Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ponce-2-foia-12-0151 1/24

ENCLOSURE (2)

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYCOMMANDER

U.S. FLEET FORCES COMMAND

1562 MITSCHER AVENUE SUITE 250

NORFOLK. VA 23551-2487

5041

Ser NOO/173

19 Ju l 11

POROPPICIAL USB QNL¥

From:

To:

Subj:

Ref:

Encl:

Commander, U.S. Fl ee t Forces CommandNaval I n s p ec to r General

NAVY HOTLINE COMPLAINT 201101107; ALLEGED ABUSE OF POSITION,

FAILURE TO REPORT HAZING, FAILURE TO REPORT ALCOHOL RELATED

INCIDENTS AND PERFERENTIAL TREATMENT GIVEN TO FEMALE OFFICERS

BY COMMANDER ETTA JONES, COMMANDING OFFICER, qss PONCE (LPD 15 )

(a ) NIGHTS Hot l ine compla in t of 14 Ap r 11

(b ) Legal Suf f ic iency Review by Ass i s tan t F lee t Judge Advocate

o f 11 Ju l 11

(1 ) JAGMAN Inves t iga t ion d td 22 Apr 11

(2 ) USFF IG Report o f Inves t iga t ion 201101107 of 16 May 11

1. This l e t t e r i s a f i n a l response to r eference ( a) .

2. In r eference (al an anonymous complainant a l l eged Commander Et ta

Jones , Commanding Off icer , USS PONCE (LPD 15 ) verbal ly abused

subord inates ; f a i l ed to repor t a phys ica l conf ron ta t ion between an E-8 and

an E-S; provided p r e f e r e n t i a l t r ea tment to female o f f i c e r s ; manipulated

underway watch b i l l s to exclude female of f i ce r s from s tand ing the l e a s t

des i rab le watches ; made inappropr ia te comments in th e company o f s ev e r a l

o f f i c e r s r e l a t i v e to h er b reas t s and used te rms l i ke " sp l i t t a i l " when

r e f e r r ing to women; a l l eged ly . told male of f i ce r s she would " t i e t h e i r nuts

in a knot" ; and endangered personne l when she handled h er 9MM serv ice

weapon in an unsa fe condi t ion .

3. Due to PONCE's loca t ion and o p er a t i o n a l employment a t th e t ime of the

complaint , my Deputy coord ina ted wi th Commander, SIXTH Fl ee t (C6F) to

conduct a pre l iminary inqu i ry t;hat would determine the v a l i d i t y of th e

compla in t and whether o r n o t immediate ac t ion wa s r eq u i r ed . C6F d i r ec t ed

i n i t i a t i o n of a Judge Advocate General Manual (JAGMAN) i nves t iga t ion tha t

wa s conducted by I b7c I. Dest royer Squadron SI X

ZERO and resul ted in the r e l i e f o f Commander Jones and USS PONCE's

Execut ive Off icer , Lieutenant Commander Kurk Boenisch , due to loss of

confidence by Commander, SIXTH Fl ee t .

4. Th e JAGMAN i n v es t i g a t i o n [enclosure (1)] and subsequent i n v es t i g a t i o n

by th e USFF Inspector Genera l ' s Of f ice [enclosure (2)] proper ly addressed

a l l i s sues ra i sed in th e complaint . Th e IG i n v es t i g a t i o n cons ide red 11

a l l ega t ions as fol lows:

pe R epPI8IAS 9S S

hR , fIIislise e;F liRaliSSS;Fiiisa aiseleSli;F8 "Ala}, ;(78&'111;; :iA Qgl;;l;a

ci,ril. a.tQ QX"l.aliRal. PQ]!:] a lt ia s

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Subj: NAVY HOTLINE COMPLAINT 201101107; ALLEGED ABUSE OF POSITION,FAILURE TO REPORT HAZING, FAILURE TO REPORT ALCOHOL RELATED

INCIDENTS AND PERFERENTIAL TREATMENT GIVEN TO FEMALE OFFICERS

BY COMMANDER ETTA JONES, COMMANDING OFFICER, USS PONCE (LPD 15)

a . Allegat ion 1: That between October 2010 and 15 Apr i l 2011, Commander

Et ta C. Jones , Commanding Off icer , USS PONCE (LPD 15 ) verba l ly abused

subord ina te o f f i ce r s and en l i s t ed personne l , i n v i o l a t i o n of 10 U.S.C. § 5947

(Requirement of exemplary conduct ) , u.s. Navy Regula t ions 1130 and l i 31 , and

UCMJ, A r t i c l e 93 (Cruel ty and Maltreatment) .

b . Allegat ion 2: That on o r about 15 March 2010, Commander Et ta C. Jones ,Commanding Off ice r , USS PONCE (LPD IS ) di rec ted subord ina tes not to make, o r to

delay making required repor t s fo r r epor tab le inc idents aboard USS PONCE, i n

v i o l a t i o n of U.S. Navy Regula t ions 1130 and 1137 and UCMJ A r t i c l e 92

(Derel ic t ion of Duty) .

c . Allegat ion 3: That between October 2010 and 15 Apr i l 2011, Commander

Et ta C. Jones , Commanding Off ice r , USS PONCE (LPD 15 ) gave p r e f e r en t i a l

t rea tment to h er female o f f i ce r s , in v io l a t i o n of SECNAVINST 5350.16A (Equal

Opportuni ty Within th e Department Of The Navy) .

d . Allegat ion 4: That between October 2010 and 15 Apr i l 2011, Commander

Et ta C. Jones , Commanding Off ice r , USS PONCE (LPD IS ) crea ted a h o s t i l e work

environment, in v i o l a t i o n of SECNAVINST 5300.26D (Depar tment of the Navy Pol icy

on Sexual Harassment) .

e . Allegat ion 5: That Commander Et ta C. Jones , Commanding Off ice r , USS

PONCE (LPD 15 ) di rec ted supervisors to bypass sa fe ty procedures during wel l deck

and seamanship evolu t ions , i n v i o l a t i o n of u.s. Navy Regula t ions 80 2

(Responsib i l i ty ) and 82 5 (Safe ty Precaut ions) and UCMJ, A r t i c l e 92 (Derel ic t ion

of Duty) .

f . Allegat ion 6: That on 13 Apr i l 2011, Commander Et ta C. Jones ,

Commanding Off ice r , USS PONCE (LPD 15 ) endangered personne l when she improperly

hand led her 9MM se rv ice weapon, in v io l a t i o n of NTRP 3-07 .2 .2 (Force Protec t ion

Weapons Handling Standard Procedures and Guidel ines) .

g . Allegat ion 7: That Commander Et ta C. Jones , Commanding Off ice r , USSPONCE (LPD 15 ) f a i l ed to promote the sa fe ty and wel l -be ing of personne l under

her command by f a i l i n g to ensure smal l arms t r a in ing was proper ly accomplished,

in v i o l a t i o n of U.S. Navy Regula t ion 1131 and NTRP 3-07 .2 .2 (Force Protec t ion

Weapons Handling Standard Procedures and Guidel ines) .

h. Allegat ion 8 (Emerging): That on or abou t 15 March 2011, b7e

ble I p ar t i c ip a t ed in hazing i nc i de n t s onboard USS PONCE, in v i o l a t i o n of

SECNAVINST 1610.2A (Department of the Navy Pol icy on Hazing) .

i. Allegat ion 9 (Emerging): That on o r about 15 March 2011, ble

ble i p ar t i c ip a t ed in hazing i nc i de n t s onboard USS PONCE, in v i o l a t i o n of

SECNAVINST 1610.2A (Department of the Navy Pol icy on Hazing) .

j. Allegat ion 10 (Emerging): That on o r abou t 15 March 2011, I b7e

~ b ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ 1 p ar t i c ip a t ed in hazing i nc i de n t s onboard USS PONCE, in v i o l a t i o n of

SECNAVINST 1610.2A (Department of th e Navy Pol icy on Hazing) .

P9a 9 P P I S I ~ USB eN&¥

gi'riJ i l l ' ; ; l ' ~ l crimina' pena l t i e s

2

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Subj: NAVY HOTLINE COMPLAINT 201101107; ALLEGED ABUSE OF POSITION,

FAILURE TO REPORT HAZING,' FAILURE TO REPORT ALCOHOL RELATED

INCIDENTS AND PERFERENTIAL TREATMENT GIVEN TO FEMALE OFFICERSBY COMMANDER ETTA JONES, COMMANDING OFFICER, USS PONCE (LPD 15)

k. Allegation 11 (Emerging): That on or about 15 March 2 0 1 ~ 1 ~ , ~ ~ ~ b Z ~ e ~ ~ bZe I was dere l ic t in h is duties as I bIe I when he

fai led to report the hazing tha t was taking place in the Engineering Department,

in violat ion of SECNAVINST 1610.2A (Department of the Navy Policy on Hazing) .

