United States vs. Manning

United States vs. Manning

A timeline of the U.S. investigation between 2006 to 2013

Tweet

About
•
Tags
•
Main

2010-05-28

Bradley Manning's mental health provider was advised that the US Army Criminal Investigation Division was investigating him for compromising secret information. Manning is assessed to be of high risk for suicide, homicide, or AWOL and remained on unit watch. Manning is also required to be under guard by escorts. Unidentified Mental Health Provider in Iraq No. 3 makes a recommendation thatManning was not suitable for continued access to classified material and that his security clearance should be rescinded.

		XXXXXXXXXX He is a psychiatrist that performed a behavioral health evaluation on PFC Manning on 22 May and 28 May 2010. He will testify that XXXXXXXXXX [ Master Sergeant Paul Adkins (now Sergeant First Class due to an administrative action) ] had expressed concern to him about PFC Manning around l0 April 2010, and had given him a memorandum where he documented his concerns. Since PFC Manning's primary clinician, XXXXXXXXXX was on leave at the time, he completed the command directed mental health evaluation. Based on his interview of PFC Manning and review of his records, XXXXXXXXXX will testify,' that he determined PFC Manning was at risk to himself and others and recommended that he not have an operable weapon. He will testify that he considered making a recommendation as to PFC Manning's access to classified information in his 22 May 2010 evaluation but did not do so because he had been informed that PFC Manning was no longer allowed in the T-SCIF. Instead, he deleted the block referencing access to classified information on the MEDCOM Form 4038 in order to have more space to write notes on the form. XXXXXXXXXX will testify that he did receive training on the subject of Soldier suitability for access to classified information. The training that he received was informal 'on-the-job' training during his residency. He will testify that the factors suggested to look for in making suitability determinations were (1) reliability, (2) suitability, and (3) judgment. On his 28 May 2010 mental health evaluation. XXXXXXXXXX will testify that he made a recommendation that PFC Manning was not suitable for continued access to classified material and that his security clearance should be rescinded.
	Name(s:)	David Coombs
	Title:	civilian defense counsel
	Url:	Url Link
	Archive:	http://archive.is/LyPts

	Title:	US v. Pfc. Manning Court Ruling on defense Article 13 motion
	Author:	Denise Lind
	Title:	Chief Military Judge
	Authoring or Creator Agency:	First Judicial Circuit, United States Army, Department of Defense
	Concerning:	"United States versus Private First Class Manning, Article 13, Unlawful Pretrial Confinement
Url Link
		Archive Link

database built by Alexa O'Brien and Shoofly Solutions