----- Original Message -----
From: Padgett, Michael G COL [AMSTA-AR-CC]
To: 'Brad P. Giordani'
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: Why don't we settle this prior to going back to Congress?

Brad,
Recommend we meet to discuss. Someone from the Government side will contact you in the next few days to set it up, probably in the D.C. area. The storm is slowing down our ability to fully coordinate the proposed meeting and contact you with our recommendations. Please give it a few days...

Michael Padgett

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad P. Giordani [mailto:militec@militec-1.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Jeniolionis, Ernest (DSCR); Kevin Hayes; Leonard Trahan, Jr. Director Defense Hotline; Padgett, Michael G COL [AMSTA-AR-CC]; Perkins, Gil (DSCR); Spiers, Dana W. (DSCR)
Cc: Alan XXX; XXX; Jim Hoffer; Russ Logan
Subject: Why don't we settle this prior to going back to Congress?

Pending Press Release (DRAFT)
Overview

On March 19, 2003, without justification, the Defense Supply Center Richmond (DSCR) reversed a standing eight-year-old policy of purchasing MILITEC-1 Metal Conditioner for U.S. forces and federal agencies. This was a collaborative act, done in concert with Picatinny Army Arsenal, N.J. (ARDEC).

Militec, Inc. submits three allegations stemming from this act:

First, that DSCR and ARDEC followed a pattern and practice of unprofessional conduct in managing the supply of a critical product to our combat forces. We contend that the policy reversal was not the result of a logical, orderly decision-making process by the parties involved, but rather was done as retribution for an eight-year-old grudge held by certain civilians within DSCR and ARDEC.

Second, that this action resulted not only in grievous financial damage to our small company, Militec, Inc., but also has contributed to the death and injury of military personnel that were denied access to MILITEC-1 as a safe alternative to the Army's twenty-three-year-old CLP gun oil.

Third, that in spite of Militec, Inc.'s advisories and complaints warning DSCR, ARDEC and the DOD IG of the dangers of using CLP gun oil in desert operations, no action has been taken. Furthermore, official After Action Reports from Iraq supporting our claims have also been dismissed.

We strongly urge a swift and thorough investigation into these allegations, not only to redress the damage done, but also to prevent additional injury and loss of life to our military forces.

Background

MILITEC-1 Metal Conditioner is a synthetic weapons oil that allows weapons to be fired dry without attracting sand and dust in desert environments. In contrast, the Army's mandated MilSpec (all-in-one) weapons oil (called "CLP" for Cleaner Lubricant and Preservative) traps sand and debris like a magnet. In the blowing dust and sand of a desert environment, gunmetal quickly becomes coated with a thick sludge, rendering weapons inoperative. For desert operations, MilSpec all-in-one weapons oil has proven to be defective by Elite U.S. Forces, Federal Agencies and many weapon manufacturers.

MILITEC-1 has been used by military activities in every conflict since Desert Storm. The Secret Service, State Department worldwide, FBI, INS, NCIS, DIA, DCIS, USPI, USPP, Sky Marshals, Coast Guard, and others, including our Special Operation Teams in theater, currently use MILITEC-1.

Concerning the First Allegation: In 1993, MILITEC-1 was granted National Stock Numbers (NSN's) by DSCR. However, beginning in 1994, certain civilians within the Army tried to cancel those lawfully issued NSN's. As a result, in March 1995, Militec, Inc. convinced nineteen members of Congress to send the Secretary of Defense a letter supporting MILITEC-1 and ensuring that supplies of MILITEC-1 would be made available to all military activities and federal agencies. At that time, additional NSN's were granted and MILITEC-1 enjoyed a continuous, successful and problem-free history of delivery to our forces worldwide through DSCR for eight full years. Even our staunches critic, Maurice LePera, the former DOD executive Agent for Fuels and Lubricants, was in full agreement that MILITEC-1 may be used for weapon applications only.

