Court-Martial Record: Private First Class Edward L. Richmond, Jr. (Volume 1 of 7)

This Court Martial record discusses the court martial proceedings of Private First Class Edward L. Richmond, Jr., he was charged with murder for shooting and killing an Iraqi civilian-farmer on or about February 28, 2004 at or near Taal Al Jal, Iraq.
PFC Richmond plead not guilty, he was found guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. Also, he was sentenced to forfeit all pay and allowances, was reduced in grade to a Private, confined for three years and dishonorably discharged.
Included in the record are letters from family, US Representatives, and a brief explanation of the facts and judgment.

Doc_type: 
UCMJ
Doc_date: 
Monday, June 13, 2005
Doc_rel_date: 
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Doc_text: 

COURT-MART1AL RECORD
NAmE RICHMOND, EDWARD L. PFC
6 W-2_
SSN

ACTIONS CODED: ASSIGNED TO: •2%
INITIAL JUN 2 2 2005 PANEL

ACCA EXAM. DIV.
FINAL
COMPAMON(S):

RETURN THIS FILE TO:
OFFICE-OF TOE CLERK OF COURT
US. ARMY . JUDICIARY
904 NORTH -STUART STREET,. SUITE 1.200
ARLINGTON/ VA 222034837

VOL I OFVVII VOL(S)
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7 ARMY
JALS-QC FORM 2A, tOCTOBER MOO. JUN 3 2005 016549
UNITED STATES ARMY JUDICIARY
901 NORTH STUART STREET
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203-1837

UNITED STATES

ARMY 20040787

v.

REFERRAL AND DESIGNATION

PFC EDWARD L. RICHMOND

OF COUNSEL

VCI-L

1. The record of trial in this case having been received for
review pursuant to Article 66(b), Uniform Code of Military
Justice, the record is, by authority of The Judge Advocate
General, hereby referred to the United States Army Court of
Criminal Appeals for appellate review. Pursuant to assignment

procedures approved by the Chief Judge, the record is assigned

to the Panel indicated below.

2. Pursuant to Article 70(c)(1), Uniform Code of Military

Justice, the Chief, Defense Appellate Division, and such
additional or other appellate counsel as he may assign, shall
represent the accused in these proceedings and in any further
or related proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces. The Chief, Government Appellate

Division, and such additional appellate counsel as he may
assign, shall represent' the United States.

Date: 13 June 2005

PANEL 2

FOR THE CLERK OF COURT:

10(6)-2_
Deputy er.

Court

DISTRIBUTION:

JALS-DA

JALS-GA

016550

CHRONOLOGY SHEET'

In the case of Private First Class Edward L. Richmond, Jr.
(Rank and Name of Accused)

Date of alleged commission of earliest offense tried: 28-Feb 2004
, Date recor
LTC
1 In a case forwarded to The Judge Advocate General, the staff judge advocate or legal officer is responsible for completion of the Chronology Sheet. Trial counsel should report any authorized deductions and reasons for unusual delay in the trial of the case.
2 Or officer conducting review under Article 64(a)(MCM, 1984, RCM 1112).
3 In computing days between two dates, disregard first day and count last day. The actual number of days in each month will be counted.
4 Item 1 is not applicable when accused is not restrained, (see MCM, 1984, RCM 304) or when he/she is in confinement under sentence or court- martial at time charges are preferred. Item 2 will be the zero date if item 1 is not applicable.
5 May not be applicable to trial by special
court-martial.
6 Only this item may be deducted.
7 If no further action is required, items 1 to 8 will be completed and chronology signed by such convening authority or his/her representative.
8 When further action is required under
Article 64 or service directives.
REMARKS
(Enter Date)
Advocate General: 2
(Enter Date)
46)-2_
HQ, 11D, APO AE 09392
(signature and rank of Staff Judge Advocate or Legal Officer)
ACTION
1. Accused placed under restraint by military 4
authority
2.
Charges preferred (date of affidavit)

3.
Article 32 investigation (date of report) 5

4.
Charges received by convening authority

5.
Charges referred for trial

6.
Sentence or acquittal

Less days:
Accused sick, in hospital, or AWOL
Delay at request of defense

i6
Total authorized deducton
7.
Net elapsed days to sentence or acquittal

8.
Record received by convening authority

. 7
Action
9. Record received by officer conducting review under Article 64(a)
. 8
Action
CUMULATIVE
DATE 2002/03 ELAPSED 3DAYS
5-Apr-04
18-Apr-04 13
15-Jun-04 71
15-Jun-04 71
5-Aug-04 122
6-Dec-04 244
15-Apr-05 374(343)

Defense Delay: 1 day. (16 Apr 04 - 17 Apr 04) AR 27-10, Para 5-40b(2)
Defense Delay: 31 days. (6 Jan 05 - 5 Feb 05) AR 27-10, Para 5-40b(2)

Number of days from initial investigation of most serious arraigned offense to the date of arraignment: 124 days. (AR 27-10, Para 5-40b(1))
Accused confined at Fort Sill, OK (AR 27-10, Para 5-40c)
016552
DD FORM 490, MAY 2000 Inside of Front Cover
2004 0 T 8 7
;0F TITA104N
dARIOPIVII:siNVO 4 MAWrAI;(1961$5$000'
ORDI.IltS:C28944 15 Octoller2904
t())-- 2-
RICHMOND, EDWAIW: :.:Hlteaa*afters andigeadquarters Company, 1-27‘b Infantry Battalion, ,,SehOfi4Baffite*HT:1685746000
You will.proceed on perManent change Of statiOwas:shoWn-,
Assiwied tO: Afcatti0.0.0rsonnel Control Facility MIVGPIqperacanel and Support:Battalion, UnitedStafeirgataCilityfort Sill, Fort Sill, OkliihOta 13A0MT00 Attached* 'RaiiiWil'COOfideOiartt Facility (WOVGPR):FortSillOtialloma 73501,5100
,V,
Reportingptite 124 October 2004 Additional Instructions: .
(a) YOU;arcatithoriz4fo ohaktWolieces of-baggage free. Each *ece may not exceed 62 linear in**
(the:sum-ay/kith plaheight) or (50)POUtida.-Ohtstatulaixt B-4 Duffel, bas.Or Sea bag will be:malted'
regardless of size or vieight and will:Count as one cif the tee pieces. One piece of baggage not to exceed 45
linear inches maybe. carried-onboard the aircraft by each-passenger.
,.(b),-c*RMairderi UniteilStats AiMySiipport ComMand; Haviali,Thrt Shatter, Hawaii 96858 will be
i*PatUaibletirtheitadetaikyiards. ' . ._

,.
(C).:taill04**Chal:,:r0Cordi WillbOantiggiied by thCes0.00410(0,.: . .
(t1).Gtiarckar#1011iPriiskt.to carrytti&aelamtlOutlli WhetiCSOCiOntieldiera-to theirinal, :destination.
(e)401.CliOr istanOetrailto your:comnuuytfbr.her.confinemat: '
(f)IAW-Alt190A7, Para •-8 3- 'a, and-AR 55.47.1-r.Qia 7 SOldierisitithorized shipment Of Vehicle and
household goo& to P0C:' I (iN J

V) bf -1
FOR ARMY USE AUTH: VOCG 25111 INFANTRY DIVISION AND AR 19047 MDC: 4CF.,5 Pars con-no: Not Applic.able EnliReen1 indic: Not Appliable Assg temAdsg: Not ApPliablePPD: Not Applicable Ca.apecirdty: Na ApplicablePMOSISSI: lid:00000 25IA63 Proj specialty: Not Applicable Pers scty code: Not ApplicableAval date: 7 November 2004 ormat: 410
FOR THE COMMANDER
DISTRIBUTION:
APV&PSHAVD-P.BfAt/TOMATION) (1)
APVG-PSI3.141PD-B (RECORDS) (1)
Cdr, USAREC, ATTN: PCRE-FS, Ft Ben Harriaoh, Indiana 46249-5000 (1)
Army Liaison, Naval-Brig, Pearl ga0or,:liawaii 96860 ::(1)
Cdr, RegionatConfMeitientFaillfirOOVGPR) Fort Sill, Oklahoma 73503.-5100 (1)
SJA, NM: ATV0-Cr:iiit La' M

14:
-
HEW; I-27.th la Bri, Schofield Batracks, HI'96857,6000 (1) INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED (5)
016553
:
-4,40e-4,-0 7 ari—
UNITED STATES
POST-TRIAL and
v. APPELLATE RIGHTS
Edward L. RICHMOND, JR.
PFC, U.S. Army 5 August 2004
HHC, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment
25th Infantry Division (Light)
APO AE 09347-9998

I, PFC Edward L. Richmond, Jr., the accused in the above-entitled case, certify that my trial defense counsel has advised me of the following post-trial and appellate rights in the event that I am convicted of a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:
1.
In exercising my post-trial rights, or in making any decision to waive them, I am entitled to the advice and assistance of military counsel provided free of charge or civilian counsel provided by me at no expense to the Government.

2.
After the record of trial is prepared, the convening authority will act on my case. The convening authority can approve the sentence adjudged (as limited by any pretrial agreement), or he can approve a lesser sentence, or disapprove the sentence entirely. The convening authority cannot increase the sentence. He can also disapprove some or all of the findings of guilty. The convening authority is not required to review the case for legal errors, but may take action to correct legal errors.

3.
I have the right to submit any matters I wish the convening authority to consider in deciding what action to talce in my case. Before the convening authority takes action, the Staff Judge Advocate will submit a recommendation to him. This recommendation will be sent to my defense counsel and to me. At that time, errors in my court-martial or clemency matters supporting reduction or disapproval of my punislunents that I wish the convening authority to consider, and matters in response to the Staff Judge Advocate's recommendation must be submitted through my attorney to the convening authority. Such matters must be submitted within 10 days after my counsel and I receive the recommendation of the Staff Judge Advocate. This 10 day period begins when both my counsel and I have received the Staff Judge Advocate's recommendation. Upon my request, the convening authority may extend this period, for good cause, for not more than an additional 20 days.

4.
If a punitive discharge or confinement for one year or more is adjudged and the convening authority approves the discharge or confinement for a year or more, my case will be reviewed by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA). I am entitled to be represented by counsel before such court. If I so request, military counsel will be appointed to represent me at no cost to me. If I so choose, I may also be represented by civilian counsel at no expense to the United States.

5.
After the Army Court of Criminal Appeals completes its review, I may request that my case be reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). If that Court reviews my

2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7

0 1655 4 N,\ 0Q.cy3L'Ao-A \al

United States v. PFC Edward1.,. _,Ihmond, Jr. — Post-Trial and Appellate Righls
case, I may request review by the Supreme Court of the United States. I would have the same
rights to counsel before those courts as I have before the ACCA.

6.
If the Court-Martial does not adjudge or the Convening Authority does not approve either a
punitive discharge or confinement for a year or more, my case will be examined by the Office of
the Judge Advocate General for any legal errors and to determine if the sentence is appropriate.
The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) may take corrective action as appropriate. This mandatory
review under Article 69(a), UCMJ, will constitute the final review of my case unless TJAG
directs review by the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.

7.
I may waive or withdraw review by the appellate courts (subparagraph 4, above) or the Office
of The Judge Advocate General (subparagraph 6, above) at any time before such review is
completed. I understand that if I waive or withdraw review:

a. My decision is final and I cannot change my mind.
b.
My case will then be reviewed by a military lawyer for legal error. It will also be sent to the General Court-Martial Convening Authority for final action.

c.
Within 2 years after the sentence is approved, I may request TJAG to take corrective action on the basis of newly discovered evidence, fraud on the court-martial, lack of jurisdiction over me or the offense, error prejudicial to my substantial rights, or the appropriateness of the

sentence.
8. I understand that IAW Article 57(a), U.C.M.J., any forfeiture and/or reduction that was part of my sentence will ta.ke effect 14 days from the earlier of either a) the date the sentence was imposed, or b) the date the Convening Authority approves the sentence. I understand that under Article 57(a), I can, through my attorney, request that the application of these adjudged punishments be deferred by the Convening Authority until the date the Convening Authority
approves the sentence.
9. I understand that IAW Article 58b, U.C.M.J., if this court-martial sentences me to either a) any confinement and a punitive discharge, or b) any confinement in excess of six months, I will automatically forfeit all my pay and allowances during my confinement. (If I was tried by a Special Court-Martial, I automatically will forfeit 2/3 of my pay during confinement if I receive a punitive discharge or confinement in excess of six months.) I understand that under Article 58b, I can, through my attorney, ask that the convening authority defer these automatic forfeitures until the convening authority takes action on my sentence. In addition, my attorney may request that the convening authority waive this automatic forfeiture for a period not to exceed six months, but only if the following two conditions are met:
a. I have dependents; and
b. The Convening Authority directs that the pay and allowances I would otherwise get would be paid not to me, but to my dependents.
016555
2
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
United States v. PFC Edwardl.,..
hmond, Jr. — Post-Trial and Appellate Righis
10.
I understand that if my court-martial sentence included a punitive discharge, I can request an
exception to policy to have my family's household goods shipped at government expense. (Note:
Family members residing in USAREUR under command sponsorship will have household good
shipped at government expense without the need for an exception to policy.)

11.
I understand that if my court-martial sentence included confinement, I can request that the
Convening Authority defer (that is, postpone the start of) my confinement. I understand that it is
my burden to show that my interests and those of the community in release outweigh the
interests of the community in confining me.

12.
I have read and had my post-trial rights explained to me by counsel and I acknowledge these
rights and make the elections set forth below, as reflected by my initials where appropriate.

I understand my post-trial and appellate review rights.
b. I request that a copy of the authenticated record of trial be served on myself pursuant
to RCM 1104(b); I also request that a separate authenticated copy of the record of trial be served
on my military counsel (and civilian counsel, if appropriate) pursuant to RCM 1106(0(3). I
request that individual copies of the Staff Judge Advocate's post trial recommendation be served
on by both myself and my defense counsel pursuant to RCM 1106(0.

q0--
c. My defense counsel, CPT. will submit R.C.M. 1105 matters in
my ase.
d. I want to be represented before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals by Appellate Defense Counsel appointed by The Judge Advocate General of the Army. I understand that I may contact my Appellate Defense Counsel by writing to Defense Appellate Division, U.S. Army Legal Services Agency (JALS-DA), 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 1200, Arlington,
Virginia 22203-1837.
.
e. I have been informed that I have the right to retain civilian counsel at my expense. iviy civilian counsel's name, address, and telephone are as follows:
Should I later retain civilian counsel, I will furnish the above information to: Clerk of Court,
U.S. Army Judiciary (JALS-CC), 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 1200, Arlington, Virginia 22203-1837.
f. If applicable, I (do) .(do not) &.

want my attorney to ask theConvening Authority to defer the application of my adjudged forfeitures and/or reduction in Article 57(a) as described in paragraph 8 above.
g. If applicable, I (do) .(do not) \.

want my attorney to ask the Convening Authority to defer or waive the automatic forfeitures in Article 58b as described in paragraph 9 above. The dependent(s) who are dependent upon me for support and who would
016556
3
2004078 7
z
J
United States v. PFC Edwardi..,___iehmond, Jr. — Post-Trial and Appellate Right's -
be designated to receive my pay, which would otherwise be automatically forfeited are (give
name, relationship to you, address, telephone number) .
h. If applicable, I (do) .
(do not) .want my attorney to ask the
Convening Authority for an exception to policy to ship m family's household goods at
Goverrunent expense, as described in paragraph 10 above.

i. If applicable, I (do) .(do not).
want my attorney to ask the
Convening Authority to defer my confinement, as describe n paragraph 11 above.

13. I understand that if my sentence included either a Bad Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge
but no confinement, I can immediately request to be placed on voluntary excess leave (VEL)
until the Convening Authority takes action on my case. I understand that if my sentence
included either a Bad Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge and any confinement, I can request to
be placed on VEL at the completion of my confinement until the Convening Authority takes
action on my case. If my request is granted and I am placed on VEL, I understand that:

a. My accrued leave will be used until exhausted, and then I will be in a VEL status;
b.
While in a VEL status, I will not receive any pay or allowances, nor will I accrue
leave;

c. While in a VEL status, I will not be entitled to travel on a space available basis; and

d.
I will be completely processed for discharge from the Army and, if requested, will
receive a separation physical prior to my departure on VEL. I understand that there is no
entitlement to physical disability retired pay should I incur a physical disability while in a VEL

status.
14.
I understand that if my sentence included a Bad Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge, when the Convening Authority takes action on my case, I will be placed on involuntary excess leave (IEL) until the completion of the post-trial and appellate process in my case. If I am placed on IEL, I understand that same restrictions as listed above for VEL apply.

15.
Pending appellate action on my case, I can be contacted, or a message may be left for me, at the following address: PFC Edward L. Riclunond, Jr., c/o

11.11111111111111111MMO home phone: \0(0-9
Email Address (if any): Or
9(6)--Lf
DATE: 5 August 2004
111
EDWARD L. RIC M D, JR.
PFC, USA
Accused
016557
.
4 2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
United States v. PFC Edward...khmond, Jr. — Post-Trial and Appellate Righlis
I certify that I have advised PFC Edward L. Richmond, Jr., regarding the post-trial and appellate rights as set forth above, that he has received a copy of this document, and that he made elections concerning appellate counsel.
IAW R.C.M. 110603), I request a copy of the record of trial.
DATE: 5 August 2004
111111.1
("
CPT, JA Trial Defense Counsel
016553
5.
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
b(6)-2

1. OJAG NUMBER
COURT-MARTI DATA SHEET
2. NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial) 3. SOCIAL S CURITY NO. 4. RANK 5. UNIT/COMMAND NAME
PFC
1-27 APO AE.
RICHMOND, Edward L . , Jr . HHC,.IN,.09347-9998
INSTRUCTIONS
When an item is not applicable to the record of trial being reviewed, mark the proper block with a dia
line similar to the ones which appear in the SPCMCA blocks for items 6a and b.

