not h^^e any physical contact w i t h any other detainee, Pfc
Manning uses a l l recreational areas of the b r i g on his own, Pfc
Manning watches t.v. and eats i n h i s c e l l , Pfc Manning i s under
observation 24^7, Pfc Manning i s p r o v i d e d a d i f f e r e n t mattress
andbedding then the other detainees.
^
i. Reference (c) states that Pfc Manning i s being treated
inhumanely and that he i s only allowed out of his c e l l one hour
per day. Per reference (d) and (e^, due to h i s l i s t i n g as bot::h
a maximum custody detainee and his assessment as a POI detainee,
Pfc Manning i s only permitted onehour per day out of his c e l l .
Additionally, reference (e) does not allow any detainee to
exercise i n their c e l l due to safety concems.
j. Reference (c) also states that Pfc Manning i s subjected
to cruel treat::ment and torment t o include responding t o guards
every 5 minutes. While i t i s true that POI detainees are
observed andmonitored 24-7 and logbool^ entries are made on Pfc
Manning every 5 minutes, Pfc Manning i s l e f t undisturbed i n his
c e l l to read magazines, books or write l e t t e r s throughout the
day.
k. Reference ^c) alleges that Pfc Manning is subjected t o
various sleep-deprivation measures t o include sleeping w i t h the
l i g h t s on, uncomfortable bedding andbeing awaken at various
times throughout the night. I inquired into these allegations '
andwas t o l d that at 2200 every night, the l i g h t s are turned o f f
an^ that only dim niciht l i g h t s are used throughout the special
quarters section of the b r i g , From 2200-0500, Pfc Manning i s
l e f t undisturbed i n his c e l l .
1. Due to his POI status, Pfc Manning was issued a
d i f f e r e n t type of mattress padding andbedding than the other
detainees. Themattress i s one piece that includes a b u i l t i n
p i l l o w . The mattress i s padded so he i s not subjected to a hard
ra^ck^. The blank:et issued to Pfc-Manning i s designed to prevent
tearing, so that the material cannot be used f o r strangulation.
m. Pfc Manning i s a l l o t t e d at least one hour of t e l e v i s i o n
time a day, but often he i s given two or more hours a day. Pfc
Manning i s allowed to watch whatever programs he chooses
including thenews. PfcManning i s a l s o a l l o w e d u s e o f the
telephone. This time does not count against his a l l o t t e d one
hour of recreational time outside of his c e l l .

Page 4 of 5

ManningB_00011442

33543

^

Subj:

INSPECTIO^OF QUANTICOBRIGICOPFC MANNING

n. PfcManningis allowed to w r i t e l e t t e r s t o h i s family
and friends. While t h i s mail i s scanned with a program, i t i s
not read f o r content before i t i s mailed.
o. I observed Pfc Manning for appro;x^mately 5^10 minutes
during my b r i g tour. This observation was conducted from the
duty hut whichhas one sided glass. Pfc Manning appeared to be
i n goodhealth and looked l i k e he hadproper hygiene. Pfc
Manning was dressed i n p t gear, which wasmore than adequate for
the temperatures I was presented i n the b r i g .
p. Pfc Manning is being treated just lik:e every other
detainee i n the b r i g . I n my opinion, his treatment i s f i r m ,
f a i r and respectful. I d i d n o t observe any inhumane or
inhospitable conditions throughout my tour i n the b r i g . After
my tour o f t h e b r i g , I have determined that the a r t i c l e s , phone
calls and emails are speculative at best andnot founded on any
clear and convincing facts.

Page 5 of 5

ManningB_00011443

. 33544

From: Zelek Maj Timothy

Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:49 AM

To: Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark Greer Christopher Epple GS-15 Patricia A
Subject: article

SW-edBv=

Sir

I am sure you are well aware of this already, but I wanted to prepare you for a possible
increase in phone calls and letters over the next several days.




visitor[



Timothy R. Zelek

Major, USMC

Deputy Inspector General



PAGE
PAGE
ManningB__00516758

I APPELLATE

33545

From: Zelek Maj Timothy

Sent: Wednesday. February 09, 2011 10:06 AM

To: Kauzlarich Col Mark Choike Col Daniel

Cc: Redmon Col Patrick Greer LtCo| Christopher
Subject: RE: Request for support

Signed By:

Gentlemen

I agree with that recommended change. I also concur that this letter captures most of what
we were trying to achieve.



Timothy R. Zelek

Major, USMC

Deputy Inspector General






From: Kauzlarich Col Mark

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:94

To: Choike Col Daniel Oltman Col Robert Greer LtCol Christopher Miner Col
Christopher w; Neill CAPT Mary; Rothlein CIV Julius; Johnson Col Thomas

Cc: Redmon Col Patrick Zelek Maj Timothy

Subject: RE: Request for support

C0,
only one recommended change:

Paragraph 5.c. Change "prisoners" to "detainees". Prisoner implies tried and found guilty
vice in confinement awaiting trial.

Respectfully,
Chief



From: Choike Col Daniel

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 9:15

To: Oltman Col Robert Greer LtCol Christopher Miner Col Christopher Neill CAPT Mary;
Rothlein CIV Julius; Johnson Col Thomas

Cc: Kauzlarich Col Mark Redmon Col Patrick Zelek Maj Timothy

Subject: Fw: Request for support

All,

I need a quick turn on providing comments, so they can be consolidated and presented to the
CG.

APPELLATE EXHIBIT 3 3
PAGE REFERENCED:
ManningB_00518071 PAGE OF PAGES

33546
Need the info by 1400.

SF, DJC

C01 Daniel J. Choike, USMC
Commander, Marine Corps Base
3250 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5001



Message--?--

From: wright LtCo1 Troy

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 9:07
To: Choike (01 Daniel 3

Cc: Galaviz cwes Abel; Durham CIV Jan
Subject: Request For support

Sir,
This is the letter we've drafted For the ACMC. Please provide your comments.


LtCo1 wright

ManningB_00518072

33547

12/11/2012

Article 13

Violations
MAX and POI after 27 August 2010
- No legitimate non-punitive basis
- More onerous than necessary to ensure presence at
trial
SR - "Shall be Removed"
- Shall does not equal "a time to be determined"
20 Minutes of "Sunshine Call" in Restraints
- Absolutely no excuse for action
- 1 Hour is standard even for disciplinary segregation

Violations
Underwear Removal on 2 March through 20
April 2011
- Clear circumvention of SECNAVINST
Standing Naked on 3 March 2011
-The Government's action in not calling any
witnesses speaks for itself

APPELLATE EXHIBIT ^ 4 ] ,
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE
OF
PAGES

33548

12/11/2012

MAX and POI
Issue is not whether he was treated differently than
other MAX and POI detainees, the issue is why was
he on MAX and POI after 27 August 2010?

Influence of LtGen. Flynn
LtGen. Flynn believed PFC Manning was a
suicide risk.
Col. Choike followed LtGen. Flynn's guidance
stressing the "absolute necessity" of keeping a
close watch on PFC Manning.
Did LtGen. Flynn issue an order?
By not stating that he had an issue with
keeping PFC Manning on MAX and POI, he was
sending the intended message

Influence of LtGen. Flynn
• Weekly Reports filed by Brig that everyone
knew were being seen by LtGen. Flynn and
higher
• March Email - LtGen. Flynn concurrence
required
• Nothing in writing if he did not concur
• LtGen. Flynn never non-concurred
• LtGen. Flynn involved in the most minor of
details

33549

12/11/2012

HQMC

_L_L
LtGen. FLYNN

It
I Col. Ctioike]^^

\

I Col. Oilman

MGen. Ary / Col. Miner
LtCol Greer - SJA

CW04 Averhart / CW02 Barnes
MSgt Papakie / GySgt Blenis
Brig Staff!

Col Johnson-PAO
I Capt Neill - Medical

MDW SJA Shop
COL Corfman / Command

CW05 Galaviz
and his bosses

I Army OTJAG

Complete Breakdown

• No one stood up to be the voice of reason
• Judge advocates abdicated their role as the
conscience ofthe command
• MDW SJA shop worried more about combating
potential Article 13 issues than stepping in to do
the right thing

Complete Breakdown

Critics were silenced due to high ranking individuals opining
that the conditions at Quantico were proper
So called "visits" or "inspections" were not to determine if
PFC Manning should be on MAX and POI, but just to say he
was being treated the same as every other MAX and POI
detainee
Incestuous relationships where everyone knew each other
Visits by high ranking officials simply gave the stamp of
approval to the Brig's conduct

33550

12/11/2012

Complete Breakdown

Capt. Hocter tried to be the voice of reason, but was told by
Col. Oltman "we will do what we want to do."
Col.Oltman stated the obvious,"nothing is going to happen
to him on our watch, and our way of making sure of that is
that he will stay in MAX and PQI indefinitely"
Group think prevailed
rrlal counsel and Army chain of command turnedablind
eye to egregious situation

Callous Indifference
CW02 8arnes^if something happens to him my
career is over
GySgt Fuller^"if something happened, we knew
we'dbeintrouhle"and"weknewouractions
would be scrutinized"
SSG Jordan^we knew that "we needed to toe
the line" and do ever^hing right
GySgt 81enis^if he did commit suicide,"we'dbe
answering questions... Ican'texplainthatinmy
courtmartial"

Callous Indifference
Everyone at Ouantico claimed that they did not
believe that long-term POI and MAX was
detrimental to PPC Manning'swellbeing
CW02 8arnes indicated that PPC Manning wasn't
deprived of anything-in fact, he even had steak
and lobster dinners
Capt. Hoctertestlfied that PPC Manning fared as
well as he did because of his strength of spirit and
the professional help he was getting
COL Malone testified thatthe conditions were an
added stressor and made his job more difficult

33551

12/11/2012

Callous Indifference
What's shocking in this whole scenario is not the
apparently odd behaviors by PPC Manning, it's
the lack of odd behaviors
Ouantico brig was likeaparallel universe where
everything you said and did was used against you^
where communication was required but never
used: where the brig created the very conditions
that were then used to justify the restrictions

Requested Relief
• Dismissal of all charges with prejudice
• 10 for 1 credit
• Consideration of pretrial punishment in
calculating appropriate sentence

MAX and POI
*

6 x 8 Cell for Approximately 23 hours a day

•» Suicide prevention mattress
•» Suicide Prevention blankets - no pillow
•» No natural light
•» All possessions taken from him
•» Constant observation
•» Five minute checks

33552

12/11/2012

MAX and POI
^
^

l^ad to ask for toilet paper and soap
Ate all of his meals alone in his cell withaplastic
or metal spoon

^

Facility lockdown every time he was moved

^

Moved in full restraints hy at least three guards

^

25July2010tol0 0ecemher2010only20
minutes of sunshine call in restraints

^

Notallowed to exercisein his cell
No laying or leaning againstwall-^^^AE^S^ FN
23

MAX and POI
^

Family and friend calls and visits monitored and in
non-contacthooth

^

No contactwith other detainees

^

Guards testified no one was ever on his left or

^

Woken up if he accidently covered himself

^

Umited to one book or magazine

right and that he could not speak to anyone

If not actively reading, book or magazine taken
awayfromhim

Suicide Risk ^atcli
^ A g u a r d posted immediately outside his cell
^ Prescription glasses taken away from him
^ Clothes taken away from him
^ Didn't leave his cell for his 20 minutes of
sunshine call

33553

12/11/2012

Conditions Like Deatli Row
Capt. Hocter testified the PFC Manning's treatment was
"unprecedented" and that he had "never experienced
anything like this in 24 years"
cot Malonetestifled that death row Inmates were treated
betterthan PFC Manning
Capt. Moore also testified that detainees on death row
were treated better than PFC Manning
SSgt Jordan testified that death row detainees got two
hours of recreatlonaday In recreation groups

POI
SECNAVINST contemplates that administrative segregation
is a short term status
- Medic9l officer must visit every dgy
- Highly desir9bie for g chgplgin to visit every day
Length of Time on SR/POI
- LTC Hilton - 7 dgys and then transferred to psych ward
- GySgt Fuller - 9 few days to a week
- CW05 Galaviz - other than a chronic "cutter" maybe a month or
- GySgt Blenis - 1 month - noted that PFC Manning was "by far"
the longest
- MSgt Papakie - 2 weeks was the longest
- CW04 Averhart - 2 months, "if that"
- CW02 Barnes - maybe "a few days"

PFC Manning's POI Status
• POI equaled MAX for the Brig per Brig SOP
• CW04 Averhart directed PFC Manning to stay in
POI until completion of RCM 706 Board

• POI was a "not on my watch" determination
• POI falls under administrative segregation in the
SECNAVINST

33554

12/11/2012

PFC Manning's POI Status
Arbitrary and variable standard for POI
^Staff ignored the recommendations of mental
health professionals and the good hehaviorof PFC
Manning
PFC Manning needed to "convince" everyone
that he was n o t a r i s k of self-harm
PFC Manning apparently needed to
^^communicate" more with his jailors

PFC Manning's POI Status
PFC Manning needed to 1 0 0 ^ convince GySgt
Blenis that he was not going to harm himself.
^MSgtPapakie believed if PFC Manningwas ever
given the chance to harm himself he would do so
AccordingtoCW02 Barnes, it was PFC
Manning's "own fault" that he was on P O l ^
"the ball was in his court"

The "Process"
C ^ A B o a r d Notification of Right to Appear
^ Form changes to givethe detainee an election to
attend on 2^ January 20^^ IPFCMannlngattendsl
^ Oetalnees never show up before the board

C ^ A B o a r d Documents Pre-January 2011
- O l d not use form between^August 20^0 and3
January 20tt
— 1^0 indication of board reasoning pre-January 201.^^
no written approval by Brig OIC
^Started to use after receiving notification that Oefense
would receive documentation in discovery

^

33555

12/11/2012

The "Process"
C & A Board Membership
- Selected by Brig OIC
- Form pre-filled out by counselor with recommended status
- Only those boxes which supported the counselor's
recommendation were ticked
- GySgt Blenis on the Board - CW05 Galaviz says conflict of
interest
- Comments were cut and pasted week after week, boxes
were ticked without supporting documentation
- Passed from senior to junior member of the board for vote
(always 3-0 vote)
- Board spent 1 to 10 minutes on decision

Approval by Brig OIC
- Did not review documentation
- Vocal approval

GySgt Blenis
He was Not Manning's

Advocate

• PFC Manning's counselor - supposed to be his
#1 advocate
• Referred to Manning looking at him "all
retarded" when he asked him a question after
initial indoctrination
• Refused birthday present for PFC Manning
because he "felt like being [a] dick[]." He did
not think this comment was unprofessional
because it didn't appear in CORMIS.

GySgt Blenis
He was Not Manning's

Advocate

- He claims that the comment about PFC
Manning's "panties" was not unprofessional and that he refers to his own underwear as
panties
- Saw PFC Manning only 20 minutes to 1 hour
max per week
- He lied to PFC Manning - said it was the
doctors who continued to recommend that PFC
Manning be on POI

33556

12/11/2012

GySgt Blenis
Claims that PFC M a n n i n g was t h e most
uncommunicative detainee he'sever seen in
his 16 years o t h e r t h a n a d e a t h r o w inmate;
^ W i t h t h e death row inmate, he took off the
inmate's restraints to build trust^he refused to do
that with PFC Mannings
^ H e failed to annotate ^r^^^^ere in bis notes tbat
PFC Manning was tbe most uncommunicative
detainee other than the death row inmate. When
t^uestioned about this, he said be "wasn't required
to."

GySgt Blenis
-He failed to tell any o f t h e doctors that PFC
Manning was apparently the second most
uncommunicative detainee he's ever seen
- Video from lOJanuary beliesanyargument
that PFC Manningwas an uncommunicative
detainee
-"Communication" is convenient ^ x ^ o s t
justification that all Ouantico staff is using for
draconlan conditions of confinement

GySgt Blenis
l^^^l^^^lr^n^r^e^
^We^ve heard from person after person that PFC
Manningwas kept in MAX and POI because ofhis
'abnormal behavior"
^This came about only after Gysgt Blenis overheard
some guards talking about PFC Manning's sleepwalking
in late l^ovemher 20^0
^^uards had never independently reported any of these
behaviorsasaproblemandsaiditwasactuallynormal
for bored MAX detainees
^rhenCWO^ Averhart ordered annotationsinaspeclal
logbook everySmlnutes so the annotationscould be
easllyfound

10

33557

12/11/2012

GySgt Blenis
^^^^^^^^^trie^
^Gysgt8lenis testified that bythispolnt,"we knew
where this whole thing was heading" and that
"t|uestlons were going to be getting asked"
^togbookwasusedtoproactlvelylustifytbePQI
status-ammunition against PFC Manning
-NooneevertalkedtoPFCManningaboutanyof
these apparently odd behaviors
^Mental health professionals said behavior was
normal and did not indicate that PFC Manning was
arisk of self harm

GySgt Blenis
^^^ni^S^i^r^Lo^^o^^o^^^
^ W h y d i d n ' t y o u accept Capt. Hocter's
recommendation that he was notasuicide risk?
" I f l t a k e his recommendation, then it's not my
recommendation,it'shis recommendation. And
I'mjustapuppet."
^ ^ h e n asked about PFC Manning'spoorfamllyties
and whether he could do anything to change that,
blenis responded that PFC Manning could w o r k fromjail, while b e i n g m o n i t o r e d - t o build u p a
relationship with estranged family members

GySgt Blenis
^ 8^e^^^^^^ry^^^^^^^^^^^
-Blenis claims to have been "dumbfounded" by PFC
Manning'sapparently contradictory statement to the
C^A Board, Indicating "that was huge for me" but
never discussed the statement with PFC Manning
again lor his doctorsi
- W h e n asked whether there was everatime that PFC
Mannlng'scomment "always planning never acting"
would be less Important, Blenis responded "always is
always"
-V^hen asked ifadoctor definitively told him that PFC
Manning'ssleepwalklng^licking bars was not volitional
he'd still consider it odd behavior that would factor
against PFC Manning, he said yes.

11

33558

12/11/2012

Other Members of Board
Fuller and .lordan
-Theyjustwentalongwith GySgt Blenis
^ He was their superior
^ They believed he knew PFC Manning better than
theydid
^ Never changed any ofthe forms^neverticked any
new boxes

other Members of Board
Fuller and .lordan
-Form approved was always that filled out by GySgt
Blenis
-Never talked to PFC Manningabout their noted
concerns^ issues in l^uwait^ comment on intake
questionnaires appearance before C^A boards
"abnormal" behaviors 18 January incident.
^Oidn'thavefulldetailson key issues-e.g. didn't
knowwhy PFC Manning removed names from
visitation list^ didn't know that doctors were aware
of apparently unusual behavior

^eeklyC^ABoard
Recommendations
^ For nine months the recommendation was
alwaysthesame-remaininMAXandPOl
^Testimony showed that the POI was "driving
the t r a i n " o n the MAX classification
^ Everybody testified that PFC Manning was not
violentand dangerous, nor was therea
concern that he was an escape risk

12

33559

12/11/2012

^eeklyC^ABoard
Recommendations
We heard testlmonythatthe C^A Board
members and the Brig OIC considered various
MAX factors ^lowtolerance of stress, seriousness
ofthe charges, etc.^
Butthese are relevant only insofar as they are
indicators that someone is an escape risk or
dangerous^violent-in other words, they area
way offiguring out whether someone is
dangerous^violentoran escape risk
The factors, in themselves, don't justify
assignment ofastatus if it clearthatadetainee Is
notdangerous^violentoran escape risk

Mental Flealth Professionals
^ Capt. Hocter consistently recommended that PFC
Manning be removed from POI from 27 August 2010 to
his departure in January 2011
^ COL Malone consistently recommended that there was
no clinical reason for PFC Manning to be on POI
^ Capt. Hocter and COl. Malone did not believe that
suicide risk was necessary on 18January 2011
^ Capt. Moore also agreed that there was no reason for
PFC Manning to be on POI
^ tTCRussell'sopinion was consistent with Capt. Hocter,
cot Malone, and Capt. Moore

Mental Flealth Professionals
Both Capt. Hocter and PFC Manning testified that they
visited for approximatelylhr^week^ GySgt Blenis and
GySgt Fuller said that Capt. Hocter saw PFC Manningl
hr^week
CV^O^ Averhart thought Capt. Hocter was "in-and-out"
and spent only 10-lSminutes^week with PFC Manning
Neither Gysgt Blenis nor CV^Q^ Averhart trusted Capt.
Hocter-theythought he missed the call on CPTV^ebb
and they blamed him for CPTWebb'ssuicide
CoL Oltman also blamed Capt. Hocter for CPT^ebb's
suicide

13

33560

12/11/2012

Mental Flealth Professionals
C ^ O ^ Averhart believed that Capt. Hocter's
evaluations were contradictory and wrote that Capt.
Hocter was just trying to "cover his six"
CWO^ Averhart thought the write-up was "generic"
and wanted more information from Capt. Hocter.
No one ever spoke to Capt. Hocter to indicate that they
were concerned about his treatment of PFC Manning
and his recommendations
If they had, Capt. Hocter would have gladly resigned
and gottenadifferent medical provider for PFC
Manning

Mental Flealth Professionals
No one tried to get Capt. Hocter replaced. CWO^ Averhart
testified that It "was not my|ob" to try to get Capt. Hocter
replaced, everyone was Ok with just ignoring his
recommendations and carrying on business as usual
CWO^ Averhart admitted on the stand that this was not fair
to PFC Manning and that If he hadarecommendation he
trusted this "would have definitely helpedalot"
CWOS Galaviz testified that the proper protocol would be
to getasecond opinion and then to have the doctor
replaced If needed

C^O^ Averhart
Retained PFC Manning in MAX and POI or SRfor^
months
Once CVI^O^ Averhart decided PFC Manning was on
POI, he was on MAX automatically per the Brig SOP
No real justification for w h y - i n fact, asked GySgt
Blenis to draft "a" reasoning for MAX and POI for the
Article 138Complaint
^ h e n pressed for why PFC Manning was on POI he
stated that it was mainly because of the seriousness of
the charges, what happened In ICuwait, and intake
questionnaire

1^

33561

12/11/2012

C^O^ Averhart
Tried to claim that RFC Manning was on MAX
and POI for his own protection
Disingenuously claimed on the stand that PFC
Manning was on POI because he was not
'^communicative"
CW04 Averhart never once mentionedalack
of communication as beingarelevant
consideration in his Response to the Article
138 Complaint

C^O^ Averhart
Claimed that PFC Manning's "abnormal" behavior
caused him concern even though he knew Capt.
Flocter indicated it was not cause for concern
CW04Averhartnevertalked to PFC Manning
aboutthe behaviorthat he claimed troubled him
Issued an order not to remove PFC Manningfrom
MAXand POI until completion of706 Board-but
now claims that he "misarticulated" what he
meant and it wasn't really an order

