call, after the case was closed, was also the military's first contact with Paul's faience and my daughter.

At that time, I did not know that the caller was gathering information for the psychological autopsy to justify the determination of suicide. We were asked about matters that had taken place many months ago in an effort to design a family related rationalization for the determination of suicide (after the case was closed). Chief Palmer was not contacted, though she clearly had issue with Paul on a very personal basis. I have been advised that her history contained similar personality issues with other staff. The excuse given to me for not contacting her was that she was retired. Are retired military staff (civilians) exempt from questioning in a matter of this magnitude? It was common knowledge (I have this on record) that Chief Palmer tormented and humiliated Paul in front of his peers. Paul was finally removed from Chief Palmer's command and "floated" from department to department until Palmer retired. He was referred to by his peers as the tech-on-wheels during that time. After Chief Palmer retired, Paul was told that he could return to his original post now under Chief Justice. During Paul's service at Indian Head, MD and during his time “floating” at Paris Island, SC there were no performance problems and Paul got along very well with all of his commanders and peers. If Paul had a fault, it was that he cared about the feelings of others. This was conveyed to me by Paul's peers when I met with them.

During the time that Paul reported to Chief Palmer, he suffered from a sleep disorder, for which he sought help and he was denied that help. For some reason, Paul's request to attend a sleep therapy center, during that time was denied. There is no mention that Paul's request for help were denied. They told him that they couldn't ship him all over the country because he couldn't sleep. I'm not sure if the sleep disorder resolved itself or if he gave up seeking help and covered up his problem. However, he seemed to be much happier after he was moved to a "floating" position, away from Chief Palmer. Except for his distaste for his roommates he told me that things were much better. Why would he take his life if things were much better?

If the case is already closed, certainly, the NIS representative should be required to have answers to the questions regarding how a determination of suicide was arrived at (both the cause and manner of death, as well as crime scene information, witness, etc.) If answers can not be given immediately by the caller, then answers should be obtained and provided in a procedurally defined, and timely fashion. The responses to my questions and requests, progressively worsened.

Friends who were with my son just prior to his death advised me that the military was repeatedly pressuring them to sign papers indicating that they believed Paŭl had killed himself. This is why I consider any "signed” statements mentioned in the JAGMAN and in the review to be "without merit". The review states that my son's concerns regarding Chief Palmer were "without merit" because of a signed statement by a person (DT1 Pittman) that reported to Chief Palmer and who also treated Paul harshly on Palmer's behalf. Was a background check done on Chief Palmer? Had Paul displayed problems getting along with others? Didn't anyone see a pattern of good social skills, and conduct in Paul's records? Did anyone check any historical/background information?

Paul's friends said that they believed that Paul could not have taken his life. They also said that they did not trust his roommates. Did anyone ask why they did not trust Paul's roommates? Paul had complained to me that he did not respect his roommates because they were "using" their girl friends and did not really care about them or respect them. He also told me that they had no values. If I had known that he was going to die, I would have asked him exactly what he meant. I have attached questions and statements that Paul's friends gave to me in 1990 when I visited South Carolina.

On that same visit, my daughter, son-in-law, and myself went to the death scene and took photographs and reviewed the area.

In 1990 on the same visit, I also met with the roommate that "found" my son. When asked about the evening before he found Paul, he said that he came home about 10 p.m. and Paul's car was out front, all of the lights were on in the trailer and the back door was "open". He said that he "shut" the door and "locked" it. I asked again if the door was open, and he said that it was “open” and that he closed it and locked it. This was important to me since the telephone pole was in very close proximity to the door and the door opened out. The pole was to the left of the door and the door hinges were on the right, so that the pole would be in direct line of vision if the door were open even slightly. I asked if he saw Paul outside and he said that it was too dark to see anything and that there were no lights out there. I asked him if he thought to go out and look for Paul out back and he said that he was afraid to go out there in the dark. The investigation report states that the

roommate "locked" the door. In the report the word locked is in quotes ("locked”). It is the only word that is in quotes and I must assume that the quotes are to underscore the contradiction to my interview with Paul's roommate.

