Accused Deserter Out of Brig but Kept in Navy

Guiles Gadsby, a Lancaster man accused of deserting the Navy 11 years ago even though he claims to have never enlisted, is now out of the brig but will probably be kept in the service for weeks and possibly months--without pay--before his case is sorted out.

Since being picked up by the Navy Intelligence Service a month ago on suspicion of enlisting but not reporting for duty in the Navy, Gadsby spent a week in a San Diego brig before being put on active duty cleaning barracks and awaiting a hearing.

But his most important job now is building his defense and proving his claim that someone else maliciously used his name in enlisting and then deserting.

Signature Questioned

Already Gadsby, 38, and his San Diego attorney, Maxine Dobro, have assembled witnesses willing to testify that whoever signed the enlistment papers in Denver in 1976 was probably not Gadsby.

Handwriting analyst Emanual Gonzales, who has testified as an expert witness in more than 1,000 felony cases and has assisted in investigations by about a dozen government law enforcement agencies, including Navy Intelligence, said that he found “significant fundamental differences” between Gadsby’s handwriting and those on the enlistment form bearing his name.

Paul Redden, a lie detector technician with the San Diego Police Department, administered a polygraph test to Gadsby and concluded, “It is my opinion, after careful analysis, that the subject was being truthful when answering the relevant questions.” Specifically, Redden said in his report, those question were “Did you ever enlist in the Navy?” and “Did you ever sign enlistment forms?” The answers to both were “no.”

Dobro has taken these tests and other evidence that she says should clear Gadsby with the Navy--including the identity of a man who she believes could have used Gadsby’s name in filling in the enlistment forms--all to no avail.

“They won’t make any move that will vindicate him,” Dobro said. “They say it is not their job, but it is. Their job is to find justice, not just to prosecute and to persecute.”

Dobro and Gadsby would not publicly identify the man they suspect of using Gadsby’s name.

The Navy, however, continues to believe that it has the right man.

The next step in its prosecution for desertion is a pretrial investigation, which is similar to a pretrial hearing in civilian criminal courts.

The hearing officer will decide what, if any, charges will be brought against Gadsby. But “he will not be weighing if we have the right man,” said Navy spokeswoman Julie Swan. That matter, she says, is not in question.

The hearing will be held in two to three weeks, she said, and could last several days.

If the hearing officer recommends a court-martial, it could take months more to resolve.

Meanwhile, Gadsby and his family wait and face the prospect of no income.

Employer Also Waiting

“My employer (the Las Virgenes Water District) is holding my job and waiting patiently for me to return to work,” Gadsby said in a telephone interview from his attorney’s office. “I’ve used up all my vacation and sick time . . . (and) this is now putting a financial bind on my family.” The Navy has placed him on a no-pay status.

Since being released from the brig, Gadsby is free to leave the base when he is off duty and has been able to go home to his family for the last two weekends.

The hardest part is explaining all this to the elder of his two sons, Gadsby said. “The littlest one (2 1/2) we just tell ‘daddy’s at work.’ ” But explaining to the 10-year-old is more difficult. “He’s having a hard time understanding, just like everybody else,” Gadsby said. “He’s feeling very hateful. It will be a hard road . . . to convince him that not everybody in the government is bad.”