----- Original Message ----- From: MILITEC-1 To: Padgett, Michael G COL [AMSTA-AR-CC] ; Kevin Hayes Cc: Russ Logan ; Brad P. Giordani Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 1:51 PM Subject: Dear General Thompson without6-1-03

MG Thompson

LETTER TO MAJOR GENERAL N. ROSS THOMPSON III April 4, 2003 MG THOMPSON'S RESPONSE TO MILITEC (DRAFTED BY ARDEC NEW JERSEY) May 15, 2003

Dear General Thompson,

Thank you for your letter dated May 15, 2003, in which you respond to our letter of April 4.

We have found numerous inaccuracies, errors and misleading facts in your letter, which we feel require clarification.

We were advised by Colonel Coleman that when you viewed our website (www.militec-1.com), you were extremely upset and angered by the content. In fact, Colonel Coleman reported that he and your staff have never seen you so agitated. We sincerely hope that the numerous inaccuracies in your response, and the five-week delay it took you to answer us, were not simply the result of your strong emotions. Though reading the truth can certainly be upsetting, we cannot allow our emotions to cloud the facts concerning how our troops are being treated.

Below we itemize the inaccuracies, errors and misleading statements in your comments.

Your letter states, "test data shows that MILITEC-1 does not meet the minimum specified requirement for Cleaning, Lubricating and Preserving (CLP) military weapons." (p. 1, para. 1) We never claimed it did. In fact, we have repeatedly informed AMC/ARDEC that MILITEC-1 will not meet your laboratory conformance specifications for MilSpec CLP weapons oil/solvent. The real point is that we do not intend to meet this specification because we feel it does not work. It is our position that laboratory tests have little correlation or relevance to live-fire battlefield conditions, and that your standards should be revised.

You say, "(MILITEC-1) has not shown a benefit commensurate with its cost when used as an engine additive." (p. 1, para. 1) This claim is repeated throughout your letter. We fail to understand why the drafters of your letter (Kevin Hayes, et al, at ARDEC) bring up the subject of engine additives. We have not mentioned this concept in our letters, and it is not relevant to the issue of weapons lubrication. The engine additive issue serves only as a distraction, which detracts from and confuses the entire process. We are also at a loss to understand why Mr. Villahermosa, former subordinate of Mr. LePera’s, is copied on messages from ARDEC, when he has nothing to do with weapons lubricants. Mr. Villahermosa took the helm from Mr. LePera after LePera retired from your organization following thirty-five years service.

We are troubled by your claim that MilSpec CLP weapons lubricant/solvent represents the "state of the art" (p. 1, para. 2) in weapons lubrication technology. This runs directly contrary to what we hear from military users and numerous federal agencies, both of whom use their weapons in the field on a daily basis. It also completely contradicts the lubrication specifications provided by a host of weapons manufacturers, some of whom supply weapons to the military.

Next, you state that, "When Militec attempted to pass the CLP specification, the product did not meet the preservative requirement." (p. 1, para. 2) This is true. However, the point is irrelevant. New weapons specs require manufacturers to coat guns for corrosion resistance adequate to meet soldiers’ needs before the gun is even lubed. In contrast, your position is based on a laboratory salt fog test performed on a metal coupon. This has nothing to do with real-world corrosion conditions encountered by a combat soldier, especially in the desert. Your corrosion test does not even require a weapon to be tested or fired. Suggesting that MILITEC-1 cannot pass a weapons test in which weapons are not tested is like qualifying an airplane for commercial use when it has never left the ground. We feel the proper emphasis in an adequate standard for weapons lubrication should be on the reliability of the lube, not on an outmoded corrosion prevention test.

Once again, you mention after market guidelines (engine additives). (p. 2, para. 1) Why this subject keeps coming up is for reasons only you and your group can explain. As you must know, your former Executive Agent for fuels and lubes for the entire DoD, Mr. Maurice LePera, has worked for an engine oil additive company, a company that was sued by the FTC and forced to pay at least a million dollar in fines. The misinformation campaign against MILITEC-1 started with LePera and is evidently still carried on to this day as LePera’s former team is still in place at TACOM/ARDEC. Considering LePera’s involvement with a competing company, the whole thing reeks of conflict of interest. This has been, and continues to be, a major source of contention since 1990.

