Behold Leviathan


Hope in the Depths of Despair

San Antonio, Texas

The U.S. Army Physical Evaluation Board met in a small conference room at Fort Sam Houston on March 11, 1985. The Board consisted of three senior officers; two line officers and one medical officer. Specialist Fourth Class Wm. Clark was represented by U.S. Army Captain Paul Franco, of the Judge Advocate Corps. The entire morning was set aside for the Hearing. The testimony of Dr. Durand-Hollis did not occur as stated, he refused the court order to testify. However, the documents he "quotes" were entered in evidence. This shortcut is done to abridge the testimony, which took almost all morning. Other than that, this is exact testimony taken from the official transcript made of the court proceedings.

---

Has the member had sufficient time in which to prepare his case?

C: Yes, sir.

P: SP Clark, has your counsel informed you of your rights to testify?

C: Yes, sir.

P: Are there any questions concerning them?

C: No, sir.

P: Counsel, you may proceed.

C: Thank you. Members of the Board, SP4 Clark has been on active duty since October 1982. Prior to entering active service, he attended three colleges, worked for Exxon Oil Company as a mechanical engineer and had done extensive research and writing in the field of engineering, physics, and religion. At no time prior to entering the Army in October 1982 did he ever act or display activity resembling bizarre behavior. Today, he will present evidence to prove that:

1. The medical board's allegation that his illness existed prior to service is false.

2. That his original admission to Chambers pavilion was a result of command influence and pressure to silence SP4 Clark's written comments on his treatment at White Sands Missile Range.

3. That he did experience trauma during his time in service, but previous military training at the United States Naval Academy ~ where he was 21st in his class ~ was clearly sufficient to prepare him for these extraordinary circumstances.

4. The medical boards diagnosis is without any substantial proof or firm documentation.

P: The contentions stated by Counsel are duly recognized.

P: I'd like to question COL Saunders first, and then SP Clark.

C: Very well, proceed.

R: (after being sworn in) Please state your name and rank.

WIT:Robert E. Saunders, Chaplain, COL, U.S. Army, Post Chaplain, Fort Sam Houston.

C: Thank you. COL Saunders, when did SP4 Clark start working for you?

WIT:The summer of last year around June.

C: And did you know at that time the circumstances that led him to Fort Sam Houston?

WIT:Yes.

C: Did you observe him in his work environment?

WIT:Yes.

C: How well did he perform?

WIT:Exceptionally well. In fact, I had put him in for an Army Medal of Commendation.

C: Were you surprised when he was admitted to Chambers Pavilion?

WIT:Yes, I was.

C: Why is that?

WIT:I had seen no erratic or peculiar behavior even with the fact that he had come from a very stressful situation and he was having additional stress with having purchased a car that was having all types of difficulties and he didn't have a lot of funds. He was unusually able to blend in with the staff that was already there. He did not seem to be having any difficulty interacting with people. It looked like he was under control.

C: Let the record show that that a letter from the Chief of Psychiatry has been entered into evidence as Exhibit A. This document is the evaluation of SP Clark's state of mind at this same point in time, as surmised by a psychologist trying to read between the lines of a very detailed document, WHICH HAD ALL THE NAMES, PLACES, AND DATES BLACKED OUT FOR CONFIDENTIALITY...

---

Date: 27 July, 1984

From: Chief of the Community Mental Health Service

To: Office of the Inspector General

1. The enclosed typed statement accompanying letter dated 17 July 1984, twenty-five pages in length, with names obliterated for anonymity, provide by an official of your office for appraisal has been reviewed for its psycho pathological implications as a sample of an individual's manifest behavior and thought processes.

