AFA Informant Program

Thanks Bruno and LITS for the quick response.

I have been trying to reconcile how trust was breached in an atmosphere where it was "required" to report any transgression. I was going down the path of considering everyone an informant per se.

Believe me... I understand the need for unit cohesion and trust in the military. I also feel the informant program was wrong on many levels. I recognize the fallout that the AFA will experience as a result of the program.

Thanks for the clarification
 
Google deadspin for the sports perspective. I cannot post a direct link since I have less than 10 posts.
 
MedB said:
For example... if you went to war with a Sgt York-type (Hollywood version) who has ultra straight laced and told you "By golly, drinking and drugs are against the rules and I'll darn sure turn you in if you use them", is that really someone you can't trust to watch your back when it matters???
Click to expand...

Just one last thought on rule breakers and the ultra straight laced "SGT York Type" in your example. First of all SGT York was not straight laced at all, he was a heavy drinking brawler who was constantly in trouble as a young man. As he matured he committed to his faith and after being drafted into the Army, he declared himself a conscientious objector, a notion not well received at the time. Rather than dishonor York by dismissing him from service, his commanding officer - in an act of trust (here is that word again) sends him home to reconsider his position, offering him his release if he still felt strongly about it. It created a bond of trust between York and his superiors which helped him decide to return to his unit after his leave. Robin Olds, big drinker, bit of a rule stretcher, great pilot and great leader. Zeamer? Broke all sorts of rules, assembled a B-17 from spare parts, put a crew of misfits together whose main bond was mutual trust and respect (see a theme here?), most decorated aircrew in the history of the Army Air Corps. David Hackworth? Juvenile delinquent who lied to join the Army at 15, great leader, a warrior in every sense. Trust is the steel that frames the military culture, without trust it is a house without a foundation.
 
Last edited:
falconfamily said:
Just one last thought on rule breakers and the ultra straight laced "SGT York Type" in your example. First of all SGT York was not straight laced at all, he was a heavy drinking brawler who was constantly in trouble as a young man. Drafted into the Army he declared himself a conscientious objector, a notion not well received at the time, but rather than dishonor him, his commanding officer - in an act of trust (here is that word again) sends him home to consider his position, offering him his release if he still felt strongly about it. It created a bond of trust between York and his superiors which helped him decide to return to his unit after his short leave home. Robin Olds, big drinker, bit of a rule stretcher, great pilot and great leader. Zeamer? Broke all sorts of rules, assembled a B-17 from spare parts, put a crew of misfits together whose main bond was mutual trust, most decorated aircrew in the history of the Army Air Corps. David Hackworth? Juvenile delinquent who lied to join the Army at 15, great leader, a warrior in every sense. Anyone would have been well served to have such men covering their six.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I would put Hackworth in that category regardless of what his book said. I know a couple of older gents who knew him as peers going back to the Korean War and thru Vietnam- not too many of them thought that he was covering anybody's "six" except his own.
 
You can't complain about snitches and rats when their existensce is enshrined in your honor code. Personally I think it breeds more distrust and incohesion than the honor violations themselves. This is exactly why there was always a very loud and almost unanimous voice against a tolerance clause when it would occasionally be suggested to be added to the USMMA Honor Code.

The meat of the story strikes me as entirely plausible and probably mostly if not entirely true. Talk to anyone in law enforcement and they will tell you that it is not entirely un-standard to entice (some might say browbeat) people into forgoing their rights just to make the investigators job easy. As a M/N I was a witness in a case that eventually got someone disenrolled for non-legal infractions, basically just conduct unbecoming. Virtually the entirelty of my testimony was 1. Yes, I saw M/N X on said date and time in said location. 2. Yes, he appeared to me in my entirely non-medical opinion to be intoxicated and 3. I helped him get to his room. For my troubles I was verbally berated during the hearing as if I was the one on trial, I was threatened with being brought up on honor charges and they even filed Class II (50 demerits and 6 weeks restriction) papers against me. The only reason I could come up with for the shabby treatment was because they were incompetent A-holes. I shudder to think if there was acutal law enforcement involved.

My advice to any Cadet/Midshipman ... Lawyer up right out of the gate. You can always talk later but you can't un-talk.
 
bruno said:
I don't believe I would put Hackworth in that category regardless of what his book said. I know a couple of older gents who knew him as peers going back to the Korean War and thru Vietnam- not too many of them thought that he was covering anybody's "six" except his own.
Click to expand...

Bruno, I know Hackworth is very polarizing, that said, he was an effective combat leader whose personal flaws did not affect his ability to lead and fight. But your point is well taken.
 
KPEngineer said:
You can't complain about snitches and rats when their existensce is enshrined in your honor code. Personally I think it breeds more distrust and incohesion than the honor violations themselves. This is exactly why there was always a very loud and almost unanimous voice against a tolerance clause when it would occasionally be suggested to be added to the USMMA Honor Code.
Click to expand...

