Naval inspector general's report on three admirals' trip to England

This report concluded that the three admirals had violated federal travel regulations, though there were legitimate business reasons to take the trip. It discusses whether the trip would pass what it terms "The Washington Post Test." Read more about the trip and investigation

NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
Subj: SENIOR OFFICIAL CASES: 201202138 ALLEGING VIOLATION
OF JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS BY RADM MARK F. HEINRICH,
CAPT (RDML.SELECT) DAVID R. PIMPO AND .
CAPT (RDML SELECT) DONALD L. SINGLETON; 201204067
ALLEGING RADM HEINRICH IMPROPERLY SOLICITED AND
RECEIVED MONIES FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE; AND
201300498 ALLEGING RADM HEINRICH MADE FALSE OFFICIAL
STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO AN OFFICIAL REQUEST
17 June 2013

NAVINSGEN reports are internal memoranda and constitute privileged
information that is not releasable outside DON except with specific
approval of NAVINSGEN. All requests from sources outside the original
distribution for NAVINSGEN reports, extracts there from, or related
correspondence shall be referred to NAVINSGEN for coordination and
clearance. (SECNAVINST 5430.57G)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Office of the Naval Inspector General
Case Numbers:

201202138, 201204067, and 201300498
Report of Investigation
17 June 2013

Subj:

SENIOR OFFICIAL CASES: 201202138 ALLEGING VIOLATION OF
JOINT TRAVEL REGULATIONS BY RADM MARK F. HEINRICH,
CAPT (RDML SELECT) DAVID R. PIMPO AND CAPT (RDML SELECT)
DONALD L. SINGLETON; 201204067 ALLEGING RADM HEINRICH
IMPROPERLY SOLICITED AND RECEIVED MONIES FROM AN OUTSIDE
SOURCE; AND 201300498 ALLEGING RADM HEINRICH MADE FALSE
OFFICIAL STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO AN OFFICIAL REQUEST

*****
Preliminary Statement

1. On 29 June 2012, the Naval Inspector General (NAVINSGEN)
received an anonymous complaint that RADM Mark F. Heinrich, SC,
USN, Commander, Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) and Chief
of the Supply Corps, abused his position and wasted government
resources in conjunction with his official travel.
The
complainant identified five Temporary Duty Travel (TDY) trips
that RADM Heinrich made to various destinations in April-June
2012 and provided detailed information and questions about the
necessity for each trip. On one trip to the United Kingdom
(UK), RADM Heinrich was accompanied by CAPT (RDML Select) David
R. Pimpo, SC, USN, and CAPT (RDML Select) Donald L. Singleton,
SC, USN. At the time they traveled to UK, CAPT Pimpo was the
NAVSUP Assistant Commander for Supply Operations and Logistics
and CAPT Singleton was the NAVSUP Chief of Staff.
2. According to the complainant, the trip to UK was more about
three very close friends celebrating the recent selections of
CAPT Pimpo and CAPT Singleton for promotion to Flag Rank than
conducting official business with NAVSUP's Royal Navy (RN)
counterparts in the UK. Regarding the other four trips
identified in the complaint, trips RADM Heinrich made without
the other two officers, the complainant stated that each was its
own example of RADM Heinrich's tendency to abuse his official
travel for purely personal reasons.
Further, the complainant
stated that this three month "snapshot" was typical of all the
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

other official travel RADM Heinrich completed since assuming
command at NAVSUP.
(201202138)
3.

Non-Responsive

4.

Non-Responsive

g

s

5.

Non-Responsive

n
s

]

6.

We formed the following.allegations for investigation:

Allegation #1:
That RADM Heinrich, CAPT Singleton, and
CAPT Pimpo, violated various provisions of the Joint Federal

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

2

Travel Regulations, Volume 1, Uniformed Service Members (JFTR),
related to their official travel to the UK on 18-25 April 2012.
Conclusion:

The allegation is substantiated.

Allegation #2: That RADM Heinrich violated various provisions
of the JFTR related to his official travel to the University of
Kansas (KU) on 26-29 April 2012.
Conclusion:

The allegation is substantiated.

Allegation #3:
That RADM Heinrich improperly accepted a gift
from a prohibited source in violation of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.202,
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive
Branch, Subpart B, Gifts from Outside Sources.
Conclusion:

The allegation is substantiated.

Allegation #4: That RADM Heinrich improperly used a
subordinate's official time in violation of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.705,
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive
Branch, Subpart G, Misuse of Position.·
Conclusion:

The allegation is substantiated.

Allegation #5: That RADM Heinrich violated various provisions
of the JFTR related to his official travel to Philadelphia, PA,
and Dallas, TX, on 1-5 May 2012.
Conclusion:

The allegation is substantiated.

Allegation #6: That RADM Heinrich violated various provisions
of the JFTR related to his official travel to Norfolk, VA and
Washington, DC, on 6-13 May 2012 and failed to document his use
of annual leave during the same period.
Conclusion:

The allegation is substantiated.

Allegation #7: That RADM Heinrich violated various provisions
of the JFTR related to his official travel to Washington, DC and
Richmond, VA, on 30 May - 3 June 2012 and failed to document his
use of annual leave during the same period.
Conclusion:

The allegation is substantiated.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

3

Allegation #8: That RADM Heinrich violated various provisions
of the JFTR related to his official travel to Newport, RI, on
7-12 June 2012.
Conclusion:

The allegation is substantiated.

Non-Responsive

Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive

Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive

Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive

y

Non-Responsive

*****
7. To address these allegations, the report that follows is
divided into five major subsections:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.
4

a. Official Travel will address the allegations made about
RADM Heinrich's use of official travel. A total of six
periods of TDY are examined. Under this subsection, we
also examine whether or not CAPT Pimpo and CAPT Singleton
violated travel regulations when they accompanied
RADM Heinrich to the UK.
b. Non-Responsive

c. Non-Responsive

d. Non-Responsive

e. Non-Responsive

*****
Official Travel
Background

8. RADM Heinrich became Commander, NAVSUP and the 46th Chief of
Supply Corps on July 22, 2011. Before reporting to his current
command assignment, he served as Commander, NAVSUP Global
Logistics Support (GLS) headquartered in San Diego, CA.
9. CAPT Pimpo is Commander, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Land
and Maritime, Columbus, OH. He assumed command of DLA Land and
Maritime on 3 July 2012. Before reporting to his current
assignment, CAPT Pimpo served at NAVSUP as RADM Heinrich's
Assistant Commander, Supply Operations and Logistics Policy from
July 2011 until June 2012. Prior to reporting to NAVSUP
Headquarters, CAPT Pimpo was Commanding Officer, Fleet Logistics
Center (FLC), San Diego. While in command there, he reported to
RADM Heinrich while RADM Heinrich was Commander, NAVSUP GLS.
10. CAPT Singleton is assigned to Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet
(COMPACFLT) . He assumed duties as COMPACFLT Deputy Chief of
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

5

Staff for Logistics, Fleet Supply and Ordnance in June 2012.
Before reporting to COMPACFLT, CAPT Singleton served at NAVSUP
as RADM Heinrich's Chief of Staff from September 2011 until May
2012.
Prior to reporting to NAVSUP Headquarters, CAPT Singleton
was Commanding Officer, FLC, Norfolk. While in command there,
he also reported to RADM Heinrich while RADM Heinrich was
Commander, NAVSUP GLS in San Diego.
11. The complainant alleged that there was "an extensive
perception by many" that RADM Heinrich used his official
position for his own personal gain and that of his (b)(6) (b)
The
(7)(c)
complainant further alleged that RADM Heinrich travels "for most
of every calendar month and is only at NAVSUP for approximately
2-3 business days per month." The complainant stated that
RADM Heinrich frequently arranged his official travel to include
weekends and thereby enjoyed two days off at government expense.
12. NAVINSGEN reviewed Defense Travel System (DTS) records and
found that RADM Heinrich went on official travel 49 times in his
first twelve months in command of NAVSUP. He was away from
NAVSUP headquarters on TDY for a total of 252 days in that first
twelve-month period. Most of the trips he made were to
Washington, DC, for regularly scheduled meetings at the Pentagon
or to DLA Headquarters at Ft Belvoir, VA. Washington, DC, was
also frequently used as the starting point for many of his
follow-on travel requirements. Washington, DC, area airports,
Washington Dulles International and Ronald Reagan National,
offered more convenient and typically less expensive air fare
for his official travel than could otherwise be arranged for him
flying from and returning to the local airport nearest to NAVSUP
Headquarters, the regional airport in Harrisburg, PA.
13.
For routine trips from NAVSUP to Washington, DC and the
National Capito+ Region, RADM Heinrich typically rode with his
Flag Aide in a government vehicle or a rental car as the
particular trip required.
The government vehicle was most often
used for trips from NAVSUP Headquarters to Washington, DC and
returning to Mechanicsburg.
If, however, Washington, DC, was
the first stop of a longer trip, a one-way rental was commonly
used for transport from Mechanicsburg to Washington, DC and the
rental car would be dropped off at the departure airport. Using
a rental car in this way avoided having to leave the government
vehicle at the departure airport.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

6

14. NAVINSGEN examined the general practices of the NAVSUP
front office staff, the Chief of Staff, Flag Aide, Executive
Assistant (EA) and Flag Writer, and the support they provided to
RADM Heinrich in support of his official travel. Based on their
testimony, we learned that most of RADM Heinrich's travel
requests and associated travel claims were entered into DTS by
the Flag Aide. The EA was typically the DTS Approving Official
(AO) and the one who authorized travel requests and approved
travel claims for payment after those documents were entered
into DTS for RADM Heinrich by his Flag Aide. On infrequent
occasions when the EA was not available to perform AO duties,
the Chief of Staff or another official at NAVSUP with DTS
administrator privileges would approve travel documents in DTS.
Additionally, on those occasions that RADM Heinrich combined
leave with his official travel, the Flag Writer was responsible
for entering RADM Heinrich's electronic leave requests in the
Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System (NSIPS) on his behalf.
While the JFTR permits a traveler to take leave from a TDY
location, there is no electronic interface between DTS and
NSIPS.
For this reason, separate administrative action must be
taken by the traveler, or someone designated by the traveler, to
enter their leave taken in conjunction with TDY into NSIPS in
order for it to be properly documented and charged to the
traveler's personal leave account.
15. Regarding DTS support provided to RADM Heinrich, while it
is permissible for someone other than the traveler to enter a
travel request or travel voucher into DTS for the traveler, the
individual doing the data entry or "T-entering" 1 documents on the
traveler's behalf must be designated in writing. NAVINSGEN
found no record that (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
or anyone else at NAVSUP was
designated in writing to T-enter travel requests or travel
vouchers into DTS for RADM Heinrich.

