Commandant suspended

It was partially funded by adding a penny a pack tax on Sea Store Cigarettes which raised their price from 9 to 10 cents a pack.

I remember in the Mid Seventies, my high school had a cigarette machine, the price of a pack was 55 cents and that was with a nickel added for the Student Council fund. I know the Navy exchange didn't have Federal Tax on cigarettes back then.....but 9 cents a pack? Sweet Baby Jesus....was this 1945?
 
.....but 9 cents a pack? Sweet Baby Jesus....was this 1945?


"Sea Stores" 1960s. No State Tax at Navy Exchange or Px and No Federal Tax 12 Miles or more Off Shore. Prior to going on a trip we would get the cigarettes at a Bonded Warehouse prior to getting underway and distribute them for sale beyond the 12 Mile Limit.

Remember, this was on a Submarine and the vast majority of us were smokers - and we inhaled asbestos and gosh knows what else.

The first time we surfaced after weeks or monthes submerged, we all would gag on that fresh sea air!
 
I remember in the Mid Seventies, my high school had a cigarette machine, the price of a pack was 55 cents and that was with a nickel added for the Student Council fund. I know the Navy exchange didn't have Federal Tax on cigarettes back then.....but 9 cents a pack? Sweet Baby Jesus....was this 1945?
The funny part about that is if you were to remove all of the taxes put on cigarettes, the price of pack today would also be around 55 cent. At least, that is what i read somewhere
 
Not to change the subject from the pandemic and all, but any updates on General Goodwin's status?? Last year's news articles about this situation really intrigued me. I feel like there should be a Paul Harvey-"And now you know the rest of the story" article coming out sometime.
 
I read she had filed an Article 138 complaint late 2019. I don’t know the outcome of that.

It’s always amazing to me how often travel irregularities trip up admirals and generals. No matter what your staff does, you are accountable and responsible. As for the other stuff, no doubt there is an iceberg’s worth of stuff we don’t know.
 
Looks like someone at the top has heard about all the complaints against her and is just using the travel irregularities to remove/retire her early. But I could be wrong. Looks like during the Obama admin years she moved up fast!
 
Her bio on af.mil says:
May 2019–present, Chief of Staff, Joint Force Space Component Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., as a brigadier general
 
That sounds like a pretty good job! It just seems that someone wanted her out. Maybe she is just plain old hard to work with which is not a fire able offense. Best of luck to her at her new command. I was wondering what happened to her.
 
Her bio on af.mil says:
May 2019–present, Chief of Staff, Joint Force Space Component Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., as a brigadier general
Glad to hear she's back providing important leadership for JFSCC!
 
So, I've been out awhile so maybe someone can refresh my memory or update me on changes. On a government issued credit card, which is what the cadet's card was, I wouldn't expect anyone to think that for above board travel expense for the General, that there was ever a chance that the reimbursement would come out of the cadet's pocket.

In my current work, (state government) it's common for individuals to cross charge against a government credit card and reimburse appropriately later, not just in an emergency, but even just for convenience. A quick email to the finance office documenting the transaction and why would immediately precede or follow the transaction. It's a little odd to me that the General would need to wait for reimbursement. It sounds from this like the military has the member pay the expenses in a govt credit card, then put in for reimbursement, then pay the reimbursement money to pay down the card.

I guess my point is, as long as it was a govt credit card and the General never denied the expense, there was never any loss to the cadet and therefore no actual loan.

But in my recent experience the holder of a govt card doesn't pay the card provider. The govt pays the credit card bill and the card holder reimburses only for personal expenses.

Maybe the military does it differently? I'm not defending or attacking anyone. This loan thing, when the write up describes the cadet's card as "government" issued, just seems very odd to me. Example... An executive assistant in my office might charge travel for ten folks on his our her government issued Visa card. When he or she submits the line item justification, it's all spelled out, who was traveling, where, why and how much. The bill for the card never goes anywhere near the card holder except to review and approve payment through the finance office at the end of the month.
 