You cite Crane, Indiana as flunking MILITEC-1. (p. 2, para. 1) The fact is that Crane (Coast Guard side) approved MILITEC-1 and sent out an advisory against using MilSpec CLP oil! Furthermore, just last week Crane (Navy side) instructed the SEAL Training Center at Little Creek, Virginia to order MILITEC-1. The SEAL Team called us last week at the direction of Crane and placed an order for all sizes of MILITEC-1 including our grease. Please let us know if you would like copies of the orders and approvals.

You say, "we know that some units operating within Southwest Asia have attempted to requisition MILITEC-1 for small arms lubrication purposes." (p. 2, para. 1) The fact is, we have received over twenty-six (26) large orders directly from Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan for use in combat. With all due respect, this is not merely "an attempt." In specific regard to this subject, can you tell us who was/is responsible for blocking some of these orders in time of war? We cannot imagine who would authorize legitimate war orders to be canceled without advance notice to the commanders in theater, especially when those commanders specifically requisitioned MILITEC-1 to keep their troops’ weapons operational and dry in the blowing sand and dust. It is our information that all three BCTs of the 3ID left their CLP behind and used only MILITEC-1 in Iraq. Undoubtedly, many more would have done the same if their legitimate war orders had not been cancelled.

You say, "We believe that elaborating point-by-point on such claims would elevate emotions." (p. 2, para. 2) We disagree. Elaborating point-by-point is the only way to reach clarity. Several additional points are appropriate here. We did not realize our April 4, 2003 letter contained emotional content (though we admit that this letter might). Kevin Hayes at ARDEC is on record saying your letter of May 15 was revised at least six times. Based on the content of your letter, we are surprised you let so much of your own emotional content come through after such extensive revision. For example, you say that all of our science, which is based on credible evidence from users in the field, is only "masquerading as a ‘serious’ proposal." (p. 3, para. 2). This seems quite emotional to us. We are also very sorry if our reference to Jesus Christ on our home page (www.militec-1.com) upsets you. Or, the fact that we feel that soldiers have recently been killed, injured and captured because the wet CLP on their weapons attracted and held dust and sand like a magnet which then clogged the weapons and resulted in inability to return fire. We have alerted AMC/ARDEC to this possibility for years. With all due respect, for AMC/ARDEC to advise our troops to put wet oil on weapons used in the desert is a dangerous idea. Please remember, part of the reason the 507th was captured was because they had no working weapons and were unable to return enemy fire. If their weapons had been conditioned by MILITEC-1, at least they might have had a fighting chance to defend themselves until reinforcements arrived.

You state, "While results from non-DOD users may be of some interest, our assessment will focus on the specific needs of the Army and our DOD customers." (p. 2, para. 2) We find it hard to believe that you consider the State Department’s use of MILITEC-1 worldwide for years, use of MILITEC-1 by most federal agencies, and even use of MILITEC-1 by our Special Operations Teams and other federal teams in theater, to be only of "some interest." It is truly a shame, especially in a wartime environment, that AMC/ARDEC has never solicited the advice of these agencies and taken their decade of experience with MILITEC-1 into consideration. These agencies rely on what works in the field. As a specific example of why their input would be valuable to you, you and your team at ARDEC must realize that concealed carry by the Secret Service, FBI, DOJ and most other federal agencies creates one the worst possible corrosion conditions a weapon can encounter. Weapons that are carried next to the body are continuously exposed to a sweaty fog of salt, humidity and other corrosive elements. If MILITEC-1 failed to prevent corrosion, as your "lab tests" conclude, no one would ever use it for concealed carry purposes. Yet, these agencies are our best customers! They are on record saying MILITEC-1 repels water, and protects their weapons perfectly. Suggesting that ARDEC knows more than our top federal agencies, which have mandated the use of MILITEC-1 for over a decade, worldwide, seems to us to be reckless and irresponsible.