1

According to the Defense Travel Management Office website, a Non-DTS Entry
Agent is a military member, DoD employee, or contractor designated by local
command authority to input and digitally sign trip requests and claims for
reimbursement in DTS on behalf of travelers who do not have reasonable access
to DTS. A Non-DTS Entry Agent must be appointed in writing.
Responsibilities include: (1) Receive a manually prepared and signed paper
travel voucher (DD Form 1351-2) with all receipts from the traveler; (2} Fax
electronically or upload the traveler's manually prepared and signed DD Form
1351-2 and all required receipts into DTS; and (3) Sign vouchers on behalf of
the traveler by selecting the "T-entered" stamp instead of the 'signed" stamp
from the document status list.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.
7

16. Moreover, witness testimony established that it was common
practice for RADM Heinrich to allow his Flag Aides to T-enter
his travel voucher and then upload it into DTS without him first
reviewing or signing his DD Form 1351-2 travel voucher claim
form. Many of the vouchers we examined during our records
review appeared to have been auto-penned with RADM Heinrich's
signature. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
testified about her role in processing
RADM Heinrich's travel claims and she provided a written
statement about her use of the auto-pen. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
stated
that after a voucher for RADM Heinrich's travel had been
created, "the front office staff had [RADM Heinrich's]
permission to auto-pen [his claims]."
17. RADM Heinrich testified that he did not regularly review or
sign his travel claims prepared by his Flag Aides. Although he
required an initial probationary period during which time he
reviewed his travel claims in detail with his Flag Aides, as
soon as the Flag Aides demonstrated their proficiency completing
his travel claims to his satisfaction, RADM Heinrich allowed the
Flag Aides, (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
and her relief, (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
,
(b)(6) (b) , to file his claims in DTS without his personal review.
(7)(c)

18. On 29 February 2012, (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
, who had been the
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
NAVSUP Enterprise
, retired unexpectedly.
(b)
had 26 years experience working government travel
(6)
programs. According to (b)
, NAVSUP's Work Force
(b)
(6)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
Management
and
immediate
(7)
(b)
supervisor until she retired, (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
had been the primary
(c)
(7)
travel reviewer and approver looking at RADM Heinrich's travel
(c)
requests and claim vouchers. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
unexpected
departure left the NAVSUP Travel Management Office without a
fully qualified and experienced employee to take over her travel
program duties.
Temporarily~ (b)
positional duties
(6)
were accomplished by other NAVSUP employees who had little or no
(b)
experience reviewing DTS vouchers. (b)
said it took
(7)
(6)
until November 2012 to hire a permanent, fully qualified
(c)
(b)
replacement for (b)(6) (b)(6) (b)(7) . The five periods of
(7)
(b)(7) (C)
RADM Heinrich's official travel that were questioned by the
(c)
(c)
complainant occurred during the transition period between
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
retirement in February 2012 and the hiring of a
permanent, fully qualified replacement, in November 2012.
This
investigation is focused on these five periods of TDY and a
sixth period of TDY that came to NAVINSGEN's attention during
our review of RADM Heinrich's official DTS records.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

8

*****
Official Travel to London & UK, April 18-25, 2012
19. Allegation #1: That RADM Heinrich, CAPT Singleton, and
CAPT Pimpo, violated various provisions of the JFTR related to
their official travel to the UK on 18-25 April 2012.
*****
Findings of Fact - Allegation #1
20. RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo, and CAPT Singleton went on
official travel to the UK and met with their RN and Royal Fleet
Auxiliary counterparts and other U.S. and British officials on
19-25 April 2012.
For this trip, they were accompanied by their
(b)(6) (b) . 2
(7)(c)

Primary Purpose of Travel - Official or Personal
21. RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo and CAPT Singleton's itinerary in
conjunction with their travel to UK was as follows:
Day & Date (2012)
Wednesday, 18 April
Thursday, 19 April

Friday, 20 April
Saturday, 21 April
Sunday, 22 April
Monday, 23 April

Activity (all times are local)
Departed Washington Dulles International
Airport @ 2152
Arrived London Heathrow International
Airport @ 1010; attended briefings at
British Ministry of Defense 1400-1600;
hosted dinner with RN counterparts
Attended briefs at U.S. Embassy in London
0915-1400; remainder of day was free
Free Day
Ate lunch at (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
residence; traveled to Bath, UK
Visited Defense Equipment & Support, Abby
Wood, Bristol, UK, 0800-:-1400; traveled to
RN Base (HMS Raleigh) , Cornwall, UK

2

This period of TDY was actually part of a longer period of TDY that began
on 15 April 2012 in Washington, DC, and concluded on 29 June 2012 when
RADM Heinrich returned to Mechanicsburg, PA. We focused our attention in
this first allegation on the eight-day period identified by the complainant.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the
9

appr~val

of the Naval IG.

Tuesday, 24 April

Wednesday, 25 April

Thursday, 26 April

Visited various RN training facilities at
HMS Raleigh 0830-1500; traveled to HMS
Nelson, Portsmouth, UK
Made official calls at RN Command
Headquarters; toured Naval Base Portsmouth
and HMS HURWORTH (M39) ; visited BAE
Systems Shipbuilding; traveled to London
Departed London Heathrow International
Airport ® 0755 and arrived Washington
Dulles International Airport ® 1120

22. The complainant atleged that RADM Heinrich had "a very
close personal friendship and relationship" with CAPT Pimpo and
CAPT Singleton. The complainant stated that both officers
worked for RADM Heinrich before they were assigned together at
NAVSUP. The complainant also stated that the three subjects'
(b)(6)
were close friends.
The complainant further stated:
(b)(7)
(c)

Many military and civilian perceive this official trip
was no more than a taxpayer financed vacation to
London, England, for six close friends to celebrate
the recent selections to flag prior to
[CAPT] Singleton detaching to Hawaii (in May 2012) and
[CAPT] Pimpo detaching to Columbus (in June 2012) . In
summary, even though many aspects [of] this trip may
be "technically legal" (since RADM Heinrich personally
directed approval for this trip), would this trip
stand up to "The Washington Post Test .
"

23. RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo, and CAPT Singleton testified
about their personal and professional relationship with each
other. CAPT Pimpo and CAPT Singleton testified that they both
served under RADM Heinrich in two senior-subordinate
relationships. They also stated that their individual
interactions with RADM Heinrich outside the workplace were
generally limited to command functions.
They did not regularly
interact with RADM Heinrich socially either on an individual
basis or as a couple with their (b)(6) (b) . They did not regularly
eat dinner together, play golf, (7)(c)
vacation, or attend family
functions at each other's home or attend special events, e.g.,
weddings, for their respective family members.
Each officer
viewed the other as a professional acquaintance. They did not
consider themselves to have a "close personal friendship" as the
complainant described.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

10

24.

The complainant further alleged that RADM Heinrich's
in command at NAVSUP, (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
, SC, USN
(Retired), made similar trips to London, "however, they covered
only a few days and without other NAVSUP senior officers."

(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)

25. (b)
is a government civilian employee at
(6) Weapon Systems Support (WSS) Command in Mechanicsburg,
NAVSUP
PA. (b)
She was previously employed at NAVSUP Headquarters as the
(7)
Protocol Officer starting in 2003 until April 2012. (b)
(c)
(6)
testified about (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
travel to the UK.
She recalled
(b)
that when (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
traveled to the UK, his (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
and
(7)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
his
for Supply Operations and Logistics, the
(c)
same positions held by CAPT Singleton and CAPT Pimpo
respectively, joined him on TDY. She also recalled that on at
least one of the trips b6 b7c
made to the UK during his tour
(b)(6) accompanied him.
as Commander, NAVSUP, b6 b7c
(b)
did not recall if either (b)(7)the other two officer's
of
(6)
(b)(6) (b)
may have traveled to the UK(c)
with either of the officers
(b)
(7)(c) accompanied (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
that
on his travel to the UK.
(7)
(c)

26. Regarding his reason for both CAPT Singleton and CAPT Pimpo
to travel with him to UK, RADM Heinrich testified:
Lee [Singleton] was always going to go because the
[UK] (b)
, worked for him on the Joint
(6)
Staff. Lee headed up the International Division on
(b)
the Joint Staff, and (b)(6) worked for him.
So Lee was
(7)
(b)(7)
always going to go because, frankly, you know, that's
(c)
part of the strategic(c)
relationship, and Lee was a Flag
Select.
David [Pimpo] , I think, was probably the second
addition, and when David went, I think I took the Aide
off, but David being a Flag Select, having the British
Naval Officers assigned to his staff, (b)(6) (b)
(7)(c)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
[RN,] . . . I think that was a second- that was sort of a -- not a second thought, but it
was the second decision to be made.

27. CAPT Singleton testified that RADM Heinrich agreed to add
CAPT Pimpo to the travel party for the UK trip as a result of
his recommendation that the NAVSUP Operations Officer accompany
them.
CAPT Singleton stated:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

11

As the Chief of Staff, I was thinking, you know, "I
need to grow the officer as well as support the
command. And having the Operations Officer understand
more about our ties with, you know, our biggest ally,
then, you know, perhaps he should go as well." So I
suggested it to Admiral Heinrich that David Pimpo go,
and he agreed.
As a consequence to that, I said, "And maybe since I'm
going, and David's going, we should take
(b)(6)
off of the trip." And so, we pulled
(b)(7)(c)
b
her off and put him on.
6
28. About his justification forb going on official travel to UK,
7
CAPT Pimpo said it was ultimately "Admiral Heinrich's call" but
c
he went "because as the Operations Officer many of the things
k
that we were going to .
[look] at were under my purview as
2

the Operations Officer."
29. We questioned the subjects and (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
about whether
or not the trip to UK was initiated by RADM Heinrich or in
response to an invitation from some UK official. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
testified that the trip was in response to an invitation from
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
and that "there [had] been a long-standing
relationship between the Logistics Branch of the RN and the
Supply Corps of the U.S. Navy." He further testified:
And with visits conducted, I think historically every
year with the (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
, b6 b7c
-- he went
back to the UK.
And the UK had in my time conducted about three or
four visits to NAVSUP, or on the invitation of NAVSUP
to attend conferences, and including (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
,
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)

And so this was sort of the opportunity that we found
in the program to get RADM Heinrich across to the UK,
as a sort of the exchange that we had of visit
programs back and forth.
30. RADM Heinrich and CAPT Singleton said their trip had been
at the invitation of the RN.
CAPT Pimpo testified that the trip
was "a professional [exchange] to talk to our counterparts about
several issues that we had been working jointly." CAPT Pimpo
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

12

said that the trip to UK was made in response to an invitation
from the RN but he did not recall who specifically in the RN
made the invitation. He said the projects of interest to NAVSUP
and his reasons for going on the trip were related to:
the Joint Strike Fighter .
. a joint venture .
with [the RN]
. their foray into littoral combat
ship type
. for us to be able to .
. review how
they do their training, how they train their cooks,
and .
. to observe a new mock-up that they have for
doing underway replenishments .
Use or non-use of Contract Air Fare
31.
RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo and CAPT Singleton selected the
same non-contract fare for their flight to the UK.
Contact air
fare was available at the time their respective flight
reservations were made and, in accordance with the JFTR,
contract air fare was required to be used if it was available
and met mission requirements. All three subjects testified that
they did not recall that they selected a non-contract air fare
or that the cost of their air fare to the UK was more expensive
than an available contract fare.
RADM Heinrich's air fare cost
an additional $194i CAPT Pimpo's and CAPT Singleton's fares were
an additional $337.50 for each traveler.

