|Here Is the Synopsis of the FACTS pertaining to my case...|
Master Sergeant Lamb, by and through his counsel, hereby submits the following in support of his application for correction of his military records to the Air Force BCMR.
Master Sergeant Lamb has exhausted his administrative remedies. He submitted his application for Correction of his 1995 Evaluation Report to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on or about 2 August 1996, but his appeal was denied on or about 6 September 1996.
Master Sergeant Lamb requests the following corrections be made to the following OPRs:
Chronology of Events
1. Master Sergeant Lamb entered the Air Force on 19 March 1979 and served as a Titan II Ballistic Missile Analyst Technician until May 1986 at both Davis-Monthan AFB and McConnell AFB. While stationed at Davis-Monthan AFB, he was selected to perform recruiter assistance duties near his home town while on permissive TDY for 3 weeks.
2. Years later, he followed up on his interest in recruiting when he submitted his recruiting application and was accepted. He successfully completed the recruiting technical school and moved to Eau Claire, WI in September 1992. He began his recruiting duties in October 1992. He exceeded the FY 1993 and FY 1994 goals with 27 accessions (108% of goal) and 36 accessions (103% of goal) respectively.
3. The inequitable treatment of Master Sergeant Lamb began in FY 1995.
4. On or about 28 October 1994, Lamb became involved with SSG R.'s case, when Lamb was directed by the Squadron Superintendent, SMS C. to have SSG R. work Saturday, 29 October 1994 telephone prospecting. SSG R. was another recruiter in the unit, and he had a deal with the chain of command to make goal year to date so he could take 30 days leave in conjunction with his upcoming PCS. But, at sometime during the month of November 1994, it was clear that the squadron intended to deny SSG R.'s PCS leave. SSG R. asked Lamb to intervene with SMS C. on his behalf, which he did, but SMS C. told Lamb that the people that SSG R. had were not yet "booked" jobs (were qualified and waiting), but that would eventually "book" jobs were not included in the deal. Lamb encouraged SSG R. to submit an IG complaint, which he did, and the situation was resolved in SSG R.'s favor.
5. On 1 December 1994, Lamb was the number one recruiter in the squadron. However, on this day, the group trainer, MSG E., and Lamb's flight supervisor, MSG M. J., meet with Lamb and were critical of his performance. They give Lamb new guidance for what a telephone contact is, and number crunching for the statistics.
6. From 18-31 December 1994, Lamb was on leave, but he was "highly encouraged" to work during his leave because neither Lamb nor the squadron was on target for meeting goal. He also worked on 2 and 16 January 95, his days off, in an attempt to catch up.
7. From 4-5 January 1995, Lamb was TDY in Minneapolis for commander's call. He was tied with another individual for number one squadron recruiter for the first quarter of FY 1995. He was encouraged by his chain of command to volunteer to be a career recruiter.
8. Lamb faxed a volunteer statement to SMS C. He requests a report not later than date of 1 June 1995 and a nurse recruiting position at Grand Forks AFB. This position had been vacant for close to a year.
9. On 20 January 1995, Lamb's phone is disconnected prematurely for an office move, and the telephone has to be reconnected on 21 January 1995. During this time, Lamb used the Navy's telephone to conduct telephone prospecting.
10. 24 January 1995, Lamb is interviewed for the nurse recruiting position by MAJ G.. MAJ G. tells Lamb that as far as he is concerned, the job is Lamb's.
11. On 30 January 1995, Lamb's phone is again disconnected prematurely for an office move, and Lamb used the Navy's telephone to conduct telephone prospecting.
12. On 9 February 1995, MSG M. J. calls Lamb and instructs him to cancel all non-essential high school visits to telephone prospect graduates since there is a need to recruit graduates. When Lamb is later questioned by LTC C. as to why he cancelled the high school visits, MSG M. J. does not back him up.
13. On 17 February 1995, Lamb's phone is again disconnected prematurely for an office move, and has to be reconnected later that day.
14. Lamb works on 20 February 1995, which is President's Day and is supposed to be a day off.
15. 24 February 1995: Moving day at the Eau Claire Air Force recruiting office.