Hm. Is she not the 2nd USAF to be dismissed this year for inability to lead or whatever jargon they're pushing now?
Was thinking exactly that... what up with the Air Force academy? Heard many hinky things about USAFA and lets say “non-military” attributes.
 
So, I've been out awhile so maybe someone can refresh my memory or update me on changes. On a government issued credit card, which is what the cadet's card was, I wouldn't expect anyone to think that for above board travel expense for the General, that there was ever a chance that the reimbursement would come out of the cadet's pocket.

In my current work, (state government) it's common for individuals to cross charge against a government credit card and reimburse appropriately later, not just in an emergency, but even just for convenience. A quick email to the finance office documenting the transaction and why would immediately precede or follow the transaction. It's a little odd to me that the General would need to wait for reimbursement. It sounds from this like the military has the member pay the expenses in a govt credit card, then put in for reimbursement, then pay the reimbursement money to pay down the card.

I guess my point is, as long as it was a govt credit card and the General never denied the expense, there was never any loss to the cadet and therefore no actual loan.

But in my recent experience the holder of a govt card doesn't pay the card provider. The govt pays the credit card bill and the card holder reimburses only for personal expenses.

Maybe the military does it differently? I'm not defending or attacking anyone. This loan thing, when the write up describes the cadet's card as "government" issued, just seems very odd to me. Example... An executive assistant in my office might charge travel for ten folks on his our her government issued Visa card. When he or she submits the line item justification, it's all spelled out, who was traveling, where, why and how much. The bill for the card never goes anywhere near the card holder except to review and approve payment through the finance office at the end of the month.
Your state government card is run differently from the US Military. Many people and the investigation have said that this was defacto an illegal loan from the cadet and that the money was not paid back until the cadet sought out the Commandant. This matches how the system worked when I held a GTCC which was from the beginning of that program. By the way, I worked for a number of Fortune 500 companies that all had me paying for my charges one way or another. The closest thing to what you describe was a company that paid the card for charges that were approved on MY expense reports. That would not include anything that I did for someone else and anything not on MY expense report had to be paid to the card by me.

In any case, I never EVER traveled without one or more personal cards in addition to my "company" card and I never EVER had someone else charge something for me. As a senior officer or as a senior manager, it behooved me to NEVER put my people into that kind of position and for the Commandant, this should be infinitely more important.
 
The Government Travel Card is ultimately the member's responsibility to pay. If the AF does not pay correctly/takes too long, it is the individual's responsibility to foot the bill. The system should work so that anything appropriately charged on the GTC is paid out via the travel voucher payment (AF sends money straight to Citi for claimed expenses). However, if the travel voucher is wrong or finance messes up, it is the individual's problem...
My recommendation is to only use a GTC for expenses the AF mandates be charged on the GTC.
 
Your state government card is run differently from the US Military. Many people and the investigation have said that this was defacto an illegal loan from the cadet and that the money was not paid back until the cadet sought out the Commandant. This matches how the system worked when I held a GTCC which was from the beginning of that program. By the way, I worked for a number of Fortune 500 companies that all had me paying for my charges one way or another. The closest thing to what you describe was a company that paid the card for charges that were approved on MY expense reports. That would not include anything that I did for someone else and anything not on MY expense report had to be paid to the card by me.

In any case, I never EVER traveled without one or more personal cards in addition to my "company" card and I never EVER had someone else charge something for me. As a senior officer or as a senior manager, it behooved me to NEVER put my people into that kind of position and for the Commandant, this should be infinitely more important.
That does seem odd to me, but I take you at your word. It would never occur to me that there would be any benefit to having a card issued through government finance office that made the card holder responsible for paying the bill on if the expenses were for authorized travel related activities. I would do what you're suggesting the acceptable alternative is... Just put everything on my private card always and submit a reimbursement request. Having a government issued issued card that's the member's direct responsibility to pay is literally begging for problems. It sounds like you're used to this system with the Air Force and the Fortune 500 companies you've been with but if you're a decision maker is highly recommend this other model. Your understanding as stated in your post is exactly how it works in our situation except it is completely permissible to charge for other's travel expenses. Think about it. These expenses are nothing to the finance office except charges against a fund code. The charges still have to be approved and reconciled, but in a system where the charge gets paid in full every month by the organization, it makes all the rest of this completely moot. The organization settles with the card holder for unauthorized expenses, not the card company.

