Mass-screening interview pivotal in targeting gunnery sergeant

At a U.S. military base, 2,400 rounds of government ammunition were missing. This NCIS special agent suspected a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant, but he needed definite proof. The special agent used an unusual mass-screening interview to discover evidence that ultimately led to the gunnery sergeant’s conviction.

In April 2017, I received a report that a Marine allegedly had stolen 2,400 rounds of 9mm government ammunition during a pistol qualification on a local base. As a special agent with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Washington, D.C., field office, I took this allegation seriously. No one wants government-owned ammunition to be used in a homicide or terrorist attack.

The complainant alleged a gunnery sergeant had stolen the ammunition and identified two other Marines who could provide amplifying information. After I quietly interviewed the other two subjects, I determined that the only way to definitively prove if the subject committed the crime was to interview 12 additional Marines who’d been on the pistol range the day of the alleged theft. If all 12 Marines confirmed the complainant’s account, the only logical conclusion would be that the gunnery sergeant stole 2,400 rounds of 9mm ammunition.

The problem I encountered was that these Marines were part of a small unit, and the gunnery sergeant was popular. I worried that if I conducted normal individual interviews with the other 12 Marines someone would tip off the gunnery sergeant, which would eliminate the element of surprise and give him time to destroy evidence. So, I decided to conduct a mass-screening interview.

Preparing for mass-screening interviews

The NCIS teaches its agents, during their initial training, the tool of mass-screening interviews. They’re an effective method of quickly finding evidence in internal-theft investigations and arson (a major threat on ships). During a mass-screening interview, the interviewer — orally or with a questionnaire — asks each subject in a gathered group of interviewees a list of standardized questions and then searches answers for leads and possible suspects.

If a subject’s answers stand out, the investigator can conduct a follow-up traditional interview for additional information. Screening interviews also allow investigators to quickly identify facts that many witnesses agreed with and identify themes for subject interviews if a screened subject develops into a suspect.

Several supporting investigators can interview subjects in a large investigation. The lead investigator then reviews the answers to determine the next move.

One-on-one versus mass-screening interviews

Interviewers conduct one-on-one screening sessions like traditional interviews between an investigator and a subject. The difference is that the interviewer only asks pre-determined screening questions with minimal deviation and only with good cause.

One-on-one screening interviews work best when a suspect already knows they’re under investigation and we need to interview many subjects. They can also be useful when our need to acquire information from many potential witnesses outweighs maintaining an element of surprise. For example, everybody is aware of an arson incident.

Our special agents often conduct large mass-screening interviews with written paper questionnaires at the same time in the same place. The special agent tries to ensure that subjects don’t share questions with future interviewees. If the element of surprise is important, we interview significant witnesses from that group or identified suspects immediately after the conclusion of the screening interview. This can ensure interviewed subjects don’t tip them off.

During mass screenings using questionnaires, special agents often can’t detect deception through verbal indicators. One-on-one screening interviews take longer, but they allow for the detection of deception through oral and physical cues.

Four categories of questions

When we prepare screening interviews for internal theft investigations, we divide the questions into four categories:

The first category includes questions to collect the subjects’ personal and contact information, such as full name, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, job titles, phone numbers, addresses, etc. These first questions can help the subjects acclimate to participating. And their answers could fully identify subjects for potential follow-up interviews and possible contact from a prosecutor.

The second category of questions establishes the subjects’ knowledge of the events and gathers amplifying details. Subjects here provide facts and help counter later false alibis. (During the screening interviews for the ammunition investigation, the questionnaire asked subjects if they were present when the ammunition was allegedly stolen.)

The third category includes questions about what the subjects think potential punishments should be for the crime. Guilty interviewees tend to lean towards lenient punishment or rehabilitation; innocent parties tend to suggest stiffer penalties. Follow-up interviews with those who suggest lenient punishment can identify suspects and those covering for them.

The fourth category includes questions that seek to detect unrelated misconduct. At the end of a recent interview that was part of another case, I asked a sailor about narcotics use on his ship. He gave me the name of a sailor who worked in the nuclear engineering department who he suspected was involved in narcotics.

An investigator might include a question about timecard fraud, for example, during a screening interview for a retail theft case.

Screening interviews strengthen subject interviews

During the ammunition theft investigation, my supervisor agreed that a mass-screening interview — followed immediately by a subject interview — was the best path forward. I arranged to have the 12 subjects brought to my office parking lot under a ruse (they were told they had to attend a mandatory briefing) to maintain the element of surprise. The gunnery sergeant’s commanding officer, who was in on the ruse, told him he had to stay in the office to put out any fires while they were gone.

I led them from my office parking lot to a large auditorium on the first floor of our building, placed their cellphones in a box to prevent investigative compromise and distributed written screening interviews. Once they completed the forms, I quickly reviewed the answers and then conducted quick traditional interviews with those whose answers required follow-up.

The screening interviews confirmed that approximately 2,400 rounds of ammunition were unaccounted for, and the gunnery sergeant had falsified official forms related to the ammunition. He’d reported that he’d expended all ammunition.

I asked the gunnery sergeant’s commanding officer to bring him to my office for an interview. When the gunnery sergeant arrived, I released the rest of the subjects after we gave them back their cellphones. During his interview, we immediately countered his many lies with the screening interview answers.

He claimed that many shooters had failed to qualify during the shooting event, so they’d needed to reload extra ammunition and fire. However, the screening interviews’ answers showed that no one had reported failing to qualify or saw anyone else fail and have to re-shoot.

The gunnery sergeant claimed that one Marine needed more ammunition during the qualification. But we referred him to that Marine’s screening interview sheet, which showed she hadn’t.

Gunnery sergeant’s 20-year kleptomaniac behavior

At the interview’s conclusion, the gunnery sergeant authorized us to search the storage facility where he kept his personal items. The gunnery sergeant was so rattled about the information that we’d gathered during the screening interviews he’d forgotten about other property he’d stolen and stored during his almost 20-year career with the Marines. We found body armor, a gas mask filter, rifle accessories and other purloined stuff.

Word spread in that military unit the next day that the NCIS was investigating the gunnery sergeant. A previously unknown witness then came forward. The gunnery sergeant had asked that witness to help dispose of a sensitive military laser that the gunnery sergeant had stolen from the Army years before, during a joint assignment in Latin America. The witness said he was conflicted about reporting complicity with his mentor. But after he’d heard about our screening interviews, he knew he’d have to come clean before he was implicated in the gunnery sergeant’s other alleged crimes. Screening interviews often spread the word about investigations and prompt additional subjects to come forward with new information.

The gunnery sergeant pleaded guilty to six counts of Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 121 — wrongful appropriation — and one count of UCMJ Article 92 — dereliction of duty at battalion non-judicial punishment, which is a military proceeding used in-lieu of courts-martial.

Screening interviews aren’t an everyday investigative tool, but they’re often effective in internal theft investigations. In this case, they were pivotal.

Daniel Wessel, CFE, is a special agent with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Office of Special Projects. Contact him at Daniel.Wessel@ncis.navy.mil.

The views in this column are those of the author and don’t necessarily represent the views of the Department of Defense or its components.