The Lies — Part 2: US Navy Gold Star Program Lies to Inspector General
- Author
- Sep 29, 2023
- 10 min read
Updated: Jul 9, 2024
🎶I’m only human. Don’t put your blame on me. 🎶— Rag‘N‘Bone Man
In my 18 February 2022 official complaint to the Inspector General of Command, Navy Installations Command (the boss of all shoreside base functions) — I asserted complaints against our therapist, and the Navy Gold Star Program.
This piece will focus on lies told by the Navy Gold Star Program Manager to the Inspector General (IG) in response to my complaint. This Program Manager’s response was vapid, obtuse, and lathered in the prattle of a busybody.
His insight into his own program is inadequate—as he said himself, “Additionally, there have been 3 prior FOIA requests from Mrs. XXXX. We have worked with XXXX from CNIC Office of the General Counsel, who may be of assistance with Mrs.XXXX’s complaints regarding Navy Gold Star.”
Now, I was unaware until I received this batch of “Responsive Documents” from the Navy that my name was given to the parties by the general counsel when obtaining documents for my FOIA requests. Interesting… so then, who else knew about my inquiries and what did they know? And, if he knew I received information from the NGSP, why lie? Why not do the extra work and make sure your facts are straight before you submit your answers and lie to the IG?
Ego, unearned righteousness, and a systemic Navy-wide culture of not acting with integrity, a systemic Navy-wide culture of non-accountability are the only answers I can come up with. Read for yourself—
Navy Gold Star Program Lies:
LIE #1
The PM stated in his response, “[Colter] sent one written request to no longer receive event invitations. This request was honored and no additional outreach attempts were made after receipt of that request via email on 10 MAR 2016.”
ACTUAL FACTS:
Yes. Colter sent one email to no longer be included in events…
He also said “…events OR COMMUNICATIONS.” (See image below).
Being in the Navy himself, he presumed he did not need to send any additional requests, one should be enough.
Furthermore, this was NOT the final communication received as the PM asserts.
The actual “final” event invitation was sent FIVE months later on August 10, 2016– NOT March 10, 2016. This August 2016 invitation is the “final“ one I am aware of.
Colter was my legal husband (2014) and the father of our child (2015) at this point. He was being invited to attend social events to spend time with widows and widowers and their children, but my son and I were not invited. I would like the NGS to verbalize why we weren't invited. I would like them to put in writing why. Say it out loud to me.
LIE #2
The PM stated, “However, according to Mrs. XXXX, she feels the NGS Program Coordinator(s) has/have repeatedly ignored his request and continue to violate their privacy.” The PM continued to insist his program did not violate our privacy.
ACTUAL FACTS:
They have.
The Navy Gold Star Program staff continued to keep his information in their database.
They continued to keep Colter listed as “her husband,” living at the address he shared with me, his legal wife, only they kept his address listed as that of an “individual” and not a household.
Anyone who saw this information over the years in Allison‘s file, never would have known that Colter was married with a family. This was a violation of our privacy, my privacy, our family’s privacy and it violated multiple policies within the DoD.
This information stored about Colter, is why Ms. Hunter from the NGSP told me (to paraphrase)—‘when a tribute comes in for a deceased Sailor the NGSP process was as long as everything “checks out” they run it as is.’
To clarify this…in other words…as long as Allison’s parents listed Allison’s widower’s name correctly, the NGSP took that as permission to speak for Colter, a Sailor on Active Duty, with a wife, a family, and attribute words and phrases to him that he didn’t write or even know were being put on the NGSP website and the NGSP Facebook page without his permission or knowledge.
Further— the Navy Gold Star Program wrote the words and the phrases, the NGSP wrote the attribution to Colter in the present day in April and then again in May of 2020 as though Colter wrote them, as an ACTIVELY GRIEVING recently widowed ”HUSBAND” of Allison’s and then they posted it on Facebook with the intent of making it go viral.
Allison’s family may view Colter however they choose in their private lives. This is not my business. They understandably would fill out a form with a space marked, “Spouse” with Colter’s name. Throughout my complaint and this story I have done my best to respect their privacy. Unavoidably, parts of this story crash undeservedly into their lives, for that I am sorry. This story is not on them to carry.