2. It is my professional opinion, even without substantiation to the veracity of some of the alleged reported events and an opportunity to personally interview the writer, that sufficient evidence is furnished to indicate the necessity for further psychiatric/psychological evaluation to ensure the mental well-being of the writer who was apparently experiencing considerable inner turmoil, distress and desperation at the time of this writing. While it is next to impossible to predict harmful aggressive behavior, the psychological dynamics illustrated in this written sample are viewed as possible precursor conditions to such behavior by some types of individuals who may not otherwise manifest occupational impairment and who may otherwise present himself/herself in social interactions as proper and exceptionally brilliant.

3. The writer of the provided statement should be directed to undergo a thorough psychiatric evaluation as soon as possible, and this may involve inpatient observation. It is also deemed necessary that future psychiatric appraisals have the benefit of the individual's statement that has been reviewed by undersigned. The availability of this particular statement by the writer is seen as absolutely critical for psychiatric authorities to render informed assessments of the individual's potential for personal or public peril, medical care needs, and fitness of duty and retention in the service. I further appraise these matters as sufficiently important to warrant a recommended exception to the provisions of IG confidentiality in this action.

---

C: The defense counsel contends that this representation is extreme, biased, and extremely prejudicial. It obviously is erroneous, given previous testimony by COL Saunders, an expert witness intimate with SP4 Clark at this time, and who has extensive training and experience in counseling people facing difficulties in their lives.

Furthermore, the defense counsel contends that neither the Office of the Inspector General or the Psychiatrist who wrote this statement had the authority to divulge any matters concerning SP4 Clark, to anyone. SP4 Clark was transferred directly to Ft. Sam Houston by orders of the Pentagon. It was an Eyes-Only transfer, and all service personnel are obliged to follow the very specific requirements in such circumstances. By circumventing this aspect of the military coda the IG, in collusion with the Chief of Psychiatry LTC Gillooley, have breached the most intimate of confidences in the military; the sanctity of the Pentagon, and - even more than that - the oversight by the U.S. Congress, by direct order of which this transfer was arranged.

I therefore recommend that this prejudicial statement by LTC Gillooley be removed from consideration by the Board as unlawfully obtained documentation.

C: Ok, COL Saunders, what did you do when you found out he was admitted to Chambers? (Clark was admitted after close of business on a Friday.)

WIT:I went over and it was the weekend. I visited SP4 Clark and talked to the nurse that was in charge, it was a male captain, privately. The male captain and I both said we... he said he saw no evidence of mental problems. I said I had not observed any and I visited with SP Clark and assured him that from where I had seen him, I had not seen any mental disease. ... and in doing that, I said as is if we got horses tied outside that we were ready to put him on a horse and bring him back - have a shoot-out here.

C: Let the record show, gentlemen, that COL Saunders, himself an expert mental health professional, and an experienced psychiatric nurse both confirm that SP4 Clark was in good mental health at the time of his admittance to Chambers Pavilion. This admittance was done immediately after SP4 Clark was interviewed by LTC Gillooley, who authorized an immediate hospitalization for observation on the psychiatric ward.

WIT: The record should also show that I read the full statement by SP4 Clark, and it was as lucid and concise an account as I have ever read. The statement was given for review to my NCOIC, who shared it we me. Neither of us got anything like the opinion stated in Exhibit A.

C: Did you eventually speak with Dr. Durand-Hollis?

WIT:Yes.

C: And what did Dr. Durand-Hollis say to you about SP4 Clark?

WIT:I went over with the NCOIC (Non-Commissioned Office in Charge, the senior enlisted man at the Post Chapel) the first of the week, and I went in to see Dr. Durand-Hollis. I had gone over there asking to be able to take SP Clark back to duty and saw a Sergeant who referred me to a Captain who brought me in Dr. Durand-Hollis who said he wanted to see me. I said I wanted the NCOIC present, he agreed, and Dr. Durand-Hollis told me he had read only ... I'm either remembering 1-1/2 to 3 pages of his document ... and that he was the sickest of the sick. He categorized approximately five degrees of sickness, something and it wasn't psychological terms... it was like sick, sicker, sickest and the sickest of the sick and that SP Clark was the latter. I told him I have had some dealings with patients and some psychiatrists and this had certainly not been at all obvious to me and appreciated his patience and could we talk about it. He said, "I've read it, I've read these few pages, I've determined that that's what's wrong with him, and now I'm going to go about proving that."