Your suggestion to test MILITEC-1 against laboratory conformance standards for MilSpec CLP (p. 2, para. 3) completely misses the point. Our product could easily pass these standards if, for example, we were to include a solvent package for improved pour-point and cleaning characteristics, or a "cheat" ingredient to allow MILITEC-1 to pass your laboratory "salt fog" test. The point is that we left these ingredients out on purpose. The solvent component is what makes MilSpec CLP combustible, and an added "cheat" ingredient is simply not relevant. As for the cleaning component contained in CLP, that was the primary reason the Coast Guard dropped CLP. It left too much residue in sensitive areas of the M-9, contributing to the other problems they discovered in the discrepancies of manufacture. Thus, addition of either component to MILITEC-1 would cause our product to be similar to the very product we feel is faulty and should be replaced. Such an action on our part would be a step backward. It would do a grave injustice to all our customers, and especially to our troops. In essence, it would require Militec, Inc. to start from scratch with an untested, unproven product lacking the extensive history and proven credentials that back up our claims and successes. This does not sound like a level playing field. The suggestion for us to conform to a dangerous product’s specifications will simply never happen. MILITEC-1 will remain true to its original formula, which has never been modified since its invention. We refuse to conform to a specification that does not work and which we feel is responsible for death and injury to our forces.

We feel strongly about this because we believe it is impossible to modify the MilSpec CLP standard (which has been in effect for over twenty years) in such a way as to obtain a level of weapons performance adequate to insure the safety and survivability that our combat personnel require. The old MilSpec is outdated. As we have previously stated, a new performance standard, based on field-testing not laboratory work, needs to be developed, taking into account current weapons manufacturing standards and modern cleaners and lubricants. At your request, we provided AMC/ARDEC with volumes of data and performance specifications that have evidently never been considered. We have continuously complied with your requests. Unfortunately, the result always seems to be the same. Since MILITEC-1 does not pass your $60.00 salt fog test, ARDEC fails our entire program. We feel that the use of small metal coupons in a lab test simply does not correlate with weapons use in the field. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

You state, "one of the Army's primary objectives is to place the best technology into the hands of soldiers." (p. 3, para. 1) If MilSpec CLP is the best technology that the Army has to offer, we fear that more of our troops may be killed and injured. To this day, Militec, Inc. has never heard of one single instance of any soldier, sailor, marine or airman claiming that MilSpec CLP represents the best lubricant technology. In some cases, we do hear that CLP does a good job at cleaning, but the next immediate comment we always hear is that you have to scrub like mad. What we do hear, at trade shows and from our customers’ feedback (and please remember who our customers are!) are strong and unsolicited insults concerning your "state of the art" MilSpec CLP product. We have given your team an open invitation to attend various military trade shows and listen first hand to what your customers have to say.

It is not true that MILITEC-1 was fairly evaluated as you say in your letter (p. 3, para. 1). We have evidence that Steve Waylan, one of your chief chemists at ARDEC and a former subordinate of Maurice LePera, falsified laboratory test reports on MILITEC-1, and then released his draft and preliminary findings to the Pentagon - a move which had not been requested by them. ARDEC finally (and very reluctantly) acknowledged their mistake after we had the tests repeated at Petro Lubricants Testing Laboratory. Though it was a regrettable incident, it only serves to highlight the inadequacy of laboratory testing. Extended field use should be the final proving ground for testing lubricants.

This is our main point. The final determination concerning which weapons lubricant our troops use should come from the field. We think the After Action Reports from Iraq must be taken into account. Considering that the 3ID used MILITEC-1, it would be especially valuable to see the AARs from this group, and contrast their weapons failure rate with the failure rate experienced by other groups. Perhaps you could influence some of these AARs to be declassified quickly so we can all see what really happened.

As a final note, we must point out another inconsistency in your letter. You state, "In 1990 ARDEC fairly evaluated MILITEC-1 against the QPL specification for CLP, and MILITEC-1 failed the preservation portion of the test." (p. 3, para. 1) We have a copy of the 1990 ARDEC letter to which you refer, and it contradicts your statement. The letter mentions that MILITEC-1 has no solvent package but makes no mention of the preservative test.

In closing, we are sure you have noticed that we have prominently posted your letter of May 15, 2003 on our website (www.militec-1.com). We would like you to be aware that this letter, which is in response to yours, will also be posted on our website at close of business on Wednesday, June 4, 2003. We are giving you this advance notification to allow you an opportunity to respond, if you feel the need, before this letter is made public.

Sincerely,

Brad P. Giordani
President
Militec, Inc.

Email transmission only