Here's what my Area Defense Counsel had to say...Again, the facts are: 1) The numbers I reported were correct, and 2) I didn't use the data line to make phone calls.

                            DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                          AIR FORCE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY
                          USAF JUDICIARY, CENTRAL CIRCUIT
                               USAF ACADEMY, COLORADO

                                                                              13 November 1995

FROM: Area Defense Counsel (Captain XXX)

RE: Technical Sergeant Allen A. Lamb

1. I am writing this memorandum to document my involvement with Technical Sergeant Lamb's
situation and to express my concerns with the handling of his case, including the recently
completed legal review of his removal from recruiter duty. I am concerned that the facts of this
entire' situation have not been fully addressed by either the commander or the Legal Office.

2. I was first contacted by TSgt Lamb on 24 July. He explained that he had been read his rights
by his commander for "recruiter integrity" about one week earlier. He had talked with his
commander for some time but then asked for an attorney as the questioning grew more heated.
When I asked what "recruiter integrity" involved, he explained that the commander was
questioning his documentation of certain recruiting phone calls made from his office. The facts of
this problem appeared to be very complicated. As is my usual advice to members who have been
read their rights, I advised him not to make any more comments about his situation, at least until I
could find out what was going on. On that same day, I contacted the servicing Legal Office at
Grand Forks and spoke with Captain G, Chief of Military Justice. She told me that an
Article 15 had been prepared and would be served on TSgt Lamb the following afternoon
(25 July) for false official statements in the phone log. When I asked her for a copy of the
evidence that was the basis for the Article 15, she said that her office didn't have it. I thought this
was unusual since the servicing Legal Office has to report information on the Article 15, as well
as prosecute if the Article 15 was turned down. When I called TSgt Lamb back, he had just been
informed by the unit that he needed to report in to his commander the next afternoon. I explained
that this was for service of an Article 15. We discussed general procedures and. I explained that
he would be served with a copy of all the evidence against him at the same time. I told him not to
worry for now about disputing these charges since it would be much easier for us to do once we
had the evidence.

3. Near the end of the following day (25 July), TSgt Lamb called, obviously upset. When I asked
if the Article 15 had been served, he told me no. He said he was reminded by his commander that
he was still under rights advisement and again questioned about the phone calls. This is totally
improper since he had already asserted his Article 31 right to an attorney. The unit knew that he
had been in contact with me about this issue but they told him not to call me and get me involved.
TSgt Lamb attempted to answer the questions posed to him but was uncomfortable since I
specifically told him not to. At the end of this interrogation, the commander told TSgt Lamb to
come back at 0900 on 27 July to "prove his integrity" to him.

4. Needless to say, I was not happy with this behavior by the commander. I called Capt G
on 26 July at the Grand Forks Legal Office and was told "that couldn't have happened". After
she looked into it, she told me that it had in fact happened and that an Article 15 was no longer
being considered. Instead, it was more likely to be "administrative action". I relayed this
information to TSgt Lamb.

5. On 27 July, TSgt Lamb was served with a Letter of Reprimand and a nonrecommendation for
promotion (he was due to pin on Master Sergeant 1 Aug) and relieved from duty (Atch 1). I
requested and received a delay until 4 August for TSgt Lamb to submit his rebuttal matters. As is
apparent from his lengthy rebuttal, he needed this time to research phone records and make phone
calls. I was frustrated throughout this process since TSgt Lamb was never told directly which
phone calls were in issue. He had to work his way through all of them.

6. On 28 July, I spoke with Lt Col H, TSgt Lamb's commander, about the delay and the
situation. Lt Col H had just assumed command of the recruiting unit days earlier. Lt
Col H expressed concern over TSgt Lamb not Proving his innocence soon enough and
taking more than two weeks already. He stated that TSgt Lamb was not being forthcoming
throughout this. When I explained that this situation was factually complicated, he stated that, in
his prior assignment on the flightline, he expected airmen to clear up any integrity issues
immediately. I told him that TSgt Lamb would be submitting a detailed rebuttal that should
address his concerns but that this case didn't lend itself quick explanations. Lt Col H
said he would consider the rebuttal information. He also mentioned that he was going to send
TSgt Lamb for a command directed mental health evaluation since he believed TSgt Lamb was
using this situation to bring up stress issues.

7. On 4 August, TSgt Lamb submitted his rebuttal package. During his preparation of this
package, he was informed by the phone company that certain telephone calls do not appear as
long distance itemizations but are grouped together in a bulk billing. He was unable to get an
itemization of this bulk billing in time for his rebuttal. In his rebuttal, TSgt Lamb also specifically
addressed the alleged failure to obey his superior's order regarding use of the data transmission
line for phone calls. He submitted a statement by another recruiter which indicated that that
recruiter was the one who made the phone call, without TSgt Lamb's knowledge.

