Soldier claims airing grievances to IG
cost job; investigation under way
By Marni McEntee,
Stars and Stripes
Marni McEntee / Stars and Stripes
Sgt. 1st Class David Chavez gives cold medicine to his daughter Jaci, 11-months, and son
Nicolas, 2. Chavez said he believes he was transferred to a new job in retaliation for
speaking out an Inspector General's session. |
MONS, Belgium — When an Army inspector general asked a group of 39th Signal
Battalion noncommissioned officers to tell him what was on their minds, Sgt. 1st Class
David Chavez was among those who spoke up.
Chavez, then in charge of the battalion’s computer Network Service Center, told
Lt. Col. James Mulkey, 5th Signal Command inspector general, that he disagreed with one of
his battalion’s promotion policies. Chavez also questioned the unit’s policy
regarding the awarding of certain medals, Chavez said.
Finally, Chavez told the inspector general that his first sergeant exerted too much
control over his senior NCOs.
Although Army regulations state that soldiers "often have an expectation of
confidentiality" during such inspector general sessions, Chavez believes another
soldier reported his comments to his superiors.
They, in turn, sought retribution, Chavez said.
Chavez’s leaders have offered few comments on the soldier’s case because they
are investigating his claims. They do, however, dispute some of Chavez’s allegations.
Plenty of reactions
A week after the May 15 "sensing session" with the inspector general, Chavez
was transferred from his job supervising 11 soldiers to a job verifying security
clearances and issuing security badges.
Chavez, 35, says he was given the new job — and essentially a demotion — in
retaliation for his candid comments to the inspector general.
"I felt they were punishing me because of what I said at the sensing
session," Chavez said. "They gave me a paper-pushing job so I wouldn’t
influence any soldiers."
At a time in the soldier’s career when his rank carries an expectation of
leadership, the senior NCO no longer supervises anyone.
Chavez said his experience over the past few months has made him lose faith in his
chain of command and in the Army. He also recently learned that his command at the 128th
Signal Company wants to transfer him out of his post at Supreme Allied Command, Europe,
near Mons, six months early. Chavez said he was told his position needed to be vacated to
accommodate an incoming soldier.
"Never in my 16 years of service to the Army have I felt so tired, stressed and
alone," Chavez said.
If Chavez’s job transfer indeed was the result of his comments to the inspector
general, his commanders violated federal law and Department of Defense policy prohibiting
reprisal for comments made to an inspector general.
Mulkey, the inspector general, was conducting a routine inspection of the 39th Signal
Battalion, which is based in Chievres.
A spokesman for the 5th Signal Command, commenting on the Chavez case, said the signal
battalion complies with the Military Whistleblower Protection Act and with Army inspector
general procedures that "specifically address a soldier’s right to talk to an IG
and a commander’s responsibility to ensure no reprisals occur," spokesman Danny
Johnson said in a statement. "Additionally, the 5th Signal Command covers this
information in detail with sensing session participants at the start of every sensing
session."
Chavez’s command has since begun an internal investigation into the soldier’s
claims, including additional concerns he raised in a letter to the editor of Stars and
Stripes, Johnson said.
Chavez’s former supervisor, 1st Sgt. Carl Vanaacken, declined to comment on the
case because of the current investigation.
Company commander of the 128th Signal company, Capt. Paul Hesslin, said he had
"plenty of reactions" to Chavez’s claims, but would withhold comment until
the investigation is complete.
Mulkey did not return telephone calls to his office.
Further inquiries to Chavez’s command were directed to Johnson, the 5th Signal
Command spokesman.
At a regular unit formation last week, commanders forbade troops from discussing unit
policy with any Stars and Stripes reporters.
However, 39th Signal Battalion Executive Officer Maj. Timothy Starke said Chavez
"doesn’t have his facts straight," regarding the job change.
Any actions taken, Starke said, "were scheduled long before the IG’s
investigation."
Johnson said he could not discuss those earlier actions because the case is under
investigation.
