H. The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Army (DAIG) reviewed our son's case in 1994:

1. The reviewing officer wrote in his case notes, "I told her we will review anything she wants us to and will review all matters concerning this case." We posed at least 50 direct questions to which there was no response. Many of our "we don't understand", or "we wonder why", statements were also never addressed. He told us that they had ways to locate those personnel who they wanted to talk to regarding the case, but it appears that no one was questioned outside of the base. Keep in mind that this was 3 years after our son's death, and almost all of those involved were no longer at the base.

2. The DAIG failed to respond to the directive of one of his superiors regarding looking into how we were notified of the death/suicide of our son, at least there is no response to that issue in their report.

3. A Division Chief of the DAIG suggested in that report that we, the complainants, meet with representatives from the various agencies involved in our son's case. This invitation was also approved on the base level, but it was never extended to us at that time. If this had materialized, we feel that a lot of our questions regarding procedures, etc. could have been answered. By the time that we read about the possibility of a meeting and received the approval for it to happen, almost another year had passed; and all of the personnel involved were either no longer at the base or no longer in the Army.

4. Regarding receipts for items taken from a crime scene, the CIDC Ops indicated that "Once a family has a copy of the evidence list, they have in effect, a receipt." We never received a copy of an evidence list, nor were we aware that there was such a thing.

5. The reviewing officer determined that "none of the issues raised by the family, if investigated, would change the results of the investigation." Since one of the issues raised includes the question of fingerprinting the weapon, we found that a strange thing to say, because no one knows for sure what the results of that fingerprinting would have been!

6. This report carries a direct contradiction to what is stated in the 3rd Supplemental Report regarding what the other soldiers knew and what they did not know regarding circumstances going on at the time of our son's death. The IG's office made no attempt to reconcile it, and they failed to interview any of the personnel who would be able to give them the answers.

7. Two paragraphs in this review mention that we, the complainants, were to be interviewed. These two interviews never occurred, as was ordered.

8. In order to understand the scene of our son's death, we had requested the IG's office to help construct the scene showing the locations of various personnel, units, and places which were all mentioned in the CID ROI, inasmuch as aerial photos were lost. The base IG did not want to provide the information because it did not change the findings of the ROI. Nothing was done about this. All we wanted to do was to understand!

9. When we received the DAIG Report of Review, it contained at least eight pages where partial or whole paragraphs were redacted. For example, the DAIG had checked with two mental health department heads concerning the issue of a victim making plans for the future, then killing himself. One of the doctors "opined murder can never be completely ruled out when the victim dies alone". The balance of the paragraph, ten lines, was redacted. That did not make us feel any more confident about the military investigation! One must wonder what could have been said in the balance of that paragraph that was not for the eyes of the victim's parents!

10. When we received the DAIG Report of Review, we were informed that the redacted portions were denied us "pursuant to 552(b)(5) of the FOIA and paragraph 3-200 ÅR 25-55”. There was no further explanation so that we would be able to determine about making an appeal. As civilians, those numbers of explanation meant nothing to us!

11. After we appealed the denial, and the denial was upheld, we were informed that some of the redacted portions were denied us because they "consist of opinions, findings, and recommendations", withheld under the "deliberative process privilege" and were "predecisional deliberative information". Yet, there are six other statements in the report which indicate that what was said was the opinion of another individual!

12. We provided lots of proof that our son had every intention of returning home, but none of that is presented in the CID ROI. In the review of the DAIG, the entire paragraph pertaining to the issue of our son's desires to return to the U.S. was blacked out! Our proof was both from tape and from his letters.

13. Most significantly, they never realized the discrepancy in the projectile!

Some of these problems may seem small and minor to you, and singularly they might to us too. But when the full picture of our son's case and the problems therein and the problems we incurred are presented, they become overwhelming and inexcusable!

Our son's case is further complicated by the fact that we believe it involves more than cause and manner of death. We believe that our son's death also involves negligence which began before his death in the failure of his unit to follow established policies which were in force at the time of his death. That is why the "lost films" and the Staff Daily Journal Report which was "destroyed inadvertently" and the incorrect sketches are so very important in setting the scene. That is why the contradictions between the information in the 3rd Supplemental Report and our taped interview with our son's officers and the information received from six of the men with our son are so important to reconcile. That is why the right soldiers have to be interviewed to clear up some of the questions.

Because the DODIG also visits the scene of the death in addition to the visit with the family, and because that visit to the scene is impossible in our son's case, we have requested the DODIG to have someone who was at the scene construct a drawing showing the locations of the various personnel, units, and places indicated in the CID ROI. We understand that this would be from memory of 5 years ago, but we would be willing to accept such an attempt.