5. The invest igat ion conclusively determined tha t Allegations 1 through 10 wereSUBSTANTXATBD, while Allegation 11 was UNSUBSTANTXATBD. The followingaccountabil i ty act ion was taken:

a. On 23 Apri l 2011, Commander Etta C. Jones was administered non-judicia lpunishment (NJP) by Commander, SIXTH Fleet an d detached as commanding off icer

due to loss of confidence. Commander Jones i s temporarily assigned toCommander, Naval Surface Force Atlant ic pending a show cause determination.

b. On 14 May 2011, I b7c I, I bZe an dbZe I received NJP administered by L.1____ ....Ib.u.Z.J.ir._____ I Acting

Commanding Officer, USS PONCE.

6. The complaint received by the USFF Inspector General did not allege an yspecif ic misconduct or wrongdoing by the Executive Officer, nor was an y

identif ied during the course of the JAGMANinvestigation. However, the JAGMAN

determined tha t the Executive Officer "fai led to provide the forceful support to

the Commanding Officer necessary for her to succeed in command, an d fai led to

apprise the ISIC of CO misconduct." Lieutenant Commander Boenisch was re l ievedas Executive Officer, USS PONCE (LPD 15); to date no addit ional act ions have

been taken against him.

7. I concur with the inves t igat ion f indings and accountabi l i ty ac t ions

taken, deem them appropr ia te , and recommend c los ing t h i s case asSUBSTANTIATED.

peR epPleIH 8eB B E¥}m, ft.iel:1ee e r I:1fttll:1l!!fteril'lea a i e e l e f J ~ ; p e HW!l:) ;peellslt iB setk

e:k',ri:l a.AEi 95imiRal peealii:i:es

3

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


11 July 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, U. S. FLEET FORCES COMMAND, INSPECTORGENERAL

From: Assistant Flee t Judge Advocate

Subj : LEGAL REVIEW OF NAVY HOTLINE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION,

HOTLIJIm COMPLAINT NUMBER 201101107

Ref: (a) Navy Hotl ine Report of Invest igat ion dtd 16 May 2011,

Case Number 201101107

(b) Preliminary Inquiry dtd 22 Apri l 2011

1 . Synopsis . U. S. Flee t Forces Command, Inspector General (USFFIG ) received a hot l ine complaint v ia email on 14 Apri l 2011.

The complaint made various a l lega t ions agains t CDR Etta C.Jones, then Camnanding Officer , USS PONCE (LPD 1 5 ) . The subjec tinvest igat ion addressed the CO's verbal abuse of subordinate·s;

fa i lure to repor t a physical confrontation; pre fe ren t i a l

t reatment of female off icers ; inappropr ia te comments based on

gender; endangerment of persODllel with a fi rearm; and inc identsof hazing. .

2 • Legal Review. USFF IG prepared a repor t of inves t iga t ion o f

th i s matter , reference (a). USFF IG divided .the complaint in to

the following speci f ic a l lega t ions :

(a ) Allegation 1 , t ha t between October 2010 and 15 Apr i l

2011, CDR Etta C. Jones, Commanding Officer , USS PONCE (LPD IS )verba l ly abused subordinate off icers and enl i s ted personnel , inviola t ion of 10 U.S.C. § 5947 (Requirement of exemplary

conduct) , U.S. Navy Regulations 1130 and 1131, and UCMJ, Art ic le

93 (Cruelty and Maltreatment) .

(b ) Allegation 2 , t ha t on o r about 15 March 2010, CDR Etta

C. Jones, Commanding Officer , USS PONCE (LPD 15) direc ted

subordinates not to make, or to delay, required repor ts fo r

reportable incidents aboard USS PONCE, in viola t ion o f U. S. Navy

Regulations 1130 and 1137 and UCMJ Article 92 (Dereliction ofDuty) .

(c ) Allegation 3 , tha t between October 2010 and 15 Apri l2011, CDR Etta C. Jones, Commanding Officer , USS PONCE (LPD 15)

gave preferent ia l t reatment to her female off icers , in viola t ion

Enclosure ( 1 )

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - _ . _ . _ . _ - -

o f SECNAVINST 5350.16A (Equal Opportuni ty Within The Department

Of Th e Navy) .

(d ) Allegat ion 4, tha t between OCtober 2010 and 15 Apr i l

2011, CDR Et t a C. Jones , COIIQIlBnding Off icer , USS PONCE (LPD 15)crea ted a hos t i l e work environment, in v io l a t ion o f SECNAVINST

5300.26D (Department of the Navy Policy on Sexual Harassment) .

(e) Allegat ion 5, t h a t CDR Et ta C. Jones, COJIIIMndingOff icer , USS PONCE (LPD 15) di rec ted supervisors to bypass

sa fe ty procedures dur ing wel l deck and seamanship evo lu t ions , in

v io l a t ion of u.s. Navy Regulat ions 802 (Responsib i l i ty) and 825

(Safe ty Precautions) and UCMJ, Art ic le 92 (Dere l ic t ion o f Duty) .

(f) Allega t ion 6, tha t on 13 Apr i l 2011, CDR Bt ta C. Jones , -

C()III!Da,Qding Off icer , USSPON'CE (LPD 15 ) endangered personnel when

she improper ly handled her personal 9MM serv ice weapon, inv io l a t ion of NTRP 3-07.2 .2 (Force Pro tec t ion Weapons HandlingStandard Procedures and Guidel ines) .

(g ) Allega t ion 7, t h a t CDR Et ta C. Jones, CODIIIIIIIldingOff icer , USB PONCE (LPD 15 ) fa i led to promote th e sa fe ty and

wel lbeing o f personnel under h er cQ!'!1TiJand by f a i l ing to ensuresmall arms t r a in ing was proper ly accomplished, in v io l a t ion of

u.s. Navy Regulat ion 1131 and NTRP 3-07.2 .2 (Force Protec t ion

Weapons Handling Standard Procedures and Guidel ines) •

(h ) Allega t ion 8, t h a t on o r about 15 March 2011, EN3 Ramon

Holloman pa r t i c ipa t ed in hazing inc ident s anboard USB PONCE, in

v io l a t ion o f SECHAVINST 1610. 2A (Department of the Navy Policy

on Hazing) •

( i ) Allegat ion 9, t h a t I b7c I pa r t i c ipa t ed

in hazing inc ident s anboard USS PONCE, in v io l a t ion o f

SECNAVINST 1610.2A (Department of the Navy Policy on Hazing) .

( j ) Allegat ion 10, tha t on or about 15 March 2011,

I b7c I pa r t i c ipa t ed in hazing inc ident s onboard USSPONCE, in v io l a t ion of SECNAViNST 1610.2A (Department o f th e

Navy Policy on Hazing).

(k ) Allegat ion 11, t h a t on o r about 15 March 2011, I bZc I

b7c Iwas d e r e l i c t in h is du t i e s a s t he I b7c II b7 c I when he fai led. to r epor t th e hazing t h a t was taJti.ng place

in the Engineer ing Department, in v io l a t ion of SECNAVDTST1610.2A (Department of the Navy Policy on Hazing) .

2

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


OSFF IG substant iated allegations 1 through 10 and found

a l lega t ion 11 to be unsubstant iated.

I have reviewed the Report of Invest igat ion as well as thePrel iminary Inquiry conducted by Commander Sixth Flee t fo r O. S.

Naval Forces Afr ica. After reviewing these documents, I {b)(5) I

(b)(5)

3 . Conclusion. I f ind the OSFF IG Report of Inves t iga t ion

(b)(5)

b7c

LCDR, JAGC, USN

3

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Rotline Report of InvestigationCase NUmber 201101107

16 Kay 2011

1. Investigator(s) an d Identifying Information and Location of WorkingPapers:

a. Investigator(s) an d Identifying Information. I b7c

1 ~ - b ~ 7 ~ c - - ~ 1 Investigator , U. S. Fleet Forces Command, (USFF) Office of the

Inspector General; Tel: (757) 8 3 6 ~ ; DSN 8 3 6 - ~ ; E-mail:

I b7c ~ a v y . mil.

b. Location of working papers. U. S. Fleet Forces Command, Office ofthe Inspector General, Attn: NOOIG, 1562 Mitscher Ave., Norfolk, VA 23551-2487

2 • Background an d S\UIIID&ry:

a. Rotline C ~ n t r o l #, Dates of Receipt , an d Tasking Dates

(1) U. S. Fleet Forces Command Inspector General Hotline controlnumber 201101107 received via USFF IG Hotline e-mail on 14 Apri l 11 .

b. S\UIIID&ry of Complaints:

(1) An anonymous complainant alleged CDR Etta Jones, CommandingOfficer, USS PONCE (LPD 15) verbally abused subordinates; fai led to report aphysical confrontation between an E-8 an d an E-5 on the pier ; providedpreferential treatment to female off icers ; manipulated underway watch bi l l s

to exclude female of f icers from standing the leas t desirable watches; madeinappropriate comments in the company of several of f icers re la t ive to herbreasts an d used terms l ike "spl i t t a i l " when referr ing to women; allegedlytold male of f icers she would " t ie thei r nuts in a knot"; and endangeredpersonnel when she handled her government issued 9MM weapon in an unsafecondition.

(2) Due to the location of the ship a t the time of the complaint,the Deputy Commander, u.s. Fleet Forces Command coordinated with Commander,

Sixth Fleet (C6F) resul t ing in C6F conducting a preliminary inquiry todetermine the val id i ty of the complaint an d whether or not immediate actionwas required.

