AFA Informant Program

[flieger83]

Unrelated to the thread...

It's GOOD to see Col Dave on our boards. This gent has a wealth of military knowledge and advice.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[ColDave]

Still stumbling around here, however.

 

[eray06]

For Folks Looking for an Update

Another quick update/press release from the Academy/Lt. Gen. Johnson (per the Academy's official Facebook page a few hours ago):

"The Office of the Air Force Inspector General is initiating an
investigation into the Office of Special Investigation's handling of former Cadet Eric Thomas while he was an Air Force Academy Cadet.

In addition, as the Air Force's Academy Superintendent, I have directed an executive Review of the Academy's disenrollment process.

Additionally, as we work to improve and strengthen our culture of commitment and respect, I will personally oversee any use of the CI program with my long term intent to eliminate the need for cadet Confidential Informants in the cadet wing."

Note: I do not have enough posts to insert a url, but if you go to Facebook and search for "USAFA Official", you will find it.

 

[aseanag]

New Gazette article

http://gazette.com/air-force-academ...tunities-in-recent-challenges/article/1511077

 

[rpwalker]

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

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."

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

So if I am reading correctly. They used this cadet and then throw him away after he was no longer useful. No payback was his reward for cooperating.

That is what Commander Tilo and Leadership did. Commander Tilo told Eric’s leadership he was lying because at the time Tilo did not know being he was not briefed. After returning to his post the same day within hrs. He was informed that everything Eric said was true and correct. Instead of taking responsibility for misinforming Eric’s leadership Tilo did nothing. Tilo also lied to Eric to get him alone and berate him for informing me his mother of what was going on at the Academy. Shortly after Eric told me what was up I wrote a concerning Email the went up the chain quickly to Tilo. Tilo had Erica handler call Eric to set up a meet. Eric anxious to talk to the handler and find out why he was not as his MERC went to the meeting. Eric’s handler was not there just Tilo who roasted him for telling me what was going on. Eric worked for OSI because a friend was assaulted not because he was in trouble. Eric did not have enough demerits to be disenrolled before working for OSI. BCMR report verified Eric started working for OSI in 2010. The Academy has consistently lied. OSI gave sworn statement at the Dubai hearing for Eric and the Academy has failed to review any and all reports together. Eric has never been given an audience. Eric was not the only Cadet to witness assault he was one of the only cadets to take action against it.

 

[rpwalker]

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

So if I am reading correctly. They used this cadet and then throw him away after he was no longer useful. No payback was his reward for cooperating.

That is correct. The Academy has not spoken to Eric concerning his disenrollement. Academy received a request to review with Eric but Silvia said the previous administration did that but we did not get the memo. It never happened. I have reached out to the Academy to review all 4 reports with them and witness testimony plus sworn statements by OSI and they said no.

 

[rpwalker]

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.

Eric was not up for an honor offense because of sworn statements he signed while working for OSI he could not say anything about OSI to defend himself during his MERC. Meanwhile, his handler was ordered not to appear. Col. Anderson who was part of the MER knew the handler was suppose to be there was aware of Eric’s involvement with OSI and just sat there while Eric struggled trying to answer questions and not violate the letters of disclosures he had signed. Eric was alone and Col. Anderson did nothing to ensure Eric’s rights. Understand through this whole thing the squad moral was low as leadership proved it could not be trusted by the way they where handling Eric. A climate assessment took place and the complaints poured and nothing changed. Eric did not ask nor was he given anything for standing up for the victims that where assaulted. He was cussed at called the “walking dead” by his AOC and set up by his AOC who did not know he was working for OSI.
The take away is a nieve patriot student is lied on, left in the wind by his leadership both OSI and the Academy. Investigation show EVERYTHING Eric said was true and correct. No accountability for the Academy. OSI is found to lack trading in working with students and the students pay for the deficient of the leadership. Then everyone is surprised that sexually assault is up at the Academy. I didn’t send my son to the Academy to be taken advantage of. I thought he would find positive mentors that value the traits of leadership and sought to instill that in future leaders instead the example is, “cover your butt” at the expense of anyone.