IS january 2011 Incident
^ It is clear that PFC Manning had an anxiety attack at
recreation call
^ Afterwards, MSgt Papakie and CV^O^ Averhart induced
yet another anxiety attack
^ C^O^ Averhart ordered PFC Manning on SR and didn't
take him off when the doctors said it was not needed
^ The Incident which the brig itself created was then
used against PFC Manning to keep him in POI
^ In the video we see PFC Manning trying In earnest to
explain that he is not suicidal

15

33562

12/11/2012

21 January 2011 C & A Board
PFC Manning is nervous, stuttering and his hands are
shaking
He explains why he does not belong on MAX and POI
The board asks him about his statement on his intake
questionnaire - he says "it may have been false"
Then they ask him a trick question - "If that was false,
couldn't what you are saying now be false"
- PFC Manning responded truthfully - yes, it could be false, but
it's not (after all, that's why he is there to plead to be taken off
of POI)

The board then used what they saw as contradictory
statements against him for the remainder of his time at
Quantico

CW02 Barnes' Arrival
Nothing changed with CW02 Barnes
She knew people were watching; she knew
LtGen. Flynn was watching
Most junior person to be running a brig at the
time and she wasn't going to risk her career
She kept PFC Manning on MAX and POI
because it was a no-lose proposition for her

CWO2 Barnes in Role of Doctor
She did not trust COL Malone's medical judgment
She disagreed with COL Malone's decision to take PFC
Manning off medication - she thought that being in a
"friggen" brig was a stressor for PFC Manning and that
he needed medication
Ifyou are suicidal before given medication, then she
believed you would be suicidal if taken off of
medication
As COL Malone testified, "she didn't like what I had to
say" and "we agreed to disagree"
Just like her predecessor, CWO2 Barnes completely
ignored the advice of a medical professional

16

33563

12/11/2012

CWD2 Barnes'Cookie Cutter Approacb
^ Despite saying she does not u s e a c o o k i e cutter
approach, she refuses t o take PFC M a n n i n g o f f of
POI
- T h i s is true despite the fact that PFC Manningwas
communicative with her and,in her words,"jovial" in
January and February
^ By M a r c h , PFC M a n n i n g is increasingly frustrated
w i t h the conditions of his confinement.
^ 2 M a r c h 2 0 1 1 c o m m e n t to MSgt Papakie
^ C W 0 2 Barnes t h e n orders PFC Manning's
u n d e r w e a r t o be taken away at night

Removal of L^nderwear
COL Malone told her that PFC Mannlng'scomment was
acoping mechanism and part of the intellectuali^ation
ofthe conditions of his confinement
CWOSGalavii^ and Lt.CoLWrighttoldCV^02 Barnes
and COL Oltman that removing underwear without
placingadetainee in SR was in violation of the S5CNAV
and inconsistent with "the way we are supposed to do
business"
CW02 Barnes and COL Oltman ignored the subjectmatter experts
CW02 Barnes'position is that "well, that is their
opinion" and then later admits that it was contrary to
SECNAVINST

Standing leaked at Attention
^ PFC Manning was ordered to stand naked at attention
the morning o f 3 M a r c h
^ Nobody has refuted this account of what happened
^ GM2 Webb testified that ifhe were the OBS, there is
no way he would simply walk by PFC Manning'scell
^ If PFC Manning stood naked at attention voluntarily,
PFC Manning would have been disciplined and you
would have seen an incident report
^ The reaction would not be, as CW02 Barnes claims,
"Hey don't do that anymore"

17

33564

12/11/2012

Decline in Communication
^ After3March 2011, PFC Manning started to become
withdrawn from the staff
^ CW02 Barnes threatened PFC Manning duringa
conversation, saying that anything he said or did could
be used against him in sentencing
^ After PFC Manning closed up, that perversely becamea
factor in maintaining PFC Manning on POI
^ CW02 Barnes fails to see thatadetainee might not feel
like building upa "rapport" with the jailor that just
took his underwear away
^ PFC Manning was not withdrawn with the doctors, the
chasers, or his command

Visitation List
CW02 Barnes and the C^A Board used PFC Manning"s
removal of people from the visitation list against him
Only three of the 18 people that he removed actually
came to visit him
Only reason he removed all 18 was because the mail
clerk made him fill o u t a n e w O O S l O and put the
names back on the form one-by-one
CW02 Barnes believed this wasa ""set up"
CW02 Barnes and the Board used the removal of
names against PFC Manning in maintaining him in MAX
and POI

Complaints
^ Told command he did not understand why he was
on POI 10 August 2010 and consistently thereafter.
^ Complained to his counselor, GySgt Blenis, who told
him that it was the doctors who were keeping him
on POI
^ Complained to his attorney who tried to address
thelssuethroughMOWSJAinFallof2010.
^ Filedacomplaint with CWO^ Averhart through his
attorney onSJanuary 2011
^ Filed900S10on7January2011

1^

33565

12/11/2012

Complaints
Complained to COL Coffman hy way of R.C.M.
30S^g^ request
Article 13^ Complaint Filed on 12 January
2011
Article 13^Rebuttal Filed on 10 March 2011
along with second complaint for actions of
CW02Barnes
SecondArticlel38RebuttalfiledonlOApril
2011

Transfer to jRCF
20April2011
LTC Flilton-objective process
^No""noton my watch" mentality
^Listens to her mental health professionals
^PFCManningis placed in MOI
^MOI has ensured his presence at trial
CPT Casamatta and ISG Williams notice
change in PFC Manning

15



33566

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY

FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES

SCHEDULING ORDER:
v. 39A SESSION ON CLOSURE


MANNING, Bradley E., PFC
U.S. Army,
Headquarters and Headquarters Company,
U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer- DATED: ll December 2012
Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, VA 22211

1. The current Court Calendar dated 2 December 2012 has alternate dates for two Article 39(a)
session to determine whether and to what extent the accused?s trial should be closed to the public
for the protection of classi?ed information. The actual dates for the hearing will be determined
based upon whether the Defense ?les a Motion to Compel witnesses for the Motion to Dismiss
for violation of Speedy Trial and if the Court grants such a motion in whole or in part. The
alternate dates are:

Government Classi?ed lnforrnation:

5-8 February 2013; or
19-22 February 2013

Defense Classi?ed Information:

27 February 1 March 2013; or
13-15 March 2013

The 39(a) session for Government Classi?ed Information will also determine:

a. Procedures for transition from open to closed sessions;

b. Who will be present for closed sessions;

c. Procedures for handling military judge or member questions that call for classi?ed
responses; and

d. Procedures for handling military judge or member notes regarding classi?ed
information.

2. By 10 January 2012 the Government shall submit to the Court:

a. a list of all classi?ed information for which the Government intends to request closed
session. For each item of information submitted, the Government will indicate whether
declassi?cation, redaction, substitutions, or other alternatives to closure will allow for the
presentation of that information in open court. If declassi?cation, redaction, substitution, or
other alternatives are not possible, the Government shall indicate why the declassi?cation,
substitution, or other alternative is not possible. For all classi?ed information where the

APPELLATE EXHIBIT
PAGE
PAGE OF at PAGE-.3



33567

Government seeks to close the Court, in addition to declassi?cation, redaction, and substitution,
the following alternatives to closure at a minimum will be addressed: stipulations, use of Code
words or special names, use of screens, disguises, and code names for classi?ed witnesses,
electronic imagery visible only to cleared trial participants and not the public, and the ?silent
witness? rule.

b. a proposed procedure for transitioning from open sessions to closed session. At a
minimum, the plan should address:

(1) The means of securing the entrances/exits to the courtroom;

(2) The signage that will be posted indicating that the court-martial is in closed
session;

(3) The procedures for ensuring that electronic recording and broadcasting
equipment that is present during open sessions is disabled during closed sessions
of the court-martial; and

(4) The procedures for ensuring that classi?ed portions of trial are captured on
separate court-reporting equipment from non-classi?ed portions of trial.

(5) Proposed procedures for handling military judge and/or member questions that
call for classi?ed responses and for military judge or member notes.

c. notice of whether the Government objects to the Defense?s proposed use of classi?ed
information as detailed in its ?ling dated 26 October 2012. If the Government does not object to
the relevance or necessity of the information, the Government shall indicate whether
declassi?cation, substitutions, or other alternatives to closure will allow for the presentation of
that information in open court.

d. notice of whether the Government will request that this Article 39(a) session be an in
camera proceeding in whole or in part pursuant to MRE 505(1).

3. By 24 January 2012 the Defense shall notify the Court:

a. whether the Defense objects to any of the proposed closures in paragraph 2(a) of this
order and the grounds for any such objections.

b. whether the Defense objects to the procedures proposed by the Government in
response to paragraph 2(b) of this order and any declassi?cation, substitution, or other alternative
to closure proposed by the Government in paragraph 2(c) of this order.

So ORDERED: this 11?? day of December 2012.



DENISE R. LIND
COL, JA
Chief Judge, 15? Judicial Circuit

33568

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. Prosecution Response

to Defense Motion to
M3I|nIll2. Bradley E. Compel Witnesses
PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall

Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

12 December 2012



RELIEF SOUGHT

Pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) RCM 703 and RCM l00l(e) the United
States in the above case respectfully requests the Court deny, in part, the defense request for the
production of the witnesses addressed below.

BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND BURDEN OF PROOF

As the moving party, the defense has the burden of persuasion and must prove any factual
issues necessary to decide this motion by a preponderance of the evidence. RCM 905(0).

FACTS

On l5 October 2012, the defense submitted its initial Witness List for Merits and Sentencing,
requesting forty-six witnesses (hereinafter "lnitial Witness List"). AB 344. On l2
November 2012, the defense submitted its Witness List for Sentencing in Event of a Sentencing
Only Case (hereinafter "Sentencing Only Witness List"), requesting twelve witnesses. Sg AE
387. There was some overlap between the Sentencing Only Witness List and the sentencing
witnesses on the Initial Witness List.

On 16 November 2012, the United States responded to the defense's witness lists. AE
403. The United States denied the production of Mr. Cassius Hall, Colonel (Retired) Mon?is
Davis, Mr. Zachary Antolak, Mr. Charles Ganiel, Professor Yochai Benkler, and Mr. Daniel
Cindrich for the merits portion of the case. The United States denied the production of AMB

- Ms. Lillian Smith, COL Mr. Cassius Hall, Colonel (Retired) Morris
Davis, Mr. Zachary Antolak, Mr. Charles Ganiel, Professor Yochai Benkler, and Mr:

for the presentence proceedings of the case.

On 23 November 2012, the defense submitted a Motion to Compel Production of Witnesses
for Merits and Sentencing (hereinafter "Defense Motion to Compel"). ?g AB 408.



The United States respectfully requests that the Court consider the Charge Sheet, the
referenced ?lings, and the listed enclosures.




APPELLATE EXHIBIT 1/645
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE OF 9



33569

LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT

The prosecution, the defense, and the court?martial shall have equal opportunity to obtain
witnesses and evidence, which includes compulsory process. RCM 703(a).

For the Defense to request production of a witness on merits and on sentencing, the Defense
must ?submit to the trial counsel a written list of witnesses whose production by the Government
the defense requests.? RCM 703(c)(2). The list of witnesses must include a synopsis of the
expected testimony suf?cient to show its relevance and necessity. RCM The
synopsis must set out what the witness is expected to say about those subjects. United States v.
52 M.J. 98, 105 (1999). The United States will arrange for the attendance of the
defense witnesses unless the trial counsel argues that the witness?s production is not required
under this rule and, if required, it may be submitted to the military judge. RCM

I. PRODUCTION OF DAVIS AND PROFESSOR BENKLER SHOULD BE
DENIED PER RCM

For the merits portion of the trial, each party is entitled to witness production for those
witnesses whose testimony on a matter in issue is ?relevant and necessary.? RCM 703(b)(1).
Testimony is deemed relevant and necessary when ?it is not cumulative and when it would
contribute to a party?s presentation of the case in some positive way on a matter in issue.? RCM
703(b)( 1) discussion.

A. Mr. Zachary Antolak

The United States withdraws its objection and will produce Mr. Antolak for the merits
portion of the trial.

B. Davis

The defense does not proffer Col(R) Davis's expected testimony in their motion to compel.
Defense Motion to Compel at 4-5. In their Initial Witness List, however, the defense
proffers that Col(R) Davis will testify as an expert witness based on experience as a Chief
Prosecutor for the Of?ce of Military Commissions (OMC) from September 2005 to October
2007. The defense also proffers that Col(R) Davis will testify that none of the records contained
actual intelligence reporting or names of sources.

Col(R) Davis has never, to his knowledge, seen any of the charged records in Charge 11,
Speci?cation 8 or the charged compromise database in Charge ll, Speci?cation 9, so he cannot
testify as to what information the records contain. Col(R) Davis bases his assumptions and
conclusions on his "recollections" from other SOUTHCOM records that he viewed when he was
an OMC prosecutor between September 2005 and October 2007. He is not, nor has he ever been
an Original Classi?cation Authority (OCA). Col(R) Davis also was not an intelligence analyst
or intelligence professional. He is not, therefore, quali?ed to testify as an expert on
SOUTHCOM records.

33570

Unlike the defense's proffer in their Initial Witness List, Col(R) Davis will testify that
SOUTHCOM records, in general, were sensitive if accurate; however, they were typically too
inaccurate to be useful. Col(R) Davis will testify that if the information was accurate, then the
information could be used to the injury of the United States or to the bene?t of a foreign nation
and, thus, should be protected. Also unlike the defense's proffer, Col(R) Davis cannot testify
substantively about the Guantanamo Review Task Force (GRTF), as he had no involvement with
it. Col(R) Davis also cannot discuss the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT).

The defense proffers that Col(R) Davis's testimony will show the accused's subjective lack of
belief that disclosure of records already in the public forum could be to the injury of the United
States or the bene?t of a foreign nation was objectively reasonable. The defense proffers that
they will establish that the charged information did not compromise national security so the
accused could not have the mens rea required for Charge II, Speci?cation 9.

An accused?s subjective belief that information could not be used to the injury of the United
States or to the advantage of a foreign nation is not relevant to whether or not the accused had a
?reason to believe? the information could be so used. "Reason to believe" means that the
accused knew facts from which he concluded or reasonably should have concluded that the
information could be used for the prohibited purposes. AE 410 at 10 (de?nition of "reason to
believe"). To determine whether or not the accused had a reason to believe the information
could be used to the detriment of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, the

?fact ?nder must only determine that the accused had reason to believe that the information could

be used for the prohibited purposes, not that it would be used. see United States v. Diaz, 69
M.J. 127, 132 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (?nding the critical language in 18 U.S.C. 793(e) is that the
Accused had "reason to believe" the information "could be used to the injury of the United States
or to the advantage of any foreign

Furthermore, the defense has offered no evidence to support their argument for Col(R)
Davis's relevance. The defense has offered no evidence that the allegedly leaked information
was in the public forum, which the United States is in no way acknowledging, and they have
offered no evidence that the accused had any knowledge of those alleged facts at the time of the
accused's misconduct. Col(R) Davis's testimony, therefore, does not contribute positively to the
presentation of defense's case on a matter in issue and is not relevant and necessary.

The defense also alleges that if the information was already in the public forum it would be
relevant to disprove that the accused stole, purloined, or knowingly converted a thing of value of
the Unites States in Charge II, Speci?cation 8. The United States concedes that if information
was already available to the public, that evidence could be used to negate the value element of
the 18 U.S.C. 641 offenses. However, the defense has offered no evidence that Col(R) Davis's
testimony would contribute positively to the presentation of the defense?s case on this discrete
issue; thus, his testimony is not relevant and necessary.

C. Professor Benkler

The defense is offering Professor Benkler as an expert witness concerning the history of the
WikiLeaks organization and how it was viewed prior to the charged leaks.

33571

The United States does not dispute the majority of defense's proffer of Professor Benkler's
testimony. Defense Motion to Compel at 6. However, the United States does n_ot_ agree with
the defense's arguments that (1) the witness is an expert; (2) eliciting testimony that WikiLeaks is
a "legitimate journalistic organization" is circumstantial evidence to show that the accused did
not have the requisite intent in Charge 1, The Speci?cation or Charge II, Speci?cation 1; or (3)
Professor Benkler's testimony will show that the information in the Charge II, Speci?cation 15
document was in the public forum, and an example of the Government simply overclassifying
information and subsequently exaggerating the signi?cance of its release. at 6-7.

There is no evidence that Professor Benkler is an expert on WikiLeaks history and how it
was viewed prior to the accused's misconduct. Professor Benkler did publish an article that he
wrote in 2011 entitled Free Irresponsible Press: WikiLeaks and the Battle Over the Soul of
the Networked Fourth Estate." In the article, Professor Benkler does discuss, among other
things, the document charged in Charge II, Speci?cation 15.1 This article is a summary of
Professor Benkler's knowledge and opinions regarding WikiLeaks.

Arguably, the method the accused used to indirectly give information to the enemy is
irrelevant as long as the accused had the requisite general evil intent that the accused was dealing
indirectly with an enemy of the United States (Charge 1, The Speci?cation). More importantly,
but there is no evidence that the accused knew about Professor Benkler's article, that the accused
believed WikiLeaks was a "legitimate journalistic organization," or that being a "legitimate
journalistic organization" would have any impact on the accused's intent.

Similarly, Charge II, Speci?cation 1 just requires that the accused had knowledge that
intelligence published on the Internet was accessible to the enemy. Sp_e AE 410 at 3 (de?nition
of "knowledge"). Again, the method the accused used to cause the information to be published
on the Internet is not relevant as long as the accused was the proximate cause of the publication.
AB 41 at 3 (de?nition of "caused to be published"). Using an alleged "legitimate
journalistic organization" to cause the publication of the information does not make the accused's
actions any less reckless. _S_ee AE 410 at 3 (de?nition of "wanton"). More importantly, there is
no evidence that the accused knew about Professor Benkler's article, that the accused believed
WikiLeaks was a "legitimate journalistic organization," or that being a "legitimate journalistic
organization" would have any impact on the accused's intent.

Professor Benkler could not address whether or not the information contained in the
document charged in Charge II, Speci?cation 15 was publically available before the document
was leaked to WikiLeaks. There is no evidence that the document itself was available publically.

An accused?s subjective belief that information could not be used to the injury of the United
States or to the advantage of a foreign nation is not relevant to whether or not the accused had a
?reason to believe? the information could be so used. "Reason to believe" means that the
accused knew facts from which he concluded or reasonably should have concluded that the
information could be used for the prohibited purposes. AB 410 at 10 (de?nition of "reason to

LTC Lee Packnett, an Army spokesman, con?rmed that the report was real. Enclosure 1 (located at
10/03/18/us/1 8wiki.html).

33572

believe"). To detennine whether or not the accused had a reason to believe the information
could be used to the detriment of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, the
fact ?nder must only determine that the accused had reason to believe that the information could
be used for the prohibited purposes, not that it would be used. Li; see United States v. Diaz, 69
M.J. 127, 132 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (?nding the critical language in 18 U.S.C. 793(e) is that the
Accused had "reason to believe" the information "could be used to the injury of the United States
or to the advantage of any foreign

Furthermore, the defense has offered no evidence to support their argument for Professor
Benkler?s relevance. The defense has offered no evidence that the allegedly leaked information
was in the public forum, which the United States is in no way acknowledging, and they have
offered no evidence that the accused had any knowledge of those alleged facts at the time of the
accused's misconduct. Professor Benkler?s testimony, therefore, does not contribute positively to
the presentation of defense's case on a matter in issue and is not relevant and necessary.

Finally, neither the accused nor Professor Benkler are Original Classi?cation Authorities,
and their opinions on overclassi?cation are irrelevant and would not be helpful to the fact?nder.

II. PRODUCTION OF AMB- MR. ANTOLAK, DAVIS, AND
PROFESSOR BENKLER SHOULD BE DENIED PER RCM

For sentencing, each party is entitled to the production of a witness whose testimony on
sentencing is required under RCM 100l(e). RCM 703(b)(2). There is much greater latitude in
presentence proceedings than on the merits to receive information by means other than testimony
presented through the personal appearance of witnesses. RCM 1001 The production of a
witness during presentencing proceedings is a matter within the discretion of the military judge
and a witness may be produced to testify during presentencing through a subpoena or travel
orders at Government expense only if the following is true:

(A) The testimony expected to be offered by the witness is necessary for
consideration of a matter of substantial signi?cance to a determination of an
appropriate sentence, including evidence necessary to resolve an alleged
inaccuracy or dispute as to a material fact;

(B) The weight or credibility of the testimony is of substantial signi?cance to the
determination of an appropriate sentence;

(C) The other party refuses to enter into a stipulation of fact containing the
matters to which the witness is expected to testify, except in an extraordinary case
when such a stipulation of fact would be an insu?icient substitute for the
testimony;

(D) Other forms of evidence, such as oral depositions, written interrogatories,
former testimony, or testimony by remote means would not be suf?cient to meet
the needs of the court-martial in the determination of an appropriate sentence; and
(E) The signi?cance of the personal appearance of the witness to the
determination of an appropriate sentence, when balanced against the practical
dif?culties of producing the witness, favors production of the witness. Factors to
be considered include the costs of producing the witness, the timing of the request

5

33573

for production of the witness, the potential delay in the presentencing proceeding
that may be caused by the production of the witness, and the likelihood of
signi?cant interference with military operational deployment, mission
accomplishment, or essential training.

RCM l0Ol(e)(2).

A- Amsj

AMB was with the State Department, and a State Department OCA, from 1993 to
1998 when served as the Ambassador to Croatia. The United States does not dispute the
majority of defense's proffer of AMB testimony, speci?cally proffered points 3-
12. Defense Motion to Compel at 8. AMB h, however, had no direct knowledge of
point #2 and caveated the SIPDIS points by saying that he has no direct knowledge of SIPDIS
because he Ie? the State Department before the SIPDIS tag was implemented and had only
viewed a handful of the alleged leaked cables. His conclusions regarding SIPDIS are based on
his belief of what infonnation a responsible Ambassador should protect from further distribution,
not on an actual review of the alleged leaked cables. It is also important to note that the AMB
Galbraith's characterization as "genuinely sensitive material" does not relate with a document's
classi?cation, but instead has to do with whether or not AMB?believes the information
falls into a category that should be further protected.

Since AMB did not look at the alleged leaked cables and compare the content to
his own standards of sensitivity or the classi?cation standards set out by Executive Order 13526,
he does not have any relevant testimony to offer on sentencing for the charged misconduct.