Since the report indicated that my son was last seen at 8 p.m. on March 15th, 1990, approximately 60 minutes from home, he would have arrived home at about 9 p.m. Sawyer (Paul's roommate) reportedly came home at 10 p.m. Paul left Bay Street music store in his military uniform and was found in his sweat suit. It takes time to change clothes and hang a rope. According to the reports that I have received, it appears to me that Paul arrived home, turned on all of the lights in the trailer, changed his clothes, calculated, measured, and tied a rope, climbed up the telephone pole (in the dark), placed the rope on the "J" hook, and some how hanged himself (some how sustaining a blow on the head, before, during, or after the hanging). The autopsy report did not mention marks on Paul's hands from climbing the wooden pole. This was presumed to be done in less than an hour in back of the house with the kind of dark that Paul's roommate described. It was March, it was dark, was there a flashlight to help Paul find the “J” hook or did someone else have a flashlight or did he strike matches to see? There was no mention of burnt out matches or of a flashlight at the death scene in the report. Was it not as dark as Paul's roommate described, or is there a missing flashlight?

On three separate occasions my requests (under the "Freedom of Information" act) for photographs of the death scene were denied. I requested copies of photographs of the death scene first from the military through my CACO representative, Lt. Wasylyk and they explained how to request the photographs in writing. I did so, in my grief and duress, and was then told that the photographs had to be obtained from the local police since Paul died in civilian jurisdiction. I was bounced between the military and civilian police! The local police told me, upon my first request, that the pictures were being withheld as evidence (in December of 1990). Please note here that the case was closed in March of 1990. Upon my second request, to the Beaufort County police, the photographs were again, denied to me on the basis that they were still evidence (in November of 1994). I was also told that they would be too upsetting for me to view, yet I would be allowed to view them if I would drive back down to view them in person (not in the supportive company of family in my own home). What horror could the photographs hold that can compare to seeing my beloved son in a coffin with an unexplained blow to his head? What horror could compare with the ever present questions regarding the circumstances of my son's death? Who are the police to make such a determination? Why does our government not establish one means of providing information to parents that would override all jurisdictional issues? Every “suicide” could not possibly pose a threat to national security. Why the cloak of secrecy if there is nothing to hide? Please note that I have never received the photographs.

My son had a blow 5 inches in diameter on his head. I saw this when he was in the coffin. When I asked what the large bruise was on his head, no one knew. There were only suggestions of possible causes. The reports state that there were no signs of struggle. A person who is unconscious from a blow would not struggle. My son allegedly hanged himself from a “J” hook on a telephone pole. The first phone call to me reported that Paul's feet were less than two inches from the ground and that he could have stood up to save himself from hanging. I was also told that his feet were touching the ground to the point that his knees were bent back. It was also reported that he was found in a kneeling position. Couldn't providing me with a copy of the photographs have cleared up the confusion?

The report indicates that he may have hit his head on the pole. Also, the report suggests that Paul may have stood on the meter box that is against the telephone pole, then "jumped back" to tighten the rope. If that were the case, it would seem that he should have hit the meter box with his torso, rather than hitting the pole with his head when he swung forward. If he was found in a kneeling position, the meter box should have been at torso height. If he swung forward, did he fold his knees under himself to land in the kneeling position? The phone conversation said that he could have stood to save himself if he wanted to. Wouldn't gag reflexes stop a conscious person from resting on a rope if they could? Was his neck broken and they forgot to report it? I need logical explanations that a reasoning person can understand. I can understand why Captain Turner had trouble describing the hanging

to me.

