OUR MEMORIES IN THE V’ERPA-MOVEMENT WILL LAST A LIFETIME    Head Note   The below statement was prepared for the Cox Commission II and its review of the “Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and its operations” in support of our legal brief and arguments surrounding the subject matter of Article 92 of the UCMJ and prosecution of “officer misconduct” in the U.S. Armed Forces and the call for Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) intervention of said lawbreakers.   Following the intended-opening statement—we will incorporate the actual written transcript of the Trueman & Wise Testimony on behalf of our military members who are similarly situated  with emphasis where necessary for clarity purposes.  COX LINK / TIME OF V’ERPA TESTIMONY: PRIMARY LINK:  http://www.wcl.american.edu/nimj/webcast.cfm   V”ERPA - - 11:10 of Part II - - Video See:  http://media.wcl.american.edu/Mediasite/Viewer/?peid=098dc6b8-f5ae-4cdd-ba60-80ab51026ef6	National Archive - Military Records Pro Se Assistance Beirut Lebanon Stamp Petition www.va.gov www.ssa.gov The Veterans' Voice MAG V'ERPA Related Links
PREPARED STATEMENT OF V’ERPA FOUNDER  I. Introduction   Good morning, Judge Cox, Ladies and Gentlemen of this distinguished Commission.   I am Jeffrey A. Trueman, Founder, Veterans’ Equal Rights Protection Advocacy or “V’ERPA LLC”.    As I attempted to advance before the first Commission nearly one decade ago - - I formed V’ERPA in November 1999, as a Veterans & Families Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)—dedicated to reforming the December 4, 1950 U.S. Supreme Court decision entitled the “Feres doctrine”  (FD) to prevent wanton, intentional and deliberate violations of human and constitutional rights abuses of U.S. Armed Forces personnel within our military’s command, legal and medical systems.    Although the FD subject matter is not an agenda item for these hearings – we would be remiss on behalf of our members and supporters across the nation - - if we did not precisely assert for the public record – that the FD as we as its “victims and survivors” per se - - is the ultimate reason why the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is not fairly administered.  Henceforth, at Exhibit “C” and our Reform Suggestions (RSs) - - at “footnote 1” - - our concerns of the “doctrine” are incorporated for public consumption. In all, I believe our email communications to the Commission at Exhibit “A” (V’ERPA/Commission Electronic Communications) in our briefing substantially explain our reasons for being here today - - and we feel our legal brief is substantive in nature and our reform suggestions merit consideration by this panel.  As a preliminary matter - - we furnished the panel an “advanced copy” of our legal briefing on Monday-morning, June 15, 2009, to give the panel a full day to review our information in the interest of time. Having said that, we wish to provide the Commission the original version of our briefing and request its contents and reform suggestions be considered by the panel in preparation for its recommendations to Commander-in-Chief Obama, U.S. Congress and Department of Defense (DoD)/Military.      Accompanying me today is V’ERPA’s president (inactive) Ms. Leigh E. Wise, U.S. Air Force retired.[1]  For the record, Ms. Wise’s “incident to military service” - - Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and intramilitary administrative law related matters go to the heart of V’ERPA’s Cox Commission I testimony and arguments and her case is the “pinnacle case study” to advance substantial justice with regard to the Commission’s Agenda Item C – Officer Misconduct & Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).      Upon my brief opening statement - - Ms. Wise wishes to speak to the Commission with the relevance of our briefing today and its nexus with V’ERPA’s presentation before the first Commission.  For the record, Ms. Wise served a total of 17-years as a traditional reservist and over six years active duty and was officially recommended for permanent retirement from the U.S Air Force at 100% on May 6, 2009, as a direct and proximate result of “officer misconduct” and the failure of UCMJ-Art. 92 to be enforced in association with its nexus to the Inspector Generals Act (IG Act) and are subject to criminal-reprisals in violation of the Military Reprisal Investigation (MRI) statutes.        The importance of Ms. Wise’s testimony is that it is speaks clearly to the undisputed fact for the purposes of our NGO-operations that the Feres doctrine impedes the proper enforcement of the UCMJ.   Now, I wish to speak on the issues of: 1.                  Our first appearance in 2000; 2.                  The Feres doctrine nexus to administration of justice under the UCMJ;[2]  3.                  Our Cox Commission II presentation and V’ERPA case studies; and 4.                  Conclusion.  II.The V’ERPA Cox Commission I Testimony Nexus To Commission II Agenda Item “C” - Officer Misconduct & Article 92 of the UCMJ  Sadly, with good comes bad and in a perfect world, there would still be corruption of the mind and oaths - - by people who place selfish service over selfless service.  Having said that, as the history of this Commission shows - - it did not make the Feres subject matter an agenda item during the 2000-hearings and has not made it an agenda item in 2009.  In preparing our briefing we did our best to construct it without citing the “doctrine” and simply could not get around it - - and if we do cite the doctrine it is for reference purposes only - - with regard to our arguments in support of the Commission’s Agenda Item C and the primary reason why - - corruption is covered up in our military and hidden from the American People and its military members.  In or about March 2000, I spoke before the panel in my capacity as founder and executive director of V’ERPA/V’ERPA Inc., and provided the Commission a “point paper” with regard to discussion topic “[s]hould decisions of the BCMRs be reviewable by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.”  As I stated in my Introduction before the first Commission - I served honorably for 11 ½ years in the U.S. Navy from July 1982 to January 1994.  