Jump to content

[DENIED]Appeal 09/07/2463

Recommended Posts

Appealing Personnel: Tyki'mhet Krrjashni

Specific Incident: 

Action taken as a result: Termination

Action contested: Termination

Reasoning for contest: This one believes that the length of time between the incident and the conclusion has poorly altered judgement in the outcome of his case. He thinks it is unfair to reconsider the punishment of a handled case which he already served punishment and a record for, without significant consideration of this one's health, the negligence of others and ignorance of this one. He had recently suffered traumatic injury prior to the highlighted events, not limited to an unsurmountable level of stress during and after the altercation. He would like to insist the fact of his unaccountability to the inciting factor of the incident, insufficient warning and lack of a lockout procedure to when he operated the elevator, during which he was tasked by command and engineering staff to assist. He believes the alleged warning against the use of elevators was insufficient and the lack of action to lock down the system was not taken to prevent him from unknowingly bringing a crew member into harm, insufficient due to the nature of the situation, use of EVA equipment, massive compromise to the station integrity which incited an overflowed and unreliable communications system.


His second complaint is the following handling of the outcome of this aforementioned incident, which this one was not explicitly told his privacy laws were revoked, as the station status did not reflect that it was, and he was unsure and skeptical of the validity of his arrest, after being discharged from the medical facilities for injuries related to the outbreak. His request to view a warrant were repeatedly ignored until this one assumed there was not one, and his loss of blood gave him a distracting wave of nausea that negatively impacted his reasoning and interpretation of what he was being subjected to. He believed he was being prosecuted on a personal level and outside of a professional one, which gave him an unease of the enacted authority he was exposed to. This one attests that his following case focused on his outburst rather than what had incited his violent skepticism of the incident, a severe oversight that has since effected his career, which he cannot tolerate. 

Additional notes: Edited and translated for clarity.* 

Drafted by third-party based on client's recollection of events and overview of related documents, reviewed and accepted.

Link to comment

To: Tyki'mhet Krrjashni
From: CCIA Division of Appeals
Subject: APPEAL 09/07/2463 Confirmation



Your appeal for the following incident is currently being reviewed:

Case ID: 24630709 MMendez_TKrrjashni
Date Actioned: 02.09.2463
Handling Agent: Edward Torrance


If necessary, you will be contacted by CCIA Division of Appeals to discuss the resolution applied to this incident.

You remain obligated to comply with previous CCIA decisions while this appeal is being processed.


DTG: 24-15:17-TAU CETI STANDARD-10-2463

SignE. Torrance

Link to comment

To: Tyki'mhet Krrjashni
From: CCIA Division of Appeals
Subject: APPEAL 09/07/2463 Resolution



Your appeal to the case file 24630709 MMendez_TKrrjashni has been reviewed. In this process all interviews, internal logs, and all supplement material available has been re-reviewed. You appealed this case with the following:

  • The unusual long amount of time that was needed to resolve the Incident Report at hand.
  • Trauma, resulting from severe injuries, which occured prior to he events outlined in the IR.
  • The claim, that the ISD failed to communicate the reasoning behind the punishment you were to receive.
  • The claim that the ISD specifically targeted you as some sort of scapegoat.
  • The claim that CCIA focued on your behaviour during the IR instead of the misconduct of the ISD.

Re-reviewing this case gave me only one possible resolution to your appeal. It will be denied, without a chance to appeal it in the future. I will outline the reasoning how I came to this conclusion in detail below:

  • The amount of time passed between filing and resolving an IR is no indicator for it's quality or accuracy. In your specific case a lot of additional information had to be verified. This process has multiple stages, cooperation with different internal department and needs time. I was not the agent who handled the original report but I see no reason to doubt my former colleague's time management. 
  • Together with both the IT Department and the Odin's Medical Department I have done a thorough search through all filed medical records during the shift in question. I also reached out to the Doctor in question, who treated you, prior to the events outlined in the IR. Your claim of receiving traumatic injury could not be verified. According to the Aurora's inventory logs and the Doctor, you lost some blood and broke an unspecified limb during the fight with the blob. The Doctor specifically adressed the issue that the injuries seemed not inflicted by the blob but rather by kinetic force. Since you were still carrying your Kinetic Accelerator with you, I put two and two together and come to the conclusion that these injuries were self-inflicted. You received a splint and some medication for your injuries. The Doctor claims he has seen you returning to the fight afterwards. Only afterwards you received minor surgery to rectify the issue with your broken limb.
  • Moving on, multiple sources suggest that you had all the time you needed to come to the brig. No one was forcing or escorting you. More than two sources also claim that the warrant, together with your expected punishment (around 200 credits fine) was clearly communicated to you, yet at this stage you already were very aggrevated. 
  • Your claims the ISD saw you as a scapegoat or the entire situation was to be blamed on you is already a weak argument, since not only the ISD, but also the Captain on shift found you guilty of negligence. You disregarded clear warnings, a clear order over radio and common sense by trying to use a heavily damaged elevator during an emergency situation.
  • Lastly, your claim that only your behaviour was in the focus of the investigation I have hopefully disproved. We conduct our investigations properly and thoroughly. We use all information sources possible and work with the facts at hand. 


I am finishing this on a personal note, because I am not entirely sure what you hoped to achieve here. The case is clear and I dont know why you'd think we want to re-hire an extremely aggressive, brutal and honestly borderline unstable individual, who loses their temper at any inconvenience. The fact that this re-review uncovered that you not only took the fact that you put the lifes of your co-workers in danger during the outlined events, but already before, by carelessly firing your kinetic accelerator in a confined space, is something I cannot believe was not mentioned in the original report. You can be glad that my former colleague did not submit this report to Biesel police enforcement. 

Me and NanoTrasen wish you all the best for your future but this future does not include our Corporation.


DTG: 25-11:27-TAU CETI STANDARD-10-2463

Sign: E. Torrance

Edited by KingOfThePing
Link to comment
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...