Now our son's case is in the hands of the Department of Defense Inspector General. We have submitted all of the aforementioned concerns, and then some, in greater detail, for their consideration. Their review began in January 1996, and we must now await their honest assessment about our son's death.

We have spelled out all of our problems, questions, and concerns in letters to the DAIG and to the DODIG in 1994 and 1996 respectively. Now we have made that information available to you and ask for improvements in all military death investigations. We are counting on you and your powers to make the necessary changes to encourage and/or ensure honesty and thoroughness, accuracy and credibility, responsibility and accountability, and cooperation with the family. Hopefully our cases can still benefit from any changes; for sure, any future families will.

1. First, we wonder if there is a conflict of interest when a military death is investigated by the military. Perhaps there should be an agency independent of the military who should handle the duties in such a situation-one which can be more objective!

2. To lose a child to death by suicide is just about the worst thing that any parent can experience. So first and foremost, it is imperative that those who investigate these deaths do everything in their power to prove beyond a doubt that suicide is indeed the cause of death before a final determination is made. This means that all possible examinations and testing should be conducted on the body, the weapon, and the circumstances; that all such testing and examination results are correct and accurate and bear out the suspicion; that the reports of those results are flawless. Regardless of what the scene looks like, every effort should be made to rule out any other possibilities before a final determination is made. There should be no "rush to judgment". All other causes of death should be ruled out and eliminated! In our son's case, the bullet removed from his skull was not the same as his weapon contained and it could not be proven as coming from his weapon, fingerprinting of the weapon was never done, the gunshot residue testing was not completed until over 72 hours after his death, and then after protective covering had been removed somewhere along the line. Although the scene of our son's death gave the appearance of a suicide, tests which would have confirmed or denied that he took this action himself were not conducted.

3. We believe that in some of these cases, investigators set out to prove a suicide on appearance alone, before any autopsy or investigation has even begun. Because of the stigma attached and the devastation to the family, every effort should be made to disprove a suicide through the various testing procedures available. However, in some cases, it appears that, to list a death as a suicide without proper evidence, is the easy way out and closes the case.

4. We believe that families, even more than the military investigators, want to know what happened to their loved one. They should work together toward that goal. There should be a continual dialogue between the two so that the right questions can be asked at a time when the incident is still fresh and before memories fade. It took 11 months from the time of our son's death until we received the CID ROI. We asked alot of questions of the officer in charge of our son's case, and he very kindly tried to get answers for us. However, since we had no idea what all was to be in the CID ROI, it was impossible for us to know the right questions to ask. By the time we received the ROI, 11 months later and began to ask questions based on what was in that report, we were told things like "It has been so long ago, mem

ory fades" or "I don't remember". We don't get answers to our questions then or ever. There has got to be some way whereby the investigating officers and the families can work together and be kept up to date on details, so that the right questions can be asked immediately, while memories are still fresh. Most parents do not want to be spared the details of their child's death. They want an adequate and thorough investigation, they want to know the true facts, and then they can learn to cope with whatever they have to, knowing that all other possibilities have been ruled out. Then, after the report has been completed, the investigating agents should sit down with the family and explain everything to the family to their satisfaction, so that everything is clear to all. We feel that these would be options that would be welcome to all or most families.

5. Agents should have some sensitivity training for their job. They should know their facts, never guess or assume. They should not be afraid to say if they don't know or if they have to find out. They should verify and confirm information before making it official. They should proofread and double check information and be accurate and precise. They should be as honest and thorough and accurate as they can, as if the deceased were their own next of kin!

6. All of the deceased's belongings and personal effects should be inventoried, recorded, and accounted for in a receipt to the family, whether they are returned to the family, held for evidence, or destroyed for some reason. Everything should be accounted for! Some of our son's possessions were burned for sanitary reasons; some were taken as evidence, apparently not found useful, and then either lost or destroyed; some were taken from the mailroom and willfully destroyed (a package that could have been returned for a refund). In all of these cases, there was no inventory made for the family, and consequently no receipt was given-no accountability!

