The following is a
Pentagon magazine article regarding this author's 1,000 pages
communication with Congressional leaders and Vice President Al Gore (at
that time a senator -- Congressman Toby Roth, (R) Wisconsin and Senator
Jim Sasser, (D) Tennessee were defeated in reelection (Sasser is now
ambassador to China)). Titles
included Corruption of the USAFE Inspectors General Complaint
Program, Impotence of the Inspectors General Complaint Program
and Failure of the USAF Inspectors General Complaint
Program.
Each was rebuttal to USAF IG investigative reports to Congress, with
over a dozen military non-commissioned officers and civilians backing up
the author's allegations with sworn affidavits, as well as rebutting their
own alleged testimony fraudulently altered by the IG. Over two-dozen
violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) were detailed
against a squadron commander, including DWI, who was eventually fired and
ordered to serve as bar-back at the Officers' Club.
The author successfully revealed lies made to Congress by four-star
general Mike Dugan, commander of the USAF in Europe (USAFE), perhaps
influencing President George Bush's and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney's
decision to fire Dugan in the middle of Desert Storm -- the first time a
chief of staff has been fired in American history.
The author was inadvertantly revealing to Congress details of the
then-unpublicised so-called Iran-Contra crime of selling off NATO weapons
stockpiles behind the backs of European nations, requiring a shift of US
policy to use nuclear weapons on friendly European nations in the event of
a Soviet invasion.
Memos from flag officers revealed the author accurately identified
billions of dollars in Fraud, Waste and Abuse of military funds, and the
Pentagon made adjustments in its policy to economize. The author received
tape-recorded death threats during this multi-year investigation, and was
involved in numerous run-ins with intelligence and surveilance forces.
Eventually, numerous high-ranking officers were fired and the author was
involved in a job offer from Dick Cheney, the Secretary of Defense at the
Pentagon, which was declined in order to pursue a quiet civilian
lifestyle.
RAF Upper Heyford, the
USAF airbase in England, was closed down and demolished with billions in
taxpayer savings, including over half a billion dollars in aviation fuel
costs alone (but was the nuke waste cleaned up?).
This case was perhaps the most significant example of whistleblowing
since the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, which resulted in the resignation of
the commander of West Point. It was perhaps the most significant case of
military uprising since the mutiny on the Bounty.
|
TIG BRIEF
4 JULY-AUGUST 1991 |
US Government Printing Office
1999-579-001 |
 |
|
|
Case Study
WHERE HAS THE INTEGRITY GONE?
| by Lt Col Mayo |
OSAF/IGQO |
DSN 225-9114 |
Recently, an Air Force
Inspector General [IG] team conducted a five month
investigation focusing on allegations ranging from unfair
personal treatment and mismanagement of contracts to a lack of
integrity within the IG complaint system at the wing level.
The investigation team was composed of four officers from the
Air Force Inspection and Safety Center and included a legal
advisor from the complainant's major command.
This investigation resulted from an NCO's
third congressional inquiry letter in which the complainant
rebutted numerous answers to the previous two inquiries. The
Air Force investigators reviewed 70 allegations. Of these, 10
were substantiated and 22 were partially substantiated. Thc
majority of the substantiations were centered around poorly
thought out business decisions by base senior officials. From
the Air Force IG's point of view, the most important finding
stated the complainant's initial IG complaint was improperly
handled.
The complainant initially filed his grievance
with the wing IG -- and the Air Force investigation concluded
the local IG complaint system broke down at the very
beginning. The complainant, assigned to a squadron within a
combat support group (CSG), made many allegations to the wing
IG against his squadron commander. In addition, there were
several allegations involving poor contract decisions that
directly involved the CSG commander [the "base"
commander].
The wing IG forwarded the complaint to the
Combat Support Group commander for inquiry. The CSG commander
then assigned his deputy as the Investigating Officer. Was
something wrong with thc way in which this case was handled?
You bet -- a lack of integrity. Webster's Third New
International Dictionary's definition of integrity
includes "avoidance of deception, expediediency,
artificiality, or shallowness of any kind."
AFR 123-11, the Inspector General Complaint
Program, directs that inquiries and investigations will be
processed al a level of command that will prevent
self-investigation or the appearance of the same. The
regulation states that "In each case, an objective approach
must be used by persons who are not part of the problem -- and
to make sure the review and findings are done impartially and
fairly." The regulation also states that "Commanders may not
initiate or direct inquiries or investigations into cmnplaints
lodged against themselves personally or those reporting
directly to them. Such complaints must be referred to the next
higher level of command for investigation and resolution at
that level."
Because the investigation process was not
properly followed, the complainant lost confidence in the IG
complaint system and felt the process would result in unfair
treatment. To compound matters, the complainant received no
response for four and one half months. When he did receive a
reply, he was dissatisfied with the answer. His loss of
confidence in the IG system and dissatisfaction wilh the
answer resulted in the complainant sending two letters to his
congressmen. The first letter resulted in an investigation by
the MAJCOM IG and the second letter, which spoke of reprisal
actions taken against him for filing the first letter resulted
in the MAJCOM IG conducting an additional inquiry. Despite
these inquiries, the complainant remained dissatisfied and
provided his congressmen wilh a rebuttal letter; hence, the
decision for Air Force level investigation.
This case is over two years old and is still
open. Is it reasonable to assume we could have avoided
expending valuable manhours and resources to conduct the
MAJCOM and Air Force leve1 inquiries if the original complaint
had been properly handled at base level? Maybe. There is no
guarantee that had the local IG conducted a textbook inquiry
the complainant would not have elevated his concerns through
congressional channels; however, we can conclude that had the
wing IG conducted the inquiry in accordance with the
prescribed regulations, the integrity of the IG complaint
system would have been preserved. Integrity of the process
is a must -- from start to
finish. | |
|