AMB statement that in his experience, many State Department cables are
overclassi?ed and that a secret classi?cation does not mean the information is genuinely secret
could be relevant to sentencing. That being said, his opinions are apparently based on
information he recalls from his brief stint as an Ambassador and an OCA in the mid-1990s and
not on actual knowledge of any of the charged information. His testimony, therefore, is not
necessary for consideration of a matter of substantial signi?cance to a determination of an
appropriate sentence as it does not carry the requisite weight or credibility. RCM


B. Mr. Zachary Antolak
If the Court determines that Mr. Antolak's testimony could be relevant to sentencing, the
United States will stipulate to the admissibility of Mr. Antolak's chat logs with the accused

provided the defense requests and the Court grants the relaxing of the rules of evidence. The
chat logs contain all of Mr. Antolak's potential testimony. Si: RCM 100l(e)(2)(C).

C. Davis

Davis does not have the expertise to render opinions on the classi?cation of
SOUTHCOM records or the potential reduction in value of compromised infonnation that was

33574

already in the public forum. His testimony, therefore, is not necessary for consideration of a
matter of substantial signi?cance to a determination of an appropriate sentence as it does not
carry the requisite weight or credibility. RCM

D. Professor Benkler

Professor Benkler's testimony regarding the history of WikiLeaks and his opinion regarding
the legitimacy of WikiLeaks is not necessary for consideration of a matter of substantial
signi?cance to a determination of an appropriate sentence, including evidence necessary to
resolve an alleged inaccuracy or dispute as to a material fact, nor is the weight or credibility of
his testimony of substantial signi?cance to the detennination of an appropriate sentence.
RCM

Professor Benkler also does not have the expertise to render opinions on the classi?cation of
the document charged in Charge ll, Specification 15 or the potential reduction in value of
compromised information that was already in the public forum. He also cannot say, as alleged
by the defense, that the allegedly leaked information was already in the public forum. His
testimony, therefore, is not necessary for consideration of a matter of substantial signi?cance to a
determination of an appropriate sentence as it does not carry the requisite weight or credibility.
RCM

Ill. PRODUCTION OF MR.-, MR. HALL, MR. GANIEL,
AND MS. SMITH SHOULD BE DENIED As DEFENSE HAS NOT REQUESTED OR
RECEIVED THE NECESSARY APPROVAL TO CALL THEM As EXPERT


When the employment at Government expense of an expert is considered necessary by a
party, the party shall, in advance of employment of the expert and with notice to the opposing
party, submit a request to the convening authority to authorize the employment and to fix the
compensation for the expert. RCM 703(d).

All requested witnesses are DA Civilians, except who is an Army of?cer. The
defense has requested the witnesses testify as experts and/or give their opinions on topics that
directly relate to their federal employment.

The defense cites the nonbinding analysis of RCM 703(d) to support its proposition that
RCM 703(d) does not apply to government employees. gag Defense Motion to Compel at 9
(citing RCM 703(d), Analysis, at A21-37). The defense also argues that RCM 703(d) itself does
not apply when the convening authority does not have to cover the costs of the expert witness.
Defense Motion to Compel at 9-10.

Regardless of whether or not RCM 703(d) directly applies, its procedures should apply and
in practice are followed. Using DA employees and Army officers does cost the United States
time and money and, thus, is at government expense. Although three of the witnesses have been
appointed expert consultants for the defense, being called as an expert witness adds an additional
and separate requirement to that duty.

33575

Furthermore, for federal employees, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) dictates the
potential ethical implications involved when a federal employee testi?es without the approval of
their employer. The relevant CFR which provides for the standards of ethical conduct for
employees of the executive branch de?nes an employee as "any of?cer or employee of an
agency, including a special Government employee. It includes of?cers but not enlisted members
of the uniformed services." 5 CFR 2635.102(h) (attached as Enclosure 3).

With regard to outside activities for employees of the executive branch, the CFR addresses
service as an expert witness. Speci?cally, 5 CFR 2635.805(a) states, "An employee shall not
serve, other than on behalf of the United States, as an expert witness, with or without
compensation, in any proceeding before a court or agency of the United States in which the
United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, unless the employee's
participation is authorized by the agency under paragraph of this section." 5 CFR
2635.805(c) allows "the designated agency ethics of?cial" to authorize an employee's testimony
under certain circumstances when it is to not otherwise prohibited. (5 CFR 2635.805 is
attached as Enclosure 4).

Calling any of these witnesses to testify without receiving approval from their chains of
command or supervisors puts the employees in the position not only to potentially testify against
their employer in an of?cial capacity, but to violate an ethical regulation.

The GCMCA is the most efficient conduit through which to route such witness requests,
which is why witness requests are typically done through the procedures set forth in RCM
703(d). The potential CFR issue, therefore, typically does not arise.

The United States attempted to avoid this issue and expedite the process by repeatedly asking

the defense to submit expert requests to the GCMCA, but the defense has refused to do so. Sg
Enclosure 2.

CONCLUSION

The United States requests denial of the Defense Motion to Compel production of the above

contested witnesses.

ANGEL M. VERGAARD
CPT, JA
Assistant Trial Counsel

I certify that I served or caused to be served a true copy of the above on Mr. David
Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel via electronic mail, on 12 December 2012.

4 Enclosures

1. NY Times Article
2. Emails re: Experts
3. 5 CFR 2635.102
4. 5 CFR 2635.805

ANGEL M. RD

CPT, A
Assistant Trial Counsel

33576

33577

UNITED STATESOF AMERICA

Manning, Bradley E.
PFC, U.S. Army,
HHC, US. ArmyCarrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
TO DEFENSE MOTION TO
COMPEL WITNESSES
Enclosure 1
12 December 2012

Army Sees Document Web T

as a Potential Threat - NYTimes.com

i]oti( Bmw *
Reprints
This copy IS for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready
copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool
that appears next to any article Visit www nytreprints.com for samples and additional
Information. Order a reprint ofthis article now.

Page33578
1 of 2

MIA
W \.-^lk{)\\ SK.

March 17, 2010

Pentagon Sees a Threat From Online
Muckr akers
By STEPHANIE STROM

To the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States, the Pentagon has added
WikiLeaks.org, a tiny online source of information and documents that governments and
corporations around the world would prefer to keep secret.
The Pentagon assessed the danger WikiLeaks.org posed to the Army in a report marked
"unauthorized disclosure subject to criminal sanctions." It concluded that "WikiLeaks.org
represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC and INFOSEC threat to the
U.S. Army" — or, in plain English, a threat to Army operations and information.
WikiLeaks, true to its mission to publish materials that expose secrets of all kinds, published
the 2008 Pentagon report about itself on Monday.
Lt. Col. Lee Packnett, an Army spokesman, confirmed that the report was real. Julian Assange,
the editor ofWikiLeaks, said the concerns the report raised were hypothetical.
"It did not point to anything that has actually happened as a result of the release," Mr. Assange
said. "It contains the analyst's best guesses as to how the information could be used to harm the
Army but no concrete examples of any real harm being done."
WikiLeaks, a nonprofit organization, has rankled governments and companies around the
world with, its publication of materials intended to be kept secret. For instance, the Army's
report says that in 2008, access to the Web site in the United States was cut off by court order
after Bank JuHus Baer, a Swissfinancialinstitution, sued it for publishing documents
implicating Baer in money laundering, grand larceny and tax evasion. Access was restored after
two weeks, when the bank dropped its case.
Governments, including those of North Korea and Thailand, also have tried to prevent access to
the site and complained about its release of materials critical of their governments and policies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

12/12/2012

Army Sees Document Web F

is a Potential Threat - NYTimes.com

Page 33579
2 of 2

The Army'sinterest in WikiLeaks appears to have been spurred by,among other things,its
publication and analysis of classified and unclassified Army documents containing information
about military equipment, units, operations and "nearlythe entire order ofbattle"for American
forces in Iraq andAfghanistan in April 200^.
WikiLeaks also published an outdated, unclassified copy ofthe "standard operating
proeedures"at the military prison in CuantanamoBay,Cuba.WikiLeaks said the document
revealed methods by which the military prevented prisoners from meeting with the
International Red Cross and the use of"extreme psychological stress"asameans oftorture.
The Army'sreport on WikiLeaks does not saywhetherWikiLeaks'analysis of that document
was accurate.It does charge that some ofWikiLeaks'sother interpretation of information is
fiawed but does not say specifically in what way.
The report also airs the Pentagon'seoneern over some ^,000 pages of documents WikiLeaks
released on equipment used by coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon
concluded that such information eould be used byforeign intelligence services, terrorist groups
and others to identifyvulnerabilities, plan attacks and build new devices.
WikiLeaks, which won Amnesty International'snew media award in 200^,almost closed this
year because it was broke and still operates at less than its full eapaeity.lt relies on donations
from humans rights groups, journalists,technology buffs and individuals,and Mr.Assange said
it had raised just Lwo thirds of the ^600,000 needed for its budget this year and thus was not
publishing everything it had.
Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the Army'sreport, to Mr.Assange, was its speculation that
WikiLeaksissupportedbytheCentrallntelligeneeAgeney"IonIywishtheywouldstep
forward withaeheekifthat'sthe ease,"he said.

bttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0

12/12/2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211



33580

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
TO DEFENSE MOTION TO
COMPEL WITNESSES
Enclosure 2

12 December 2012

33581

Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

From: David Coombs

Sent! Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:58 PM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY (US)

Subject: Security Expert

Attachments: 100917-Appointment of Defense Security Expert.pdf; 101012?Appointment of 2d Defense

Security Expert Hal|.pdf; Security Expert Memo.docx

Ashden,

As discussed in today?s 892 hearing, our experts are frequently tasked to perform other
duties by their respective commands. These duties result in them not being available to
perform their duties as defense experts. I have just finished speaking with them about this
issue.

Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel have asked me to obtain a court order or memorandum from COL Lind
that they can use to show to their individual directors to avoid future conflicts. I told
them that I didn?t believe COL Lind needed to weigh in on the issue, and that it was
something that the convening authority could resolve with memorandum similar to his
appointment memorandum. I have typed up a memorandum that I believe should avoid future
availability issues.

If our experts continue to have difficulty with their respective chain of commands after the
memorandum, then the Defense would request direct contact with the chain of command on this
issue with defense counsel being present. Let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs
11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 02906

Toll Free: 1-806-588-4156
Local: (508) 689-4616

Fax: (508) 689-9282




33582

Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain confidential
attorney?c1ient information and is intended for the person(s) or company named. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized
disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is



33583

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
1 FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
17 September 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Security Expert Consu]tant- U.S. v. PFC Bradley Manning

1 appoint Mr. Charles Ganiel, U.S. Anny Test and Evaluation Command, as an expert consultant
in security matters for the defense in the above-named case. I further direct that Mr. Ganiel be
designated a member of the defense team under U.S. v. Toledo 25 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and
Military Rule of Evidence 502. This expert appointment is at no expense to the United States
beyond mileage reimbursement, if applicable.



CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding



33584

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
:04 use AVENUE
FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1199

REPLI TI.-
A11 nr



Ml IJIIHIE I1. (I.~unIh.~

F:xrIcrI I I-. PFC
Iradlcv

In In fur an sccIIriI_v cxpen dated 21*. II. I n_?pmnI
MI. ll;IIi_ and ih
I:nnsu[I:mI fur Ihc dircct Mr.
Hall II'n:sIIbcr 3? at Al
umi Rule EH2. l'hi

33585

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:

IMND-MHH-ZA 30 May 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Duties as Defense Security Experts U.S. v. PFC Bradley Manning

On 17 September 2010 and 12 October 2010, I appointed Mr. Charles Ganiel, U.S. Army Test
and Evaluation Command and Mr. Cassius Hall, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command,
as expert consultants for the defense in the above-named case. also designated both individuals
as members of the defense team under U.S. v. Toledo 25 M.J. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and Military
Rule of Evidence 502. This Expert appointment was at no expense to the United States beyond
mileage reimbursement, if applicable.



Mr. Ganiel and Mr Hall?s obligations as security experts for the defense include, reviewing
motions and other materials for classi?ed information; accompanying defense counsel on
witness interviews where classi?ed information may be discussed; accompanying defense
counsel whenever required to do so in order to view classi?ed information provided to the
defense in discovery; being present in the courtroom during any session; and acting as expert
consultants or if the defense wishes, expert witnesses for the defense. This duty takes
precedence over Mr. Ganiel and Mr. Hall?s normal duties.

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding



33586

Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:40 PM

To: David Coombs

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY Morrow JoDean, CPT USA

Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW Whyte, Jeffrey H. CPT USA
von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA Ford,
Arthur D. CW2 USA SJA

Subject: RE: Security Expert

Tracking: Recipient Delivery Read
David Coombs

Hurley. Thomas MAJ USARMY
(US)

Momow Ill, JoDean. CPT USA Delivered: 5/30/2012 3:40 PM Read: 513012012 3:47 PM
SJA

Overgaard. Angel M. CPT USA Deivered: 5/30/2012 3:40 PM
SJA

Whyle. Jeffrey H. CPT USA Delivered: 5130/2012 3240 PM Read: 513012012 3:40 PM
SJA

von Ellen. Alexander S. CPT USA Delivered: 5130/2012 3:40 PM Read: 51302012 3:43 PM
SJA

Ford. Arthur 0. CW2 USA Delivered: 5l30I2012 3:40 PM Read: 5/30/2012 3:44 PM
SJA

Bradley. Princeton L. SGT USA Deivered: 9300012 3:40 PM
JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

Feito. Beatriz SGT USA JFHQ- Delivered: 5/30/2012 3:40 PM
SJA

Parra. Jairo A CW2 USA Delivered: 51300012 3:40 PM Read: 5/30/2012 3:41 PM
JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

Waybright. Daniel W. SGT USA Delivered: 5/30/2012 3:40 PM Read: 5l30I2012 3:55 PM
JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

David,
Thank you. we understand the issue and are working on it immediately. MTF.

v/r
Ashden



From: David Coombs
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:58 PM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY (US)

Subject: Security Expert

Ashden,



33587

As discussed in today?s 802 hearing, our experts are frequently tasked to perform other
duties by their respective commands. These duties result in them not being available to

perform their duties as defense experts. I have just finished speaking with them about this
issue.

Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel have asked me to obtain a court order or memorandum from COL Lind
that they can use to show to their individual directors to avoid future conflicts. I told
them that I didn?t believe COL Lind needed to weigh in on the issue, and that it was

something that the convening authority could resolve with memorandum similar to his

appointment memorandum. I have typed up a memorandum that I believe should avoid future
availability issues.

If our experts continue to have difficulty with their respective chain of commands after the
memorandum, then the Defense would request direct contact with the chain of command on this
issue with defense counsel being present. Let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs
11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 02906

Toll Free: 1-800-588-4156
Local: (508) 689-4616

Fax: (568) 689-9282



Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain confidential
attorney?client information and is intended for the person(s) or company named. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized
disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is



Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

33588

From: David Coom bs

Sent! Wednesday, May 30. 2012 3:41 PM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY Morrow JoDean, CPT USA

Overgaard. Angel M. CPT USA Whyte, Jeffrey H. CPT USA
von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA Ford,

Arthur D. CW2 USA SJA
Subject: RE: Security Expert

Ashden,
Thank you.

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs

11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 02906

Toll Free: 1-800-588-4156

Local: (598) 689-4616

Fax: (508) 689-9282



Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
contain confidential attorney-client information and is intended for the
person(s) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying
or use of this information may be unlawful and is



From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

[mailtoz

Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 3:40 PM

To: David Coombs

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY Morrow Jooean, CPT USA
Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA Nhyte,
Jeffrey H. CPT USA von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA
Ford, Arthur 0. CH2 USA SJA

Subject: RE: Security Expert

David,

Thank you. we understand the issue and are working on it immediately. MTF.

v/r
Ashden



33589



From: David Coombs
Sent: wednesday, May 38, 2612 2:58 PM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY (us)

Subject: Security Expert

Ashden,

As discussed in today's 802 hearing, our experts are frequently tasked to
perform other duties by their respective commands. These duties result in
them not being available to perform their duties as defense experts. I have
just finished speaking with them about this issue.

Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel have asked me to obtain a court order or memorandum
from COL Lind that they can use to show to their individual directors to
avoid future conflicts. I told them that I didn't believe COL Lind needed
to weigh in on the issue, and that it was something that the convening
authority could resolve with memorandum similar to his appointment
memorandum. I have typed up a memorandum that I believe should avoid future
availability issues.

If our experts continue to have difficulty with their respective chain of
commands after the memorandum, then the Defense would request direct contact
with the chain of command on this issue with defense counsel being present.
Let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

David

David E. Coombs, Esq.
Law Office of David E. Coombs
11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 62906

Toll Free: 1-800-588-4156

Local: (568) 689-4616

Fax: (508) 689-9282






33590

Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
contain confidential attorney-client information and is intended for the
person(s) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying
or use of this information may be unlawful and is

Feln, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

From:
Sent
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Tracking:

David,



Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

Friday, June 01, 2012 7:36 PM

David Coombs

33591

Hurley. Thomas MAJ USARMY Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY Santiago,
Melissa CW2 USARMY Morrow JoDean, CPT USA
Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA Whyte, Jeffrey H. CPT USA JFHQ-
von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA Ford, Arthur D.
CW2 USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

RE: Security Expert

Security Expert Memo.docx; 1 101 Approval Defense Expert in IA Smith.pdf;
101012-Appointment of 2d Defense Security Expert HaII.pdf; 101028?Defense Request for IA
Expert.pdf; 100928-Defense Request for 2d Security Expert.pdf; 100917-Appointment of

Defense Security Expert.pdf

Recipient
David Coombs

Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY
(U3)

Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY
(US)

Santiago. Melissa 8 CW2 USARMY
(US)

Mon'ow ll. JoDean. CPT USA
SJA

Overgaard. Angel M. CPT USA
JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

Whyte. Je?rey H. CPT USA
JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA
SJA

Ford, Arthur D. CW2 USA
SJA

Bradey, Princeton L. SGT USA
JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

Feito. Beatriz SGT USA JFHQ-
NCRIMDW SJA

Parra. Jairo A. CW2 USA
SJA

Daniel W. SGT USA
JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

Delivery

Delivered:

Delivered:

Delivered:

Detivered:

Delivered:

Delivered:

6/1/2012 7:36 PM

61112012 7:36 PM

611f2012 7:36 PM

611/2012 7:36 PM

6111201 2 7:36 PM

61112012 7:36 PM

6l1f2012 7:36 PM

7:36 PM

161112012 7:36 PM

Read

Read: 61212012 10:53 PM

Read: 61112012 7:36 PM

Read: 612/2012 7:03 AM

Based on your request, we reached out to the different chains of command of the experts to

receive input, including Ms. Smith's.

we have realized that each of the defense's referenced

experts were appointed approximately 1.5 years ago, and as you know were appointed as expert

consultants in their respective fields.

See Requests and Appointment documents. Based on

the draft memorandum you provided, it appears that their jobs have morphed since their
original appointment as consultants.

we recommend that you turn your draft memorandum into a request to the GCMCA for

reappointment.

1

This request should reflect the scope of the responsibilities you anticipate



33592

these experts will provide, the reasons why these experts are necessary, an estimate of how
much time their obligation to the defense team will take, and request their position as a
defense expert consultant take priority over all other work. we will take this request to
their chains of commands, obtain approval disapproval support, and then route it to the
GCMCA for action.

Once we receive the requests, we will start routing them immediately. This should be
sufficient to ensure that the defense is receiving the proper support and the right person is
providing that support based on the scope. Additionally, we can ensure that they will not
have any difficulty with their respective chains of command by having the commands sign-off
on the reappointment.

Please let me know if you have any questions/concerns.

V/r
Ashden



From: David Coombs
Sent: wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:58 PM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY (US)

Subject: Security Expert

Ashden,

As discussed in today?s 882 hearing, our experts are frequently tasked to perform other
duties by their respective commands. These duties result in them not being available to
perform their duties as defense experts. I have just finished speaking with them about this
issue.

Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel have asked me to obtain a court order or memorandum from COL Lind
that they can use to show to their individual directors to avoid future conflicts. I told
them that I didn?t believe COL Lind needed to weigh in on the issue, and that it was
something that the convening authority could resolve with memorandum similar to his
appointment memorandum. I have typed up a memorandum that I believe should avoid future
availability issues.

If our experts continue to have difficulty with their respective chain of commands after the
memorandum, then the Defense would request direct contact with the chain of command on this
issue with defense counsel being present. Let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

33593

Law Office of David E. Coombs
11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 02966

Toll Free: 1-866-588-4156
Local: (568) 689-4616

Fax: (sea) 63949232




Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may contain confidential
attorney-client information and is intended for the person(s) or company named. If you are
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized
disclosure, copying or use of this information may be unlawful and is



33594

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYEFI-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

i FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199
- REPLV TO
ATTENTION or

1 4 JAN 2011


MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Expert Consultant in lnformation Assurance - v. PFC


I reviewed your request for appointment of an expert consultant in information assurance for the
defense in the above-named case. After careful consideration, the defense request is:

approved. appoint Ms. Lillian Smith, U.S. Army lnformation Technology Agency,
as an expert consultant in the above~namcd case. 1 further direct that Ms. Smith be designated a
member of the defense team under U.S.ev. Toledo, 25 MJ. 270 (C.M.A. 1987) and Military Rule
of Evidence This expert appointment is at no expense to the United States beyond mileage
reimbursement, if authorized.

disapproved.

CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding

33595

28 September 2010

MEMORANDUM THRL7 Staffludge Advocate, Office ofthe Staffludge Advocate, us Army
Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. ;\lcNair, Washington D.C. 30219

FOR Commander. US Army Garrison, loint Base :\lyer?Henderson Hall, Fort Myer. Virginia
7731 1



SUBJECT: PreliminaryClassification Review ofthe Accused's Mental Impressions
Styles PF Bradley Mcnming

I . The defense has received your superseding preliminary classi?cation order dated 22
September 2010. The defense has discussed this order with PFC Bradley Manning and with the
defense appointed security expert. Mr. Charles Ganiel.

2. Based upon the defenses discussions with Mr. Ganiel, the preliminary classification review
cannot be started until the following issues have been resolved:

a. Approved Facility: l\lr. Ganiel does not believe that the Quantico Confinement Facility
has the required area in order to speak to PFC Manning about any classified information.
Specifically, for any Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), the discussion and storage of
the information received must be in a facility that meets the structural and security requirements
for a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). SCI material cannot be viewed or
discussed unless in a SCIF in accordance with 5105-21-M-I . chapter 3. page 3- I . paragraph
Therefore, unless Mr. Ganiel conducts his discussions with PFC Manning in an approved
SCIF. he will not be able to begin his preliminary classification review.

b. Limited Access: It is likely that PFC ;\Ianning?s access to classified information has been
suspended due to the preferred charges. Mr. Ganiel will not be able to discuss or validate any
classified information with PFC Manning unless PFC Manning is given an interim clearance.
Additionally?. PFC Manning will not have access to any secured sites, specifically a SCIF, unless
he has the requisite security clearance. See SIOS-21-M-I.

c. Storage: Mr. Ganiel will need the government to provide him with a Govemment Service
Administration (GSA) approved security container to store Secret and Con?dential information.
Additionally, Mr. Ganiel will need the same GSA approved security container with the requisite
additional security precautions for the storage of Top Secret information in accordance with
Army Regulation 380-5. chapter paragraph 7-4. Finally. Mr. Ganiel will need to have access
to a SCIF to store any Special Access Program (SAP) or SCI information in accordance with
DOD 5105-21-M-1. chapter 3. page 3-10.

cl. Verification: Anything revealed to Mr. Ganiel has to be verified before he can make a
determination whether it is classified and, ifnecessary. its level of classification. This is a time
consuming process that Mr. Ganiel does not believe can be completed within the time
restrictions listed in the preliminary classification review order.