32. RADM Heinrich's travel claim contained the following
justification statement as the reason why he selected a noncontract air fare from Washington, DC, to London:
"Does not
meet mission requirements. Mission essential to meet official
meeting timeline. Last meeting of the day on 4/18 ends at 1930
in Washington, [DC] . "
33.
RADM Heinrich testified about his last meeting on 18 April.
He attended a Navy Federal Credit Union (NFCU) Annual Meeting at
the NFCU building in Vienna, VA. The meeting was scheduled to
end at 1900. · RADM Heinrich testified that he was a voluntary
member of the NFCU Board of Directors along with several other
Navy Flag Officers. He stated that his attendance at the Annual
Meeting was not an official duty. His last official meeting was
earlier that same day in the Pentagon and it concluded at 1630
on the day of departure according to his calendar.
34.
CAPT Singleton's travel claim contained the same
justification statement that appeared in RADM Heinrich's travel
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

13

claim. CAPT Singleton testi-fied that he remained in his office
at NAVSUP headquarters, conducting normal business, until it was
time for him to drive to Washington Dulles International Airport
and join the rest of the travel party. He said it was his
opinion that leaving work earlier in the day simply to make a
contract flight would send the wrong signal to NAVSUP co-workers
and staff. CAPT Singleton testified:
If I could do· what I'm supposed to do, do my job, go
to the meetings, take care of my team, and then head
to the airport after work, I would consider that to be
a slightly better use of time.
35. CAPT Pimpo's travel claim contained a one-word
justification statement regard~ng his use of non-contract fare
for the flight to London; it simply stated:
"Authorized."
CAPT Pimpo testified that he remained at NAVSUP headquarters
until it was time for him to drive to Washington Dulles
International Airport and meet (b)(6) (b)(7) who was flying in from
(c)
their home in California for the trip to the UK.
CAPT Pimpo
also testified that he did not question the flight arrangements
that had been made for him; he said that the "flights were
selected based on what Admiral Heinrich decided he wanted us to
do."
36. NAVINSGEN noted similar discrepancies in the subjects'
justifications for selecting a non-contract return fare from
London back to Washington, DC. RADM Heinrich and CAPT Singleton
had justifications that indicated they were going to a meeting
in the Pentagon at 1300 on the day of arrival.
RADM Heinrich
and CAPT Singleton testified that they did not go to a meeting
after they landed at Washington Dulles International Airport.
RADM Heinrich remained at the airport and checked in for the
flight he took later that same day to Kansas City International
Airport. CAPT Singleton returned to Mechanicsburg.
37. The justification statement in CAPT Pimpo's travel claim
regarding his use of a non-contract return flight simply stated
"authorized." Leave documents obtained by NAVINSGEN showed that
after he landed at Washington Dulles International Airport,
CAPT Pimpo departed on three days leave.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

14

Claims Exceeding Per Diem
38. RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo, and CAPT Singleton were
reimbursed for actual expenses above the maximum rate for
lodging per diem during their first three nights stay in London.
RADM Heinrich and CAPT Singleton claimed and were reimbursed
approximately $404 against a maximum lodging per diem of $319. 3
39. CAPT Pimpo claimed and was reimbursed a slightly higher
actual expense amount for his lodging per diem during the first
three nights stay in London; he received $425.65 against a
maximum lodging per diem of $319. CAPT Pimpo's slightly higher
amount was calculated in error when the total charge for his
three day hotel bill, that included the cost of laundry services
billed to his hotel room, was simply divided by three.
40. The subjects did not recall having stayed at a hotel that
cost more than the maximum lodging per diem. They testified
that they relied upon (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
to reserve rooms within per
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
diem limits.
testified that he made all their
accommodation and transportation arrangements and he did not
realize before or after the TDY that any of their lodging cost
more than the maximum lodging per diem.
41. DTS records and testimony from the various witnesses showed
that RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo, and CAPT Singleton paid for all
the travel costs associated with their respective (b)(6) (b)
(7)(c)
Moreover, the subjects did not claim any actual expenses
attributable to their (b)(6) (b) when they submitted their
(7)(c)
respective· travel claims for reimbursement.
42. About the travel costs incurred by subjects that were above
maximum per diem limits and the higher cost of air fare incurred
when the subjects did not use the available contract air fare,
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
USN, RADM Heinrich's (b) from
(6)
b6 b7c
until b6 b7c
testified:
(b)
(7)
(c)

3

Per JFTR, Paragraph U4129, the maximum lodging per diem in a foreign
country includes the cost of the lodging (room rate) and any associated
lodging tax; these costs are not separately claimed expenses. By comparison,
maximum lodging'per diem in the U.S. or a U.S. Territory is the maximum
permissible room rate alone for the location visited. Any lodging taxes paid
by the traveler pursuant to State or local government taxes are in addition
to the maximum lodging per diem rate in a U.S. or a U.S Territory and are,
therefore, separately claimed non-mileage expenses.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

15

I do not remember these excessive charges. Normally,
DTS will automatically signal for such an error
prompting action to be taken. Our (b)(6)
, (b)(6)
(b)(7)
(b)(6) (b) , upon return from this trip, entered all(b)(7)
(c)
(c)
(7)(c)
receipts into DTS. Upon her data entry and
submission, a DTS analyst would then review, comment
and work out any anomalies or errors with the person
filing the claim. The next step is that the claim
would come to me for my review. To the best of my
knowledge, upon my review, DTS did not signal any
errors.
This led me to believe that the Flag [Aide's]
work and DTS analysts had provided an accurate claim
and any issues had been resolved. When [the
investigator] showed me a sheet with 17 DTS errors for
this one claim, my viewing was the first I had seen on
these errors.
I asked [the investigator] for a
description of each error as well so that I could
better answer the questions. No one from our DTS
organization notified us of the additional charges and
the claim was ultimately approved.
In the months prior in planning this trip,
assured me that all hotels identified for
the trip were within per diem limits.
Further, I
believe these three nights are an anomaly as the other
UK hotels were within or below per diem per our
planning. Lastly, I am quite certain these anomalies
will exist on the other two admiral's (Singleton and
Pimpo's) claims. Therefore, this would be a
"systematic" problem and not an intentional or
neglectful act. Again, DTS analysts never approached
me concerning these errors and my working relationship
with them was extremely amicable.

(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)

43. Although (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
stated he did not recall any line
items related to RADM Heinrich's travel voucher for this
trip having been flagged by DTS, the flags were present in
the official DTS records we reviewed. These same records
showed (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
was the (b) who approved RADM Heinrich's
(6)
claim for payment.
(b)
(7)
(c)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

16

Receipt of Full Meal Rate on Days where Meals were Provided at
No-cost to the Traveler
44.
Per JFTR, Annex G, if a traveler receives two or more meals
in a given day they are not entitled to be reimbursed the full
meal rate for that day. Witness testimony established that some
meals were provided to subjects without cost on days they
received the full meal rate. The itinerary on its own, however,
did not identify a day when more than one meal was provided
without charge to the subjects and their recollection of the
itinerary did not make clear if they received more than one meal
on any given day they claimed and were reimbursed the full meal
rate. Accordingly, we did not identify a meal rate violation
for any of the subjects.
Emergent Allegation - Misuse of Government Funded Rental Vehicle
for (b)(6) (b) Travel
(7)(c)

45. The complainant alleged that (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
was "directed by
RADM Heinrich to break away from the other three officers to
provide (b)(6) (b) programs (i.e., tour guide services) to the three
(b)(6)
military(7)(c) (b)
on Tuesday and Wednesday, [24-25 April]."
(7)(c)

46. On 24 April, the TDY party was in Cornwall. While the
three subjects attended meetings at various RN facilities during
the day, their (b)(6)
were transported in the government funded
(b)(7)
rental car, without the subjects being present, to the next city
(c)
on their itinerary, Portsmouth. The three subjects joined their
later that evening, having taken separate transportation
b6 b7c
k2
provided by the RN to Portsmouth.
47. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
testified that the only time he was alone with
the three (b)(6) (b)
was on 24 April during·their three-hour car
ride from (7)(c)
Cornwall to Portsmouth. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
said that apart
from driving the b6 b7c
from Cornwall to Portsmouth, he did not
k2
provide or arrange any unique services for them.
Use of Government Travel Credit Card (GTCC)
48. RADM Heinrich and CAPT Singleton used their respective GTCC
to purchase air fare and lodging accommodations in conjunction
with their travel to the UK as required by the JFTR.
CAPT Pimpo
used his GTCC to purchase his air fare and all but one nights
lodging accommodations in the UK. On 25 April, CAPT Pimpo used
a personal credit card by mistake when he paid for his lodging
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG .

. 17

in Portsmouth and his error was documented in the travel voucher
he submitted.
Extra Days before or after TDY
49. There were no free days, before or after the TDY, during
which the subjects collected per diem or incurred costs paid by
the government. RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo and CAPT Singleton
arrived in the UK on Thursday morning, 19 April. They went from
the airport to their hotel, changed clothes, and proceeded to
their initial round of meetings with RN officials at the
Ministry of Defense. That evening RADM Heinrich hosted an
official representation dinner in honor of (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
and six other RN senior officers. 4 ' 5 The
subjects concluded their offici~l duties in the UK on Wednesday
afternoon, 25 April, in Portsmouth and traveled by car back to
London. They departed the UK though London Heathrow
International Airport the following morning at 0755 and arrived
at Washington Dulles International Airport at 1120 the same day.
Accounting for leave
50. The subjects did not take any leave in conjunction with
their TDY to London and the UK.
CAPT Pimpo, however, departed
on leave after he returned to Washington, DC, from London. His
leave was properly deducted from his leave account.
Other administrative errors noted by the investigation
51. RADM Heinrich did not create or digitally sign his travel
claim in DTS. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
created it and then T-entered the
document in DTS on his behalf. The claim was subsequently
reviewed and approved for payment by (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
RADM Heinrich's EA. 6
4

The dinner RADM.Heinrich hosted was paid for with Official Representation
Funds (ORF).
In accordance with Paragraph 7 of SECNAVINST 7042.7K, the
required ratio of authorized guests receiving ORF courtesies to u.s.
personnel (which includes the U.S. b6 b7c ) was met.
Parties of fewer than
30 persons require a minimum of 20 k2
percent of invitees expected to attend to
be authorized guests.
In this case, there were seven in the U.S. party and
seven in the RN party.
5

Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (MBE) .

6

DTS is a fully integrated, automated, end-to-end travel management system
that enables DOD travelers to create authorizations and reservations, receive
FOR OFFJ:CJ:AL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

18

52.
CAPT Pimpo did not create or digitally sign his travel
claim in DTS.
CAPT Pimpo testified that he did not travel very
often while assigned at NAVSUP and, therefore, relied upon
(b)
his (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
to
(6)
enter his travel claim in DTS for him. Although he did not
(b)
create or digitally sign his travel claim in DTS, CAPT Pimpo
(7)
signed his original DD Form 1352-2 and it was uploaded into DTS
(c)
with his required receipts in accordance with JFTR and DTS
Standard Operating Procedures.
His travel claim moved through
the normal DTS review process. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
approved
CAPT Pimpo's travel claim for payment.
53.
CAPT Singleton did not create his travel claim in DTS.
Rather, he relied upon (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
to enter his travel claim for
him. Afterwards, CAPT Singleton reviewed and digitally signed
his travel claim and it went through the DTS review process.
CAPT Singleton also signed his original DD Form 1352-2 and it
was uploaded with his required receipts in accordance with JFTR
and DTS Standard Operating Procedures. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
approved
CAPT Singleton's travel claim for payment.

*****
Applicable Standards - Allegation #1
54.

JFTR Chapter 2, Part A: General, states in part:
U2000 OBLIGATION TO EXERCISE PRUDENCE IN TRAVEL
A. General. A traveler must exercise the same care
and regard for incurring GOV'T paid expenses as would
a prudent person traveling at personal expense.

55.

JFTR Chapter 2, Part G: GTCC Use, states in part:

approvals, generate travel vouchers, and receive a split disbursement between
their bank account and the Government Travel Charge Card.
The traveler can
access DTS via a single web portal available 24 hours a day, seven days a
week. DTS permits duly authorized personnel to input and digitally sign or
T-enter requests and claims on behalf of a traveler who does not have
reasonable access to DTS.
In such cases, the traveler manually prepares and
signs their DD Form 1351-2 (claim voucher) and it should be uploaded into DTS
with the required travel expense receipts.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

19

U2500 DoD POLICY
A. General.
It is the general policy of DoD that the
GTCC be used by DoD personnel to pay for all costs
incidental to official business travel, including
travel advances, lodging, transportation, rental cars,
meals and other incidental expenses, unless otherwise
specified....
U2515 GTCC USE AND RESTRICTIONS
A. General.
Charging personal travel expenses is GTCC
misuse. A DoD traveler who misuses the GTCC is subject
to administrative and/or disciplinary action.
56.

JFTR Chapter 4, Part A: TDY Travel, states in part:
U4000 JUSTIFICATION
1. A TDY assignment may be authorized/approved only
when necessary for official GOV'T business.
2. Travel must be planned and scheduled to accomplish
multiple objectives with minimum non-official
disruptions and transportation delays whenever
possible.
3. Service procedures (see par. U2020) must be in
place to evaluate TDY requests to ensure that the:
a. Purpose is essential official business in the
GOV'T's interest;
b. Objective cannot be satisfactorily accomplished
less expensively by correspondence, teleconferencing,
web-based communications, or other appropriate means
(NOTE: This completed consideration must be certified
in a statement on the order) ;
c. Duration is no longer than required to complete the
official TDY assignment. The traveler is financially
responsible for all non-official expenses resulting
ICW official TDY travel; and

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

20

d. Number of persons assigned is held to the minimum.
The number of eligible traveler(s) selected for a
TDY must be based on official necessity and travelers'
qualifications to best perform the mission. TDY
assignment must not consider or be based on a
person/persons who is not authorized to travel at
GOV'T expense accompanying or joining an eligible
traveler ICW the official travel.. ..
57.

JFTR Chapter 4, Part B: Per Diem, states in part:
U4129 TDY LODGING

A. General
1. The lodging component of per diem establishes the
maximum per diem amount the GOV'T will reimburse to
the traveler for lodging.
It does not limit, in any
manner, what a lodging facility may charge to a
traveler.
2. The amount allowed for lodging is the expense
actually incurred or the maximum TDY locality lodging
ceiling, whichever is less.
3. Lodging reimbursement may not exceed actual lodging
costs or the applicable maximum amount unless an AEA
is authorized/approved.
4. A traveler must adhere to the prudent traveler rule
for official travel funded by the GOV'T. See par.
02010.

D. Lodging Tax
3. Foreign Area. Lodging tax in a foreign area is:
a. Included in the locality per diem lodging ceiling,
and
b. Not a reimbursable expense (APP G) when per
diem/AEA is paid.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

21

58. JFTR Chapter 4, Part C: Actual Expense Allowance (AEA),
states in part:

U4205 JUSTIFICATION
An AEA may be authorized/approved for travel when the

per diem rate is insufficient for part, or all, of a
travel assignment because:
1. Actual and necessary expenses (especially lodgings)
exceed the maximum per diem....
59. JFTR Appendix 0, Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel Allowances,
states in part:

T4030 GETTING THERE AND BACK (TRANSPORTATION
ALLOWANCES)
B. Commercial Transportation. The AO may, under
certain conditions, authorize the CTO to arrange other
than contract city-pair flights ... when needed to
fulfill a documented mission requirement ....

T4040 LIVING EXPENSES (PER DIEM)
4. Commercial Lodging Reimbursement
a. Commercial lodging reimbursement is based on the
single occupant rate, up to the TDY site or stopover
location maximum.
b. If only lodgings that cost more than the published
maximum rate are available, the AO may
authorize/approve the higher amount

*****
Analysis - Allegation #1
60.
The complaint questioned whether or not there was an
official basis for approving this trip.
The complainant
expressed a belief that the trip was conceived by RADM Heinrich
as an opportunity for close friends, RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo
and CAPT Singleton, to celebrate the recent selection for
promotion to Flag rank for CAPT Pimpo and CAPT Singleton.
The
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

22

trip was not, according to the complainant, necessary to
accomplish legitimate government business or intended to provide
a real opportunity for the subjects to have meaningful
engagement with their counterparts in the RN.
61. The subjects denied having anything more than a
professional association with each other. While the fact that
the subjects' wives joined them on this trip may have
contributed to the "optics" issue also mentioned by the
complainant, we determined that there were no additional travel
costs paid for by the government as a result of the wives having
traveled with their husbands. Moreover, NAVINSGEN determined
that there was an official purpose for their trip to the UK.
62. The complainant's additional concern about an itinerary
that included a weekend in London, with no official business
conducted on Saturday and only limited social interaction with
RN personnel on Sunday was closely examined. The evidence and
witness testimony established that the subjects maintained full
schedules on the two workdays before and the three workdays that
followed the weekend in London. We found no fault with the ORF
dinner RADM Heinrich hosted on the day of their arrival in UK.
We also accepted that a free day on Saturday and much of Sunday
was not improper under the circumstances and that the schedules
of both RADM Heinrich and the senior officials in UK made it
difficult to impossible to avoid having a weekend in UK.
63. Having determined that there was an official purpose for
their travel to the UK, we examined the details of their travel
planning and whether or not they incurred expenses to be paid by
the government responsibly as contemplated by the JFTR. We
determined that RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo and CAPT Singleton,
without proper justification, failed to use the available
contract air fare when they traveled from Washington, DC, to
London and when they returned. All three flew at a higher cost
to the government than was necessary to complete the mission.
RADM Heinrich was not aware that a non-contract flight had been
selected. His lack of awareness was not surprising to us given
our findings about his hands-off approach to all his official
travel.
CAPT Singleton testified that he believed his time was
better spent at the office and saw no reason to adjust his
departure from work in order to take a contract flight.
CAPT Pimpo testified that he did not believe it was his
responsibility to challenge the TDY itinerary established for
him by RADM Heinrich. The subjects' respective decision about
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

23

their use of air fare for this period of TDY was not aligned
with their individual responsibility to be a prudent traveler.
64. We further determined that RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo and
CAPT Singleton exceeded maximum lodging per diem during their
first three nights in London.
The subjects failed to take note
of the fact that the cost of their hotel rooms exceeded maximum
lodging per diem. While these higher costs were not
significantly large dollar amounts, the subjects' unquestioned
reliance on staff personnel to arrange their official travel on
the front end of this trip and process their respective travel
claims on the back end of their travel showed a complete lack of
ownership for the costs that they individually incurred.
Accordingly, we concluded that RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo and
CAPT Singleton failed in their individual obligations to
exercise prudence in incurring government paid expenses as
contemplated by the standard; they did not exercise the same
care and regard for incurring government paid expenses as would
a prudent person traveling at personal expense.
We further
concluded that RADM Heinrich, CAPT Pimpo and CAPT Singleton
exceeded maximum lodging per diem and incurred excessive air
fare costs without appropriate justification.
65.
In summary, we specifically found that the trip was
properly an official trip, had official duties scheduled with
limited and reasonable periods of non-duty time. We also
specifically found that there was an appropriate official
purpose for CAPT Pimpo and CAPT Singleton to be on the trip and
took note that in the interests of economy RADM Heinrich did not
take his Flag Aide as he could have done and thereby made a
conscious effort to conserve government funds.

*****
Conclusion - Allegation #1
66. The allegation is substantiated with respect to all three
subjects in that they failed to use available contract air fare
and improperly claimed and accepted per diem exceeding what was
permitted without proper justification or operational necessity
for having done so.

*****

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

24

Official Travel to KU 26-29 April 2012
67. Allegation #2: -That RADM Heinrich violated various
provisions of the JFTR related to his official travel to KU on
26-29 April 2012.

*****
Findings of Fact - Allegation #2
68.
RADM Heinrich is a 1989 graduate of the Navy's Petroleum
Management masters program taught at KU.
The KU Chemical and
Petroleum Engineering (C&PE) Department teaches this curriculum
to Naval Officers under contract to the u.s. Naval Postgraduate
School. 7
69.
On 26-29 April 2012, RADM Heinrich traveled at government
expense and visited his alma mater, KU, located in Lawrence, KS.
This period of TDY was a continuation of the UK trip discussed
in Allegation #1 above.
70.
RADM Heinrich previously visited KU just two months
earlier, on 9-12 February 2012, and at government expense.
71.
The complainant alleged RADM Heinrich scheduled the April
2012 trip to KU "to receive a personal alumni award" and his
travel at government expense was "primarily for personal
reasons."

Primary Purpose of Travel - Official or Personal
72.
RADM Heinrich's itinerary in conjunction with his travel to
KU was as follows:

Day & Date (2012}
Thursday, 26 April

Activity (all times are local}
Departed Washington Dulles International
Airport @ 1528 and arrived Kansas City
International Airport ® 1709; traveled to
hotel accommodations in Lawrence

Educational Service Agreement #N00244-09-G-0041, of June 25, 2009, states
in part that the University of Kansas will provide educational services in
the form of instruction with standard offerings of courses available to the
public to the government.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

25

Friday, 27 April

Saturday, 28 April

Sunday, 29 April

Attended briefs and meetings with school
officials and KU military students and spoke
at a KU recognition luncheon, 0830-1630
Participated in VTC with Navy Reserve Supply
Corps (SC) personnel and SC Officer Detailer
presentation to the Navy Petroleum
Management masters program students @ KU,
0900-1130i remainder of day was personal
time spent going to KU Spring football game
and C&PE Hall of Fame Awards Dinner to
accept his personal award
Departed Kansas City International Airport @
1154 and arrived Harrisburg, PA ® 1711

(b)(6) (b)(7)
73.
On 23 February 2012, (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
(c)
of C&PE Department's Hall of Fame Committee, sent an email to
RADM Heinrich and notified him that he had "been nominated and
selected for [their] 2012 Hall of Fame." (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
explained in his email to RADM Heinrich that the purpose of the
award was:

To recognize important contributions of individuals to
the professions of Chemical Engineering or Petroleum
Engineering and to society
To provide focus on the KU Chemical and Petroleum
Engineering Department
To provide a role model and source of motivation for
current and future engineering students
74. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
stated that when he learned about the KU award
recognition banquet and gift offers, he contacted NAVSUP's
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
and requested she review the
Admiral's proposed trip to KU in order to accept their Hall of
Fame award. (b)
redirected (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
to her staff and
(6)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
request for a legal determination was assigned to
(b)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c) (b)
in the NAVSUP Office of Counsel.
(6)
(b) ·
75.
(7)
RADM
(c)

(7)
(c)

(b)
stated that he posed several questions about
(6)
Heinrich's proposed travel to KU and any potential gift or
gifts(b)
he might receive in conjunction with his visit to KU to
(7)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
by email. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
did not answer his email.
(c)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
further stated that when his questions to

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

26

(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)

went unanswered, he did not follow-up with
about the matter. To the best of (b)
recollection, a legal opinion was not provided(6)
by the NAVSUP
(b)
Office of Counsel to anyone prior to RADM Heinrich going on
(7)
travel to KU or at any time before he accepted(c)
the award.

76. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
testified and provided email clarification
regarding his testimony about RADM Heinrich's TDY to KU.
He
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
stated that he did not follow-up with
and he did not
obtain answers to the questions that (b)
posed to him
(6)
about RADM Heinrich's proposed trip to KU. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
said he
(b) other NAVSUP front office
was not aware "if RADM Heinrich or any
(b)(6) (b)(7) were(7)
member ((b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
contacted by the NAVSUP
(c)
(c)
legal office regarding this trip or obtained legal permission"
at any time before RADM Heinrich traveled to KU and accepted his
award.
77. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
further explained the general level of support
provided by the NAVSUP Office of Counsel for RADM Heinrich's
official travel stating:
During my tenure as (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
(April 2011May 2012), (b)
nor anyone in the legal office
(6)
ever approached me on permissions for any trip other
(b)
than the Kansas University (April 2012) trip. As I
(7)
stated in my 10 April 2013 email to [NAVINSGEN] ,
(c)
RADM Heinrich held weekly staff meetings on Tuesday
with all the N-code leaders. Each meeting was
attended by (b)
or a representative on her
(6) week during the briefing,
behalf.
Each
(b)
RADM Heinrich's upcoming travel would be shown on a
(7)
slide. RADM(c)
Heinrich would talk about the purpose of
each and every trip and who he was going to see during
each trip, the visit's relevance to the NAVSUP
mission, etc. The April 2012 visit would have been on
such a slide and most likely discussed. As the Chief
would discuss each upcoming trip, I never (for any
trip) remember the legal office representative
objecting to any trip RADM Heinrich was looking to
execute.
This includes in all weekly staff meetings
[that followed] (b)
' email to me on 28
(6)
February 2012 [about t.he April TDY to KU] .
(b)
(7)
(c)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

27

b
6
b
7
c
k
2

78. The award citation used to recognize RADM Heinrich at the
awards banquet reads, with only minor differences, just like his
official biography as posted on the Navy's official website.
Use or non-use of Contract Air Fare
79. RADM Heinrich selected a non-contract fare for his flight
from Washington, DC, to Kansas City International Airport. A
contract fare was available at the time his travel arrangements
were made. RADM Heinrich's air fare to Kansas City
International Airport and his air fare returning back to
Harrisburg Regional Airport, cost $321 more than the available
contract fares.
80. RADM Heinrich's travel claim contained the following
justification statement as the reason why he selected a noncontract fare from Washington, DC, to Kansas City International
Airport:
"Does not meet mission requirements.
Flight from
United Kingdom arrives at 1130 EST. Official meeting in
Pentagon at 1300."
81. RADM Heinrich testified that he did not have a meeting in
the Pentagon on 26 April.
Instead of going to the Pentagon, he
recalled that he made a phone call to whomever he needed to
speak with that day. RADM Heinrich remained at Washington
Dulles International Airport from the time his plane arrived
from UK until his plane for Kansas City International Airport
departed.
Claims Exceeding Per Diem
82. RADM Heinrich's travel authorization and claim for this
trip showed his destination as "Kansas City, KS," however he did
not have any official duties there.
KU is located in Lawrence
and that was RADM Heinrich's destination and where his lodging
was located. RADM and (b)(6)
stayed at The Oread Hotel
(b)(7) claimed and was reimbursed $77 per
in Lawrence.
RADM Heinrich
(c)
night, plus an appropriate non-mileage expense for hotel taxes,
for the three night stay in Lawrence. The $77 amount he
claimed, however, generated a DTS flag because RADM Heinrich's
travel voucher improperly identified his TDY location for this
trip as Kansas City. The maximum rate for lodging per diem in
Kansas City was $99. While it appeared he paid a lodging rate
below maximum lodging per diem during his stay, in fact, he paid
an amount equal to the maximum lodging per diem for Lawrence.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

28

83. Having identified that a wrong TDY location had been used
to determine per diem entitlements for the KU trip, we examined
whether or not a proper amount had beeh claimed for Meals and
Incidental Expenses (M&IE) during the time RADM Heinrich was in
Lawrence. We found that he claimed and was reimbursed at the
higher Kansas City M&IE rate of $61 per day as opposed to the
correct rate of $46 per day for Lawrence. RADM Heinrich claimed
and was paid a total of $56.25 more for M&IE than he was
entitled to receive.
Use of GTCC
84. RADM Heinrich used his GTCC to purchase air fare and
lodging accommodations in accordance with the JFTR.
Extra Days before or after TDY
85. RADM Heinrich arrived in Lawrence on Thursday evening,
26 April, the same day he returned to the U.S. from his 8-day
TDY to UK. He had a full workday on Friday, 27 April; he
divided his time between various meetings with KU officials but
he also met with members of the KU Navy ROTC unit and spoke by
Video Teleconference (VTC) with SC Officers gathered at a
training symposium in Jacksonville, FL. On Saturday, 28 April,
however, RADM Heinrich had only two work related activities from
0900-1130. He spoke to Navy Reserve SC Officers assembled in
Jacksonville by VTC and he attended a presentation made by
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
to the KU students enrolled
in the Petroleum Management masters program. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
was, at the time, (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
and
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
at Navy Personnel Command (NPC), Millington, TN.
Accounting for leave
86. RADM Heinrich was not required and he did not take any
leave in conjunction with his TDY to KU.
Other administrative errors noted by the investigation
87. RADM Heinrich did not create or digitally sign his travel
claim for his TDY to KU.
It was administratively processed by
his staff as a part of the Washington, DC and UK trip discussed
in Allegation #1. He did not review or sign his claim form
before it was uploaded into DTS with his travel receipts.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

29

*****
Applicable Standards - Allegation #2

88.
In addition to the standards cited for Allegation #1 above,
JFTR Chapter 7, Part K, Paragraph U7325A, states:
GOV'T-funded travel and transportation allowances may
be authorized for travel to receive an honor award
sponsored by a non-Federal organization provided the
award is closely related to the .
[t]raveler's
official duties, and .
. Service/Agency's functions
and activities.

*****
Analysis - Allegation #2

89.
Pursuant to the JFTR, government-funded travel and
transportation expenses may be authorized for travel to receive
an award sponsored by a non-Federal organization provided the
award is closely related to the traveler's official duties and
the Navy's functions and activities.
In the case of
RADM Heinrich's TDY to KU on 26-29 April and his acceptance of
the 2012 C&PE Hall of Fame award, the purpose of the award did
not meet JFTR requirements. Rather, the award RADM Heinrich
accepted at KU was intended:
To recognize important contributions of individuals to
the professions of chemical or petroleum Engineering and
society
To provide focus on the KU Chemical and Petroleum
Engineering Department
To provide a role model and source of motivation for
current and future engineering students at KU
90. We determined that RADM Heinrich was honored by KU for
having been a KU graduate student who later succeeded in his
Navy career and achieved Flag rank.
The award citation KU
drafted was nothing more than a slightly edited version of
RADM Heinrich's official biography. The award did not establish
any relationship between the master's degree RADM Heinrich
earned at KU and some later contribution he made to Navy or DLA
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

30

petroleum management. While the award recognition he received
may have been a well-deserved personal accolade, it lacked the
necessary tie to the "Service/Agency's functions and activities"
to satisfy the requirements for government-funded travel.
91.
In conducting our examination of the facts, we carefully
considered what official duties RADM Heinrich scheduled and
accomplished during this period of TDY. Although we determined
he had a full day's activities at KU on Friday, we were not
convinced that these events justified his trip to accept the
personal awards recognition bestowed upon him the following
night.
Further, RADM Heinrich's duties on Saturday only
occupied two and half hours of his time and they were concluded
before noon that day. We were not persuaded that his duties on
Saturday required him to extend his TDY, at government expense,
until Sunday morning and thereby afford him the opportunity to
attend the awards banquet Saturday night.
Extending his stay in
Lawrence and delaying his departure until Sunday morning was
RADM Heinrich's personal choice. Moreover, we concluded that
his travel to KU to receive a personal award was not
appropriate; it did not satisfy the criteria contemplated in
standard.

*****
Conclusion - Allegation #2
92.

The allegation is substantiated.

*****
93. Allegation #3: That RADM Heinrich improperly accepted a
gift from a prohibited source in violation of 5 C.F.R.
§ 2635.202, Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch, Subpart B, Gifts from Outside Sources.

*****
Findings of Fact - Allegation #3
94. The facts in this allegation were not disputed.
In
addition to being recognized at the awards' banquet on Saturday
evening, 28 April, RADM Heinrich stated he accepted a gift in
the form of a laser-engraved chair from KU.
The chair was given
to him to commemorate his selection for the C&PE Hall of Fame.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

31

The university purchased and shipped the chair to RADM Heinrich
in Mechanicsburg. The total cost of the chair, with shipping,
was $338. RADM Heinrich provided a picture of the chair's laser
engraved backrest; he said that the chair sits in his office at
NAVSUP Headquarters.
95. KU is a business entity with DoD contracts exceeding
$25,000.00 and as such is a prohibited source. 8

*****
Applicable Standard - Allegation #3

96. 5 C.F.R. PART 2635 - Standards of Ethical Conduct For
Employees of the Executive Branch.
Subpart B - Gifts from outside sources.
§

2635.202 General standards.

(a) General prohibitions. Except as provided in this
subpart, an employee shall not, directly or
indirectly, solicit or accept a gift:
(1) From a prohibited source; or
(2) Given because of the employee's official position.
§

2635.203 Definitions.

(b) Gift includes any gratuity, favor, discount,
entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or
other item having monetary value.
It includes
services as well as gifts of training, transportation,
local travel, lodgings and meals, whether provided inkind, by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or
reimbursement after the expense has been incurred.

8

KU is listed as a prohibited source on page 252 of DoD SOCO (Standards of
Conduct Office) Ethics Resource Library found online at:
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/resource_library/contractor_list.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

32

§

2635.204 Exceptions.

(d) Awards and honorary degrees. (1) An employee may
accept gifts, other than cash or an investment
interest, with an aggregate market value of $200 or
less if such gifts are a bona fide award or incident
to a bona fide award that is given for meritorious
public service or achievement by a person who does not
have interests that may be substantially affected by
the performance or nonperformance of the employee's
official duties or by an association or other
organization the majority of whose members do not have
such interests. Gifts with an aggregate market value
in excess of $200 and awards of cash or investment
interests offered by such persons as awards or
incidents of awards that are given for these purposes
may be accepted upon a written determination by an
agency ethics official that the award is made as part
of an established program of recognition:
(i) Under which awards have been made on a regular
basis or which is funded, wholly or in part, to ensure
its continuation on a regular basis; and
(ii) Under which selection of award recipients is made
pursuant to written standards.
(2) An employee may accept an honorary degree from an
institution of higher education as defined at 20
U.S.C. 1141(a) based on a written determination by an
agency ethics official that the timing of the award of
the degree would not cause a reasonable person to
question the employee's impartiality in a matter
affecting the institution.
(3) An employee who may accept an award or honorary
degree pursuant to paragraph (d) (1) or (2} of this
section may also accept meals and entertainment given
to him and to members of his family at the event at
which the presentation takes place.

*****
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

33

Analysis - Allegation #3

97. The facts for this allegation were
RADM Heinrich stated that he accepted a
laser-engraved chair from KU. The gift
university and shipped to RADM Heinrich
cost of $338.

not disputed.
gift in the form of a
was purchased by the
in Mechanicsburg at a

98. NAVINSGEN determined that KU is a prohibited source and
5 C.F.R. § 2635.202 specifically prohibits military members from
accepting gifts from a prohibited source. Although the standard
allows for a gift acceptance exception when the value of the
gift is $200 or less, the criteria of § 2635.204 (d) were not
met in this instance. We concluded, therefore, that
RADM Heinrich should not have accepted the chair and that doing
so was a violation of the standard.

*****
Conclusion - Allegation #3

99.

The allegation is substantiated.

*****
100. Allegation #4: That RADM Heinrich improperly used a
subordinate's official time in violation of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.705,
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive
Branch, Subpart G, Misuse of Position.

*****
Findings of Fact - Allegation #4

101. The complainant questioned whether or not it was
appropriate for RADM Heinrich to rely upon a government civilian
employee to write speeches if those speeches were made in
conjunction with "Non-official/personal events and functions."
The complainant stated RADM Heinrich's acceptance speech at KU
awards banquet on 28 April was in this category. RADM Heinrich
testified that he gave an acceptance speech at the awards

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

34

banquet and he believed that the speech had been written by
someone in the NAVSUP Commander's Action Group (CAG) . 9
102. (b)
is a government employee working in
(6)
NAVSUP's Office of Corporate Communications. He was previously
(b)
assigned with the CAG and was one of the individuals responsible
(7)
for writing speeches and talking points used by RADM Heinrich at
(c)
promotions, retirements, and special events. (b)
said
(6)
he wrote several speeches used by RADM Heinrich in conjunction
(b)
with the two trips he made to KU in February and April 2012.
(7)
(b)
provided NAVINSGEN a copy of the (c)
speech he wrote
(6)
for RADM Heinrich to use at the awards banquet on 28 April.
(b)
(7)
103.
(c)

As discussed in the findings of fact and analysis sections
for Allegation #2 above, it was determined the award ceremony on
Saturday night, 28 April, was not an official function.
Accordingly, we determined that the speech RADM Heinrich gave at
the awards banquet was not in the performance of his official
duties.