KEY TO USE TC Trial Counsel. This column will bc GCM_ or JA General Court-Martial OJAG Appropriate appellate agency in the Office
-
-
-
completed in all cases in which a finding Convening Authority or Judge of The Judge Advocate General of the branch of of guilty is returned. Advocate. This column will be service concerned. This column will be disregarded completed in any case in which the if a record of trial was reviewed under Article 64, SPCMCA Special Court-Martial record is forwarded by the commander UCMJ, and in cases where there are no approved
-
Convening Authority who is not exercising general court-martial fmdings of guilty. empowered to convene a general court-jurisdiction to The Judge Advocate martial. This column will be completed General of the branch of service References All references are to the Uniform Code
-
in each special court-martial case by the concerned. If the record is reviewed of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Manual for Courts SPCMCA or his/her designated under Article 64(a), UCMJ, this Martial, United States (MCM), 1984. representative. column will be completed by the judge
advocate accomplishing the review TC SPCMCA GCM or OJAG SECTION A PRETRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEDURE JA
-
YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
6. a. If a general court-martial: Was the accused represented in the Article 32 investigation by civilian or military counsel of his/her own selection or by X N/A N/A X counsel qualified within the meaning of Article 27(b), UCMJ?
b. If not: Did the accused waive his/her right to such representation? N/A N/A N/A N/A
7.
Does the record show place, date, and hour of each Article 39(a) session,
the assembly and each opening and closing thereafter? X X

8.
a. Are all convening and amending orders of courts to which charges were
referred entered in the record? X X

b.
Are court members named in the convening orders, detailed military judge (if any), counsel and the accused accounted for as present or absent? X X

c.
Was less than a quorum present at any meeting requiring the presence of court members (RCM 805))? X X

d.
Does the record show that after each session, adjournment, recess, or closing during the trial, the parties to the trial were accounted for when the X X court reopened (A13-5)?

e.
If the military judge or any member present at assembly was thereafter absent, was such absence the result of challenge, physical.disability or based N/A N/A N/A N/A on good cause as shown in the record of trial (RCM 505(c)(2)(A))?

9.
Were the reporter and interpreter, if any, sworn or previously sworn? X X

10.
a. Was the military judge properly certified (RCM 502(c))? X X

b.
Was the military judge properly detailed (RCM 503(b))? X X

c.
Was the military judge present during all open sessions of the court? X X

11.
a. Was the accused advised that:

(1) He/she had the right to be represented free of charge by a military lawyer of his/her own selection, if reasonably available, in which case detailed X X counsel might be excused (RCM 506(a))?
016559
DD FORM 494, OCT 84, Page 1 Previous editions are obsolete.
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
COURT-MARTIAL DATA SHEET

TC SPCMCA GCM or OJAG
SECTION A -PRETRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEDURE JA
(CONTINUED) YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
(2) He/she had the right to be represented at the trial by a civilian lawyer
provided at no expense to the government, in which case detailed counsel X X
would serve as associate counsel or be excused with the accused's consent?
(3) If he/she did not exercise any of the rights listed above, he/she would be X X
defended by detailed counsel certified under Article 27(b), UCMJ (RCM 502(d)(1))?
b. (1) Was the accused represented by a civilian lawyer? X X
(2) Did the accused request a specific military counsel? X X
(3) (a) If so, was such request complied with? N/A N/A N/A N/A
(b) If not, were reasons given why requested counsel was not
reasonably available? N/A N/A N/A N/A
12. a. Was the detailed defense counsel properly certified (RCM 502(d))? X X
b. Was at least one qualified counsel for each party present during all
open sessions of the court (RCM 502(d) and RCM 805(c))? X X
13. a. If the special court-martial adjudged a BCD:
(1) Was a military judge detailed to the court (RCM 503(b))? N/A N/A N/A N/A
(2) If not, did the convening authority submit a statement indicating
why a military judge could not be detailed and why trial had to be held at that time N/A N/A N/A N/A
and place (Article 19, UCMJ)?
(3) Was a verbatim transcript made (Article 19, UCMJ)? N/A N/A N/A N/A
14. Did any person who acted as the accuser, investigating officer, military
judge, court member, or a member of the defense in the same case, or as
counsel for the accused at a pretrial investigation or other proceedings X X
involving the same general matter, subsequently act as a member of the
prosecution (RCM 502(d)(4))?
15. If any member of the defense had acted as a member of the prosecution in N/A N/A N/A N/A
the same case, was he/she excused (RCM 502(d)(4))?
16. a. If any member of the defense had acted as the accuser, investigating
officer, military judge, or member of the court, were his/her services expressly N/A N/A N/A N/A
requested by the accused (RCM 502(d)(4))?
b. If not, was he/she excused? N/A N/A N/A N/A
17. a. If accused was an enlisted person, did he/she make a request that
enlisted persons be included in membership of the court? X X
b. If so, were at least one-third of the members who tried the case enlisted
persons, or did the convening authority direct the trial without enlisted
persons and provide a detailed written explanation which is appended to the X X
record (RCM 503(a)(2))?
c. Did any enlisted member of the court belong to the same unit as the accused? X X
18. If a military judge was detailed to the court, was the accused informed of
his/her right to request trial by military judge alone? X X
19. Were the members of the court, military judge (if any) and the personnel
of the prosecution and defense sworn or previously sworn? X X
20. a. Was any person sitting as a member of the court, or military judge (if
any), the accuser, a witness for the prosecution, the investigating officer, staff
judge advocate, counsel, or convening authority, or upon rehearing or new X X
trial was he/she a member of the former trial (RCM 902(b) and RCM 912(f))?
b. If so, did the accused waive such disqualification (RCM 912(f)(4) and
RCM 902(e))? N/A N/A N/A N/A

016560
DD FORM 494, OCT 84, Page 2
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
COURT -MARTIAL DATA SHEET

TC SPCMCA GCM or OJAG
SECTION A -PRETRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEDURE JA
(CONTINUED) YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
21. a. Was each accused extended the right to challenge military judge (if
any), and any member of the court for cause and to exercise one peremptory X X
challenge?
b. Was action by court upon challenges proper (RCM 902 and RCM 912)? X X
c. Does the record show that a member excused as a result of a challenge
withdrew from the court? X X
22. a. Was the accused properly arraigned (RCM 904)? X X
b. Do the following appear in the record: The charges and specifications,
the name, rank and unit/command name of the person signing the charges, X X
the affidavit, and the order of reference for the trial?
c. Except in time of war, was the accused brought to trial (which includes
an Article 39(a), UCMJ session) by general court-martial within five days (by X X
special court-martial within three days) subsequent to service of charges upon
him/her (RCM 602)?
d. If so, did the accused object to trial? N/A N/A N/A N/A
23. a. Were any charges or specifications affected by the statute of limitations
(RCM 907(b))? X X
b. If so, was accused advised of his/her right to assert the statute and was
his/her response recorded (RCM 907(b))? N/A N/A N/A N/A
24. Did the court take proper action with respect to motions raising defenses and
objections (RCM 905-907)? X X
25. a. Were pleas of accused regularly entered (RCM 910(a))? X X
26. Does the record show that all witnesses were sworn? X X
27. Did the military judge or president advise the court concerning the
elements of each offense, each lesser included offense reasonably raised by
the evidence, and the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, and X X
burden of proof, pursuant to Article 51(c), UCMJ (RCM 920(e))?
28. a. If trial was by military judge alone, did the military judge announce the N/A N/A N/A N/A
fmdings (RCM 922)?
b. If the trial was with members, did the president announce the fmdings
(RCM 922)? X X
c. If special fmdings were requested, were they made a part of the record? N/A N/A N/A N/A
29. Were the findings in proper form (Al 0)? X X
30. a. Was the evidence, if any, of previous convictions admissible and
properly introduced in evidence (RCM 1001(b)(3))? X X
b. Was the information from personnel records of the accused properly
admitted (RCM 1001(b)(2))? X X
c. Was the defense permitted to introduce evidence in extenuation and
mitigation after the court announced findings of guilty (RCM 1001(c))? X X
31. a. In a trial with members, did the president announce the sentence
(RCM 1007)? X X
b. If trial was by military judge alone, did the military judge announce the
sentence (RCM 1007)? N/A N/A N/A N/A

.
DD FORM 494, OCT 84, Page 3 016561
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7

COURT -MARTIAL DATA SHEET

TC SPCMCA GCM or OJAG SECTION A PRETRIAL AND TRIAL PROCEDURE JA
-
(CONTINUED) YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
32.
Was the sentence in proper form (All)? X X

33.
Is the record properly authenticated (RCM 1104)? X X

34.
a. Did all members who participated in proceedings in revision vote on N/A N/A N/A N/Aoriginal findings and sentence (RCM 1102(e)(1))?

b. At proceedings in revision, were a military judge (if one was present at the trial), the accused, and counsel for the prosecution and defense present N/A N/A N/A N/A(RCM 1102(e)(1))?
35.
Was each accused furnished a copy of the record or substitute service made on defense counsel (RCM 1104(b))? X X

36.
Was clemency recommended by the court or military judge? X X

GCM or SECTION B PROCEDURE AFTER TRIAL TC SPCMCA JA OJAG
-
YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
37.
Was the court convened by proper authority (RCM 504(b))? X

38.
Did the court have jurisdiction of person and offense (RCM 202 & 203)? X

39.
Does each specification state an offense under the code (RCM 907(b))? X

40.
Did the accused have the requisite mental capacity at the time of trial and X the requisite mental responsibility at the time of the commission of each offense (RCM 909 and RCM 916(k))?

41.
Is the evidence sufficient to support the findings? X

42.
Is the sentence within legal limits (RCM 1112(d)? X

43.
Is the action of the convening authority properly entered in the record and signed (RCM 1107(f))? X

44.
If appropriate, is a proper place of confinement designated (RCM 1107(f)(4)(c))? X

45.
a. Was the staff judge advocate's post-trial recommendation served on the defense counsel for comment (RCM 1106(f)? X

b.
If the addendum to the recommendation contained new matters, was it served on the defense counsel for comment (RCM 1105(f)(7))? N/A N/A

c.
Did the accused submit matters for the convening authority's consideration in a timely marmer (RCM 1105)? X

d.
If yes, was the convening authority's action subsequent to the submission of the matters?

X
e. If no, did the accused waive in writing the right to submit matters and was the action taken subsequent to the written waiver or did the time periods N/A N/Aprovided in RCM 1105(c) expire before the convening authority's action?
46. a. Does the record indicate that the accused was advised of his/her appellate rights (RCM 1010)? X
b.
Do the allied papers contain a statement indicating the desires of the accused with respect to appellate representation in the event his/her case is X referred to a court of military review?

c.
Did the accused waive or withdraw appellate review and is the waiver or withdrawal in proper form and attached to the record of trial (RCM 1110,

X Al9 & 20)?
016562

DD FORM 494, OCT 84, Page 4
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
COURT -MARTIAL DATA SHEET

TC SPCMCA GCM or OJ G
SECTION C -COURT -MARTIAL ORDERS ( CMO ) JA
YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
47. Does the initial CM0 bear the same date as the action of the convening X
authority who published it?
48. Are all the orders convening the court which tried the case correctly cited X
in the CMO?
49. Are the accused's name, rank, SSN, unit/command name and branch of X
service correctly shown in the CMO?
50. Are all the charges and specifications (including amendments) upon which the
accused was arraigned correctly shown in the CM0 (RCM 1114)? X
51. Are the pleas, findings, and sentence correctly shown in the CM0
(RCM 1114)? X
52. Does the CMO show the date the sentence was adjudged? X
53. Is the action of the convening authority correctly shown in the CMO? X
54. Is the CM0 properly authenticated (RCM 1114)? X
55. REMARKS:

DD FORM 494, OCT 84, Page 5 016563

COURT -MARTIAL DATA SHEET

55..REMARKS.(Continued):
.
(6)--2__
56. TRIAL COUNSEL
a. TYPED NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial) b. RANK c. S.• A 1: d. DATE SIGNED
MAJ
57. CONVENING AUTHORITY OR HIS/HER REPRESE
a. TYPED NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial ) b. RANK.. 1..1. i! d. DATE SIGNED
IF

MAJ.
-,“i
58. STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE OF GENERAL COURT MART .Vir ORITY OR REVIEWING JUDGE ADVOCATE
a. TYPED NAME (Last, First, Middle Initial) b. RANK.-. d. DATE SIGNED
LTC
59. ACTION IN THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
a.
ACTION:

b.
INDIVIDUAL COMPLETING DATA SHEET

(1) TYPED NAME (Last, First Middle Initial (2) RANK (3) SIGNATURE (4) DATE SIGNED

DD FORM 494, OCT 84, Page 6 01656,1
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7

DNA processing required. 10 U.S.C. § 1565
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division
APO AE 09036

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL ORDER. 15 April 2005 NUMBER. 18
Private First Class Edward L. Richmond .U.S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, lst Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347 was arraigned at Tirkrit, Iraq, on the following offense at a general court-martial convened by the Commander, 1st Infantry Division.
Charge: Article 118: Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119. .
12(01
The Specification: At or near Taal Al Jal, Iraq, on or about 28 February 2004, murder.. by means of shooting him in the head with a rifle. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
SENTENCE
The sentence was adjudged on 5 August 2004: To be reduced to the grade of El; to forfeit all pay and allowances; to be confined for 3 years; and to be dishonorably discharged.
ACTION
The sentence is approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable
discharge, will be executed. The accused will be credited with 47 days of confinement against
the sentence to confinement.
BY COMMAND OF MAJOR GENERAL BATISTE:
q‘) -2-
DISTRIBUTION:
Record Set (1) MAJ,
Reference Set (1) Chief, Mi ary Justice
Accused (1)
MJ (LT.(1)
TC (MAJ
(See Cont)
016565

2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7

GCMO No. 18, DA, HQ, 1st Inf Div, APO AE 09036, dtd 15 Apr 05 (continued)

DC (CPAS'S!!!') (1)
ADC (a111110)
CDR, HHC, 1-27 IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 1-27th IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 25th ID, APO AE 09036 (1)
CDR, RCF, Fort Sill, OK 73503 (1)
CDR, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center,
ATTN: PCRE-FS, Ft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46249 (1)
Clerk of Court, (JALS-CCR), 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 1200,
Arlington, VA 22203-1837 (10)

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Lab, Fort Gillem, GA ATTN: CODIS Lab, 4553 North 2d Street, Bldg. 213B, Forest Park, Georgia 30297-5122 (1)
2
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
016566
DNA processing required. 10 U.S.C. § 1565

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division
APO AE 09036

.

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL ORDER 15 April 2005 NUMBER. 18
lo(0- 7--
Private First Class Edward L. Richmond .U.S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27t Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347 was arraigned at Tirlcrit, Iraq, on the following offense at a general court-martial convened by the Commander, 1st Infantry Division.
Charge: Article 118: Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
The Specification: At or near Taal Al Jal, Iraq, on or about 28 February 2004, murdellill by means of shooting him in the head with a rifle. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
SENTENCE
The sentence was adjudged on 5 August 2004: To be reduced to the grade of El; to forfeit all pay and allowances; to be confined for 3 years; and to be dishonorably discharged.
ACTION
The sentence is approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable
discharge, will be executed. The accused will be credited with 47 days of confinement against
the sentence to confinement.

BY COMMAND OF MAJOR GENERAL BATISTE:

DISTRIBUTION:
Record Set (1)
Reference Set (1) hief, Military Justice
Accused (1)
MJ (LTC.(1)
TC (MAJ.(1)
(See Cont)

016567
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
GCM0 No. 18, DA, HQ, 1st Inf Div, APO AE 09036, dtd 15 Apr 05 (continued)

DC (CPTIIIIII. (1) 1,9 (0-2
ADC (CPTIIIIIIt 1)
CDR, HHC717271N Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 1-27th IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 25th ID, APO AE 09036 (1)
CDR, RCF, Fort Sill, OK 73503 (1)
CDR, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center,
ATTN: PCRE-FS, Ft Benjamin Harrison, lN 46249 (1)
Clerk of Court, (JALS-CCR), 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 1200,
Arlington, VA 22203-1837 (10)

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Lab, Fort Gillem, GA ATTN: CODIS Lab, 4553 North 2d Street, Bldg. 213B, Forest Park, Georgia 30297-5122 (1)
2. 016568 2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DOD-039845

DNA processing required. 10 U.S.C. § 1565
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division
APO AE 09036

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL ORDER 15 April 2005 NUMBER. 18
Private First Class Edward L. Richmond ..S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, lst Battalion, 27t Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347 was arraigned at Tirkrit, Iraq, on the following offense at a general court-martial convened by the Commander, 1st Infantry Division.
Charge: Article 118: Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
6(6) -.A The Specification: At or near Taal Al Jal, Iraq, on or about 28 February 2004, murdellingby means of shooting him in the head with a rifle. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
SENTENCE
The sentence was adjudged on 5 August 2004: To be reduced to the grade of El; to forfeit all pay and allowances; to be confined for 3 years; and to be dishonorably discharged.
ACTION
The sentence is approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable
discharge, will be executed. The accused will be credited with 47 days of confinement against
the sentence to confinement.

BY COMMAND OF MAJOR GENERAL BATISTE:

DISTRIBUTION:
Record Set (1)
Reference Set (1) Chief, Mi ary Justice
Accused (1)
MJ (LTC
TC (MAJ.(1)
(See Cont)

016569
2 0 0 40 7 87
GCMO No. 18, DA, HQ, 1st Inf Div, APO AE 09036, dtd 15 Apr 05 (continued)
DC (CPT... (1)
19(0.-7-
ADC (CPTIMI(1)
CDR, HHC, 1-27 IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 1-27th IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 25th ID, APO AE 09036 (1)
CDR, RCF, Fort Sill, OK 73503 (1)
CDR, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center,
ATTN: PCRE-FS, Ft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46249 (1)
Clerk of Court, (JALS-CCR), 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 1200,
Arlington, VA 22203-1837 (10)

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Lab, Fort Gillem, GA ATTN: CODIS Lab, 4553 North 2d Street, Bldg. 213B, Forest Park, Georgia 30297-5122 (1)

2 . 0165'70
200407 8 7
DNA processing required. 10 U.S.C. § 1565
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division
APO AE 09036

.
GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL ORDER 15 April 2005 NUMBER. 18
Private First Class Edward L. Richmond.U.S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27 Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347 was arraigned at Tirkrit, Iraq, on the following offense at a general court-martial convened by the Commander, 1st Infantry Division.
Charge: Article 118: Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
(9(G)-1 The Specification: At or near Taal Al Jal, Iraq, on or about 28 February 2004, murdeMpby means of shooting him in the head with a rifle. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
SENTENCE
The sentence was adjudged on 5 August 2004: To be reduced to the grade of El; to forfeit all pay and allowances; to be confined for 3 years; and to be dishonorably discharged.
ACTION
The sentence is approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable discharge, will be executed. The accused will be credited with 47 days of confinement against the sentence to confinement.
BY COMMAND OF MAJOR GENERAL BATISTE:
DISTRIBUTION:.L (0 -I_
Record Set (1). AJ,
Reference Set (1) . Accused (11_ Chief, Mi ry Justice
MJ (LTC= (1)
TC (MAJIMil(1)
(See Cont)
016571
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7

GCMO No. 18, DA, HQ, 1st Inf Div, APO AE 09036, dtd 15 Apr 05 (continued)

DC (CPTVIII (1).(°"2-
ADC (CP.(1)
CDR, HHC, 1- lN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 1-27th INT Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 25th ID, APO AE 09036 (1)
CDR, RCF, Fort Sill, OK 73503 (1)
CDR, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center,
ATTN: PCRE-FS, Ft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46249 (1)
Clerk of Court, (JALS-CCR), 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 1200,
Arlington, VA 22203-1837 (10)

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Lab, Fort Gillem, GA ATTN: CODIS Lab, 4553 North 2d Street, Bldg. 213B, Forest Park, Georgia 30297-5122 (1)
2.
016572 2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7

DNA processing required. 10 U.S.C. § 1565
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division
APO AE 09036

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL ORDER 15 April 2005 NUMBER. 18
Private First Class Edward L. Richmond .U.S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27' Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347 was arraigned at Tiricrit, Iraq, on the following offense at a general court-martial convened by the Commander, 1st Infantry Division.
Charge: Article 118: Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.