C: So before Dr. Durand-Hollis even examined SP4 Clark, he believed SP4 Clark was severely mentally ill and set out to prove it?

WIT:To the best of my knowledge, he had not even spoken to SP4 Clark. (COL Saunders met the doctor early Monday morning, and Dr's rounds had not yet been held. All Dr. Durand-Hollis had were nurses' weekend observation notes, which COL Saunders had testified were favorable). He had only read very few pages, it was about 20 pages.. 20 plus pages, single-spaced (the entire document)

C: Thank you, COL Saunders. You may step down now.

C: The defense would like to state for the record that Dr. Durand-Hollis was subpoenaed, but did not come to this hearing. In his absence, counsel would like permission to enter into the formal record written statements made by the doctor in various medical documents issued on SP4 Clark.

P: That is a most unusual request. But the board will approve, with the caution that you not misinterpret the doctor.

C: Thank you, Sirs. I have an associate who will read from the official medical records pertinent replies to my inquiries.

P: That is acceptable, but please swear in the witness. (done)

C: Please state for the record the principle reason for diagnosing SP4 Clark as you did.

WIT: He believes that he has developed a special formula of a scientific nature.

C: I would like to enter into evidence the following document, Exhibit B, from the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, NASA. I will read it in part,

"Your work was reviewed independently by both an engineer and a physicist. Although their backgrounds and scientific/engineering interests are different, both same to the same conclusion. Your concepts about the Unified Field Theory appear to be so profound that you are years ahead of the current scientific thinking in the areas in which you delved."

Dr. Durand-Hollis, have you read this letter?

WIT: Yes, I have.

C: Very well. Please continue with your diagnosis.

WIT: He believes he has found the true meaning of religious materials and concepts.

C: I enter into evidence the following letters in evaluation of SP4 Clark's religious writings.

Exhibit C, Letter from Rabbi Karff

Exhibit D, Letter from John, Wiley & Sons Publishers

Exhibit E, Letter from Rabbi Paul Tarlow

Please note that Rabbi Tarlow is a licensed psychologist, as well as having a graduate degree in Sociology from Texas A & M University.

Dr. Durand-Hollis, have you read these letters?

WIT: Yes, I have.

C: Very well. Please continue with your diagnosis.

WIT: His thinking is manifested by persecutory thinking, with concerns about his safety after having made revelations about his peers.

C: So, you were you aware of the problems he had at White Sands, having turned in drug users and then had his life threatened? How would you categorize the stress he encountered at this time?

WIT: Moderate, routine duties.

C: Dr. Durand-Hollis, how would you categorize SP4 Clark's predisposition for this condition?

WIT: Severe. He had a history of marginal adjustment to personal, family, social, academic, and occupational demands.

C: Witness, please read from the Narrative Summary the items of SP Clark's educational history, for the record

WIT: He started school at the age of five and graduated from high school at 16. The patient was appointed to the US Naval Academy on June of 1974, but resigned two years later when his father had a severe heart attack. He completed college with a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas, cum laude.

C: Witness, please paraphrase from the doctor's own Narrative Summary details of SP Clark's social, family, and personal life as exemplified by his military record.

WIT: At the Naval Academy he was 21st in his class of 1400, on the Superintendent's List, a Company Commander, Platoon Leader, and on the Deans List. He studied mechanical engineering while maintaining a 3.5 grade point average. In the Army he was a Senior Student Leader and a Platoon Leader at his Technical school. He received an Army Medal of Commendation at White Sands Missile Range. While in the army, he has allegedly been able to get along well with his peers. He has not had any problems with his officers. He has not received any disciplinary actions or Article 15's.

