AFA Informant Program

So lets break down the USAFA statement a bit ...

An article in The Gazette on Sunday, 1 December, titled ‘Honor and Deception – A secretive Air Force program recruits academy students to inform on fellow cadets and disavows them afterward’ talked about an Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) Confidential Informant Program. The program uses people who confidentially provide vital information about criminal activities that would not otherwise be available. AFOSI uses that information to initiate or resolve criminal investigations. This is an Air Force-wide program and is not something unique at the Air Force’s Academy.
If this is an OSI program and not an Academy program, then why does most of the Academy statement defend OSI?

The article further alleges that the Academy, via the AFOSI, uses cadets as informants and then “disavows them afterward.” The Gazette focused on an ex-cadet, Eric Thomas.
This mischaracterizes the article and is an overly defensive statement. The “disavows them afterword” is in the title and refers to an “Air Force program”, not the Academy. The word disavow only appears once outside of the title and is then again referring to OSI and that his handlers “disavowed knowledge of his actions”. Why is the Academy so defensive? Me thinks though doeth protest too much.

The article does not portray an accurate or complete view of Eric Thomas’ activities while at the Air Force’s Academy.

Mr. Thomas began his Academy career in 2009 as a member of the Class of 2013. The Gazette article asserts that Mr. Thomas was disenrolled from the Academy because of the work he did for OSI – that USAFA merely used him and then disavowed him.
That assertion is never once made in the article.

INFORMATION REDACTED (Privacy Act)
Although AFOSI personnel did not appear before the Military Review Committee, they did meet personally with the Commandant and Vice Commandant to discuss Mr. Thomas’ cooperation with AFOSI investigations.

Thomas began work with the AFOSI in December of 2011 and not in 2010 as stated in The Gazette article. Furthermore, The Gazette article creates the impression that AFOSI asked Mr. Thomas “to infiltrate academy cliques” when in fact Mr. Thomas was already a part of these social circles in the months prior to any AFOSI investigation.
Interesting … “Air Force records show the academy’s vice commandant knew of Thomas’ OSI involvement and ordered a special hearing officer to privately review the case,” This is related to the night of the Claxton assault which was in Nov. 2011. How could the Vice Commandant know of something that had not yet begun?

At the time Mr. Thomas was approved by AFOSI to assist as a confidential informant in December 2011, he was told that he was not allowed to violate the law, Air Force or DOD policies, or Academy rules. Mr. Thomas acknowledged these instructions in writing. Contrary to what The Gazette article states (“he was regularly directed by agents to break academy rules”), at no time did AFOSI agents ask then-Cadet Thomas to violate this agreement. Nevertheless, Thomas continued to break Academy rules while on probation and while working with the OSI.
So the OSI agent never "asked" him to violate his agreement. That statement is not mutually exclusive from him being "directed by agents to break academy rules". I notice the statement uses a different term than the article.
If Thomas continued to break Academy rules (and by extension the “agreement”) while working with OSI, then why was he allowed to continue working with OSI? Since at that point he would no longer be protected by his agreement and yet OSI continues to utilize the information provided by him, isn’t Thomas by definition being “used” by OSI?

In accordance with the Academy’s processes, both the former Superintendent and the Commandant of Cadets considered then-Cadet Thomas’ entire Academy record—military conduct, academic performance, and physical fitness. Although his cooperation with AFOSI was a factor, since much of the misconduct that formed the basis for his disenrollment occurred prior to incurring an active duty commitment at the start of his 2-degree (junior) year, the Air Force Academy recommended that recoupment be waived. In September 2013, the office of the Secretary of the Air Force waived any active duty service commitment as well as reimbursement of the cost of education.
So at least some of the “misconduct that formed the basis for his disenrollment” must then have occurred during his work with OSI.
If Thomas was such a dirtbag from the beginning, how did he get accepted to Pilot training? Is it that easy to become a pilot at USAFA or was he not really so much of a dirtbag?
 
Last edited:
Packer said:
Based on the trend in this thread where the discussion has shifted from primarily the program to primarily Thomas, it appears that the AFA tactic is working as intended.
Click to expand...

That tends to be how it happens when someone comes forward with half of the information, neatly omiting the bad parts, and another party has to correct it. Thomas' credibility is hurt here.
 
LineInTheSand said:
That tends to be how it happens when someone comes forward with half of the information, neatly omiting the bad parts, and another party has to correct it. Thomas' credibility is hurt here.
Click to expand...

And so is the AF, AFA credibility.
 
KPEngineer said:
I'm still stuck on the Academy keeping him around when according to their own statement he should have been booted two years earlier ... Why ?!?!? Did they really know about the informants? Their own statement said they were briefed by OSI prior to his disenrollment but that his conduct prior to working with OSI was enough to get him disenrolled ... then why would you keep him around for two more years unless you knew what he was doing?
Click to expand...
How many demerits did the following cadet have before being booted? What did they have in common? Were they both snitches?
http://www.serviceacademyforums.com/showthread.php?t=32160
 
LineInTheSand said:
That tends to be how it happens when someone comes forward with half of the information, neatly omiting the bad parts, and another party has to correct it. Thomas' credibility is hurt here.
Click to expand...
Is this based entirely on the arguable USAFA Privacy-Act-Violating release of his conduct history? How is that more credible? If the Academy is dumping that hard on Thomas, its because he struck a nerve. If he was really a dirtbag who got what was coming his way anyway, then the Academy would likely not have said much more than "talk to OSI".
 
KPEngineer said:
Is this based entirely on the arguable USAFA Privacy-Act-Violating release of his conduct history? How is that more credible?
Click to expand...

Oh I don't disagree. Remember, I mentioned "hands tied" earlier.

