December 14, 2009 Defense Hotline Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-1900

Sirs;

My name is Angela Ehlers. I am filing this complaint as a concerned citizen and also the wife of Sgt Edwin Ehlers II, who was wrongfully convicted by the United States Marine Corps. The Marine Corps, Navy and NCIS have not only violated my husband's constitutional rights but have also violated numerous DoD Directives, JAGINST, and OPNAVINST listed in this letter. In February 2008 after months of research, the Commanding General, Major General Thomas Waldhauser acted as the convening authority in Edwin's Case. Edwin's attorney Michael Eisenberg and I brought it to his attention that Petty Officer Paul Skovranko USN, lied to NCIS and to the court about taking his daughter, the alleged victim, to the Beaufort Naval Hospital in June 2004 through the documentation we received from the DoD Family Advocacy Program under DoD Directive 6400.1 stating they were never notified about the allegations this child made and neither was the hospital. April 2008 while I was making a phone call to Camp Pendleton to gather information about one of the prosecutors, Capt John Ellis, I ended up speaking to his commanding officer Major Clay Plummer. Major Plurnmer asked me about Edwin's case. Major Plummer and I carried on a 45 minute conversation that evening. During that time, I let him know that the father of this alleged victim, Petty Officer Paul Skovranko had lied about taking his daughter to the Beaufort Naval Hospital the night of June 2, 2004 which he alleged to NCIS and the court. I also let Major Plummer know that I have documentation from the Family Advocacy Program stating that they were never notified about the allegations the child made, which is a violation of DoD Directive 6400.1 and that the Beaufort Naval Hospital has no record of the alleged victim being at the hospital in June 2004. I clearly told him that Petty Officer Paul Skovranko and his wife lied to investigators and the court in August 2007 when Edwin was convicted. Major Plummer stated that it was his "judicial and legal obligation to report ail fraud on the court under JAGINST 5803.1 C" and asked me to send him the documents pertaining to this since he was not aware of it when he sat 2nd chair at my husband's trial. I sent the information certified mail and it was received on 05/01/08 and signedt.for by Edward Lopez. On May 3, 2008 Edwin's Attorney Michael Eisenberg contact Major Clay Plummer who stated that he was not going to do anything about the information and hung up. In May 2008, following the conversation with Major Plummer, I then brought this information to the attention of the Judge Advocate General who told me that they were also unwilling to do anything about this. I have several letters/responses from the various letters that have gone back and forth from me to the Judge Advocate General since May 2008 through the

present about that issue. All have stated they are not going to do anything to correct these matters. I then, in December 2008 contacted NCIS Parris Island where this investigation originated. I spoke to Special Agent J.R. Crandall who is a supervisor at NCIS and who, as he told me several times during our conversation, has over 25 years experience working for NCIS. I questioned him about the Family Advocacy Program (FAP DOD 6400.1), to which he replied that it was not available in June 2004 at Parris Island MCRD. I corrected him and told him that it has been available at all installations since 1992. He stated then his agents did contact them and advised the FAP of the child's allegations. I once again, corrected him and told rum that I had a document from the Parris Island FAP and a&of January 2008, no they had not been notified. I advised Special Agent Crandall that Petty Officer Paul Skovranko, father of the alleged victim, called NCIS the day after he allegedly took his daughter to the Beaufort Naval Hospital. I told him that had Petty Officer Skovranko ACTUALLY taken his child to the hospital, as he alleged to NCIS agents and the court, the hospital and NCIS would have been REQUIRED to follow the foregoing instructions, DoD Directives and Federal Laws: OPNAVINST 1752.1 A DoD Directive 6400.1 SECNAVINST 5520.3b SECNAVINST 5527.2 DoD Directive 1030.01 DoD Directive 5525.7 DoD Directive 5525.5 18 U.S.C. Sec 2258 Title 42 chapter 32 sub chapter 4 § 13031 NAVMEDCOMINST 6310.3 He then changed his position as to whether his NCIS agents at Parris Island had actually contacted the Family Advocacy Program and that they had also contacted local law enforcement (which they have not done so) and then said he did not want to speak to me anymore and hung up. I sent the documentation I had in my possession in January 2009 to Special Agent Crandall, which he signed for a few days later. April 25, 2009 I contacted NCIS Special Agent J. R. Crandall once again and advised him that I had allowed him more that ample time to report this misconduct and fraud committed by his agents through the Investigations Department at NCIS Headquarters. I quoted NCIS