ID (0-1
The Specification: At or near Taal Al Jal, Iraq, on or about 28 February 2004, murdeall. by means of shooting him in the head with a rifle. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
SENTENCE
The sentence was adjudged on 5 August 2004: To be reduced to the grade of El; to forfeit all pay and allowances; to be confined for 3 years; and to be dishonorably discharged.
ACTION
The sentence is approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable
discharge, will be executed. The accused will be credited with 47 days of confinement against
the sentence to confinement.

BY COMMAND OF MAJOR GENERAL BATISTE:

DISTRD3UTION:
Record Set (1)
Reference Set (1) Chief, Mi ary Justice
Accused (a_
MJ (LTC=I(1)
TC (MAW= (1)
(See Cont)

016573
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
GCMO No. 18, DA, HQ, 1st Inf Div, APO AE 09036, dtd 15 Apr 05 (continued)

DC (CPT am(i) \-703)-7--
ADC (CPT.. (1)
CDR, HHC, 1-27 IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 1-27th IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 25th ID, APO AE 09036 (1)
CDR, RCF, Fort Sill, OK 73503 (1)
CDR, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center,
ATTN: PCRE-FS, Ft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46249 (1)
Clerk of Court, (JALS-CCR), 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 1200,
Arlington, VA 22203-1837 (10)

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Lab, Fort Gillem, GA ATTN: CODIS Lab, 4553 North 2d Street, Bldg. 213B, Forest Park, Georgia 30297-5122 (1)
.
2 016574
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DNA processing required. 10 U.S.C. § 1565
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division
APO AE 09036

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL ORDER. 15 April 2005 NUMBER. 18
\9 10 -1.-
Private First Class Edward L. Richmond,.U.S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347 was arraigned at Tirkrit, Iraq, on the following offense at a general court-martial convened by the Commander, 1st Infantry Division.
Charge: Article 118: Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119. .
(6)-A The Specification: At or near Taal Al Jal, Iraq, on or about 28 February 2004, murdelliliby means of shooting him in the head with a rifle. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
SENTENCE
The sentence was adjudged on 5 August 2004: To be reduced to the grade of El; to forfeit all pay and allowances; to be confined for 3 years; and to be dishonorably discharged.
ACTION
The sentence is approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable
discharge, will be executed. The accused will be credited with 47 days of confinement against
the sentence to confinement.

BY COMMAND OF MAJOR GENERAL BATISTE:

DISTRIBUTION:
Record Set (1)
Reference Set (1) Chief, Military Justice
Accused (1)
MJ (LTA. (1)
TC (MAJ1111.1(1)
(See Cont

016575
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
GCMO No. 18, DA, HQ, 1st Inf Div, APO AE 09036, dtd 15 Apr 05 (continued)
DC (CPT.(1)
15
ADC (CPT.(1)
CDR, HHC, 1-27 IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 1-27th IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 25th lD, APO AE 09036 (1)
CDR, RCF, Fort Sill, OK 73503 (1)
CDR, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center,
ATTN: PCRE-FS, Ft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46249 (1)
Clerk of Court, (JALS-CCR), 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 1200,
Arlington, VA 22203-1837 (10)

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Lab, Fort Gillem, GA ATTN: CODIS Lab, 4553 North 2d Street, Bldg. 213B, Forest Park, Georgia 30297-5122 (1)
.
2
01657C 2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DNA processing required. 10 U.S.C. § 1565
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division
APO AE 09036

.

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL ORDER 15 April 2005 NUMBER. 18
N,
Private First Class Edward L. Richmond ..S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, lst Battalion, 27t Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347 was arraigned at Tirkrit, Iraq, on the following offense at a general court-martial convened by the Commander, 1st Infantry Division.
Charge: Article 118: Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
17(0-1 The Specification: At or near Taal Al Jal, Iraq, on or about 28 February 2004, murdellillry means of shooting him in the head with a rifle. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
SENTENCE
The sentence was adjudged on 5 August 2004: To be reduced to the grade of El; to forfeit all pay and allowances; to be confined for 3 years; and to be dishonorably discharged.
ACTION
The sentence is approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable
discharge, will be executed. The accused will be credited with 47 days of confinement against
the sentence to confinement.

BY COMMAND OF MAJOR GENERAL BATISTE:

DISTRIBUTION:
Record Set (1) AJ,
Reference Set (1) Chief, Mi ary Justice
Accused (1)
MJ (LT.(1)
TC (MAJ.(1)
(See Cont)

016577
? 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
GCMO No. 18, DA, HQ, 1st Inf Div, APO AE 09036, dtd 15 Apr 05 (continued)

DC (CHM. (1) \7tg) -1--
ADC (CPT BMW
CDR, HHC7-277-AN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 1-27th IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 25th ID, APO AE 09036 (1)
CDR, RCF, Fort Sill, OK 73503 (1)
CDR, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center,
ATTN: PCRE-FS, Ft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46249 (1)
Clerk of Court, (JALS-CCR), 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 1200,
Arlington, VA 22203-1837 (10)

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Lab, Fort Gillem, GA ATTN: CODIS Lab, 4553 North 2d Street, Bldg. 213B, Forest Park, Georgia 30297-5122 (1)
2.
016578
20040787
DOD-039855

DNA processing required. 10 U.S.C. § 1565
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division
APO AE 09036

.

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL ORDER 15 April 2005 NUMBER. 18. 5(4) --L
Private First Class Edward L. Richmon .U.S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27 Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347 was arraigned at Tirkrit, Iraq, on the following offense at a general court-martial convened by the Commander, 1st Infantry Division.
Charge: Article 118: Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119. .
17(6) -1
The Specification: At or near Taal Al Jal, Iraq, on or about 28 February 2004, murder/Rigby means of shooting him in the head with a rifle. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
SENTENCE
The sentence was adjudged on 5 August 2004: To be reduced to the grade of El; to forfeit all pay and allowances; to be confined for 3 years; and to be dishonorably discharged.
ACTION
The sentence is approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable discharge, will be executed. The accused will be credited with 47 days of confinement against the sentence to confinement.
BY COMMAND OF MAJOR GENERAL BATISTE:
DISTRIBUTION: Record Set (1) Reference Set (1) Accused (1) MJ (LTC1111ii TC (MA.(1) (See Cont 11(6)--t Chief, ti ary Justice
016579
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7

GCMO No. 18, DA, HQ, 1st Inf Div, APO AE 09036, dtd 15 Apr 05 (continued)

DC (CPT.(1) 1/ (04-
ADC (CP.(1)
CDR, HHC, 1-27 IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 1-27th lN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 25th ID, APO AE 09036 (1)
CDR, RCF, Fort Sill, OK 73503 (1)
CDR, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center,
ATTN: PCRE-FS, Ft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46249 (1)
Clerk of Court, (JALS-CCR), 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 1200,
Arlington, VA 22203-1837 (10)

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Lab, Fort Gillem, GA ATTN: CODIS Lab, 4553 North 2d Street, Bldg. 213B, Forest Park, Georgia 30297-5122 (1)
2
01658 0 2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7

DNA processing required. 10 U.S.C. § 1565
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division
APO AE 09036

GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL ORDER. 15 April 2005 NUMBER. 18
17(,&)
Private First Class Edward L. Richmond,.U.S. Army, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, lst Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347 was arraigned at Tirkrit, Iraq, on the following offense at a general court-martial convened by the Commander, 1st Infantry Division.
Charge: Article 118: Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
(,) (6) - 1 The Specification: At or near Taal Al Jal, Iraq, on or about 28 February 2004, murderalaby means of shooting him in the head with a rifle. Plea: Not Guilty. Finding: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119.
SENTENCE
The sentence was adjudged on 5 August 2004: To be reduced to the grade of El; to forfeit all pay and allowances; to be confined for 3 years; and to be dishonorably discharged.
ACTION
The sentence is approved and, except for that part of the sentence extending to a dishonorable
discharge, will be executed. The accused will be credited with 47 days of confinement against
the sentence to confinement.

BY COMMAND OF MAJOR GENERAL BATISTE:

DISTRIBUTION:
Record Set (1) AJ,
Reference Set (1) Chief, Military Justice
Accused (1)
MJ (LT11111
TC (MA.(1)
(See Cont

016581
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
GCM0 No. 18, DA, HQ, 1st Inf Div, APO AE 09036, dtd 15 Apr 05 (continued)

DC (CPT.(1) 0)-1.-
ADC (CP11,1)
CDR, HHC, 1-27 IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 1-27th IN Reg, APO AE 09347 (1)
CDR, 25th ID, APO AE 09036 (1)
CDR, RCF, Fort Sill, OK 73503 (1)
CDR, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center,
ATTN: PCRE-FS, Ft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46249 (1)
Clerk of Court, (JALS-CCR), 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 1200,
Arlington, VA 22203-1837 (10)

U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Lab, Fort Gillem, GA ATTN: CODIS Lab, 4553 North 2d Street, Bldg. 213B, Forest Park, Georgia 30297-5122 (1)
2.
016582
j- Li 4 0 7 8 7
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
APO AE 09392

.
FEB 1 4 2005
AETV-BGJA
19(&)
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, 1st Infantry Division, APO Army Europe 09392
SUBJECT: Addendum to the Staff Judge Advocate Recommendation in the General Court-Martial of hivate First Class Edward L. Richmond Jr. .Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, APO AE 09347
1.
The enclosed R.C.M. 1105/1106 request for clemency has been submitted by the accused's defense counsel for your review. In accordance with R.C.M. 1107, you must consider these matters prior to taking action on the case.

2.
The accused requests that you upgrade his discharge to a bad-conduct discharge and reduce his confinement by 1 year. I disagree; no coffective action is required.

3.
The accused's defense counsel requests that you disapprove 12 months of the confmement remaining at the time of final action, and disapprove the adjudged dishonorable discharge. Additionally, the defense counsel requests that you credit the accused with an additional 28 days of confinement credit. I disagree; no corrective action is required.

4.
The accused's defense counsel alleges that the military judge erred in crediting the accused with confinement credit for restriction tantamount to confinement. Specifically, the defense counsel alleges that the military judge should have awarded an additional 28 days of credit for violations of R.C.M. 305(k). I disagree; no corrective action is required.

5.
Matters submitted by the accused's defense counsel could be read to allege legal error with respect to the instructions given by the military judge regarding possible defenses as defined in

R.C.M. 916(c). I disagree, no corrective action is required.
6. I recommend that you approve the sentence as adjudged. I further recommend that you credit the accused with 47 days confinement towards the sentence to confinement.
L (s)-7-
16 Encls
gal
1.
Clemency Petition/DC LTC, JA

2.
Clemency Petition/ACC 46)1 Staff Judge Advocate

3.
Letter from 016583

0 0 4 0 7 8 7

AETV-BGJA SUBJECT: Addendum to the Staff Judge Advocate Recommendation in the General Court-Martial of Private First Class Edward L. Riclunond Jr.,., Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 0 AE 09347
L
4.
Letter from

5.
Letter from

6.
Letter fro.

b (5) -9
7.
Letter from

8.
Letter from

9.
Letter from

10.
Letter from

11.
Letter from

12.
Letter fro

13.
Letter from Congressman aker

14.
Article from New England Journal of Medicine

15.
Post-Trial Recommendation

16.
Result of Trial

016584
.
0 C 4 0 7 8 7
2
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
UNITED STATES ARMY TRIAL DEFENSE SERVICE
HEADQUARTERS
Arlington, Virginia 22203

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:

JALS-TD . 12(6)-2-5 February 2005
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, 1st Infantry Divis n, FOB Danger, APO AE 09392
SUBJECT: Petition for Clemency Under the Provisions e' Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1105, 1106 — United States v. PFC Edward L. Richmone .eadquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347-9998
1.
At a General Court-Martial held from 3-5 August 2004, a military panel convicted PVT Edward L. Richmond, Jr., of violating Article 119 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The panel sentenced him to be confined for three years, to be reduced to the grade of E-1, to forfeit all pay and allowances, and to be discharged from the U.S. Army with a dishonorable discharge.

2.
Pursuant to Rules for Court-Martial (R.C.M.) 1105 and 1106, PVT Richmond respectfiffly requests that you disapprove twelve months of the confinement remaining at the time of final action, and disapprove the adjudged dishonorable discharge. The defense also requests that you credit PVT Richmond with an additional 28 days of confmement credit.

3.
In the present case, more than any other in recent history, clemency is appropriate for the
following reasons:

a. No__Chance for Rmidivism.
PVT Richmond is not a threat to society. He was not a threat to society before his
conviction, he is not a threat to society now, and he will not be a threat to society once he is
released from confmement. PVT Richmond has unlimited potential for rehabilitation. To keep
PVT Richmond in confinement for deterrence of future misconduct is not a concern in this case.
The facts that lead to PVT Richmond's conviction were truly a once-in-a-lifetime scenario — the
actions of a young, inexperienced 20-year old infantryman who acted on instinct by doing what
he thought was right. Unlike Soldiers that face convictions for patterns of misconduct such as
the dealing or use of illegal drugs or those showing a predilection for sexual violence or abuse,
PVT Richmond is not a threat to anyone in society.

Despite the fog of war and all that such an image may conjure up or encompass, PVT
Richmond is a Soldier that lcnew right from wrong, then and now. During his time in Kuwait and
Iraq, and now in confmement, he has never lost that focus. While in Iraq, on a mission to a town
north of Kirkuk, PVT Riclunond interacted with local Iraqis, including women and children.
[Record of Trial (ROT), p. 532; Def. Exh. E (photos)] This is not a Soldier that held a bias or
grudge against the very people that he was in Iraq to help. When his fellow soldiers disparaged

016585
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
JALS-TD SUBJECT: Petition for Clemency Un .ovisions of Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1105, 1106 — United
eadquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27thStates v. PFC Edward L. Richmon.Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, AP .09347-9998
the locals or made ethnic and racial barbs, PVT Richmond was the one that told them, "You can't be mad at all the Iraqi people because not all of them [are] doing wrong. We just have to come here and give them help and everything should be fine." [ROT, p. 843] The strength of the character references submitted on PVT Richmond's behalf confirms that the behavior leading to his conviction is an anomaly for this soldier. [ROT Def. Exhs. A-D; Enclosures (Ends.) B-K] PVT Richmond's crime is tragic, but he is not a continuing threat to anyone and a lengthy period of confinement is not warranted.
b.
Sentencing Considerations. A federal conviction is punishment enough to PVT Richmond. While PVT Richmond readily accepts the fact that there is no longer a place for him in the Army he loves, this now-21-year-old Soldier will carry the stigma of a punitive discharge with him for the rest of his life. The conviction and punitive discharge will hinder PVT Richmond in the pursuit of higher education and employment once he leaves confinement. This is a burden that he must carry throughout the rest of his life. At the time of this clemency submission, PVT Richmond will have served 7 months of confinement. He asks you for a chance at some type of meaningful future by requesting that you disapprove the dishonorable discharge, at least in favor of a less-stigmatizing bad-conduct discharge.

c.
Characteristics of Honorable Service. Until the date of the offense for which PVT Richmond was convicted, he had served eighteen months of honorable service. Proud to serve his first tour with the 25th Infantry Division, PVT Richmond had unlimited potential in the Army. Interviews with his NCOs reveal that they considered him to be "Mr. GoArmy.com ." At trial he was described by his leaders as an "outstanding young soldier," whose work performance was "excellent." [ROT, pp. 659, 837] His fellow junior enlisted soldiers routinely sought out his guidance, leadership and knowledge of military tactics and techniques. [ROT, p. 675] NCOs and soldiers alike thought PVT Richmond could ascend to be Sergeant Major of the Army some day. During his short time in service, the Army awarded this soldier an Army Achievement Medal for his performance at a brigade level field training exercise, Lighting Thrust Warrior. [ROT, p. 647] He has proudly served his country in the days since September 11, 2001, and in support of his comrades and country in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Authorized to wear the Expert Infantryman's Badge and the Combat Infantryman's Badge, PVT Richmond earned his EIB on the first attempt


a 19-year old soldier maldng his platoon and his unit proud. All PVT Richmond ever wanted
to do was to be the best soldier that he could be.

d.
Family Support System. PVT Riclunond is blessed to have an amazingly strong
family support system, as evidenced by the letters of support attached as defense exhibits to the
record of trial and the additional letters of support attached as enclosures to this Memorandum.
[Encls. B-K] PVT Richmond's immediate and extended family are fmancially and spiritually
prepared to welcome this young man back home into their lives. [Encls. D — H] This type of
family-support network is the most important factor in welcoming this Soldier back into society
and getting him started in his new life as a civilian. Upon his release from confinement, PVT
Richmond intends to return home to Louisiana to live with his parents and his 12-year old sister.

