LAWSON: "I was asked to retrieve a file."
SECURITY OFFICER: "By whom?"
Lawson hesitated.
LAWSON: "The former deputy commander."
The officer asked him to explain exactly what he had been instructed to retrieve.
Lawson said that he had been told to locate the final readiness evaluation and confirm that the archive contained the correct version.
He insisted that he had not deleted or altered anything.
The security officer contacted Natalie.
A few minutes later, she arrived with the investigation team.
She looked at Lawson's identification and then at the workstation.
NATALIE: "Captain Lawson, did the former deputy commander personally ask you to access these files?"
LAWSON: "Yes, Colonel."
NATALIE: "When?"
LAWSON: "This morning."
NATALIE: "How did he contact you?"
LAWSON: "Through a phone call."
NATALIE: "Did he send written instructions?"
LAWSON: "No, ma'am."
NATALIE: "Did he provide you with the password to his account?"
Lawson nodded.
NATALIE: "Did you understand that using another officer's credentials could compromise the integrity of an official investigation?"
LAWSON: "I wasn't aware that an investigation had reached this stage."
NATALIE: "That does not answer my question."
Lawson looked down.
LAWSON: "I understand now, Colonel."
Natalie asked the investigator to preserve the workstation and document every action taken during the session.
She then requested Lawson's phone be handled through the appropriate evidence procedure, with his rights and the applicable rules respected.
NATALIE: "You will provide a complete statement about the instructions you received. Do not contact the former deputy commander or anyone else involved in this matter until the investigation officer gives you further guidance."
LAWSON: "Yes, Colonel."
As Lawson was escorted from the archive, Natalie looked at the files on the screen.
One document had been opened repeatedly.
It was titled FINAL READINESS APPROVAL.
The document contained the official operational status of the installation before the evaluation.
Natalie asked the system administrator to compare it with the version submitted to headquarters.
The two files were different.
The original version listed several unresolved maintenance discrepancies.
The submitted version classified those same items as completed or deferred.
There were also changes to the number of aircraft recorded as fully operational.
The difference was not a minor formatting issue.
It affected the entire readiness picture presented to senior command.
Natalie looked at the investigator.
NATALIE: "We need the original and submitted versions preserved separately. I want a technical comparison identifying every change, the time it was made, and the account associated with it."
INVESTIGATOR: "Understood."
NATALIE: "Also determine whether the archive session attempted to export either version."
The administrator began checking the activity history.
After several minutes, he found a file transfer request.
It had been initiated but blocked before completion.
The requested file was not the readiness evaluation.
It was a spreadsheet containing the names of personnel who had submitted maintenance complaints.
Natalie read the filename.
She immediately recognized the seriousness of the discovery.
The list included technicians, supervisors, and junior officers who had previously reported irregularities.
The file also contained notes about their assignments and performance evaluations.
Some names had been marked with comments such as "transfer recommended" and "review conduct."
Natalie stared at the screen.
NATALIE: "Who created this spreadsheet?"
ADMINISTRATOR: "The file metadata identifies an account associated with the former deputy commander's office."
NATALIE: "When was it last modified?"
ADMINISTRATOR: "Three days ago."
Natalie looked toward the investigator.
NATALIE: "Preserve it. We need to determine whether these personnel were targeted after submitting complaints."
She paused.
NATALIE: "I also want every person on that list contacted privately. They must know that retaliation is being investigated and that they can provide information without going through the people named in the original reporting chain."
The investigator acknowledged the order.
By then, Natalie had enough information to understand that the case involved more than falsified maintenance reports.
The installation's readiness figures had potentially been manipulated.
The original inspection records had been concealed.
And personnel who questioned the process might have been identified for unfavorable treatment.
She returned to the conference room.
Major Whitmore was still waiting.
Lieutenant Colonel Hayes had remained beside the table.
The black document case was now secured.
Natalie placed a printed access report in front of Whitmore.
NATALIE: "Captain Lawson was found using the former deputy commander's account."
Whitmore looked at the document.
MAJOR WHITMORE: "I don't know why he would do that."
NATALIE: "He says he was instructed to retrieve the readiness evaluation."
MAJOR WHITMORE: "That doesn't mean the former deputy commander was involved in changing the reports."
NATALIE: "The account also attempted to access a list of personnel who submitted maintenance complaints."
Whitmore's expression changed.
MAJOR WHITMORE: "A complaint list?"
NATALIE: "Yes."
Whitmore looked toward Hayes.
MAJOR WHITMORE: "Did you know about that?"
Hayes shook his head.
HAYES: "No."
Natalie placed another document on the table.
It was a printed copy of the spreadsheet.