*****
Applicable Standard - Allegation #4

104. 5 C.F.R. PART 2635 - Standards of Ethical Conduct For
Employees of the Executive Branch.
Subpart G - Misuse of Position.
§

2635.705 Use of official time.

(b) Use of a subordinate's time. An employee shall
not encourage, direct, coerce, or request a
subordinate to use official time to perform activities
other than those required in the performance of
official duties or authorized in accordance with law
or regulation.
9
Commander's Action Group (CAG) was a fairly new organization established by
RADM Heinrich to help him be more effective in representing NAVSUP interests
during various meetings and engagements he makes at the Flag level.
The CAG
was established as a small group; it includes mid-grade and senior officers
and government civilians.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

35

*****
Analysis - Allegation #4

105. We determined that (b) (b)(6) (b)(7) expended an unspecified
(6)
(c)
number of work hours to prepare a speech that RADM Heinrich
(b) the 2012 C&PE Hall of Fame award on
delivered when he accepted
(7)
28 April. The time (b)
spent preparing RADM Heinrich's
(c)
(6)
acceptance speech was not an appropriate use of his official
time. We concluded, (b)
therefore, that the use of the speech
(7)
writer's official time to prepare a speech for an unofficial and
(c)
personal occasion was improper and further concluded that
RADM Heinrich was responsible for the misuse of (b)
(6)
official time.
*****

(b)
(7)
(c)

Conclusion - Allegation #4

106.

The allegation is substantiated.
*****

Official Travel to Philadelphia, PA, & Dallas, TX, 1-5 May 2012

107. Allegation #5: That RADM Heinrich violated various
provisions of the JFTR related to his official travel to
Philadelphia, PA, and Dallas, TX, on 1-5 May 2012.
*****
Findings of Fact - Allegation #5

108. On 1-5 May 2012, RADM Heinrich traveled at government
expense to Philadelphia and Dallas.
Primary Purpose of Travel - Official or Personal
109. RADM Heinrich's itinerary in conjunction with his travel
to Philadelphia and Dallas was as follows:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

36

Day and Date {2012}
Tuesday, 1 May

Wednesday, 2 May

Thursday, 3 May

Friday, 4 May
Saturday, 5 May

Activity {all times are local}
Full workday ® NAVSUP Headquarters 08001730 then departed by car and traveled to
Philadelphia
Site visit ® NAVSUP Weapons System
Support, Philadelphia 0800-1630; traveled
to Philadelphia International Airport for
flight to Dallas; arrived Dallas - Ft
Worth International Airport ® 2120
Site visits ® Aviall Services Inc. (an
aviation parts supplier) and NAS JRB
Dallas - Ft Worth 0800-1530
Site visit ® Lockheed Martin (Joint
Strike Fighter Program) 0900-1630
Departed Dallas - Ft Worth International
Airport ® 1100 and returned to Harrisburg
International Airport arriving@ 1718

110. The complainant alleged that RADM Heinrich scheduled his
official travel to Dallas so that he and (b)(6) (b)(7) could spend
(c)
time with (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
USN (Retired) and (b)
(6)
(b)(6) .
The complainant stated that the two (b)(6) (b)
were "very
(b)(7)
(7)(c)RADM Heinrich(b)
close friends." The complainant also alleged
(7)
(c)
accepted an improper gift in the form of free accommodations
(c)
from the b6 b7c
when RADM Heinrich and (b)(6) (b)(7) stayed in
the (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
home during this TDY. At (c)
the time,
b6 b7c
worked for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company.
He was the Director, Sustainment Business Operations for the F35
Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Program.
111. RADM Heinrich testified that he and (b)(6) (b)(7) enjoyed a
(c)
long-standing friendship with RDML and (b)(6)
. The
(b)(7)
two officers came up through the Navy Supply Corps together.
(c)
They have known each other for about twenty years; they were
Supply Corps Flag Officers at the same time, until
b6 b7c
retired.
112. RADM Heinrich testified that he slept in his hotel room
each night during his TDY to Dallas. He did not accept the
invitation from the b6 b7c
to stay in their home, however,
(b)
b6 b7c
stayed with the
on one of the nights
(6)
(b)
and RADM Heinrich were in Dallas together.
RADM Heinrich
(b)
(6)
(b)
also testified that he and
were the (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
(7)
(b)
(c)
(7)
(c)

(6)
(b)
(7)
FOR (c)
OFFICIAL OSE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

37

guests for dinner one night during this TDY; the (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
paid for their meal that night.
Use or non-use of Contract Air Fare
113. RADM Heinrich selected a non-government fare for his
flight from Philadelphia to Dallas.
Contract air fare was
available at the time his travel arrangements were made.
RADM Heinrich's air fare to Dallas cost $1,400.10 more than the
available contract fare.
114. RADM Heinrich's travel claim contained the following
justification statement as the reason why he selected a noncontract fare from Philadelphia to Dallas:
"Does not meet
mission requirements. This flight is the only flight that will
fit the tight timeline for this trip."
Claims Exceeding Per Diem
115. RADM Heinrich was reimbursed for actual expenses above the
maximum rate for lodging per diem for his three nights stay in
Dallas. RADM Heinrich received $139 against a maximum lodging
per diem of $113 for Dallas. The justification provided in his
travel voucher stated: "This was slightly above per diem but the
location of this hotel was the best for the logistics of the
meetings around the [Dallas - Ft Worth] metroplex."
Use of GTCC
116. RADM Heinrich used his GTCC as required by the JFTR to
purchase air fare and lodging accommodations in conjunction with
his travel to Philadelphia and Dallas.
Extra Days before or after TDY
117. There were no free days, before or after the TDY, during
which RADM Heinrich collected per diem or incurred costs paid by
the government.
Accounting for leave
118. RADM Heinrich was not required and he did not take any
leave in conjunction with his TDY to Philadelphia and Dallas.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

38

Other administrative errors noted by the investigation
119. RADM Heinrich's claimed $417 for lodging expense in
Dallas, however, his three-nights lodging there totaled $407
($139 X 3).
120. RADM Heinrich did not claim and he was not reimbursed for
the lodging taxes he paid in conjunction with his TDY in Dallas.
We note here that a traveler in the U.S. or a U.S Territory is
entitled to claim these taxes as a separate non-mileage expense.
In this case, RADM Heinrich was entitled to claim $25.02 ($8.34
x 3) in state tax and another $37.53 ($12.51 x 3) in city tax.
Although we noted this error that RADM Heinrich had not claimed
a legitimate travel expense, we did not consider it to be a
violation of the JFTR since it accrued to the benefit of the
government and the detriment of the subject.
121. RADM Heinrich's travel voucher for this TDY was created
and T-entered in DTS by b6 b7c
on 11 May 2012.
It was
reviewed and then approved for payment by his (b) (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
the same day.
RADM Heinrich did not digitally(6)
sign his travel
(b) he sign his
claim for this period of official travel nor did
(7)
paper claim before it was uploaded with his receipts into DTS.
(c)
*****
Applicable Standards - Allegation #5

122.

See JFTR standards cited for Allegation #1 above.
*****
Analysis - Allegation #5

123. The JFTR states in part that TDY assignments may be
authorized and approved only when necessary for official
government business. We determined that RADM Heinrich had an
official purpose for TDY in Dallas. RADM Heinrich's official
itinerary was planned and scheduled to accomplish multiple
objectives as required by the standard.
124. We were not persuaded, however, that this period of TDY
could not have been better planned to use an available contract
flight between Philadelphia and Dallas. RADM Heinrich visited a
subordinate NAVSUP command in Philadelphia on Wednesday and his
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

39

first meeting in Dallas was the following morning with a private
commercial company. His itinerary in both locations was under
his control; he was not reacting to the scheduling priorities of
a higher echelon commander. We determined, therefore, that the
excessive air transportation cost could have been avoided.
125. We were also not persuaded that of the many hotels
available in the Dallas metropolitan area that one within the
maximum per diem could not be found.
It was obvious from the
witness interviews we conducted and the documentary evidence we
collected that proper planning and adherence to the spirit and
intent of the JFTR was not a priority for RADM Heinrich when he
traveled. Although the dollar amounts above maximum lodging per
diem in this case were not significant on their own, we
concluded that the excessive lodging expenses, like the use of
non-contract air fare, were avoidable costs had RADM Heinrich
ensured proper TDY planning had taken place.

*****
Conclusion - Allegation #5
126. The allegation is substantiated to the extent that
RADM Heinrich did not use government contract air and he
exceeded maximum lodging per diem without proper justification
for having done so.

*****
Official Travel to Norfolk, VA, & Washington, DC, 6-13 May 2012
127. Allegation #6: That RADM Heinrich violated various
provisions of the JFTR related to his official travel to
Norfolk, VA, and Washington, DC, on 6-13 May 2012 and failed to
document his use of annual leave during the same period.

*****
Findings of Fact - Allegation #6
128. On 6-13 May 2012, RADM Heinrich traveled at government
expense to Norfolk and Washington, DC.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

40

Primary Purpose of Travel - Official or Personal
129. RADM Heinrich's itinerary in conjunction with his travel
to Norfolk and Washington, DC, was as follows:
Day & Date (2012)
Sunday, 6 May

Monday, 7 May

Tuesday, 8 May

Activity (all times are local)
Traveled from Mechanicsburg to Norfolk in
a government vehicle driven by
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
(1200-1700}
Attended meetings at U.S. Fleet Forces
Command (USFF} and went to the
disestablishment ceremony for NAVSUP
Logistics Operations Center in Norfolk
Attended morning meetings at USFF and Navy
Region Mid-Atlantic; traveled to
Washington, DC, in government vehicle with
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)

Wednesday, 9 May
Thursday, 10 May

Friday, 11 May
Saturday, 12 May
Sunday, 13 May
Monday, 14 May

Attended meetings at Pentagon (0800-1800}
Attended meetings at Pentagon and
Washington Navy Yard (0800-1400} i driven
to Baltimore - Washington International
(BWI} Airport and commenced leave
Regular leave in California
Regular leave in California
Regular leave in California
Returned to Mechanicsburg; traveled by
personally funded air fare and arrived at
Harrisburg International Airport at 1548

Use or non-use of Contract Air Fare
130. RADM Heinrich did not use air transportation in
conjunction with his TDY to Norfolk and Washington, DC.
Instead, he rode in a government vehicle driven by (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
from Mechanicsburg to Norfolk and from there to Washington, DC.
The AO determined that travel by government vehicle was more
advantageous for the government than air travel for this trip.
Claims Exceeding Per Diem
131. There were no claims for actual expenses in excess of the
maximum authorized per diem.