This is a bit of a grey area in the Honor Code, the toleration clause specifically references lying, cheating, and stealing. Not sure how attending a party where some people might be drinking requires someone to report another for a conduct offense. Apparently that is the OSI interpretation of the Honor Code and since the code is enforced by the Cadet Wing, if I were a cadet, I might choose to take my chances with my peers rather than be manipulated by the OSI into reporting my peers for what is nothing more than an conduct offense. With respect to drugs and sexual assaults, that is quite another matter since these are crimes in both civilian and military life and I have yet to read of an instance where cadets ever tolerated witnessing something like a Sexual Assault and not intervening or reporting it.
 
falconfamily said:
This is a bit of a grey area in the Honor Code, the toleration clause specifically references lying, cheating, and stealing. Not sure how attending a party where some people might be drinking requires someone to report another for a conduct offense. Apparently that is the OSI interpretation of the Honor Code and since the code is enforced by the Cadet Wing, if I were a cadet, I might choose to take my chances with my peers rather than be manipulated by the OSI into reporting my peers for what is nothing more than an conduct offense. With respect to drugs and sexual assaults, that is quite another matter since these are crimes in both civilian and military life and I have yet to read of an instance where cadets ever tolerated witnessing something like a Sexual Assault and not intervening or reporting it.
Click to expand...
Once you introduce the concept that "snitching" is required for honor violations, is it really all that surprising that a 19 year old could be "influenced" to believe that he/she is also required for conduct violations? See LITSs last post to see how the two can become intertwined once you introduce the tolerance clause.

I don't see it as grey at all. It is an issue of training. It was constantly drilled into us in our our HC training that it was OUR Code, not the administration's, not the "Regiment's", but ours as individuals and a collective student body ... not anyone else's. I can confidently say to a fair level of certainty that most (if not all) KPers would laugh at an agent threatening him/her with honor violations. By the same token, the Honor Board should not entertain violations of regulations/law ... stay in your swim lane people!
 
KPEngineer said:
Once you introduce the concept that "snitching" is required for honor violations, is it really all that surprising that a 19 year old could be "influenced" to believe that he/she is also required for conduct violations?
Click to expand...

Yup, at least with the way the system is now. We're taught the difference between conduct and honor pretty thoroughly during basic...conduct and honor offenses aren't even handled through the same disciplinary system. In addition, there's a separate discipline system for alcohol offenses.
 
BlahuKahuna said:
Yup, at least with the way the system is now. We're taught the difference between conduct and honor pretty thoroughly during basic...conduct and honor offenses aren't even handled through the same disciplinary system. In addition, there's a separate discipline system for alcohol offenses.
Click to expand...

BK, KP, I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. I do not like the Tolerance Clause, I think it is very problematic, research indicated that it is problematic and creates alot of cynicism with the cadets. My real issue is how the Honor Code was being used as a means to coerce cadets by the OSI - such an honor system does not apply in the AD Air Force but it is central to Academy life for a cadet, I have a serious issue with that and I find it surprising that Academy leadership has not addressed this claim.

In my experience, when you attack the person, rather than address the issue, you are trying to change the subject and that is what appears to be happening at USAFA right now and I find that response disheartening.
 
tpg said:
Even that is greatly debated in upper echelon circles.
Click to expand...

I think we should focus on the topic - the OSI using Cadet Informants. I agree with the fact that Hackworth is polarizing - but the central point of my post should not be lost in this discussion - that being trust is central to military culture.
 
falconfamily said:
My real issue is how the Honor Code was being used as a means to coerce cadets by the OSI - such an honor system does not apply in the AD Air Force but it is central to Academy life for a cadet, I have a serious issue with that and I find it surprising that Academy leadership has not addressed this claim.
Click to expand...
I agree with you infinity%

I don't know what the HC training includes at AFA but I would be looking at that to prevent future problems like this. A Cadet should know that they can tell OSI that the Honor Code is not yours to enforce.
 
tpg said:
I don't know enough about this to even speculate about how the AF Equivalent to NIS got involved in this.

But I can say what my experience is when ever I questioned a person who was even slightly suspected of having committed an illegal act.

I had to fill out a UCMJ Art 31 B form that was very explicit as to what the persons legal rights were.

It stated what they were being questioned for;
that any statement they made could be used against them; that they had the right to counsel, either civilian, military or both; that they could request the counsel be present for this interview; and that they could end the interview at any time. They could also waive these rights. The form was signed, dated, and witnessed.

Every JAG officer whom I have ever worked with always made sure we knew this had to be done. I was taught very early on that the mere fact the service member was standing in front of my desk was considered "Custody" because their "movement" was restricted.

If what this former cadet says is the truth, and if he was interviewed by authorities because he was somehow "involved" in an illegal act, then there is a form such as this in his case file. He can have that released.
Click to expand...