2.
016586 2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
JALS-TD
SUBJECT: Petition for Clemency Un.visions of Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1105, 1106 — United Hea.dquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th
States v. PFC Edward L. Richmon.Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347-9998
Mr. Richmond owns his own heating and air conditioning business; he is ready to welcome his son home as an apprentice in that business. [Encls. A, B, C]
e. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Upon his arrival at the Ft. Sill Regional Correctional Facility, a military doctor diagnosed PVT Richmond as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The doctor prescribed a treatment of continuing medications of Celexa (anti­depressant) and Trazodone (sleep aid). The effects of these drugs are compiled on top of his pre­existing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). In 2004, an Army-commissioned study published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that one in eight service members returning from combat in Iraq or Afghanistan suffered from PTSD. [Encl. M] The study showed that in many cases, PTSD was only diagnosable several months after the soldiers return to a stateside assignment. This assessment is consistent with PVT Richmond's symptoms and ultimate diagnosis, having been shuffled through confinement facilities in Kuwait and Germany prior to his arrival at Ft. Sill. PVT Richmond is one of many who suffers from recurring nightmares of his time in Iraq and the killings and horror that he witnessed prior to 28 February 2004. Continued confinement will only aggravate PVT Richmond's condition and delay his almost-guaranteed successful transition into the civilian sector. As the Soldier's father noted in his personal plea to you, the family lives near a Veteran's facility in Louisiana. [Encl. C] The Riclunond family will ensure that the Soldier receives the necessary medical care and therapy to help him on the road to recovery.
f. Nature of the Offense. By convicting PVT Richmond of voluntary manslaughter, not
unpremeditated murder, the military panel found that PVT Richmond acted "in the heat of
sudden passion caused by adequate provocation." [ROT, p. 731] This then-20-year-old soldier
acted with "a degree of anger, rage, pain, or fear which prevent[ed] cool refiection,"— substantial
mitigation under the law. [ROT, p. 731] Further, the panel agreed that, "provocation is adequate
if it would cause uncontrollable passion in the mind of a reasonable person." [ROT, pp. 731-32]

In reaching its decision, the panel considered the following important facts:
i. PVT Richmond joined the Army in May 2002. [ROT, p. 550]
ii. He was only 20-years-old at the time of the shooting. [ROT, p. 585]
iii. PVT Richmond, trained as an 11C, and since the middle of 2003 spent the majority of
his time training to deploy to the Middle East. [ROT, pp. 550-51]

iv. PVT Richmond learned, grew, and trained, in a military environment that fostered
hatred against the unknown, and every changing insurgent enemy. This environment supported
such PT cadences such as "shoot, shoot, shoot, the son of a bitch," and "shoot, shoot, shoot to

shoot, shoot, you know I will." [ROT, pp. 530-31, 563]
3.
016587
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DOD-039864
\910-t-
JALS-TD
SUBJECT: Petition for Clemency Und .e Provisions of Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1105, 1106 — United
States v. PFC Edward L. Richmon .Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th
Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, APO .09347-9998

v. PVT Richmond had been in Iraq for approximately only twenty days at the time of the
shooting. [ROT, p. 552]

vi. On the day of the shooting, the Rules of Engagement were that deadly force was authorized if your life or the life of a fellow soldier was in danger. [ROT, pp. 554, 587] Waming shots were not authorized. [ROT, p. 620]
vii. At the time of the shooting, the raid on Taal Al Jaal was still ongoing. Yelling,
shouting, and sporadic gtm fire from the village could be heard by PVT Richmond and the other
soldiers at the TCP on the edge of tovvn. [ROT, p. 576]

viii. PVT Richmond knew that the purpose of the surprise raid on Taal Al Jaal was to
capture high-value targets. [ROT, p. 559]

ix. PVT Richmond knew that not all of the high value targets were captured during the
raid. [ROT, pp. 576, 592].

L (0-1
x. PVT Richmond knew that Mrillilhad walked away ftom Taal Al Jaal earlier that
morning. [ROT, pp. 561, 591, 595]

xi. PVT Richmond had been trained that the Iraqi enemy and insurgents were often crafty and covert — they would not always be easily identifiable as an enemy. [ROT, p. 563]
xii. Mr. 1111111did not understand English. [ROT, p. 568]
ift)-Lf
568-73] xiii. Mr. illidid not cooperate with PVT Riclunond and the NCO that was with him.
Mr.incontinued to struggle with the NCO even once a show of force was made. [ROT, pp.

xiv. Because he was being so uncooperative, Mrallikvas not still long enough to be
fully searched for weapons or explosives. [ROT, pp. 598-99]

xv. Mrailliwas wearing baggy, bulky clothing. [ROT, pp. 597, 624]
xvi. PVT Richmond thought that Mr.11111/as attacking his fellow soldier, an NCO, at the time of the shooting. [ROT, pp. 20, 579]
xvii. The whole incident lasted no more than 120 seconds. [ROT, p. 626]
xviii. At the time of the shooting, PVT Richmond did not know that the victim was flex-cuffed. [ROT, pp. 581, 585, 616]

4 . 016588
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DOD-039865
JALS-TD visions of Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1105, 1106 — UnitedSUBJECT: Petition for Clemency Un .
.
eadquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th
States v. PFC Edward L. Richmon Infantry Reghnent, 25th Infantry Division, APO AE 09347-9998. -Y
The military judge should have specifically instructed ten- ember panel on the language of R.C.M. 916(c), which defines justification as, "[a] death, inj , or other act caused or done in the proper performance of a legal duty is justified and not unla ." Killing an enemy combatant in battle is justified. The tragic shooting of Mr. as, at its essence, an accident
— a grave mistake in judgment by a young, inexperienced infantryman who thought he was doing
the job the Army trained him to do. 40-
g. Ge e Remorse. During his time in confmement, PVT Richmond carefully has
reflected u n his actions. In his clemency letter, he details the nightmares that continue to haunt at horrible day. [Encl. A] He tells how he is "consumed with regret" for the death of
him filo.PVT Richmond understands what he did was wrong, and that he has no one else to
Mr.blame or his actions. At the time of sentencing, PVT Richmond told the 5 officers and 5 senior enlisted members of the panel: "I accept the decision today that you have decided that I am guilty of voluntary manslaughter and I am sorry for everything that happened." [ROT, p. 846] At no time did PVT Richmond act careless or wanton about his crime in any way.
4. As stated in paragraph 2, the defense requests that you award an additional 28 days of
confinement credit to PVT Richmond for the government's violation of R.C.M. 305.

a. Facts. Upon defense motion at trial, the military judge awarded to PVT Richmond
confinement credit for government imposed restrictions that were tantamount to confinement.
[ROT, App. Exh. XI; SJAR, para. 4] Specifically, the military judge announced that for
violations from the contiguous period of 1-30 April 2004, PVT Richmond would be credited
with 30 days for restriction tantamount to confinement. [ROT, p. 819] The military judge
ordered that the charge sheet be amended to reflect this time period of restriction. [ROT, p. 804;

Charge Sheet]
b. Law. Once restriction tantamount to confinement is imposed, the provisions of
R.C.M. 305, governing prettial confmement, are triggered. As such, once the restrictions were
imposed on 1 April 2004, the Manual for Courts-Martial entitled PVT Richmond to have his per
se confmement reviewed for probable cause within 48-hours of the imposition of the restriction.

[R.C.M.
305(i)(1)] After the 48-hour review, the law also entitled PVT Richmond to first a 72-
hour review and then a 7-day review by a neutral and detached magistrate. [R.C.M. 305(h)(2)(C),
305(i)(2)] The government agreed at trial that the requirements of R.C.M. 305 were not met by
the government, the party responsible for ensuring compliance vvith R.C.M. 305. [ROT, pp. 255,
257] When the requirements of R.C.M. 305 are not met, the military judge shall credit any
sentence of confmement at the rate of 1 day of confinement served for each day of
noncompliance with R.C.M. 305. [R.C.M. 305(k)]

c.
Remedy. The military judge found that PVT Richmond suffered restriction
tantamount from 1-30 April 2004. Thus, the law required that PVT Richmond's restriction be
reviewed within 48 hours of the imposition on 1 April 2004. The government violated R.C.M.

5. 0165S9 2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
JALS-TD SUBJECT: Petition for Clemency Under e Provisions of Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1105, 1106 — United
Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27thStates v. PFC Edward L. Richmon.Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, .09347-9998
305 as early as 3 April 2004 by denying PVT Richmond his right to have his restriction reviewed. Thus, PVT Richmond is entitled to day-for-day credit for each day that the rule remained violated. He is entitled to 28 days of credit for the period from 3-30 April 2004. The military judge erroneously failed to credit this additional amount of time to PVT Richmond. This error should be remedied at the earliest opportunity by the granting of an additional 28 days
by the convening authority prior to final action.
5. The following matters are submitted in support of PVT Richmond's request for clemency:
a. Letter from PVT Edward L. Richmond, Jr.
_
b. Letter from Mrs.111111111111111111, PVT Richmond'sglip ..
PVT Richmond 'saw
c. Letter from Mr
d. Letter from MrafialliiMETT Richmond'snalla
e. Letter from Mrs.111111.1111111111111, PVT Richmond'sdalle
PV7' Richmond',11111
f.
Letter from Mr. .

g.
Letter from Mr.. PV7'

h.
Letter from Mr...1M PVT Richmond'sall

i.
Letter from Dr . PV7' Richmond 'Am

J. Letter from MAIM PVT Richmond's family friend
k. Letter from.PV7' Richmond's familyfriend .)
1. Letter from Congressman Richard H. Baker, U.S. House of Representatives
* Defense counsel is awaiting receipt of a personal letter from Congressman Baker to the convening authority, to be
included for consideration with this Soldier's request for clemency. This letter is expected to arrive on or about 9
February 2005, and should be substituted for the informal letter that is currently included at Enclosure L.

Combat Duo, in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to
m.
Care, 351 New England Journal of Medicine 1 (July 1, 2004).

6. The defense has no additions, corrections, or deletions to the form of the post-trial Staff Judge
Advocate's Recommendation.

6 . 016590
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
JALS-TD SUBJECT: Petition for Clemency Under e Provisions of Rules for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1105, 1106 — United States v. PFC Edward L. Richmon.Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th
Infantry Regiment, 25th Infantry Division, .09347-9998
7.
Based on the information above, PVT Riclunond requests that you grant clemency as requested in paragraph 2 above. Please include a copy of this submission in all records of trial.

8.
If I may be of any further assistance I can be reached by e-mail at us.anny.mil or by DSN phone at (3121.11, commercial phone at

(434).
46) -1,-
19(0
//original signed// Ends as CPT, JA Trial Defense Counsel
016591
7
2 0 0 4. 0 7 8 7
DOD-039868
_
fYNLA. tke, Yvnri..w Cf.keN,.. at\.
Vccv_,,_32 A.P.A14._PN 6_6\\"(.01/4p__
.i6kkoce mV?_¦)64-3_1_... AN3?1,...rf.vo
.0(kc\.el
10()-A;,.f.\( 'or\- sex\A_ Pr¦ nck, 0.cr\c_. ;V\ c6. \-1)..,x,\-,t_ri I
kAAm.\\L.c\Ackc,sTr. _6"„), vcsopp...\ Skpc.A.\&k. I
f-rom..sece=r0(.Ce-C.&07\ (Y\OZL__.
4.0yetz.M . ¦.1•S\W‘...._.
CfccaS ..01A .S61C.tr,r(15 c‘r__Ne.rTh_
Oka—.. %Nz_.
k),3-)bS_ 0,-.0\t1/4\,\_
Ac3.5.6ne_.%„.a.t\. vs_AV).. Vice
. c-70.r_Y\
Vvqr_x_ (-I_
0,o& r±6.k. .Orfe)
‘.1R . VAt.... idarsz_
C.15.7A • et-Itr
\ r\ c\ct avo,, .1....‘:\40, _no N-A‘c_k_ .. Q(7._ •

71‘.tiN. cxer ki3c:viiksk. a
; isr\ t-o?Ap_c_\_, \.„3\1"ke,cr_.,_ 0 rArepoz./. _ADA- a caf\..__1\13. sA.\kr. 51/4Nc"--(At_61.r) ers.),\ 5sp,_47\MAc, _.Co\(\a\ ..1.s_ciLVA _M. J7-' Le304.c._ 3ro Ve, rA. k-P
‘NA-_ 0 1 6 5.9 2.
Vors:1\3t, cAstkA&A Sama-A
c(4-
Enclosure A
2nn4078 7
DOD-039869
.1., _ _
_
_

-.
fai_\_reNsk 16 60. CZ„,._i
1t7P__OnC_IrASQ_,
.

_COrAcV7-S-Q-P-VN-C.-1)1-' -g-CAIT L
_
-T.
-
_ __.0 1_09_3 _
2 0 4 0 7 8 7
BATES PAGES 16594-16604 ARE
NONRESPONSIVE AND HAVE
NOT BEEN PROVIDED

MG John R.S. Batiste, Commander Headquarters, I st Infantry Division
Dear Sir:
It is my understanding that you will. be re-evaluating, PIT Edward Richmond. Jr.'s sentencing rendered in August., 2004, for voltmtary manslaueliter. Those of us who know "Ward" (PFC Edward Richmond, Jr.) have always found him to be of the highest integrity. Needless to say, I was. as shocked as his mom and dad, his grandmothers, his uncles and aunts, his friends, and others who have known Ward to find out that he had been charged with and convicted of the involuntary rnurder of an Iraqi civilian.
t, IL) -1
Sergean testimony is Highly suspect to inc. Also, Ward's state of initid is V ery important to consider; e.g., he seeks clarification by asking the wrong question of "Can I...?" rather than "DO I have been teaching for 36 years, and I encounter this mistake on the part of my students almost weekly, They are not asking me if they have the ability to go to the restroom when they ask "'Can I...?" I believe. this is an error in asking the intended question of "May I...?" which seeks clarification as to what is permissible NOT INTENTION.
PFC Richniond does have the greatest support of an immediate, extended family, and friends. Like his father said to me, "I went to Iraq to find out iftny son did what he was accused of. [File did wrong, and killed an innocent Iraqi man through intent, then I could live with his conviction. But, if he is convicted for doing what he was convinced was the right action under the circumstances then I will do what I ca.n to get his name cleared."
Commander Batiste,. I thank you Ibr giving PFC Edward Richmond, Jr., due
consideration_ It is my understanding that 3,rou can disapprove part or all of the sentence
that has been given to him. It is my hope that you will disapprove all of the sentence he
has been given,
Sincerely,

6(0-1
Charlotte, NC 28270
Phone 704
P.S.
When his father returned from the trial, I phoned hint to inquire about the outcome. I
asked his father to send me a copy of the trial transcript AS.A.P. After reading the
transcript, I have come to the conclusion that. PFC Richmond was done a great injustice.
Please read the following abridgment of the notes that f had written in longhand after
reading the transcript:
Enclosure T
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
016605.

CRITIQUE OF THE MILITARY COURT MARTIAL CASE OF THE UNITED STATES
V. PRIVATE FIRST CLASS EDWARD L. RICHMOND, JUNIOR
Article 39(a) Session on August 3, 2004, without jury members present:
• Ward testified that he k.new more on March 29, 2004, than he did on the day the
(, (0-2_5 VO1
shooting occurred; i.e., he knew everyone else's position,111111swom
statements, and that on February 28 he did not know that the Iraqi man was flex-
cuffed when he shot him.

ADHD diagnosis at age 7; but, never relied upon as a reason why he sil_med
several documents aller only 20 seconds of reading. Ile thought that he was
signing something that would help hint.


CaptainlMiestifies that. Ward's rifle (M4 w/M68 scope) is confiscated at
FOB McHenry. and Ward is reassigned to FOB Warrior. Ward goes from a base
of support to a base with no support, and is assigned to room with soldiers who
have serious. mental problems. Sergeantall, whose testimony Ward was
convicted, had shot an Iraqi mother and two daughters on February I 0, 2004 [See
newspaper article], did not have to relinquish his weapon or be reassigned despite
showing signs of post-traumatic-stress-disorder on February I 7.


First Lieutenant who would testify for the prosecution, had
confronted Ward publicly at FOB Warrior, calling Ward a "murderer" in front of
10-15 others. This created "less friendly interactions" for Ward. illiphotos
and comments about taking them would become a part of the evidence entered by

016606
20040 187
the prosecution. On April 9, he had been involved in the cover-up of the murder
or innocent civilians.


Sergeantal.11111-nimiliation of Ward anallity calling them "-criminals­when they were waiting to act anthrax shots. Such incidents eroded whatever "goodwill" others might have towards Ward.


Ward was placed in a convoy with an Iraqi driver. Despite the danger, neither was armed. The vehicle. was an unarmed 18-wheeler. Was there a hope that Ward's case might not make it to trial?

6/0-z ; 1910-1
DURING I IAL (AUGUST 4-5. 2004)
• Flaws in reenactment in ude the following: conducted on tin 'en field; resistance of Mrillatonna attempts to flex-cuff hirn-claims he lifted cuffed hands 12" for first time in trial testimony; you cannOt replicate the sounds coming out of the village nearby. Sounds that cottld interfere with Ward's hearingallitaying "He's good. 1..et's go:" the tension that had been endured since 4 AM; the orders over the radio to detain any Iraqi male coming out of the village; thc fact that Ward is wearing a plug in one ear; the true context of the comments made by Ward prior to accompanying to detain Mr the time frame of making split-sccond decisions under tense situations after the Sergeant has yelled "11 he moves, rucking shoot him!
hc fucking m v-es, shoot hint!" and you are looking through the lens of an MG8 scope. 6(0-1
016607 2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DOD-039874
• Ward seeks clarification of ROE by asking questions like "Can I?" rather than "Do 12" In other words, these are not questions. of intentions as emphasized by the prosecution, these are questions forelaritication. Testimony by others
indicates that he wasn't there to kill anyone unless they rnet the ROE. f-Tad he wanted to kill an Iraqi. like his defense attorney says in her summation, Ile
could have chosen a. less noticeable way of doing so, cstimony about the orders and conditions. He
(0 acknowledgesaillesistance but cleans tip the order for Ward to be "at ready,- Also, no Cull "pat down- adds to the credibility of Ward's reasoning
¦0(6)--1 thatilitiiil posed a threat.

