Original email to Glenn A. Fine, Department of Defense Inspector General regarding the lack of response to MRFF's demand letter for investigation into Maj. Gen. Costin's violation of the law:
From: Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 2:48 PM
To: Fine, Glenn A., SES, OIG DoD
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Supplemental Request for Action
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Fine:
I represent the Military Religious Freedom Foundation [MRFF], which filed
a complaint with your office on 25 July 2016, concerning the conduct and
actions of the Air Force Chief of Chaplains, Maj. Gen. Dondi Costin, as well
as other uniformed Chaplains.
To date, MRFF has received no confirmation that your office is either
investigating that complaint or has designated someone to do so. I have
attached a Supplemental Request for Action in this matter and look forward
to your response.
Sincerely,
DONALD G. REHKOPF, JR., Esq.
Brenna Boyce, PLLC
Attorneys-at-Law
Rochester, New York 14614
Deparment of Defense Deputy Inspector General for Administrative Investigations Marguerite C. Garrison's email stating the Air Force Inspector General's (AF IG) reply to MRFF had been sent:
From: Garrison, Marguerite C., SES, OIG DoD
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:46 PM
To: Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr.
Subject: RE: Supplemental Request for Action
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Rehkopf,
Reference your below email to Mr. Fine dated November 9, 2016.
I am responding on behalf of Mr. Fine. Attached to this email is the
response to Mr. Weinstein's July 25, 2016, incoming complaint concerning
Maj Gen Dondi Costin, United States Air Force Chief of Chaplains. This
response was mailed on November 1, 2016.
Sincerely,
Marguerite C. Garrison
Department of Defense Deputy Inspector General for Administrative Investigations
Alexandria, VA 22350
Email from Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr. making clear that MRFF has not recieved a response:
From: Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 4:47 PM
To: Garrison, Marguerite C., SES, OIG DoD
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Supplemental Request for Action
Thank you - as of today, however, he has not received it.
DONALD G. REHKOPF, JR., Esq.
Brenna Boyce, PLLC
Attorneys-at-Law
Rochester, New York 14614
A scanned version of the AF IG's letter to MRFF's Supplemental Request for Action was sent to Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr. from Marguerite C. Garrison:
From: Garrison, Marguerite C., SES, OIG DoD
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 4:51 PM
To: Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr.
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Supplemental Request for Action
Mr. Rehkopf,
Thank you for letting me know it has not been received. I trust that
receipt of the scanned letter via email answers your Supplemental Request
for Action.
Sincerely,
Marguerite C. Garrison
Department of Defense Deputy Inspector General for Administrative Investigations
Alexandria, VA 22350
Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr. explains why the AF IG's letter was unsatisfactory and urges for further consideration:
From: Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2016 6:01 PM
To: Garrison, Marguerite C., SES, OIG DoD
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Supplemental Request for Action
Ms. Garrison,
The scanned copy you sent will suffice in lieu of your mailing out another
copy. It however does not address the specific legal issues raised in my
letter.
First of all, no one from the AF IG's office ever bothered to contact anyone
at the MRFF, to include Mr. Weinstein - although someone from the Army IG
did. One would expect that in the interest of conducting a full and fair
"investigation" that whoever was tasked to investigate this, would at least
contact the Complainant to discuss their concerns. Nor does it appear that
anyone considered our concerns about the violations of 5 C.F.R. Sec.
2635.101(b). (Emphasis added).
This is not a ad hominem attack on anyone in the AF IG's office, but they
appear to have missed the underlying point - this was not just a generic
Non-Federal Entity or private organization. CARL is - as our 25 July 2016
Complaint pointed out - is an entity that would NOT be allowed (or at least
should not be allowed) to operate on any U.S. military installation because
it openly discriminates on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. It
is not just the fact that Maj Gen Costin appeared in uniform, it is that
PLUS the fact that he is the AF Chief of Chaplains, speaking at an allegedly
"Christian" sect group's political event.
Did anyone consider how this might affect the Muslim or Jewish Chaplain's
under him in the AF Chaplains' Corps? Under CARL's "Purpose Statement,"
they, among other AF Chaplains, could not even join CARL based solely upon
their religious beliefs. That is pure and simple religious discrimination
any way you look at it, provided that you look at it in the context of who
CARL is and what they do.
https://chaplainalliance.org/about-us/purpose-statement
This is and was not a "Free Exercise" issue - it was and is an Establishment
Clause issue where the AF Chief of Chaplains has entangled himself with a
group that espouses religious and other intolerances. I respectfully urge
you and your legal staff to review our Supplemental Request in more detail.
Finally, the AF IG simply used the wrong legal standard, viz., that "Maj Gen
Costin endorsed CARL . . . ." The correct legal standard is whether or not
the actions in uniform by a 2 Star Chief of Chaplains gave the APPEARANCE of
endorsing CARL by speaking [whether it be a "benediction" or speech] at this
event. With due respect, that is the core of MRFF's complaint and something
that respectfully needs to be addressed. As I noted in my letter to Mr.
Fine, being a Chaplain, much less the Chief of Chaplain's does not give one
a free pass to ignore rather plain and unambiguous rules.
Thank you in advance for your considerations in this matter.
DONALD G. REHKOPF, JR., Esq.
Brenna Boyce, PLLC
Attorneys-at-Law
Rochester, New York 14614
Marguerite C. Garrison acknowledges the reception of Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr.'s request for a continued investigation and takes a second look into MRFF's complaint against Maj. Gen. Costin:
From: Garrison, Marguerite C., SES, OIG DoD
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 6:19 PM
To: Donald G. Rehkopf, Jr.
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Supplemental Request for Action
Mr. Rehkopf,
Thank you for your response. I acknowledge receipt of your email below and
will provide a response when my review of the matter is complete.
Sincerely,
Marguerite C. Garrison
Department of Defense Deputy Inspector General for Administrative Investigations
Alexandria, VA 22350