FOR OFFXCXAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

41

Use of GTCC
132. RADM Heinrich used his GTCC as required by the JFTR to
purchase lodging. The AO determined that government ground
transportation was more cost effective for this trip and air
fare was not required to be purchased.
Extra Days before or after TDY
133. The complainant alleged that RADM Heinrich scheduled and
completed official travel to San Diego, CA, on May 13-15 (sic}
in order to attend his (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
.
RADM Heinrich
did not, however, go on official travel to san Diego as the
complainant believed.
Instead, he traveled, at personal
expense, to Los Angeles, CA, to attend his (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
after he concluded his TDY to Norfolk and Washington,
DC, on 10 May. RADM Heinrich did not claim any per diem
expenses for the three days he was on leave to attend his (b)(6)
(b)(7)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c) .
(c)

Accounting for leave
134. On Thursday, 10 May, RADM Heinrich attended meetings in
the Pentagon until early afternoon. Afterwards, (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
drove him in a government vehicle to Baltimore-Washington
International (BWI) Airport and RADM Heinrich began his personal
travel to California.
135. DTS records showed that RADM Heinrich was supposed to be
on leave Friday, 11 May, through Sunday, 13 May. RADM Heinrich
testified that he planned this period of leave so that he could
attend his (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
in California. He testified
that he purchased his own airline ticket for this trip and
stated that nit was well understood [by my personal staff] that
I was on leave . . . . 11
136. RADM Heinrich's travel claim for this period of official
travel states that he took leave on 11-13 May; he was not paid
per diem for those three days. His personal leave record,
however, did not show that he was charged for the leave taken.
Regarding any error in his personal leave record, RADM Heinrich
testified:
I know (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
[knew] I was on leave.
It was a
ticket I produced myself.
I said, "I'm going on leave
FOR OFFZCZAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

42

for my (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
.
I'm buying the ticket
myself
and if that's-- if that leave wasn't
charged 1 then it's a terrible oversight.
1

"

137. (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
. (b)(6) (b)(7)
, RADM Heinrich 1 s (b)(6) (b)(7)(c) /
(c) responsibility to enter RADM Heinrich's
stated that it was his
leave requests into NSIPS.
Other administrative errors noted by the investigation
138. Because RADM Heinrich departed on leave from a TDY
location/ he would normally be entitled to return travel from
his last TDY location/ Washington 1 DC, back to his permanent
duty station 1 Mechanicsburg. When RADM Heinrich filed his
travel claim, he requested reimbursement and was paid for return
travel based on the constructive cost of a one-way airline
ticket from Washington, DC, to Harrisburg Regional Airport. He
claimed and was reimbursed $419.80 for return transportation.
139. We note here that as our investigation of RADM Heinrich's
official travel was in progress/ RADM Heinrich, aware of our
examination of certain TDYs he completed/ directed an internal
review of his official travel by his NAVSUP staff. As a result
of their review, a number of RADM Heinrich's travel claims,
including the trips that were identified to us by the
complainant, were reexamined by NAVSUP personnel in parallel
with our investigation. Officials in NAVSUP's DTS Program
Management Office requested NAVINSGEN permission to audit these
claims and make appropriate adjustments. We granted their
request with the understanding that we would retain access to
the original documents electronically stored in DTS until the
conclusion of our investigation. The constructive air fare cost
RADM Heinrich claimed for reimbursement in conjunction with his
Norfolk and Washington, DC, TDY was one of the items
reevaluated.
NAVSUP DTS officials determined, and we agreed
with their determination, that constructive air fare cost was
not properly claimed. They commented that:
The use of air transportation from Washington/ DC/ to
Mechanicsburg would not be deemed prudent or
advantageous to the government and an excessive
expense since it is less than 400 miles. Air
transportation is ordinarily the most cost efficient
and expeditious way to travel for travel of over 400
miles one way from the PDS. Traveler was transported
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

43

via government vehicle at the beginning of the trip.
The same mode of transportation would have been used
to return to duty station had the traveler not went on
personal leave. Airline ticket reimbursement for
$419.80 was removed. No mileage entitlement is due to
the traveler.

*****
Applicable Standards - Allegation #6
140.
In addition to the standards listed for Allegation #1,
JFTR Chapter 3, Part E: Government Conveyance Use on TDY, states
in part:
U3400 GOV'T AUTOMOBILE USE ON TDY
D. Limited to Official Purposes. Use of a GOV'T
automobile is limited to official purposes, including
transportation to and from (65 Camp. Gen. 253 (1986}}:
1. Duty sites,
2. Lodgings,
3. Dining facilities,
4. Drugstores,
5. Barber shops,
6. Places of worship,
7. Cleaning establishments, and
8. Similar places required for the traveler's
subsistence, health or comfort.
141.
In addition to the JFTR standards noted above, Military
personnel in the u.s. Navy take leave in accordance with
guidance contained in the MILPERSMAN as amended by the
provisions for the Navy Standard Integrated Personnel System
{NSIPS} Electronic Leave (E-Leave} Implementation Plan (NAVADMIN
252/10) .
a. The MILPERSMAN specifically authorizes leave in
conjunction with TAD.
That authorization comes with
several caveats and requirements:
In planning TAD, both the fact and the appearance
of TAD arranged to serve the leave desires of the

FOR OFFICIAL OSE ONLY

Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

44

individual shall be scrupulously avoided.
170-2b)

(1050-

Great care must be taken to ensure that when
leave is granted with TAD:
(a) it is clear the
TAD is essential; (b) no additional cost to the
Government is involved.
(1050-170-3)
Care should be taken to avoid payment of per diem
during leave by ensuring the orders are properly
written to reflect the member's leave desires.
(1050-170-5)
b. NAVADMIN 252/10 directed all shore commands to
implement E-Leave to request, track, and manage leave
transactions for military personnel commencing on 1
August 2010.
It stipulated that E-Leave for all
military personnel would reside within the NSIPS
Electronic Service Record (ESR) application for each
military member.
Further, it stated that it was
imperative all military personnel establish access and
routinely review their ESR as required by NAVADMIN
103/10 and NAVADMIN 043/09. 10

*****
Analysis - Allegation #6
142. We determined that RADM Heinrich had an official purpose
for his TDY to Norfolk and Washington, DC, on 6-10 May 2012.
RADM Heinrich's official itinerary was planned and scheduled to
accomplish multiple objectives as required by the JFTR.
143. Our review of DTS documents and the testimony collected
established that RADM Heinrich planned to take three days leave
on 11-13 May at the conclusion of his official duties in
10

NAVADMIN 103/10 announced the phased implementation of self-service
electronic leave.
It stated in part that the use of E-Leave would streamline
requests for leave, eliminate delays due to misrouting of paper leave
requests, automate the command leave control log, and ensure that pay
entitlements were properly credited without need for paper documents.
NAVADMIN 043/09 announced the mandatory use of the Navy Standard Integrated
Personnel System (NSIPS) Electronic Service Record (ESR) for all active duty
personnel and it required them to establish and maintain a self-service ESR
account not later than 5 April 2009.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

45

Washington, DC. We determined that he completed his official
duties at the Pentagon at approximately 1400 on Thursday,
10 May. Thereafter RADM Heinrich traveled in a government
vehicle driven by (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
to BWI airport.
His flight from
BWI airport to Los Angeles International Airport was for
personal business; he went there to attend his (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c) .
While the use of a government vehicle on TDY is
permitted, it is limited under the standard to official
purposes. We concluded that RADM Heinrich conveyance to BWI
airport in the government vehicle and his use of his Flag Aide's
time to drive him there, under these circumstances, was not
official business and not permitted by the standard.
144. We also determined that the three days leave RADM Heinrich
took on 11-13 May were not properly documented in NSIPS as
required by the MILPERSMAN and they were not deducted from his
E-leave account. We also concluded, therefore, that
RADM Heinrich failed to properly account for his use of personal
leave as he was required to do in accordance with the
MILPERSMAN. His reliance upon his Flag Writer to process his
leave request did not absolve him of his own responsibility for
the accuracy of his leave account. NAVADMIN 252/10 specifically
requires that all military personnel establish access and
routinely review their ESR for accuracy. We found no evidence
that RADM Heinrich comported with this requirement.

*****
Conclusion - Allegation #6

145. The allegation is substantiated in that RADM Heinrich
improperly used a government vehicle in conjunction with his
official travel and failed to properly account for personal
leave taken in conjunction with this period of TDY.

*****
Official Travel to Washington, DC, and Richmond, VA, 30 May 3 June 2012

146. Allegation #7: That RADM Heinrich violated various
provisions of the JFTR related to his official travel to
Washington, DC and Richmond, VA, on 30 May - 3 June 2012 and
failed to document his use of annual leave during the same
period.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

46

*****
Findings of Fact - Allegation #7
147.
On 30 May- 3 June 2012, RADM Heinrich traveled at
government expense to Washington, DC and Richmond.

RADM Heinrich's official travel to Washington, DC and
subsequent personal trip to Richmond was not part of the
original complaint we received. This particular trip came to
our attention, however, when we examined the other travel
RADM Heinrich completed during the three month period identified
in the complaint we received.
148.

Primary Purpose of Travel - Official or Personal
RADM Heinrich's itinerary in conjunction with his travel
to Washington, DC and Richmond was as follows:

149.

Day & Date (2012)
Wednesday, 30 May

Thursday, 31 May

Friday, 1 June

Saturday, 2 June
Sunday, 3 June

Activity (all times are local)
Attended morning meetings at NAVSUP and rode
with (b)(6) (b) to Washington, DC; attended
(7)(c)
afternoon meetings at Pentagon
Traveled to Defense Logistics Agency at
Ft. Belvoir, VA; attended Retired sc Flag
Officers Conference (0900-1430)
Returned to Pentagon for meetings 0800-1200;
after lunch, rode with (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
in
government vehicle to AMTRAK train station
in Alexandria, VA; took train to Richmond
Regular Leave in Richmond
Regular Leave; returned to Mechanicsburg in
personal vehicle with (b)(6) (b)
(7)(c)

150.
For this period of travel, Washington, DC, was the only
official temporary duty location. RADM Heinrich testified that
he went to Richmond for personal reasons; he said he did not
intend that any of the expenses related to his travel to
Richmond be claimed for reimbursement.

RADM Heinrich testified that he drove from Mechanicsburg
to Washington, DC, in his personal vehicle with (b)(6) (b)(7) . He
(c)
said after they reached Washington, DC, (b)(6)
dropped
(b)(7)
him off and then continued on (b)
way to Richmond in their
151.

(c)
(6)
(b)
(7)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
(c)
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

47

personal vehicle. Thereafter, RADM Heinrich rode in a
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
government vehicle driven by (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
provided RADM Heinrich's ground transportation in and around
Washington, DC.
Use or non-use of Contract Air Fare
152. RADM Heinrich was not required to use air transportation
in conjunction with his TDY to Washington, DC.
Claims Exceeding Per Diem
153. RADM Heinrich did not claim any actual expenses above his
authorized per diem for this period of TDY. Although the
inclusive dates for this trip in DTS were 30 May - 3 June,
RADM Heinrich properly stopped collecting per diem on Friday,
1 June; he did not collect per diem during the two days he was
supposed to be on leave in Richmond.
Use of GTCC
154. RADM Heinrich used his GTCC as required by the JFTR to
purchase lodging. Because the AO determined that government
ground transportation was more cost effective for this trip, air
fare was not required to be purchased.
In conjunction with this
trip, however, RADM Heinrich used his GTCC in error to purchase
his train fare from Alexandria to Richmond. The train fare was
a personal expense and should not have been purchased with the
GTCC.
Extra Days before or after TDY
155. There were no free days, before or after the TDY, during
which RADM Heinrich collected per diem or incurred costs paid by
the government.
Accounting for leave
156. RADM Heinrich testified that he planned to take leave on
2-3 June to attend a family friend's wedding in Richmond. His
travel claim for this trip showed that he was on leave for those
two days; he did not collect any per diem while in Richmond.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

48

Other administrative errors noted by investigation
157. DTS records showed that RADM Heinrich claimed and was paid
POV mileage from Richmond back to Mechanicsburg. He was not 1
however/ entitled to POV mileage reimbursement from a leave
location back to his permanent duty station.
158. After we notified RADM Heinrich of our investigation and
before his interview, RADM Heinrich notified investigators that
he was reviewing his travel claims and in particular his travel
claim for this period of official travel. RADM Heinrich stated
that errors had been made by (b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
when she prepared his
travel claim; he testified that he had not taken time to review
his claim before it was submitted for payment. RADM Heinrich
further testified that the POV mileage expense that he expected
to be reimbursed was roundtrip mileage between Mechanicsburg and
Washington/ DC. He said that the information in DTS documenting
that he was reimbursed for mileage expense between Richmond and
Mechanicsburg was made in error.
159. DTS records showed that RADM Heinrich claimed and was
reimbursed the cost of his train fare from Alexandria to
Richmond.