Subsequently, from 1994 to the present; I have dedicated my life (at no cost) to our “V’ERPA members and case studies” such as Ms. Wise’s to advance substantial justice in their administrative law injuries and injustices - - such as Ms. Wise; for whom I did not know in 2000 - - but referenced her with regard to my statement “I speak on behalf of many veterans and their loved ones . . . Real people, with real Constitutional issues denied redress by the federal courts and the United States Congress, arising our of ‘military service’”. III.The Feres Doctrine & Administration Of Justice Under The UCMJ  Although the Commission I, as this Commission II has not made the Feres doctrine an “agenda item” I must reaffirm and assert as I did in our 2000-point paper that “there is a nexus between the ‘Feres Doctrine’ and the administration of justice under the UCMJ.  The two laws are intertwined.”    Having said that, our 2000-point paper spoke to the 1), purpose of the UCMJ, 2), mandate of the BCMRs and its nexus with ironically “Art. 92 of the UCMJ” for which we are here today to advance our arguments and reform suggestions to ensure Art. 92 - - is properly invoked to remedy high official or “officer misconduct” arising from wrongful acts or omissions arising within the military's command, legal and medical systems - - subsequently to PCs under the IG/MRI statutes.   In conclusion as to our Commission I point paper, we suggested that the following reforms be instituted to ensure “equal justice under law” for military members who are wronged by military officers:  1.                  Repeal Art. 138 of the UCMJ; 2.                  Consolidate All BCMRs 3.                  Consolidate All IGs (civilian and military); 4.                  Amend “10 USC 1034” or the “Military Reprisal Investigation” statute. In the wake of our appearance, we were delighted to see the Commission in its recommendations to the Congress and DoD cite the Feres doctrine and its nexus to administrative law matters within our intramilitary justice system.  (See Exhibit “B” – Cox Commission I Recommendations).    In conclusion, I cited the proclamation of General Washington in 1775 before the New York Legislature who stated: “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen” continues to have substantial legal meaning in our opinion.   IV. Our Cox Commission II Legal Briefing & Introduction Of V’ERPA Case Studies   On the issue of today’s briefing that was presented to the panel members this past Friday, June 12, 2009, via electronic mail - - we respectfully request our original bounded copy be incorporated into the Commission’s record.      Again, nearly one-decade ago - - I appeared on behalf of my organization and its members and supporters and raised our concerns about the Feres doctrine and inequities within the “administrative law” processes of the U.S. Armed Forces.  On a personal note, since January 13, 1994, when I began my work to expose and remedy the doctrine - - I have spent an estimated 85,000 hours of research and case work to seeking bona fide and genuine reforms of the doctrine without “disrupting good order and discipline” in the U.S. Armed Forces.  On that note, I once heard a political analyst say that “fifteen years in politics is like fifteen minutes” and for the purposes of our appearance today - - we consider the time that has passed since the last Commission over 9-years ago - - is like 9-minutes ago to us.    To date, the only movement in Congress with regard to the Feres doctrine subject matter and compelling absolute compliance with the UCMJ and other laws governing the military - - occurred on October 8, 2002, and via the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings chaired by Mr. Arlen Specter of (PA), and for which his own staff member proclaimed the “hearings were a sham” to V’ERPA – and I agree as I was there.  (Although I requested to be heard before said committee - - I was denied - - although our organization’s public statement for the record was at least accepted for the congressional record.)   During those hearings, I did not hear any of the Commission’s recommendations cited.    With respect to the VCS-Wise subject matter, On April 30, 2007, Congressman Marshall letter appears to state to V’ERPA is that we have been given a challenge to V’ERPA to prove that the DoDIG/MRI processes have been seriously abused via our case study evidence and the Congressman stated in part:   “Thanks for contacting me about the Feres Doctrine and SSgt Leigh E. Wise’s experiences under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act . . .  It may be that we should consider revising this [“10USC1034”] process as you suggest, including creating private rights of action and abolishing the Feres doctrine.[3] But none of that, were it to happen, would create retroactive relief for SSgt Wise.  I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings . . . I will pass along your email to the appropriate staff of the Armed Services Committee for them to think abut (sic) whether SSgt Wise’s case should be used to illustrate that the current system is badly flawed . . . As you might  imagine, the [MWP Act] was enacted after a great deal of thought and  debate[4] . . . It won’t be modified without a showing that it is being abused  with as you say, cover ups.  Simply based upon years of experience with matters like this, I can tell you that Congress will be reluctant to publicly conclude that DODIG is guilty of this.  Certainly DOD and the IG’s office would vehemently deny it . . . “  (emphasis added). False promises and failure to act and prevent - - via proper congressional oversight is a genuine problem with the administration of justice in our military in 2009, is all we can assert with regard to the Congressman Marshall subject matter.  Subsequently, since my first appearance before this Commission - - in August 2008, the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Resolution to prevent “torts” under the Feres doctrine and this Commission’s recommendations arising from our 2000 appearance was utilized and on May 20, 2008, Congressman Hinchey (“D-NY“) introduced a Military Medical Malpractice Bill to address the Feres doctrine and we oppose this Bill for many reasons.   