Have you ever considered what happens to those innocent people jammed up in the criminal justice system? What happens in the aftermath, even when they are fortunate enough to be acquitted? Such bungles are not uncommon in the United States despite a supposedly fair and impartial criminal justice system. In truth, I had not discerned the full extent of this question until I, myself, was enmeshed in this G-RAP (Guard Recruiting Assistance Program) collection action.

Most Americans have been seduced into believing that our criminal justice system is, if not perfect, at least objective and unbiased. But they fail to realize that justice is not a guarantee and certainly not equally meted. As the saying goes, “justice is only for those who can afford it.” Considering that most legal cases are funded through personal reserves, the cost to mount a proper defense can be financially crippling. A retainer, a portion of the hourly fee, is generally paid up front to an attorney just to sift through paperwork and conduct “initial research.” Most retainers usually range from $15,000 to $30,000 in a federal court case. Then, the “billable hours” begin to accrue and time can add up quickly. If the defendant goes to trial, fees often range upwards of $50,000.

Keep in mind that those who spent their life savings to successfully prove their innocence are not offered a reimbursement simply because they are found to be law-abiding citizens. These defendants are not even offered an apology by the government agency that sought to arraign them under false pretenses. Furthermore, rarely is an arrest and/or charge dropped from the public registry. As such, these mostly men face the stigma of having been implicated as a suspect in a crime. The defendant will forever carry around a “badge of shame,” forced to justify his/her innocence to an unforgiving public and to prospective employers who routinely conduct criminal background checks.

In the case of G-RAP, the utter dread heaped upon the incriminated can take an enormous mental toll in a number of ways; most significantly they profoundly strain personal and professional relationships. The harm that is done to one’s career, reputation and financial standing is almost irreparable. The scars are not always visible from the surface but instead lurk beneath in the form of anxiety, depression and even symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. This has been the fate of hundreds, if not thousands, of our men and women in uniform caught in the wake of the Army’s ongoing G-RAP “scandal” across the country.

*

On October 23, 2015, twenty-five soldiers were indicted in Puerto Rico on allegations of fraud and identity theft. The way in which the government chose to inform these men of the allegations can be considered psychological warfare. In the early hours of the morning, Enrique “Ricky” Costas and his wife awoke to a commotion unlike anything they ever expected when their front door was literally kicked in. Costas recalls grabbing his personal weapon, believing intruders had entered his home. Instead, a swarm of local state police and federal agents, armed in tactical gear, showed up to the Costas residence without a search warrant or justifiable explanation for the unwanted intrusion. When the frightened retired Master Sergeant’s wife inquired about the meaning in the invasion, she was abruptly dismissed, having been told by the agents in so many expletive-laced words to be silent. Stunned, anxious and helpless, she watched in horror as the agents proceeded to violate their rights, as they dug through personal items and subsequently ransacked their house. Enrique, still half asleep, was handcuffed and unceremoniously transported to the federal courthouse in San Juan without any clue of the situation. It was not until he saw other guardsmen detained, some bound about the hands and feet, did he realize the nature and scope of the intrusion. Costas along, with 24 others from the island, had been raided in the middle of the night during a statewide massive search and seizure campaign in clear violations of their 4th, 5th and 14th amendment rights.

Sergeant Carlos Melendez was another soldier pursued and rounded up that morning without any knowledge or understanding as to why he was being taken into custody in this particular manner. He recounts the utter fear of his children during this unorthodox disturbance of serving an indictment. This all stemmed from a military recruitment program that he and other guardsmen participated in 6 to 10 years ago. They were being indicted on crimes of fraud in connection with G-RAP, accused of recruiting the soldiers under false pretenses for which they earned $2,000 each. In the first of many instances, these U.S. service members were treated as enemy combatants. But are they that dangerous that they are worthy of the same type of invasion used for arms dealers and drug lords—an invasion in the middle of the night by agencies dressed in full protective body armor, accompanied by M-4 machine guns fully locked and loaded?

In my recent visit to the island colony of Puerto Rico, I watched in disbelief as Assistant US Attorneys Olga Castellón and Rosa Rodriguez-Velez callously prosecuted two unwitting members of the Army National Guard, one of them being Ricky Costas. Defying all logic and rule of law in the prosecution’s arguments, these two journeymen were accused of fraud for simply doing the job they were recruited to do. The presiding United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico, Aida M. Delgado-Colon, was of little help as her words and actions showed she was unusually complicit with the prosecution’s demands. For example, Judge Delgado-Colon agreed to omit any evidence in reference to Docupak (Document & Packaging Brokers, Inc.), the private contracting company that ran every aspect of G-RAP. Docupak created the rules discussed in the preceding paragraphs now being used to prosecute participants. These same rules were changed numerous times unbeknownst to the RAs, and these same rules are now used to convict soldiers of fraud. What’s more, the recruiting assistants (RA) were not working for the government, but instead, they were actually independent contractors with Docupak. And still, any information regarding Docupak was barred before the court.