16. 25 February 1995 is spent setting up the new office.
17. On 27 February 1995, Lamb discovers that there is no long distance carrier connected for calls made outside the 715 area code. The telephone company installed a temporary "hard-line" and switched incoming calls to ring at telephone number 832-XXXX.
18. On 7 March 1995, Eau Claire schools closed due to bad weather, but Lamb travels the 2 hours to Minneapolis to meet with COL E. COL E. tells Lamb that he wants him in the nurse position but does not know if he will get it due to his low production.
19. On 27 March 1995, Lamb's office telephone is inoperable and has to be repaired.
20. On 15 May 1995, Lamb drove to St. Paul and met with MSG M. J. MSG M. J. tells Lamb that he met goal as of that day (and only the 15th of the month!), but MSG M. J. issued him a derogatory Letter of Counseling. Lamb withdraws his volunteer request to be a nurse recruiter.
21. On 1 June 1995, Lamb drives to St. Paul to meet with MSG M. J. at MSG M. J.'s request. MSG M. J. informed Lamb that some of Lamb's claimed phone calls to prospects were not showing up on the phone billings. He told Lamb that Lamb better not be "pencil-whipping" phone calls. However, Lamb made every phone call that he reported.
22. On 6 June 1995, LTC C. and MAJ L. made a surprise visit to the Eau Claire recruiting office to tell Lamb he had been selected for Master Sergeant. MAJ L. also told Lamb to not use the PROMIS II telephone line to make voice calls when he did not answer the phone that rang when someone logged onto the PROMIS II system. He was not told to disconnect the phone.
23. On 9 June 1995, SSG C. brings a fax machine to Lamb's office. He had not been given any guidance as to which telephone line this was to be connected to, so Lamb and SSG C. connected it to the PROMIS II telephone line, since the fax machine was a data device. SSG C. called his wife to tell her he would be late arriving home, and he used the telephone connected to the data line. See SSG C.'s statement attached hereto as Exhibit B.
24. On 11 July 1995, Lamb had a Production Evaluation with SMG C. and MSG M. J. MSG M. J. used the PROMIS II telephone line to make a voice call, even after Lamb explained that the line he was about to use was connected to the PROMIS II line.
25. On 17 July 1995, Lamb was summoned to Minneapolis, and was read his rights. He declined to answer questions until he spoke to an attorney. The reason for the rights advisement was the allegedly the 11 July Production Evaluation had uncovered "integrity violations."
26. On 24 July 1995, Lamb requested billings from the phone company for the Eau Claire office telephone calls, but he never received them. He still had not received the itemized bills he later found he would need for the Call-Pak 26 plan, which he requested from his chain of command. Later in the day, Lamb was again ordered to report to LTC C. in Service Dress. Again, he refused to answer questions without speaking to an attorney. An ADC (CAPT H.) was finally detailed to him.
27. On 25 July 1995, after the change of command ceremony, Lamb was directed to report into the new commander, LTC H. CAPT H. thought Lamb was going to receive an Article 15. See CAPT H.'s statement attached hereto as Exhibit C. LTC H. asked Lamb questions again, expecting Lamb to prove that he had made the telephone calls he was accused of not making. A recess was taken, and LTC H. and MAJ L. directed Lamb to not call anyone, including his attorney. Lamb was then directed to report to the squadron the following day.
28. On 26 July 1995, MSG M. J. drove to Eau Claire, picked Lamb up and drove him to see the commander. Lamb was served with a Letter of Reprimand and non-recommendation for promotion. Exhibits D and E respectively. He was also reassigned duties and directed to surrender his recruiter badge.
29. On 4 August 1995, Lamb submitted his rebuttal package to the Letter
of Reprimand. Exhibit F. Paragraph 15 of the rebuttal references
a chart that Lamb created to annotate information regarding 57 disputed
30. Lamb was given an EPR, which "closed out" on 25 July 1995 that was based on the allegations against him contained in the Letter of Reprimand. It was indorsed by SMS C. on 7 August 1995. Attached as Exhibit A.