Now, we hope the Commission will consider reviewing our VCSs and our RSs at Exhibit “C” of our briefing - - to advance substantial justice under the UCMJ and Art. 92 – for future military members who are similarly situated in the present and the future as our military and veteran families.   IV.  Conclusion   In conclusion, upon Ms. Wise’s testimony - - we are open to any questions from the panel or the audience, either favorable or negative as the only way to ensure substantial justice under the UCMJ is for frank debate and compromise to strike a balance between the rights of military members and the legitimate needs and obligations of the military establishment in the name of national security.   Thank you. [1] For the record, Ms. Wise is in a inactive status due to her medical injuries and ailments arising from service to country and due to doctor’s orders.  However, for the purposes of her appearance today—her doctor has granted her permission as a “self-help” measure to attend these hearings.  In all, Ms. Wise’s case is our pinnacle-case study that touches on all aspects of UCMJ-command, legal and medical high official misconduct.  In terms of taxpayers’ injuries - - rather than serving on active duty this very day - - Ms. Wise’s ITS injuries and injustices were so severe that under the FDM that could have been better applied if DoDIG did their jobs: 1), VA 100% rating based upon SSA findings = 2,700.00 per month, and SSA at 1,100.00 per month totals of course = $5,400.00.  For the record, since Ms. Wise did not reach her desired 20-years and was granted 100% by the VA – she lost her FDM/Military DES pension at 1,700.00 per month. We estimate that if we added in all medical treatment and recovery issues for which will be a life long effort on her behalf—as will all discharged Veterans with disabilities—the costs to the public for care of this criminally injured Airmen will reach into the millions over her lifetime.  The undisputed fact in this case is that Art. 92 of the UCMJ if properly invoked – the public would have benefited greater than they are now – by paying out pensions to military officials who should have been courts martialed under this article.   [2] For the record, I am clear on the panel’s position that the Feres doctrine is not an “agenda item” - - and will only be citing said judicial-legislation for the purposes of advancing reforms under Art. 92 of the UCMJ in association with “officer misconduct” within the command, legal and medical systems and their connection to IG/MRI statues.  However, in connection with our national petition and its context provided to the first Commission - - I wish to incorporate the following comment of a petition signer that goes to the heart of our Feres doctrine arguments:    “As an attorney and retired army officer, I've seen the unfairness of this doctrine. Congress should act to abolish the holding.”  “Robert W. Roth COL, USA (RET)  [3] This footnote is incorporated for the purposes of this opposition.  As a “pro military” MVF-NGO, and pro law enforcement group of Americans, we strongly oppose frivolous lawsuits arising out of the military.  However, when DoDIG/MRI cases are arbitrarily dismissed and cause grave damage to the “uniformed” military at the authority of civilian decision cannot stand.  Further, there is already a “private cause of action” precedent under the military’s Board for Correction of Military Records (“BCMR”) statutory processes that can be tailored to MRI cases in the future; if the “sole discretion” final review of the “SecDef” under 10USC1034 is congressionally amended as the federal courts have been unwilling to do; as clearly established in RRM; in keeping with the “arbitrary and capricious” standard applied to “BCMR” judicial review.    [4] This footnote is incorporated for the purposes of this opposition.  We intend to prove that Congress’s desire to balance the rights of military Citizens and legally inducted persons by establishing “10USC1034” to protect them from reprisal for engaging in PCs if compelled to do so by a belief of loyalty to country, over that of the personal wants and wishes of any federal employee has proven itself an empty statute with no teeth due to the “sole discretion” authority of the “SecDef” at the conclusion of administrative remedies if the Military “BCMRs” choose not to prosecute violators.  In our search for such punitive action since the creation of “10USC1034” in 1989, we have found no cases that show any “UCMJ” action was taken against any uniformed official of the military for violating the Military [Reprisal] Protection Act.	CAMP V’ERPA & PRO SE SC LLC & "Our 100K Mobile Office"
	COX COMMISSION II WRITTEN -- TRANSCRIPTS  SUMMARY OF OBSTACLES BY JEFF TRUEMAN:  For the record, we wish to share our journey in attending this hearing.  On Saturday, June 13, 2009, we departed GA and drove the V’ERPA-PROSE RV to VA.  There, we set up camp to work on our brief for final printing and binding.  Unfortunately, at midnight, we were having printing problems after completing our work—and took a two hour nap.  We arose at 2:00 am with essentially no sleep since in the past 24-hours and proceeded to drive to the GW-law school to at least make sure we were on time, even if we had no brief in hand.  At approximately 4:30 am., we arrived in the parking lot of the law school—and set up operations to complete the briefing.  By 7:00 am., we finalized the brief and printed our color copy and bounded it for the panel.  At that time, we attempted to lay down for at least an hover to get our minds in order—and were told by the parking attendant that we could not park where we were.  In short, we had to drive around Washington in circles until obtaining approval to go back to the same lot—for which cost us $40.00 to park—at or about 9:00 am where Leigh went in to hear the introduction of the hearings by Judge Cox while I parked the RV.  After a quick shower, shave I arrived at the hearings – about 10:00.   In all, both Leigh and I were extremely tired—and lacking the necessary sleep we would like to have had - - for this commission.  But, we did the best we could under the conditions … and for those who think they can criticize us – WE SAY – you do a better job!

