Commandant suspended

OldRetSWO said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, saying it was a USAF thing was clearly wrong. Or it would be, if I had said that at any point.

Either way, I've clearly stated that my purpose is to understand the complaint by comparing the two government credit card systems. That seems to have aggravated a few folks, and for that, I apologize.

Because the topic interests me, I was hoping to get a clear and informed opinion from other military folks here with experience with the program. Since the responses have varied in tone and informational content, I just went and read the (hundreds of pages) rules and the complaint.

I think it's clear that the General violated the rules. She had a few choices she could have made differently and at each point, chose unwisely. I can think of any number of better options (especially in hindsight where I've just read the rules over a few days period, had time to consider the options, etc).

But the GTC program is entirely too rigid in the use of a card to cover expenses of other authorized travelers. Theoretically, this rule reduces the opportunity and incidence of fraud. In practice, because military members are a captive audience, simply requiring re-payment for unauthorized expenses from the responsible party (in addition to disciplinary action) already creates a situation where fraud incidence and impact would be very, very low.

To be clear, the Air Force is an outstanding institution. I think the General is likely a fine individual who made some mistakes. It's unfortunate, but the AF decisions in this matter are probably well considered.
 
@caernarvonkjaer Would you please provide the links to the info you mentioned? I'd like to read it as well, thanks
 
I have a curious mind so I will ask...... if one exercises their rights under Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to seek redress against an alleged incorrect decision by another individual, but said other individual is no longer actively serving, does this make the task to seek redress more difficult and possibly impossible?
 
BBBRRRTT said:
I have a curious mind so I will ask...... if one exercises their rights under Article 138 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to seek redress against an alleged incorrect decision by another individual, but said other individual is no longer actively serving, does this make the task to seek redress more difficult and possibly impossible?
Click to expand...
Article 138 is used to seek redress for an issue with a current commanding officer.

There are other avenues.
If someone believes inaccurate information has been placed in their record, they can petition the appropriate service’s board of corrections.

A service member could contact the Inspector General (IG) at various levels in his or her chain of command, up to the service or DOD level. They are duty bound to respond. If the complaint is substantiated, and if appropriate and allowable to do so, a case might be created whereby it triggers the process where someone might be recalled to active duty, depending on their status. That is fairly rare, though. IG scope of action covers certain things, but they cannot ignore a properly submitted complaint and must respond in some fashion.

A service member can always submit correspondence up the chain of command, but depending on the nature of the complaint and action requested in the case of someone having already left the service, the COC might not be able to do anything. Now, if it was to identify a large-scale issue of some kind, that might be different. Before that, I would punt to the next option.

All decent-sized military bases have a legal services office, with some of the JAG officers dedicated to advocacy and consulting with the military member. They will be in the best position to advise a military member on avenues open to them within and without the military, including civil suits and lodging complaints with a civil authority on criminal matters. There are any number of firms populated by former JAGs who specialize in cases relating to military service.

There are plenty of internet references, official and unofficial, to Art. 138. Being Navy, I’ll include a link to some basic Navy guidance, for the purpose of general readership.
 
Last edited:
I was wondering if anyone in the know had heard a follow up on the article 138. Found this interview to be rather informative, and thought by now there would be a resolution to the situation. Anyone in the know? Was thinking my July 16 post may have been a little too round about.

federalnewsnetwork.com

Air Force official challenges academy superintendent for command removal

For at least one side of the story, Federal Drive with Tom Temin turned to Tully Rinckey attorney Larry Youngner.
federalnewsnetwork.com federalnewsnetwork.com
 
BBBRRRTT said:
I was wondering if anyone in the know had heard a follow up on the article 138. Found this interview to be rather informative, and thought by now there would be a resolution to the situation. Anyone in the know? Was thinking my July 16 post may have been a little too round about.

federalnewsnetwork.com

Air Force official challenges academy superintendent for command removal

For at least one side of the story, Federal Drive with Tom Temin turned to Tully Rinckey attorney Larry Youngner.
federalnewsnetwork.com federalnewsnetwork.com
Click to expand...
Since an Article 138 is an internal administrative process, there may never be any further public information on findings and outcomes. Even if actions were taken, such as an administrative letter placed in a service jacket, that would not be placed in public view. What to watch is if General Silveria continues in command, retires on time, retires at his current rank (that is not guaranteed, must be approved by Congress), gets accolades and a fine send-off, then likely there was a finding of nothing actionable in the Article 138 that required further investigation or punitive action. I have heard only good things about General Silveria. I know some people here know him personally.