*****
Applicable Standards - Allegation #7

160. See JFTR and Military personnel leave standards cited in
Allegation #6 above.

*****
Analysis - Allegation #7

161. We determined that RADM Heinrich conducted official
business in Washington/ DC, on 30 May - 1 June. We also
determined that his subsequent travel to Richmond was not
official business/ it was a personal trip he made to attend a
family friend's wedding in the company of (b)(6) (b)(7) . We
concluded, therefore, that RADM Heinrich 1 S(c)
period of TDY ended
on Friday/ 1 June/ in Washington, DC, not on Sunday, 3 June, in
Richmond as reflected on his travel documents.
We further
concluded that RADM Heinrich was not entitled to be reimbursed
for POV mileage he claimed between Richmond and Mechanicsburg
FOR OFFZCZAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.
49

and we acknowledge that this overpayment for POV mileage was
recouped by administrative action after his claim had been filed
as noted in the findings of fact.
162. When we examined RADM Heinrich's DTS documents for this
trip, we determined he was approved to take leave on 2-3 June.
We found, however, that the two days of leave he took were not
processed in NSIPS as required by the MILPERSMAN and those days
were not deducted from his E-leave account. We concluded,
therefore, that RADM Heinrich failed to properly account for his
use of personal leave as required by the standard.
163.

We also determined that RADM Heinrich permitted
to drive him in a government vehicle to the train
station in Alexandria on 1 June. As we have already noted, his
purpose in going to the train station was personal 1 not
official. We concluded, therefore, that this was an improper
use of the government vehicle during TDY and a waste of
(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)
official duty time.

(b)(6) (b)(7)(c)

164. Finally, because RADM Heinrich's travel from Alexandria to
Richmond was for personal reasonsr it was improper for him to
claim the train fare expense for reimbursement.
It was also
improper for RADM Heinrich to use his GTCC to purchase the fare.
We concluded, therefore, that RADM Heinrich's claim for
reimbursement of this expense and his use of the GTCC to
purchase train fare were violations of the standard.

*****
Conclusion - Allegation #7
165.

The allegation is substantiated.

*****
Official Travel to Newport, RI, 7-12 June 2012
166. Allegation #8: That RADM Heinrich violated various
provisions of the JFTR related to his official travel to
Newport, RI, on 7-12 June 2012.

*****

FOR OFFICIAL OSE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

so

Findings of Fact - Allegation #8

167. On 7-12 June 2012, RADM Heinrich traveled at government
expense to Newport. 11
Primary Purpose of Travel - Official or Personal
168. RADM Heinrich's itinerary in conjunction with his travel
to Newport, was as follows:
Day and Date (2012)
Thursday, 7 June

Friday, 8 June

Saturday, 9 June
Sunday, 10 June
Monday, 11 June

Tuesday, 12 June

Activity (all times are local)
Attended morning meetings at the Pentagon
then traveled from Washington Dulles
International Airport to T.F. Green Regional
Airport, Providence, RI; proceeded to hotel
in Newport; attended social event that
evening at the Prospective Commanding
Officer of Navy SC School quarters
Officiated at the Navy SC School change of
command ceremony; made a courtesy call to
Superintendant of Naval War College (NWC) ;
toured Naval Undersea Warfare Center,
Newport (0730-1700)
Free Day in Newport
Free Day in Newport
Traveled to Groton, CT, in rental car; made
courtesy call to Commander, Submarine Group
TWO; toured Submarine Base New London, CT;
toured and attended meetings at General
Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, CT, and
returned to Newport (0700-1730)
Attended Current Strategy Forum at NWC
(1230-1600) i returned to Washington, DC,
(1600-2100) in order to attend meetings the
following day at the Pentagon

169. The complainant alleged this trip was another example of
RADM Heinrich arranging his official travel to include a weekend
11
This period of TDY was actually part of a longer period of TDY that began
on 4 June 2012 in Washington, DC, and concluded on 15 June 2012 in
Mechanicsburg, PA. We focused our attention primarily on the six-day period
mentioned in the complaint but we noted certain irregularities related to
some of the TDY expenses incurred by RADM Heinrich outside the six-day period
that we determined to be in violation of the JFTR.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

51

during which time the government paid for his per diem expenses
and he enjoyed the company of (b)(6) (b)(7) . The complainant
(c)
commented that RADM and (b)(6)
stayed in the Hotel
(b)(7)
Viking, a hotel the complainant characterized as being "the
(c)
oldest and one of the most expensive hotels in Newport
II

Use or non-use of Contract Air Fare
170.

RADM Heinrich used contract air fare for this TDY.
Claims Exceeding Per Diem

171. RADM Heinrich selected a slightly more expensive rental
car for his official travel to Newport than was available to
him. The car selected was $54 more than the lowest cost rental
car available. The justification statement provided to the AO
read: "[National] is the preferred company due to the tight
timeline of this mission." We noted in our document review and
from witness testimony that after he landed at T.F. Green
Regional Airport, in Providence, RADM Heinrich's drove from the
airport directly to his hotel in Newport and later that evening
he went to a social function.
Use of GTCC
172. RADM Heinrich purchased his air fare and rental car as
required by the JFTR with his GTCC. He did not, however, pay
for his lodging expense for the 7-12 June stay in Newport.
Instead, he improperly charged his lodging expense to a personal
credit card. The justification statement provided to the AO
stated that he "unintentionally charged personal card for
lodging expense."
Extra Days before or after TDY
173. There were no free days, before or after the TDY, during
which RADM Heinrich collected per diem or incurred costs paid by
the government. There was, however, an included weekend when
there were no official duties performed and per diem was paid.
Accounting for leave
174. RADM Heinrich was not required and he did not take any
leave in conjunction with his TDY to Newport.
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

52

*****
Applicable Standards - Allegation #8

175.

See JFTR standards cited for Allegation #1.

*****
Analysis - Allegation #8

176. We determined that RADM Heinrich had an official purpose
for his TDY in Newport, RI on 7-12 June. His official itinerary
was planned and scheduled to accomplish multiple objectives as
required by the JFTR. We noted that RADM Heinrich's official
travel to Newport, RI, included a weekend for which he collected
per diem. We closely examined, therefore, the official duties
he performed on the workdays before and after the weekend and
determined that his official delay, over the included weekend,
was acceptable under the circumstances and the standard.
177. DoD policy requires DoD personnel to pay for "all costs
incidental to official travel" with their GTCC. We determined
that RADM Heinrich properly used his GTCC for his air fare but
used a personal credit card to pay for his lodging in Newport.
We found his justification for not using his GTCC for his
lodging expense in Newport unpersuasive; RADM Heinrich was a
very experienced and frequent traveler having completed more
than 40 TDYs between the time he assumed Command of NAVSUP in
July 2011 and the time he traveled to Newport in June 2012.
178. We also determined that RADM Heinrich failed to select the
least expensive rental car when a lower cost rental car was
available to him. We were not persuaded by his justification
for selecting a higher cost rental car when he stated that the
company selected was "the preferred company due to the tight
timeline of this mission." There are six major rental car
companies that service T.F. Green Regional Airport: Advantage,
Alamo, Budget, Dollar, Hertz, and National. These rental car
companies provide a comparable selection of appropriate rental
cars to the traveling public. Moreover, we determined that
RADM Heinrich's itinerary after he departed from the airport was
not hurried or driven by any official duty requirement.
He
drove from the airport directly to his hotel in Newport and
later that evening he attended a social event at the quarters of
the Prospective Commanding Officer of the Navy SC School with
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

53

(b)(6) (b)(7) .
(c)
reasonable

Accordingly, we did not find that there was any
requirement for RADM Heinrich to select a more
expensive rental car for this trip. Doing so was his personal
choice and the government is not responsible to pay for a
traveler's personal choice when that choice results in the
government incurring a higher cost.

179. We concluded, therefore, that RADM Heinrich traveled in
violation of the standard during this period of TDY.

*****
Conclusion - Allegation #8
180.

The allegation is substantiated.

*****
Concluding Remarks about Official Travel
181. We observed in our investigation of RADM Heinrich's use of
official travel his reliance on his staff to properly arrange
his TDYs and thereafter correctly adjudicate his travel claims
without his proper involvement in the planning, approval or
claim adjudication processes. RADM Heinrich's lack of proper
involvement in the travel process was an abrogation of his duty
to be a responsible traveler. Moreover, his mostly hands-off
approach to arranging his official travel and filing his travel
claims created an atmosphere with his personal staff and the
NAVSUP DTS Program Office staff that perpetuated the problems we
identified about his use of government travel funds during each
of the six periods of TDY we examined in our investigation.
While we acknowledge the positive effort begun by RADM Heinrich
to have staff audit some of his prior travel claims for proper
payments, we believe that a complete audit of his travel, one
that will examine all of the TDY he completed during his
assignment as Commander, NAVSUP, should be conducted and
appropriate payment adjustments made to each travel claim
examined by auditors.

*****

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.
54

Non-Responsive

182.

Non-Responsive

*****
Non-Responsive

183.

Non-Responsive

184.

Non-Responsive

n

r

t
o

185.

Non-Responsive

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

55

Non-Responsive

186.

2

r
;

Non-Responsive

187.

t
"

Non-Responsive

188.
,

.

,
,
y
.

189.

Non-Responsive

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

56

Non-Responsive

o

t
u
.
,

y

190.

,

Non-Responsive

*****
Non-Responsive

191.

Non-Responsive

e
h

the

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

57

Non-Responsive

*****
Non-Responsive

192.

Non-Responsive

193.

Non-Responsive

194.

Non-Responsive

FOR OFFICIAL OSE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

58

*****
Non-Responsive

195. Non-Responsive

*****
Non-Responsive

196.

Non-Responsive

*****
Non-Responsive

197.

Non-Responsive

t

t
,

198.

Non-Responsive

.

199.

Non-Responsive

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

59

Non-Responsive

200.

Non-Responsive

,

201.

Non-Responsive

.
f
s

*****
Non-Responsive

202.

NonResponsive
Non-Responsive

s
,
:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

60

Non-Responsive

,
r

*****
Non-Responsive

203.

Non-Responsive

*****
Non-Responsive

204. Non-Responsive
*****
Non-Responsive

205.

Non-Responsive

*****
Non-Responsive

206.

Non-Responsive

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

61

207.

Non-Responsive

.
n
.
l

208.

Non-Responsive

.

e

s
i
t
t

209.

Non-Responsive

.
;

210.

Non-Responsive

211.

Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive

FOR OFFZCZAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

62

Non-Responsive

212.

Non-Responsive

213.

Non-Responsive

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

63

Non-Responsive

214.

Non-Responsive

,

*****
Non-Responsive

215.

Non-Responsive

*****
Non-Responsive

216.

Non-Responsive

.

217.

Non-Responsive

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

64

Non-Responsive

218.

Non-Responsive

n
.

219.

Non-Responsive

*****
Non-Responsive

220. Non-Responsive

*****
Non-Responsive

221.

Non-Responsive

y
,

f

*****
Non-Responsive

222.

Non-Responsive

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

65

NonResponsive

223.

Non-Responsive

224.

Non-Responsive

y

,
d
,

225.

Non-Responsive

:

g

e

.
t

FOR OFFZCZAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

66

Non-Responsive

.

d

*****
Non-Responsive

226.

Non-Responsive

*****

FOR OFFZCZAL USE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.
67

Non-Responsive

227.

Non-Responsive

*****
Non-Responsive

228. Non-Responsive

FOR OFFICIAL OSE ONLY
Do not release outside of IG channels without the approval of the Naval IG.

68