OUR TESTIMONY - INTRODUCTION

JUDGE COX:              Is Mr. Trueman and Ms. Wise here.

 

TRUEMAN:                Judge Cox, nice to see you once again.

 

JUDGE COX:              Nice to see you.

 

TRUEMAN:                Doesn’t look like you aged one day.

 

JUDGE COX:              [Laugh] I don’t feel that way unfortunately.

 

TRUEMAN:                Distinguished members of the panel, thank you for having us here today.  Au briefly, we did put together a presentation for the record. 

 

JUDGE COX:              Ok, I’ll get our reporters …

 V’ERPA HISTORICAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

TRUEMAN:                As you may recall, almost a decade ago, myself on behalf of my members across the country associated with Veterans …. presented a issue pertaining to review of BCMR petition via your court.  I haven’t done the research on that issue since the snowball effect over the past decade has ground, since were based primarily in dealing with the Feres doctrine although its not an agenda item, this time, nor was it an agenda item this time, but we do thank you and the people I know and deal with for making those recommendations.  Basically in a nutshell, if those recommendations were followed by the Congress, president, DoD, I don’t believe Sergeant Wise would be sitting with me or a bunch of others, honorable, distinguished who suffered incident to service injustices, basically due to a stroke of a pen, and pretty much falling in line with a lot of the conversation that we just heard today.  Having said that…

 

JUDGE COX:              I think you are aware probably too, that the, Bar Association of District of Columbia and the American Bar Association passed resolutions and went to Congress asking them to deal with Feres doctrine, I guess it has fallen on deaf ears, I don’t know.