33596

SUBJECT: Preliminary Classi?cation Review ofthe Mental Impressions United
States PFC Bradley

e. Additional Security Expert: Given the task required by the preliminary classification
review order, Mr. Ganiel has requested that an additional security expert be appointed to the
defense team. Ganiel believes that the additional expert will help expedite the process by
assisting him in reviewing the information. conducting document verification, conducting
document preparation, and by providing a second opinion regarding information that is either
SCI or is part ofa SAP.

3. The POC is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at


Civilian Defense Counsel



33597

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-11 99
REPLY To
or

17 September 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel

SUBJECT: Appointment of Defense Security Expert Consultant- U.S. v. PFC Bradley Manning

I appoint Mr. Charles Ganiel, U.S. Anny Test and Evaluation Command, as an expert consultant
in security matters for the defense in the above-named case. I further direct that Mr. Ganiel be
designated a member of the defense team under U.S. V. Toledo 25 MJ. 270 (C.M.A. 1937) and
Military Rule of Evidence 502. This expert appointment is at no expense to the United States
beyond mileage reimbuisement, if applicable-



CARL R. COFFMAN, JR.
COL, AV
Commanding





33598

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE
FORT MYER, VIRGINIA 22211-1199

REPLV TO
ATTENTION OF:

30 May 2012
MEMORANDUM FOR Mr. David E. Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel
SUBJECT: Duties as Defense Security Experts U.S. v. PFC Bradley Manning

On 17 September 2010 and 12 October 2010, I appointed Mr. Charles Ganiel, U.S. Army Test
and Evaluation Command and Mr. Cassius Hall, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command,
as expert consultants for the defense in the above?named case. I also desigr1ated both individuals
as members of the defense team under U.S. v. Toledo, 25 M.J. 2'70 (C.M.A. 1987) and Military
Rule of Evidence 502. This Expert appointment was at no expense to the United States beyond
mileage reimbursement, if applicable.

Mr. Ganiel and Mr Hall?s obligations as security experts for the defense include, reviewing
motions and other materials for classi?ed information; accompanying defense counsel on
witness interviews where classi?ed information may be discussed; accompanying defense
counsel whenever required to do so in order to view classi?ed information provided to the
defense in discovery; being present in the courtroom during any session; and acting as expert
consultants or if the defense wishes, expert witnesses for the defense. This duty takes
precedence over Mr. Ganiel and Mr. Hall?s normal duties.

CARL R. COFFMAN, R.
COL, AV
Commanding



33599

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
JOINT BASE MYER-HENDERSON HALL
204 LEE AVENUE

FORT MYER. VIRGINIA 22211-1139
REPLY TO


12 em


I t" Ila?. Hr. ilznui I:

Sucanrit} Expert PFC



In to your mun.-st Fur am Jddiliunul dated ENIKP. zwpninl
Mr Huli. and Sutcurily .m .-1-iuiimnml
cunsullum fur tin: (lull-nsc in 1 Mr
Hull -.wfIhc Icmn um1urU.S. 1. U. -X.
Ills"-1 and Ruic ul' Sill. :1ppuinin1cm rs :11 it

'i mu.-xi na?-luxgc iS'uppIic::hlc.



R. JR



33600

23 October 2010

MEMORANDUM THRU Staff Judge Advocate. Ollice of the StaffJ'udge Advocate, US Army
Military District of Washington. Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington D.C. 30219

FOR Commander. US Anny Garrison. Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall. Fort Myer, Virginia
1



Request for Appointment ofan Expert with Expertise in Information Assurance to
Assist the Defense in the case of United State.-: v_ Mamtirig

Purpose. Pursuant to 703(d). the accused, PF Bradley Manning, requests an
Information Assurance expert be designated as a member of the defense team under Military
Rule of Evidence M.R.E. 502, and United States? v. Toledo. 25 270 H.387).

2. Law. A military accused has, as a maner of Equal Protection and Due Process. as right to
expert assistance when necessary to present an adequate defense. United Storm 22
238 (CMA 1986); United States v. Robt'n.s'0n 39 88 (CMA and Airs v.
(llrluhmna. 470 1.1.5. 226 (1971). "Die Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has embraced a
thrce?part test for determining whether government-t'unded expert assistance is necessary. The
defense must show: ?First, why the expert assistance is needed. Second. what would the expert
assistance accomplish for the accused. Third- why is the defense unable to gather the evidence
that the expert assistant would be able to develop." United Stare-.r Gonzalez. 39 MJ. 450
(l994L

3. Basis. Mr. Charles Ganiel and Mr. Cassius Hall. defense security experts. are in the process
of conducting their preliminary classi?cation review pursuant to your order dated 22 September
20l0. On 27 October 2010. Mr. Ganicl and Mr. Hall met with Manning. During their
discussion they obtained i.nfonnation from PFC Manning that they believe necessitates the
assistance of an Information Assurance expert.

a. Why ls Expert Assistance Needed?! Expert assistance is needed to assist the defense team in
completing the preliminary classi?cation review in a timely manner. Mr- Hall and Mr. Ganiel
have informed the defense that they do not have the requisite expenise to deal with some of the
issues that they have identitied based upon the disclosures of PFC Manning. The knowledge
required to address the issues identified by Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganicl are specialized. and concerns
knowledge which is beyond the scope of their expertise.

b. What Would the Expert Assistance accomplish for the Accused? An information
assurance expert would assist the defenses security experts in completing their preliminary
classitication review. Speci?cally. it would allow them to understand the policies and
procedures for protecting the systems that were in place at the time of the alleged disclosures and
thus the level of inlorniation Manning could have dealt with at that time.

c. Why is the Defense Unable to Gather this Evidence on Their Own? The def'ense"s
security experts have indicated that they have neither the experience nor expertise to adequately



33601

SUBJECT: Request for Appointment of an Expert with Expertise in Information Assurance to
Assist the Defense in the ease of United? Manning

assess some of the information assurance issues that have been raised during the course of their
preliminary classi?cation review. 1" he resolution to the issues identi?ed will assist the defense
experts in determining the answers to the pteljminary classi?cation review order.

4. Conclusion. For the above reasons. the defetise requests that you issue an order appointing
an information assurance expert to the defense team; that you instruct this individual that helshe
is a ?defense representative? and thus part of the defense team. and that matters related to
him/her during the course of his/her employment as a member of the defense team will he
cunlidential.

5. The is the undersigned at (401) 744-3007 or by e-mail at


2'

at

Dnvto E. COOMBS
Civilittn Defense Counsel



33602

Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

From: David Coombs

Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 8:47 AM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY 'Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY ?Santiago,

Melissa 8 CW2 USARMY Morrow Ill, JoDean, CPT USA
Overgaard. Angel M. CPT USA Whyte, Jeffrey H. CPT USA JFHQ-
von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA Ford, Arthur D.
CW2 USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

Subject: RE: Security Expert
Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Completed
Ashden,

I am not for'sure what you mean by their jobs have "morphed." All of the
listed duties are implicit as their role as experts for the Defense.
Additionally, the added roles of reviewing motions and other materials for
classified information; accompanying defense counsel on witness interviews
where classified information may be discussed; accompanying defense counsel
whenever required to do so in order to view classified information provided
to the defense in discovery; being present in the courtroom during any
session are requirements based upon the Government's request.

I am also not for sure what you are asking the Defense to do in this new
memorandum that you suggest we write. All I need from the convening
Authority is something that will ensure Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel's chain of
command understand that their duties as experts for the defense must take
priority over other duties.

Although I did not ask for the Government to reach out to the chains of
command for Mr. Hall, Mr. Ganiel, and Ms. Smith what did you learn from
doing so? This issue might be resolved if you were able to successfully
convey to the chains of command the importance of the Defense experts?
duties.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs

11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 62966

Toll Free: 1-860-588-4156

Local: (508) 689-4616

Fax: (sea) 689-9282



Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
contain confidential attorney?client information and is intended for the

1



33603

person(s) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying
or use of this information may be unlawful and is



From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

["'ai1t?

Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 7:36 PM

To: David Coombs

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY
Santiago, Melissa CH2 USARMY Morrow JoDean, CPT USA
Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA whyte,
Jeffrey H. CPT USA von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA
Ford, Arthur 0. CH2 USA SJA

Subject: RE: Security Expert

David,

Based on your request, we reached out to the different chains of command of
the experts to receive input, including Ms. Smith's. we have realized that
each of the defense's referenced experts were appointed approximately 1.5
years ago, and as you know were appointed as expert consultants in their
respective fields. See Requests and Appointment documents. Based on the
draft memorandum you provided, it appears that their jobs have morphed since
their original appointment as consultants.

we recommend that you turn your draft memorandum into a request to the GCMCA
for reappointment. This request should reflect the scope of the
responsibilities you anticipate these experts will provide, the reasons why
these experts are necessary, an estimate of how much time their obligation
to the defense team will take, and request their position as a defense
expert consultant take priority over all other work. we will take this
request to their chains of commands, obtain approval disapproval
support, and then route it to the GCMCA for action.

Once we receive the requests, we will start routing them immediately. This
should be sufficient to ensure that the defense is receiving the proper
support and the right person is providing that support based on the scope.
Additionally, we can ensure that they will not have any difficulty with
their respective chains of command by having the commands sign-off on the
reappointment.

Please let me know if you have any questions/concerns.

V/r
Ashden



From: David Coombs
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 2:58 PM

To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY (US)

Subject: Security Expert

Ashden,

33604

As discussed in today's 862 hearing, our experts are frequently tasked to
perform other duties by their respective commands. These duties result in
them not being available to perform their duties as defense experts. I have
just finished speaking with them about this issue.

Mr. Hall and Mr. Ganiel have asked me to obtain a court order or memorandum
from COL Lind that they can use to show to their individual directors to
avoid future conflicts. I told them that I didn't believe COL Lind needed
to weigh in on the issue, and that it was something that the convening
authority could resolve with memorandum similar to his appointment
memorandum. I have typed up a memorandum that I believe should avoid future
availability issues.

If our experts continue to have difficulty with their respective chain of
commands after the memorandum, then the Defense would request direct contact
with the chain of command on this issue with defense counsel being present.
Let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs
11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 92906

Toll Free: 1-800-588-4156
Local: (508) 689-4616

Fax: (588) 589-9282





Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
contain confidential attorney-client information and is intended for the
person(s) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying
or use of this information may be unlawful and is

3



33605

Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 11:08 PM

?David Coombs'

C03 Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY 'Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY ?Santiago.

Melissa CW2 USARMY Morrow Ill, JoDean, CPT USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA:
Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW Whyte. Jeffrey H. CPT USA JFHQ-
von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA Ford, Arthur D.


Subject: Updates
Tracking: Recipient and
?David Coombs'

Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY (us)

'Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY (usr

?Santiago, Melissa cw2 USARMY

Morrow nu, JoDean. CPT USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA Read: 6/5/2012 7:33 AM
Overgaard. Angel M. CPT USA SJA

Whyte. Jeffrey H. CPT USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA Read: 6/5/2012 6:40 AM
von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA SJA Read: 6/5/2012 7:37 AM
Ford. Arthur D. CW2 USA SJA Read: 6/5/2012 6:22 AM
Bradley, Princeton L. SGT USA SJA

Feito. Beatriz SGT USA NCRIMDW SJA Read: 6/5/2012 954 AM
Pana. Jaim A. CW2 USA SJA Read: 6/5/2012 6:58 AM
Daniel W. SGT USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA Read: 6/11/2012 6:41 AM


David,

1. Based on receiving CPT Tooman's acknowledgment on 1 June 2612 and the prosecution
receiving all defense counsel acknowledgments, we produced in classified discovery the
Department of Energy damage assessment (BATES: 00449241-00449242). Today, we sent a copy to
NNC to be ready for your review when you return (Tracking: 7936 3594 2020). Additionally,
we can deliver a second copy to the Fort Meade TDS office tomorrow, or wait to deliver the
second copy to Fort Myer after this week's motions hearing. Please let us know which the
defense would prefer.

2. Based on your previous question for us to give you an update on Santiago's
replacement, it is our understanding that this is being coordinated through TDS channels.

MDN was informed that the Chief, TDS coordinated directly or indirectly with you for
personnel issues concerning the defense. After confirming with the Chief warrant Officer of
the Corps, it is our understanding that all future personnel requests for any personnel, will
be handled through TDS channels.

3. CH2 Ford and Mr. Boardman will meet the defense outside the Courthouse at 0930 hours
tomorrow morning with the Department of State damage assessment, as per our scheduled time.
Please let us know the next time any defense team member would like to review the material
again.

4. As for your defense experts the command is fully committed to providing the defense

adequate support based on the defense's needs; however as in every jurisdiction, the defense
is required to request expert support from the government. The original appointment was for
experts to fulfill the duties the defense requested and that is was the basis for the current

1

33606

experts appointments more than one year ago. There is no question that, except for
testifying as expert witnesses, the duties listed in the your proposed memorandum are
reflected in the Court's orders and other requirements for properly handling classified
information; however the government cannot estimate the amount of time required to accomplish
these tasks. As previously stated, if the defense wants the Convening Authority to require
your experts to prioritize consulting on the defense team over all other duties, then the
Convening Authority needs a request which asks the Convening Authority to do so and provide
reasons and a basis for your request. A persuasive reason would likely be the extent of their
duties and the time commitment involved. The original Requests, which authorized their detail
to the defense as mere consultants, did not contemplate how time-consuming your experts? work
is, and no one knows how time?consuming your experts? work is but you and your experts.
Submitting this request is also a good way to ensure that you have the appropriate experts on
your team, those who can give you the requisite time whenever you need them. Finally,
this request can be used by the Convening Authority to ensure the leadership of your experts,
which work outside the command of the Convening Authority, also adopt the expert appointment
over all other duties precedence. In order to best effect what the defense is seeking, we
recommend submitting this request, which we will immediately forward to the defense experts
chains of command, and then to our Convening Authority for action.

v/r
Ashden



Fain. Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

33607

From: David Coombs

Sent: Tuesday, June 05. 2012 8:03 AM

T03 Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY 'Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMY ?Santiago,

Melissa CW2 USARMY Morrow Ill, JoDean, CPT USA
Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA Whyte, Jeffrey H. CPT USA JFHQ-
NCRIMDW von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA Ford, Arthur D.

CW2 USA JFHQ-NCRIMDW SJA

. Subject: RE: Updates

Ashden,

1. Please deliver the second copy to Fort Myer after this week. In
general, does this CD just contain the one classified damage assessment, or
does it contain other damage assessments? If so, please provide the BATES
number range of what is on the CD and its general content.

2. I will reach out to TDS to confirm that they are tracking on this issue.
It may still be that the Government needs to obtain a warrant and assign him
or her to TDS as they did with Chief Santiago.

3. Looking forward to some light reading.

4. I disagree. The duties listed in the proposed memorandum are reflected
in the Court's orders and the Convening Authority's original appointment of
these individuals as members of the defense team. Please have the proposed
memorandum signed by the Convening Authority. If you will not do this,
please inform me of this fact, and your basis so that it can be raised in a
motion for appropriate relief.

If we do need to litigate the issue, then in the interim, as the Court
directed, please appoint an additional security expert to the Defense team.
we will need someone that can be on call whenever we need to interview a
witness or inspect classified information (when having such a person present
is a requirement by the Government).

Best,
David

David E. Coombs, Esq.

Law Office of David E. Coombs

11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI @2966

Toll Free: 1-890-588-4156

Local: (508) 689-4616

Fax: (568) 689-9282



Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
contain confidential attorney-client information and is intended for the
person(s) or company named. If you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete all copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying

1

or use of this information may be unlawful and is



From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA SJA


Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 11:08 PM

To: David Coombs

Cc: Hurley, Thomas MAJ USARMY Tooman, Joshua CPT USARMV
Santiago, Melissa USARMY Morrow JoDean, CPT USA
Overgaard, Angel M. CPT USA whyte,
Jeffrey H. CPT USA von Elten, Alexander S. CPT USA
Ford, Arthur D. CW2 USA SJA

Subject: Updates

David,

1. Based on receiving CPT Tooman's acknowledgment on 1 June 2012 and the
prosecution receiving all defense counsel acknowledgments, we produced in
classified discovery the Department of Energy damage assessment (BATES:
00449241-60449242). Today, we sent a copy to NNC to be ready for your
review when you return (Tracking: 7936 3594 2020). Additionally, we can
deliver a second copy to the Fort Meade TDS office tomorrow, or wait to
deliver the second copy to Fort Myer after this week's motions hearing.
Please let us know which the defense would prefer.

2. Based on your previous question for us to give you an update on CH2
Santiago's replacement, it is our understanding that this is being
coordinated through TDS channels. MDN was informed that the Chief, TDS
coordinated directly or indirectly with you for personnel issues concerning
the defense. After confirming with the Chief warrant Officer of the Corps,
it is our understanding that all future personnel requests for any
personnel, will be handled through TDS channels.

3. CH2 Ford and Mr. Boardman will meet the defense outside the Courthouse
at

6936 hours tomorrow morning with the Department of State damage assessment,
as per our scheduled time. Please let us know the next time any defense
team member would like to review the material again.

4. As for your defense experts the command is fully committed to providing
the defense adequate support based on the defense's needs; however as in
every jurisdiction, the defense is required to request expert support from
the government. The original appointment was for experts to fulfill the
duties the defense requested and that is was the basis for the current
experts appointments more than one year ago. There is no question that,
except for testifying as expert witnesses, the duties listed in the your
proposed memorandum are reflected in the Court's orders and other
requirements for properly handling classified information; however the
government cannot estimate the amount of time required to accomplish these
tasks. As previously stated, if the defense wants the Convening Authority
to require your experts to prioritize consulting on the defense team over
all other duties, then the Convening Authority needs a request which asks
the Convening Authority to do so and provide reasons and a basis for your
request. A persuasive reason would likely be the extent of their duties and
the time commitment involved. The original Requests, which authorized their
detail to the defense as mere consultants, did not contemplate how

2

33608

33609

time-consuming your experts" work i s , and no one knows how time-consuming
your experts" work i s but you and your experts. Submitting this request i s
also a good way t o ensure that you have the appropriate experts on your
team, i.e., those who can give you the requisite time whenever you need
them.
Finally, this request can be used by the Convening Authority to ensure the
leadership of your experts, which work outside the command of the Convening
Authority, also adopt the expert appointment over a l l other duties
precedence. In order t o best effect what the defense i s seeking, we
recommend submitting this request, which we w i l l immediately forward to the
defense experts chains of command, and then t o our Convening Authority f o r
action.
v/r
Ashden

33610

Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA
Friday, June 15. 2012 6:12 PM
David Coombs
Hurley. Thomas F MAJ USARMY (US); "Tooman, Joshua J CPT USARMY (US)'; "Santiago,
Melissa S CW2 USARMY (US)"; Morrow 111. JoDean, CPT USA JFHQ-NCF(/MDW SJA;
Overgaard. Angel M. CPT USA JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA; Whyte, Jeffrey H. CPT USA JFHQNCR/MDW SJA; von Elten. Alexander S. CPT USA JFHQ-NCR\MDW SJA; Ford. Arthur D.
CW2 USA JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA
Update

Tracking:

Recipient

Delivery

Read

David Coombs
Hurley, Thomas F MAJ USARMY
(US)
Tooman, Joshua J CPT USARMY
(US)'
'Santiago, Melissa S CW2 USARMY
(US)'
Mon-ow III, JoDean, CPT USA
JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA

Delivered: 6/15/2012 6:12 PM

Overgaard, /Vngel M. CPT USA
JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA

Delivered: 6/15/2012 6:12 PM

Whyte, Jeffrey H. CPT USA
JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA

Failed: 6/15/2012 6:12 PM

von Elten,Alexanders. CPT USA
JFHQ-NCR\MDW SJA

Delivered: 6/15/2012 6:12 PM

Read: 6/15/2012 6:13 PM

Ford, Arthur D. CW2 USA
JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA

Delivered: 6/15/2012 6:12 PM

Read: 6/15/2012 6:20 PM

Bradley, Princeton L. SGT USA
JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA

Delivered: 6/15/2012 6:12 PM

Feito, Beatriz SGT USA JFHQNCR/MDW SJA

Delivered:6/15/20126:12 PM

Read: 6/15/2012 10:15 PM

Parra, JairoA. CW2 USA
JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA

Delivered: 6/15/20126:12 PM

Read: 6/15/2012 9:38 PM

Waybright, Daniel W. SGT USA
JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA

Delivered: 6/15/2012 6:12 PM

Diefenbach, Katherine M. CPT USA
JFHQ-NCR/MDW SJA

Delivered: 6/15/2012 6:12 PM

(b) (6)

David,
Below i s an update on your questions and other issues.
1.

A r t i c l e 39(a).