40,2)00 Whenallitvas asked at the time of incident on 28th of February, "you
were under investigation ['or a shooting incident of three civilians that had
occurred 10 days earlier, isn't that rieht?" I-le responds -Not that I was aware
of Ma'am."' Milind others testify to a certain amount of "trash talk" before actual
19(0-/-). 12(6) deployment but that Ward had interacted well with Iraqis on 10 missions
before the February 28 occurrence.
Re-read Ward's testimony during his trial. His state of mind is clear; he acts
being attacked. All of his earlier testimony. was notout of fear
written by him, and did not include all of his statements reactinfa to
questioning by CIDs.
Read the testimonies of witnesses called that know Vilard. Ile's no killer!
-
2 o 4 7 8 7
016608

From WIT.P.. (L) Sent Tuesday, January 25, 2005 4:24 pm
To ..usArroy,rnif 1)(C)--2 601
Cc richmontiftWni.e.r.aet
Bcc
Subject letter for Edward

Commander_ 18[ Infantry Division,
I arn writing on behalf of PVT R.ichmond, Edward. I arn writing to beg you to reconsider his sentencing and especially his dishonorable discharge_ PVT Richmond is a strong loyal proud young rnan, He is a young man who was taken out of his normal routine world and taught how to be a United States solider. He was taught how to take care of himself and his fellow solider in multiple intense life threatening situations. PVT Richmond was trained well and responded to a situation.. I will not argue the right or wrong of his action as I was not in his shoes and am not qualified to assign guilt or innocence I will argue the future of this child. This child that was taken and trained and performed his job to the best of his training, please don't take his future. He deserves better than a dishonorable discharge. He deserves to be able to vote and participate in his future government. the same government that he left his home to serve, PVT Richmond is an intelligent funny strong loyal young man with a bright future ahead of him_ I have faith in this young man and would/will depend on him for my life or the hfe of my child if the situation ever occurred. I am proud of this young man and what and who he stands for. I proudly display his picture in his United States Army uniform in my office for all to see_ I beg of you to please offer him clemency anti reconsider his sentencing. Thank Yoll11.11
(10

Privileged and Confidential: The inforrnation contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby nptified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by p-mail, and delete the original message,
01660 9
Enclosure J
https://webmail.us.army.milirrame.html ?raossiblc=true&lang—en Ins/1005
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
MG John R.S. Batiste Commander, Headquarters,
I'd Infantty Division.
I i,vould like to express nty thoughts on Edward in this letter to you. I have known Edward only for a short while, but in this time I learned so much from him. I have learned that there are still loving. caring and honest people in this world, and that friendship and love is the most important thing in this world. I can honestly say that Edward has a heart of gold,
I am sure that when Edward gets released he will still be able to make Et good lift; tbr himself and be successful. He is a young man with a lot of potential.
I can tell the Edward is very sorry about what happened, and this will inspire. him to not let anything like this ever happen again. Edvidard not a criminal. He is a true person with good moral values.
These Etre only a few things I can say of Edward. You have to know. Edward in person to really know what a wonderful person he is_
I sincerely hope that with this letter I can be a part of helping Edward.
Thank you,
Enclosure K
016610

2 0 0 4 0 7 81
DOD-039877
RICHARD HUGH BAKER COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
5 BC M • E
COMNIrtftt ON
FINANCIAL SfREV;C:
CHAIRMAN
5L'ECOMNITTEE

,I. .1, ON
041.1741. MARKET& IN$ORANCE PNI7
GO-VeRNIM14/ SPONIORED ENTERPHISE5,
,
L'” T21:50uP,CE
rr

(Congreas of Unite) .11,5tatrg
&NT: CONNI,...M.;',Fr CR!' r
COMMITTEE ON
tritor of ErprrArtitatineo
rr-r Vt ItRAN.S. AfrAVRS
illati4itigtuu, 2I1315-1 ti Januar.\ 24. 2005
Captain .ludge Advocate
Editor. Militar. Law Review
.ludve Advocate General School and

C.enter
600 Massie Road
Charlottesville. VA 22c.)0:;

Dear Car-nail-1MM
616)-L
6(6)1
Recently_ I was contacted b‘ Mr
coneernirq; the pendini! appeal of hilIMPrivate First Class Ldward I_ Richmond. Jr. 61.6)-1 Over the past months. I have had a personal ineen4 with Private Richmond's father to discuss this ease. and also_ I have made several inquiries 4.1 the Department of the Armv in be­
half. ot-Private Richmond: therefore_ I am familiar witli this ease. !vIr. Richmond has further advised me lila', x.ou have been assumed as the legal counsel Cor. Prix ate Richmond and will he tepresenting him the aopeal proceedings.
am aware that this case is in', olved in the lettal nrocess and Lin. direct intervention of in\ nart maybe misconstrued or detrimental to Prix-ate Richmond-s case: however. 1 ,thd want to take this opportunir, to express Inv interest and oiler m ¦ assistance in an:1/4 max you max deeni appropriale.
?know. that this has been a long and exhausting eNperience for both Private Riciunond and his p..arents. and I would like to help this
in wa:, I possibly can. look forward
Enclosure L
5555 HILT0,.
3.1 I CANNON I i01.;SE
WAS,. il,16'101`... I ) 202 225-39C.': 2i...15 1 !i E A 7,-).80E¦ ;225 929.77i I
225-7:?. :.!14"ax :2'25 929-768.5
R HOUSE.GOV I -F500.2192 -125n IL A UV- Y:

2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
016611

Richmond Page 2
to hearing from you ill" can be orally sem-ice. Thanking you in advance for your interest in this matter.
Richard H. BAer Member of Coneress
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
016612
The NEW ENGLAND
JOURNAL of MEDICINE

ESTABLISHED IN 1812 JULY 1, 2004 VOL. 351 NO.1

Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care

Charles W. Hoge, M.D., Carl A. Castro, Ph.D., Stephen C. Messer, Ph.D., Dennis McGurk, Ph.D.,
Dave I. Cotting, Ph.D., and Robert L. Koffman, M.D., M.P.H.

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND
The current combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have involved U.S. military per-From the Department of Psychiatry and
Behavioral Sciences, Walter Reed Army In­
sonnel in major ground combat and hazardous security duty. Studies are needed to sys­
stitute of Research, U.S. Army Medical Re­
tematically assess the mental health of members of the armed services who have partic-search and Materiel Command, Silver ipated in these operations and to inform policy with regard to the optimal delivery of Spring, Md. (C.W.H., C.A.C., S.C.M.,
D.M., D.I.C.); and First Naval Construc­
mental health care to returning veterans.
tion Division, Norfolk, Va. (R.L.K.). Ad­dress reprint requests to Dr. Hoge at the METHODS Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Walter Reed Army Institute of
We stuclied members of four U.S. combat infantry units (three Army units and one Ma-
Research, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver
rine Corps unit) using an anonymous survey that was administered to the subjects ei-Spring, MD 20910, or at charles.hoge@
ther before their deployment to Iraq (n=2530) or three to four months after their return na.amedd.army.mil .
from combat duty in hug or Afghanistan (n=3671). The outcomes included major de-

N Engli Med 2004;351:13-22.
pression, generalized amdety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which were
Copyright © 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society.
evaluated on the basis of standardized, self-administered screening instruments.
RESULTS
Exposure to combat was significantly greater among those who were deployed to Iraq than among those deployed to Afghanistan. The percentage of study subjects whose re­sponses met the screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety, or PTSD was significantly higher after duty in Iraq (15.6 to 17.1percent) than after duty in Afghan­istan (11.2 percent) or before deployment to Iraq (9.3 percent); the largest difference was in the rate ofPTSD. Of those whose responses were positive for a mental disorder, only 23 to 40 percent sought mental health care. Those whose responses were positive for a mental disorder were twice as likely as those whose responses were negative to report concern about possible stigmatization and other barriers to seeldng mental health care.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides an initial look at the mental health of members of the Army and the
Marine Corps who were involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our
findings indicate that among the study groups there was a significant risk of mental
health problems and that the subjects reported important barriers to receiving mental
health services, particularly the perception of stigma among those most in need of
such care.
N ENGL.) MED 35'1;1 WWW.NEJ NLORG JULY 1, 2004
13
01661.
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on January 27, 2005 . For personal use only. No other uses without perrnission. Copyright © 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. All nghts reserved.
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
t

The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL of MEDICINE
HE RECENT MILITARY OPERATIONS IN
Iraq and Afghanistan, which have involved
the first sustained ground combat under­taken by the United States since the war in Vietnam, raise important questions about the effect ofthe ex­perience on the mental health of members of the military services who have been deployed there. Re­search conducted after other military conflicts has shown that deployment stressors and exposure to combat result in considerable risks ofmental health problems, induding post-traumatic stress disor­der (PTSD), major depression, substance abuse, impairment in social functioning and in the ability to work, and the increased use ofhealth care servic­es.1-8 One study that was conducted just before the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan be­gan found that at least 6 percent of all U.S. military service members on active duty receive treatment for a mental disorder each year.9 Given the ongo­ing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental disorders are likely to remain an important health care concem among those serving there.
Many gaps exist in the understanding of the full psychosocial effect of combat The all-volunteer force deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and the type of warfare conducted in these regions are very dif­ferent from those involved in past wars, differences that highlight the need for studies of members of the armed services who are involved in the current operations. Most studies that have examined the effects ofcombat on mental health were conducted among veterans years after their military service had ended.1-8 A problem in the methods of such studies is the long recall period after exposure to combat' Very few studies have examined a broad range of mental health outcomes near to the time of subjects' deployment
Little of the existing research is useful in guiding policy with regard to how best to promote access to and the delivery of mental health care to members of the armed services. Although screening for men­tal health problems is now routine both before and after deployment"- and is encouraged in primary care settings," we are not aware of any studies that have assessed the use of mental health care, the perceived need for such care, and the perceived bar­riers to treatment among members of the military services before or after combat deployment
We studied the prevalence ofmental health prob­lems among members of the U.S. armed services who were recruited from comparable combat units before or after their deployment to Iraq or Afghan-istan. We identified the proportion of service mem­bers with mental health concerns who were not receiving care and the barriers they perceived to ac­cessing and receiving such care.
METHODS
STUDY GROUPS
We summarized data from the first, cross-section­al phase ofa longitudinal study of the effect ofcom­bat on the mental health ofthe soldiers and Marines deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and in Opera­tion Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Three com­parable U.S. Army units were studied with the use of an anonymous survey administered either be­fore deployment to Iraq or after their return from Iraq or Afghanistan. Although no data from before deployment were available for the Marines in the study, data were collected from a Marine Corps unit after its return from Iraq that provided a basis for comparison with data obtained from Army sol­diers after their retum from Iraq.
The study groups included 2530 soldiers from an Army infantry brigade of the 82nd Airborne Divi­sion, whose responses to the survey were obtained in January 2003, one week before a year-long de­ployment to Iraq; 1962 soldiers from an Army in­fantry brigade ofthe 82nd Airborne Division, whose responses were obtained in March 2003, after the soldiers' return from a six-month deployment to Af­ghanistan; 894 soldiers from an Army infantty bri­gade of the 3rd Infantry Division, whose responses were obtained in December 2003, after their return from an eight-month deployment to Iraq; and 815 Marines from two battalions under the command of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, whose re­sponses were obtained in October or November 2003, after a six-month deployment to Iraq. The 3rd Infantry Division and the Marine battalions had spearheaded early ground-combat operations in Iraq, in March through May 2003. All the units whose members responded to the survey were also involved in hazardous security duties. The question­naires administered to soldiers and Marines after deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan were adminis­tered three to four months after their return to the United States. This interval allowed time in which the soldiers completed leave, made the transition back to garrison work duties, and had the opportu­nity to seek medical or mental health treatment, if needed.
N ENGL.) MED 351;1 WWW.NEJM.ORG JULY 1, 2004
016614
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on January 27, 2005 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright @ 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. All nghts reserved.
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DOD-039881
MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AND COMBAT DUTY
RECRUITMENT AND REPRESENTATIVENESS
OF THE SAMPLE
Unit leaders assembled the soldiers and Marines near their workplaces at convenient times, and the study investigators then gave a short recruitment briefing and obtained written informed consent on forms that induded statements about the purpose of the survey, the voluntary nature of participation, and the methods used to ensure participants' ano­nymity. Overall, 58 percent of the soldiers and Ma­rines from the selected units were available to at­tend the recruitment briefings (79 percent of the soldiers before deployment, 58 percent of the sol­diers after deployment in Operation Enduring Free­dom in Afghanistan, 34 percent of the solcliers af­ter deployment in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 65 percent of the Marines after deployment in Opera­tion Iraqi Freedom). Most of those who did not at­tend the briefings were not available because of their rigorous work and training schedules (e.g.,
night training arid post security).
A response was defined as completion of any part of the survey. The response rate among the soldiers and Marines who were briefed was 98 per­cent for the four samples combined. The rates of rnissing values for individual items in the survey were generally less than 15 percent; 2 percent of participants did not complete the PTSD measures, 5 percent did not complete the depression and anx­iety measures, and 7 to 8 percent did not complete the items related to the use ofalcohol. The high re­sponse rate was probably owing to the anonymous nature of the survey and to the fact that participants were given tune by their units to complete the 45-minute survey. The study was conducted under a protocol approved by the institutional review board of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.
To assess whether or not our sample was repre­
sentative, we compared the demographic character­
istics of respondents with those of all active-duty
Army and Marine personnel deployed to Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom,
using the Defense Medical Surveillance System.13
SURVEY AND MENTAL HEALTH OUTCOMES
The study outcomes were focused on current symp­toms (i.e., those occurring in the past month) of a major depressive disorder, a generaliz,ed anxiety dis­order, and PTSD. We used two case definitions for each disorder, a broad screening definition that fol­lowed current psychiatric diagmostic criteria' but did not include criteria for functional impairment or for severity, and a strict (conservative) screening definition that required a self-report of substantial functional impairment or a large number of symp­toms. Major depression and generalized anxiety were measured with the use of the patient health questionnaire developed by Spitzer et al.15-17 For the strict definition to be met, there also had to be evidence of impairment in work, at home, or in in­terpersonal functioning that was categorized as at the "very difficult" level as measured by the patient health questionnaire. The generalized anxiety mea­sure was modified slightly to avoid redundancy; items that pertained to concentration, fatigue, and sleep disturbance were drawn from the depression
measure.
The presence or absence of PTSD was evaluated with the use of the 17-item National Center for PTSD Checklist of the Department of Veterans Af­fairs.4,8,18,19 Symptoms were related to any stress­ful experience (in the wording of the "specific stressor" version of the checklist), so that the out­come would be independent of predictors (i.e., be­fore or after deployment). Results were scored as positive if subjects reported at least one intrusion symptom, three avoidance symptoms, and two hy­perarousal symptoms14 that were categorized as at the moderate level, according to the PTSD check­list For the strict definition to be met, the total score also had to be at least 50 on a scale of17 to 85 (with a higher number indicating a greater number of symptoms or greater severity), which is a well-established cutofF.4,8,18,19 Misuse of alcohol was measured with the use ofa two-question screening instrumentm
In addition to these measures, on the survey participants were asked whether they were current­ly experiencing stress, emotional problems, prob­lems related to the use of alcohol, or family prob­lems and, if so, whether the level of these problems was mild, moderate, or severe; the participants were then asked whether they were interested in receiv­ing help for these problems. Subjects were also asked about their use of professional mental health services in the past month or the pastyear and about perceived barriers to mental health treatment, par­ticularly stigmatization as a result of receiving such treatment.21 Combat experiences were modified from previous scales.22
QUALITY-CONTROL PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS
Responses to the survey were scanned with the use of ScanTools software (Pearson NCS). Quality-
N ENGL J MED 351;1 WWW.NEJM.ORG JULY 1, 2004
15
016615
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on January 27, 2005 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission.Copyright © 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. All nghts reserved.
'')
The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL of MEDICINE
control procedures identified scanning errors in no more than 0.38 percent of the fields (range,
0.01 to 0.38 percent). SPSS software (version 12.0) was used to conduct the analyses, including mul­tiple logistic regression that was used to control for differences in demographic characteristics of members of study groups before and after deploy­
ment. 23,24
RESULTS
The demographic characteristics of participants from the three Army units were similar. The Ma­rines in the study were somewhat younger than the soldiers in the study and less likely to be married. The demographic characteristics of all the partici­pants in the survey samples were very similar to those of the general, deployed, active-duty infantry population, except that officers were undersam­pled, which resulted in slightly lower age and rank distributions (Table 1). Data for the reference pop­ulations were obtained from the Defense Medical Surveillance System vvith the use of available rosters of Army and Marine personnel deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan in 2003 (Table 1).
Among the 1709 soldiers and Marines who had returned from Iraq the reported rates of combat ex­periences and frequency of contact with the enemy were much higher than those reported by soldiers who had returned from Afghanistan (Table 2). Only 31 percent of soldiers deployed to Afghanistan reported having engaged in a firefight, as compared with 71 to 86 percent of soldiers and Marines who had been deployed to Iraq. Among those who had been in a firefight, the median number of firefights during deployment was 2 (interquartile range, 1 to 3) among those in Afghanistan, as compared with 5 (interquartile range, 2 to 13; P0.001 by analysis of variance) among soldiers deployed to Iraq and 5 (interquartile range, 3 to 10; P0.001 by analysis ofvariance) among Marines deployed to Iraq.
Soldiers and Marines who had returned from
Iraq were significantly more likely to report that they
were currently experiencing a mental health prob­
lem, to express interest in receiving help, and to
use mental health services than were soldiers re­
turning from Afghanistan or those surveyed before
deployment (Table 3). Rates of PTSD were signifi­
cantly higher after combat duty in Iraq than before
deployment, with similar odds ratios for the Army
and Marine samples (Table 3). Significant associa­
tions were observed for major depression and the
misuse of alcohol. Most of these associations re-
mained significant after control for demographic actors with the use of multiple logistic regression (Table 3). When the prevalence rates for any mental disorder were adjusted to match the distribution of officers and enlisted personnel in the reference pop­ulations, the result was less than a 10 percent de­crease (range, 3.5 to 9.4 percent) in the rates shown in Table 3 according to both the broad and the strict definitions (data not shown).
For all groups responding after deployment, there was a strong reported relation between com­bat experiences, such as being shot at, handling dead bodies, Icnovving someone who was killed, or Idlling enemy combatants, and the prevalence of PTSD. For example, among soldiers and Marines who had been deployed to Iraq, the prevalence of PTSD (according to the strict definition) increased in a linear mariner with the number offirefights dur­ing deployment: 4.5 percent for no firefights, 9.3 percent for one to two firefights, 12.7 percent for three to five firefights, and 19.3 percent for more than five firefights (chi-square for linear trend, 49.44; P0.001). Rates for those who had been de­ployed to Afghanistan were 4.5 percent, 8.2 percent,
8.3 percent, and 18.9 percent, respectively (chi-square for linear trend, 31.35; P0.001). The per­centage of participants who had been deployed to Iraq who reported being wounded or injured was
11.6 percent as compared with only 4.6 percent for those who had been deployed to Afghanistan. The rates ofPTSD were significantly associated with hav­ing been wounded or injured (odds ratio for those deployed to Iraq, 3.27; 95 percent confidence inter­val, 2.28 to 4.67; odds ratio for those deployed to Afghanistan, 2.49; 95 percent confidence interval,
1.35 to 4.40).
Of those whose responses met the screenh3g cri­teria for a mental disorder according to the strict case definition, only 38 to 45 percent indicated an interest in receiving help, and only 23 to 40 percent reported having received professional help in the past year (Table 4). Those whose responses met these screening criteria were generally about two times as likely as those whose responses did not to report concern about being stigmatized and about other barriers to accessing and receiving mental health services (Table 5).
DISCUSSION
We investigated mental health outcomes among soldiers and Marines who had taken part in the ground-combat operations in Iraq and Afghani-
N ENGL J MED 351;1 WWW.NEJM.ORG JULY 1, 2004
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on January 27, 2005 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission. 016616 Copyright © 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. All nghts reserved.
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DOD-039883
MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AND COMBAT DUTY
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Study Groups of Soldiers and Marines as Compared with Reference Groups.*
Army Marine Reference Reference Marine Group Group Characteristic Army Study Groups Study Group (N=61,742) (N=20,194)
Before Deployment After Deployment After Deployment After Deployment
to Iraq to Afghanistan to Iraq to Iraq
(N=2530) (N=1962) (N=894) (N=815)
number (percent)
Age
18-24 yr 1647 (66) 1226 (63) 528 (59) 652 (80) 32,840 (53) 13,824 (69)
25-29 yr 496 (20) 387 (20) 206 (23) 114 (14) 13,737 (22) 3,174 (16)
30-39 yr 336 (13) 316 (16) 147 (16) 41 (5) 12,960 (21) 2,703 (13)
40 yr or older 34 (1) 28 (1) 13 (2) 4 (1) 2,205 (4) 493 (2)
Sex
Male 2489 (99) 1934 (99) 879 (98) 815 (100) 61,201 (99) 20,090 (99.5)
Female 26 (1) 23 (1) 14 (2) 541 (1) 104 (0.5)
Race or ethnic group
White 1749 (70) 1339 (69) 531 (60) 544 (68) 44,365 (72) 15,344 (76)
Black 208 (8) 198 (10) 185 (21) 53 (7) 7,904 (13) 1,213 (6)
Hispanic 331 (13) 254 (13) 102 (12) 141 (18) 6,140 (10) 2,642 (13)
Other 195 (8) 141 (7) 67 (8) 63 (8) 3,262 (5) 867 (4)
Education
High-school graduate or less 1955 (78) 1514 (78) 726 (82) 728 (89) 48,561 (79) 16,892 (84)
Some college or other 202 (8) 153 (8) 73 (8) 29 (4) 3,260 (5) 346 (2)
College graduate 339 (14) 277 (14) 85 (10) 54 (7) 8,838 (14) 2,945 (15)
Military grade
Enlisted personnelt
El-E4 1585 (63) 1170 (60) 613 (69) 601 (84) 33,823 (55) 13,744 (68)
E5-E6 614 (24) 524 (27) 228 (26) 77 (11) 14,813 (24) 2,850 (14)
E7-E9 116 (5) 91 (5) 23 (3) 8 (1) 3,819 (6) 607 (3)
Officer 200 (8) 168 (8) 30 (3) 26 (4) 9,287 (15) 2,993 (15)
Marital status
Single 1142 (50) 908 (52) 355 (46) 455 (63) 32,636 (53) 12,332 (61)
Married 936 (41) 685 (39) 338 (43) 204 (28) 27,582 (45) 7,499 (37)
Other 199 (9) 168 (9) 85 (11) 65 (9) 1,485 (2) 363 (2)