Then, in March 2003, Militec, Inc. received orders worth over $100,000 from DSCR. These orders were somewhat larger than historical orders had been, but as our forces were massing to invade Iraq, we did not consider them out of the ordinary and were excited to comply. We were also informed to be prepared for additional large orders, and were told by Dana W. Spiers of DSCR that the "approval for these orders had division backing," which we knew. We immediately packaged $120,000 worth of specific sizes of MILITEC-1 in anticipation of the promised orders from DSCR.

However, the day after notifying us that the orders had division backing, DSCR summarily cancelled all orders for MILITEC-1. No explanation was given. The field commanders who placed the orders were neither notified by DSCR or ARDEC, nor given an explanation as to why their war orders had been cancelled. Homeland Security orders were also cancelled without explanation. Further, the parties ordering MILITEC-1 were given no opportunity to request that their orders be reinstated, until after the war was declared over. We have requested the contact list from DSCR without success.

The root cause behind these cancellations was that the individuals who initially tried to exclude MILITEC-1 from the supply system in 1994 had been outraged because Militec, Inc. had gone over their heads when we obtained help from Congress. When the current large war orders for MILITEC-1 started rolling in, their smoldering grudge against Militec, Inc. caused them to reverse the standing eight-year-old policy. They simply could not tolerate seeing Militec, Inc. succeed in their system. In a later phone conversation, Ernest Jeniolionis from DSCR informed us that the orders had been cancelled on his authority. He said he remembered that Congress had intervened on our behalf eight years ago, and the current large volume of orders presented a perfect opportunity to "get even." He also stated that he had not been working alone in this decision. Although these actions may have made Ernest Jeniolionis and his comrades feel good to see our war orders cancelled, this was nothing more than a spiteful act that constituted a historical pattern and practice of unprofessional conduct.

Concerning the Second Allegation: Unfortunately, the desire to hurt Militec, Inc. financially and to damage our reputation was not the only result of the canceled war orders. We firmly believe military personnel have been injured and killed as a direct result of being denied access to MILITEC-1 or other products as a safe alternative to the mandated MilSpec CLP all-in-one oil.

As an example, the 507^th maintenance company was using MilSpec CLP oil on their weapons when their position was overrun. The fact that all their weapons quickly jammed, making them unable to properly return enemy fire, has been thoroughly reported both in the media and by the military. If those troops had been allowed to use MILITEC-1 instead of MilSpec CLP oil, their weapons would have functioned properly, and injury, death and capture might have been avoided.

Thus, the soldiers in the field are the ones who paid the ultimate price because a few individuals abused their authority in an attempt to further punish our small company.

Concerning the Third Allegation: Militec, Inc. has repeatedly advised Ernest Jeniolionis of DSCR, Col. Padgett of Picatinny Army Arsenal (ARDEC) and Leonard Trahan the DOD IG Hotline director that MilSpec CLP oil is a defective product for desert combat operations. Our advisories included warnings from U.S. Government Contractors based in Kuwait (MPRI), who cited years of field experience training U.S. forces for desert combat operations and direct intelligence concerning injury and death to our forces. All evidence from Kuwait was ignored, including the Navy Seal who was over-run by Taliban and Al-Queda forces in Afghanistan.

We anticipated decisive action to restore our forces' free access to MILITEC-1 and to punish the individuals who had abused their authority by following a pattern and practice of unprofessional conduct in managing the supply and authorization of critical war orders.

Instead, Major General Thompson refused to listen. In spite of the fact that weapons continue to malfunction in the Iraqi and Afghani theaters, no direct, immediate action has been taken to alleviate the problem. MG Thompson continues to view our evidence as "masquerading as a serious proposal".

We were extremely frustrated because the agencies we notified were the ones tasked with the responsibility of insuring the safety of our forces. Finally, realizing the responsible individuals were not going to act, we made their refusals public by posting their emails and letters on our website (www.militec-1.com). When they realized we had allowed the world to see their obfuscation, their retaliation of bad-mouthing and blocking orders have further harmed our forces and prevented our company from being awarded its rightful government contracts that we have worked for since 1988.

As Militec, Inc., of Waldorf, Md., has exhausted its options for definitive action within the appropriate military channels; we will now advise Congress to authorize a prompt investigation and hearings into unprofessional conduct at DSCR and ARDEC.

September 17, 2003