Manual for Administration which states that supervisors within NCIS are required to report allegations of misconduct and deficient performance to the Assistant Director for Inspections code 006. I let Special Agent Crandall know that per this manual he only had 3 working days to make this report and he had failed to do so. I also reiterated that fact that since he is a DOD employee he is required to comply with all their manuals, since he did not I had filed a complaint with the NCIS IG Robert Mulligan. May 15, 2009 I received a letter from NCIS IG Robert Mulligan acknowledging my complaint and advising me that he was going to be looking into the allegations I alleged in my letter and evidence I supplied. He has yet to actually conduct an investigation pertaining to the documentation I supplied to him. I found the VA/SARC training module 21 which states that Military Criminal Investigative Organization (MCIO) Mission - comprised of the Army's Criminal Investigating Division (CID), Air Force's Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) and the Navy's Naval Criminal Investigating Service (NCIS). The primary role of MClOs is to be objective fact finders. However, unlike their civilian counterparts, MClOs do not make judicial or administrative decisions regarding prosecution or offender accountability. MClO's are responsible for: - Conducting criminal investigations in which the military is, or may be a party of interest - Investigating allegations of sexual assaults on and off a base or installation, as appropriate Investigative Process a. The investigative process involves the conduct of a preliminary investigation and determining titling information for the Defense Clearance and Investigations Index (DCII) Report. The purpose of titling the report of a criminal investigation is to identify the subject for the accuracy and efficiency of the investigative effort. b. The third step includes, but is not limited to, interviews, background checks, and collection of evidence. In sexual assault cases the evidence must be beyond "he said-she said." This case was only based on he said-she said testimony. No physical evidence or otherwise was ever found. As a matter of fact during the NCIS investigation, Randi Hester (former step-daughter of Edwin) was interviewed since the alleged victim went to her first with the allegations. Randi stated to NCIS that the child wouldn't say anyone's name-only that "he did it and her mommy would be mad at her if she told". The alleged victim's mother, Stacey Skovranko in front of Randi Hester actually told the child it was Edwin who did this to her. In the Memorandum of Understanding under DoD Directive 5525.7, the DoD IG is required to establish procedures to implement the investigative policies set forth in