TPG, that is my experience as well, but according to the Gazette writer and the former cadets he interviewed this did not happen. The cadets were simply told to report to OSI, they were not being charged, but what free will does a cadet have when they are told to report to an authority like OSI? Then it is a matter of trust, trust that the system would not mislead them or that their rights would be protected. That trust and the framework of the Honor Code becomes very coercive when faced with a potentially hostile interviewer. There are certainly many sides to this story, we only have what the writer pieced together from the former cadets and from what records he was able to glean from FOI requests. But the writer, in response to questions in interviews and an online chat, seems to believe that Mr. Thomas's story has validity.
 
falconfamily said:
TPG, that is my experience as well, but according to the Gazette writer and the former cadets he interviewed this did not happen. The cadets were simply told to report to OSI, they were not being charged, but what free will does a cadet have when they are told to report to an authority like OSI? Then it is a matter of trust, trust that the system would not mislead them or that their rights would be protected. That trust and the framework of the Honor Code becomes very coercive when faced with a potentially hostile interviewer. There are certainly many sides to this story, we only have what the writer pieced together from the former cadets and from what records he was able to glean from FOI requests. But the writer, in response to questions in interviews and an online chat, seems to believe that Mr. Thomas's story has validity.
Click to expand...
From what I saw as a Unit Commanding Officer, the organization's, i.e. system's, i.e. service's first and formeost loyalty is to itself. The individual has to go in to any setting like that protecting themselves and their rights. We teach about lawful orders and that unlawful orders do not need to be obeyed. Unless you know the difference, you cannot stand up to a superior who issues an unlawful order. That same principle is applicable here. A Cadet being "interviewed" by OSI needs to know what is within the purview of OSI (UCMJ) and what is not (Academy Regs and Honor Code) so that he/she knows when to tell the "interviewer" to pack sand and get me a JAG.
 
I can't speak for the other academies, but I can talk about my experience at CGA.

There was a very clear distinction between honor and conduct. The most basic part of that was "you own your honor." That meant that to commit and honor offense, you had to act, one your own. Conduct was a little wider, yes, conduct can come from action (drinking) but could also come from inaction (not reporting a conduct offense, not reporting an honor offense, not getting your hair cut).

That's part of the honor concept. Not reporting an honor offense does not transfer that honor offense to the non-reporter. Yes, it could result in a conduct offense.

But I can't think of any time where the two were confusing or that the cross over from conduct to honor wasn't clear.

Second, the idea of an honor concept allows the corps of cadets to OWN it's collective honor. You report an honor offense because you do not want to live in a building that commits to be honorable, but is infact not.

I view this self-ownership and drive (yes, reporting does result in disciplinary action) are entirely different than an external directive from a criminal investigator.

As TPG mentioned, officers often conduct initial investigations. If there was ANY hint of wrong-doing, the key was to error on the side of caution. People being talked to were informed of their rights. If they didn't want to speak or mentioned a lawyer (even for very minor things, like throwing a dumbbell over the side of a ship during cleaning) then the questioning would stop.

Junior officers have some training for just initial investigations, which are admininstrative in nature and are meant to make a recommendation on how to proceed for the commanding officer.

Cadets have none of that training. Hiring rats to keep tabs on classmates doesn't instill a sense of right and wrong, or owning the rules, regulations and honor concepts/codes. It's a "eat or be eaten" mentality that not only kills the culture of the school, but also likely damages that ownership.

I reported cadets for honor offenses when I was a cadet. I never felt I was singled out for it, or that I was blamed. The dishonorable cadet went before a board, and the board made the final call. But that was me owning what we said we owned. And that was the Corps of Cadets, and the Honor Board specifically, enforcing those administrative rules. If I thought every action was being followed by the CGIS or FBI or Big Brother, how willing would I be to pay attention? Not very. I might keep my head down and be blissfully ignorant of the misconduct of others, if only to avoid the horrible experience of cooperating in an investigation with criminal investigators. Add to that that I need to look with a suspicious eye to the folks around me, concerned if my joke might be concern for a rat who will turn Big Brother's all to all of my actions, even in areas I think I have some expectation of privacy?

Wow. I'm good with cadets/midshipmen owning their corps or brigades (I like it). I'm fine with the administrative process to investigate wrong-doing. But OSI, working with cadet rats who are untrained? I don't think the benefits outweigh the damage of that program. I think it was a horrible idea.
 
DHinNH said:
Statements from...

USAFA: http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.gazette/USAFA PA re Mr Eric Thomas.pdf

OSI: http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.gazette/Air Force Office of Special Investigations CI Program.pdf
Click to expand...

WOW! They really put it out there.

How nice.

"If you didn't get to be a confidential informant at the Academy, the opportunity still exists in big-papa Air Force."

The program is certianly more in line with what you would expect, and sounds more like "hey, what happened" than "Cadet Thomas was a super spy with many convictions to his name."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top