(3) A C6F-directed JAGMAN invest igat ion conducted by I b7c

'1--------b-7-C--------d' Destroyer Squadron 60 , resul ted in the r e l i e f of CDR EttaJones, ~ o m m a n a ~ n g f f i c e r , an d LCDR Kurk Boenisch, Executive Officer , USSPONCE due to loss of confidence by Commander, Sixth Fleet .

(4) The information in th is report of invest igat ion i s based on

witness statements from the JAGMAN invest igat ion with the exception of theal legat ions re la t ive to hazing (Allegations 8 through I I ) . These al legat ionswere added as emerging al legat ions based on addit ional witness statementstaken by the invest igator an d the findings of the JAGMAN invest igat ion.

c . Investigation S\Ul l lD&ry . A review of the complaint determined therewere eleven al legat ions appropriate for invest igat ion. The f i r s t ten were

substantia ted an d the eleventh was unsubstant iated . The specif ic al legat ionsare discussed in the following paragraphs.

ai'Til aRa 8l!'iMiftal pene l e i e s

1

111 eeea

Enclosure ( 1.- )

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotline Report of InvestigationCase Humber 201101107

16 May 2011

d. Lis t of Allegat ions .

(1) Allegation 1, tha t between October 2010 and 15 Apri l 2011, CDR Etta

C. Jones, Commanding Officer , USS PONCE (LPD 15) verbally abused subordinateoff icers an d enlisted personnel, in violat ion of 10 U.S.C. § 5947 (Requirement

of exemplary conduct) , u . s . Navy Regulations 1130 an d 1131, and UCMJ, Art icle 93(Cruelty and Maltreatment) , i s SUBSTANTIATED.

(2) Allegation 2, t ha t on or about 15 March 2010, CDR Etta C. Jones,

Commanding Officer , USS PONCE (LPD 15) directed subordinates not to make, or to

delay required reports for reportable incidents aboard USS PONCE, in vio la t ion

of u . s . Navy Regulations 1130 an d 1137 an d UCMJ Art icle 92 (Derel ict ion ofDuty), i s SUBSTANTIATBD.

(3) Allegation 3, tha t between October 2010 and 15 Apri l 2011, CDR EttaC. Jones, Commanding Officer , USS PONCE (LPD 15) gave preferent ia l t reatment to

her female of f icers , in violat ion of SECNAVINST 5350.16A (Equal OpportunityWithin The Department Of The Navy), i s SUBSTANTIATBD.

(4) Allegation 4, tha t between October 2010 and 15 Apri l 2011, CDR EttaC. Jones, Commanding Officer , USS PONCE {LPD 15) created a host i le work

environment, in violat ion of SECNAVINST 5300.26D (Department of the Navy Policyon Sexual Harassment), i s SUBSTANTIATED.

(5) Allegation S, tha t CDR Etta C. Jones, Commanding Officer , USS PONCE

(LPD 15) directed supervisors to bypass safety procedures during well deck and

seamanship evolutions, in violat ion of u . s . Navy Regulations 802(Responsibil i ty) and 825 (Safety Precautions) an d UCMJ, Art ic le 92 (Derelictionof Duty), i s SUBSTANTIATBD.

(6) Allegation 6, tha t on 13 Apri l 2011, CDR Etta C. Jones, CommandingOfficer , USS PONCE (LPD 15) endangered personnel when she improperly handled herpersonal 9MM service weapon, in viola t ion of NTRP 3-07.2.2 (Force Protect ionWeapons Handling Standard Procedures an d Guidelines), i s SUBSTANTIATED.

(7) Allegation 7, tha t CDR Etta C. Jones, Commanding Officer , USS PONCE

(LPD 15) fa i led to promote the safe ty an d wellbeing of personnel under hercommand by fa i l ing to ensure small arms t raining was properly accomplished, in

violat ion of u .S. Navy Regulation 1131 and NTRP 3-07.2.2 (Force Protect ionWeapons Handling Standard Procedures an d Guidelines), i s SUBSTANTIATED.

(8) Allegation 8 (Emerging), t ha t on or about 15 March 2011, I b7c

r l - - ~ b ~ 7 c - - ~ 1 par t i c ipa ted in hazing incidents onboard USS PONCE, in vio la t ion ofSECNAVINST 1610.2A (Department of the Navy Policy on Hazing), i s SUBSTANTIATED.

(9) Allegation 9 (Emerging), t ha t I b7c I par t i c ipa ted in

hazing incidents onboard USS PONCE, in violat ion of SECNAVINST 1610.2A(Department of the Navy Policy on Hazing), i s SUBSTANTIATBD.

(10) Allegat ion 10 (Emerging), tha t on or about 15 March 2011, I b7c

I b7c I par t i c ipa ted in hazing incidents onboard USS PONCE, in vio la t ion ofSECNAVINST 1610.2A (Department of the Navy Policy on Hazing), i s SUBSTANTIATBD.

9• • I e I ~ SSB 9HD¥ PRE¥AeY S B M 9 E ~ E T J B Aft, M i 8 ~ e e eF tift8Heh8Fieea a i B e l e B t i ~ e m&¥ ~ e e w l ~ ia S 9 ~ R

Qi2'il: aRB eiFi , . iaal pseale; iee

2

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotl ina Report o f Invest igat ion

Ca.e Humber 201101107

16 Hay 2011

(11) Allegat ion 11 (Emerging), tha t on

""'--b'""Z-c-"", was derel ic t in his dut ies as the Ireport the hazing tha t was taking place in theviolat ion of SECNAVINST 1610.2A (Department of

tlHSUBSTANTIATBD.

or about 15 March 2011, bZc

bZc I when he fai led

Engineering Department, in

the Navy Policy on Hazing), i s

to

3. Allegat ion 1 , that between October 2010 an d 15 Apri l 2011, CDR Etta C.Jones, Commanding Officer, USS PONCE (LPD 15) verbally abused subordinateoff icers an d enlisted personnel, in v iola t ion of 10 U.S.C. § 5947 (Requirement

of exemplary conduct), u.s. Navy Regulations 1130 an d 1131, and UCMJ, Article 93(Cruelty an d Maltreatment), i s SUBSTANTIATED.

a. Pacts:

(1) 10 U.S.C. § 5947 (Requirement of exemplary conduct) and u.s. NavyRegulations 1131 s ta te tha t , "All commanding of f icers an d others in authori tyin the naval service are required to show in themselves a good example ofvi r tue , honor, patr iot ism, an d subordination; to be vigi lant in inspectingthe c o n d u c ~ of a l l persons who are placed under the i r command; to guard

against an d suppress a l l dissolute an d immoral pract ices , an d to correct ,according to the laws an d regulat ions of the Navy, a l l persons who are gui l ty

of them; and to take a l l necessary and proper measures, under the laws,regulat ions, and customs of the naval service , to promote and safeguard themorale, the physical well-being, an d the general welfare of the of f icers an denlisted persons under the i r command or charge.,i

(2) u.s. Navy Regulations 1130 s ta tes tha t , "All off icers in the navalservice sha l l acquaint themselves with, obey and, so fa r as the i r authori tyextends, enforce the laws, regulat ions an d orders re la t ing to the Department ofthe Navy. They wil l fa i thful ly and t ru thful ly discharge the dut ies of thei r

off ices to the best of thei r abi l i ty in conformance with exis t ing orders and

regulat ions an d thei r solemn profession of the oath of of f ice . In the absenceof inst ruct ions, they sha l l act in conformity with the policies and customs ofthe service to pro tec t the public in teres t . "

(3) Uniform Code of Military Jus t ice , Article 93 (Cruelty an d

Maltreatment) s ta tes that , "Any person subject to th i s chapter who i s gui l ty ofcruel ty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, an y person subject to hisorders sha l l be punished as a court-martia l may direct . " Elements of Art ic le93: "that a cer tain person was subject to the orders of the accused; and tha t

the accused was cruel toward, or oppressed, or maltreated tha t person".

(4) The testimonies of numerous of f icers included statements made by CDR

Jones against an d about other PONCE of f icers including: ca l l ing ' bZc , a"puddle of shi t" , I bZc I a "dumb ass" , an d te l l ing I b7c I"interrupt me again an d I wil l take a gigantic sh i t on you" ( this statement wasmade on the bridge in front of both Junior Officers an d enl i s ted watch

standers) . She described other of f icers onboard as "special" , "idiots" , or

"dumb". Several male of f icers s ta ted CDR Jones said sh e would " t ie the i r nuts"

in a knot i f they continued to mismanage her expectat ions .

e p p ! e ~ 9 9 .ItllY misuse 01 Wi&ULhozlzed dieeloi5uzc lElS) LEsdi e in r,etoh

ei.il eRa e . ~ M ~ 8 a l ~ . R . l _ ~ . 8 3

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Bavy Hotl ine Report of Invest igat ion

Case NUmber 201101107

16 Hay 2011

b. Analysis /Discussion/Conclusion

(1) CDR Jones' abusive language an d her personal at tacks in ca l l ing

specif ic junior of f icers names l ike "stupid", "dumb ass" , an d "puddle of shi t"

an d t e l l ing Ib7c

I that sh e i s going to defecate on him in f ront of otheroff icers and enlisted personnel embarrassed and be l i t t l ed them in the eyes oftheir subordinates. CDR Jones did not demonstrate exemplary conduct, herconduct was such tha t sh e showed complete disregard for ru les an d regulat ionsappl icable to the duties of a commanding off icer . CDR Jones created anatmosphere of fear to the degree tha t most of f icers were afraid to approach orbe near her. This created a barr ier to effec t ive communication with the CO,

possibly resul t ing in withholding c r i t i ca l information from her out of a fear ofher subsequent outbursts an d name ca l l ing. CDR Jones' abusive behavior meetsth e elements of a violat ion under UCMJ Art ic le 93 (Cruelty an d Maltreatment) .This al legat ion i s SUBSTABTXATBD.

c. Recommendation: None.

d. Disposi t ion: Corrective action taken, CDR Jones was removed as

Commanding Officer .

