Anchored to AWOL Claim : Navy Refuses to Listen to Evidence That Might Clear Alleged Deserter

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

Since being picked up by Navy Intelligence Service one month ago on suspicion of having enlisted but never reported 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.

Already Gadsby, 38, and his San Diego attorney, Maxine Dobro, have assembled expert 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 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 that 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 relevant question were, “Did you ever enlist in the Navy?” and “Did you ever sign enlistment forms? The answer to both was “no.”

Dobro has taken these tests and other evidence that she says should clear Gadsby to the Navy--including the identity of a man 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,” said Dobro. “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 fact, she says, is not in question.

2 Weeks--or Months

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

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

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

“My employer (the Las Virgenes Water District) is holding my job and waiting patiently for me to return to work,” said Gadsby 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 him on a no-pay status.

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

The hardest part is explaining all this to the eldest of his two sons, Gadsby said. “The littlest one (2 1/2) we just tell ‘Daddy’s at work.’ ” But the 10-year-old is more difficult.

“He’s having a hard time understanding, just like everybody else,” said Gadsby. “He’s feeling very hateful. It will be a hard road . . . to convince him that not everybody in the government is bad.”