THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, October 9, 1995 TAG: 9510090024
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY DALE EISMAN, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Long : 173 lines
Did the Navy's eagerness to retain a talented African-American officer lead some of its senior leaders last year to bend their ``zero tolerance'' policy on sexual harassment?
And, has ``political correctness'' now driven the brass to turn on that officer, a rear admiral-select, rather than stand by an earlier decision to take no official action on harassment charges he vehemently denies?
That volatile mix of issues reaches a courtroom at the Washington Navy Yard this week as Capt. Everett L. Greene faces court-martial on charges that he became overly friendly with two female lieutenants formerly in his command.
Greene's trial, scheduled to begin Wednesday, will mark the first time since World War II an officer selected for flag rank has gone to court-martial. It could force the Navy to choose between goals its leaders have deemed vital: punishing sexual harassment and increasing the number of qualified minorities in its top ranks.
In a Navy where men and women are working more closely together than ever, the case also could help redefine the line between camaraderie and fraternization and determine how the service will police that line.
``Issues of race and disparate treatment are constantly being raised within the criminal justice system,'' said Kevin Barry, a lawyer and retired Coast Guard captain who cited the just-concluded trial of O.J. Simpson to buttress his point. ``Those same concerns exist within the military justice system.''
``I know that a lot of our members will be in attendance to watch this case and to hear (the evidence) firsthand,'' said Coast Guard Capt. Percy Norwood, president of the National Naval Officers Association, a group of minority officers in which Greene has been active.
``We don't believe Capt. Greene has done anything wrong,'' he said.
``This case seems to be at the intersection of various kinds of hot button issues,'' observed Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington attorney who specializes in military law. And the Navy's handling of the dispute, he added, ``does give people the sense that they're being treated unfairly.''
The 47-year-old Greene, a SEAL commando, is a much-decorated Naval Academy graduate whose troubles arose during 1993 when he headed the equal opportunity office in the Bureau of Naval Personnel. His responsibilities there included overseeing a telephone hotline for harassment complaints from Navy women.
Lt. Mary E. Felix, who answered calls on the harassment hotline, alleges that through handwritten notes and cards, Greene made romantic advances toward her. Lt. Pamela Castrucci, a lawyer who investigated complaints received on the hotline, said Greene was overly attentive to her personal problems - to the point that she became uncomfortable.
No one contends that Greene became sexually involved with either woman, and he agreed to break off contact with both after they complained to other officers.
During a preliminary hearing in May, Felix testified that Greene spoke to her repeatedly about troubles in his marriage and that she sought his counsel on troubles with a former fiance and some personal medical problems.
After one talk in February 1993, Greene sent her a poem promising, ``Whenever you need to be adored, I will be there. Whenever you need to be befriended, I will be there. Whenever you need to be comforted, I will be there.''
Navy prosecutors also have a December 1993 letter from Greene to Felix in which he asserted that ``I have never tried to get you to do anything in violation of your religious beliefs against your will'' and ``I wanted you just as much, if not more, than you wanted me.''
Greene's notes to Castrucci seemed less suggestive, but included sentences like, ``Our friendship doesn't give you permission to act as a jerk towards me,'' and ``My calls and cards should attest to the sincerity of my concern for you.''
Both women testified that the notes were unwelcome, though Felix acknowledged that she saw Greene as a ``father figure'' and sought his counsel on personal problems. ``I think we were both wrong,'' she testified at the hearing in May.
During the preliminary hearing, Greene said the women misconstrued his interest in them. Several of his notes to each were included in birthday cards or get-well messages he sent when each was hospitalized.
``I'm just the type of person that will . . . take time to sit down and write to someone that has problems,'' he added.
Greene also alleges that Felix suggested they become intimate but that he declined.
A pivotal dispute in the trial may be the meaning of the December 1993 letter Greene sent to Felix. ``What you offered to do with me was very special and precious,'' he wrote her. ``I wanted you just as much, if not more, than you wanted me. However, I did not think it was the right thing to do at that time. You had already been hurt in more ways than one because of unfaithfulness.''
The prosecution cites the letter as evidence that Greene had become too familiar with a subordinate. But Greene and his lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. William Little, argue that it proves his contention that Felix sought a sexual relationship and Greene said no.