7. We believe that investigating agents should have rules and regulations to govern all of their actions and activities. When we requested a copy of the rules and regulations of the Department of the Army regarding ballistics and other testing of weapons, their reply in writing was that there were none, that the training was done alongside civilian people, and that the procedures were the same as are used in the civilian sector. Yet, when we questioned not fingerprinting our son's weapon, we were given several explanations why it was not done. Such fingerprinting is done every day in the civilian sector. When we requested a copy of the rules and regulations of the Department of the Army as they pertain to what should be included in the CID ROI as far as exhibits are concerned, we were told in writing that there was none, that all deaths are investigated on an individual basis and that, in general, any documentary-type evidence seized during the investigation and supporting the conclusions thereof would be included under the exhibits section. Although situations would vary, we believe that there should be some kind of guideline regarding exhibits and the disposition to the family of evidence seized and found not to be useful. We believe that the military should set up its own rules and regulations so that all investigating agents and their support staff have something to follow.

8. Any statement in the CID ROI should be as provable as a scientific fact. Statements of opinion and speculation, which are unfounded, unconfirmed, without basis, and cannot be proven, should not be allowed to be in the CID ROI. Any person with a grudge could say anything they want, ruining a reputation, make an already incriminating situation look worse, or the like.

9. The leaking of the “self-inflicted" information to the media before we were informed, and the agent giving us blatant false information were very unfortunate incidents and unintentional and they caused us great pain. But it is such things as the caliber of the projectile, failure to fingerprint the weapon, deceiving us with the video re-enactment and the light data chart, first failing to interview the family or validate information with us for the Psychological Autopsy and then failing to include much of the information which we gave them in the Supplemental Psychological Autopsy, the failure by the AR 15-6 investigator to fulfill his responsibility in determining the "circumstances surrounding the death" and failing to follow through with his recommendation for a supplemental report, failure of anyone to reconcile the incorrect sketches, lost films, and destroyed unit records, failure to interview those soldiers who could possibly give the answers to lingering questions, knowingly allowing false information to become a part of the various reports, personal effects which are missing and destroyed, allowing unsubstantiated opinions and speculations in the reports, failing to reconcile the differences between things we have on tape which differ from the reports, etc. these are all inexcusable!

10. We become suspicious of statements about films being "inadvertently lost" and of unit records "destroyed inadvertently". We become suspicious when we hear from several of the soldiers that exhibit sketches are not correct, and no one is willing to have those involved construct a scene from memory to the best of their ability to help us understand the locations of all the places and units we read about in the

reports, so that we can begin to understand what happened the night our son died. This investigation should not be just to satisfy a military requirements, but it must also be structured to satisfy the requirements of the family. That CID ROI is the story of our son's life and it is the story of his death. It must be honest, thorough, and accountable!

11. We believe that any review by higher agencies (such as the DAIG and/or the DODIG) which is done after the completion of the CID ROI and which makes changes or corrects anything contained in that ROI should require a supplement that would automatically become a part of that original ROI, whether or not it changes the end result. If this is not done, media or anyone else who requests a copy of the ROI under FOIA will receive a copy containing misinformation which they would not know had been corrected, and they would subject themselves to libel. For example, one thing the DAIG report did do is to admit to some of the errors and problems which were made. Unfortunately, we understand those admissions will never be placed with the CID ROI at the USACIDC Crime Records Center where those records will be kept for 40 years! Anyone accessing that file will get a story including untruths that had been corrected-not knowing that there had been corrections and then believe the file to be true. It appears that there is nothing that we families can do about it! We believe that a supplemental report to the CID ROI to show corrections is definitely in order in such instances to help bring credibility and completeness to the permanent official record, even if it does not affect cause and manner of death.

12. Any information in any report that is important enough to be in that report in the first place is important enough to be correct, whether or not it affects the cause and manner of death. If something is later found to be in error or differs from that original report, it is important enough to make a supplement to the original report, so that the original report is found to be true and accurate and complete.

13. One thing that we have a real problem with is obtaining information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We believe that families should not be subject to the same FOIA regulations as the general public regarding the death of our loved ones. Information denied through the FOIA to the immediate family and/or next of kin should apply only to names, ranks, identification numbers, and the like. Everything else should be on the table and out in the open, even if it is considered internal advice, recommendations, inter- or intra-agency information, etc. Families should be permitted access to all information-these deceased soldiers are not just a name, rank, and serial number to us. They are our beloved sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. We want to be able to understand everything about their death, because with understanding comes acceptance, with acceptance comes healing, and with healing comes peace! There is nothing more frustrating than to receive a report where the content is either left blank or blacked out and then wonder what they are covering up now. In the cases where we did appeal and were successful in that appeal for the release of the redacted portion of the report, we could not understand the reasoning for the denial in the first place!

14. Reasons for denial of information should be spelled out clearly so that families can make an informed decision about appealing that denial.