* Data exclude missing values, because not all respondents answered every question. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Data for the reference groups were obtained from the Defense Medical Surveillance System's deployment rosters of Army and Marine personnel deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and in Afghanistan in 2003. The total number of persons on these rosters was 315,999, of whom 229,034 (72 percent) were active-component personnel; the remaining 86,965 were members ofthe Reserve and National Guard; 97,906 (31 percent) had a designation of a combat-arms occupation. Of the 229,034 active-component service members, 81,936 (36 percent) had combat-arms oc­cupations, including 61,742 soldiers and 20,194 Marines in the reference groups.
t Higher numbers indicate higher grades.
stan. Respondents to our survey who had been de­ployed to Iraq reported a very high level of combat experiences, with more than 90 percent ofthem re­porting being shot at and a high percentage report­ing handling dead boclies, knowing someone who was injured or killed, or killing an enemy combat­ant (Table 2). Close calls, such as having been saved from being wounded by wearing body armor, were not infrequent Soldiers who served in Afghanistan reported lower but still substantial rates ofsuch ex­periences in combat.
The percentage of study subjects whose respons­es met the screening criteria for major depression, PTSD, or alcohol misuse was significantly higher among soldiers after deployment than before de­ployment, particularly with regard to PTSD. The linear relationship between the prevalence ofPTSD and the number of firefights in which a soldier had been engaged was remarkably similar among sol­diers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, sug­gesting that differences in the prevalence accord­ing to location were largely a function of the greater frequency and intensity of combat in Iraq. The as­sociation between injury and the prevalence of PTSD supports the results ofprevious studies.25
These findings can be generalized to ground-
V
N ENGL MED 351;1 WWW.NEJM.ORG JULY 1, 2004
17
016617
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on January 27, 2005 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. All nghts reserved.
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DOD-039884

The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL ofMEDICINE
Table 2. Combat Experiences Reported by Members ofthe U.S. Army and Marine Corps after Deployment to Iraq
or Afghanistan.*

Experience Army Groups Marine Group
Afghanistan (N=1962) Iraq (N=894) Iraq (N=815)
number/total number (percent)
Being attacked or ambushed 1139/1961 (58) 789/883 (89) 764/805 (95) Receiving incoming artillery, rocket, or mortar fire 1648/1960 (84) 753/872 (86) 740/802 (92) Being shot at or receiving small-arms fire 1302/1962 (66) 826/886 (93) 779/805 (97) Shooting or directing fire at the enemy 534/1961 (27) 672/879 (77) 692/800 (87) Being responsible for the death of an enemy combatant 229/1961 (12) 414/871 (48) 511/789 (65) Being responsible for the death of a noncombatant 17/1961 (1) 116/861 (14) 219/794 (28) Seeing dead bodies or human remains 771/1958 (39) 832/879 (95) 759/805 (94) Handling or uncovering human remains 229/1961 (12) 443/881 (50) 455/800 (57) Seeing dead or seriously injured Americans 591/1961 (30) 572/882 (65) 604/803 (75) Knowing someone seriously injured or killed 850/1962 (43) 751/878 (86) 693/797 (87) Participating in demining operations 314/1962 (16) 329/867 (38) 270/787 (34) Seeing ill or injured women or children whom you 907/1961 (46) 604/878 (69) 665/805 (83)
were unable to help Being wounded or injured 90/1961 (5) 119/870 (14) 75/803 (9) Had a close call, was shot or hit, but protective gear —t 67/879 (8) 77/805 (10)
saved you Had a buddy shot or hit who was near you 192/880 (22) 208/797 (26)
—t Clearing or searching homes or buildings 1108/1961 (57) 705/884 (80) 695/805 (86) Engaging in hand-to-hand combat 51/1961 (3) 189/876 (22) 75/1300 (9) Saved the life of a soldier or civilian 125/1961 (6) 183/859 (21) 150/789 (19)
* Data exclude missing values, because not all respondents answered every question. Combat experiences are worded as
in the survey. t The question was not included in this survey.
combat units, which are estimated to represent about a quarter of all Army and Marine personnel participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Oper­ation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan (when members ofthe Reserve and the National Guard are included) and nearly 40 percent of all active-duty personnel (when Reservists and members of the National Guard are not included). The demographic characteristics ofthe subjects in our samples closely mirrored the demographic characteristics of this population. The somewhat lower proportion of of­ficers had a minimal effect on the prevalence rates, and potential differences in demographic factors among the four study groups were controlled for in our analysis with the use oflogistic regression.
One demonstration ofthe internal validity of our findings was the observation of shnilar prevalence rates for combat experiences and mental health out­comes among the subjects in the Army and the Ma­rine Corps who had returned from deployment to Iraq, despite the different demographic character­istics of members of these units and their different levels of availability for recruitment into the study.
The cross-sectional design involving different units that was used in our study is not as strong as a longitudinal design. However, the comparability of the Army samples and the shnilarity in outcomes among subjects in the Army and Marine units sur­veyed after deployment to Iraq should generate con­fidence in the cross-sectional approach. Another Ihnitation of our study is the potential selection bias resulting from the enrollment procedures, which were influenced by the practical realities that re­sulted from working with operational units. Al­though work schedules affected the availability of soldiers to talce part in the survey, the effect is not likely to have biased our results. However, the selec­tion procedures did not pennit the enrollment of persons who had been severely wounded or those who may have been removed from the units for oth-
N ENGL J MED 351;1 WWW.NEJM.ORG JULY 1, 2004
016618
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on January 27, 2005 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission.Copyright ©2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. PJI tights reserved.
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DOD-039885

.•
MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AND COMBAT DUTY
ta)
4-1-4-1- -14
li- -1-4-4- -1-
-os
c
.--.
....IF R' i'l:r7 R. 2 ,` ;7.1' ,Ci R -
r... N al co a, 4:1- in ri
as
cn
in" gU
¦-i .--i C4 i-;V.-I I-1 01 N
* LnV 8 Pi. ol, 8 01. 4 .-14 ...i.
cA c, eq Ch
.

After Deployment to Iraq (N=894) After Deployment to Iraq (N=815)
2.6 (52.20-3. 18)tt
2.9 (22.39-3.57)ff
Marine Study Group
Army Study Groups
MentalHealthProblem
4-.
V1
cn r. cD 4-
rn.

4)
44 -4
...-

,4 c) .4 ,4 cep ci (.4 ,4
ccl

0 ..4. C..) C) V,VN. en %JD 0
el 0 %JD 00
ulV
.0 co
u
c
V-1 q mr.
.-4 ,-4 C.1 1-1
Pq ,4 c.4 .--..
41.1 G.) co
.-
-0 -C

180/1769 (10.2) 131/786 (16.7M 106/706 (15.0)11 118/1780 (6.6)11 91/796 (11.4M 70/742 (9.4)11
717
l7
.-
0
a.
4.¦
.E
0=

C c

r....' R. in' RI .V
.t.V'41:
l'al.CF:..1 ,,19 /PI r4 PA C4VNZ 6 rl r4 en r4
si in 01 01VW7VinVON 11; t5 TA'
C 0-

2 6. e-
GI G2 3-4 VI In V3 PM rn 1/40 t.1 cy
r. r, r4 rA 1.... r.... rM rl GI 4 2 3 11

C4
0
N.
OS
r... r... co 03 C. r, 00 00

...., ...... ,.... ....„ 0-

•¦•• ..... ...., ,...
2 00 2
00VCA 0- u
rM C. in rA ai C.
cr
mr C4
1,1 ..,) cn CG

en.

C4V ,4
rA C4 1.0
,4 r4 rl
c"

N
-c

AA • - 'Eu
3 .E1

tn 4r.• °
O C.,
IP 2
O0

I _I_ I.
1111

1.

C4 mor rl C4
1.5 (41.27-1.86)tt
1.8 (21.47-2.24)11
4-1- 44.44 44 41-:- 44-
4- 4,-4-+- 4-- -1.-
CS-.1 71 . a i -ii ..3. C3.- gr ;L.-- '1
0‘
0 1.0 N.
r.....Lan

sir il)
r...
r4 r4 (Ni ..-4 c4 r4 (.6 r4
• ty • OD 0
en 13
C4 I, pl r, 01 I, MR
en
rA cn r. r4
-0 T.
7 -0 1 7

.-I 6 (-4
u
_c -c
-C
r4
.4 CD r4
ri
"3

u

V
on GI mr r4
le, Al I,
0 C3
0 --C 7 itf
tri C4 GO CD
0
U
r4 r4 r4 r4 t-4
tn
.2 121
IR E
A 1.7. cu
303/1769 (17.1M 153/784 (19.5M
Perceived moderate or severe problem 323/2261 (14.3)
F4-.. G.
_c
'Xi CI- 6-- el ii ' ...... ,-.. a; "4-
at ON ,i N:V
r4 r4 rM
-C -0
•E
E u
."; r.:. oi
em r-I r4 CG
4 6
1...V
,4VINVN
•0 43 CO
_ -C
c, a, r-I NV0 ON ,--1 NVOn un 44 CO
we en 03 DO .01. en 00 00 .--e e-.
0
C 4)V
03 00 a) 5 c
00 00 03 00 00 00 00 CO
--- ---- -.......---

--... ....... --- ---.

c
00 e, On %I) 1ll:1 VD 4-P4 00 03
VD V3 rM tin On E
CG Mr In mr U, c°
rq ..-1 1-4 C4V rl r-I .-I ,-I s) -+‘

o .2 A' s
asVcm.'"Vta_
0 -r
-o u u tu
405/2358 (17.2) 452/1844 (24.5) 1.57 (1.35-1.82M
289/2313 (12.5) 331/1821 (18.2) 1.56 (1.31-1.85M
-H.
44-lir'
4-4- 44 IP
,_, -0
-...:-.1 ;7473' Cr% S
1V
.1

Cr' .A.7.1 F...I ;:­
o co
.
co
un en un we. r., 4-vo
c o
rj 0 tb
r4 r4 r4 ,--1 r4
,4 r4 r4
0
1 A il ill'

C. ‘o on C.VCh C4 Cs ,A
-0 .T
41 Cr CI bp bo
. er,
COV
G1
00100V0 CA CA 0
-C
.-4 e5
AO
.2
111 0 .2
r4 •4 1.4
ci ci r4
4-VCC
O al
?,
-0 00-0 -0
2 c m__ E
- o 3 0
CA en un en nO

°
r4 r4 C4 eq en r4 CG C4
,4 ,4 .4 .4
44 CA r4 1.4 ,4 -4
ELI u 2-
c
ai
II

-
0

-= E
E C. '3-
E z
..-...-...-. r4
°‘ 't eq
,4
c 3 3
3 ea ea 2 e..1 2
2 0 bo o C
i."1% r•-+ Li;- '17..
¦
4 C.: p4 Mi
2 0_ c;
r4 rA 1.i rqV6 r....: US ,q
1.11 %0 0, 00 GI U, V3 GO

03 DO un un
CO 00 GI un.

00 41
5 1:j 4.7

0_0
00 00 Ch CA 03 00 an OM
. 0 ._
._ 0.42
3 y!
el
1.! rl rA
rM el rl ,4
•••¦ ....... ••••• •••¦•

".... ..... ....... "••¦•

I, mr mr cn CD CD r-I CD
C
gi .2 44
c;
33.
tn
re
ea
_e

•*
GD C4 r4 A... en we r4 e.4 fq en r4 ...4.
,, ,, el C4
1.1 5 t:1 5
==cE5412E
5 E.
m e 0
°-V- 0
E To Ty CI CI- a
;-4-7L7-;..--&-,'
1 : -- '1 ;- a" : - elfi r. -;
E
C. ,...., Lei '1.. ci
,, ,4
e.-

4
CA 4.4VGi..1..0:. Gi, El:„;
cn
OC .1.7is4c GF
8"j 6

-=
13
s.,
lz
u 0 -0

v v v

00 Cn Mr CD

C3 00 Ch Mr CD
en
p4 eM el CD
4- -a ...:r GI
mr

00
.-I e-I ri 0
41- ..r 4- .1
0
r4 r4
Ol! C:
ul 0 00
C -‘3 _c woo c
E _I E
cr

LIT
*O.
r4 C4 C4 C4VC., CA r4
C4Vr4
C4
....,...„...„ ...... .-4 GI un V3 NV00 in 0 en
-...............,...

00

r. r. r4 r4
C4 GI C4 Oh
4-V0
e-. 0
C4 In C4 GIVp4 r-I eM CM
CAVrMV
ill 0
CO
U c c
0
0- 0 .3- m
,-... 8- -0 E Cl-
8 -o ....bo 00 C 0 zi
.. ›.. u .-1,V°VE
In 0' CY c -0 -V .4.nV01V0. 01
el
O. 1 I c0 ° C •0 7 730, co o. - 0-
-
t2
..0V') . 0
0.
2 mo,V
0-V 0- ,..s,
0

= 5 0 ea 2
-8_8 w
..

C 'CI
...L.
00 .0 -,-''
44 1 -1V
t.
130
f.U. 0" ..-
-I
C
0
c be 0- Li bp O. ti
.5
4-,
-2
g t -13
4,
79 5-..)
E
C 0 Ct.
._.
0_
.d.,
u
C 0 Cl-0- r, C C C
o 5 ac o
--- to, 2 o = c
2 "F'_c oc o
8.=
4.1 112
2 en
a., 0. To'
0.- - _c
. E . I, 1, 3
lib: tD.
0 0 .
o
in
bo
130
U ,t3 ,
0 C
O rp j 173
-°V10 0-10 co 0-
U -0 .0
-Y
¦13 "0.
3 c%
'OT ,-,' -0
c , c, .-
.2 o u 8 0
2
co
ai
-ID 11 c..0- - 2 °V
4 c ''''

433c Ohin 440CuV
5 7_, .2 eni § 2,
°E°3 E

4., s .,.,. -
-b uo Tuo ou
,,, 0 V, ....C.
Li
a i m :.=. Tn. 0 u -2
C tn Z.-. 04 , ,,,, '3' 2 IV a
21% cal Es eu
"14.2pc,"8 (..7,2cocio =3E=o
0
L' 7' 3 c E = '''
44! 4-2g s.,,TLI r_­
8U 40
.0
O.
..0 q; a'E r t" -5 0-.E 1.2 Ei' 1! ° ° .P'
:.;

:;..l

al
'112 ...O. -L12 1
". 17
,l0 m 0 .4( 0- ‹C ti 0 CL 4t
2 7,4-,
cl:±7. 2 .0 ..00 co o,
."l...
u
„"' 7, E
2 '4 '
_LD
.0 -o
VIV
0 I I
8
V1 0 CD 46 CI
N
v
V

i-
1.00 Mu 0.V mu. 0.
a., w
0 1Y 0
e

-1-1,sAir
19
N ENGL ME13 351;1 WWW.NEJM.ORG JULY 1, 2004
016619
Dovmloaded from www.nejm.org on January 27, 2005 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright C) 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. All nghts reserved.
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DOD-039886
The NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL ofMEDICINE
Table 4. Perceived Need for and Use of Mental Health Services among Soldiers and Marines Whose Survey Responses Met the Screening Criteria for Major Depression, Generalized Anxiety, or Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.*
Army Study Groups Marine Study GroupOutcome