31. He submitted his application for correction of his 1995 Evaluation Report to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) on or about 2 August 1996, but his appeal was denied on or about 6 September 1996. Exhibits H and I respectively.
32. Lamb PCS'd to Davis-Monthan AFB, and went back to his old career field. He was subsequently promoted to Master Sergeant on 1 August 1997. He had to make up about 30 points due to the 1995 EPR.
The 1995 EPR (Exhibit A hereto) is inequitable and must be removed from Master Sergeant Lamb's records since it is based on the factually and procedurally irregular Letter of Reprimand.
On 24 July 1995, after being detailed to assist Master Sergeant (then Technical Sergeant Lamb), CAPT H. contacted the servicing Legal Office at Grand Forks and spoke with CAPT G., Chief of Military Justice. She told CAPT H. 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 CAPT H. asked her for a copy of the evidence that was the basis for the Article 15, she said that her office did not have it. 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. Near the end of the following day (25 July), TSgt Lamb called CAPT H., obviously upset. When CAPT H. asked if the Article 15 had been served, he told her 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 rights to an attorney. The unit knew that he had been in contact with CAPT H. about this issue but they told him not to call CAPT H. and get an attorney involved. TSgt Lamb attempted to answer the questions posed to him but was uncomfortable. 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 - again ignoring Lamb's Article 31 rights.
CAPT H. then called CAPT G. on 26 July 1997 at the Grand Forks Legal Office and was told "that couldn't have happened." After she looked into it, she told CAPT H. 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."
On 26 July, TSgt Lamb was served with a Letter of Reprimand and a non-recommendation for promotion (he was due to pin on Master Sergeant 1 August 1995) and relieved from duty. CAPT H. requested and received a delay until 4 August for 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. Responding to the Letter of Reprimand was frustrating since Lamb was never told directly which phone calls were in issue. He had to work his way through all of them.
On 28 July 1995, CAPT H. spoke with LTC H., Lamb's commander, about the delay and the situation. LTC H. expressed concern over TSgt Lamb not proving his innocence soon enough (despite the fact that Lamb did NOT have the burden of proof - the government did) and taking more than two weeks already. He stated that TSgt Lamb was not being forthcoming throughout this. However, a military member has the absolute right to exercise his Article 31 rights, and the Commander may not draw any adverse inferences from such an exercise of rights. When CAPT H. 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.
On 4 August 1995, 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. (Exhibit B)
On 24 August 1995, CAPT H. spoke with the commander again about TSgt Lamb's situation. He informed CAPT H. that the unit was expecting the itemization of the bulk calls any day and that they will evaluate them and notify TSgt Lamb about their conclusion. CAPT H. specifically requested that TSgt Lamb be given a copy of the new bills when they arrived. In late September or early October, TSgt Lamb asked his commander whether he had received these itemizations and he was told "no, have you?"
The government cannot have done an accurate and fair analysis of the matters relating to the Letter of Reprimand, 1995 EPR or the Lamb's removal for cause as a recruiter without getting the itemized phone bills in question. Instead, the Letter of Reprimand was pushed through, as well as relieving Lamb from recruiter duties for "cause."
The ultimate issue regarding the allegation that Lamb "pencil-whipped" some of his telephone contacts to make it look like he was being more productive that he actually was, is that the telephone calls were not "itemized" on the telephone bill. However, see Exhibit F ¶ 13-15 and Exhibit G hereto wherein Lamb supplies a detailed explanation as to why the majority of the "missing" phone calls were not listed on the long distance section of the phone bill.
Calls that fall under Call-Pak 26 are not itemized, and the first 60 minutes of Call-Pak 26 calls each month are "free." During the time in question, Lamb placed 3,984 minutes of telephone calls that fell under Call-Pak 26 (excluding up to 430 minutes of "free" calls), and that therefore were not itemized as long distance calls on the telephone bill. In addition, Lamb gives detailed evidence for the 57 disputed phone calls that were not placed to a Call-Pak trunk. The government has never refuted this evidence. Instead, it is obvious that LTC H., SMS C. and MSG M. J. simply did not understand how telephone calls were billed and listed on the Eau Claire telephone bills, have refused to educate themselves, and as a result, the government has had a collective head-in-the sand approach to the misinformed allegations against Master Sergeant Lamb. These allegations had a cascading effect upon Lamb's career, resulting in the unjustified rating in the 1995 EPR and the fact that Lamb pinned on Master Sergeant 2 years later than he would have had the unjustified allegations been resolved in 1995 when they should have been.
