Here's my rebuttal to the Letter of Reprimand...
                                                                                                 4 Aug 95

FROM:  TSgt Allen A. Lamb

SUBJECT:  Letter of Reprimand Rebuttal

1.  The attached material is submitted as rebuttal material to the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) and Non-
recommendation for Promotion that I received on 26 July 95.  As is apparent from this material, the factual
issues in the case are complicated and required considerable work on my part to pull the facts together and
organize them in a coherent fashion.  Although I previously attempted to address the unit’s concerns about
my telephone prospecting during interviews with my chain of command, it was impossible to do so without
the benefit of additional time and review of the records.

2.  In considering this entire situation, I would like you to be aware of my prior performance as a recruiter.
        a.  Viking Warrior Award - Mar FY95 - 125%
        b.  “A” Flight Awards
                1.  Top Flight Recruiter - Feb FY93
                2.  Top Flight Recruiter - Jun FY93
                3.  Top Flight Recruiter - 2nd Quarter FY93
                4.  Top Flight Recruiter - 1st Quarter FY94 - 111%
                5.  Top Flight Recruiter - Jan FY94 - 133%
                6.  Top Flight Recruiter - Apr FY94 - 167%
                7.  Top Flight Recruiter - Oct FY 95 - 167%
                8.  Top Flight Recruiter - Nov FY95 - 200%
                9.  Top Flight Recruiter - Dec FY95 - 150%
                10. Top Flight Recruiter - 1st Quarter FY95 - 138%
        c.  Squadron Awards
                1.  Top Flight Supervisor (Acting) - Sep FY94 - 136%  Quite an accomplishment,
considering I did not receive a goal break from my normal Non-Prior Service (NPS) mission while
performing these Flight Supervisor duties.  Goal breaks are normally given to people who perform both NPS
and Flight Supervisor duties.  I performed both duties from the end of August 94 to mid-November 94
without the benefit of a goal break.
                2.  Top Squadron NPS Recruiter - Oct FY95 - 167%
                3.  Top Squadron NPS Recruiter - Nov FY95 - 200%
        d.  Covered two zones (Eau Claire, WI AFRO and Rice Lake, WI AFRO) from Nov 94 to Jan 95
and again in Jul 95.
        e.  I have made continued progress in being “Across the Board” (ATB) for the year - cutting my
deficit to 1 (counting fully qualified people waiting to get jobs - none were “job-locked”) from 11 down
earlier in the year.
        f.  My suggestion to involve the Community College of the Air Force in providing a video tape about
the college and subsequent referral to recruiters, was accepted and implemented.
        g.  My suggestion to BGen XXX to begin presenting “Enlistment Scholarships” to graduating
seniors on the Delayed Enlistment Program has met serious consideration, as shown by several inquiries to
me from his staff and my flight supervisor.
        h.  Consistent performer, my first year in recruiting at 108% production, my second year at 103%.
In doing this job, I have worked harder this year than in previous years, normally working 65 to 80 hours per
week, sometimes as many as 18 hours in a day.
        I.  In over 16 years of enlisted service, including almost 3 years in the recruiting field, my integrity
has never been questioned before.  I consider my reputation to be my most valuable asset, and having my
integrity questioned has shook me incredibly.  I have included some statements from co-workers and other
personnel so that you can see what my reputation has been in the past (see attachments F).  I am submitting
this detailed rebuttal so that my integrity will no longer be questioned and so that reputation will be restored.
I am also submitting my prior EPRs (see attachments G).

