Naval Criminal investigative Service Headquarters ATTN: Inspector General, Code 001 716 Sicard Street SE Suite 2000

Washington Navy Yard, DC 20388-5380

July 9, 2009

Inspector General Mulligan,

I received your correspondence dated May 15,2009 regarding my letters to Special Agent Crandall at resident agency, Parris island, SC. In those letters I informed Special Agent Crandall of agent misconduct at NCIS Parris Island and Camp Pendleton. From your letter, you stated "I will evaluate the information you have provided and take the action I deem appropriate". May I ask how the investigation into the misconduct allegation I presented to you is progressing? i have not heard anything from you since that letter. In my two (2) letters, I referred to documents from the Family Advocacy Program (FAP) that were absent from the case file I received and the fabrication of a "confession" by Special Agent Eric Muelenberg. After doing some research I discovered that the FAP was never involved with the investigation and as of January 30, 2008,3 K years after the report of the chiid sexual assault that was reported to agents at Parris tsiand and Camp Pendleton, the FAP was still not aware of the allegations. Would this not be considered agent misconduct? Does this not constitute a violation of DoD Directive 6400.1? rf I'm not mistaken, this is also a violation of state and federal reporting requirements wfth regards to the sexual assault of a child. As stated in your letter dated May 15, you directed me to address any further correspondence to your attention. Per you request, I have enclosed copies of the following:

Results of Interrogation from Special Agent Eric Muelenberg dated 5/27/05

FACT: Special Agent Muelenberg's recounting of Edwin's "alleged" confession does not match what ISkovranko said happened. In fact, the information Special Agent Muelenberg supplied at trial was the complete opposite of what H said happened

Special Agent Muelenberg's opinion of the polygraph results

FACT: Special Agent Muelenberg wrote the results of the polygraph examination, and stated "after chart evaluation, prior to NCIS final quality control review, the examiners opinion was that deception was indicated based on s/ehlers' physiological responses to the relevant questions."

Chart from Special Agent Muelenberg's polygraph interview log

FACT: On this paper, Special Agent Muelenberg makes reference to 4 charts. He states P 11 , :8 1:23, P 4:15, One would conclude that these are 3 or the 4 results from the 4 polygraphs conducted. Correct me if I'm wrong, P would indicate PASS, and I would indicate Inconclusive. Edwin's polygraph with NCiS Agent Mueienberg was not video or audio taped and has since disappeared.


Polygraph conducted in January 2008 by Mr. Paul Redden of the San Diego Police Department

FACT: Mr. Redden interviewed and had a polygraphed Edwin on January 30, 2008. This polygraph was video and audio recorded and the results were supplied to Attorney Michael Eisenberg. Mr. Redden, and three (3) other examiners quality checked the results and unanimously can to the same conclusion-Edwin was telling the truth when he denied the allegation made against him by F Skovranko and her family. This would undermine NCfS' polygraph because 1} NCIS' polygraph has disappeared, so we will never know the truth as to what ft really said and 2) this one made it to a quality control whereas NCIS' did not.

Report of Investigation {ROD dated 8/1/06

This RO1 states that Edwin maintained his innocence throughout both interrogations. It says that he was deceptive to the relevant questions asked by Special Agent Muelenberg, but does not mention a confession. Could Special Agent Muelenberg possibly be lying? I would have to believe so considering that he and case manager Special Agent Art Spafford have been less than honest in their involvement with this case.


My letters to Special Agent Crandall apprising him of this situation in January 2009

FACT: ! contacted Parris Island NCIS in December 2008. In January 20091 sent Special Agent Crandall a certified letter, with the evidence provided to you, apprising him of the situation. Special Agent Crandall, after being employed by NCIS for over 25 yrs, as he had stated to me over the phone in December 2008, he would have known that he was required to report the agent misconduct, yet he failed to do so.


RP2 Paul Skovranko's sworn statement dated 6/3/04

RP2 Skovranko stated to NCIS agents on June 3, 2004 in a sworn statement that he took his child to the Beaufort Naval Hospital and was refused treatment. FACT: Petty Officer Skovranko did not take his daughter to the Beaufort Naval Hospital on June 2, 2004, or anytime in the month of June 2004.

Documentation from a FOIA request sent from Edwin's attorney Michael Eisenbere to IT Adam Burch at the Beaufort Naval Hospital regarding RP2 Skovranko's admission to NCIS that he took his daughter there the night of June 2, 2004

FACT; No such visit to the hospital by H , Skovranko exists in the month of June 2004. H Skovranko was only seen at the Beaufort Naval Hospital in the month of July 2004.

Family Advocacy Program (FAP) letter dated January 28. 2008 statinR they have never received a report of the allegations of a sexual assault involving H Skovranko

FACT: Per DoD Directive 6400.1, the Family Advocacy Program, they (FAP) are required to be involved with All sexual assault investigations involving a minor child. NCIS also failed to contact the local authorities and social services.


Randi Hester's statement to NCIS dated June 23. 2004

FACT: Randi Hester, at the time was a 13 yr old minor, who was instructed by H 's mother Stacey to question H; about being sexually assaulted. Randi stated to NCIS that H refused to say anyone's name only that "her mommy would be mad at her". Per Randi's statement to NCIS it was Stacey (H 's mother) who stated that it was Mr. Eddie who did this to you and not H Stacey TOLD H conversation. , it was Edwin who did this to her and Randi was witness to this

it Skovranko's NCIS interview dated 6/9/04 where she states Gloria and James were a witnesses to the alleged sexual assault

FACT: Gloria Ehlers and a minor named James, were never questioned about witnessing the alleged sexual assault. At trial, Gloria Ehlers stated she did not know about the allegations against her until just before taking the stand. She also stated that if F accused her, then she was being untruthful, because she (Gloria) did not witness anything. I would think it is obvious, by the paperwork I have supplied to you, that your agents who work in the field not only need updated training with the reporting requirements of the sexual assault of a child and how to conduct a proper investigation, but also find it excruciatingly difficult to be honest and impartial during and after an investigation. This is all your NOS documentation, with all the lies and inconsistencies contained within in them. I look forward to your prompt response regarding these allegations of agent misconduct and want to know the subsequent actions taken to rectify this matter.



. Ehlers

CC: Michael Eisenberg CC: Edwin Ehlers 1!

Certified Mail 70060100000573786914

SENDERr-Cg/WPtere THIS SECTION Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Print yuur name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to:


B. Received by (PrintedName)

D Agent D .Mdressee
C. Date of Delivery

D. Is delivery address different from item 1? D Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: D No

3. Service Tyoe ^Certified Mail D Registered Q Insured Mail

D Express Mali D Return Receipt for Merchandise

a C.O.D.

4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)

D Yes

2. Aiticle dumber
' (Transfer from service label)

?ODL 0100 DOOS ?3?a
Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540

PS Form 3811, February 2004