2. Case Calendar.
filings.

We w i l l have PFC Manning at the courthouse at 0900 on 25 June.
We intend to submit a case calendar update on Thursday with our other

3. Motions. We intend t o submit our two f i l i n g s on Thursday, as per our discussion last
week.

33611

4. Sanitized versions of Damage Assessments. We have provided the defense a l l the
damage/impact assessments that exist within each agency or organization. The government did
not produce unclassified versions of the damage assessments for the ones that are classified
and which have been produced; therefore, there are no unclassified or sanitized versions to
provide.
5. Department of Homeland Security Damage Assessment. As stated on Friday, we sent the
request earlier this week and NWC received i t on Wednesday. Additionally, CW2 Santiago
signed f o r a copy on Wednesday. I apologize f o r not notifying you sooner of the tracking
number or confirmed delivery.
6. Redactions. We w i l l f i l e with the Court tonight and we do not intend t o request
protective orders.
7. Replacement f o r Santiago. As previously stated, MDW was informed that the Chief, TDS
coordinated directly or indirectly with you f o r personnel issues concerning the defense.
After confirming with the Chief Warrant Officer of the Corps, i t i s our understanding that
a l l future personnel requests f o r any personnel, w i l l be handled through TDS channels.
Please address any personnel issues through the military defense counsel and their RDC.
8. Defense Expert Request. We have not resolved the issue of the defense requesting that
your experts have t h e i r time dedicated primarily to the defense. Does the defense intend t o
request this? Without a request which outlines the anticipated scope of their additional
duties (which i s already written in your proposed memo) and an estimate of the t o t a l time you
anticipate you w i l l need t h e i r services, we cannot go t o their leadership and the convening
authority for approval. The leaders must know how much time you anticipate w i l l be needed
and to what extent, so they can make informed decisions. Once we receive a request, we w i l l
immediately take the request t o your experts" leadership and the convening authority f o r
action.
Have a good weekend,
v/r
Ashden

33612

Fein.Ashden MAJ USAJFHQ-NCR/MDWSJA
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Subject:

David Coombs Icoombs@armycourtmartia1defense.CQm]
Friday,June15.20120:31PM
Fein, Ashden MAJ USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA
Hurley, ThomasFMAJ USARMY (US);Tooman, JoshuaJCPT USARMY (US); "Santiago,
MellssaSCW2 USARMY (US)"; Morrow IILJoDean, C P T U S A J F H Q N C R / M D W S J A ;
Overgaard, A n g e l M C P T USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA; Whyte, J e f f r e y H C P T U S A J F H Q
NCF^MDW SJA; von Elten, AlexanderSCPT USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA; Ford,ArthurD
CW2USAJFHQNCF^MDWSJA
RE; Update

FollowUpFlag:
FlagStatus:

Followup
Completed

Ashden,
^) Thank you.
2) Why do you feel that Thursday i s the agreed upon date f o r the case
calendar?
3) Same as #2 - I don't recall any discussion that Thursday was the
timeline f o r this issue. Not only would this give no time for the Defense
to reply, i t also does not provide the Court with time to consider the
motions prior to the Article 39(a).
4) The Defense i s requesting that the various agencies produce an
unclassified version of t h e i r damage assessments. According to the defense
security experts, this is not an unusual request.
5) Not a problem. Thank you.
6) Thank you.
7) As stated, TDS cannot provide a replacement warrant officer. I am
requesting that the Government provide a replacement f o r CW2 Santiago.
Please inform me i f the Government's position i s that i t w i l l not do so.
8) The Defense does not believe that any additional request detailing scope
of work or timing commitments i s necessary. I f you disagree, as per our
discussion with COL Lind, please provide an additional security expert to be
available when our defense experts are not.
Best,
David
David E. Coombs, Esq.
Law Office of David E. Coombs
l l S o u t h Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 02906
T o l l Free: 1 8005884156
Local: (508) 6894616
Fax: (508) 689-9282
CQombsQarmycQurtmartialdefense.com
www.armvcourtmartialdefense.com

33613

***Confidentiality Notice: This transmission, includingattachments, may
contain confidential attorney-client information and i s intended f o r the
persQn(s) or company named. I f you are not theintended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete a l l copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying
or use of this information may be unlawful and i s prohibited.***
Original Message
From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHONCR/MDW SJA
ImailtQ:(b) (6)
Sent: Friday, June 15, 20126:12 PM
To: David Coombs
Cc: Hurley, Thomas FMAJ USARMY (US); Tooman, Joshua J CPTUSARMY (US);
Santiago, Melissa SCW2USARMY (US); M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSA
JFH(^NCR/MDWSJA; Overgaard, AngelM. CPTUSA JFHI^NCR/MDW SJA; Whyte,
JeffreyH. CPTUSAJFHQNCR/MDWSJA; von Elten, Alexanders. CPTUSA
JFHI^NCR^MDWSJA; Ford, ArthurD. CW2USA JFHQNCR/MDWSJA
Subject: Update
Oavid,
Below i s an update on your questions and other issues.
1. Article 39(a). We w i l l have PFC Manning at the courthouse at 0900 on 25
June.
2. Case Calendar. We intend to submit a case calendar update on Thursday
with our other f i l i n g s .
3. Motions. We intend to submit our two f i l i n g s on Thursday, as per our
discussion last week.
4. Sanitized versions of Damage Assessments. We have provided the defense
a l l the damage/impact assessments that exist within each agency or
organization. The government did not produce unclassified versions of the
damage assessments f o r the ones that are classified and which have been
produced; therefore, there are no unclassified or sanitized versions to
provide.
5. Department of Homeland Security Damage Assessment. As stated on Friday,
we sent the request earlier this week and NWC received i t on Wednesday.
Additionally, CW2 Santiago signed f o r a copy on Wednesday. I apologize for
not notifying you sooner of the tracking number or confirmed delivery.
6. Redactions. We w i l l f i l e with the Court tonight and we do not intend t o
request protective orders.
7. Replacement f o r Santiago. As previously stated, MDW was informed that
the Chief, TDS coordinated directly or indirectly with you for personnel
issues concerning the defense. After confirming with the Chief Warrant
Officer of the Corps, i t is our understanding that a l l future personnel
requests f o r any personnel, w i l l be handled through TDS channels. Please
address any personnel issues through the military defense counsel and their
ROC.

33614

8. Defense Expert Request. We have not resolved the issue of the defense
requesting that your experts have their time dedicated primarily to the
defense. Does thedefense intend to request this? Without a request which
outlines the anticipated scope of their additional duties (which i s already
written i n your proposed memo) and an estimate of the t o t a l time you
anticipate you w i l l need their services, we cannot go to their leadership
and the convening authority for approval. The leaders must know how much
time you anticipate w i l l be needed and to what extent, so they can make
informed decisions. Once we receive a request, we w i l l immediately take the
request to your experts' leadership and the convening authority f o r action.
Have a good weekend.
v/r
Ashden

33615

Fein.Ashden MAJ USAJFHQ-NCR/MDWSJA
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Fein, Ashden MAJ USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA
Monday, June18, 20120:30PM
DavidCoombs

Subject:

Hurley, ThomasFMAJ USARMY (US);TQQman, JoshuaJCPT USARMY (US)"; "Santiago,
MellssaSCW2 USARMY (US)"; Morrow 111, JoDean, CPT U S A J F H Q N C R / M D W S J A ;
Overgaard A n g e l M C P T USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA; Whyte, J e f f r e y H C P T USAJFHQ
NCF^MDW SJA; von Elten, AlexanderSCPT USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA; Ford, ArthurD
CW2 USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA
RE: Update

Tracking:

Recipient

Delivery

Read

MorrowllL JoDean, CPT USA
JFHQ-NCR/MOW SJA

Delivered:6/18/2012 9:30PM

Read: 6/19/2012 7:55AM

Overgaard, AngelM. CPT USA
JFHQ NCR/MOW SJA

Delivered: 6/18/20129:30 PM

Whyte, JeflreyHCPTUSA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/18/2012 9:30 PM

Read:6/19/20127:57AM

von Elten, Alexanders. CPT USA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Oelivered: 6/18/2012 9:30 PM

Read: 6/19/2012 7:29 AM

Ford,ArthurD.CW2USA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/18/20129:30PM

Bradley,PrincetonL.SGTUSA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/18/20129:30PM

Feito, BeatrizSGTUSAJFHQ
NCR/MDWSJA

Delivered:6/18/20129:30PM

Pan^,JairoACW2USA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/18/2012 9:30 PM

Read: 6/19/2012 12:31 AM

Waybright, DanielW SGTUSA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/18/20129:30PM

Read:6/19/20129:38AM

Diefenbach, Katherine M. CPT USA
JFHQ NCR/MOW SJA

Delivered:6/18/20129:30PM

DavidCoombs
Hurley, ThomasFMAJ US/iiRMY
(OS)
Tooman, JoshuaJCPT USARMY
(US)"
Santiago, MelissaSCW2 USARMY
(US)'

(b) (6)

David,
1.

Case Calendar. OBE w/ the Court.

2.

Motions.

OBE w/ the Court.

3. Unclassified Assessments. I f the defense i s requesting information i n discovery, then
please provide a discovery request with the proper authority. We have provided (or are
working t o provide) the defense a l l the damage/impact assessments that exist within each
agency or organization. The government did not produce unclassified versions of the damage
assessments f o r the ones that are classified and which have been produced; therefore, there
are no unclassified or sanitized versions to provide.

33616

4. CW2Santiago's Replacement. Although we are standing by t o a s s i s t , MDW w i l l not provide
assistance, unless we receive different guidance from the Chief, TOS, becauseTOS i s the lead
for a l l defense personnel issues. As previously stated, please address any personnel issues
through the military defense counsel and their RDC.
5. Defense Security Experts. As the prosecution, we arenot situated toestimate howthe
defense intends to employ their experts (scope) and how much time that employment might take
(cost of employment); therefore since 30 May 12, we have asked the defense t o submit a
request. On 30 May 12, the defense did not submit a request, but rather a proposed
memorandum for the SPCMCA to order your experts duties take precedence over their normal
duties. We are standing by to assist the defense with any challenges you may have with
security experts; however the convening authority w i l l not act on expert issues without a
defense request, especially considering the defense i s requesting government employees
perform their duties as a top p r i o r i t y and/or another expert be detailed to the defense. I / ^
with RCM 703(d), for either of your requests, please "submit a request to the convening
authority t o authorize the employment and to f i x the compensation for the expert." Please
include "a complete statement of reasons why employment of the expert i s necessary and the
estimated cost of employment." Once we receive an adequate request, we w i l l act immediately
on the request, by coordinating through your experts' leadership to provide their input and
the defense's request to the appropriate convening authority for action.
v/r
Ashden
Original Message
From: David Coombs [^mailto:coQmbsQarmycourtmartialdefense.CQm^
Sent: Friday, JunelS, 20126:31PM
To: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHt^ NCR/MDWSJA
Cc: Hurley, Thomas FMAJ USARMY (US); 'Tooman, JoshuaJ CPTUSARMY (OS)'; 'Santiago, Melissa
SCW2USARMY (US)'; M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSAJFHt^NCR/MDWSJA; Overgaard, AngelM. CPTUSA
JFHt^NCR/MDWSJA; Whyte, JeffreyH. CPTUSA JFHONCR/MDW SJA; vonElten, Alexanders. CPTUSA
JFHl^NCR^MDWSJA; Ford, ArthurD. CW2USA JFH(^NCR/MDWSJA
Subject: RE: Update
Ashden,
1)

Thank you.

2) Why do you feel that Thursday i s the agreed upon date f o r the case
calendar?
3) Same as #2 - I don't recall any discussion that Thursday was the
timeline for this issue. Not only would this give no time for the Defense
to reply, i t also does not provide the Court with time to consider the
motions prior to the Article 39(a).
4) The Defense i s requesting that the various agencies produce an
unclassified version of their damage assessments. According to the defense
security experts, t h i s i s not an unusual request.
5)

Not a problem. Thank you.

6)

Thank you.

7) As stated, TDS cannot provide a replacement warrant officer. I am
requesting that the Government provide a replacement for CW2 Santiago.

33617

Please informme i f theGovernment's position i s that i t w i l l not do so.
8) The Defense does not believe that any additional request detailing scope
of work or timing commitments is necessary. I f you disagree, as per our
discussion with COL Lind, please provide an additional security expert to be
available when our defense experts are not.
Best,
David
David E. Coombs, Esq.
Law Office of David E. Coombs
11 South AngellStreet, #317
Providence, RI 02906
Toll Free: 1 8005884156
Local: (508) 6894616
Fax: (508) 6899282
CQombsQarmycQurtmartialdefense.com
www.armycourtmartialdefense.com
**^Confidentiality Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
contain confidential attorney-client information and is intended f o r the
persQn(s) or company named. I f you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete a l l copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying
or use of t h i s information may be unlawful and i s prohibited.***
Original Message
From: Fein, Ashden MAJUSA JFHQNCR/MDWSJA
I^mailto:Ashden.FeinQjfhqncr.northcom.mil^
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 6:12 PM
To: David Coombs
Cc: Hurley, Thomas FMAJUSARMY(US); Tooman, Joshua JCPTUSARMY(US);
Santiago, MelissaSCW2 USARMY (US); M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSA
JFHONCR/MDW SJA; Overgaard, AngelM. CPTUSA JFH(^NCR/MDW SJA; Whyte,
Jeffrey H. CPT USA JFHONCR/MDWSJA; von Elten, Alexanders. CPTUSA
JFHOI^CR^MDWSJA; Ford, ArthurD. CW2USA JFHl^NCR/MDWSJA
Subject: Update
David,
Below i s an update on your questions and other issues.
1. A r t i c l e 39(a).
June.

We w i l l have PFCManning at the courthouse at 0900 on 25

2. Case Calendar. We intend to submit a case calendar update on Thursday
with our other f i l i n g s .
3. Motions. We intend to submit our two f i l i n g s on Thursday, as per our
discussion last week.
4. Sanitized versions of Damage Assessments. We have provided the defense
a l l the damage/impact assessments that exist within each agency or
organization. The government did not produce unclassified versions of the
damage assessments f o r theones that are classified and which have been

33618

produced; therefore, there are no unclassified or sanitized versions t o
provide.
5. Department of Homeland Security Damage Assessment. As stated on Friday,
we sent the request earlier this week and NWC received i t on Wednesday.
Additionally, CW2 Santiago signed f o r a copy on Wednesday. I apologize f o r
not notifying you sooner of the tracking number or confirmed delivery.
6. Redactions. We w i l l f i l e with the Court tonight and we do not intend to
request protective orders.
7. Replacement for Santiago. As previously stated, MDW was informed that
the Chief, TDS coordinated directly or indirectly with you f o r personnel
issues concerning the defense. After confirming with the Chief Warrant
Officer of the Corps, i t i s our understanding that a l l future personnel
requests f o r any personnel, w i l l be handled through TDS channels. Please
address any personnel issues through the military defense counsel and their
RDC.
8. Defense Expert Request. We have not resolved the issue of the defense
requesting that your experts have their time dedicated primarily to the
defense. Does the defense intend to request this? Without a request which
outlines the anticipated scope of their additional duties (which i s already
written i n your proposed memo) and an estimate of the t o t a l time you
anticipate you w i l l need their services, we cannot go to their leadership
and the convening authority for approval. The leaders must know how much
time you anticipate w i l l be needed and to what extent, so they can make
informed decisions. Once we receive a request, we w i l l immediately take the
request t o your experts' leadership and the convening authority for action.
Have a good weekend,
v/r
Ashden

33619

1)

Thank you.

2) Why do you feel that Thursday i s the agreed upon d a t e f o r the case
calendar?
3) Same as #2 I don't recall any discussion that Thursday was the
timeline for this issue. Not only would this give no time for the Defense
to reply, i t alsodoes not provide the Court with time to considerthe
motions prior to the Article 39(a).
4) The Defense i s requesting that the various agencies produce an
unclassified version of t h e i r damage assessments. According to the defense
security experts, t h i s i s not an unusual request.
5)

Not a problem. Thankyou.

6)

Thank you.

7) As stated, TDS cannot provide a replacement warrant o f f i c e r . I am
requesting that the Government provide a replacement for CW2 Santiago.
Please inform me i f the Government's position i s that i t w i l l not do so.
8) The Defense does not believe that any additional request detailing scope
of work or timing commitments i s necessary. I f you disagree, as per our
discussion with COL Lind, please provide an additional security expert to be
available when our defense experts are not.
Best,
David
David E. Coombs, Esq.
Law O f f i c e o f David E. Coombs
l l S o u t h A n g e l l S t r e e t , #317
P r o v i d e n c e , RI 02906
TollFree: 18005884156
L o c a l : (508) 6 8 9 4 6 1 6
Fax: (508) 6 8 9 9 2 8 2
CQQmbsQarmycQurtmartialdefense.com
www.armycQurtmartialdefense.CQm

* * * C o n f i d e n t i a l i t y N o t i c e : T h i s t r a n s m i s s i o n , i n c l u d i n g a t t a c h m e n t s , may
c o n t a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l a t t o r n e y - c l i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n and i s i n t e n d e d f o r t h e
p e r s o n ( s ) o r company named. I f you are n o t t h e i n t e n d e d r e c i p i e n t , please
n o t i f y t h e sender and d e l e t e a l l c o p i e s . U n a u t h o r i z e d d i s c l o s u r e , c o p y i n g
o r use o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n may be u n l a w f u l and i s p r o h i b i t e d . * * *

O r i g i n a l Message
From: F e i n , Ashden MAJUSA JFHQNCR/MDWSJA
[^mailtQ:Ashden.FeinQjfhqncr.northcom.mil^
Sent: Friday, J u n e l S , 2 0 1 2 6 : 1 2 P M
To: D a v i d Coombs
Cc: H u r l e y , Thomas FMAJUSARMY (US); Tooman, Joshua J C P T U S A R M Y ( U S ) ;
S a n t i a g o , MelissaSCW2USARMY (US); M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSA
JFHt^NCR/MDWSJA; O v e r g a a r d , A n g e l M . CPTUSA JFHONCR/MDW SJA; Whyte,

33620

J e f f r e y H . CPT USA JFHONCR/MDW SJA; v o n E l t e n , A l e x a n d e r s . CPTUSA
JFHt^NCR^MDWSJA; F o r d , A r t h u r D . CW2USAJFH(^NCR/MDWSJA
S u b j e c t : Update
Oavid,

Below i s an update on your questions and other issues.
^. A r t i c l e 3 9 ( a ) .
June.

W e w i l l have PFC Manningatthe courthouseat 0900 on 25

2. Case Calendar. We intend t o submit a case calendar update on Thursday
with our other f i l i n g s .
3. Motions. We intend t o submit our two f i l i n g s on Thursday, as per our
discussion last week.
4. Sanitized versions of Damage Assessments. We have provided the defense
a l l the damage/impact assessments that exist within each agency or
organization. The government did not produce unclassified versions of the
damage assessments f o r the ones that are classified and which have been
produced; therefore, there are no unclassified or sanitized versions to
provide.
5. Department of Homeland Security Damage Assessment. As stated on Friday,
we sent the request earlier this week and NWC received i t on Wednesday.
Additionally, CW2 Santiago signed for a copy on Wednesday. I apologize f o r
not notifying you sooner of the tracking number or confirmed delivery.
6. Redactions. We w i l l f i l e with the Court tonight and we do not intend to
request protective orders.
7. Replacement f o r Santiago. As previously stated, MDW was informed that
the Chief, TDS coordinated directly or indirectly with you f o r personnel
issues concerning the defense. After confirming with the Chief Warrant
Officer of the Corps, i t i s our understanding that a l l future personnel
requests f o r any personnel, w i l l be handled through TDS channels. Please
address any personnel issues through the military defense counsel and their
RDC.
8. Defense Expert Request. We have not resolved the issue of the defense
requesting that your experts have their time dedicated primarily t o the
defense. Does the defense intend to request this? Without a request which
outlines the anticipated scope of their additional duties (which i s already
written in your proposed memo) and an estimate of the t o t a l time you
anticipate you w i l l need their services, we cannot go t o their leadership
and the convening authority for approval. The leaders must know how much
time you anticipate w i l l be needed and t o what extent, so they can make
informed decisions. Once we receive a request, we w i l l immediately take the
request t o your experts' leadership and the convening authority for action.

Have a good weekend,
v/r
Ashden

33621

Fein.Ashden MAJ USAJFHQ-NCR/MDWSJA
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Sul^ject:
Tracking:

Fein, Ashden MAJ USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA
Tuesday, JunelO, 20128:30PM
DavidCoombs
Hurley, ThomasFMAJ USARMY (US);Tooman, JoshuaJCPT USARMY (US); "Santiago.
MelissaSCW2 USARMY (US); MorrowllL JoDean, CPT U S A J F H Q N C R / M D W S J A ;
Overgaard, A n g e l M C P T USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA; Whyte, J e f f r e y H C P T USAJFHQ
NCR/MDW SJA;von Elten, Alexanders. CPT USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA; Ford, ArthurD
CW2 USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA
RE: Update
Recipient

Delivery

Read

Morrow III, JoDean, CPT USA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Oelivered:6/19/20128:39PM

Read:6/20/2012 7:52AM

Qvergaard, Angel M CPT USA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6^19/20128:39PM

Whyte, JeffreyHCPT USA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/19/2012 8:39PM

Read:6/20/20127:50AM

von Elten, Alexanders. CPTUSA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered:6/19/20128:39PM

Read: 6/20/2012 7:52AM

Ford,ArthurOCW2USA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/19/20128:39PM

Read: 6/19/2012 8:41 PM

Bradley, Princeton L.SGTUSA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/19/20128:39 PM

Feito, BeatrizSGTUSAJFHQ
NCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/19/2012 8:39PM

Read:6/20/2012 10:22AM

Parra, JairoACW2USA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/19/2012 8:39 PM

Read: 6/20/20127:37 AM

Waybright, DanielWSGTUSA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/19/2012 8:39PM

Read: 6/20/2012 9:27 AM

Diefenbach, Catherine M. CPT USA
JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

Delivered: 6/19/2012 8:39PM

DavidCoombs
Hurley, ThomasFMAJ USARMY
(t^5)
Tooman, JoshuaJCPT USARMY
(US)'
'Santiago, MelissaSCW2 USARMY
(US)'

(b) (6)

David,
1.

For the unclassified damage assessment, we w i l l forward your request to eacb agency.

2. CW2 Santiago's replacement. The OSJA, MDW is standing by t o assist; however based on the
Chief, TDS's guidance, TDS i s the lead f o r a l l personnel issues. Please continue to address
any personnel issues through the military defense counsel and their RDC. Based on
information we have, i t i s our understanding that a SFC i s in-bound t o assist the defense.
3. Security Expert. Once we receive an adequate request, we w i l l act immediately on the
request t o either obtain an additional expert or coordinate throughyour current experts'

33622

leadership t o provide their input to the appropriate convening a u t h o r i t y f o r action.
see below f o r a further explanation.

