Marines and sailors at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina undergo a routine urinalysis on Nov. 30, 2012. U.S. Marine Corps/Cpl. Daniel Wulz
Probably fearing the outcome of a routine piss test, a Navy sailor allegedly tried to destroy his urine samples, and now faces charges for attempting to set fire to bottles of pee, which, well, aren't that flammable.
The sailor in question, Logistics Specialist 3rd Class Curtis Dajuan Johnson, is facing a court martial for attempting to set "fire to urine samples" on, or about May 1, 2017, according to Geoff Ziezulewicz with Navy Times, who first broke the story.
While stationed at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia, Johnson allegedly tried to set the piss bottles ablaze "in order to prevent the results of said urinalysis from being used against him at an adverse administrative proceeding, which he had reason to believe would be pending absent his obstruction," according to a copy of Johnson's charge sheet provided to Task & Purpose by the Navy.
The charge sheet goes on to note (unsurprisingly) that "such conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces."
The alleged wee-wee-related arson came after a "command sweep urinalysis" — which usually involves an entire unit being ordered to the lavatory to relieve themselves into a cup under the watchful eye of some poor NCO.
Johnson faces three charges: One for giving a false statement when he told investigators that he left the base at 5 pm that day to head to Philadelphia, even though he was actually still on post till as late as 11 pm that night; another for aggravated arson for "willfully and maliciously" setting fire to the samples, even though there was another person within the building at the time; and a final charge for wrongful interference with an adverse administrative proceeding, according to the charge sheet.
Currently, no trial date has been announced for Johnson, who enlisted in the Navy in 2010, and picked up his current rank in 2014, according to Navy Times.
For any would-be pee-pyros out there, this case, and the included charge sheet, should take the piss out of future plans to set bottles of urine alight.
In a scathing letter, a top Navy legal official on Sunday expressed "grave ethical concerns" over revelations that government prosecutors used tracking software in emails to defense lawyers in ongoing cases involving two Navy SEALs in San Diego.
The letter, written by David G. Wilson, Chief of Staff of the Navy's Defense Service Offices, requested a response by Tuesday from the Chief of the Navy's regional law offices detailing exactly what type of software was used and what it could do, who authorized it, and what controls were put in place to limit its spread on government networks.
"As our clients learn about these extraordinary events in the media, we are left unarmed with any facts to answer their understandable concerns about our ability to secure the information they must trust us to maintain. This situation has become untenable," Wilson wrote in the letter, which was obtained by Task & Purpose on Monday.
Riley Howell, the Army ROTC cadet shot and killed while restraining an active shooter at UNC Charlotte on April 30, was posthumously awarded the ROTC Medal of Heroism earlier this month for his heroic sacrifice, the Army announced.
The head of naval aviation has directed the creation of a new process for approving and reviewing pilots' call signs after two African-American aviators at an F/A-18 Hornet training squadron in Virginia filed complaints alleging racial bias in the unit, from which they said they were unfairly dismissed.
In a formal endorsement letter signed May 13, Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller, commander of Naval Air Forces, said he found the two aviators, a Navy lieutenant and a Marine Corps captain, were correctly removed from Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 106 out of Naval Air Station Oceana due to "substandard performance," despite errors and inconsistencies discovered in the grading and ranking process.
However, Miller said he did find inappropriate conduct by instructor pilots who did not treat the pilots-in-training "with appropriate dignity and respect," using discriminatory call signs and having inappropriate and unprofessional discussions about them on social media.