One key component in these cases involves Docupak’s rules regarding personal identifying information (PII) such as one’s social security number. This rule change is one of the main prosecutorial strategies used in attempts to hold RAs accountable in state/federal court. When the program began in 2006, RAs were not allowed to ask the soldiers directly for their PII; they had to attain such information from the full-time recruiter. At some point during the 6 years of G-RAP, that rule took an about face, and it then became mandatory that the RA obtain the PII directly from the recruit. The alleged rule change (and the miscommunication around it) is key evidence in this trial that would unequivocally prove crucial to the defendants’ innocence. Interestingly, it is hard to find an RA that recalls such a clear and distinct rule change. While the prosecution used this latest iteration of the rule to ultimately convict Costas of 3 counts (out of 24) of fraud, the defense was not allowed to submit any testimony alluding to such rule changes and poor management on behalf of Docupak.

Let this sink in for a moment. As a full-time recruiter for the National Guard, Costas could not participate in the G-RAP, but he did work with RAs in a support role, as did thousands of other recruiters to help bring privates into the armed services. His bank account records confirm that he did not accept money from an RA in any capacity. He did not put false names in the computer system to “steal” money from the government. He was found guilty of a federal crime of fraud based on the belief that he inappropriately (or illegally) gave out the PII of prospective soldiers to RAs who did not obtained enlistee PII directly from the recruit after a change in the rules that originally required the RAs to get such information from a full-time recruiter like Costas himself. To put this in further perspective, full-time National Guard recruiters handle PII of servicemen/women routinely in the office and frequently share information with other recruiters and soldiers on temporary assignment. Such activity is permissible and encouraged. This rule alteration occurred at some point in the middle of the G-RAP, though no RA or recruiter that I have interviewed in the past 3 years can attest to knowledge of a change in policy. Put differently, this is just one of many rules that Docupak apparently modified without proper notification to RAs working during their course of business.

This case raises several key questions. For example, if PII was so vital—important enough to send people to federal prison over it—then why was there no requirement of the RAs to document this required information on a form with the recruit’s signature? After all, it is the recruit’s social security number that we are talking about. And why is the U.S. government taking such extraordinary measures to convict individuals with a ruling based on memory? Do you remember everybody you spoke to one week ago? What if we jogged your memory, would you be able to give the details of that conversation? Are you confident enough in those details to send someone to penitentiary? Now imagine being asked to recall a brief conversation you had with an individual 6 years ago. It is well known and well proven that memories are faulty; yet, this is a trial based primarily on remembrance.

*

During closing remarks, 16 soldiers showed up in uniform to support their comrades in arms. In yet another display of blatant disrespect to our military men and women, Judge Delgado-Colon ordered them to shamefully remove their uniform tops and name tags, at the behest of the prosecution, for worry that the soldiers would “bias the jury.” The judge spent 5 hours trying to find regulation to support her action. None was found, but she maintained her position and the men had to ignominiously take off their shirts and name tags.

Based on Costas’s conviction, minimum sentencing would have him pay the government restitution of $3,000 and serve 18 months on probation with no jail time. Instead, he was arrested on the spot and thrown in prison. He has been deteriorating there, without his medication and without acceptable food, for the past 2 months. To put this in perspective, a few local public figures were convicted of $2.5 million in fraud, and they were released to go home to their family that day. They will not report back to court until their sentencing date in February. Meanwhile, Ricky Costas will remain in prison until the judge makes a ruling on appeal filed by his counsel or until his sentencing date. This again begs the question of why we are treating our soldiers so harshly. Here is a man who swore an oath to risk his life and give his body to defend our country. This same man now sits in jail suffering and agonizing while real criminals in PR are allowed to go free. Not one of these servicemen deserves this abuse and humiliation.

These actions do not represent our finest hour in America. These investigations reinforce the notion that a soldier’s life is merely expendable. In the weeks, months and years since the G-RAP investigations began, some soldiers have been more successful than others in clearing their name. But such outcomes will not undo the pain and suffering experienced by guardsmen and guardswomen and their families, who watch as their loved ones deteriorate under the weight of a federal indictment. Contained within these paragraphs are detailed accounts of the victimization of innocent soldiers hounded by a poorly executed criminal investigation. The operation dubbed “Task Force Raptor” is a Johnny-come-lately attempt at government accountability by our elected officials and military brass couched in the name of justice. The embattled members of the Army National Guard have been batched processed in a sting-like operation to recover stolen funds.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) is of the opinion that 20,000 service members pulled off the biggest heist in US history by stealing an estimated 100 million dollars from the national treasury. In other words, the senator is convinced that 1 out of 5 military men and women are felons, found only after a massive inquest on G-RAP. Or is it more likely that rather than concede to costly mistakes, our government would find it much simpler to pursue the unsuspecting, low hanging fruit, cases that are the least likely to fight the allegations?