The Navy however, may not not live in that private space with them while forcing Colter's public reputation there as well. The Navy’s mission is warfighting and supporting the family of war fighters for the purpose of war, first and foremost. That is where our family exists. DoD policy is Colter is no longer Allison's NOK. The end. The Navy may not double-speak on this topic. The Navy may not put the weight of a nation offering “honor” to NGS families on my marriage, my family, or on me. The Navy may not assign blame to Allison’s family either.
The Navy needs to own the accountability. It has systemically failed at this and no one, no department will own any part of it to the extent that now two NGSP personnel have put it on Allison's parents.
The following was recorded in Allison’s file (which Colter may not access as neither the Navy nor the DoD considers him her NEXT OF KIN because we are married) this was recorded in her file as a result of Colter expressing that he didn’t want any relationship with the NGSP, its programs, its people, its processes—and yet see the ”Remarks” section below? It says…”lives in…” and then see the box to the right? “Individual Address.” This is from 2020, after he said he wanted no part of it, the NGSP are still tracking him.
LIE #3
“At the time of initial case creation, the program had no way of knowing that Mr. XXXX was remarried.”
ACTUAL FACTS
Yes, yes the U.S. Navy who owns the Navy Gold Star Program, under MWR, under CNIC, under the Vice Admiral of CNIC, under the Chief of Naval Operations who owns the program— YES, they knew Colter was married.
Promptly and with our wedding, the Navy and the DoD removed Colter’s Death Gratuities from his paycheck and they removed Colter’s access to Allison’s military record because they no longer considered him her Next of Kin (NOK).
Yes, the Navy knew that Colter was my legal, loving, husband and the father of our children . The Navy’s lack of adherence to policy is on the Navy. The Navy’s lack of follow through on policy is on the Navy.
LIE #4
ACTUAL FACTS
If the case were actually “inactivated” why was the NGSP still tracking Colter and adding his updated locations through 2020, and possibly still?
The photo below includes details. Colter swears this is not true, nor did he contact them in March of 2018. Where did this note come? Was it falsified?
As I asked in my complaint to the IG, what does inactivating a case mean? Why would they still track Colter’s location if his case was inactivated? Why would they write and attribute words and phrases to him in the present day, if his case was inactivated?
The Navy Gold Star Program Manager, did not address those questions. He ignored them.
LIE #5
ACTUAL FACTS
I used the word sell twice in my IG Complaint, highlighted in blue below—
In actuality the NGSP or someone within the DoD provided our address to a third party. When the mailer from this third party arrived, in large letters the outside of the envelope read, “Gold Star Spouse.”
This was a violation of our family's privacy.
If the PM wanted to assuage the notion that they provide/sell Colter’s information (my information) to third parties, he could have explained how they obtained that information. He did not. He simply evaded the topic, by insisting that this Non-Appropriated- Fund entity never sells information.
I don’t know if they do or they don’t, but a third party had private personal details of my husband’s PII, and they sent him a mailer as a result.
NAF’s have to make money to survive. The DoD puts this in writing. It isn’t obscure to think they would sell NGS info as well.
The PM could have addressed this. He chose not to.
LIE #6, (this one may be a lie or a simply a problem that the PM could have addressed- but he did not assuage any topic broached, so it seems like a lie...)
The PM said that the NGSP Coordinator in California searched DEERS 25 May 2015 to find Colter’s contact info.
If she searched Allison’s DEERS, a component of the DoD should have updated her file in DEERS to no longer show Colter as her NOK.
Per MilConnect regarding DEERS—
ACTUAL FACTS
AS Colter is no longer Allison’s NOK, he cannot inquire as to the status of her DEERS and his status as her FORMER dependent.
Colter has ensured, and is always on top of ensuring our DEERS is accurate and up to date.
Colter’s DEERS shows his status as “married” and I am his dependent, along with our children.
If the Coordinator searched Colter's DEERS than she would have seen that he was married.
Lastly, this Coordinator from California, was a prior Ombudsman to HS-6, Allison's squadron. This Coordinator at the time of calling Colter was in the Navy's "One Tribe, One Vibe, Screamin' Indians of HS-6."