While changes may have been planned prior to the inspector general’s inspection,
Chavez said they were never discussed with him. He was only told he was needed to fill a
staff position left vacant when a DOD civilian became ill in early May. The civilian
recently returned to work, Chavez said.
Johnson refused to comment on the issue.
Intestinal fortitude
The day after the sensing session, Chavez said he was ordered to go to battalion
Command Sgt. Maj. Thomas Danielly’s office.
For the next 30 minutes, while Chavez stood at parade rest — feet spread apart and
hands behind his back — Danielly told Chavez that he should have "stayed in his
lane of responsibility" at the inspector general session. The following day, Danielly
told Chavez of the job transfer, even though official word already had gone out that
Chavez was to be the center’s next noncommissioned officer in charge, NCOIC, Chavez
said.
A few days later, Chavez was verbally reprimanded by his first sergeant, Chavez said.
Vanaacken came to Chavez’s office to deliver a regularly scheduled evaluation
report. The report was favorable, Chavez said.
But after Chavez signed the report, Vanaacken closed the office door and ordered Chavez
to stand at parade rest.
"He said ‘If you have a problem with me, you need to tell me to my face. You
going to the IG means you don’t have any intestinal fortitude,’" Chavez
recalled Vanaacken saying.
Chavez said he then told Vanaacken that the first sergeant’s reaction was
"exactly why I would never say anything to you."
Vanaacken refused to comment on Chavez’s claims.
"Responding to a newspaper really isn’t within my role as a member of the NCO
support chain," Vanaacken said.
Chavez said he has had numerous conflicts with Vanaacken and others in his command.
The problems started three months ago, when Vanaacken appointed Chavez headquarters
platoon sergeant, responsible for 29 soldiers.
Chavez said he felt up for the challenge. But, as it turned out, the assignment
couldn’t have come at a worse time. Chavez’s wife, who bears the same rank as
her husband, is on temporary duty to the United States for about four months.
Chavez found that caring for his two young children and the responsibility of the new
post — along with his continuing job as noncommissioned officer in charge of the
center and battalion safety manager — were too much to bear.
After seeing a family advocacy counselor and a clinic doctor for treatment of stress,
Chavez asked to be relieved as platoon sergeant.
Nine weeks later, after he spoke out at the inspector general session, he was
transferred to his current job as security assistant.
Chavez’s problems continued after the job transfer. Chavez said he was twice told
to use his annual leave days to care for his children when they fell ill. In several
meetings with his commanders, Chavez was told it was unit policy that he use his leave.
Johnson, the 5th Signal Command spokesman, said the policy requires soldiers in
Chavez’s position to have an alternate caregiver who could take care of the child if,
for example, he must leave the day-care facility because of illness.
"For short-term illnesses, the battalion allows soldiers to depart from work to
take care of their children without taking leave. However, if a soldier has to miss work
for an extended period of time due to child-care issues, the soldier normally must take
leave," the spokesman said.
Chavez decided to make his concerns public by writing a letter to the editor of Stars
and Stripes. In a meeting June 8, Starke and others in the command urged him to rescind
the letter, offering instead to look into the issues themselves, Chavez said.
The letter appeared in the newspaper on June 17.
After Chavez told his command he had sent the letter, but before it ran, 39th Signal
Battalion commander Lt. Col. James Hillairy ordered the internal investigation into
Chavez’s claims about the sensing session and other issues in the letter to the
editor.
A junior officer in the battalion was selected to conduct the investigation and was
briefed on procedures at SHAPE’s Northern Law Center, Johnson said.
Johnson refused to say when the investigation was expected to be completed.
The results and any recommendations will be presented to the battalion commander, who
will "determine final disposition in this matter," Johnson said.
RELATED STORY:
Critics say
whistleblower protection needs improvement
Back to June stories
Page Two news roundup
Stories from May, 2001
Stories from April, 2001
Stories from March, 2001
Stories from February,2001
Stories from January, 2001
Stories from December, 2000
Stories from November, 2000
Stories from October, 2000
Stories from August and September, 2000
Stories from June and July, 2000
Home |