As for the poem sent to Felix the previous February, Greene testified that it was a gesture of support for a co-worker who had confided in him. The words ``adored,'' ``befriended,'' and ``comforted'' were an A-B-C litany intended to demonstrate his sincerity, he said.
The defense also is expected to contend that Felix and Castrucci, who acknowledge that they became close friends during their time working on the harassment hotline, have worked together to embellish their stories.
Little went after Felix aggressively at the preliminary hearing, eliciting critical testimony from one former co-worker, Lt. Cmdr. Joyce Z. Randle.
``I believe, based on having caught her in a lie before, that she had the capacity to lie,'' Randle said of Felix. ``When Lt. Felix is embarrassed, I think she has the capacity to say things she may know are not true.''
Felix and Castrucci both complained to other officers about Greene during 1993. But though the Navy adopted a ``zero tolerance'' policy on sexual harassment in the aftermath of the Tailhook scandal of 1991, no formal charges were brought.
Instead, the case was resolved informally, with Greene - by then transferred to a SEAL unit in San Diego - agreeing to have no further contact with either woman.
Some women's rights activists have criticized the use of informal resolution in harassment cases, arguing that the procedure can allow the military's old-boy network to push aside serious misconduct. Both Felix and Castrucci agreed to the arrangement in Greene's case, however, and the then-chief of Naval Personnel, Vice Adm. Ronald J. Zlatoper, sanctioned the deal.
There matters seemed to rest until early this year when a promotion board headed by Zlatoper selected Greene for promotion to rear admiral. After word of that reached Felix, now stationed in Spain and working as a public affairs officer, she went to her commanding officer and initiated formal proceedings against Greene.
Felix has said that while she considered the case resolved, she did not think Greene was fit for flag rank and decided she could not remain silent.
The charges have put Greene's promotion on hold - Navy Secretary John H. Dalton left his name off a list of new rear admirals sent to the Senate for confirmation earlier this year - and touched off a dispute in and out of the service over the fairness of prosecuting Greene at all.
The captain's supporters liken his legal situation to the ``double jeopardy'' rule that, in a civilian court, protects a defendant from being tried more than once on charges arising from the same incident.
There are some parallels, said Barry, the retired Coast Guard captain and a former president of the Judge Advocates Association, a group of military judges and lawyers. Still, because Greene's case initially was settled outside the justice system, there's no question that the Navy has a legal right to prosecute, he said.
Fidell, the Washington lawyer, agreed with that analysis. But he added that ``the notion that a negotiated settlement can be reopened because the alleged wrong-doer proves to be vulnerable is very disquieting. . . . Nobody will make these deals if this is what happens.''
David H. Hackworth, a retired Army colonel who now writes frequently on military issues, argues that by pursuing in court a case that had been resolved informally, the Navy is undercutting ``the whole trust relationship which the armed forces is all about. The guy's taking a screwing,'' he asserted.
Even some in the Navy are less than fully comfortable with the service's role in the case. In March, a captain assigned to investigate the matter wrote to Adm. Mike Boorda, the chief of naval operations, that ``the question of fairness may become an issue if after being told no further action would be taken, Capt. Greene is charged with an offense.''
Other observers argue that Greene forced the Navy's hand by declining an offer earlier this year to handle the case through ``nonjudicial punishment,'' a procedure in which he would have been formally but privately disciplined.
Instead, Greene insisted that the Navy either drop all charges or take him to court-martial. The service opted for the latter course July 31.
Greene has told interviewers he pressed for the trial because he wants a forum to face Felix and Castrucci and prefers to be judged by a panel of his peers. A jury of five admirals and four captains will be empaneled to hear the case.
Even if Greene is cleared, his naval career could be damaged beyond repair. Dalton could make permanent the hold on Greene's nomination for rear admiral. And the Senate, which has become increasingly sensitive to harassment cases since Tailhook and 1991 confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, could reject or simply decline to act on Greene's nomination if Dalton forwards it. ILLUSTRATION: B\W Photo [No photo credit available]
Capt. Everett Greene's trial marks the first time since World War II
that an officer selected for flag rank has gone to court-martial. It
could force the Navy to choose between goals its leaders have deemed
vital: punishing sexual harassment and increasing the number of
qualified minorities in its top ranks.
KEYWORDS: U.S. NAVY COURT MARTIAL SEXUAL HARASSMENT by CNB