Fingerprints were observed at the death scene, on the day that my son was discovered, but the prints were not lifted. Why not? Who's fingerprints were they? The report indicates that "no physical evidence" was located. Are fingerprints evidence? Was the case closed in the investigators minds, prior to observing the fingerprints, and prior to an autopsy? Was this death treated as a homicide until it could be systematically ruled out? If it was treated as a homicide, why was the person that

"found" my son (one of Paul's roommates) allowed to leave the state the same day, for a weekend trip? I was told that he (Paul's roommate) was so upset after discovering Paul, that he had gone home to see his mother. The investigation review revealed that he and the other roommate, both went to Daytona Beach for the weekend, as they had previously planned ("upset"?, "homicide"). Just how much confidence should I have in the ability of the military or local investigative agencies? If our children are in the care of the military, why didn't they conduct their own investigation in parallel to the civilian investigation?

Why didn't the military know that the roommate that "found" my son had another roommate that committed suicide? Why did I have to inform them of this? Why don't they do background checks on the people that should be considered key to a homicide? Where was this roommate prior to returning home on March 15th, 1990? Who was he with? Is anyone sure that he returned at 10 p.m.? There was nothing in the report that verified his time of arrival.

On the same visit to South Carolina just after my son's death, I requested to speak with the head of the naval base. This representative of the Paris Island naval base reared back in his seat and crossed his arms (in the language of defiance) and smirked at me as if he had won at some kind of game. This arrogant behavior was displayed as I asked very painful questions regarding the circumstances of my son's death. This was a profound statement of attitude. That body language was a crystal clear encapsulation of all of my experiences with both the military and civilian investigation representatives while trying to get answers about my son's death.

I have many more questions, some of which were posed to the "Policy and Oversight" review designates, Richard Messersmith and Larry Swails. They could provide only a few vague responses to my questions. They could give no answers to the questions that an experienced civilian detective had advised were, pertinent to a determination of manner of death. I must add that the written reports (JAG, post review etc.) addressed none of these questions and all reports conflicted with the previously mentioned phone call description of my son's alleged manner of taking his own life, given by Captain Turner. The reports also conflicted with my face to face interview with the person that "found" my son. He stated to me that he closed the back door and then locked it, but reports indicate only that he locked the door. This difference in wording would directly impact the ability of the roommate to see my son hanging out back as he closed the door.

After my son's fiancee called me and informed me that Mr. Messersmith had "convinced" her that Paul had taken his own life, it was clear that the purpose of the review was to sway and appease. I have also included a writing (from March of 1990) from my son's fiancee. For many years she had provided me with inspiration as I wrote letters and marched on behalf of son. My daughter and son-in-law were both in the military and they have also had experiences that contradict the military's proclaimed integrity, honor and fidelity.

I am the mother of a mild and gentle young man who's life inexplicably ended in March of 1990, prior to getting married in November of 1990, prior to having children, prior to experiencing the fullness of life, and the case was closed in less than 10 days in the most bungled fashion that anyone so versed in burying the dead could have done. My request for reinvestigation was denied on the basis that:

"1. No material investigative deficiencies were noted during the review. 2. The review determined the BCSO and NIS criminal investigations and the JAGMAN investigation into the death of DT3 Mamby were conducted properly and developed sufficient information to support the conclusion that DT2 committed suicide.

3. The review found no factual basis to support any of Mrs. Alleyne's assertions that her son, DT3 Mamby, did not commit suicide."

The military should be very experienced in handling "Suicides", however, any glaring errors on their part are dismissed as oversights with a weight factor much like forgetting a haircut appointment. Yet any questions from the families of these dead children are viewed as the railings of hysterical people who will not accept that their children have allegedly taken their own lives. I am not a detective and I may never know the answers to my questions regarding the manner of death, procedures, etc.

Remind the military to "Take care of their own". Provide the change the military infrastructure needs in order to allow for crime in the military to be recognized as crime, and procedurally addressed with integrity, honor, and fidelity. Truth and justice must be pursued above the fear of negative publicity and above the cost of a true investigation and any pursuant trials that may be necessary. Our country's gate keepers, must assure that crime in the military is investigated with the professionalism, integrity, honor, and the commitment that is due any soldier that dies

in service. As with any other sector of America, the military is not devoid of crime. Let it not be devoid of punishment.