Let me ask you this. Did you add "REDACTED" or did they. If it was the Air Force that redacted it, they redacted the stuff I thought violated the Privacy Act earlier.... the administrative issues. If you redacted it... but I'm not the superstar prior PAO I hoped to be! HAHA! :biggrin:
 
aseanag said:
That cadet final crime occurred during his final semester. Thomas was in trouble before 2 degree year.
Click to expand...
Perhaps. When/why did USAFA finally decide to dis-enroll Thomas? If both had more than 200 demerits before the end of their 3rd degree year why would USAFA let either continue? Does anyone have any idea of how many cadets graduate each year with 200+ demerits? These questions (IMHO) go to addressing the following questions in 's post:
I'm still stuck on the Academy keeping him around when according to their own statement he should have been booted two years earlier ... Why ?!?!? Did they really know about the informants? Their own statement said they were briefed by OSI prior to his disenrollment but that his conduct prior to working with OSI was enough to get him disenrolled ... then why would you keep him around for two more years unless you knew what he was doing?
Click to expand...
Maybe USAFA routinely keeps some cadets longer than they should. Perhaps we should ask why ANY cadet would be kept beyond a certain number of demerits.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Oh I don't disagree. Remember, I mentioned "hands tied" earlier.

Let me ask you this. Did you add "REDACTED" or did they. If it was the Air Force that redacted it, they redacted the stuff I thought violated the Privacy Act earlier.... the administrative issues. If you redacted it... but I'm not the superstar prior PAO I hoped to be! HAHA! :biggrin:
Click to expand...
It was my redaction. My way of pointing out just one of the flaws in the document. I'm curious who authorized its release. Since it reference the Superintendent and SECAF I would think at least the Academy Chief of Staff. Certainly someone who should know and understand the Privacy a Act.
 
If you have nothing to hide , you have nothing to fear from having an informant in your ranks. Hopefully this will be scaled up to be used in the military writ large.

It's a good way to drum out the people who don't belong in the armed services.
 
meteor said:
If you have nothing to hide , you have nothing to fear from having an informant in your ranks. Hopefully this will be scaled up to be used in the military writ large.

It's a good way to drum out the people who don't belong in the armed services.
Click to expand...

Gee that sounds a little knuckle dragging.

So this must be the "scanning military forums" process these days....log in, say something to get everyone riled up and sit back and watch the fun.

You should really find another place to play.
 
meteor said:
If you have nothing to hide , you have nothing to fear from having an informant in your ranks. Hopefully this will be scaled up to be used in the military writ large.

It's a good way to drum out the people who don't belong in the armed services.
Click to expand...
Then maybe we can start using the same system and logic to ferret out those in the Gov't who lie, cheat, and otherwise deceive. Golly gee gosh, DC would be a veritable ghost town, wouldn't it? Go away, its soon study hall period.
 
The Academy response did little to ameliorate concerns. In fact, it probably raised more questions than it answered. This is likely because the program itself is a bad idea from the start and there's not a lot they can say to justify a bad idea. I'm hoping that the cadet wing does not suffer too much in morale from this and trust can be re-built.

As for Thomas, it's hard to say given the current status of things, but if I was sitting on a jury I would have an extremely high level of suspicion about the Academy position for many of the reasons already astutely pointed out on this forum. But the only jury here is the jury of public opinion.
 
meteor said:
If you have nothing to hide , you have nothing to fear from having an informant in your ranks. Hopefully this will be scaled up to be used in the military writ large.

It's a good way to drum out the people who don't belong in the armed services.
Click to expand...

Ah, the classic "if you have nothing to hide" line.
Fortunately, we have things like the 4th Amendment and the "reasonable expectation of privacy." Perhaps you've heard of them?

Or are you more the fan of "spy on everyone" theories that tend to wind up with things like the STASI, KGB, and the FBI illegally spying on Civil Rights Movement leaders to try to blackmail them or convince them to commit suicide?
 
raimius said:
Ah, the classic "if you have nothing to hide" line.
Fortunately, we have things like the 4th Amendment and the "reasonable expectation of privacy." Perhaps you've heard of them?

Or are you more the fan of "spy on everyone" theories that tend to wind up with things like the STASI, KGB, and the FBI illegally spying on Civil Rights Movement leaders to try to blackmail them or convince them to commit suicide?
Click to expand...

Surely, you are aware that members of the military have limited constitutional rights compared to the public at large. Knock off the strawman arguments about the KGB. What I referred to was use for the armed services, not the public at large.
 
meteor said:
Surely, you are aware that members of the military have limited constitutional rights compared to the public at large. Knock off the strawman arguments about the KGB. What I referred to was use for the armed services, not the public at large.
Click to expand...
The FBI spying on and threatening MLK is fairly well documented, as are the abuses of the Soviet Union and East Germany. Now, if you want to say your very interesting logic about privacy doesn't relate to those abuses, argue away.

I am aware of the UCMJ and differences between protections of individual rights under both systems. I may wear the uniform, but that doesn't negate my rights, nor those of my fellow service members. Does that mean I can call the President a string of four-letter swears on CNN and invoke the 1st Amendment the same way as Joe from Spokane? No. It doesn't mean that saying "pot should be legal" gives OSI carte blanche to bug my house, either.

Simply saying, "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" is an old argument that has been used as an excuse to violate the rights of people for about as long as we have conceived of individual rights.

Spying on your own organization/citizens without any reasonable suspicion is a dangerous and corrosive thing. Now, if you have reason to believe that specific people are violating the law, sure, investigate away. There are plenty of ways which are legal, practical, and wise. In some cases, that may include CIs. However, setting up a net of spies to keep tabs on things is not wise...and depending on exactly how you do it, not legal either.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top