Before Deployment After Deployment After Deployment After Deployment to Iraq (N=233) to Afghanistan (N=220) to Iraq (N=151) to Iraq (N=127)
number/total number (percent)
Need Acknowledged a problem 184/215 (86) 156/192 (81) Interested in receiving help 85/212 (40) 75/196 (38)
Received professional helpt
In past year Overall (from any professional) 61/222 (28) 46/198 (23) From a mental health professional 33/222 (15) 26/198 (13)
In past month Overall (from any professional) 39/218 (18) 34/196 (17) From a mental health professional 24/218 (11) 25/196 (13)
*Data exclude missing values, because not all respondents answered every question.
104/133 (78) 91/106 (86) 58/134 (43) 47/105 (45)
56/140 (40) 33/113 (29) 37/138 (27) 24/112 (21)
44/136 (32) 23/112 (21) 29/136 (21) 16/111 (14)
t Professional help was defined as help from a mental health professional, a general medical doctor, or a chaplain or other member of the
clergy, in either a military or civilian treatment setting.
er reasons, such as misconduct Thus, our estimates
of the prevalence of mental disorders are conserva­
tive, reflecting the prevalence among working, non-
disabled combat personnel. The period immediately
before a long combat deployment may not be the
best time at which to measure baseline levels of dis­
tress. The magnitude of the differences between the
responses before and after deployment is particu­
larly striking, given the likelihood that the group
responding before deployment was already experi­
encing levels ofstress that were higher than normal.
The survey instruments used to screen for men­tal disorders in this study have been validated pri­marily in the settings ofprimary care and in clinical populations. The results therefore do not represent definitive diagnoses of persons in nonclinical pop­ulations such as our military samples. However, requiring evidence of functional impairment or a high number of symptoms, as we did, according to the strict case definitions, increases the specific­ity and positive predictive value of the survey mea­sures.26,27 This conservative approach suggested that as many as 9 percent of soldiers may be at risk for mental disorders before combat deployment, and as many as 11 to 17 percent may be at risk for such disorders three to four months after their re­turn from combat deployment
Although there are few published studies of the rates ofPTSD among military personnel soon after their return from combat duty, studies of veterans conducted years after their service ended have shown a prevalence of current PTSD of 15 percent
---• ---- • -
among Vietnam veterans28 and 2 to 10 percent among veterans of the first Gulf War.4,8 Rates of PTSD among the general adult population in the United States are 3 to 4 percent,26 which are not dissimilar to the baseline rate of 5 percent observed in the sample of soldiers responding to the survey before deployment Research has shown that the majority of persons in whom PTSD develops meet the criteria for the diagnosis of this disorder within the first three months after the traumatic event.29 In our study, administering the surveys three to four months after the subjects had returned from deployment and at least six months after the heavi­est combat operations was probably optimal for investigating the long-term risk of mental health problems associated with combat We are continu­ing to examine this risk in repeated cross-section­al and longitudinal assessments involving the
same units.
Our findings indicate that a small percentage of soldiers and Marines whose responses met the screening criteria for a mental disorder reported that they had received help from any mental health professional, a finding that parallels the results of civilian studies.3°-32 In the military, there are tmique factors that contribute to resistance to seeking such help, particularly concern about how a soldier will be perceived by peers and by the leadership. Con­cern about stigma was disproportionately greatest among those most in need of help from mental health services. Soldiers and Marines whose re­sponses were scored as positive for a mental disor-
V
N ENGL J MED 351;1 WWW.NEJM.ORG JULY 1, 2004
016620
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on January 27, 2005 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. All nghts reserved.
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
DOD-039887
MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AND COMBAT DUTY
Table 5. Perceived Barriers to SeeIcing Mental Health Services among All Study Partidpants (Soldiers and Marines).*
Respondents Who Respondents Who Did Met Screening Not Meet Screening
Criteria for a Mental Criteria for a Mental Disorder Disorder (N =731) (N=5422)Perceived Barrier
no./total no. r/o)
241/641 (38) 813/4820 (17)I don't trust mental health professionals.
I don't know where to get help. 143/639 (22) 303/4780 (6)
I don't have adequate transportation. 117/638 (18) 279/4770 (6)
789/4748 (17)

It is difficult to schedule an appointment. 288/638 (45)
There would be difficulty getting time off work for treatment. 354/643 (55) 1061/4743 (22)
Mental health care costs too much money. 159/638 (25) 456/4736 (10)
260/641 (41) 852/4752 (18)

It would be too embarrassing.
It would harm my career. 319/640 (50) 1134/4738 (24)
Members of my unit might have less confidence in me. 377/642 (59) 1472/4763 (31)
My unit leadership might treat me differently. 403/637 (63) 1562/4744 (33)
My leaders would blame me for the problem. 328/642 (51) 928/4769 (20)
413/640 (65) 1486/4732 (31)I would be seen as weak.
Mental health care doesn't work. 158/638 (25) 444/4748 (9)
* Data exclude missing values, because not all respondents answered every question. Respondents were asked to rate "each of the possible concerns that might affect your decision to receive mental health counseling or services if you ever had a problem." Perceived barriers are worded as on the survey. The five possible responses ranged from "strongly dis­agree" to "strongly agree," with "agree" and "strongly agree" combined as a positive response.
Supported by the Militmy Operational Medicine Research Pro­
der were twice as likely as those whose responses
gram, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Ft De-
were scored as negative to show concern about be-
trick, Md.ing stiginatized and about other barriers to mental The views expressed in this article are those ofthe authors and do health care. not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, the U.S. government, or any of
This finding has immediate public health impli­
the institutions with which the authors are affiliated.
cations. Efforts to address the problem of stigma
We are indebted to the Walter Reed Army Institute of Researchand other barriers to seeking mental health care in Land Combat Study Team: Lolita Burrell, Ph.D., Scott Killgore, the military should take into consideration out-Ph.D., Melba Stetz, Ph.D., Paul Bliese, Ph.D., Oscar Cabrera, Ph.D.,
Anthony Cox, M.S.W., Timothy Allison-Aipa, Ph.D., Karen Eaton,
reach, education, and changes in the models of
M.S., Graeme Biclmell, M.P.V., Alexander Vo, Ph.D., and Charleshealth care delivery, such as increases in the alloca-Millilcen, M.D., for survey-instrument design and data collection; to tion of mental health services in primary care clin-Spencer Campbell, Ph.D., for coordination of data collection and
scientific advice; to David Couch for supervising the data-collection
ics and in the provision of confidential counseling
teams, database management, scanning, and quality control; toby means ofemployee-assistance programs. Screen-Wanda Cook for design and production of surveys; to Allison Whitt ing for major depression is becoming routine in for survey-production and data-collection support; to Lloyd ShanIc­
linjoshua Fejeran, Vilna Williams, and Crystal Ross for data-collec­
military primary care settings,12 but our study
tion, quality-assurance, scanning, and field support; to Jennifersuggests that it should be expanded to include Auchterlonie for assistance with Defense Medical Surveillance Sys­screening for PTSD. Many of these considerations tem analyses; to Akeiya Briscoe-Cureton for travel and administra­
tive support; to the leadership of the units that were studied and to
are being addressed in new military programs.33
our medical and mental health professional colleagues at Ft. Bragg,Reducing the percepdon of stigma and the barriers Ft Stewart, Camp Lejeune, and Camp Pendleton; to the Walter Reed to care among tnilitary personnel is a priority for Army Institute of Research Office of Research Management; to
David Orman, M.D., psychiatty consultant to the Army Surgeon
research and a priority for the policymakers, clini-
General, Gregory Belenky, M.D., and Charles C. Engel, M.D., for ad­cians, and leaders who are involved in providing vice and review ofthe study; and, most important, to the soldiers and care to those who have served in the armed forces. Marines who participated in the study for their service.
21
N ENGL J MED 351;1 WWW.NEJM.ORG JULY 1, 2004
016621
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on January 27, 2005 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. All nghts reserved.
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AND COMBAT DUTY
REFERENCES
1.
The Centers for Disease Control Viet­nam Experience Study Group. Health status of-Vietnam veterans. 1. Psychosocial charac­teristics. JAMA 1988;259:2701-7.

2.
Helzer JE, Robins LN, McEvoy L Post-traumatic stress disorder in the general pop­ulation: findings of the Epidemiologic Catchment Area survey. N Engl J Med 1987; 317:1630-4.

3.
Jordan BK, Schlenger WE, Hough R, et al. Lifetime and cunent prevalence ofspecif­ic psychiatric disorders among Vietnam vet­erans and controls. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1991;48:207-15.

4.
Thelma Persian GulfStudy Group. Self-reported illness and health status among GulfWar veterans: a population-based study. JAMA 1997;277:238-45.

5.
Kessler RC, Sonnega A, Bromet E, Hughes M, Nelson CB. Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Sur­vey. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995;52:1048-60.

6.
Prigerson HG, Maciejewsld PK, Rosen­heck RA. Population artributable fractions of psychiatric disorders and behavioral out­comes associated with combat exposures among US men. Am J Public Health 2002; 92:59-63.

7.
Idem. Combat trauma: trauma with highest risk ofdelayed onset and unresolved posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, un­employment, and abuse among men. J Nerv Ment Dis 2001;189:99-108.

8.
Kang MC, Natelson BH, Mahan CM, Lee KY, Mrnphy Flvl. Post-traumatic stress dis­order and chronic thtig-ue syndrome-lilce ill­ness among Gulf War veterans: a popula­tion-based stuvey of 30,000 veterans. Am J Epidemiol 2003;157:141-8.

9.
Hoge CW, Lesilcar SE, Guevara R, et al. Mental disorders among U.S. military per­sonnel in the 1990s: association with high levels ofhealth care utilization and early mil­itary attrition. Am J Psychiatry 2002;159: 1576-83. 10.Wessely S, Unwin C, Hotopf M, et al. Stability of recall of military hazards over time: evidence from the Persian GulfWar of 1991. BrJ Psychiatry 2003;183:314-22. 11.Wright KM, Huffman AH, Adler AB, Castro CA. Psychological screening program overview. Mil Med 2002;167:853-61. 12.VAIDoD clinical practice guideline for the management of major depressive disor­der in adults. In: Major depressive disorder

(MDD): clinical practice guidelines. Wash­ington, D.C.: Veterans Health Administra­tion, May 2000. (Publication no. 10Q-CPGI MDD-00.) (Accessed June 4, 2004, at http:// www.oqp.med.va.govIcpg/MDDI MDD_Base.htm.) 13.RubertoneMV, BrundageJF. The Defense Medical Surveillance System and the Depart­ment of Defense serum repository: glimpses of the firture of public health surveillance. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1900-4. 14, Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed. DSM-1V. Washing­ton, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 1994. 15.Spitzer RL, ICroenkeK, Williams JB. Val­idation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. JAMA 1999;282:1737-44.
16.Lowe B, Spitzer RL, Grafe K, et al. Com­parative validity °Halve screening question­naires for DSM-1V depressive disorders and physicians' diagnoses. J Affect Disord 2004; 8:131-40.
17. Henkel V, Mergl R, Kohnen R, Maier W, Moller HJ, Heged U. Identifying depression in primary care: a compadson of different methods in a prospective cohort study. BMJ 2003;326:200-1. 18.Blanchard EB, Jones-Alexander J, Buck-ley TC, Fomeris CA. Psychometric proper­ties of the PTSD Checklist (PCL). Behav Res Ther 1996;34:669-73. 19.Weathers FW, Litz BT, Herman DS, Hus­ka JA, Keane TM. The PTSD checldist (PCL): reliability, validity, and diagnostic utility. San Antonio, Tex.:International Sodety ofTrau­matic Stress Studies, October 1993. ab­stract. (Accessed June 4, 2004, at hup:II www.pdhealth.mililibraryldownloads1 PCL_sychometrics.doc.) 20.Brown R.L, Leonard T, Saunders LA, Pa­pasoulirnis O. A two-item conjoint screen for alcohol and other drug problems. J Am Board Fam Pract 2001;14:95-106. 21.Britt TW. The stigma of psychological
problems in a work environment: evidence from the screening of service members re­turning from Bosnia. J Appl Soc Psychol 2000;30:1599-618.
22. Castro CA, Bienvenu RV, Hufmarm AH, Adler AB. Soldier dimensions and opera­tional readiness in U.S. Army forces de­ployed to Kosovo. Int R.ev Armed Forces Med Serv 2000;73:191-200.
23. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Morgen­stern H. Epidemiologic research: principles
and quantitative methods. Belmont, Calif.:
Lifetime Learning, 1982.
24.Menard S. Applied logistic regression
analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Sage, 2002.

25.
Friedman MJ, Schnurr PP, McDonagh-
Coyle A. Post-traumatic stress disorder in
the military veteran. Psychiatr Clin North
Am 1994;17:265-77.

26.
Narrow WE, Rae DS, Robins LN, Regier
DA. Revised prevalence estimates of mental
disorders in the United States: using a clini­cal significance criterion to reconcile 2 sur­veys' estimates. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2002;
59:115-23.

27.
Hoge CW, Messer SC, Castro CA. Penta­gon employees after September 11, 2001.
Psychiatr Serv 2004;55:319-20.

28.
Schlenger WE, Kulka RA, Fairbank JA,
et al. The prevalence of post-traumatic
stress disorder in the Vietnam generation:
a multimethod, multisource assessment of
psychiatric disordez J Tratuna Stress 1992;
5:333-63.

29.
Carlier 1VE, Lamberts RD, Gersons
BPR. Risk actors for posttraumatic stress
symptomatology in police officers: a pro­spective analysis. J Nerv Meat Dis 1997;185:
498-506.

30.
Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler 0, et al.
The epidemiology of m4or depressive dia­order: results from the National Comorbidi­ty Survey R.eplication (NCS-R). JAMA 2003;
289:3095-105.
31.Regier DA, Narrow WE, Rae DS,
Manderscheid RW, Locke BZ, Goodwin FK.
The de facto US mental and addictive disor­ders service system: Epidemiologic Catch­ment Area prospective 1-year prevalence
rates of disorders and services. Arch Gen
Psychiatry 1993;50:85-94.

32. Kessler RC, McGonagle KA, Zhao S, et al. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-111-R.psychiatric disorders in the Unit­ed State's: results fiom tiae National Comor­bidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994;51: 8-19. 33.Deployment Health Clinical Center. De­ployment cycle support and clinirians -practice guidelines. (Accessed June 4, 2004, at http://www.pdhealthanil .)
Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society.
N ENGL J MED 351;1 WWW.NEJM.ORG JULY 1, 2004
016622
Downloaded from www.nejm.org on January 27, 2005 . For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright @ 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
20040787
DOD-039889

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS, 'I st INFANTRY DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE
UNIT #26222
APO AE 09036

FtEPLY TO THE ATTENTION OF:
AETV-BGJA
APR 1 5 2005
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, 1st Infantry Division, APO AE 09036
SUBJECT: Second Addendum to the Staff Judge Advocate Recommendation in the General Court-Martial of Private First Class Edward L. Richmond, Jr. Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, APO AE 093 7
(.0-•
1.
On 14 February 2005, you considered R.C.M. 1105/1106 matters submitted by the accused and defense counsel and took action in the general court-martial of Private First Class Edward L. Richmond, Jr. After action, the defense submitted four additional written letters in support of granting clemency to Private First Class Richmond.

2.
Once the accused submits matters for consideration by the convening authority, the right to submit additional matters is waived unless the accused reserves the right in writing to submit additional matters within the time limit. United States v. Scott, 39 M.J. 769 (1994). In the case herein, clemency matters were due on 26 January 2005 after granting the accused the necessary delay. The defense finally submitted clemency matters on 5 February 2005 after the time periods of RCM 1105(c) had expired.

3.
The accused, through his defense counsel, submitted additional clemency matters on 14 February 2005 (either simultaneously with or after you had taken action on the case); on 16 February 2005 and again on 17 February 2005. On 25 February 2005, the accused again through his defense counsel requested that the convening authority reconsider his "decision, in light of, and in consideration of, the additional clemency matters."

4.
The defense did state on page 6 of the clemency submission that "Defense Counsel is awaiting receipt of a personal letter fi-om Congressman Baker to the convening authority, to be included for consideration with this Soldier's request for clemency. This letter is expected to arrive on or about 9 February 2005, and should be substituted for the informal letter that is included at Enclosure L." This was not an explicit reservation of the right to submit additional matters. Further, the accused and his counsel were beyond the time limit required by RCM 1105(c). Therefore, you are not legally required to consider the additional clemency matters submitted by the defense counsel.

016623
2 o o 4 0 7 8
6 (6)---1_
AETV-BGJA SUBJECT: Second Addendum to the Staff Judge Advocate Recommend ion in the General Court-Martial of Private First Class Edward L. Richmond, Jr., Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, APO AE 09347
5.
IAW RCM 1107(0(2) the convening authority may recall and modify any action taken by that convening authority at any time before it has been published or before the accused has been officially notified. The convening authority may also recall and modify any action at any time prior to forwarding the record for review, as long as the modification does not result in action less favorable to the accused than the earlier action. In this case, there has been no notification, publication nor mailing of the action. Therefore, the convening authority can make any change that benefits the accused. The convening authority can also approve the same action that was approved originally.

6.
In United States v. Mooney, Army 9500238 (ACCA June 10, 1996), based upon the quality of the clemency letter there was a reasonable possibility that the convening authority could have granted clemency based upon it. The Army appellate court set the action aside and the case was returned to the convening authority for a new post-trial recommendation and action. Therefore, while not required, I recommend that you consider the additional written defense submissions as well as the original submissions to determine whether to grant the accused clemency.

7.
I recommend that you approve the sentence as adjudged. I further recommend that you credit the accused with 47 days confinement against the sentence to confinement.