8. Included in the package of information provided to me by TSgt Lamb was a 31 July letter from
the commander to the Grand Forks Legal Office, requesting a legal review of TSgt Lamb's
removal from recruiting duties*(1).  I was concerned when I saw that the basis of this action included
language that "when confronted [about his Integrity being questioned], TSgt Lamb offered no
substantiated proof to the contrary." (Atch 2). On 21 August, I sent a fax to the Legal Office
(Atch 3) in which I requested that TSgt Lamb's rebuttal matters be considered as part of this legal
review. I received a return phone call from Major R, Deputy SJA who told me that he
can't consider this sort of “extraneous material" when a customer has requested a legal review.
He told me that he can only rely on what the customer (here, the commander) submits. If I
wanted the rebuttal information considered, he told me to convince the commander to submit it
himself to the Legal Office. Again, this didn't seem logical since the purpose of a legal review is
to evaluate an entire issue before arriving at a legal conclusion. However, in order to try to
ensure that this rebuttal was part of the package, I then faxed a request to the commander that
this information be included (Atch 4).
*(1)  As an aside, there appear to be two versions of this removal paperwork. Both versions are
attached and it is obvious that the paperwork was modified after the fact. The first version (Atch 1,
page 4) was served on TSgt Lamb without supporting documentation but the second version was sent to the
Legal Office and has documentation (Atch 2). I have no explanation for this.

9. On 24 August, I spoke with the commander again about TSgt Lamb's situation. He informed
me that the unit was expecting the itemization of the bulk calls any day and that they will evaluate
them and notify TSgt Lamb and me about their conclusion. I specifically requested that TSgt
Lamb be given a copy of the new bills when they arrived. To date, TSgt Lamb has not received
these bills and I have no knowledge of whether the commander has reviewed or considered them.
In fact, in late September or early October, TSgt Lamb asked his commander whether he had
received these itemizations and he was told "no, have you?".

10. On 13 October, XXX ARW/JA completed their legal review of TSgt Lamb's removal from
recruiter duty (Atch 5). It also doesn't appear that the Legal Office reviewed the rebuttal
information. Instead, they relied solely on the commander's evaluation and opinion regarding
these allegations. Specifically, this legal review states "many long distance telephone calls in...
planning guide, school folders, and other reports were not listed on the monthly telephone bills"
and that TSgt Lamb failed to comply with the order about using the data line for phone calls.
TSgt Lamb's rebuttal information specifically covered these allegations. The phone bills in
question show bulk billing for trunks to the areas in question. If the unit had followed through on
its plan to request these itemizations, they may very well have proven TSgt Lamb innocent. It
doesn't appear that the Legal Office has even reviewed TSgt Lamb's extensive rebuttal package.
The only mention of it is a sentence stating "the commander and his staff analyzed those matters
and did not find them dispositive or persuasive". I do not believe that the unit can do an accurate
and fair analysis of the matters without getting the itemized phone bills in question. I also believe
that the Legal Office should have looked at these rebuttal matters before concluding that this
removal for cause was justified and legally sufficient. I have attached a copy of the rebuttal
materials to this memorandum (Atch 6).

11. My concern throughout this entire process has been the "guilty until proven innocent" theme
that has consistently appeared. It was my impression that the unit and the Legal Office assumed
that TSgt Lamb had falsified the logs and were initiating adverse actions against him based on that
assumption. This is apparent from their handling of this case.

     a. TSgt Lamb's unit brought him in and showed him his phone logs and the phone bills
and told him to explain the discrepancies. All this was done under rights advisement and in a
highly confrontational manner.  Since TSgt Lamb knew he had made all the phone calls
documented in his log, he obviously had no explanation that would satisfy the commander. The
unit didn't even bother to investigate the bulk calls that were clearly visible on each bill. This was
left for TSgt Lamb to discover on his own. When TSgt Lamb's answers weren't satisfactory, the
commander became visibly upset. At that point, TSgt Lamb chose to exercise his right to an

     b. The commander then contacted the Legal Office who apparently prepared an Article 15
for him but was unable to provide me with a copy of the evidence. From my conversations with
the Legal Office, I wasn't convinced that they had a clear understanding of the facts in this case.
They also must have missed the obvious bulk billings on each phone bill. This cursory review of
the evidence and failure to keep copies of it is strange, considering that this office would have
been responsible for prosecuting TSgt Lamb if he turned down this Article 15.

     c. Knowing that TSgt Lamb had asked for and consulted with an attorney, the
commander then attempted to strong-arm him into making additional statements. TSgt Lamb was
specifically told not to get me involved. This is totally improper. However, TSgt Lamb again
attempted to explain the phone logs to the commander, to no avail.

     d. After I objected to this second interrogation, the Article 15 suddenly became
"administrative action", in the form of an LOR/UIF, control roster, nonrecommendation for
promotion and removal from recruiting duty for cause. All these adverse actions were based on
the same allegations and all were accomplished without waiting for TSgt Lamb to submit his
rebuttal information. That seems premature, to say the least. Even after TSgt Lamb submitted his
detailed rebuttal information, this material was considered "extraneous" by the lawyers involved in
the case and has had no effect on the processing of his adverse actions. In fact, one of the
primary issues raised in his rebuttal (the bulk billing of calls) was never addressed or evaluated by
the commander or the Legal Office.

12. I have attempted to assist TSgt Lamb to the best of my ability throughout this process. I
have been disturbed throughout the processing of his case and continue to be disturbed at the fact
that his case appears to continuing in the same vein with no one officially addressing the matters
that he and I spent numerous hours compiling.

13. Please contact me at DSN XXX-XXXX or commercial (XXX) XXX-XXXX if you have any

                                    XXX X. XXX, Capt, USAF
                                    Area Defense Counsel

1. Paperwork served on TSgt Lamb on 27 July
2. Second ATC Form 1321 and supporting documentation
3. 21 August fax to Grand Forks Legal Office
4. 21 August fax to commander
5. Legal Review of removal Action
6. 4 Aug 95 Rebuttal Materials

Return to Airminder's All About Air Force Recruiting Page.

You are visitor  since 5 Apr 97.