this Directive. The DoD IG is also required to monitor compliance by DoD criminal investigative organizations to the terms of the MOU (meaning that NCIS had violated this by not informing the local authorities or social services of this alleged crime), and because the alleged victim also implicated Edwin's ex-wife Gloria Johnson-Hester-Ehlers ("best friend" of the alleged victim's mother) in this crime, NCIS would have been REQUIRED to notify the Department of Justice because Gloria is not able to be tried by a court-martial for her alleged involvement (Section^ paragraph b). This did not happen either. Gloria was interviewed by NCIS 3 weeks after these allegations against her were formed in the mind of a child, yet NCIS chose to ignore this fact. Gloria Johnson-Hester-Ehlers did not know about this allegation until the first day of the trial in August 2007, 3 years after the recorded NCIS interview where she was implicated. After everything that had allegedly happened, NCIS never bothered to ask for pretrial restraint. Not even after Edwin allegedly confessed to the crime with Special Agent Eric Muelenberg on May 25, 2005, 2 years prior to his conviction. I have included documentation from NCIS that is dated 14 months after this alleged confession. It states that Edwin did not confess but maintained his innocence regarding the allegations of sexual assault. Where is this confession that Special Agent Eric Muelenberg testified to at trial? No where because he lied about it. Special Agent Muelenberg even told the court that he, not Edwin filled in the drawing which was used against Edwin at trial. Is this not considered tampering with evidence??? Special Agent Muelenberg also conducted a polygraph on Edwin on May 25, 2005. The results were never recorded and the test itself has since disappeared. It's only Special Agent Muelenberg's OPINION that Edwin was guilty but as usual, there is no hard evidence to support that fact either. The polygraph never saw anyone but Special Agent Muelenberg. By not having an independent 3rd party supervisor look over and conduct a quality control check, NCIS has also violated SECNAVINST 5520.4B. In this Secretary of the Navy Instruction it states that all polygraph examinations conducted by NIS will be supervised by a certified supervisory polygraph official designated by the Director, NIS, to exercise professional and technical supervision over NIS polygraph examiners. The reported results of each NIS polygraph examination is reviewed by a supervisory polygraph official before examination results are considered final. NCIS also failed to report these alleged incidents to law enforcement violating DoD Directive 5525.5,18 U.S.C. Sec 2258 and 42 U.S.C. Sec 13031. Everyone in NCIS, who has been made aware of these allegations (from the reporting agents to Inspector General Mulligan) and not reported them to "real" police officers under the DOJ, is guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Meanwhile, in April 2009 I went to a meet and greet for Major General Waldhauser at the Officers Club. I had a nice 5 minute conversation with him about Edwin's conviction at which time he told me that his former Staff Judge Advocate, Lt Col Robert Miller had not given him everything submitted on Edwin's behalf when he was the acting convening authority for 1st Marine Division. He took my article 73 petition I had prepared for the NavyMarine Corps Court of Appeals home with him and sent me a letter stating that he was unable to do anything to correct this injustice to Edwin. End of May 2009 I submitted the Article 73 petition to the NMCCA. Of course it was denied. Judge Maksyrn did state that he felt that the child had been coached by her parents

4

because she was inconsistent in her testimony. Judge Maksym also stated that he could not affirm the oral sodomy charge because of the inconsistencies in the testimony and that the 3 years it took to bring Edwin to court violated his Constitutional Rights. August 2009,1 contacted the current Commanding General, Major General Richard Mills of 1st Marine Division. I let him know everything that I had found after the conviction and also the events that led up to the conviction. He stated that he was not able to do anything either, but did wish me the best of luck on my future endeavors. As you can see by the information I have enclosed, I have reported these inconsistencies, lies, and disregard for DoD directives and the law up and down the chain of command from the prosecution alt the way to the Commandant of the Marine Corps and Secretary of the Navy, all to no avail. I expect someone to actually do their job and correct this immediately. I have already informed everyone I have spoken to that I plan on going public with my information and also filing a lawsuit naming the people who knew about/committed these acts.

Respectfully,

Angela

Ehlers

www.militaryinjustices.blogspot.com I consent to the disclosure of my identity outside the Defense Hotline on a need-to-know basis I certify that all of the statements made in this complaint (including continuation pages and addendums) are true, complete, and correct, to the best of my knowledge. I understand that a false statement or concealment of a material fact is a criminal offense (18 U.S.C. Section 1001).

Enclosures Certified Mail 70082810000226962681
5

CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
•*!

(Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided)
For del! very InfonTsstion vtsH our website at www.usps.comj:

_n ru
IT

TTFFrClA.L
Postage Certified Fee

'.Wt

ru
a a a a
Hi

$

12350
12,30

05
Postmark Here

Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total Postage & Fees

10.00

$

$7.34

12/14/2009

• Complete Hems 1,2. and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted DeHvery • Print your name and addres*m the reverse O so that we can return the ca** you. jg £4 • Attach this card to the back MtemaU|«», or on the front if space permfs^ *•» -p
1. Article Addressed to:

a Service Type D Certified Mail D Registered D Insured Mail

DExpresaMait D Return fteceipt for Merchandise

D C.O.D.

4. Restricted Peftrery? ^tra ft«i) (Transfer from seniPS Form