 

TRUEMAN:                Yes sir.

 

ATTORNEY

STEVE SAUSBURG [1]

                                    No, I testified to the ABA on that.  Unfortunately the latest bill which we support is limited to reform of medical malpractice cases under the current doctrine and there is, it’s been, there is a bill that is going to be marked up I believe in the subcommittee on administration and whatever it is …

 

TRUEMAN:                Congressman Hinchey’s bill.  Correct.  I spoke with his military liaison and medical malpractice is a good look, obviously not in combat because not of these issues were dealing with are raised out of combat situations, pretty much administrative law that would fall under Art. 92, dereliction of duty as we see it; as servicemembers, and former.  But yes, that bill is proceeding through.  And for the record, we oppose it because it doesn’t really go to the major effect that we formed a decade ago to address, and that would be substantive due process within the administrative law systems of the military, which is obviously the second-arm of the criminal statutes of the UCMJ.  To move on, I guess I will just run down the table of contents, it should only take me about two minutes to give you an overview of what we are submitting.  Actually, I will start with a quote.

                         "A house divided against itself cannot stand"

June 16, 1858 - Abraham Lincoln

 

                                    And pretty much what we are trying to put here is; that the divides with discretionary rule from different commands of course, different commanders have different ways to train, supervise, discipline, in a nutshell were saying, with us-two specifically with 43 years combined is firm but fair - - nobody can argue that.    You don’t have to like your commander, you respect the rank, the position.  Having said that, we like to dedicate this [our brief] although the Feres doctrine is not an issue at this Commission; to all the members of the U.S. military and their families who have been denied the equal justice they have come to our organization screaming about, which federal judges, I believe, uh, excuse me off the top of my head; the Haase case for example, the judge, basically said it screams, screams, screams injustice, but you got to change it with Congress.  Those efforts over the past 10-years have been for not.  With the changing over of people, it has been a hard thing to do.  Which has frustrated us to continue in a sense. 

 

Our Summary of Arguments, there’s another quote we wish to start with. 

 “It is much the duty of government to render justice against itself, in favor of citizens, as it is to administer the same between private individuals.”President Lincoln’s message to Congress in 1861 

That quote touches from our decade ago quote of General Washington, [V’ERPA Cox Commission I Briefing] for the name sake [of the law school], “When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen” when General Washington made that quote in 1775, a year before the Revolution at the New York Legislature.  I think that was pretty clear what the General Washington was saying, we do have rules to follow, different rules than civilians, but we should still be afforded the absolute right of the First Amendment and due process and equal protection. 

 

In conjunction with today’s Commission to examine fair ways to ensure good order and discipline; we believe our package and its totality of the reforms we are submitting, in substance; are a pretty good showing and should be adopted; I guess I am trying to say; over our ten years of pro bono work as a team and specifically our concern on the issue of Article 92 punishment and officer misconduct.   I’m going to let Sergeant Wise touch on that as her case is our pinnacle case study - - its been in the works for four and a half years.  She has just been retired by the Secretary of the Air Force, she just received 100% VA benefits and just received her permanent social security. To look at Sergeant Wise you would think she looks fit for duty, but that is sadly not the case.  Once again, going back to; if the IGs the BCMRs [as originally argued in 2000] enforced Art. 92, her career having been saved - - millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, again, directly to the public; it seems to be the pattern of case studies over the past decade, I had to handle to get to this point. 

 

In a nutshell, our reform suggestions, overall, have to do with our members:

 

* the Feres doctrine can simply be remedied by an Executive Order stating – put a block down on the enlistment contract [agreement] or officer documents, stating that look – you cannot sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act - - sign here or you cannot come in.  I think most people if they are informed of it wouldn’t mind or they can simply walk away.  Sadly enough, when my journey started with the Feres issue in 94, my son was three and my daughter was nine, today they’re draft ages and I am still trying to push forth not for myself, but more for them now, and others like Sergeant Wise. The reform suggestions are just terminating the Feres doctrine controversy by that simple act.  Obviously, nothing is simple in Washington. 

