Navy Official Criticizes Handling of Tailhook Cases : Military: Some attorneys say they can’t properly defend their clients. They see ‘body count’ superseding justice.

Navy officials presiding over disciplinary hearings for aviators accused of wrongdoing in the Tailhook sex scandal were warned by a military legal officer that the Navy has not been “passing the test” in handling the cases “fairly and appropriately.”

In an astonishingly candid internal memo, Capt. Charles E. Ellis, Navy legal services officer in Norfolk, Va., said that in some cases defense attorneys were justified when they complained that they were not allowed sufficient time to prepare their clients’ cases.

Ellis’ memo specifically referred to a stinging comment made by Coast Guard Lt. Jeffrey C. Good on Wednesday about the disciplinary proceedings, which are being held in Norfolk. Good, who is representing an officer whose case has been ordered to the military’s equivalent of a grand jury hearing, charged that the “Navy is not interested in justice but a body count.”

Good had requested a continuance so he could adequately prepare his client’s defense. The request was denied by Vice Adm. J. Paul Reason, who has been given wide discretion as the sole authority to decide who will be disciplined and what form the punishment will take. He also has the authority to decide whether defense attorneys should be given more time to prepare their cases.

“I think the denial was a mistake,” Ellis said in his memo, and urged Navy officials, including a key legal adviser to Reason, to advise the admiral to reconsider his denial.

Ellis also suggested that Good had a valid argument when he complained that “the Navy had nearly two years and teams of investigators and lawyers working on the case and that (Good) only got (notification of) the charges Monday and was expected to go to the (grand jury hearing) in less than two weeks.”

Ellis concluded his brief memo with the reminder that he had warned Navy prosecutors before the disciplinary hearings began that “the military justice system and (Navy prosecutors) were going to be under the gun to demonstrate that these cases could be handled fairly and appropriately.”

“I’m beginning to get very concerned that we’re not passing the test,” Ellis said in the memo.

In a telephone interview from his Virginia home Friday, Ellis explained that the “bottom line thrust of the memo are my concerns with the perception that we weren’t responding appropriately (to defense complaints) based on stories in the press.”

Indeed, in another memo dated April 28 and sent to Adm. William L. Schackte, Navy judge advocate general, Ellis expressed concern that evidence presented in some cases investigated by agents from the Department of Defense’s inspector general’s office was less than conclusive. He specifically referred to cases expected to end up in courts martial or grand jury hearings.

“Given the information I have received regarding the state of the evidence in the (inspector general’s) report, it will probably be necessary to substantially re-investigate the cases.”

Several civilian and military defense attorneys interviewed by The Times complained of shoddy investigations by the inspector general’s agents. Several attorneys charged the agents lied in their reports.

In a June 14 letter to Inspector General Dereck J. Vander Schaaf, Washington defense attorney Charles W. Gittins complained about the investigators’ “overreaching and overbearing” interrogation of witnesses.

“Numerous witnesses complained that the results of the interviews prepared after their interviews were inaccurate and agents made conclusions or statements that had never been made by the witnesses,” wrote Gittins.

Gittins charged that when the inaccuracies in the agents’ reports were pointed out to them, the agents refused to correct them and instead explained to the aviators that “the report is not sworn testimony.”

In addition, Gittins, who is representing a captain charged with wrongdoing at the Tailhook convention, charged that agents refused to allow the aviators to tape record their interviews with investigators.

Vander Schaaf did not return phone calls made to his office.

“Their tactics are so shoddy and unprofessional that, ultimately, they’re not going to get the results they want. Some of these adjudicated cases will have to go through an administrative review process with the Board of Correction of Naval Records, which is a civilian board, and will have a hard time standing up on their own,” said Gittins.

A Navy defense attorney who requested anonymity said that “(admiral) Reason is making decisions based on inaccurate information from the inspector general’s agents.

“Reason is making decisions that can have a devastating effect on an officer’s career. He should at least take reasonable care to see that the information available to him is accurate. But like the Coast Guard guy (Good) said, they don’t care about justice. They just want a body count to present to the American people.”

A civilian defense attorney who represents three aviators accused in the Tailhook scandal called the hearings a “road show,” noting that most of the officers disciplined have also been granted immunity to testify against others.

Vander Schaaf’s office referred about 120 cases to Reason for disciplinary action. Navy officials said that 39 Navy officers have been disciplined so far. Of the 39, 29 have received immunity to testify against others, a Navy spokesman said.

Cmdr. John Tull, Navy spokesman in Norfolk, acknowledged that one of the Navy officers disciplined is a female, but refused to discuss the allegations against her. Other sources said that between five and nine female officers were referred to Reason for disciplinary action.

Tull said six officers have refused to accept non-judicial punishment prescribed for them and demanded courts martial instead. Defense attorneys said their clients demanded trials after reviewing the Navy’s cases against them because they felt Navy prosecutors could not meet their burden of proof.

However, Tull said that Reason has the authority to unilaterally reject the officers’ request for courts martial and recommend them for administrative action anyway.

The officers cannot appeal Reason’s decision.

One possible administrative remedy for disciplining the six officers is a letter of censure from the Secretary of the Navy.

A secretarial letter of censure effectively kills an officer’s career and cannot be appealed.