As opposed to conducting a thorough investigation, there appears to be a pattern in the military procedures of performing a posthumous procedure referred to as a "psychological autopsy". They seem to be geared towards indicating that these children were depressed, had low self esteem, were suicidal, etc. This psychological autopsy did not mention Paul's joy regarding plans to marry in November of 1990. It did not mention that my son was planning to get out of the navy and work a business that I was starting. Why not? Was this psychological autopsy only slanted with the intent of proving what the military wanted it to prove? In this conduct it is clear that the rights of the victims have been violated and this must not continue.

It saddens me to see the growing list of members of our group, "Until We Have Answers". Yet the growing numbers only indicate to me that the time has come to put an end to assigning a team of cats to investigate the death of the canary. The special interest approach to investigating deaths must end and the rights of the dead must be honored.

In regards to the statement by Ms. Hill during the hearings, I now understand why the reviews failed so badly. In her testimony, regarding the review assignment statement, the statement wording was ..that may have been self inflicted. . . The premise of the assignment is prejudiced by the investigation review assignment statement! Ms. Hill also stated that liaisons will now provide support to obtain information across jurisdictions. How will this help me with my son's case now? Ms. Hill stated that she has multiple responsibilities. What is the priority of our children's reinvestigations with regard to her other responsibilities? May I have a copy of the minimal testing for any death scene?

I would also like to comment that, at the taxpayers expense, the military was able to have a team of attorneys prepare their testimony, however, as a parent I have had to prepare my own testimony and may have, through lack of legal knowledge, left out information that may help me to act on behalf of my son's rights. For this, and many other previously mentioned procedural reasons, I again request a reinvestigation into the cause and manner of my son's death (reinvestigation has been denied through the existing review process). I also request full disclosure of the information uncovered in the reinvestigation. I will not stop until this is done.

[Additional information is retained in committee files.]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY DENNIS B. O'BRIEN, SR. AND MARY L. O'BRIEN, PARENTS OF MMFN DENNIS BRADLEY O'BRIEN, JR., USN

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, our son, Dennis Bradley O'Brien, Jr., died while serving in active duty aboard the U.S.S. Los Angeles on October 18, 1995. He died under circumstances that were clearly preventable. He died under a system and command that were out of control.

In order to comprehend the events that immediately preceded our son's death, it is necessary to learn about the environment in which he lived and trained from the time of his enlistment until his tragic death. For this reason, the length of our testimony, may exceed that which might normally be expected. However, in spite of its length, it is an overview. In order to obtain an understanding of the information presently available about the circumstances and events which led to and resulted in Dennis' death, one should obtain the full investigative reports. In order to understand the difficulties we encountered, a review of our correspondence with military officials is necessary. We will make that correspondence available to appropriate officials. With our testimony, we intend to explain how Dennis was victimized by the Navy in which he served. We will explain how the investigations conducted subsequent to his death have been structured in a way to conceal facts rather than present them objectively. Our testimony is the result of the compilation of facts taken primarily from information obtained from Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) documents and also as related to us by others. Exhibits referenced in our testimony are part of our testimony and are essential as support to the events related. The conclusions that we have drawn are based on our analysis of the facts and events as presented to us. We hope to help bring about changes that may prevent needless deaths in the future.

Dennis graduated from high school in June 1993. He enlisted in the Navy on August 20, 1993, under the delayed entry program. During the fall and winter of 1993, Dennis worked and attended college studying criminal justice. During this period of time between his enlistment and his formal entry into the Navy on March 7, 1994, he also attended meetings at the Navy recruitment center in Upper Darby, PA. These meetings are to prepare recruits. Discussions that took place during these

meetings often involved the various initiation rites to which recruits could expect to be subjected as they progressed in the Navy. Dennis understood that to endure these rites would be necessary in order to gain acceptance by those with whom he would serve.