4. Allegat ion 2, tha t on or about 15 March 2010, CDR Etta C. Jones, CommandingOfficer , USS PONCE (LPD 15) directed subordinates not to make, or to delayrequired reports for reportable incidents aboard USS PONCE, in violat ion of U.S.

Navy Regulations 1130 an d 1137 an d UCMJ Art ic le 92 (Derel ict ion of Duty), i sSUBSTAR'1'XATBD .

a. !! i l l :

(1) U.S. Navy Regulations 1130 s ta tes tha t , "All of f icers in the navalservic.e sha l l acquaint themselves with, obey and, so fa r as the i r authori tyextends, enforce the laws, regulat ions an d orders re la t ing to the Department ofthe Navy. They wil l fa i thful ly and t ru thful ly discharge the dut ies of t he i r

offices to the best of the i r abi l i ty in conformance with exis t ing orders an d

regulat ions an d the i r solemn profession of the oath of of f ice . In the absenceof inst ruct ions, they sha l l act in conformity with the pol ic ies and customs ofthe service to protect the public in teres t . "

(2) U.S. Navy Regulation 1137 s ta tes tha t , "Persons in the naval serviceshal l report as soon as possible to superior authori ty a l l offenses under theUniform Code of Military Just ice which come under the i r observation, except whensuch persons are themselves already cr iminally involved in such offenses a t thetime such offenses f i r s t come under thei r observation. Elements of U.S. NavyRegulation 1137: Violat ion of or fa i lure to obey a lawful general order orregulat ion; " that there was in ef fec t a cer tain lawful general order orregulat ion; that the accused had a duty to obey i t ; an d tha t the accusedviolated or fa i led to obey the order or regulat ion".

(3) Uniform Code of Military Just ice, Article 107 (False Official

Statement) s ta tes tha t , "Any person subject to th is chapter who, with in tent todeceive, signs an y false record, re turn, regulat ion, order, or other off ic ia l

document, knowing it to be false , or makes an y other false of f i c i a l statementknowing it to be false , shal l be punished as a court-martia l may direct . "

Elements of UCMJ, Article 107: Intent to deceive; "the false representat ion must

PR£7Ae¥ S B M S £ ~ £ . B Afty M i B ~ s e e . ~ ~ e A 9 5 i . e a a i B s I Q s w ~ 8 m ~ · r88u15 1& &QtA

e i ; i l afta erl:mil'J:al I'e:naleies

4

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotline Report of Investigationcas . Humber 201101107

16 Kay 2011

be made with the in tent to deceive. I t i s not necessary that the false

statement be material to the issue in inquiry; i f , however, the fa ls i ty i s inrespect to a mater ia l matter, it may be considered as some evidence of thein tent to deceive"

(4) Uniform Code of Military Just ice, Article 92 (Derel ict ion of Duty)

an y person subject to the Code who i s dere l ic t in the performance of her dut ies ,shal l be punished as a court-martia l may direct . Elements of UCMJ, Article 92 :

Duty; " a duty may be imposed by t r ea ty , s ta tu te , regulat ion, lawful order,standard operating procedure, or custom of the service"; Knowledge; "actualknowledge of duties may be proved by circumstantia l evidence".

(5) There was a f ight between I b7c I an d I b7c I on the p ie r

during the "Beer on the Pier" night inport Aqaba a t approximately 0030, 24February 2011. The f ight resul ted in a minor injury to I b7P I CDR Joneswas made aware of the f igh t pr ior to lunch on 24 February 2011 but fa i led to

immediately report the incident to her chain of command in accordance withOPNAVINST F3100.6J requirements tha t incidents should be reported within 24hours. The Executive Officer (XO) t e s t i f i ed it was his bel ief tha t th i s was an

alcohol-re la ted incident (ARI) tha t was also required to be reported v ia a Drugan d Alcohol Abuse Report (DAAR) by OPNAVINST 5350.40 (Navy Alcohol an d Drug

Abuse Prevention an d Control). The Xo s ta ted he, the I b7c II b7e I an d the Commanding Officer (CO) discussed th i s incident and he expressedhis opinion tha t th i s was an ARI an d should be reported. The CO elected not toemploy ei ther reporting mechanism an d did not advise her chain of command of theincident a t the time it occurred.

(6) on 15 March 2011, I b7e I went to the Auxil iaries DivisionOffice (A-Div) to pick up his mail. I b7c t ol lected his mail an d

s ta r ted to walk out the door when he was jumped by I bS I an d l:iiZCJ

I b7c l They put I b7c I on the deck on his stomach an d t ied his

feet with a rope, hung him over a l igh t and struck him with a bel t .

(7) on 16 March 2011, I b7c I went into berthing in an

attempt to get a haircut and was again at tacked byl We L Thisincident resul ted in an injury to I b7e I head tha t required him

to be medically evacuated from the ship to the local overseas hospi tal where

surgery was required under general anesthesia to s top the wound from bleeding.I b7e I admitted th i s incident was hazing an d stated he had beenhazing others since May 2010 an d did not real ize it was a ser ious offense. CDR

Jones downplayed th is incident as "horseplay" in a SITREP she released butcharacterized it as hazing when deal ing with those involved.

b. Analysis/Discussion/Conclusion

(1) CDR Jones was aware of the incidents tha t took place. 15 an d 16 March

2011; there was a command invest igat ion conducted tha t ident i f ied the behavioras hazing. CDR Jones awarded EMI based on a finding of hazing an d ordered the

Ib7clto write the hazing instruct ion ten times in longhand as punishment.

(2) The assaul t an d hazing incidents both required report ing to

leadership senior to PONCE. Reports were ei ther sent out l a te or not a t a l l .The hazing incident was not reported un t i l the JAGMAN invest igat ion determined

misuse or ~ a ~ e ~ r i ~ e a a i e e l e 8 ~ r e ma, r e e ~ l e 1ft eetke iv i l aft6 eFim'ftsl . eaale ies

5

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotl ine Report of Invest igat ion

Case Humber 201101107

16 Kay 2011

i t ha d not been reported (on 22 Apri l 2011 a NAVY BLUE SITREP reported the

hazing incident) .

(3) Emerging al legat ions against the xo an d I b7c I or fa i lure to

report the incident were considered an d dismissed based on the XO's

testimony. While a l l supervisors have the responsibi l i ty to reportincidents, the acceptable interpretat ion i s tha t when the CO i s present theinst ruct ion imposes upon supervisors the d ~ t y to a le r t the co to theperceived violat ion and recommend the CO take appropriate action. I t i s theCO's ult imate responsibi l i ty an d authori ty to decide how to handle a givens i tua t ion.

(4) CDR Jones had the responsibi l i ty to report incidents such as thehazing, a l c o h o l ~ r e l a t e d incidents an d f ights to her ISIC. Through negligence or

design, sh e fai led to report these incidents properly . In the case of hazing it

appears she intent ional ly did not properly report th i s incident as hazing. Infac t , a SITREP was released tha t reported the incident as horseplay when it had

been c lear ly iden t i f ied as hazing. Internal to PONCE; however, CDR Jones cal ledthe incident hazing and ordered the responsible leading pet ty of f ice r to writethe hazing instruct ion in longhand ten times as punishment. This al legat ion i s

SOBS'l'AlfTIA'l'BD.

c. Recommendation: None.

d. Dispos i t ion: Corrective action taken, CDR Jones was removed as CommandingOfficer.

5. Allegat ion 3 , tha t between October 2010 an d 15 Apri l 2011, CDR Etta C.Jones, commanding Officer , USS PONCE (LPD 15) gave preferent ia l treatment to herfemale of f icers , in violat ion of SECNAVINST 5350.16A (Equal Opportunity withinThe Department Of The Navy), i s SOBS'l'AlfTIA'l'BD.

a . Pacts:

(1) SECNAVINST 5350.16A (Equal Opportunity within the Department of The

Navy) s ta tes in paragraph 3. tha t , "This inst ruct ion applies to a l l DON mili tary

personnel, Regular an d Reserve; Naval Academy an d Reserve Officer Training Corps

Midshipmen; and Reservis ts performing act ive or inactive duty or engaging in an y

act iv i ty related to the performance of Department of Defense (DOD) Reserve duty

or function."