C: Witness, please paraphrase from the Narrative Summary details of SP Clark's professional life.

WIT: The patient began work at age 14 as a salesman and clerk for a small shop in his hometown. The remained in that type of work for a year. Then he attended the Naval Academy for two and a half years. His next job was as a carpenter doing home construction, for about six months. After graduation from college he worked for Exxon as a drilling engineer for about two years. For the next year and a half he was engaged in research and writing.

C: During which time he completed the two manuscripts evaluated by religious authorities, as well as the technical document reviewed by NASA?

WIT: That is correct. He continued research after enlisting, and in 1983 presented a paper to the Post Commander and Chief Scientist at White Sands Missile Range, on a portion of his technical researches.

C: How old is SP4 Clark?

WIT: 27

C: By any other measure other than Dr. Durand-Hollis' I would call SP Clark an over-achiever.

P: How did the patient do in the hospital?

WIT: He was given a certificate of appreciate for exemplary performance. I personally presented his case to the entire medical staff of the Brooke Army Medical Center, as a case study. Of course, his name and identity was confidential.

C: I see.

P: Was this presentation before the medical review board reviewed his case?

WIT: I believe so, yes.

C: And the physicians on the review board attended this presentation?

WIT: Yes sir, they all did.

C: If this is such an unusual case, isn't it an exercise in futility to try and disguise the individual's true identity? Three weeks later when these physicians reviewed your medical documents, what was the evaluation?

WIT: They were unanimously in agreement with my opinion.

P: And yet, SP Clark's appeal was approved for another review, i.e. this hearing.

C: The defense moves that the entire medical review process preceding this formal hearing be stricken from the record as prejudged and judgmental due to the unstructured and legally circumspect case presentation by Dr. Durand-Hollis before his peers at Brooke Army Medical Center.

C: Sirs, the defense would like to call another witness, in the manner used for Dr. Durand-Hollis' word. He is CPT Mark Chapin, Community Health Worker at White Sands Missile Range.

P: Very well, counselor, but the same stipulations apply.

C: Agreed.

C: Captain, how did you come to know SP Clark.

WIT: He was referred to Community Mental Health Activity, White Sands Missile Range on 5 December 1983 by his commander for a mental status evaluation because of the service member's claims of a great scientific discovery.

C: Let the record indicate that at this time SP Clark, after having been rejected by his commander, had gone to the next step in his Chain of Command, the Post Commander, Major General Fulwyler. MG Fulwyler reviewed SP Clark's proposal and qualifications, and scheduled a meeting with his Chief Scientist and a mechanical engineer from the High Energy Laser Project, for early the next year.

Captain Chapin, what did your evaluation show?

WIT: SP4 Clark's mental status examination was within normal limits: he was oriented in all spheres, recent and remote memory intact, mood and affect appropriate, thought content and form within normal limits; eating, sleeping and activity patterns were within normal limits and not recently deteriorating. He had several friends in his unit, and there was no evidence of functional deterioration. There was little evidence of any overt psychopathology.

C: May the record show that SP Clark had been at White Sands only a few months at this time. It was his first permanent duty station after AIT and Basic Training. White Sands is also classified as an extremely remote duty station, which imposes special hardships on individuals.

Let the record show, further, that SP Clark had Top Secret Clearance at this time, as do all service members on that post. Furthermore, he had special dispensation to work at the High Energy Laser facility - the Star Wars site - which he did, being assigned by his Platoon Sergeant to assist in some atmospheric measurements within the laser generating facility itself.

Did you provide a copy of this evaluation to SP Clark's commanding officer? What was his reaction?

WIT: The commander was not satisfied with the scope of the assessment, so the MMPI was administered. The evaluation report indicated some level of depression, passive-aggressive personality traits, the needs for attention and recognition.

C: Would you not expect exactly this sort of evaluation, of any service member new to a remote post, at a difficult new job (93E is the most highly qualified Military Occupational Specialty in all of the Army), and furthermore trying hard to contribute as a professional engineer to the betterment of his unit and the service?