Given what Colter understood about military policy, spoken or unspoken, this was a violation. Did she have "SECRET" Clearance like the Navy purports its Navy Gold Star Coordinators have or should be "eligible" for?
Further inconsistencies with the OFFICIAL STATEMENT by the PROGRAM MANAGER of the NAVY GOLD STAR PROGRAM include:
LIE/ MISLEADING STATEMENT BY NGS PM
“In 2020, the program launched an initiative to allow family members of the
deceased to pay tribute to their loved ones through a posted memorial on our program Facebook page and website.”
ACTUAL FACT
The Tribute was posted to Facebook as honoring “the family left behind” in addition to the Deceased Service Member.
The “family left behind” when represented as Allison’s parents, brother, and “ her husband, Colter” in 2020 was a jarring phrase to see for many reasons…
I think the most consequential reason being it was not based on Colter’s life in 2020. Colter was on Active Duty at the time. The Navy was requiring Colter be put on display, not just to honor Allison, but to honor him in front of strangers on Facebook. In the moment it was a loaded statement by the Navy on where Colter’s life was in 2020. It fully and completely eliminated our family, our children, our reality, our reputation, so the Navy could post what it refers to as content in a Marketing “Campaign.”
Colter had no knowledge, input, or ownership of the statement. It also went against the written direction the Navy had on file. It also reestablished an online reputation for Colter as “her husband” in the present day and was liked and loved by those who knew Allison and those who didn’t.
To anyone who read it, the attribution that the Navy wrote made it appear as though Colter was responsible and had ownership in the post.
LIE/ MISLEADING STATEMENT BY NGS PM
“A standard questionnaire was sent to family members to allow information to be submitted for inclusion.”
ACTUAL FACT
Allison’s parents were sought by the Gulfport, Mississippi NGS Coordinator, personally. They received a personal letter not asking, but instructing them that the Navy wanted to honor their Sailor. I don’t believe there was a question or offer in the letter at all.
The NGS Program Manager ignored my question of whether the families of the additional four Sailors who perished in that 19 May 2009 crash were sought for tributes. No one has responded to my question and when searching www.NavyGoldStar.com their names are not found.
LASTLY
Not only did the PM for a reason unknown communicate with the therapists at the Pax River FFSC, but he was the one checking in on the status of Pax’s response, where it was sent and to whom. Why?
He however, to his credit, only took six days to supply the IG with a response on behalf of the Navy Gold STar Program. Impressive considering that the Pax therapists missed the deadline and sent it in nearly two weeks late.
Among the PM’s busy body attributes, are the email series below. On April 1, 2022, I sent CNIC Public Affairs “Officers” an email. On April 4, 2022, they fwd-d my email to the NGS PM. See below—
The busy-body PM, then sent this to the IG—
The line I’m drawn to is “I don’t have any further information regarding below email.”
A. I don’t think anyone asked.
B. I straight up said what information I‘d use in “my piece.”
C. I believe after seeking answers for nearly a year from the NGS and CNIC Public Affairs, this wasn’t the earth shattering revelation he seems to give himself credit for.
Now, again to his credit, the prattle worked. The OIG took the bait and translated my email, my exact words to I was “threatening to go to the media.”
Threatening as a verb means, “state one's intention to take hostile action against someone in retribution for something done or not done.”
Offering a heads up that I will use the information I provided them in my emails, and the FOIA docs I provided them as well, “in my piece,” and checking in one last time before I do so AND having given them nearly a year to reply to me, is not “threatening to go to the media.”
It’s ‘here is what I know to be true, if I’m missing something let me know, otherwise I’ve done my due diligence.’
In addition to the lies and lackluster knowledge of the Navy Gold Star Program Manager of his own program, ultimately the Navy, the DoD should have prevented these privacy intrusions at every level. It led to bullying, institutional bullying, harassment, and lessening of my marriage, my family, and my role as Colter’s legal and loving wife. It ultimately led to severe emotional distress, hostile working environment, and intentional infliction of harm.
This busy-body Navy Gold Star Program Manager went on to seemingly manage the response from our therapist…which was actually a response from our therapist and her two bosses.
Comments