10(c )-2. 25 Encls
1.
Clemency Petition/DC, dtd 5 Feb 05 LTC, JA

2.
Clemency Petition/ACC, undated Staff Judge Advocate

3. Letter fro dtd 24 Jan 05
4. Letter from dtd 26 Jan
5. Letter fro 2 Jan 05
6. Letter fi-o dated
7. Letter from 24 Jan 05
8. Letter from td 24 Jan 05
9. Letter fro dtd 25 Jan 05
10. Letter from undated
11. Letter fi-o 25 Jan 05
12. Letter fi-o ated
13. Letter from dtd 24 Jan 05

14.
Article from New England Journal of Medicine, dtd 1 Jul 04

15.
Record of Trial

16.
Post-Trial Recommendation, dtd 27 Dec 04

2
016624

2 0 4. 0
AETV-BGJA SUBJECT: Second Addendum to the StaffJudge Advocate Recommendation in the General Court-Martial of Private First Class Edward L. Richmond, Jr. Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, APO AE 09 47
17.
Result of Trial, dtd 3 Aug 04

18.
Letter from Congressman Baker, dtd 10 Feb 05

19.
Letter from Congressman Alexander, dtd 15 Feb 05

20. Letter fi-om Mr. , dtd 16 Feb 05
21. Email from Mr. 22. Email from CPT td 18 Feb 05 dt 14 Feb 05 0-q
23. Email from CPT dtd 16 Feb 05
24. Email from CP dtd 17 Feb 05
25. Email from CP dtd 25 Feb 05
10 a)-1-

vt mos
3

01662_5
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
Page 1 of 1
MAJ 11D OSJA-Wuerzburg Law Center (Chief, MJ)
From:V11111.1111111111CPTIIIIIIIIIus.army.mil ]
Sent:VMonday, February 28, 2005 11:22 AM
To:V111111.1111111MAJ 11D OSJA-Wuerzburg Law Center (Chief, MJ)

Cc: SSG;1111.111.SPC
Subject:VFW: Supplemental Clemency Matters (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Letter from Congressman Baker (Richmond Clemency).pdf b(0—Z- (C't

ALCON, And yet another.
V/R,
CPT, JA
From:V Sent: Mo -05 17:15 ToV CPT Cc SG; Subject: upp emental Clemency Matters FC;111,1LASSIFI hqda.arnny.mil ] 1111111111FC (Military Justice NCOIC)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Government,
Attached please find an additional letter to add to PVT Richmond's request for clemency. This lefter should be inserted as Enclosure L. As I know that HD is in the process of redeployment, please let me know that you have received this letter. T anks.
11,111M.Meral's Legal Center and School 600 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 2 03 Comm. Phone: (434 DSN Phone: (31
V
4
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
016626
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
4/7/2005
Page 1 of 2

MAJ 11D OSJA-Wuerzburg Law Center (Chief, MJ)
From:V1111111111MCPTIMIglaus.army.mil]
Sent:VMonday, February 28, 2005 11:20 AM

To:V MAJ 11D OSJA-Wuerzburg Law Center (Chief, MJ)
CPT

("N
SPC
Cc:
Subject:VFW: Letter of support for clemency (UNCLASSIFIED)

Attachments: Richmond.jpg
ALCON, Another one.
V/R,
CPT, JA
From:V PT [mailto @hqda.army.mil] Sent: Wed 1 To•VCPT
Cc: SSG; SFC (Military Justice NCOIC); SFC Subject: : Letter of support otnency (UNCLASSIFIED)
ailliirin
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Caveats: NONE
Government,
Attached please find a second additional letter to add to PVT Richmond's request for clemency. This letter should be inserted as Enclosure M. As I know that 11D is in the process of redeployment, please let me know that you have received this letter. I understand that the clemency action may already have been submitted to the CG but please take every effort to include this letter with the packet for his consideration. Thanks in advance for your efforts.
CPT JA
e u ge voca e eneral's Legal Center and School 19
600 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 2 903
Comm. Phone: (434
DSN Phone: (312

Ori " I Messa e
From:Vmailto:111.111@mail.house.gov] be0-1
SeVe rua 15, 2005 4:27 P
To:VCPT

016627
Cc: remier.net'
1D (0-2-2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
4/7/2005
Page 2 of 2
Subject: Letter of support for clemency
/2(0-2-
Cpt.1111.111
I apologize for the delay in getting this to you. Please let me know if you have any problems opening the file.
Many thanks!
Congressman Rodney Alexander Fifth District, Louisiana 1900 Stubbs Ave., Ste. B Monroe, LA 71201
(318)
322-3500

(318)
322-3577 Fax

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
4/7/2005

016628
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
Fwd: Private First Class Edward L. Richmond, Jr. Page 1 of 1
MAJ I ID OSJA-Wuerzburg Law Center (Chief, MJ)
From:VIIIIIIIIIIIIrPT inallffilus.army.mil]
Sent:VMonday, February 28, 2005 11:16 AM

To:V111111111.1111111CFP MAJ 11D SJA-Wuerzburg Law Center (Chief,
MJ)
Cc:

IIIIIIIIIIIIPSGWIIIME/SPC
Subject: FW: Private First Class Edward L. Richmond, Jr.
Attachments: Private First Class Edward L. Richmond, Jr.
VG) —2- (a [I)
ALCON,
Another email message.

V/R,
CPT, JA
From:V us.army.mil
SenV7-Feb-05 17:18
To:V PTV

4)-16°)
Cc: SG; SFC;111111111111FC SSW.
Subject: Fwd: Private First Class Edwar L. lc mond, Jr.

Government,
Attached please fmd a THIRD additional letter to add to PVT Richmond's request for clemency. This letter should be
inserted as "Enclosure O." As I know that lID is in the process of redeployment, please let me know that you have received
this letter. I understand that the clemency action may already have been submitted to the CG but please take every effort to
include this letter with the packet for his consideration. Thanks in advance for your efforts.

I do not anticipate receipt of any more clemency letters. Thanlcs.
1111111.111
CP
e Ju ge Advocate enera s Legal Center and School
600 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 2 03
Comm. Phone: (434
DSN Phone: (312

E-mail: @us.army.mil
016629
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
4/7/2005

DOD-039896
Page 1 of 2
111111.11111111111MAJ 11D OSJA-Wuerzburg Law Center (Chief, MJ)
From: gamiorPTIIMINDus.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 11:16 AM
To: IRIIIIIIIIIIIpC PT MAJ 11D OSJA-Wuerzburg Law Center (Chief,

Cc: SPC
IIIIIINIIIMPSG; Subject: FW: Request for Reconsideration (U.S. v. Richmond) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Attachments: Clemency Attachments (Richmond).pdf; Clemency Richmond (Supplemental).doc; New England Journal of Medicine.pdf; Clemency Attachments (L, N-P).pdf
MAJ MEM
Please see the below email from illigpitMy understanding is that action was taken in the case and no clemency was given. I will forward s vera ail messages to make sure you have everything. Please confirm receipt of this email message.
V/R,
CPT, JA
From:V CPT [mailto hqda.army.mil ]
Sent: Fri 2 20:3
To:V CPT
(Military Justice NCOIC); M SFC;11111111111111
PT

Subject: Request for Reconsideration (U.S. v. Richmond) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Government,
To date, the defense has not received a copy of any action taken by the Convening Authority in U.S. v. Richmond. Since 14 February 2005, four additional letters of support for PVT Richmond's request for clemency have been submitted to counsel and forwarded to the government. If the Convening Authority has not yet taken action, the defense requests consideration of these additional matters along with PVT Ftichmond's original request dated 5 February 2005, and its listed enclosures. If the Convening Authoriy already has taken action and such action does not grant clemency to PVT Richmond, the defense respectfully requests that the Convening Authority reconsider his decision in light of, and in consideration of, the additional clemency matters. For convenience, I have attached the following documents to this e-mail:
(1)
Clemency Matters (Supplemental): Please note that items that have been changed or added are in bold-faced
font. The remainder of the document stands as it did when it originally was submitted on 5 February 2005.

(2)
Clemency Attachments (Enclosures A-L (in a .pdf file))

(3)
New England Journal of Medicine article (Enclosure M (in a .pdf file))

(4)
Clemency Attachments (Enclosures L (new) & N-P). All of these documents were/are being submitted past the 5

February 2005 original submission date.
Thank you for your submission of this Request for Reconsideration/Supplemental Clemency Matters to the
Convening Authority. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
V/R,

016630

2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7 4/7/2005
Page 2 of 2
CPT JA
e is Legal Center and School 600 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Comm. Phone: (434 DSN Phone: (312)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
016631 2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7
4/7/2005
02/10/05 17:41 FAX 504 92971
Q002

RICHARD HUGH BAKER
COMMITTEE ON
6TH DISTRICT, LOUISIANA
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTER ON SUBCOMMITTEE oN HIGHWAYS FiNANCIAL SERVICES
TRANSIT AND PIPELINES
CNAJRMAN
Suscommirree ON
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE AND
GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FIN ANCIAL I NSTITUTIONS

&ingress of tile ..tates
ANI, CONSUMER CREDIT COMMITTEE Om
Nom of Efiarroeutattuto
SUBCOMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
HOUSING AND
COM M UNITY OPPORTUNITY

Thaoliington, 11.01. 213515-10116
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH
February I 0, 2005
Major General John R.S. Batiste
Commander
I' Infantry Division

Operation Iraqi Freedom (FOB Danger)
APO AE 09392

Dear General Batiste:
For one instant in time, Private First Class Edward L. Richmond, Jr., had hope for his future, the future of his family, his country and for the citizens of Iraq. Unfortunately, in the line of duty, following a direct order issued by his commanders the hopes and aspirations of this young service man were placed in doubt by the tragic event that occurred on February 28,
2004.
It is my understanding that you are revievving Private Richmond's reques-t for clemency. As Private Richmond's representative, I trust you understand my concern for this young man and his family, and it is for this reason that I am writing this letter to express my strong support for
his clemency request.

case of Private Riclunond, he was simply following the orders of his Commanding Officers. It has been documented in the official transcripts of Private Riclunond's trial, that oin tl
irai 6/6-2, '
of February 27, 2004 a briefing was conducted by Captainallilland Sergean advising the platoon of the plans to secure an Iraqi town on February 28, 2004, and at this time, 66)1 direct orders were given to Private Richmond along with fellow services members to "shoot anyIraqi male seen fleeing from the tovvn. Again, the facts seem to indicate that Private Richmond
acted not out of disregard for orders, but in compliance with them.
From all documented reports, Private Riclunond served his country well. He joined the
U.S. Army in May, 2002. Upon the succ.essful completion of fourteen weeks of extended basic training at Ft. Benning, Georgia, he was awarded the prestigious Blue Cross Award
At his next
0 5555 HiCroN AVENUE
0 341 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING Su ire 100
WASHINGTON, D.C. 205 (5-t 806
13AroN Rouoe,1-A 70608(202) 225-3901 (225) 929-7711(202) 225-7313 (FAX) (225) 929-7688 (FAX)
1-800-892-1253 (LA ONLY)
www.11ARER.HOusE.GOV
10 1 6 6 32
2 0
4 r 8 7
02/10/05 17:42 FAX 504 92971

R)003

Batiste Page 2
duty station in Hawaii, he earned the Expert Infantry Badge and Army Achievement Medal, in which he was cited as a "Role Model" for his fellow service members. He also trained as a mor­iar man, however, due to his exceptional technical and leadership sidlls, he was promoted to the
position of a base gun gunner.
As you may know, Private Richmond's flew to Iraq in August, 2004 to support his son during his trial. The Richmonds' have a strong family network arid upon Private Richmond's release, they are prepared to provide the physical, as well as, emotional support he will need in order to move forward with his life.
In closing, I would like to reiterate my interest in Private Richrnond's case and respect­fully ask that his clemency request be given careful consideration. If I can be of any assistancein this matter, please let me lcnow.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Baker ., Member of Congress

0_16633
2 00 4 0 7 81
RODNEY ALEXANDER 00Niorms:
STH DISTRICT, loursiANA AssicULTUSE
ARMED SERVICES
WASHINGTON 316 CANNON NOUSE OFFICE SUADING WASSINOTON. OC 20615 1202) 725-8490 ,ai:11111141„ , 17
FAR: 1202/ 225-5638

Conga% of the ifriniteb Otateo jootiot of ltepreantatibto
February 15, 2005
Major General John R. S. Batiste Commander
1st Infantry Division Operation Iraqi Freedom (FOB Danger) APO AE 09392
RE: PVT Edward L. Richmond, Jr. Clemency request
Dear Sir,
I have recently learned of PVT Edward L. Richmond, Jr.'s unfortunate situation as related to the shooting of an Iraqi civilian on February 28, 2004, and PVT Richmond's subsequent court-martial. I understand, too, that you have been charged with reviewing PVT Richmond's request for clemency. By definition clemency is a disposition to be merciful, and so I respectfully ask that you give merciful consideration to PVT Richmond's request.
It is unfortunate to see a young person's life instantly changed for the worse by a single decision arguably in the grey area between right and wrong, and exponentially so for a young person serving his country in the U.S. Armed Services. My staff and I work daily with veterans of all ages, and I can testify to the staggering emotional pain they bear even decades after such events as this. It is even more upsetting to know that in addition to PVT Richmond's emotional stress he will have the added weight of a criminal record arid dishonorable discharge.
In speaking with PVT Richmond's father and in reading his numerous lefters of support
rom family and frien s,1o t at a I are ready to have him home so mat they can help him with the process of recuperation. The adjustment back into a "normal life" will be quite difficult following this, and only the love of family can adequately provide the support system PVT Richmond will need to help him through.
I am all too aware that the final determination in this matter is yours alone; in no way is it within the jurisdiction of a Member of Congress. I do ask, however, that you review PVT Richmond's request with compassion, empathy, and mercy.
Sincerely,
CtliA4¦•414
Rodney Alexa der Member of Congress
RA:LB:sw
ALeximosuot
Ma'am
14/2 CENTRE COURT. Sum 402
ism STLIVOS RAIENUE, SuneALESANC40A, LA 71301
1140N404. LA 71201
13181 445-0818 13110 322-3603FAX. 13181 445-3776 FAx: 1318) 322-3477
THIS STATIONERY 'mato ON RECYCLED FURS
Enclosure N
016631

'
Serretarg of „State °State Ixf Tiratisiattzt
W. Fox MCKEITHEN P. O. 8ox 94125 SECRETARY OF STATE BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70804-9125
(225) 342-4479
www.sec.state.la.us
February 16, 2005
a tain11 e Advocate r\ Ig
111111,111.1111
Ju ge dvocate Genera c
and Legal Center
600 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903

qo--1
Dear Captainallil
Recently, I was contacted b concerning e
pending appeal of hi rivat rst Class ard L. Richmond, Jr.
A short time a o I h a personal me ng with Private Richmond' o discuss his se. Mr. as advised me that you have been assigned as the legal counsel or Priva e ichmond and will be representing him

during the appeal proceedings.
I am aware of the seriousness of this situation, afthough I believe that Private Richmond unintentionally shot and killed the Iraqi civilian. Under these circumstances, I believe that Private Richmond should not be punished with extreme severity, as he simply made a mistake during the heat of battle.
I know that is has been a long and difficult experience for both Private Richmond and his parents, and I would like to help this family in any way I possibly can. I look forward to hearing from you if I can be of any service. Thank you in advance for your interest in this matter.
'F.
!Al! pc:3 tobitsmiplicl ;.:!S; can. ow idicpwoliq ps..e ar4Ar.1-.14-;1.1$1. Athl pErAe: raf4o Vow. flOo' pug 9 1:101201.191 LUet);:pa /AM./ Vkticpuiouci,2
beutiriC:: s.:bZieral c.)t $.:!eVbivoieVErp.c..s5LC,j r' bicpwouq' giL-
. ,
•138c:fiu.-ii.f\ • . 1
Enclosure 001663
k_ 8 7

BATES PAGES 16636-16639 ARE
NONRESPONSIVE AND HAVE
NOT BEEN PROVIDED

DEPAFt MENT OF THE ARMY REPORT 01- RESULT OF TRIAL For use of this form, see AR 27-10; the proponent agency is OTJAG
TO: Commander, 1st Infantry Division, APO AE 09393
1. Notification under R.C.M. 1101 and A 27-10, ara raph 5-30 is hereby given in the case of the United States v.
Private First Class Edward L. Richmond VHeadquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry, 25th Infantry Division (Light), A V-9998. 10(0_2_
2.
Trial by General court-martial on 3 August, 2004 at Tikrit, Iraq, convened by CMCO Number 3 HQ, 1st Infantry Division, APO AE 09392.

3.
Summary of offenses, pleas, and findings:
CHVART UCMJVSPECVBRIEF DESC TION OF OFFENSE(S) PLEA VFINDING

1 1 18 THE On eb 04, murdered Muhamad NG NG*
y means of shooting him in
e ea wIt a rifle.

*Not guilty, but guilty of voluntary manslaughter in violation of Article 119, UCMJ.
4.
SENTENCE: To be reduced to Private El, to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for 3 years, and to be discharged with a Dishonorable Discharge.

5.
Date sentence adjudged and effective date of any forfeiture or reduction in grade (YYYYMMDD): 20040805 (See UCMJ Articles 57-58b and R.C.M. 1101.)

6.
Contents of pretrial agreement conceming sentence, if any: None.

7.
Number of days of presentence confinement, if any: None.

8.
Number of days of judge-ordered administrative credit for presentence confinement or restriction found tantamount to confinement, if any: 47 days.

9.
Total presentence confinement credit toward post-trial confinement: 47 days.

10.
Nanne(s) and SSN(s) of companion accused or co-accused, if any: None

11.
DNA processing IAW 10 U.S.C. 1565 is not required.

12.
Conviction(s) does not require sex offender registration IAW 42 U.S. C. 14071.

CF: CDR, 2d BDE CDR, 1/27th IN BN CDR, 106 FIN BN D Det Crim Law, OSJA, 1st ID Trial Counsel Defense Counsel
-
TYPED NAME
RANKV BRANCH OF SERVI
"Arial Counsel
US ARMY
DA FORM 4430, SEP 2002 DA FORM 4430-R, MAY 87, IS OBSOLETE VUSAPA V1.00ES ° 1 " 4 °
2 0 a 4 0 7 8 7
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Division
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate
APO Army Europe 09392

AETV-BGJA
DEC 2 7 2004
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, 1st Infantry Division, APO AE 09392
SUBJECT: Staff Judge Advocate Recommendation in the General Court-Martial of Private First Class Edward L. Riclunond Jr. eadquarters and Headquarters Company, lst Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, APO AE 09347-999
1.
The following constitutes my recommendation in the subject court-martial.

2.
Summary of the charge, specification, plea, finding, and sentence:

CH ART SPEC DESCRIPTION OF OFFENSE PLEA FINDING
The 118 The At or near Taal Al Jal, Iraq, on or ab ut NG NG(1)
28 February 2004, murde by
means of shooting him in e hea with a rifle.
(1) The accused was found: Not Guilty, but Guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119, UCMJ.
Sentence was adjudged on 5 August 2004: To be reduced to the grade of El; to forfeit all pay and allowances; to be confined for 3 years; and to be dishonorably discharged from the service.
3.
The accused has been in the U.S. Army for approximately 2 years and 7 months. His MOS is 11C, Indirect Fire Infantryman. He has been awarded the Army Achievement Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and the Army Service Ribbon. Additionally, the accused is authorized to wear the Parachutist Badge, the Expert Infantryman Badge, and the Combat Infantryman Badge. There is no known record of any prior Article 15s or any prior court-martial convictions of the accused.

4.
Pretrial Restraint: The accused was confined to a tent and guarded by an NCO on 28 and 29 February 2004. The military judge granted the accused 2 days confinement credit for restriction tantamount to confinement. For 30 days the accused had to be escorted by an NCO 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The military judge granted the accused 30 days confinement credit for restriction tantamount to confinement. On or about 8 April 2004, a commissioned officer call the accused a murderer in front of other soldiers while in the ALOC. The military judge granted the accused 10 days confinement credit for Article 13 punishment. In late June or early July, the first sergeant call the accused a criminal while waiting in line to receive an anthrax shot. The government and defense agreed to 5 days confinement credit for Article 13 punishment. The accused was credited with a total of 47 days confinement credit.

5.
Pretrial Agreement: None.

016641
2 00 4 0 7 87
DOD-039905
z VC) 2—
AETV-BGJA SUBJECT: Staff Judge Advocate Redommendation in the General Court-Martial of Private First Class Edward L. Richmond Jr.,111111111111Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment, APO AE 09347-9998
6.
This recommendation and an authenticated copy of the record of trial will be served upon the accused and his defense counsel. Any matters submitted by or on behalf of the accused pursuant to R.C.M. 1105 or 1106 will be provided to you. In accordance with R.C.M. 1107, you must consider these matters prior to talcing action in this case.

7.
I recommend that you approve the sentence as adjudged. I further recommend that you credit the accused with 47 days of confinement against the sentence to confinement.

10(6)-2-
LTC, JA Staff Judge Advocate
2 0 0 4 0 7 8 7

'6642

0!6643

Doc_nid: 
4033
Doc_type_num: 
734