It reduces traveling stress greatly. The cards are programmed to not allow entire categories of non-travel related purchases.

If someone makes an unauthorized purchase it's almost never a problem. They have the option to write a check or do a payroll deduction to pay it back. Frankly, it's not even frowned upon as long as everything is above board. For example, our travel regulations stipulate the type of automobile that can be rented as an authorized expense. Does the member want an upgrade? That's usually fine. Let the finance office know, charge it, pay it back with an e-check or as payroll deduction. Best of all, it completely removes the possibility and appearance of one senior official from taking advantage of a lower level individual on the travel team in a circumstances like this.

I'm trying to even imagine what the benefit would be of a card issued through an organizational account that the holder is directly responsible for paying. Maybe a little flexibility in personal travel arrangements? But if I have to pay the card bill and still submit a reimbursement request, that's just asking for a nasty IG or OSI investigation into how money was spent with little or no benefit to the traveler.

Thank you for the explanation. I don't know anything about this General one way or the other, but it does sound like getting an Air Force credit card and using it for travel is just inviting trouble. Use your own card, submit the expense report and get reimbursed directly. If you travel a lot you'll lose some money on interest on the card as you wait for reimbursement deposits, but you'd be a ton less liable.
 
That does seem odd to me, but I take you at your word. It would never occur to me that there would be any benefit to having a card issued through government finance office that made the card holder responsible for paying the bill on if the expenses were for authorized travel related activities. I would do what you're suggesting the acceptable alternative is... Just put everything on my private card always and submit a reimbursement request. Having a government issued issued card that's the member's direct responsibility to pay is literally begging for problems. It sounds like you're used to this system with the Air Force and the Fortune 500 companies you've been with but if you're a decision maker is highly recommend this other model. Your understanding as stated in your post is exactly how it works in our situation except it is completely permissible to charge for other's travel expenses. Think about it. These expenses are nothing to the finance office except charges against a fund code. The charges still have to be approved and reconciled, but in a system where the charge gets paid in full every month by the organization, it makes all the rest of this completely moot. The organization settles with the card holder for unauthorized expenses, not the card company.

It reduces traveling stress greatly. The cards are programmed to not allow entire categories of non-travel related purchases.

If someone makes an unauthorized purchase it's almost never a problem. They have the option to write a check or do a payroll deduction to pay it back. Frankly, it's not even frowned upon as long as everything is above board. For example, our travel regulations stipulate the type of automobile that can be rented as an authorized expense. Does the member want an upgrade? That's usually fine. Let the finance office know, charge it, pay it back with an e-check or as payroll deduction. Best of all, it completely removes the possibility and appearance of one senior official from taking advantage of a lower level individual on the travel team in a circumstances like this.

I'm trying to even imagine what the benefit would be of a card issued through an organizational account that the holder is directly responsible for paying. Maybe a little flexibility in personal travel arrangements? But if I have to pay the card bill and still submit a reimbursement request, that's just asking for a nasty IG or OSI investigation into how money was spent with little or no benefit to the traveler.

Thank you for the explanation. I don't know anything about this General one way or the other, but it does sound like getting an Air Force credit card and using it for travel is just inviting trouble. Use your own card, submit the expense report and get reimbursed directly. If you travel a lot you'll lose some money on interest on the card as you wait for reimbursement deposits, but you'd be a ton less liable.

That's all well and good, but why even go through the trouble of posting this here? Few of us, if any, have real control over the military's system or over the decisions that were made during the investigation. It doesn't matter how it works in your situation. The USAF mandates the use of the card. There's no way around it.
 
As a taxpayer as most of us on the forum are, I would throw in the expression of "Cutting off the nose to spite the face". I am not sure what the dollar amount was that the list of issues/infractions added up to, but lets use a round number of 10K(probably way high). If you turn around and mandate an individual (with no doubt a rather significant monthly income) to stay home from work and continue to get paid full salary for say a few months(or more?), did you really make a positive contribution to the nations defense? I am just throwing that out there for food for thought.
 