The Removal from the FY1995 Promotion List to Master Sergeant is also unjustified.
LTC H. removed Lamb from the Master Sergeant promotion list based on the identical allegations in the Letter of Reprimand and 1995 derogatory EPR. For the reasons set forth above, these allegations are not justified, and thus there was no justification for the nonrecommendation action for Promotion Cycle 95E7. Thus, Master Sergeant Lamb's effective date for promotion needs to be corrected to 1 August 1995.
Master Sergeant Lamb is owed back pay and allowances.
Once Master Sergeant Lamb's effective date for promotion is corrected, then the government owes him back pay. Specifically, he is owed the differential for two years back pay and allowances in the grade of Master Sergeant (for 1 August 1995 - 1 August 1997), and the differential for the amount of the "do it yourself" moving pay and allowances he received for the grade of Technical Sergeant when he PCS'd to Davis-Monthan AFB after 1 August 1995.
On 28 December, 1995, after more than 5 months
of driving 120+ miles DAILY to and from the squadron in Minneapolis, MN
(No orders were ever done to change my duty station from Eau Claire,
WI to Minneapolis, MN) I FINALLY received PCS orders to Davis-Monthan
AFB, AZ. These orders were short-notice (my report not later than
date was 30 Jan 96), so I had to initial the computer product to accept
these orders and waive the normal 60-day assignment notification.
Due to the short notice and the unpredictability of the weather during
this time of year, I requested leave to prepare for and complete this PCS.
LtCol H. denied my requested leave (I had more than enough leave days accumulated
to cover the requested leave duration.) Confused by LtCol H.'s reasons
to make a challenging situation even more difficult, I contacted the AETC
IG as to why my request for leave was denied. The AETC IG contacted
LtCol H. and spoke with LtCol H. concerning his decision. LtCol H.'s
response was to call me at my home that evening in a highly unprofessional
and antagonistical manner, swearing and shouting, and questioning me as
to "who do you think you are to involve the IG in this matter". LtCol
H. decided to make another stroke of his power-hungry pen against me and
submitted a letter DATED THIS SAME DAY for inclusion in my
personnel records denying me over 2 years of served time toward the award
of the Air Force Good Conduct Medal, even extending it 3 months into the
future and beyond the period of time I served under his command.
According to Federal "Whistle Blower" protection statutes, LtCol H.'s actions
appear to violate these federal statutes by "denying an award to a subordinate
in reprisal for the subordinate's actions to bring an issue before the
Inspector General system."
What lesson was this "leadership" trying to teach through their actions?
Certainly not integrity, nor proper leadership!
To know that these types of actions were considered "ok" and condoned by higher authority makes me feel as though I've given the best 20 years of my life as a warrior in defense of freedom and our Constitution in vain. I look to the Board of Corrections for Military Records to renew my faith in the "system" to do the right thing. My hope is that no one else will ever have to endure what I was forced to bear.
The Air Force may have more pressing issues, but how can the Air Force be responsible for "policing" the world in protecting human rights if we can't "police" our own? With recruiting and retention problems looming large, perhaps matters such as these ARE pressing issues. Will you listen? Will you act to improve our system, preventing such errors from happening in the future, and correcting errors of the past? For the sake of our Air Force and our nation, I hope so!
In summation, I DID NOT commit "integrity violations" while performing assigned Air Force recruiting duties. I performed these duties as a professional, with FULL integrity, and to the best of my ability -- For that, I am not ashamed! I am ashamed, however, to have been associated with and to have served under the "leadership" referred to above. I walk this trek in pursuit of justice in hopes that others may never have to walk this same trek. No matter the length of the journey, setting this matter straight is long overdue -- The time is NOW -- I intend to see that justice prevails!
Copyright 1999 - Allen Lamb - All Rights Reserved