I don't suppose it helped matters any either, to be ordered to undergo psychological evaluation by a vindictive and jealous commanding officer.

I have no further questions for the witness.

The balance of the evidence, in the form of personal testimony by SP Clark, is summed up in Counsel's closing arguments.

Members of the Board, if the Disability Review Council is to adhere to its original decision that SP4 Clark's condition is EPTS (existing prior to service), not service aggravated, it must rely on the medical board's analysis on this case. However, after careful analysis of the facts of this case, the foundation of the medical board collapses.

First, the medical board states that SP4 Clark's complex systematized delusional illness is documented in three manuscripts completed before the service. It is obvious that Dr. Durand-Hollis, along with the entire medical review board are ignorant of the very respectable reviews obtained to date on SP4 Clark's work.

Furthermore, in order for that statement to be true, the examining psychiatrist must understand the technical works on their merits. That presumes that Dr. Durand-Hollis is competent to comment on physics, laser technology, and theology. If Dr. Durand-Hollis was competent in these areas, he should have made that clear in the report. If he consulted others on the writings, he did not reveal that in the board either. If he relied on the comments made by experts in the field, he would have to give SP4 Clark's work some merit, because as the Evaluee Exhibits show, SP4 Clark has a BS in Mechanical Engineering and has worked in those fields for years. Furthermore, SP4 Clark spent years researching the field. Do we want to let a psychiatrist's own views on physics govern the case?

Second, Dr. Durand-Hollis is not a theologian. SP4 Clark's religious works are number one, fiction. It was evaluated by more than one theologian who may have disagreed with some of his interpretations, but not all. If the theologians were not offended by this FICTIONAL WORK, why should the medical board tab SP4 Clark mentally ill just because he chooses to write on religion?

Third, another psychiatrist, COL Johnson, also evaluated SP4 Clark concerning his mental status last November. He was willing to state that SP4 Clark's diagnosis may depend entirely on whether his ideas become refined or developed in graduate school. You can see Exhibit J on that. And he also states the key point in this case: 'He (SP4 Clark) deserves to be out of the Armed Services, where his scholarly ideas stand out as a sore thumb.' And therein lies the best hindsight in SP4 Clark's case.

In retrospect, SP4 Clark should never have pushed his ideas in the Army. His work performance and record were spotless. He was well liked by his peers and superiors, but he pushed the Army, he voiced his views. He, like any other scholar, was anxious at getting his ideas published and accepted. When he was turned down by the Army, he went elsewhere.

Furthermore, SP4 Clark jeopardized himself by turning in his roommates for drug use. The anger and frustration in his letters to the various IG Offices was a response to the Army's lackadaisical attitude toward his safety. When he was threatened with harm from his roommates, SP4 Clark had to get his congressman to change his orders. That's what led him to Chambers Pavilion last summer. As COL Saunders swore today, Dr. Durand-Hollis, already knew SP4 Clark was 'the sickest of the sick' before he evaluated him. Is that how the Army wants its psychiatric evaluations done? Going out to prove one is mentally-ill instead of ruling the diagnosis out?

But for the Army, SP4 Clark was a nuisance. He pursued his technical manuals, voiced his personal views freely. He stepped on too many toes. It would be better for the Army to be through with SP4 Clark because he caused too many problems.

At 1023 hours, 11 March 1985, the Board recessed for deliberation. Twenty two minutes later it reconvened, and issued the following proclamation:

SP Clark, the Board finds you unfit to perform the duties of your rank as a result of physical disability incurred while entitled to basic pay and in the line of duty. The percentage of disability is ten percent. (a few months later modified by the Veterans Administration to zero percent when I missed a VA exam; I was hospitalized for depression at a Texas State Hospital at that time) The board recommends that you be separated from the service with severance pay if otherwise qualified.