Please

v/r
Ashden
O r i g i n a l Message
From: David Coombs ^mailtQ:cQQmbsQarmycQurtmartialdefense.CQm^
S e n t : Monday, June 1 8 , 2 0 1 2 9 : 4 2 PM
To: F e i n , Ashden MAJ USA JFHQNCR/MDWSJA
Cc: H u r l e y , T h o m a s F M A J USARMY(US); 'Tooman, Joshua J C P T U S A R M Y ( U S ) ' ; ' S a n t i a g o , M e l i s s a
S C W 2 U S A R M Y ( U S ) ' ; M Q r r Q w I I I , JoDean, CPTUSA JFH(^NCR/MDW SJA; Overgaard, A n g e l M . CPTUSA
JFHI^NCR/MDWSJA; Whyte, J e f f r e y H . CPTUSAJFHQNCR/MDWSJA; v o n E l t e n , A l e x a n d e r s . CPTUSA
JFHI^NCR^MDWSJA; F o r d , A r t h u r D . CW2 USA JFHQNCR/MDWSJA
S u b j e c t : RE: Update
Ashden,

1 and 2: We w i l l wait f o r guidance from COL Lind;
3. This i s not a discovery request, we are simply asking f o r an
unclassified version of the various damage assessments. Again, t h i s i s not
an unusual request. Please submit our request t o the various organizations
so that they can produce an unclassified version of the damage assessments;
4. Is t h i s the position of the SJA?
5. Please appoint an additional security expert t o be on standby f o r when
the Defense needs to review damage assessments.
Best,
David
David E. Coombs, Esq.
Law Office of David E. Coombs
l l S o u t h Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 02906
T o l l Free: 18005884156
Local: (508) 6894616
Fax: (508) 6899282
coombsQarmycourtmartialdefense.com
www.armycourtmartialdefense.com
***CQnfidentiality Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
contain confidential attorney client information and i s intended f o r the
persQn(s) or company named. I f you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete a l l copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying
or use of t h i s information may be unlawful and i s prohibited.***
Original Message
From: Fein, AshdenMAJ USA JFH(^NCR/MDWSJA
^mailto:Ashden.FeinQjfhqncr.northcom.mil^
Sent: Monday, June 18, 20129:30PM
To: David Coombs
Cc: Hurley, Thomas FMAJ USARMY (US); Tooman, JoshuaJCPTUSARMY (US);
Santiago, MelissaSCW2 USARMY (US); M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSA

33623

JFHONCR/MDW SJA; O v e r g a a r d , A n g e l M . CPTUSA JFH(^NCR/MDW SJA; Whyte,
J e f f r e y H . CPTUSAJFHQNCR/MDWSJA; v o n E l t e n , A l e x a n d e r s . CPTUSA
JFH(^NCR^MDWSJA; F o r d , A r t h u r D . CW2USA JFHQNCR/MDWSJA
S u b j e c t : RE: Update
David,

1.

CaseCalendar. OBE w/ the Court.

2.

Motions.

OBE w/ tbeCourt.

3. Unclassified Assessments. I f the defense i s requesting information i n
discovery, then please provide a discovery request with the proper
authority.
We have provided (or are working t o provide) the defense a l l the
damage/impact assessments that exist within each agency or organization.
The government did not produce unclassified versions of the damage
assessments for the ones that are classified and which have been produced;
therefore, there are no unclassified or sanitized versions to provide.
4. CW2 Santiago's Replacement. Although we are standing by t o assist, MDW
w i l l not provide assistance, unless we receive different guidance from the
Chief, TDS, because TDS is the lead for a l l defense personnel issues. As
previously stated, please address any personnel issues through the military
defense counsel and their RDC.
5. Defense Security Experts. As the prosecution, we are not situated to
estimate how the defense intends t o employ their experts (scope) and how
much time that employment might take (cost of employment); therefore since
30 May 12, we have asked the defense to submit a request. On 30 May 12, the
defense did not submit a request, but rather a proposed memorandum for the
SPCMCA t o order your experts duties take precedence over their normal
duties. We are standing by to assist the defense with any challenges you
may have with security experts; however the convening authority w i l l not act
on expert issues without a defense request, especially considering the
defense i s requesting government employees perform their duties as a top
p r i o r i t y and/or another expert be detailed to the defense. IAW with RCM
703(d), f o r either of your requests, please "submit a request t o the
convening authority to authorize the employment and to f i x the compensation
for the expert." Please include "a complete statement of reasons why
employment of the expert i s necessary and the estimated cost of employment."
Once we receive an adequate request, we w i l l act immediately on the request,
by coordinating through your experts' leadership to provide their input and
the defense's request to the appropriate convening authority f o r action.
v/r
Ashden
O r i g i n a l Message
From: David Coombs ^mailto:coQmbsQarmycQurtmartialdefense.com^
S e n t : F r i d a y , J u n e l S , 2 0 1 2 6 : 3 1 PM
To: F e i n , Ashden MAJUSA JFHONCR/MDW SJA
Cc: H u r l e y , Thomas FMAJUSARMY (US); "Tooman, Joshua J CPTUSARMY ( t ^ S ) ' ;
' S a n t i a g o , M e l i s s a S C W 2 USARMY ( U S ) ' ; M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSA
JFHONCR/MDWSJA; Overgaard, A n g e l M . CPTUSA JFHI^NCR/MDW SJA; Whyte,
J e f f r e y H . CPTUSA JFHONCR/MDW SJA; von E l t e n , A l e x a n d e r s . CPTUSA
JFHONCR^MDWSJA; F o r d , A r t h u r D . CW2USA JFHQNCR/MDWSJA

33624

Subject: RE: Update
Ashden,
1)

Thank you.

2) Why doyou feel that Thursday i s the agreed upon d a t e f o r thecase
calendar?
3) Same as #2 I don't recall any discussion that Thursday was the
timeline for t h i s issue. Not only would this give no time for the Defense
t o reply, i t also does not provide the Court with time to consider the
motions prior to the Article 39(a).
4) The Defense i s requesting that the various agencies produce an
unclassified version of their damage assessments. According to the defense
security experts, this i s not an unusual request.
5)

Not a problem. Thank you.

6)

Thank you.

7) As stated, TDS cannot provide a replacement warrant officer. I am
requesting that the Government provide a replacement for CW2 Santiago.
Please inform me i f the Government's position i s that i t w i l l not do so.
8) The Defense does not believe that any additional request detailing scope
of work or timing commitments i s necessary. I f you disagree, as per our
discussion with COL Lind, please provide an additional security expert to be
available when our defense experts are not.
Best,
David
David E. Coombs, Esq.
Law Office of David E. Coombs
11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 02906
T o l l Free: 18005884156
Local: (508) 6894616
Fax: (508) 6899282
CQombsQarmycQurtmartialdefense.com
www.armycQurtmartialdefense.CQm
***CQnfidentiality Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
contain confidential attorney-client information and is intended for the
person(s) or company named. I f you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete a l l copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying
or use of t h i s information may be unlawful and i s prohibited.***
Original Message
From: Fein, AshdenMAJ USAJFHQNCR/MDWSJA
[mailtQ:(b) (6)
^
Sent: Friday, June 15, 20126:12 PM
To: David Coombs

33625

Cc: H u r l e y , Thomas FMAJUSARMY (US); Tooman, J o s h u a J CPTUSARMY ( U S ) ;
S a n t i a g o , M e l i s s a S C W 2 U S A R M Y ( U S ) ; M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSA
JFH(^NCR/MDWSJA; O v e r g a a r d , A n g e l M . CPTUSA JFH(^NCR/MDW SJA; Whyte,
J e f f r e y H . CPTUSAJFHQNCR/MDWSJA; von E l t e n , A l e x a n d e r s . CPTUSA
JFH(^NCR^MDWSJA; F o r d , A r t h u r D . CW2 USA JFHQNCR/MDWSJA
S u b j e c t : Update
David,

Below i s an update on your questions and other issues.
1. A r t i c l e 39(a). Wewill have PFCManning at thecourthouse at 0900 on 25
June.
2. Case Calendar. We intend to submit a case calendar update on Thursday
with our other f i l i n g s .
3. Motions. We intend to submit our two f i l i n g s on Thursday, as per our
discussion last week.
4. Sanitized versions of Damage Assessments. We have provided the defense
a l l the damage/impact assessments that exist within each agency or
organization. The government did not produce unclassified versions of the
damage assessments f o r the ones that are classified and which have been
produced; therefore, there are no unclassified or sanitized versions to
provide.
5. Department of Homeland Security Damage Assessment. As stated on Friday,
we sent the request earlier this week and NWC received i t on Wednesday.
Additionally, CW2 Santiago signed for a copy on Wednesday. I apologize f o r
not notifying you sooner of the tracking number or confirmed delivery.
6. Redactions. We w i l l f i l e with the Court tonight and we do not intend t o
request protective orders.
7. Replacement f o r Santiago. As previously stated, MDW was informed that
the Chief, TDS coordinated directly or indirectly with you for personnel
issues concerning the defense. After confirming with the Chief Warrant
Officer of the Corps, i t i s our understanding that a l l future personnel
requests f o r any personnel, w i l l be handled through TDS channels. Please
address any personnel issues through the military defense counsel and their
RDC.
8. Defense Expert Request. We have not resolved the issue of the defense
requesting that your experts have their time dedicated primarily to the
defense. Does the defense intend to request this? Without a request which
outlines the anticipated scope of their additional duties (which i s already
written i n your proposed memo) and an estimate of the t o t a l time you
anticipate you w i l l need their services, we cannot go t o their leadership
and the convening authority f o r approval. The leaders must know how much
time you anticipate w i l l be needed and to what extent, so they can make
informed decisions. Once we receive a request, we w i l l immediately take the
request to your experts" leadership and the convening authority for action.

Have a good weekend.



33626

V/r-
Ashden

33627

Fein.Ashden MAJ USAJFHQ-NCR/MDWSJA
^rom:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Sul^ject:

David Coombs [coQmbs(^armycourtmartialdefense cQm]
Wednesday,June 20, 20127:17AM
Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFHQ NCR/MDW SJA
Hurley, ThomasFMAJ USARMY (US); "Tooman. JoshuaJCPT USARMY (US)"; "Santiago,
MelissaSCW2 USARMY (US): Morrow 111. JoDean. CPT USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA;
Overgaard. A n g e l M C P T USAJFHQNCR/MDW SJA; Whyte, J e f f r e y H C P T USAJFHQ
NCR/MDW SJA; von Elten. AlexanderSCPTUSAJFHQNCR^MDW SJA; Ford. ArthurD
CW2USAJFHQNCR/MDWSJA
RE: Update

Ashden,
1.

Thank y o u .

2.

I s t h i s t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e SJA?

3.

See b e l o w .

Best,
David
David E. Coombs, E s q .
Law O f f i c e o f David E. Coombs
11 South A n g e l l S t r e e t , #317
P r o v i d e n c e , R I 02906
T o l l Free: 1 8 0 0 5 8 8 4 1 5 6
Local: (508) 6894616
Fax: ( 5 0 8 ) 6 8 9 9 2 8 2

coQmbsQarmycQurtmartialdefense.com
www.armycourtmartialdefense.com
***CQnfidentiality Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
contain confidential attorney-client information and i s intended f o r the
person(s) or company named. I f you are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete a l l copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying
or use of t h i s information may be unlawful and i s prohibited.***
Original Message
From: Fein, Ashden MAJ USA JFH(^NCR/MDW SJA
[^mailto(b) (6)
Sent: Tuesday, Junel9, 20128:39PM
To: David Coombs
Cc: Hurley, Thomas F MAJ USARMY (US); Tooman, Joshua J CPTUSARMY (US);
Santiago, Melissa S CW2 USARMY (US); M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSA
JFH(^NCR/MDWSJA; Overgaard, AngelM. CPTUSA JFH(^NCR/MDW SJA; Whyte,
JeffreyH. CPTUSA JFHONCR/MDW SJA; von Elten, Alexanders. CPTUSA
JFHONCR^MDWSJA; Ford, ArthurD. CW2USA JFHONCR/MDW SJA
Subject: RE: Update
David,
1.

For the unclassified damage assessment, we w i l l forward your request to

33628

each agency.
2. CW2 Santiago's replacement. The OSJA, MDW i s standing by to assist;
however based on the Chief, TDS's guidance, TDS i s the lead for a l l
personnel issues. Please continue to address any personnel issues through
the military defense counsel and their RDC. Based on information we have,
i t i s our understanding that a SFC i s i n bound to assist the defense.
3. Security Expert. Once we receive an adequate request, w e w i l l act
immediately on the request to either obtain an additional expert or
coordinate through your current experts' leadership to provide their input
to the appropriate convening authority f o r action. Please see below for a
further explanation.
v/r
Ashden
O r i g i n a l Message
From: David Coombs ^mailtQ:cQQmbsQarmycQurtmartialdefense.com^
S e n t : Monday, J u n e l B , 2 0 1 2 9 : 4 2 P M
To: F e i n , AshdenMAJ USAJFHQNCR/MDWSJA
Cc: H u r l e y , Thomas FMAJ USARMY (US); 'Tooman, J o s h u a J CPTUSARMY ( U S ) ' ;
' S a n t i a g o , M e l i s s a S C W 2 U S A R M Y ( U S ) ' ; M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSA
JFHOI^CR/MDWSJA; O v e r g a a r d , A n g e l M . CPTUSA JFHONCR/MDW SJA; Whyte,
J e f f r e y H . CPTUSA JFHI^NCR/MDW SJA; von E l t e n , A l e x a n d e r s . CPTUSA
JFH(^NCR^MDWSJA; F o r d , A r t h u r D . CW2USA JFHONCR/MDW SJA
S u b j e c t : RE: Update
Ashden,

I and 2: We w i l l wait for guidance from COL Lind;
3. This i s not a discovery
unclassified version of the
an unusual request. Please
so that they can produce an

request, we are simply asking for an
various damage assessments. Again, t h i s i s not
submit our request t o the various organizations
unclassified version of the damage assessments;

4. Is this the position of the SJA?
5. Please appoint an additional security expert t o be on standby for when
the Defense needs t o review damage assessments.
Best,
David
David E. Coombs, Esq.
Law Office of David E. Coombs
I I South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 02906
Toll Free: 1 8005884156
Local: (508) 6894616
Fax: (508) 6899282
coombsQarmycQurtmartialdefense.com
www.armycQurtmartialdefense.com
***Confidentiality Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
^

33629

contain confidential attorney client information and i s intended for the
persQn(s) or company named. I f y o u are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete a l l copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying
or use of t h i s information may be unlawful and i s prohibited.***
Original Message
From: Fein, AshdenMAJ USA JFH(^NCR/MDWSJA
I^mailtQ:(b) (6)
Sent: Monday, JunelB, 20129:30PM
To: David Coombs
Cc: Hurley, Thomas F MAJ USARMY (US); Tooman, JoshuaJ CPTUSARMY (US);
Santiago, MelissaSCW2USARMY (US); M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSA
JFHI^NCR/MDWSJA; Overgaard, AngelM. CPTUSA JFHl^NCR/MDW SJA; Whyte,
JeffreyH. CPTUSAJFHQNCR/MDWSJA; vonElten, Alexanders. CPTUSA
JFHl^NCR^MDWSJA; Ford, ArthurD. CW2USA JFH(^NCR/MDWSJA
Subject: RE: Update
David,
1.

Case Calendar. OBE w/ the Court.

2.

Motions.

OBE w/ theCourt.

3. Unclassified Assessments. I f the defense i s requesting information i n
discovery, then please provide a discovery request with the proper
authority.
We have provided (or are working to provide) the defense a l l the
damage/impact assessments that exist within each agency or organization.
The government did not produce unclassified versions of the damage
assessments f o r the ones that are classified and which have been produced;
therefore, there are no unclassified or sanitized versions to provide.
4. CW2 Santiago's Replacement. Although we are standing by to assist, MDW
w i l l not provide assistance, unless we receive different guidance from the
Chief, TDS, because TDS i s the lead for a l l defense personnel issues. As
previously stated, please address any personnel issues through the military
defense counsel and their RDC.
5. Defense Security Experts. As the prosecution, we are not situated t o
estimate how the defense intends t o employ their experts (scope) and how
much time that employment might take (cost of employment); therefore since
30 May 12, we have asked the defense to submit a request. On 30 May 12, the
defense did not submit a request, but rather a proposed memorandum for the
SPCMCA t o order your experts duties take precedence over their normal
duties. We are standing by t o assist the defense with any challenges you
may have with security experts; however the convening authority w i l l not act
on expert issues without a defense request, especially considering the
defense i s requesting government employees perform their duties as a top
p r i o r i t y and/or another expert be detailed t o the defense. IAW with RCM
703(d), f o r either of your requests, please "submit a request to the
convening authority to authorize the employment and to f i x the compensation
for the expert." Please include "a complete statement of reasons why
employment of the expert i s necessary and the estimated cost of employment."
Once we receive an adequate request, we w i l l act immediately on the request,
by coordinating through your experts' leadership t o provide their input and
the defense's request t o the appropriate convening authority for action.

33630

v/r
Ashden
Original Message
From: David Coombs [^mailto:coQmbsQarmycQurtmartialdefense.com^
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 6:31 PM
To: Fein, AshdenMAJ USA JFHI^NCR/MDWSJA
Cc: Hurley, Thomas FMAJUSARMY(US); 'Tooman, JoshuaJ CPTUSARMY(US)';
'Santiago, MelissaS CW2USARMY (US)'; M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSA
JFH(^NCR/MDWSJA; Overgaard, AngelM. CPTUSA JFHI^NCR/MDW SJA; Whyte,
JeffreyH. CPT USA JFHONCR/MDW SJA; vonElten, Alexanders. CPTUSA
JFHt^NCR^MDWSJA; Ford, ArthurD. CW2USA JFHt^NCR/MDWSJA
Subject: RE: Update
Ashden,
1) Thank you.
2) Why do you f e e l that Thursday i s the agreed upondatefor the case
calendar?
3) Same as #2 I don't recall any discussion that Thursday was the
timeline f o r this issue. Not only would this give no time f o r the Defense
to reply, i t also does not provide the Court with time to consider the
motions prior to the Article 39(a).
4) The Defense i s requesting that the various agencies produce an
unclassified version of their damage assessments. According to the defense
security experts, this i s not an unusual request.
5) Not a problem. Thank you.
6) Thank you.
7) As stated, TDS cannot provide a replacement warrant o f f i c e r . I am
requesting that the Government provide a replacement f o r CW2 Santiago.
Please inform me i f the Government's position i s that i t w i l l not do so.
8) The Defense does not believe that any additional request detailing scope
of work or timing commitments i s necessary. I f you disagree, as per our
discussion with COL Lind, please provide an additional security expert to be
available when our defense experts are not.
Best,
David
David E. Coombs, Esq.
Law Office of David E. Coombs
11 South Angell Street, #317
Providence, RI 02906
T o l l Free: 1 8005884156
Local: (508) 6894616
Fax: (508) 6899282
coombsQarmycourtmartialdefense.com
www.armycourtmartialdefense.com

33631

***Confidentiality Notice: This transmission, including attachments, may
contain confidential attorney-client information and i s intended f o r the
person(s) or company named. I f y o u are not the intended recipient, please
notify the sender and delete a l l copies. Unauthorized disclosure, copying
or use of this information may be unlawful and i s prohibited.***
Original Message
From: Fein, AshdenMAJ USA JFH(^-NCR/MDWSJA
^mailto:(b) (6)
Sent: Friday, JunelS, 2012 6:12 PM
To: David Coombs
Cc: Hurley, Thomas F MAJ USARMY (US); Tooman, Joshua J CPTUSARMY (US);
Santiago, Melissa SCW2 USARMY (US); M o r r o w l l l , JoDean, CPTUSA
JFHt^NCR/MDWSJA; Overgaard, AngelM. CPTUSA JFH(^NCR/MDW SJA; Whyte,
JeffreyH. CPTUSA JFHONCR/MDW SJA; vonElten, Alexanders. CPTUSA
JFHONCR/MDW SJA; Ford, ArthurD. CW2USA JFH(^NCR/MDWSJA
Subject: Update
David,
Below i s an update on your questions and other issues.
1. A r t i c l e 39(a). We w i l l have PFC Manning at the courthouse at 0900 on 25
June.
2. Case Calendar. We intend to submit a case calendar update on Thursday
with our other f i l i n g s .
3. Motions. We intend to submit our two f i l i n g s on Thursday, as per our
discussion last week.
4. Sanitized versions of Damage Assessments. We have provided the defense
a l l the damage/impact assessments that exist within each agency or
organization. The government did not produce unclassified versions of the
damage assessments f o r the ones that are classified and which have been
produced; therefore, there are no unclassified or sanitized versions to
provide.
5. Department of Homeland Security Damage Assessment. As stated on Friday,
we sent the request earlier this week and NWC received i t on Wednesday.
Additionally, CW2 Santiago signed f o r a copy on Wednesday. I apologize f o r
not notifying you sooner of the tracking number or confirmed delivery.
6. Redactions. We w i l l f i l e with the Court tonight and we do not intend to
request protective orders.
7. Replacement f o r Santiago. As previously stated, MDW was informed that
the Chief, TDS coordinated directly or indirectly with you f o r personnel
issues concerning the defense. After confirming with the Chief Warrant
Officer of the Corps, i t i s our understanding that a l l future personnel
requests f o r any personnel, w i l l be handled through TDS channels. Please
address any personnel issues through the military defense counsel and their
RDC.
8. Defense Expert Request. We have not resolved the issue of the defense
requesting that your experts have their time dedicated primarily to the

33632

defense. Does thedefense intend to request this? Without a request which
outlines the anticipated scopeof their additional duties (which i s already
written i n your proposed memo) and an estimate o f t h e t o t a l timeyou
anticipate you w i l l need their services, we cannot go to their leadership
and the convening authority f o r approval. The leaders must know howmuch
time you anticipate w i l l be needed and t o what extent, so they can make
informed decisions. Once we receive a request, we w i l l immediately take the
request t o y o u r experts' leadership and the convening a u t h o r i t y f o r action.
Have a good weekend,
v/r
Ashden

33633

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.

Manning, Bradley E.
PFC, U.S. Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
TO DEFENSE MOTION TO
COMPEL WITNESSES
Enclosure 3
12 December 2012

33634

Page

LexisNexis®
1 of I DOCUMENT
LEXISNEXIS' CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Copyright (c) 2012, by Matthew Bender & Company, a member
ofthe LexisNexis Group. All rights reserved.
*** This section is current through the December 6, 2012 ***
*** issue of the Federal Register ***
TITLE 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
CHAPTER XVI - OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS
SUBCHAPTER B - GOVERNMENT ETHICS
PART 2635 - STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
SUBPART A - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Go to the CFR Archive Directory
5 CFR 2635.102
§2635.102 Definitions.

The definitions listed below are used throughout this part. Additional definitions appear in the subparts or sections of
subparts to which they apply. For purposes of this part:
(a) Agency means an executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105 and the Postal Service and the Postal Rate
Commission. It does not include the General Accounting Office or the Govemment of the District of Columbia.
(b) Agency designee refers to any employee who, by agency regulation, instruction, or other issuance, has been
delegated authority to make any determination, give any approval, or take any other action required or permitted by this
part with respect to another employee. An agency may delegate these authorities to any number of agency designees
necessary to ensure that determinations are made, approvals are given, and other actions are taken in a timely and
responsible manner. Any provision that requires a determination, approval, or other action by the agency designee shall,
where the conduct in issue is that of the agency head, be deemed to require that such determination, approval or action
be made or taken by the agency head in consultation with the designated agency ethics official.
(c) Agency ethics official refers to the designated agency ethics official or to the altemate designated agency ethics
official, referred to in § 2638.202(b) of this chapter, and to any deputy ethics official, described in § 2638.204 of this
chapter, who has been delegated authority to assist in carrying out the responsibilities of the designated agency ethics
official.
(d) Agency programs or operations refers to any program or function carried out or performed by an agency,
whether pursuant to statute. Executive order, or regulation.