(2) SECNAVINST 5350.16A s ta tes in paragraph 7.a . tha t , " I t i s DON policythat : Unlawful discr imination based on race, rel igion, color , gender, ornational origin i s s t r ic t ly prohibited an d wil l not be tolerated."

(3) SECNAVINST 5350.16A s ta tes in paragraph 7.b. that , "No commander orsupervisor may, by act , word, deed, or omission, condone or ignore unlawfuldiscriminat ion. Commanders, commanding off icers (COs) an d of f icers in charge(OICs) are responsible an d accountable for enforcing the policy against unlawfuldiscrimination."

(4) SECNAVINST 5350.16A s ta tes in enclosure (1) paragraph 3. tha t , " I t i s

the r ight of a l l persons to par t ic ipa te in , an d benefi t from programs an dact iv i t ies for which they are qual i f ied. These programs an d act iv i t ies sha l l be

J\R.y millY:sa e r lclRaw.1;.'RQra.lilea dl&Hillg&J\lli'8 mal' reQylt iA bot,",

c iu i l a n ~ erimiftal p e B a l ~ i 8 & 6

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotline Report of InvestigationCase Number 201101107

16 Kay 2011

free from social , personal, or ins t i tu t ional bar r ie r s that prevent people from

r is ing to the highest level of responsibi l i ty possible. Persons sha l l be

evaluated on individual merit , f i tness , an d capabil i ty, regardless of race,rel ig ion, color, 'gender, or national origin.

(5) CDR Jones personal ly wrote the various underway watch bi i l s for theoff icers , giving multiple watches to of f icers she did not l ike an d none to her"favor i tes" . She usually assigned day watches to her f'emale off icers . One ofthe female of f icers , I b7c I was often referred to by CDR Jones as "her

daughter", "God-child", or "CO's special g i r l " . The r.erception among the otheroff icers was tha t i f you had an issue with I b7c " you would pay the pricewith the CO. I bIe I stood few watches an d did not show up fo r many underinstruct ion watches (U/I) with no not ice or excuse. No act ion was taken againsther while other of f icers were reprimanded fo r being minutes la te for UtIwatches.

(6) CDR Jones conducted female-only off icer meetings in her stateroom,

invi ted female of f icers to her stateroom for movie an d popcorn night, offeredfemale of f icers the use of the CO's sedan when inport and bought female off icers

g i f t s . According to CDR Jones sh e also offered the use of the sedan to male

of f icers ; however, tha t asser t ion was disputed by the male of f icers questioned.

(7) Two female of f icers , I b7c I an d I b7c I were repor ted to

have been intoxicated on the p ie r during the "Beer on the Pier" night on 23February 2011, an d were seen kissing each other. After th is incident, r l - - ~ b ~ 7 ~ e - - - ' sa t in a Marine of f i ce r ' s lap an d began making out with him. I t wasaddit ional ly reported tha t I b7e I sa t next to an enl i s ted Sa i lor and kissedhim on the cheek. None of these incidents were investigated an d no actions were

taken. Many of those interviewed believed no action was taken because CDR Jones

favored the female of f icers .

(8) Many incidents were ident i f ied that c lear ly demonstrated CDR Joneshad given preferential treatment to female of f icers over male of f icers by herword and deed. Her preferent ia l treatment caused the recipients to be

uncomfortable an d created a divide in the wardroom between those favored an d

those who were not .

b. Analysis/Discussion/Conclusion. The tes t imonia l and documentary

evidence indicate CDR Jones gave preferent ia l treatment to female off icers .

Examples such as those outlined above demonstrate males and females were nott reated equal ly by CDR Jones. Her preferent ia l treatment of female of f icers

divided the wardroom between those who were favored an d those who were not.The al legat ion i s SOBSTAHTZATBD.

c . Rec01lllDendation: None. b7c I interviewed both b7c

an d I b7c I an d determined there was no kiss ; he opined that th is inc identwas more perception than r ea l i t r ' The incident with the Marine of f ice r was ofvery short duration, I b7c _ was directed to return to the ship and theMarine off icer was counseled by h is COCo No witnesses confirmed sh e kissed an

enl i s ted member. Therefore, no addit ional action i s recommended.

d. Disposition: Corrective action taken, CDR Jones was removed as Commanding

Officer.

OPP%C%JkfI tf8J1 8lftN PRPl"AS¥ SBHSiEl'P'lR£

e i o i l ana e ~ i . ~ a l ~ e R & l ~ i a a 7

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotline Report of InvestigationCase NUmber 201101107

16 Kay 2011

6. Allegat ion 4, tha t between October 2010 an d 15 Apri l 2011, CDR Etta C.Jones, Commanding Officer , USS PONCE (LPD 15) created a hos t i le work

environment, in violat ion of SECNAVINST 5300.260 (Department of the Navy Policyon Sexual Harassment), i s SUBSTAHTIATBD.

a . ~ : (1) SECNAVINST 5300.260 (Equal Opportunity within the Department of The

Navy) s ta tes in paragraph 8.c. that , ~ A l l personnel are responsible for t r ea t ing

others with digni ty and respect . This means ful ly and fa i thful ly complying withth is instruct ion. All DON personnel are accountable for the i r act ions."

(2) SECNAVINST 5300.260 s ta tes in enclosure (1), paragraph 3.c . that ,

"Such conduct has the purpose or ef fec t of unreasonably interfer ing with anindividual ' s work performance or creates an int imidating, hos t i le or offensiveworking environment. This def ini t ion emphasizes tha t workplace conduct, to beact ionable as "abusive work environment" harassment, need not resul t in concretepsychological harm to the victim, but rather need only be so severe or pervasivethat a reasonable person would perceive, an d the victim does perceive, the work

environment as hos t i le or offensive. ("Workplace" i s an expansive term formili tary members an d may include conduct on or off duty, 24 hours a day.) Anyperson in a supervisory or command posi t ion who uses or condones an y form ofsexual behavior to control , influence, or affect the career , pay, or jo b of amili tary member or civi l ian employee i s engaging in sexual harassment.

Similarly , an y mili tary member or civi l ian employee who makes del iberate orrepeated unwelcome verbal comments, gestures, or physical contact of a sexualnature in the workplace i s also engaging in sexual harassment."

(3) Witnesses provided statements tha t disclosed the terms CDR Jones usedto describe herse l f , other females an d derogatory comments directed a t otherof f icers . When dealing with male of f icers , CDR Jones used terms tha t

demonstrated a lack of respect for them an d addi t ional ly would be considered"red l ight" behavior. Witnesses s ta ted tha t CDR Jones used terms l ike ~ s p l i t ta i ls" when referr ing to herself an d the reason sh e was being passed over for

command.CDR

Jones made the comment tha t the reason the men on board USSPONCE

did not respect her was because she has " t i t s " . Several male of f icers s ta ted

CDR Jones said she would " t ie thei r nuts in a knot i f they continue to mismanage

her expectations". Additionally, CDR Jones told I b7c I "interrupt meagain an d I wil l take a gigantic sh i t on you". This comment was made in frontof the ent i re bridge watch team, both off icers an d enl i s ted .

b. Analysis/Discussion/Conclusion. CDR Jones did not respect other off icers

onboard PONCE as evidenced by derogatory comments an d descript ions; the termsshe used to describe herse l f an d other females created a hos t i le working

environment in violat ion of SECNAVINST 5300.260 (Equal Opportunity within theDepartment of The Navy) and u.S. Navy Regulation 1131, 10 U.S.C. § 5947

(Requirement of exemplary conduct). The al legat ion i s SUBSTANTIATED.

c. RacOJllllendation: None

d. Disposit ion: Corrective action taken, CDR Jones was removed as Commanding

Officer .

I'R!VAe¥ SBNS!'!'!'U'B

AUi 1ll115USe 61 tmaatholized diselo8t!re M1!l"') l!e8tllt! ill! seek

e iu i l ans er iminal ~ e f t & l e i e e 8

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ . _ ....__

Navy Hotline Report of Inve.t igat ionCa.e Humber 201101107

16 Kay 2011

7. Allegation 5 , that CDR Etta C. Jones, Commanding Officer , USS PONCE (LPD 15)directed supervisors to bypass safety procedures during well deck and seamanship

evolutions, in violat ion of u.s. Navy Regulations 802 (Responsibili ty) an d 825(Safety Precautions) an d UCMJ, Article 92 (Derel ict ion of Duty), i s

SUBSTAHTIATBD .

a . !:!ill:

(1) U.S. Navy Regulation 802.2 (Responsibil i ty) s ta tes that , ftA

commanding off icer who departs from orders or inst ruct ions, or takes off ic ia l

action which i s not in accordance with such orders or instruct ions, does so upon

his or her own responsibi l i ty and sha l l report immediately the circumstances tothe of f icer from whom the pr ior orders or instruct ions were received. Of

par t icula r importance i s the commanding off icer ' s duty to take a l l necessary an d

appropriate action in self-defense of the command."