If I recall correctly, it wasn't the dollar amount, it was forcing the Cadet to "loan" a general $$. She didn't repay the loan until the cadet had to approach the general and request repayment! Lastly, her staff filed complaints about a toxic environment within the command being specifically caused by the general. Over the last 2-3 years, Iv'e read of several commanders losing their commands due to this; not sure if there's less tolerance for it, or these command changes are publicized more (thinking Air Force Times articles).
 
That's all well and good, but why even go through the trouble of posting this here? Few of us, if any, have real control over the military's system or over the decisions that were made during the investigation. It doesn't matter how it works in your situation. The USAF mandates the use of the card. There's no way around it.
As a person with a stake in how the Academy is run, my purpose is to understand this situation, not change it. By posting my experience with the use of a government credit card someone with more experience with the USAFA model can explain the differences (which is what happened). I might sound critical of the system, and maybe you'd be justified to some degree in thinking that. If I poke at the establishment a bit while doing so, I'm sure the establishment will weather the storm. I'm posting on-topic, and to my knowledge neither breaking any forum rules nor being particularly disruptive. As an Academy alumnus, you may have an interesting perspective on this situation. Respectfully, the gold mine that alumni bring to these forums is their perspective. I'd much rather hear your point of view than to defend the legitimacy of my questions.
 
As a person with a stake in how the Academy is run, my purpose is to understand this situation, not change it. By posting my experience with the use of a government credit card someone with more experience with the USAFA model can explain the differences (which is what happened). I might sound critical of the system, and maybe you'd be justified to some degree in thinking that. If I poke at the establishment a bit while doing so, I'm sure the establishment will weather the storm. I'm posting on-topic, and to my knowledge neither breaking any forum rules nor being particularly disruptive. As an Academy alumnus, you may have an interesting perspective on this situation. Respectfully, the gold mine that alumni bring to these forums is their perspective. I'd much rather hear your point of view than to defend the legitimacy of my questions.
To start off with, the GTCC (Government Travel Credit Card) is not a USAFA "thing". It is not a USAF "thing". It is a DOD-wide program that is run in accordance with the Joint Travel Regulations (The JTR) which is the equivalent of a civilian company's Travel Policy only it applies to millions of people. Not just the Uniformed Services within DoD but also the DoD Civilians and millions of non-government employees who work under government (military) contracts except that the non-government employees (Lockheed, Boeing, etc) do not get issued a GTCC.

In every organization, military or civilian that I've worked for, a mischarge (loan) such as the General did in this case would be a huge problem.
 
General comment, regarding the General Officer:

In any circumstance, the Commandant was relieved and the case is closed as far as the public domain and USAFA is concerned . Leaders should lead and leaders should be principled. If this was a false charge, it will be adjudicated within the military legal system. :wiggle:

REFERENCE THE BELOW: For those of you that may be offended or think that I'm stating something not already in public records, slow your roll, it all is. This was the Greatest Administrative failure of senior leadership in the military in recent history!!!!

****YOU WANT TO BE DISGUSTED BEYOND BELIEF??? GOOGLE GEN WILLIAM "KIP" WARD DEMOTION. ****

"This dude was a 4 star CG of AFRICOM. What he did, and what happened to him, was a pure disgrace for the US military, to include the role that the CJCS, Gen Dempsey played . That's not an opinion, that's fact. If you have to pay back $80K and you're not charged under the UCMJ, that's grand larceny under any scale of justice! What's he doing now? He's a beltway Bandit! "Since retiring, Ward has served as President and chief operating officer of the logistics, IT, and engineering business, Vectrus (aka SENTEL)."
Ward held the four-star grade of general while serving as Commander, United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), a "position of importance and responsibility" under Title 10 of the United States Code Subtitle 601 (10 USC § 601).[12] Ward was reduced in rank upon retirement by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Ward's retired rank is that of lieutenant general which was determined to be the last rank in which he had satisfactorily served. "
 
Back
Top