33635

Page2
5CFR2635 102

(e) Corrective action includes any action necessary to remedyapast violation or preventacontinuing violation of
this part, including but nol limited to restitution, change ofassignmenL disqualification, divestiture, termination ofan
activity, waiver, the creation ofaqualified diversified or blind trtist, or counseling.
(f) Designated agency ethics official refers to the official designated under^ 2638.201 of this chapter.
(g) Disciplinary action includes those disciplinary actions referred to in Office ofPersonnel Management
regulations and instructions implementing provisions of title5of the United States Code or provided for in comparable
provisionsapplicabletoemployeesnotsub^ectlotitle 5, including butnot limitedtoreprimand, suspension, demotion,
and removaL In the case ofamilitary officer, comparable provisions may include those in the Uniform Code ofMilitary
Justice.
(h) Employee means any officer or employee ofan agency,includingaspecial Govemment employee.It includes
officers bnt not enlisted members of the uniformed services.It includes employees ofaState or local govemment or
other organisation who are serving on detail to an agency,pursuanl to .^^..^.C33B^/,et seq.For purposes other than
subpartsBandCof this part, it does not include the President or Vice PresidenL Status as an employee is unaffected by
pay or leave status or, in the case ofaspecial Govemment employee, by the fact that the individual does not perform
official duties onagiven day.
(i) Head of an agency means, in the case of an agency headed by more than one person, the chair or comparable
member ofsuch agency.
(j) He, his, and him include she, hers and her.
(k)Person means an individuaL corporation and subsidiaries it controls, company,association, firm, partnership,
society.^oint stock company,or any other organisation or institution, including any officer, employee, or agent ofsuch
person or entity.For purposes ofthis part,acorporation will be deemed to controlasubsidiary if it owns 50 percent or
more of the subsidiary's voting securities. The term is all inclusive and applies to commercial ventures and nonprofit
organisations as well as to foreign. State, and local govemments, including the Govemment ofthe District ofColumbia.
It does not include any agency or other entity ofthe Federal Govemment or any officer or employee thereof when
acting in his official capacity on behalfofthat agency or entity.
(I) Special Govemmeni employee means those executive branch officers or employees specified i n / ^ ^ ^ . C
2(/2(a).Aspecial Govemment employee is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform temporary duties
either onafull-time or intermittent basis, with or without compensation, foraperiod not to exceed 130 days during any
consecutive 365 day period.
(m)Supplemental agency regulation meansaregtilation issued pursuant t o § 2635.105.
t^tSTOR'Y:^^7/^/^3^^^^,Aug7,l^^2^^//^/^^^:^^^,^^^^^,Augl0,2006]
At^T1101^TY:AUTH0RlTY NOTE APPLICABLE TO ENTIREPART;
^ ^ , ^ C 7 3 ( ^ / , 7 3 5 L 7353^5USCApp(EthicsinGovemmentActofl978):E012674,:^^/^/^/^/^^,3CFR,l^89
Comp,p2l5,asmodifiedbyEOl273l,^^/^/^^^^^:^,3CFR,l^^0Comp,p306
NOT^S: INEFFECTIVE DATE NOTE; B^//^/^^^:^3.^,^.^B'3^, Aug I0,2006,amended paragraph (h),elfectiveSepLll,
2006]
NOTES APPLICABLE TO ENTIRE TITLE;
TitIe5of the United States Code was revised and enacted into positive law by Public Law 89 554, SepL 6, 1^66. New
citations for obsolete references to sections of5U.SC.appearing in this title may be found inaredesignation table
under title 5, Govemment Organization and Employees, United States Code.

1

33636

Page 3
5 CFR 2635.102

CASE NOTES Applicable to entire Part:Part Note

33637

UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Y^

Mannin^,BradleyE.
PFC, U.S.Army,
HHCU.S.ArmyGarrison,
JointBaseMyerHendersonHall
FortMyer, Virginia 22211

GOVERNMENTRESPONSE
TODEFENSE MOTIONTO
COMPEL WITNESSES
Enclosures
12 December 2012

33638

Pagel

Lexi^Nexi^®
loflDOCUMENT
LEXISNEXIS'CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Copyright(c)20l2, by Matthew Bender^Company,amember
ofthe LexisNexis Group.All rights reserved.
*'^* This section is current through the December 6, 2012***
*** issue ofthe Federal Register***

PART2635

'

TITLE5 ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL
CHAPTERXVI OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS
SUBCHAPTERB GOVERNMENT ETHICS
STANDARDSOFETHICALCONDUCTFOREMPLOYEESOFTHEEXECUTIVEBRANCH
SUBPARTH OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES

GototheCFl^Arehivet^irectory
^C/^/^2^3:^^(^^
§2635.805 Service as an expert witness.

(a) Restriction. An employee shall not serve, other than on behalfofthe United States, as an expert witness,with or
without compensation, in any proceeding beforeacourt or agency ofthe United States in which the United States isa
party or hasadirect and substantial interest, unless the employee's participation is authorized by the agency under
paragraph(c)of this section. Except as provided in paragraph (b)of this section, this restriction shall apply toaspecial
Govemment employee only ifhe has participated as an employee or special Govemment employee in the particular
proceeding or in the particular matter that is the subject ofthe proceeding.
(b)Additional restriction applicable to certain special Govemment employees.(I)ln addition to the restriction
described in paragraph(a)oflhissection,aspecial Govemment employee described in paragraph (b)(2)of this section
shall nol serve, other than on behalfofthe United States, as an expert witness,wilh or without compensation, in any
proceeding beforeacourt or agency of the United States in which his employing agency isaparty or hasadirect and
substantial interest, unless the employee's participation is authorized by the agency under paragraph(c)ofthis section.
(2) The restrtction in paragraph (b)(l)of this section shall apply toaspecial Govemment employee who;
(i) Is appointed by the President;
(ii) Serves onacommission established by statute; or
(iii) Has served or is expected to serve for more than 60 days inaperiodof365 consecutive days.

33639

Page 2
5 CFR 2635.805

(c) Authorization to serve as an expert witness. Provided that the employee's testimony will not violate any ofthe
principles or standards set forth in this part, authorization to provide expert witness service otherwise prohibited by
paragraphs (a) and (b) ofthis section may be given by the designated agency ethics official of the agency in which the
employee serves when:
(1) After consultation with the agency representing the Govemment in the proceeding or, if the Govemment is not
a party, with the Department of Justice and the agency wilh the most direct and substantial interest in the matter, the
designated agency ethics official determines lhal the employee's service as an expert witness is in the interest of the
Govemment; or
(2) The designated agency ethics official determines that the subject matter of the testimony does not relate to the
employee's official duties within the meaning of § 2635.807(a)(2)(i).
(d) Nothing in this section prohibits an employee from serving as a fact witness when subpoenaed by an
appropriate authority.
HISTORY: [57 FR 35042, Aug. 7, 1992; 62 FR 48746, 48748, Sept. 17, 1997]
AUTHORITY: AUTHORITY NOTE APPLICABLE TO ENTIRE PART:
5 U.S.C. 7301, 7351, 7353; 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Govemment Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989
Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
NOTES: [EFFECTIVE DATE NOTE: 62 FR 48746. 48748, Sept. 17, 1997, amended the introductory' text of
paragraph (c), effective Sept. 17, 1997.]
NOTES APPLICABLE TO ENTIRE TITLE;
Title 5 of the United States Code was revised and enacted into positive law by Public Law 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966. New
citations for obsolete references to sections of 5 U.S.C. appearing in this title may be found in a redesignation table
under title 5, Govemment Organization and Employees, United States Code.

LexisNexis (R) Notes:
CASE NOTES

CASE NOTES Applicable to entire Part:Part Note

United State.s Ex Rel. Liotine v. Cdw Gov't, Inc., 2012 U.S DisL LEXIS 94837 (SD 111 July 10, 2012).
Overview: Defendant was denied .summary judgment on relator's claim under FCA, 31 U.S.CS, _f 3729(a)(1)(A),
alleging that defendant engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with its sales to government, because genuine
issues ofmaterial facts existed as to whether defendant knowingly sold govemment products in violation of Trade
Agreements Act.
A private party lacks standing to claim a violation of 5 C F R, § 2635.805(a), (c), (d). Go To Headnote

33640

Page 3
5 CFR 2635.805

UnitedStates v. Lecco. 495 F. Supp. 2d 581, 2007 U.S DisL LEXIS 50340 (SD W Va Apr. 6, 2007).
Overview: The safe-harbor provisions of the Ethics In Government Act, 18 U.S, CS, §§ 203, 205. and 207, most
likely protected a part-time government psychiatrist from prosecution under the Act for testifying as a defense-selected
expert in the mitigation phase of a death penalty case, despite his lack of authorization to testify under 5 C.F.R. §
2635.g05(c).
Testimony contrary to the provisions of 5 C.F.R. § 2635,805 invites prosecution for a violation of the
Ethics In Govemment Act, 18 U,S,C.S, § 207, Moreover, because of the possibility of prosecution, a
federal employee whose testimony would violate 5 C.F.R. § 2635.805 may invoke his or her Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid giving testimony which could subject
him or her to prosecution. In other words, the govemmeni has the power to criminalize unauthorized,
non-compelled expert testimony by its employees, and the employees have a right lo avoid criminal
prosecution by invoking the Fifth Amendment. Go To Headnote

UnitedStates Ex Rel. Liotine v. Cdw Gov't, Inc., 2012 U.S DisL LEXIS 94837 (SD 111 July 10, 2012).
Overview: Defendant was denied summary judgment on relator's claim under FCA, 31 U.S.CS. § 3729(a)(1)(A),
alleging that defendant engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with its sales to govemment, because genuine
issues of material facts existed as to whether defendant knowingly sold govemmeni products in violation of Trade
Agreements Act.


A private party lacks standing to claim a violation of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.805(a), (c), (d). Go To Headnote

UnitedStates v. Lecco. 495 F, Supp. 2d581, 2007 U.S Di.st. LEXIS 50340 (SD W Va Apr. 6, 2007).
Overview: The safe-harbor provisions of the Ethics In Govemment Act, 18 U.S.CS.
203, 205, and 207, most
likely protected a part-time government psychiatrist from prosecution under the Act for testifying as a defense-selected
expert in the mitigation phase of a death penalty case, despite his lack ofauthorization to testify under 5 C.F.R. §
2635.805(c),
5 C.F.R. § 2635.805(c) is cast in discretionary terms. Go To Headnote
Testimony contrary to the provisions of 5 C.F.R, § 2635,805 invites prosecution for a violation ofthe
Ethics In Govemment Act, 18 U.S.CS. § 207. Moreover, because of the possibility of prosecution, a
federal employee whose testimony would violate 5 C,F,R, § 2635,805 may invoke his or her Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid giving testimony which could subject
him or her to prosecution. In other words, the govemment has the power to criminalize unauthorized,
non-compelled expert testimony by its employees, and the employees have a right to avoid criminal
prosecution by invoking the Fifth Amendment. Go To Headnote
FDIC V, Refco Group, 46 F, Supp, 2d 1109, 1999 U S Dist, LEXIS 6339 (D Colo Apr. 28, 1999).
Overview: Court had authority to determine whether regulation prohibiting federal employees from serving as
expert witnesses other than for the United States would bar testimony, on defendant's behalf, of expert who was
employed by plaintiff agency.
A court, rather than the relevant agency, is the final authority lo determine the applicability of 5 C,F,R. §
2635.805(a) to prevent testimony by agency employees other than on behalf of the United States in any
proceedings in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest, unless the
employee's participation is authorized by the agency. Go To Headnote

33641

Page 4
5 CFR 2635.805

UnitedStates Ex Rel. Liotine v, Cdw Gov't, Inc, 2012 U.S DisL LEXIS 94837 (SD 111 July 10, 2012).
Overview: Defendant was denied summary judgment on relator's claim under FCA, 31 U.S.CS. § 3729(a)(1)(A),
alleging that defendant engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with its sales to govemmeni, because genuine
issues ofmaterial fads existed as to whether defendant knowingly sold govemment products in violation of Trade
Agreements AcL
A private party lacks standing to claim a violation of 5 C.F.R, § 2635,805(a), (c), (d). Go To Headnote
UnitedStates v. Lecco. 495 F, Supp. 2d581, 2007 U.S Dist, LEXIS 50340 (SD W Va Apr. 6, 2007).
Overview: The safe-harbor provisions of the Ethics In Govemment Act, 18 U,S,C,S, §§203, 205, and 207, most
likely protected a part-lime government psychiatrist from prosecution under the Act for testijying as a defense-selected
expert in the mitigation phase ofa death penalty case, despite his lack ofauthorization to testify under 5 C.F.R. §
2635,805(c),


5 C,F,R, § 2635,805(c) is cast in discretionary terms. Go To Headnote
Testimony contrary to the provisions of 5 CF.R. § 2635.805 invites prosecution for a violation of the
Ethics In Govemment Act, 18 U.S.CS. § 207, Moreover, because of the possibility of prosecution, a
federal employee whose testimony would violate 5 C.F.R. § 2635,805 may invoke his or her Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid giving testimony which could subject
him or her to prosecution. In other words, the govemment has the power to criminalize unauthorized,
non-compelled expert testimony by its employees, and the employees have a right to avoid criminal
prosecution by invoking the Fifth Amendment. Go To Headnote

33642

FOR USE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V. Prosecution Disclosure of

Giglio Material
Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

12 December 2012



On 22 June 2012, the United States submitted its initial Witness List in the above
referenced court-martial. See Appellate Exhibit (AE) CLXII. On 15 October 2012, the United
States made available to the defense for inspection any discovered impeachment material relating
to those witnesses. On 26 October 2012, the United States submitted its updated Witness List.
See AE Beginning shortly therea?er, the United States began requesting any
impeachment material for all remaining witnesses whose records had not yet been searched. See
Enclosure. The United States requested that the departments, agencies, organizations, and
military commands, to which government witnesses are employed or assigned, conduct a
thorough and comprehensive search of their own records for impeachment material and disclose
any responsive records. See id; see also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). For all
remaining witnesses, the United States reviewed records contained within Of?cial Military
Personnel Files or the National Crime Information Center database.

As of 12 December 2012, the United States has reviewed its own ?les and records
received in response to its requests. In addition to prior disclosures, the United States discloses
the following and makes available for inspection all discoverable material:

I. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

2. Mr. Maxwell Allen. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.
3. SPC Mag Amiatu. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.
4. SPC Kyga Amos. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

5. Mr. Joseph Benthal. The prosecution did not find any such material relating to this witness.
6. COL Julian Chesnutt. The prosecution did not find any such material relating to this witness.

7. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

8. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this
witness.

9. RADM Kevin Donegan. The prosecution did not find any such material relating to this

witness. APPELLATE EXHIBIT 5%
PAGE
PAGE OF PAGES

I
FOR OFFICIAL USE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

33643

FOR OFFICIAL USE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

10. . The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

I l. . Any material relating to this witness is available for inspection with the
prosecution.

I2. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.
I3. CW3 Hondo Hack. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.
14. Mr. Ben Henwood. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.
I5. Mr. John Hodges. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.
I6. Mr. Patrick Hoeffel. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.
I7. Ms. Mary Horvath. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

I8. Mr. Matthew Hosburgh. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this
witness.

I9. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

20. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

2 I. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this
witness.

22. Any material relating to this witness is available for inspection with the
prosecution.

23. Mr. Randall MacRobbie. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this
witness.

24. Mr. Brian Madrid. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

25. GEN James Mattis. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

26. MG Kenneth McKenzie. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this
witness.

27. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

28. Mr. Jason Milliman. Any material relating to this witness is available for inspection with
the prosecution.

29. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this

witness.

30. Mr. Gerald Mundy. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

2
FOR OFFICIAL USE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

33644

FOR OFFICIAL USE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

3 1. MG Michael Nagata. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

32. CW4 Ronald Nixon. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

33. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this

witness.
34. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

35. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this
witness.

36. Any material relating to this witness is available for inspection with the
prosecution.

37. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this
witness.

38. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

39. Mr. Doug Schasteen. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this
witness.

40. Ms. ihrleah Showman. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this
witness.

4l. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this
witness.

42. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

43. Ms. Strobl. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

44. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this
witness.

45. Mr. Louis Travieso. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

46. Ms. Florinda White. The prosecution did not ?nd any such material relating to this witness.

47. AMB Marie Yovanovitch. Any material relating to this witness is available for inspection
with the prosecution.

The United States further did not ?nd any such material relating to those government
witnesses identi?ed in paragraphs 145-147 of Appellate Exhibit CLXVII.

The United States acknowledges its continuing obligation to make available additional
impeachment infonnation if it is discovered.

3
FOR OFFICIAL USE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

33645

FOR USE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

The United States will request impeachment material for its witnesses for any remaining
motion hearings and make any responsive material available for inspection.

J. TE WHYTE

Assistant Trial Counsel

Encl

I certify that I served or caused to be served a true copy of the above on Mr. David
Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel via electronic mail, on 12 December 2012.

J. HYTE
CPT, A
Assistant Trial Counsel

4
FOR OFFICIAL USE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.

Manning, Bradley E.

PFC, U.S. Army,

HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 222 11



33646

Prosecution Disclosure of
Giglio Material

Enclosure

12 December 2012





33647

DEPARTMENT or THE ARMY

?l U.S. ARHY MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

I, 210 A STREET

. FORT LESLEY J. ucmun, oc 20319-5013

A . REPLY TO

S: to .'\ovem

ANJA-C 3]

MEMORANDUM THRU Staffludge Advocate, Corps. Fort Hood. TX WV

FOR Commander. 57th Signal Battalion. Corps, Fort Hood, TX 76544

Request to Search for. Preserve. and Disclose lmpeaehm Mate - United States
v. Private First Class (PFC) Bradley Manning

1. PURPOSE. The U.S. Army Prosecutors in the above-refer ("prosecution") hereby
make a three-fold request to Corps. First, the prosecuti uests th I your command
conduct a thorough and comprehensive search of its record peaehment material
relating to the individuals listed in the third paragraph - eeond. should your command

mmand take all reasonable and
. a result of your search. Third. the
to the prosecution for its review
ofdiscovcrable information. go Giglio v. United States. - 5 U.S. 150 1972). Rule for Court-

Martial 70l(a)(6).
2. BACKGROUND. PFC Manning is Aiding the Enemy by Giving Intelligence. a

violation of Article 104. Uniform Code Justice (UCMJ). Additionally, PFC Manning
is charged with downloading variou. documents. photographs, and videos from Secret
lntemet Protocol Router Netwo websites and transferring them to his personal
computer and transmitting this 1 to persons or organizations not entitled to receive it.
in violation of United State













3. WITNESSES. 15 tober 12. the prosecution identi?ed. on its witness list. the below
individual(s) who be] ommand. Sec Enclosure.

a: ll

Due . Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the prosecution to disclose
ble to the accused that is material to either guilt or punishment. ?rgg



Manning is currently charged with multiple violations of the UCMJ, including violating Articles 92. 104. and
134 re UCMJ (18 U.S.C. 793. 18 U.S.C. 1030. and I8 U.S.C. 641).


SUBJECT: Request to Search for. Preserve, and Disclose Impeachment Material - United States
v. Private First Class Bradley Manning

actions; Drug use/distribution; Threats in favor of. or against. testifying; Prior service as
informant; Convictions; Prior inconsistent statements; Known false statements; Act?
misconduct; Prior ?ndings of incredibility; conditions: Misconduct
custody; Failed polygraph examination; Bias animosity towards the accus
with a victim, animosity toward a group of which the accused is a member or wi
accused is affiliated, etc.); Any benefits or incentives of testifying as

criminal proceeding. relocation assistance, non-prosecution agreements. etc.

conduct contradicting witness testimony.








5. SUSPENSE. The prosecution requests that your command
requested material no later than Friday, 16 November 2012.
expedited suspense to ensure the accused receives a fair and
identi?es discoverable information. it will not disclose the material to
authorization from your command.

rosecutio requestsan
If the prosecution

6. The point of contact for this memorandum is the



Enel El\' FEll\'
Prosecution Witness List, 15 October 2 A
al Counsel
2

33648

33649

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA
V.

Manning, Bradley E.
PFC, U.S. Army,
HHC, U.S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

Prosecution Disclosure of
RCM 914 Material
12 December 2012

On 22 June 2012, the United States submitted its initial Witness List in the above
referenced courtmartial.
Appellate Exhibit (AE) CLXII On3August2012and in response
to the Court^semail dated 26 July 2012, the United States notified the defense ofwhat types of
statements the prosecution intended to disclose to the defense underRCM914. ^^^AECCLXX.
The defense did not ob^ccL On 150ctobcr 2012,the United States disclosed to the defense or
made available f:^r inspection all material discoverable underRCM914ft^r those govemment
witnesses identified in Appellate Exhibit CLXII.
On 26 October 2012, the United States submitted its updated Witness List. ^^^AE
CCCLXVII. The current Case Calendar requires the prosecution to disclose any material
discoverable under Rule f:^rCourtsMartial(RCM)914by 12 December 2012^^^ RCM914.
On 12Decembcr 2012,the United States disclosed to the defense or made available ft^r
inspection all material discoverable underRCM914ftir those govemment witnesses identified in
Appellate Exhibit CCCLXVII. The United States acknowledges its ongoing obligation to
disclose additional infiormation that it discovers.

LHUNTER WHYTE
CPT,JA
AssistantTrial Counsel

Icertify tbatlserved or caused to be servedatrue copy ofthe above on Mr. David
Coombs, Civilian Defense Counsel via electronic mail, on 12 December 2012.

J.HUNTER WHYTE
CPT, JA
Assistant Trial Coimsel

APPELLATE E X H I B I T j ^ g .
PAGE REFERENCED:
PAGE_X_0F_1_ PAGES

Unmarked redactions were present when the Army received this document

33650

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Manning, Bradley E.
PFC, U S. Army,
HHC, U S. Army Garrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
Fort Myer, Virginia 22211

Govemment Response to
Defense Original Classification
Authority Interrogatories
12 December 2012

On 26 October 2012, the defense submitted questions to be asked of each of the
relevant Original Classification Authorities (OCAs), namely the following: (I) United States Central
Command (CENTCOM); (2) United States Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM); (3)
Department of State (DOS); (4) Joint Task Force - Guantanamo, United States Southem Command
(SOUTHCOM);
5ee Appellate Exhibit (A£)CCCLXX. On
8 November 2012, the parties revised those quesdonsforeach of the OCAs.
(U) 1, Hunter Whyte, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that each of the relevant
organizations, agencies, and military commands, by and through their respective Office of tbe Staff Judge
Advocate or Office of General Counsel, provided tbe prosecution with the enclosed responses to the
defense's questions. Executed this 12th day of December 2012.