 

[rpwalker]

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.

 

[rpwalker]

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.

I am enclosing a link what happened to Former Cadet Thomas. The Academy with all its promises of transparency lied. Eric was not in trouble when he agreed to work for OSI. His friend was assaulted and stated that nothing would change because it was a football player that assaulted her. DoD found the General was a roadblock in their investigation into the football program. Eric did not call the reporter I did his mother. I did not send my son to the Academy for my son to be someone’s scape goat let alone when I asked OSI and the academy for guidelines to using a Cadet they said it was a security issue. They never told Eric what his rights are. Eric trusted his leadership. Trusted OSI was reporting to leadership as they stated they would. https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/03/operation-gridirons-thomas-honored-by-arizona-house/

 

[rpwalker]

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?

BCMR report verified Eric did start working for OSI in 2010 the Academy Lied. Interview on ABC and DoD report General Gould contradicts himself. He either lied to ABC or the DoD. Sworn statements from OSI validate everything Eric said he did. The Academy and OSI dropped the ball and rather than act like leaders continue to this day punishing Eric. https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/03/operation-gridirons-thomas-honored-by-arizona-house/

 

[rpwalker]

There has been a lot of discussion about Thomas but early in the Gazette story there is this, “I hate it,” said a third cadet who said he became an informant in 2011. The cadet, who graduated in May and is now an officer, did not want to be identified because he feared retribution by the Air Force. He said being an informant was the worst thing he has ever done. “It puts you in a horrible situation: Lying, turning on other cadets. I felt like a rat. OSI says they will offer you protection, have your back. Then they don’t. Look what happened to Eric.”

What's this officer's story? Why did they become an informant? Was this a way out of trouble? How many more like this person are there at USAFA? How is using cadets in this way consistent with the mission and values of USAFA?

Thomas isn't the story.

Informants are not always cadets that are introuble. Eric was not in trouble. The parties Eric attended was full of cadets that knew what was happening and no one said nothing. That should be concerning. Cadets too scared to speak up because they fear for their own careers more than the rape that just took place. Eric made a difference the first conviction since 1997 because he spoke up. How many woman are safe because he spoke up. Every Cadet should feel free to speak up. However that is not the case at the Academy. When Eric reported issues in his squad he was accused of trying to do something to help himself. I had just spoken with Col. Anderson who encouraged me to encourage Eric to reach out to his leadership and that was their response to bad mouth him. Eric emailed Col Anderson and the other Cadets backed him. Eric was loved by his squad his AOC called him the walking dead. A survey was taken in the squad thanks to Eric to try and help his squad. The response was so big it was expanded but I’m sure the Academy did not bring that up. Eric lived the honor code and stood up for everyone male and female and in doing so leadership punished him. https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/03/operation-gridirons-thomas-honored-by-arizona-house/
He became an informant because his friend was assaulted. He was not in trouble he was on Academic probation and the Academy should have stepped in and said he can’t participate due to Academic status but they did not care. Eric still managed to keep his head above water.

 

[rpwalker]

The inherent danger when using a confidential informant is that they are always wanting something from you. They either want escape from prosecution, money, or protection. Due to this antagonistic relationship the CI usually embellishes their story to make you feel that they are providing important information for you. In the case at AFA the cadets who were contacted by OSI were clearly in fear of something they may have said or done. Some CI's, and obviously some cadets, may have participated by feeling they were helping to uphold the honor code but my experience has been that allot of the intelligence information received is either madeup or was accessible from other sources. Using a cadet to spy on their peers.... Hmmm. Was the cost worth the effort? After all the fallout, the use of all that manpower, probably not.

Sworn statements from OSI Eric did not want anything. Eric was not in trouble. Eric wanted justice for his friend that was assaulted. He loves the Air Force and wanted it to be safe. Eric passed every lie detector test give. Eric did not want glory or anything else. Why is it so hard to believe that some people do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do? And your right other Cadets know the same info yet they don’t speak up. Then Eric gets punished for speaking up. After the way the AOC called Eric our in front of the squad calling say “dead man walking” no Cadet would feel safe to speak freely even when given permission.