(2) U.S. Navy Regulation 825 (Safety precautions) s ta tes that , "The

commanding of f ice r sha l l require that persons concerned are inst ructed an ddr i l led in a l l applicable safety precautions an d procedures tha t are complied

with, an d tha t applicable safety precautions or extracts there from, are posted

in appropriate places. In an y instance where safety precaut ions have not beenissued, or are incomplete, the commanding off icer sha l l i ssue or augment such

safety precautions as are deemed necessary, notifying, when appropriate, higherauthor i t ies concerned."

(3) CDR Jones directed I blp I to use r ight f ive degree rudder whilethe sea pain ter was connected to the seven meter RHIB on the port quarter of theship during recovery. This could have caused the s te rn of the ship to swing inthe direct ion of the RHIB. I b7c Imade an a l te rna t ive recommendation butwas directed to comply with her order.

(4) CDR Jones directed I b l" I to order green range during a wingmounted 240B machine gun shoot despi te his report of a contact within the impact

area of the range.

(5) CDR Jones directed PONCE to make the approach with USNS PEARY duringpreparation for underway replenishment, even though ROMEO was not closed up asrequired. The XO intervened an d the ship was reposit ioned.

(6) During high in tens i ty evolutions on the bridge, CDR Jones disruptedthe watch team and diver ted the i r a t tent ion from the operations a t hand withnon-cr i t ical i ssues. While navigating the Suez Canal a t night with heavy

shipping t r a f f i c , the CO came to the bridge and ordered the ooD to explain whyher laptop computer had been closed.

(7) CDR Jones ordered maneuvering the ship while a t amber deckl duringf l ight operat ions . When she was advised by the ooD the ship was a t amber deck,

the ooD was ordered to maneuver anyway.

(8) CDR Jones directed the LCU to launch on one engine even though it

violated SOP an d was against the cra f t master ' s recommendation.

I "Amber deck" is a flight deck operating condition set when a helicopter is engaging or disengaging its rotor system.

Maneuvering the ship during this condition could result in damage to the aircraft and is to be avoided.

9PPiliEliliAla llSB 91&0'11

hB, misQse ep QRaQeaepieea aissleswFe may Feswl& SQ&Q

e i ; i l BRa e ~ i . i B a l .8Ra16ies

9

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotline Report of InvestigationCase Humber 201101107

16 May 2011

b. Analysis/Discussion/Conclusion. CDR Jones violated accepted ship

handling safety procedures an d when advised of her er ror would ignore theadvice an d direct tha t her orders be carr ied out. In these examples and in

other numerous errors in judgment an d violat ions of established SOPs,

direct ives , t r adi t ions an d ru les of the road, CDR Jones exhibitedunfamil iari ty with operating procedures an d damaged her credibi l i ty withthose who observed her perceived lack of professional expert ise. Theal legat ion i s SUBSTANTIATED.

c. Recommendation: None

d. Disposi t ion a Corrective action taken, CDR Jones was removed as CommandingOfficer.

9. Allegation 6, tha t on 13 Apri l 2011, CDR Etta C. Jones, Commanding Officer,USS PONCE (LPD 15) endangered personnel when sh e improperly handled her personal9MM service weapon, in violat ion of NTRP 3-07.2.2 (Force Protection WeaponsHandling Standard Procedures an d Guidelines), i s SUBSTANTIATED.

a . ~ : (1) NTRP 3-07.2.2 (Force Protection Weapons Handling Standard Procedures

an d Guidelines), paragraph 1.2 (Weapon Safety) s ta tes that , "Proper weapons

handling i s the responsibi l i ty of the person in control of the weapon. Pointingor aiming a functional weapon a t an y person or thing i s unlawful except whenrequired in the performance of duty. When armed with an y weapon for which

chambering a round has been authorized, personnel must ensure tha t the safetyremains in the safe posi t ion unt i l immediately pr ior to f i r ing ."

(2) One of the embarked Marines had borrowed three lED t ra ining devices

from the ship ' s Master a t Arms (MAA). On 13 Apri l 2011 he returned them by

leaving them in f ront of the MAA door. There was a small arms qualif icat ion

evolution executing a t the same t ime. Two of the t ra ining devices were taken to

the MAA while he was in the ship ' s laundry an d the other was l e f t in f ront of

his off ice door. I b7eI saw the lED t ra ining device and cal led the OOD to

report i t . The odD not1f1ed the CO whd directed they ca l l away "SecurityAlertH. I We L armed as a resul t of the qualif icat ion evolution, found thelED t raining aid an d cal led the OOD to report tha t he had the t ra ining aid andthat it was a false alarm. The CO s ta ted tha t sh e did not care because she didnot sign off on any t raining package. I b7e J rought the t ra ining device to

the CO on the bridge an d told the CO the a le r t s ould be stood down because thecrew was walking around with Condition 1 weapons (slide forward, magazine

inser ted, round chambered, safety on) as a resul t of the concurrent small arms

qualif icat ion evolution. The CO refused to t r ea t the secur i ty a le r t as at raining event. I b7

rIoffered to escort the CO to her stateroom

but sh e refused, she wanted We I to escort her but eventually stated, "Fuck

th is , I wil l get my own gun".

(3) The CO went to her cabin an d removed her 9mm from her safe .

(4) I b7e I and I b7e I reported to the CO's stateroom believingthe s i tua t ion was a real securi ty a le r t . When I hZe I an d I We I enteredthe CO's stateroom she ha d her weapon out an d pointed a t the door. She did not

e p P I e I ~ eBB eH&¥

10

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotl ine Report o f Invest igat ion

Case NUmber 201101107

16 May 2011

immediately lower the weapon when sh e saw I b7c an d I hlp I enter . She

was ta lk ing with her hand an d gestur ing with the gun. The CO then se t theweapon on her desk an d to ld an d I hI" I tha t sh e i s "old school" and wanted

to keep the gu n "locked and ready to go". The CO to ld I b7c I an d ! b7c Ito take her weapon an d c lear it in the armory. When! b7c I reached for the

CO's weapon, both he an d I bl e I real ized tha t the safety was off . The CO didnot reco:rize the gun 's safety was in the off posi t ion an d did not react when

! b7c _ _ told her the safety was off . She stated it was in Condition 1.

b. Analysis /Discussion/Conclusion

(1) As a resul t of inadequate t ra ining, Sai lors fai led to act in

accordance with ship ' s instruct ions during the underway securi ty a le r t . They

were unaware tha t PONCE ha d published procedures for th is type of s i tua t ion.

I t was discovered during the inves t igat ion tha t even the CO was no t aware theship possessed published procedures for an underway securi ty a le r t .

(2) CDR Jones unsafely an d improperly handled her 9mm sidearm duringthe securi ty a le r t contrary to shipboard and Navy direct ives. w h e n ~

I bl e Idelivered the t ra ining device to her on the bridge an d recommended

standing down from securi ty a le r t , CDR Jones should have done so immediately.Understanding tha t no threat existed, sh e should not have removed her weapon

from the cabin safe, nor should she have placed the weapon in Condition 1.

Once in Condition 1, she should have kept the weapon under posi t ive controlra ther than plac ing it on her desk. She should not have pointed the weapon

toward the open cabin door, regardless the posi t ion of the safety. She

should not have given the weapon to ! b7c I fo r clearance, but shouldhave cleared the weapon herself . Once she chose to pass the weapon t o ~ I b k I, she should have specif ical ly confirmed the safety was on pr ior to

handing him the weapon. The al legat ion i s SUBSTANTIATBD.

c. RecODlllendation: None

d. DiSposit ion: Corrective act ion taken, CDR Jones was removed as CommandingOfficer.

10. Allegat ion 7, that CDR Etta C. Jones, Commanding Officer, USS PONCE (LPD

15) fai led to promote the safety and wellbeing of personnel under her command by

fa i l ing to ensure small arms t ra ining was properly accomplished, in violat ion ofU.S. Navy Regulation 1131 and NTRP 3-07.2.2 (Force Protection weapons HandlingStandard Procedures an d Guidelines), i s SUBSTANTIATBD.

a. Pacts:

(1) U.S. Navy Regulat ions 1131 s ta tes that , "All commanding off icers an d

others in authori ty in the naval service are required to show in themselves agood example of vir tue, honor, patr io t ism and' subordination; to be vigi lant ininspecting the conduct of a l l persons who are placed under the i r command; to

guard against an d suppress a l l dissolute an d immoral pract ices, and to correct ,according to the laws an d regula t ions of the Navy, a l l persons who are gui l ty of

them; an d to take a l l necessary an d proper measures, under the laws, regulationsand customs of the naval service, to promote and safeguard the morale, thephysica l well-being an d the general welfare of the off icers an d enl i s ted personsunder thei r command or charge.-

. e•• ! e ! ~ 888 eMaY PR!YAH eaen.'iWI

11111' Rtist2:l!e e:r l : 2 ! ' 1 a t t t : f t e ~ i ! ! e a s i e e l e s e e 11\&Y .. 88,.1£ zkR laeth

ei,il afts e ~ i M t R a l p 8 n a l ~ i Q Q 11

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotl ine Report of Invest igat ion

Case Number 201101107

16 Kay 2011

(2) NTRP 3-07.2.2 (Force Protection Weapons Handling Standard Procedures

and Guidelines), paragraph 1.5 (Procedures and Controls) i s a discussion ofOperational Risk Management an d the accepted range controls/orders to be used int raining events. Figure 1.3 l i s t s the standard weapons handling commands.