3.  I would also like to inform you about some of the technical difficulties I was experiencing at my office
regarding the telephone lines.  Between 15 Jan 95 and 15 Mar 95, the office telephone was disconnected
twice, reconnected twice, switched for an office move, and temporary lines connected.  After I moved into my
new office on 24 Feb 95, a completely different telephone line and number was temporarily connected, since
my prior number (XXX-XXXX) had a problem and could not immediately be used for making long distance
calls.  After being confronted by my chain of command about the phone bills not matching my recruiter logs,
I spent a lot of time thinking about how this could have happened, since I knew that I made the calls.  It
occurred to me that these technical problems with my phone system may have resulted in phone calls not
being documented on bills.  As you can imagine, it was impossible for me to “prove” this to my chain of
command during these various interviews.  I still believe that the technical difficulties and numerous changes
with the phone system caused problems with the billing and documentation of calls.  However, now that I
have reviewed the phone bills and talked to phone company representatives, I believe that the majority of the
calls are indeed documented on the bills through a bulk billing system called “Call-Pak 26” (see paragraph
11 for details).  I have included the information on the changes in my phone system so that you can see why I
assumed at first that all these changes may have affected the billing of calls.  Here is a chronological
sequence of events, given to the best of my knowledge:
        a.  20 Jan 95 - Telephone line disconnected prematurely for office move.  Telephone line was
reconnected on 21 Jan 95.  I may have used the Navy’s telephone to conduct telephone prospecting this day.
        b.  17 Feb 95 - Telephone line again disconnected prematurely for office move.  Telephone line was
reconnected on the same day (17 Feb 95).
        c.  24 Feb 95 - Move into new office.  Temporary lines and phone numbers were used until the
original numbers could be switched over to new office.  Only one of these numbers is reflected on the
telephone billings (XXX-XXXX).  I don’t recall the other temporary number, nor when the switchover was
        d.  27 Feb 95 - I tried to make telephone calls to other area code exchanges (612 area code), and
discovered long distance calls out of the 715 area code could not be connected.  I was told by the telephone
company that there wasn’t a long distance carrier hooked up and this “hard line” wasn’t capable of being
long distance enabled.  I explained that I needed long distance service, and the telephone repairer came to my
office and installed a different “hard line” and number for the interim.  I also explained that people would be
trying to call me at 832-XXXX, so they arranged to somehow have incoming 832-XXXX calls intercepted
and switched to this new phone number (I don’t know what the number was for this new temporary line).
The switch to the “real” 832-XXXX was transparent, so I don’t know when the actual switchover was made.
        e.  I have reviewed the phone billings and noticed several discrepancies on these billings, such as
showing only one disconnect/reconnect (it happened twice), and only one of the three temporary numbers is
reflected at all on these phone billings (I have no idea what the other numbers were).  Also, not all calls are
reflected because “Call-Pak 26” calls are billed by 6-minute units, not as individual calls (see attachement
A).  Some 664 and 926 calls however are reflected as individual calls.
        f.  I have two telephone outlets located on opposite walls, each outlet having two jacks - one for the
voice line and one for the data line.  Usage of the data line for voice telephone calling had not been addressed,
as the data line was normally only used during the PROMIS II computer system upload-download process in
the early morning hours.  The data line had seldom been used to make voice calls anyway.  On 6 Jun 95,
LtCol C and Maj L came to my office to congratulate me on my selection for promotion to MSgt.  While
there, they noticed two telephones were connected - one to each telephone line.  They explained at that time
that the data line was intended only for PROMIS II use.  I understood Maj L to say not to make voice calls
on this line.  On 9 Jun 95, fellow flight member SSgt C came to my office to deliver a new fax/copier.  There
was no guidance given as to which telephone line the fax/copier was to be connected to.  We decided that
since it was a data device, to connect it to the data line.  While setting up the fax/copier, SSgt C called his
wife to let her know he would be late coming home.  During the confusion of setting up the fax/copier, SSgt
C must’ve inadvertently used the data line to place this call.  After being confronted by my chain of
command about making an unauthorized phone call after being ordered not to by Maj L, I asked SSgt C
about it, and he recalled making this call to his home.  He has submitted a statement where he discusses the
circumstances of this phone call (see attachment D).  He arrived back to his office in Rice Lake, set up his
fax/copier, and we tested both fax/copiers.  I was having trouble with my fax not answering calls, but found
I could manually make a connection when I heard the call coming in by using the second telephone.  The
fax/copier has a built on telephone, but it doesn’t ring.  I have since gotten the system to work properly using
the automatic switching box.  I don’t recall being told by Maj L to disconnect the telephone, but simply being
told not to make phone calls on the data line.  The telephone has since been hooked up to the voice line only.

