Just spoke with command, they are going with a 6105, charges will be withdrawn and dismissed w/o prejudice...once signed I will pass along the letter -----Original Message----- From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 16:27 To: Peltz Capt Timothy Cc: Henderson Capt Clayton K Subject: Re: Litton Article 32 An SCM is reasonable but not with a board waiver. Let me know and I'll sell it to him. Haytham Faraj Sent from my iPhone On Dec 1, 2011, at 7:03 PM, "Peltz Capt Timothy" <timothy.peltz@usmc.mil> wrote: > Gentlemen, > > Just read the IO report and do not disagree...I think Command will accept the SCM. Would your client accept this? Not positive but Command is willing to consider not AdSeping, however if they choose to would Litton be willing to waive his board? Thanks. > > v/r, > Blake > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cory R. Weck [mailto:crw@wtw-law.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 14:34 > To: Haytham Faraj; Peltz Capt Timothy > Cc: Henderson Capt Clayton K > Subject: RE: Litton Article 32 > > Gents, > > > > Attached is the 32 Report re: Litton. Please advise if any questions. > > > > S/F > > > > Maj. Weck > > > > Cory R. Weck > > Attorney at Law > > Welebir Tierney & Weck, PLC > > 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 215 > > Redlands, CA 92374 > > Office:909-335-0444 > > Fax: 909-335-0452 > > Cory R. Weck > > Attorney at Law > Welebir Tierney & Weck, PLC > 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 215 > Redlands, CA 92374 > Office:909-335-0444 > Fax: 909-335-0452 > >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature