Naval Academy Preparatory School KILLS Sailor’s Career For Talking To Lawyer!

Ray Hrdlicka – Host – Attorneys.Media

Welcome to Part 3 of Save the Sailors Career

By now we assume you have seen Part One and Part Two. So let’s we start off at the onset of the Captain’s Mast. The Captain’s Mast packet submitted by Grant prior to the hearing included his cover letter, taking responsibility for his actions, seven character reference statements from other Naval Academy Preparatory students and enlisted personnel, and five documents from other officers and a Chief praising his leadership abilities and work ethic at the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command, where he graduated, and his first duty station on a submarine in Pearl Harbor.

Now it’s important to take note of some of the comments from those fellow students at NAPS, the Naval Academy Preparatory School, in their character reference statements.

Quote:

“ …he constantly aided those who are struggling academically. He would sacrifice his study hours and extra time to teach other candidates about the topics…”

“…draws others to follow him as a mentor and guide both professionally and on a personal level…”

“…consistently push to be better through consistency and learning from mistakes.”

“…his ambition, confidence, determination, intelligence and eagerness to help any struggling midshipman candidate, M/C’s, ””… which is what students at the Naval Academy Preparatory School are called…midshipman candidates…“… any struggling midshipman candidate like myself during study time.”

“…has an exceptional aptitude to pick up on situations that might not always be clear, which is why he makes such a great leader.”

Here we go. It’s time for the Captain’s Mast. The other midshipman candidate at the NAPS, Naval Academy Preparatory School, involved in Grants violation was charged in an adjudication, not a Captains Mast. That hearing occurred right before Grant’s Captains Mast. That student came out of the hearing and immediately told Grant what had occurred. He received 27 days restriction, 27 days loss of privileges. But most importantly, he did NOT receive a recommendation for separation from NAPS and NO appointment to the United States Naval Academy. He also said that he asked Captain Bahr about his appointment to the Academy, and Captain Bahr stated that “he would take care of it for him”. That student was admitted to the Naval Academy at the end of the school year.

Now, remember this….27 days restriction, 27 days loss of privileges. In a moment, you will learn that disciplinary action was roughly HALF of what every other student received for the same type of violations. And you’re going to ask yourself…why?

So Grant goes into the Captain’s Mast hearing. As the formalities proceed, at one point, Captain Bahr asks Grant what he would do if Grant were the Captain in this scenario. Grant answers that he would keep in line with the standards previously set by the other cases. Captain Bahr pauses for a few seconds and says “yes, actually that’s correct”.

Now with that statement in mind, let’s take a look at exactly what those standards previously set by other cases actually are….

A few months earlier, over a dozen students were taken to adjudication for similar violations. All received 45 days restriction, 45 days loss of privileges. NONE were recommended for separation and no appointment to the Naval Academy.

Now later, two students, of that more than dozen, dropped out of the school, one failed because of grades, one committed a second similar violation later and was separated from the school because of those two violations, but the remaining nine students all received their appointments to the Naval Academy. All nine students were admitted to the Naval Academy at the end of the school year.

And…at that same time, two more students with nearly the exact same violations, as Grant…they were charged, one with an adjudication and one with a Captains Mast. The adjudication received 45 days restriction, 180 days loss of car. NOT recommended for separation and no appointment to the Naval Academy. That student received an appointment to the Naval Academy. That student was admitted to the Naval Academy at the end of the school year.

The other student taken to Captains Mast… received 45 days restriction, 45 days loss of privileges, ½ pay for two months and WAS recommended for separation from NAPS and to not receive an appointment to the Naval Academy. That student had worked at the Naval Academy as an enlisted sailor before applying for admission to the Naval Academy. That student submitted a one-page appeal, remember that…a one-page appeal….to the Superintendent of the Naval Academy, Admiral Sean Buck, and after 60 days the appeal was granted. That student received an appointment to the Naval Academy as the appeal was granted. That student was admitted to the Naval Academy at the end of the school year.

Now back to Grant’s Captains Mast. Remember Captain Bahr’s statement? “Yes, actually that’s correct” when Grant answered he would keep in line with the standards previously set by the other cases when asked what he would do if he were the Captain?

It was a blatant lie!

Here are the disciplinary actions…and when you compare it to the standards previously set…it’s actually severe punishment, not corrective disciplinary action. Grant received 60 days restriction, 60 days loss of privileges, ½ pay for two months, a reduction in rank, and a recommendation for separation from NAPS and to NOT receive an appointment to the Naval Academy.

Something else occurred at the Captain’s Mast that now, in hindsight, suggested the underlying agenda that we know today to be the punitive actions taken by two Commands simply because Grant asked to exert his 5th amendment right to talk to a lawyer.

At one point in the hearing, Captain Bahr paused for a few seconds and then said, “I think you should go back to the fleet”.

We now can look back at that statement and recognize that every subsequent action taken by Captain Bahr and Superintendent Buck intended to do just that….destroy a sailor’s future career as a commissioned United States Naval Academy officer.

The next video, Part 4, we will give you a look inside the appeal process after the Captain’s Mast where Captain Bahr and Superintendent Buck violated Navy regulations as well as the Administrative Procedures Act. We’ll also give you more examples of the disparate treatment of Grant versus other students.

Go to our petition page at Attorneys.Media/SaveTheSailor. Sign your name to the appropriate petition, retired military, donors to the USNA, lawyers, elected officials-staff, and the general public. Show your support to correct the actions of those few people, military personnel in command authority, who not only abuse their rank, but violate the Constitution and other areas in our nations rule of law.

See you in Part 4