J^^^JNTER WHYTE
CPT,JA
Assistant Trial Counsel
(U) 5 Ends
1. (U) CENTCOM Response to Defense Inten-ogatories (classified "FOUO")
2. (U) INSCOM Response to Defense biterrogatories (classified "FOUO")
3. (U) DOS Response to Defense lntcm)gatories (classified "FOUO//SBU")
4. QJ) SOUTHCOM Response to Defense Inten-ogatories (classified "FOUO")
5.
(U) I certify that I served or caused to be served a true copy of the above on Mr. David Coombs,
Civilian Defense Counsel via electronic mail, on 12 December 2012.

J. HUNTER WHYTE
CPT, JA
Assistant Trial Counsel

APPELLATE EXHIBIT_W_
PAGE REFERENCED:
P A G E / O F / PAGES

33651

Appellate Exhibit 449
1 page
classified
"SECRET"
ordered sealed for Reason 2
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated 20 August 2013
stored in the classified
supplement to the original
Record of Trial

33652

Not admitted into evidence.

Appellate Exhibit 449
Enclosures 1-4
have been entered into
the record as a CD/DVD
and will be maintained
with the original
Record of Trial

33653

Appellate Exhibit 449
Enclosures
23 pages
classified
"SECRET"
ordered sealed for Reason2
Military Judge's Seal Order
dated20August2013
stored in the classified
supplement to the original
Record ofTrial

33654

IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY
FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES

DEFENSE NOTICE UNDER

v. MRE 505(h)

MANNING, Bradley E., PFC

U.S. Army,

Headquarters and ea quarters Company,
U.S. Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-
Henderson Hall, Fort Myer, VA 22211

14 December 2012



The Defense provides the following notice under MRE 505(h):

1. The Defense intends to use the relevant damage assessments produced by the
Department of State Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive
(ONCIX), and the Information Review Task Force (IRTF). Both parties to this trial as
well as the military judge have reviewed these documents during the discovery process.
The Defense has previously requested that the military judge take judicial notice of
these documents. In additional to judicial notice, the Defense intends to request the
military judge to consider these documents in determining an appropriate sentence.
Thus. the only individuals that will be exposed to these documents have already seen
them.

2. The Defense alters an earlier MRE 505(h) notice provided to the Military Judge and
the Government on 26 October 2012. Speci?cally, the Defense does not intend to
discuss any speci?c Personal Identi?cation Information (Pll) with Ambassador Michael
Kozak.

3. The Defense alters an earlier MRE 505(h) notice provided to the Military Judge and
the Government on 26 October 2012. Speci?cally, the Defense intends to discuss the
impact of the release of classi?ed cables on diplomatic relations with Government listed
witnesses from the Department of State (DOS) and the Department of Defense (DOD).

4. The impact discussion will be speci?c to the bureaus represented by the respective
DOS witness or by the subject matter for the speci?c DOD witness. The Defense will
provide by separate classi?ed ?ling with the requisite speci?city under MRE 505(h) that
we intend to elicit with each witness after we have completed our interviews of all of the
Government witnesses.

.51
THOMAS F. HURLEY
MAJ. JA

Defense Counsel

APPELLATE Exmmr 50
PACK:



33655

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Prosecution Motion in Limine
to Exclude Overclassilication
Manning, BradleyE.
PFCU.S.Army,
HHC,U.S.ArmyGarrison,
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall
EorlMyer, Virginia 22211

14 December 2012
RELIEFSOUGHT

The United States in the above case respectfullyrequests that this Court preclude the
defense ftom raising general overclassification in both the merits and presentencing phases ofthe
trial. The United States seeks said exclusion to increase the efficiency ofthe proceedings and to
ensure only admissible evidence is presented during the trial because the general
overclassification evidence is irrelevanL See MRE 402.
BURDEN OF PERSUASION AND BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof on any factual issue, the resolution ofwhich is necessary to decidca
motion, shall be hy preponderance ofthe evidence. RCM 905(c)(1). The burden ofpersuasion
on any factual issue, the resolution of which is necessary to decideamotion, shall be on the
moving party. RCM 905(c)(2). The prosecution has the burden ofpersuasion as the moving
party. However, the burden is on the proponent ofevidence to establish its relevancy. United
StatesvSimmons,48ML 193,196(CAAF 1998)(citingMRE103^
FACTS
The Accused is charged with one specification of aiding the enemy,one specification of
disorders and neglects to the prejudice ofgood order and discipline and service discrediting,
eight specifications of violationsofl8U.S.C.^ 793(e),five specificationsofviolationsofl8
U.S.C.^641,two specifications of violations ofl8U.S.C.^ 1030(a)(l), and five specifications
ofviolatingalawful general regulation, in violation of Articles 104, 134, and 92,Unifiorm Code
ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ). See Charge SheeL The misconduct is alleged to have occurred
betweenlNovember 2009 and27 May 2010 Id^
Throughout the Article 32 and pre-trial motions, the defense has repeatedly referenced
overclassification.
OnI6November 2012,the defense submittedarequest thr judicial noticeofH.R.553,
the ^^Reducing Over-Classification Act,^^ as well as transcripts ofHouse Committee meetings on
the Espionage Act(16December 2010) and Over-Classification (22 March, 26 April,and 28
June 2007). Sec AE 390. These records and transcripts address overclassification in general.
They do not specifically relate to the classification ofany ofthe charged misconducL

APP^LA^E^^^8^T^
^

PAGEREFERENCED:
PAGE
OF
PAG^^

33656

On 23 November 2012, the defense filedaMotion to Compel Production ofwitnesses
f:or Merits and Sentencing. SeeAE 408. In it, the defense profIersthatawitness(Ambassador
Galbraith) will testify that many Department ofState cables are overclassificd and thatasecret
classification docs not mean the infiormation is genuinely secrcL See id. at 8.
On 26 November 2012, the Court published Draft Instructions for all the Charged
Offenses SeeAE410
WITNESSES^EVIDENCE
The prosecution requests the Court consider the charge sheet and the referenced
Appellate Exhibits(AE).
LEGALAUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT
Relevant evidence is defined as ^^evidence having any tendency to make the existence of
any fact that is ofconsequence to the determination ofthe action more probable or less probable
than it would he without tbeevidence.^^ MRE 401. The militaryjudge has the initial
responsibility to determine whether evidence is relevant under MRE 401. U.S.v.White,69M.J.
236,239(CAAF 2010). Relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided bythe
Constitution, the Code, the Rules, the Manual,or any Act of Congress applicable to membersof
the armed forces. MRE 402. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible. Seeid.; UnitedStatesv.
Greaves, 4 0 M L 432, 437 (CMA 1994)
Even relevant evidence may be excluded ifits probative value is substantially outweighed
bythe danger of confiising the issues or by considerationsofundue delay and waste oftime.
MRE 403
LOVERCLASSIEICATION EVIDENCE IS IRRELEVANT.
Overclassification evidence is irrelevant forthree main reasons. First,ageneral
statement that govemment documents may be classified too rcstrictively has no hearing on
whether the documents at issue in the case at bar were correctly classified hy their respective
Original Classification Authoritics(OCAs)and classified at the time ofthe accuscd^s
misconducL Also,while his position asa35F all-source intelligence analyst ccrtainlypositions
the accused to understand the importance of safeguarding infhrmation, it does not qualify him to
question the classification decisions ofthese OCAs. Second, overclassification evidence is
irrelevant as to the natureofthe inf:ormation compromised. Thatadocument is classified does
tend to support the contention that it contains information that could be used to the injury ofthe
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation. The classification ofadocument,
however, is not conclusive ofwhether or not the infi:ormation could be used to the injury ofthe
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation. Not all documents that could cause
damage are necessarily classified; therefi:ore, information suggesting they are classified too highly
and thus restricted too much, has no bearing on whether they contain infiormation that could
cause damage. Finally,overclassification information is irrelevant at this stage ofthese
proceedings, as the defense has presented no evidence that the accused even knew about the

33657

alleged ^^overclassification prohlcm"the defense asserts is relevant, such that it acfttally affected
his intenL Moreover, most ofthe evidence ofoverclassification they seek the Court to consider
came into existence after the accused^smisconduct occurred. Not only has the defenseoffered
no evidence the accused actually knew about overclassification, the defense has not shown that
evidence ofoverclassification even existed at the time ofthe misconduct and thus could even
possibly affect his intent at the time ofthe offense.
A. Overclassification Evidence Is Irrelevant because it does not Pertain to tbe
Charged Misconduct and tbe Accused is Not an OCA.
Any overclassification evidence offered bythe defense to attempt to show the accused
did not know that documents were classified is irrelevanL The accused wasa35F and, thus,was
trained to understand the importance ofsafcguarding information and the significance ofthe
classification markings hut was neither trained nor empowered to assess circumstances and make
original classification decisions. OCAs make classification determinations, and the accused was
not nor had he ever been an OCA See Exec. Order No. 13,526 ^1.1(a), 75 Fed. Reg. 707 (Dec.
29,2009). Therefi:ore, the accused has never been poised to question the classification of marked
documents.
Informationmaybeoriginally classified onlyby an OCA ExecOrderNol3,526 ^
1.1(a), 75 Fed. Reg.707 (Dec. 29,2009). Additionally,thcinf:ormation must be owned by,
produced by or fi:or, or under the control ofthe United States Govemment and must fall within
one or moreofthe categories of following categories: military plans,weapons systems, or
operations; fi:oreign govemment infiormation; intelligence activities (including covert action),
intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology; f:orcign relations or foreign activiticsofthe
United States, including confidential sources; scientific, technological, or economic matters
relating to the national security; United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear
materials or facilities; vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, inftastructures,
projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or the development,
production, or use ofweapons of mass destruction. Exec.Order No.13,526 ^^l.l(a),1.4(a)-(h).
Finally,the OCA must determine that the unauthori;^cd disclosure ofthe infi:ormation reasonably
could be expected to result in damage to the national security and be able to identify or describe
the expected damage. Exec. Order No. 13,526 ^1.1(a).
OCAs make their classification designations based on their authority under Executive
Order 13,526, Classified National Security Inftormation(signedhy President Barack Obama on
29 December 2009)or for materials classified prior to 27 June 2010on Executive Order 12,958
(signed by President Clinton onl7April 1995 and amended by Executive Order 13,292 signed
by President Bush on 25 March 2003), as well as relevant classification guides.
The authority to classify information is limited to(l)the President and the Vice
President; (2)agency heads and officials designated by the President; and (3)Umted States
Govemment officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph(c)of this section. Exec.
Order 13,526 ^13(a)

33658

The President delegated the authority to make classification determinations to heads of
select agencies and it remains an Executive fimction. Department ofNavvv.Egan,484U.S.
518, 527(1988) (^^Theautbority to protect^classifiedj information falls on the President as head
ofthe Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief") The authority has been held in the
relevant agencies because they have the expertise to review the infiormation and determine the
potential impact the release ofthat information would have on the United States as well as who
can have access to that information. ld;sec, e.g., CIAvSims.471US 159.176(1985) (^^^Aj
court^sdecision whether an intelligence source will be harmed ifhis identity is revealed will
often require complex political,historical,and psychological judgments....There is no reason
ftorapotcntial intelligence source,whose welfare and safety may be at stake, to have great
confidence in the ability of the fudges to make those judgments correctly.").
Once an OCAhasmadeaclassification determination, it is presumed proper and it is not
the provinceofthe court to question these determinations. See United Statesv.Smith, 750F.2d
1215,1217(4th Cir. 1984) (^^^Tjhe govemment...may determine what inf:ormation is
classified. Adef^ndant cannot challenge this classification. Acourt cannot question it."),
vacated and remanded on other grounds, 780F.2dll02 (4th Cir. 1985^; see also United Statesv.
Roscn,487 F.Supp. 2d 703,717(E.D.Va. 2007) (^^Of course, classification decisions are forthe
Executive Branch...."). The decision ofthe owner ofthe infiormation must be given great
deference. Sims,471U.S.atl76(^^The decisions ofthe Director.who must of course be
familiar with ^the whole picturc,^as fudges are not, are worthy of great deference given the
magnitude ofthe national security interests and potential risks at stake.").
The accused cannot make the determination whether compromise ofthe infiormation
could injure the United States with respect to classification. Cf. United Statesv.^ettl,889 F.2d
51,53(4thCir.l989)(^^Even those with authority to see and handle the documents have no right
without authority to convey the documents to others,whether or not the other party may havea
need to know the tnf:ormatton therein. Any other holding would make the possessor of any
classified document the ultimate authority in deciding whether or not the document should be
transferred to someone else.This, however, isafimction ofthe govemment and its system of
accountability fior classified documents, not of someone who ^ust happens to be in possession
thereofwhether or not he rightfttlly possesses the document."). Classification authority,
including the authority to declassify information, belongs to an OCA and his successors. See
Exec. Order No.13526 ^3.1(h). Thus, the accused lacked the authority to make classification
and declassification decisions because he never occupiedaposition as an OCA. Seeid.
The defense will have the opportunity to question the OCAs regarding the procedures
they f:ollowcd and whythey made their respective classification determinations on the charged
inftormation. Allowing the accuscd,who was not an OCA at the time of the charged acts, to
attackaclassification decision with his personal opinion based on afterthc-fact evidence
undermines the entire classification system and should not be permitted. SeeScarbcckv.United
Statcs,317F.2d 546,559 60 (D.C. Cir. 1962)(notingthe absurdity ofhypotheticallyallowinga
govemment employee to challenge the classification decision ofasuperior in court), cert, denied,
374 U.S.856(1963). Furthermore, classification ofdocuments outside those charged and known
to the witnesses in this case are clearly irrelevanL

33659

Evidence thatacharged document is not properly classified or evidence that the Accused
did not haveareason to believe thataparticular charged document could be used to the injury of
the United States could be relevanL Evidence in general that documents are ovcrclassified,
however, is not relevant and necessary.
B. AGeneral Claim of Overclassification of Government Information Is Irrelevant
to wbetber tbe Charged Information Could Be Used to tbe Injury of tbe United States or to
IbeAdvantageofaForei^nNation.
Factors, including classification ofthe documents and expert testimony ofthe potential
damage ftom disclosureofthe documents to unauthorised persons, determine whether the
information could he used to the injury ofthe United States. SeeGorinv.UnitedStates,312
US 19,29(1941); United StatcsvDia^.69ML 127.133 (CAAF2010) Proof of
classification constitutes evidence that the compromised information could be used to the injury
ofthe United States.^ See Dia^, 69 M.J.at 133 (^^Surely classification may demonstrate that an
accused has reason to believe that the inf:ormation relates to national defense and could cause
harm to the United States."). Documents are classified iftheir unauthorised disclosure
reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security. See Exec. Order No.
13526 ^1.1(4); Gorin,312U.S.at 28(determining that the term ^^national defense" as used ina
toredccessorto^ 793isahroadconcetot); United Statcsv.Morison,844F.2dl057.1071,1074
(4th Cir.l988)(noting that national defense information is information that is potentially
damaging to the United States). Addittonally,^ 1030(a)(l)protects information that has heen
explicitly determined hy the United States to hc infiormation that could used to the injury ofthe
United S t a t e s ^ l 8 U S C ^ 1030(a)(l)(2012)
Determinations as to whether the document could be expected to cause damage to the
national security are based on the inf:ormation and circumstances known at the time ofthe
classification decision. See United Statesv.AbuJihaad,630F.3dl02,112(2dCir.2010)
(citing United StatesvAhuJihaad,600F.Sutoio.2d362,377(DConn 2009))(notingthat
Navy operational instructions should be classified until after deployment oravisit had been
approved by the host government). However,adocument need not be classified to he protected
under espionage laws; national defense inftormation also receives protection under the Espionage
AcLScc United Statesv.S^uillacote,221F.3d 542, 575 76(4thCir 2000^ National defense
inf:ormation(NDI)isatermof^^hroad connotations, referring to the military and naval
establishments and the related activities ofnational preparedness." SeeGorin,3I2U.S.at28.
Under the Espionage Act, unclassified NDI is protected ftom disclosure i f i t is closely held by
the GovemmenL See Squillacote,221F.3d at 575 76, 578 (noting thatadocument containing
NDI^^will not he considered available to the public(andtheref:ore no longer ^NDIj) until the
^^/^^infiormation in that document is lawfTillyavailablc.")(emphasis in original).
Accordingly,inf:ormation that could be used to the injury ofthe United States includes
unclassifiedNDISeeGorin.312USat28;Si^uillacote.221F3d at 575 76, 578 Thus, while
evidence thatadocument is classified tends to show that it contained information that could he
expected to cause damage, an allegation that documents generallymay be ovcrclassified has no
^ Classiftcation is not sufficient by itselfnor is it the only means by which information can be shov^ to be the kind
that could be used to the injury of the United States. Diaz, 69 M.J. at 133.

33660

hearing on whetherthe documents at issue in this case included information that could be
expected to cause in^uryto the United States or be used to the advantage ofaforeign nation.
C Evidence of Overclassification Dated After tbe Accused s Misconduct Is
Irrelevantto His Intent at tbe Time oftbe Offense, and tbe Defense bas Offered No
Evidence tbat the Accused Actually I^ew about any Alleged Overclassification Problem.^^
Afterthc-fact evidence is irrelevant toaperson^sintent and state of mind at an earlier
time See..e.g.. GulbransonvDuluth.Missahc^Iron Range Ry. Co.. 921F2d 139. 142 (9th
Cir 1990)(citingTallaricovTransWorldAirlines.Inc.881F2d 566. 572 (8th Cir 1989)
(deciding that railroad^sawareness of problem in 1985 not relevant to its knowledge of the
toroblcminl984);WhitlevvAlbers.475 U.S.312. 323 (^^Ancxpert^safterthefact opinion that
danger was not ^immincnt^ in no way establishes that there was no danger, or thataconclusion
bythe officers that it ^^.^ imminent would have heen whollyunrcasonahle.") Id. Theonly
relevant stateofmind evidence is that which shows the accused^sintcnt and stateofmind at the
time he committed the charged acts. See Hollowayv.United States, 526 U.S.1,8 (1999). An
after-the-fact assessment is irrelevant because the facts are examined as they appeared to the
accused at the time ofthe charged criminal acL
In this case, there is no evidence that the accused was awareof any of the information
regarding overclassification when he committed the alleged misconducL In addition, the vast
majority ofthe infiormation cited bythe defense to support its argument f:or the relevance of
overclassification occurred after the accused completed his alleged misconducL Because the
facts alleged bythe defense were unknown and^or unavailable to the accused at the moment he
f:ormed his intent, they could not have affected his intent or state ofmind.
Ifthe evidence raises an issue ofigntorance or mistake offact on the part ofthe accused in
relation to the charged offenses where knowledge ofaparticular fact is necessary to establish an
offense,amistakc of fact defense will he available; however, the mistake must he considered as
it existed at the timcofthcoffense and not with respect to afterthefact evidence. Sec
Bcnchbook(5111)
D. OvercIassificationEvidence is Irrelevant to Pre-Sentencing Proceedings if it does
not Pertain to tbe Charged Information and^or tbe Accused bad no I^owledge of the
Information at tbcTime of bis Alleged Misconduct.
General over classification inf:ormation presents matters in neither extenuation nor
mitigation and, thus,would not assist in dcterminingasentcncc. Ifthe information was not in
existence or unknown to the Accused at the timeofthe misconduct it would not assist in
explaining the circumstances surrounding the commission ofthe offenses or assist in lessening
punishment adjudged. SccRCM1001(c)(l^.

33661

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING AND ARRANGING RECORD OF TRIAL
USE OF FORM - Use this form and MCM, 1984,
Appendix 14, will be used by the trial counsel and
the reporter as a guide to the preparation of the
record of trial in general and special court-martial
cases in which a verbatim record is prepared. Air
Force uses this form and departmental
instructions as a guide to the preparation of the
record of trial in general and special court-martial
cases in which a summarized record is authorized.
Army and Navy use DD Form 491 for records of
trial in general and special court-martial cases in
which a summarized record is authorized.
Inapplicable words of the printed text will be
deleted.

8. Matters submitted by the accused pursuant to
Article 60 (MCM, 1984, RCM 1105).

COPIES - See MCM, 1984, RCM 1103(g). The
convening authority may direct the preparation of
additional copies.

12. Advice of staff judge advocate or legal officer,
when prepared pursuant to Article 34 or otherwise.

ARRANGEMENT - When forwarded to the
appropriate Judge Advocate General or for judge
advocate review pursuant to Article 64(a), the
record will be arranged and bound with allied
papers in the sequence indicated below. Trial
counsel is responsible for arranging the record as
indicated, except that items 6, 7, and 15e will be
inserted by the convening or reviewing authority,
as appropriate, and items 10 and 14 will be
inserted by either trial counsel or the convening or
reviewing authority, whichever has custody of
them.

13. Requests by counsel and action of the
convening authority taken thereon (e.g., requests
concerning delay, witnesses and depositions).

1. Front cover and inside front cover (chronology
sheet) of DD Form 490.
2. Judge advocate's review pursuant to Article
64(a), if any.
3. Request of accused for appellate defense
counsel, or waiver/withdrawal of appellate rights,
if applicable.
4. Briefs of counsel submitted after trial, if any
(Article 38(c)).
5. DD Form 494, "Court-Martial Data Sheet."

9. DD Form 458, "Charge Sheet" (unless included
at the point of arraignment in the record).
10. Congressional inquiries and replies, if any.
11. DD Form 457, "Investigating Officer's Report,"
pursuant to Article 32, if such investigation was
conducted, followed by any other papers which
accompanied the charges when referred for trial,
unless included in the record of trial proper.

14. Records of former trials.
15. Record of trial in the following order:
a. Errata sheet, if any.
b. Index sheet with reverse side containing
receipt of accused or defense counsel for copy of
record or certificate in lieu of receipt.
c. Record of proceedings in court, including
Article 39(a) sessions, if any.
d. Authentication sheet, followed by certificate
of correction, if any.
e. Action of convening authority and, if appropriate, action of officer exercising general courtmartial jurisdiction.
f. Exhibits admitted in evidence.

6. Court-martial orders promulgating the result of
trial as to each accused, in 10 copies when the
record is verbatim and in 4 copies when it is
summarized.

g. Exhibits not received in evidence. The page
of the record of trial where each exhibit was
offered and rejected will be noted on the front of
each exhibit.

7. When required, signed recommendation of
staff judge advocate or legal officer, in duplicate,
together with all clemency papers, including
clemency recommendations by court members.

h. Appellate exhibits, such as proposed instructions, written offers of proof or preliminary
evidence (real or documentary), and briefs of
counsel submitted at trial.

DD FORM 490, MAY 2000

Inside of Back Cover

e-Highlighter

Click to send permalink to address bar, or right-click to copy permalink.

Un-highlight all Un-highlight selectionu Highlight selectionh