(3) The CO ha d not designated a cer t i f i ed Range Safety Off icer (RSO) forthe scheduled small arms qualif icat ion training on 24 March 2011.

(4) The f i r ing area was established as required with 4x4s on the deck toabsorb the possible inadvertent discharge of a weapon; however, during theshotgun qualif icat ion, a shooter moved across the f l ight deck to an area tha t

was not prepared as described. The shooter had problems chambering a round and

had the shotgun a t a 45 degree angle pointed a t the deck. When safety observersshouted a t the shooter to point his weapon out to sea, he looked around an d in

doing so inadvertently discharged his weapon into the deck causing a r icochet ofbuckshot off the deck, s t r ik ing I b7c I an d 1 b7c I.

b. Analysis /Discussion/Conclusion. Had the shooter not moved across thef l ight deck to shoot the shotgun, the buckshot would have struck the 4x4s

placed to absorb the shot, preventing the in jur ies . While the CO was notpresent during the small arms qualif icat ion, she approved the qualif icat ion

t ra in ing . The RSO for the shoot was not properly cer t i f ied as an RSO and

therefore should not have been direct ing the shoot. A properly cer t i f ied RSO

may have prevented th is event from occurring. The al legat ion i s

SUBSTANTIATED.


d. Dispos i t ion: Corrective act ion taken, CDR Jones was removed as Commanding

Officer .

11 . Allegat ion 8 (Emerging), tha t on or about 15 March 2011, b7c

part icipated in hazing incidents onboard USS PONCE, in v iola t ion of SECNAVINST1610.2A (Department of the Navy Policy on Hazing), i s SUBSTANTIATED.

a . ~ : (1) SECNAVINST 1610.2A (Department of the Navy Policy on Hazing)

s ta tes -hazing i s contrary to our Core Values of Honor, Courage an d

Commitment. Adherence to Core Values by our Sai lors an d Marines i s cent ra l toDON's ab i l i ty to meet i t s global mission. These values have served the seaservices well during war an d peacetime. They are our guiding principles fort reat ing every Sai lor an d Marine with dignity an d respect , an d as a valuedmember of the Navy and Marine Corps team. Hazing degrades an d diminishes theabi l i ty of victims to function within the i r uni t . I t destroys our members'

confidence an d t r us t in the i r shipmates an d i s destruct ive to uni t cohesionand combat readiness. Every member of DON must be afforded the opportunity tobe a productive and contr ibuting member free of hazing an d i t s ill ef fec ts .

Hazing is not par t of our "time honored t radi t ions" an d it has no place in

the modern Naval Services . Hazing wil l not be tolerated by any member of theNavy or Marine Corps".

(2) Definit ion: Hazing i s defined as an y conduct whereby a mili tary

e p P l e I ~ eea aHm¥

miSHse SF H f t e u e f t e ~ i B e B a i se l ssw .a m ~ r ~ . 8 y l ~ iR both

gilT!l .iRa. srEiRliaal pefte:lteiee

12

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotl ine Report o f Inves t i ga t i on

Ca.e NUmber 201101107

16 May 2011

member o r members, regardless of service or rank, without proper author i ty

causes another mi l i t a r y member o r members, r egard les s of se rv ice or rank, to

suf fer o r be exposed to any ac t iv i ty which i s c rue l , abusive , humi l ia t ing ,

oppressive , demeaning, o r harmful . So l i c i t in g o r coerc ing another to

perpe t ra t e any such ac t i v i t y i s also considered hazing. Hazing need not

involve phys ica l contac t among or between mil i ta ry members; it can be verba lo r psychologica l in na ture . Actual o r implied consent t o ac t s of hazing does

not e l imina te the cu lp ab i l i t y of the perpet ra to r .

(3) On 15 March 2011, I b7e Iwent in to A-divis ion to pick

up mail . I, b7c I co l lec ted h is mai l and s t a r t ed t o ex i t the

work center when he wa s brought back in to the space by Ib7e I. Once in

the space , I b7e I and I b7e Iwrest led

I b7e I down, put both hands behind h is back, t i ed h is fee t with rope

and hung him over the l i gh t .

(4) Witnesses to t h i s event s t a t ed t h a t a l l t h ree members were

laughing and I b7e I acted as a wi l l ing p ar t i c ip an t of t h i s

i nc iden t . The i nves t iga t ion found i nc iden t s s imi la r to t h i s were common

place and th e p ar t i c ip an t s thought they were j us t playing s ince they in tended

no harm to anyone.

(5 ) On 16 March 2011, bIc I ente red Engineering

berthing where witnesses s t a t ed he and I b7e I s t a r t ed "smack t a lk ing" .

A c c o r d i n ~ to witness s ta tements , I b7e I cha l lenged LiiiLJI h7 I to a wrest l ing match. Witnesses s ta ted wrest l ing matches

were common among div i s ions and t he re was no in ten t ion to hur t anyone.

During th i s wrest l ing session I b7e I h i t h is head on the corner

of a clothing hamper opening a wound to h i s head t h a t r esu l ted in h i s having

to be medica l ly evacuated to a hosp i t a l in Sigonel la where he underwent

surgery to s top the bleeding and r ep a i r the damage. I b7c

remained hosp i t a l i zed overnight .

(6 ) The i nc iden t on 15 March 2011 wa s c l ea r ly an i nc iden t o f haz ing .

The 16 March 2011 i nc iden t , though no t as c l e a r cut , wa s determined by the

command to be hazing.

a . Analys is /Discuss ion/Conclus ion. According to witness s ta tements , a l l

three members involved in the i nc iden t s descr ibed above were wil l ing

p a r t i c ip an t s . Most of those in te rv iewed d id not recognize t h i s behavior as

hazing; most were under the mistaken impression yo u had to in tend to "hur t

someone" fo r an , incident to be considered haz ing . Members who witnessed these

incidents s ta ted a l l involved were laughing and it did not appear anyone wa s

under d i s t r e s s or duress . Regardless the f ac t tha t witnesses s ta ted the vic t im

of the hazing wa s a wi l l ing p ar t i c ip an t and laughing during the i nc iden t , the

fac t remains the acts of 15 and 16 March 2011 incidents meet the d ef in i t i o n ofhazing and cons t i tu te a vio la t ion of the appl icab le i n s t r u c t i o n . The al legat ion

i s SUBSTANTIATED.

b. Recommendation: None

c . Dispos i t ion: Correct ive ac t ion has been taken; I b7e

received NJP on 14 May 2011. Th e en t i r e div i s ion wa s verba l ly counseledre la t ive to hazing and fo r no t report ing incidents t h a t appeared to be hazing.

AllY ndsase 01 wlaaLhozized' disclosuxe i l lS} zesuiL in bol:h

e:i u 1 aftd: e:rintinsl l 'enslt!iea

13

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotline Report of InvestigationCa.e HUmber 201101107

16 May 2011

12. Allegation 9 (Bmerging), tha t I b7c

incidents onboard USS PONCE, in vio la t ion of SECNAVINST

the Navy Policy on Hazing), i s SUBSTANTIATED.

Ipar t i c ipa ted in hazing

1610.2A (Department of

a . ~ : (1) The same circumstances discussed above in Allegation 8 are relevant

in th is a l l ega t ion . , b7c I pulled I b7c I back in to the A-division work center on 15 March 2011 and par t i c ipa ted in holding him down,tying his feet with a rope and hanging him from the overhead.

(2) 1 b7c 1admitted he was a wil l ing part ic ipant in theincident t ha t took place on 15 March 2011 in the A-division work center . Like~ 1 - - - - - - - - - - - b 7 - c - - - - - - - - ~ ~ I , he did not believe the i r act ions const i tu ted hazing.

b. Analy. is/Discussion/Conclusion. Same as discussed in Allegat ion 8, above.

The three par t i c ipan t s in these incidents were laughing and joking around and,

according to the i r statements, did not real ize the i r behavior const i tu ted

hazing. Regardless the i r knowledge of the violat ion, the incidents were hazing

an d a violat ion of SECNAVINST 16l0.2A (Department of the Navy policy on Hazing) .The al legat ion i s SUBSTANTIATED.


d. Disposi t ion: Corrective act ion has been taken;received NJP on 14 May 2011.

b7c

13. Allegat ion 10 (Emerging), tha t on or about 15 and 16 March 2011, I b7c

I b7c i part iCipated in hazing incidents onboard USS PONCE, in vio la t ion ofSECNAVINST 1610.2A (Department of the Navy Policy on Hazing), i s SUBSTANTIATED.a . ~ :

(1) Same as del ineated above in Allegation 8.