 

·                    Institution of Civilian Review Board;

 

·                    Zero tolerance to Art. 92 violations and formal rules—as was stated earlier - - you can go on U.S. courts web site.  A lot of military members should be taking that step—which we self help, teach, educate—and [advance to our members] that is it is you [members] who has a duty to and must protect your career, not just your lawyer before you get to them. 

 

·                    The amendments we propose to the IG and MRI statutes (military reprisal statute)—they fall back in line with the BCMR [reforms of 2000], because a violation of those statutes are a punishable offense under the UCMJ.  So there we go once again the administrative keep going into the criminal side, but in all our cases nothing has been done, even with the 300% -- I mean how much more evidence do you need--no one held accountable in Staff Sergeant Wise’s case specifically. 

 

·                    Falsification of official statements must be felonious offenses.

 

·                    Westfall certifications and Civilian Review Board participation may be an idea.  Instead of Department of Justice granting Westfall certification on a whim, maybe those suggestions before they reach the court, could be reviewed by military organizations out here – I’m sure they will do it pro bono just to ensure justice within our military. 

 

·                    Consolidations of the DoD Military disability and VA processes – that was a suggestion a decade ago.

 

·                    The IGs and BCMRs consolidation of processes under one command with supervision of the [USAG].

 

·                    Upgrade of manpower for the DoDIG/IG-MRI systems.  There’s about 19 investigators dealing with 3 million military personnel.  You need probably one investigator for every 25-reprisal cases and I believe we cited how many came in the last [DoDIG] semiannual report to Congress.  There is just no way that that one investigator can be doing all those cases as honorable people slip through the cracks and its too late. Going back to Sergeant Wise’s case the Air Force Secretary, VA, and government in general said we’re sorry this happen, here are your rightful benefits under the Feres doctrine mandate. This is why we cannot sue.  So this case in a nutshell, could be considered substantial justice, but I don’t think Sergeant Wise is yet there.  In my heart it is, but she’s not. 

 

·                    And then the United States Court of Federal Claims [USCFC] could be a consolidation point for these BCMR cases if your court is overburdened with criminal matters and the review of MRI …

 

JUDGE COX:              There’s been resistance for a long time for the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to have any jurisdiction over administrative discharges or administrative rulings on administrative matters - - I don’t think our Commission has really put that on our agenda.

 

TRUEMAN:                Yea, I understand.  I’m glad you are doing it again, [second commission].  We are happy to see it, we are kinda burnt out and tired and read to move on in life.  We feel we served our country voluntarily for a long time - - to do the right thing.

 

JUDGE COX:              Is Sergeant Wise going to tell us about her situation.

 

TRUEMAN:                She is going to nutshell-it; so we don’t run out of time.  But, like I said, all our case studies from Colonel Johnson who was in Iraq, the paymaster, who lost his top secret clearing due to a DoDIG criminal investigative false report, and had to spend 80,000 to clear his name, the administrative judges cleared his name, and he is still fighting.  So, the issue is how does a solider in a war zone concentrate on his job, if he is worry about the Feres doctrine issue as he brought up -- and all the administrative processes.  So they are intertwined, there is no doubt about.  The UCMJ - - one system – two avenues.  [Administrative Law and Criminal Law - justice].

 

In all, the bottom line with us and what our report to your committee states … in that, the U.S. Attorney General and FBI need to investigate crystal clear cases of criminal falsification of public documents.    If they just focused on that issue- - I think careers would be saved.  The public would benefit rather than paying out pensions when the issues if dealt with head on in the service would …[inaudible].

 

So in that, that is basically what our briefing here today states and would like to of course put it in the record. 

 

JUDGE COX:              Thank you.

 

TRUEMAN:                And I’ll now turn it over to SSgt Wise.  Briefly, Staff Sergeant Wise served 17 years as a traditional reserve in the Air Force.  She was an Equal Opportunity Specialist and her total combined active duty was six years.   But at the point she contacted me over four years ago, with her criminal justice and sociology degrees, it was her goal to become an Air Force officer … and those dreams were smashed.

 

Now, I’ll let her …

 

JUDGE COX:              Ms. Wise.

 

THE SSGT WISE (USAF (RET)) TESTIMONY

 WISE:                          Society is like a pot of stew.