No one knows what it is like to lose a son or daughter unless they have been there. No one knows the terrible feeling in the thought that your son or daughter may have taken their own life and to have to live with the stigma and questions of what we the family might have done wrong—unless you have been there. No one knows what it is like to be kept in the dark about what happened to your son or daughter for months, unless it has happened to you. No one knows the frustration of trying to get information and to be denied it because FOIA is a strict and unfeeling regulation that does not consider a family's right to have access to all possible information and which treats family as it would a stranger, unless you have tried to obtain information about your loved one. No one knows the anger and frustration involved when our questions are stonewalled, contradictions and inconsistencies and falsehoods abound and no attempt is made to resolve them, and when no one is willing to accept responsibility and be accountable, unless you have experienced it. Try to put yourself in our places and see if you can see things in a different light!

Our case involved more than just the cause and manner of the death of our beloved son. For us, it also involved the actions or lack of them by members of his unit. It involved what we believe to be violations of established policy by the unit or members thereof. It is this area of our case that the various agencies do not care to look into, but it is here that we also desire answers. It is this area of our case that leads us to believe that our son's death could have been prevented!

We ask for your consideration of our recommendations for positive change so that other families in the future will not have to deal with the same painful problems

which we encountered! We thank you for this opportunity to present our case and to present our views. We ask for justice for our loved ones!

ADDENDUM TO PREPARED STATEMENT BY EDWARD AND MARIE WANKE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee on Personnel:

1. Our son died on 24 March 1991. As early as 27 March 1991, his death was officially labelled a suicide. The CID investigation was not completed until February 4, 1992. According to Pages 5, 6, and 7 of Brigadier General Daniel A. Doherty's written statement to the Senate Hearings, our son's report should have passed through six hands before it reached the group headquarters, where it should again have been reviewed by two agents and/or specialists before it reached a panel of forensic pathologists. Our son's case was also coordinated (according to the CID ROI) by our son's company commander and his battalion commander, and representatives of Deputy Staff Judge Advocate, Criminal Law, and Trial Counsel. This is at least a dozen professionally-trained people, and not a one was aware of the discrepancy in the caliber of the bullet which took our son's life!

2. Our funeral director with over 40 years of experience, told us from the moment we viewed our son's body that he felt that our son could not have shot himself because of the angle of the wound. The video tape re-enactment done by the Fort Campbell CID office bore that out! The CID did not prove that our son's death was a suicide, because the bullet didn't fit his weapon, the weapon was not fingerprinted, etc. The CID only speculated on appearances, and appearances can be set up!

3. We were assigned a Casualty Assistance Officer who did both the notification and the assisting of the family. We were very satisfied and we feel that he performed his duties as best be could with the problems he and we encountered. The report of Brigadier General Daniel A. Doherty, Commanding General of the USACIDC speaks of a Casualty Liaison Officer who is responsible for answering questions of the family. This is the first that we have heard of such a person. This position was not one that was made available to us!

4. We thought that our case was badly handled-now we have learned that such handling seems to be the norm! The actions and determination and commitment in the past several years of the group "Until We Have Answers" has brought the recurring problems to the forefront and was instrumental in getting Section 1185 calling for reviews and reinvestigations and the hearings held last week. We will not go away until we do have answers!

5. We would like to give you some of the statements made to us in our case: a. Our son's battalion commander made three interesting comments that cause

concern:

1. "Your son was in the right place at the right time, but his unit had moved and he had not been informed."

2. "The only thing that your son did wrong was to have his weapon loaded." 3. "No one did anything deliberate!"

b. Two statements came out of the Fort Campbell CID Office:

1. When we questioned the lack of fingerprinting of our son's weapon, a CWO said "That was a mistake."

2. Another agent called our son's case "a comedy of errors if it weren't so serious!"

c. A ballistics expert wrote us "there is no way that any of us can conclude to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty whose finger was on the trigger when the rifle discharged."

We attended the hearings last Thursday regarding the way that military deaths are investigated, and we are very disappointed that the problems which we families have already incurred were not addressed along with what we can do about them now. Perhaps the reviews are supposed to address those issues, but it appears that in most cases, they do not. We are happy to hear that some changes have already been made based on the problems which our families endured. To that end, our group has achieved some purpose. Although we know that the hearings were not set up that way, we very much would have liked to be able to ask our own questions of the DOD panel!

The DOD has come up with some very excellent policies and procedures for death investigations, and there should be considerably fewer problems if they are followed. Is there some mechanism for enforcement of these policies and procedures before such a long period of time has elapsed that any procedure which had not been followed initially could still be completed? If there is no way to make sure that the initial investigating agents are following these procedures, then the statement of procedure itself is useless and meaningless! The policies and procedures are only as good as