(2) According to witness statements Ipar t i c ipan t in the events of 15 and 16 March

I b7c I, 1 b7c I an d I b7c I would

was bes t an d wrest l ing was commonplace.

b7c I was a wil l ing2011. Witnesses s ta ted tha t I b7c

ftsmack t a lk n about whose division

b. Analysis/Discussion/Conclusion. Even though 1 h7r. 1was the ob jec t of

hazing, hung from the overhead 15 March 2011 an d injured during the wrest l ing in

Engineering berth ing on 16 March 2011, he was a wil l ing par t i c ipan t by witnesstestimony. Witnesses stated he laughed an d ta lked ftsmack" about the wrest l ingan d "divis ion team building" incidents, events tha t const i tu ted hazing.


d. Disposition: Corrective action was taken; __ ~ b ~ 7 c ~ __ received NJP on 14

May 2011.

14. Allegation 11 (Bmarging), tha t on or about 15 March 2011, I hZG

h7r. 1was dere l ic t in h is duties as the 1 h7r. 1by fa i l ing to

report hazing tha t was taking place in the Engineering Department, in violat ion

O F F % C ~ WSB Pll!-""lcey SBlfSI'!'F9'B

Jd., ftlie\1ee l : H \ a t i : ~ f t e p i l ! e E i EiiselesliPe lRa¥ peli l l i l t i ill. Q9tiA

e iv i l aaa 9 ~ i M i R a l ~ a R a l t i 8 s 14

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


Navy Hotline Report of Investigation

Case Humber 201101107

16 Kay 2011

of SECNAVINST 1610.2A (Department of the Navy Policy on Hazing), i s

UNSUBSTANTIATBD .

a. !!£!:.!:

(1) From witness statements i t i s apparent tha t most of the Sai lors inthe Engineering department knew th is type of act iv i ty was happening; however,

they did not consider it hazing an d thought they were ju s t ftplaying" or showing

divisional pride. The part ic ipants ha d no intent ion of hurting anyone which

they thought was a n e c e s s ~ r y element to be class i f ied as hazing.

(2) From interviews with A-division members, it i s clear that no

complaints were made up the chain of command re la t ive to an y of the hazing4 orwrest l ing incidents. Each member interviewed stated they knew di f fe rent

divisions would show the i r pride in t he i r divis ion with "smack" ta lk an d

challenges to wrestle each other . Some members even suggested they be allowedto wrestle as a type of team sport aboard the command. They were advised theNavy has contact sports l ike wrestl ing an d boxing; however, i t i s supervised an d

uses proper. equipment to ensure no one i s injured as was I b7c I.(3) I b7c Iwas not aware of the hazing un t i l the 16 March

2011 incident tha t injured I b7c Once the hazing incident wasdiscovered, I b7c land the Executive Officer discussed the hazingwith the Commanding Officer . Disciplinary Review Boards and Executive Officerinquiries were conducted on individuals involved in the hazing incident but only

the I b7c ~ w e n t to NJP. Following completion of the JAGMANinvestigation, I J e I was instrumental in educating the CPO mess

an d the ent i re ship on what const i tu tes hazing, re i terat ing a l l members' dutyandresponsibi l i ty to report suspected violat ions of rules an d regulat ions.

(4 ) I bk I is act ively involved in an d engaged with a l l thedivisions aboard PONCE. According to witness statements, any issue tha t i sbrought to h is a t tent ion i s deal t with appropria te ly. The invest igat ion was

unable to f ind an y similar misconduct or inappropriate behavior an d consideredth is specif ic incident to be on e which those involved did not report up the

chain of command. All members questioned s ta ted the IJiZC] i s very approachableand makes appearances from stem to s tern multiple times dai ly. I b7e I(CDR Jones' r e l i e f as Commanding Officer , PONCE) s ta ted I b7e I wasone of the best I We Ih e ha d ever met an d i s confident in h is

ab i l i t i e s .

b. Anal From interviews with crew members,

the and acting Executive Officer ,b7c under CDR Jones), th is invest igator f inds

that the was not derel ic t in h is dut ies through fa i lure

to report the hazing incidents.

2 In the JAGMAN investigation I bZe Istated the hazing had been happening since May 2010. however when

questioned. he indicated he reported there was a conspiracy and did not report hazing.1 b7c Chief PettyOfficer) also confirmecU b7e ~ e p o r t e d a conspiracy but did not provide any specific information, only that the

division did not like him.

Aft} miettse er tl!Ult1t:i-.terizeei aieele8tH!e ftle.1 l!es'tllt: in l:setoh

e i u 1 ana erinliftsl l'e:ne:leiea

15

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - . - - - - .


16 Kay 2011

(1) No complaints were submitted by anyone aboard PONCE re la t ive to

an y incident tha t could be considered hazing, an d there were no previousin jur ies tha t were elevated up the chain of command.

(2) I b7c I was aware of the "smack ta lking" but l ike

others in leadership posi t ions did not associate it with the hazing. The"smack talking" was predominantly bragging about one 's divis ion an d castingi t in a highly posi t ive l ight as compared to other divis ions. I t consistedof comments re la t ive to the amount of work accomplished by the divis ion , theimportance and recognit ion o f the work an d i t s contr ibution to missionexecution. I t created an ongoing competi t ive banter between divis ions tha t

cul t ivated workcenter, divis ional , and departmental camaraderie, uni ty an dpride.

(3) Most command leaders were aware of the "smack ta lk" going on

among the Engineering Divisions, an d from a l l appearances it did not r i se to

the leve l of hazing. The behavior i s common an d considered to be normal

among members of th is age group that does not recognize the concept of"private space" an d commonly par t ic ipa tes in locker room ant ics . There wasno indicat ion tha t it was offensive, directed a t any individuals personally,

offended anyone or tha t "smack ta lk" would or could lead to physicalmanifestations of hazing.

(4) However, the "smack talking" did escalate to physical contact,an d th i s wrest l ing, shoving an d hugging, though good-natured with nomalicious in tent , r isked injury an d undeniably bridged the gap to hazing. Inret rospect , PONCE leadership should have recognized an d ant icipated tha t the.

behavior could or would escalate to the point where in jur ies and/or hazingwere possible . From the interviews it was apparent the Sai lors involvedcared about one another, fe l t they were a team and took pride in the i r

division and PONCE. There was no malice in the i r actions; however, thebehavior became progressively worse, unacceptable an d resul ted in hazing and

injury.

(5) In I b7c I testimony he stated he did not know

of an y hazing incidents pr ior to the injury on 16 March 2011. Addit ional ly ,there i s no testimony or evidence from an y other crewmember tha t I bm I

I b7c I was aware of the hazing pr ior to the injury tha t occurred on 16 March

2011 in the berthing area . The al legat ion i s UNSUBSTANTIATED.

c . Recommendation: None3

d. Disposit ion: Forwarded

15. The complaint received by USFF IG did not allege an y specif ic misconductor wrongdoing by the Executive Officer , nor was an y ident i f ied during the courseof the JAGMAN invest igat ion. The JAGMAN determined tha t the Executive Officer"fai led to provide the forceful support to the Commanding Officer necessary for

J Although this allegation was not substantiatedJb7c

!counseled Ib7c Ion

hisresponsibilities as thel b7c land the fact that careful consideration should be given to discussingissues (such as violations of rules and regulations) outside the lifelines of he command once one has providedinfonnation and recommendation to the Commanding Officer and realize no (or inappropriate action) has been

taken.

mif!ltU!le er 1:tft8:'tI:Eftel!'il!eEi Eiieelesl:l;E'e lRetJjr ; ! " e e ' W : l ~ ia :&9&&

g1"11 aa4 Gi1i1i'imiiR:al p8Ralti ,u;

16

8/3/2019 Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]



16 Kay 2011

her to succeed in command, an d fai led to apprise ISIC of co misconduct." Senior

leadership , af t e r reviewing the resul ts of th e JAGMAN invest igat ion, lo s t

confidence in LCDR Kurt Boenisch's ab i l i ty to continue serving as Executive

Officer . They concurred tha t he was ineffect ive in supporting the chain of

command an d crew, an d removed him from his posi t ion as a resul t .

16. Intervie. . an d Documents:

a. Interviews ( in person) :

(1 ) Ib7c

I Witness I

(2 ) (Witness)

(3) I b7c (Witness)

(4) I ~ 7 ! < (Witness)

(5) bZc (Witness)

(6) b7c I (Witness)

(7) b7c (Subject)

(8 ) I b7c I (Subject)

(9) I b7c (Subject)

(10) I liZ" I (Witness)

(11) b7c (Witness)

(12) b7c I (DivisiC?n LCPO)

(13 ) b7c (Subject)

(14)bZ"

I (Witness, Acting iiZa>

(15) I bZ" (Witness, Actinglbia)

(16) LCDR Kurk Boenisch (Witness (former XO»

b. Document s :

(1) Preliminary Inquiry conducted b Y ~ I ______~ b ~ 7 ~ c ______ of 22 Apr 11

(2) 37 addit ional interviews conducted during the PI of 22 Apr 11

9PPZSZHa va. "lTT YAny mIsuse 03:: l2l1lltteioleril!leEi aieeles\:iJ!'e . . . ~ e " u . l t :i.:A ~ o t b

17

Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]

Documents

Transcript of Ponce (2) FOIA 12-015[1]