After entering the Navy, Dennis progressed through Basic training at the Great Lakes Recruit Training Center where he was awarded an admiral's commendation for achieving the highest GPA in his division. From there he progressed through “A” School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center and then to Submarine School at Groton, CT. Again, during these training schools, the trainees were advised of initiation rites. These were presented as "war stories" senior enlisted personnel in a manner that glorified these experiences. Although official Navy policy prohibits some initiation rites as hazing, many enlisted personnel continue to promote them as tradition. Recruits were also taught that they must depend on each other and be loyal to each other.

Upon completion of Submarine Training School, Dennis was assigned to the U.S.S. Los Angeles which was in the process of overhaul at Mare Island, CA. Dennis reported to the U.S.S. Los Angeles on December 30, 1994.

The chief enlisted man aboard a submarine is referred to as "the COB" (Chief of the Boat). The COB aboard the U.S.S. Los Angeles was MMCS Michael Norris who had a reputation for being abusive toward enlisted personnel. As has been documented by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), he was known to have publicly abused and humiliated enlisted personnel, and had made threats of physical violence and administrative actions in order to intimidate and coerce them.

The history of the COB's misconduct has been documented to have existed for a long time. A former crew member, when interviewed by the NCIS, recounted that he had several run ins involving the COB during the period of December 1993 to March 1995. In one, the COB told this crew member that he would be better off to walk out on the pier during quarters and put a 45 to his head than to take a transfer to another boat. (exh 1).

Other incidents documented by crew members include the statement of ICC Jones telling of witnessing the COB removing documents from the ship's CAT box. (The CAT box is a locked steel box used by the crew to communicate confidentially with the Commanding Officer.) The COB used two-foot long bilge pickers to remove confidential notes from the box. Jones observed that other chiefs saw this also. Jones noted that the COB was a screamer, and that he made it personal in nature. After Dennis' death, and the transfer of the COB, Jones observed, "I am glad the COB is off the boat now. The working conditions will really improve." This statement by Chief Jones is a truly sad commentary on the state of affairs aboard the U.S.S. Los Angeles. Conditions under the COB must have been severe for Jones to feel glad about such an event as the COB's removal, since it only occurred as a result of his shipmate's death. (exh 2).

The statement of STS2 Sanders, a 9 year veteran, presents clear documentation of extortion by the COB, During December 1994, Sanders placed a complaint in the ship's CAT box concerning the inequities of certain assignments. The next day, Sanders was confronted by the COB for having filed his complaint. Both Sanders and Sanders' division chief were verbally abused by the COB for this. In July 1995, at a chiefs meeting_concerning assignments, Sanders was considered for the position, Deck Division Lead Petty Officer. The COB stated that Sanders ruined himself because of the letter he put in the CAT box. "He will never have a leadership role aboard this boat while I am here." This event shows that the COB was capable and willing to follow up on his personal vendettas. The COB was willing to destroy the career of a crew member for purely personal reasons. (exh 3).

RM3 Lehman_reported that, while cleaning to prepare to leave Mare Island, he found many CAT box forms in the COB's desk drawer. The form on top of the stack had been submitted by a crew member who was concerned about two recent suicide attempts and seven or eight self-referrals for drug use. The COB's hand written note was also on this form with which the COB indicated that the crew member needed to see what the real Navy was like, and get some sea time. (exh 4).

On one occasion, in the boat's control room, the COB made reference to African Americans and Hispanic Americans as "niggers and spicks." This event was witnessed by all who were present, and was reported to the Commanding Officer (CO), CDR Boulden. (exh 9, encl 2).

One former crew member, SN Balkenende, self referred for drugs in order to escape the tyranny of the COB. Balkenende was an undesignated sailor who requested assignment to the ship's Quartermaster Division, as was his right. The COB told Balkenende that he would have to be a Torpedoman. The COB told Balkenende that he would have to do what he wanted him to do. We were told that the COB was in a rage as he was screaming at Balkenende. The COB publicly abused