Often times these situations are a clash of leadership styles. The bigger elephant almost always wins. It is the junior’s role (if in the Navy) to trim sails to the prevailing wind and utter a cheery aye-aye.
 
Capt MJ said:
Since an Article 138 is an internal administrative process, there may never be any further public information on findings and outcomes. Even if actions were taken, such as an administrative letter placed in a service jacket, that would not be placed in public view. What to watch is if General Silveria continues in command, retires on time, retires at his current rank (that is not guaranteed, must be approved by Congress), gets accolades and a fine send-off, then likely there was a finding of nothing actionable in the Article 138 that required further investigation or punitive action. I have heard only good things about General Silveria. I know some people here know him personally.

Often times these situations are a clash of leadership styles. The bigger elephant almost always wins. It is the junior’s role (if in the Navy) to trim sails to the prevailing wind and utter a cheery aye-aye.
Click to expand...
"trim sails to the prevailing wind and utter a cheery aye-aye"....that's poetic!
 
Capt MJ said:
Since an Article 138 is an internal administrative process, there may never be any further public information on findings and outcomes. Even if actions were taken, such as an administrative letter placed in a service jacket, that would not be placed in public view. What to watch is if General Silveria continues in command, retires on time, retires at his current rank (that is not guaranteed, must be approved by Congress), gets accolades and a fine send-off, then likely there was a finding of nothing actionable in the Article 138 that required further investigation or punitive action. I have heard only good things about General Silveria. I know some people here know him personally.

Often times these situations are a clash of leadership styles. The bigger elephant almost always wins. It is the junior’s role (if in the Navy) to trim sails to the prevailing wind and utter a cheery aye-aye.
Click to expand...
Yes and besides the "bigger elephant/smaller elephant" leadership issues it really does not help the smaller elephant when it offers up a
somewhat egregious ethics issue from the travel card debacle.
As the parent of a Cadet/Midshipman, I'd expect to see fire and brimstone raining down on a very senior officer taking "loans" from very low ranked subordinates IN THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND and even then, not IMMEDIATELY paying it back and forcing the subordinate to come and ask for it.
 
Was wondering what people are hearing about the new leadership at the USAFA? I know two cadets personally from our CAP squadron at the USAFA and they are very thankful for the new commandant and superintendent. They advised the new #1 and #2 are very different and the mood has changed dramatically at the USAFA. One of them is at the prep school. Just wondering if others were hearing the same?
 
HCopter said:
Hearing very good things.
See public Instagrams barstool_af and gloriousoldzoo for video clips
Supt is living with the Cadet Wing, earning tremendous respect.
Click to expand...
Right this is exactly what I was hearing! Nice to confirm it especially since my daughter is applying this year! They are saying it is like night and day from both top 2 leaders. So nice to have this change and wish Lt General Clark & Maj General Edmondson the best!
 
Last edited:
jeffinCharlotte said:
Was wondering what people are hearing about the new leadership at the USAFA? I know two cadets personally from our CAP squadron at the USAFA and they are very thankful for the new commandant and superintendent. They advised the new #1 and #2 are very different and the mood has changed dramatically at the USAFA. One of them is at the prep school. Just wondering if others were hearing the same?
Click to expand...
Yes! Our DD is a Doolie and from what we hear they love the new Supe and Commandant. The Supe slept overnight last week with them with his dog and then did a TikTok video and bodysurfed down the hallway. So great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top