4.  In all the training I have received, it has been made clear that the ultimate goal of telephone prospecting is
to set appointments, secondly to plant a seed for Air Force interest, and lastly, to refine each lead.  Using
standard recruiting procedure, I normally annotate in the school folder the date and time I place each call,
place the call, develop interest and rapport, prequalify (writing all this information normally on a form
1340), close for an appointment, and noting which school lists I call, making tally marks on scratch paper to
keep count of calls made, contacts obtained, and appointments obtained.  When I’m finished telephone
prospecting, I count the tally marks for calls, contacts, and appointments for each school and transfer this
information to my planning guide.  I then report these numbers to the flight office the next duty day.  On
many inspections, I was complimented on my clear word pictures describing each call made, and was told
these procedures were proper.  Never did I contemplate, nor was I trained on how to prove I made these

5.  On or about 15 May 95, I was called to my flight supervisor’s office to review my production.  MSgt J
said he had been tasked to validate phone calls I had reported, using my school folders and comparing them
to the phone billing.  I had never heard of this procedure being done before and neither had veteran recruiters
who had been doing this job longer than I had.  I was told by MSgt J that some contacts did not appear on
the phone billing, and I was questioned about those phone calls.  The fact that I have not “pencil-whipped”
anything during my tenure as a recruiter led me to believe and explain that there must be some mistake, since
I have made every phone call I logged or reported.  MSgt J and I discussed several things that could account
for this, including the numerous problems with my phone system, making calls from my home, calls made
after prior contact, call-ins, and calls made from other locations.  MSgt J told me to ensure no “pencil-
whipping” was going on.  Since I knew that the calls I had reported were correct, I thought that this
“problem” was just an unusual problem, and did not think it necessary to go back and try to see exactly what
had happened with these particular calls.  I did not go back and review the phone records and bills myself at
this time, since I thought that the phone difficulties I had experienced must have caused a “one-time” glitch in
the billing from the phone companies.  I continued to make calls and document calls the same way.

6.  Due to missing goal for two quarters, I was given a production evaluation on 11 Jul 95, my first one ever
in almost 3 years of recruiting.  This evaluation was unusual in that the squadron superintendent, SMSgt C,
conducted the bulk of the evaluation instead of my immediate supervisor as AETCI 36-2002 states.  I was
told that SMSgt C was involved for training purposes, which seemed odd since MSgt J had previously
performed production evaluations on other recruiters without any assistance.  The only comments made by
SMSgt C and MSgt J during this evaluation were that my planning guide to school folder cross-referencing
appeared to be flawless and that I should have talked to more people and had more Armed Services
Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) testers.  At the end of the evaluation, I asked for feedback on
recommended improvements and was told that they would be in touch to conduct the production evaluation
outbrief.  They took five school folders with them.

7.  I was called by MSgt J on the morning of 17 Jul 95, and was told to report to the squadron that afternoon
in service dress for the production evaluation outbrief.  I went to the squadron, reported to the commander,
and LtCol C basically told me I should have talked to more people and had more ASVAB testers.  Then his
questions became very pointed and accusitory, such as “How do I know you made these phone calls?”  I was
completely caught by surprise, and had no response, except to attempt to clarify what information he was
expecting for proof.  I explained to LtCol C that I did make the calls I reported, and that these numbers were
accurate.  He showed me the numbers of phone calls I had reported, told me that he didn’t believe I made the
phone calls I reported, opened a school folder, pointed to a name, and opened a folder with telephone bills in
it, and told me to show him where this phone call was listed on the phone bill.  I could not find a listing for
that call on the phone bill.  I was in complete bewilderment because I know all the numbers I reported were
accurate.  He closed the telephone bill folder and the school folder, and proceeded to tell me I was in big
trouble.  LtCol C asked me, “Aren’t all the telephone calls you made right here in this folder?”  I answered,
“I don’t believe so, sir.”  He jumped out of his chair, and shouted, “TSgt Lamb, are you calling me a liar?”  I
explained by saying, “No, sir, because if they were in the folder, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”
He read me my rights, charging me with recruiter integrity violations.  I understood my rights and wanted
nothing more than to cooperate to clear up this obvious mistake.  The questions asked were basically the
same ground we had already covered, but when I realized that he expected me to confess to this misconduct
and that I couldn’t since I had made the calls, I invoked my rights to speak to an attorney, stating, “Sir, I
refuse to be railroaded, and wish to speak to an attorney.”  He told me I was free to leave, and I left,
returning to the Eau Claire, WI AFRO.  I then called the Area Defense Counsel (ADC) at Grand Forks AFB,
ND, and left several messages on their answering machine.  I was called back by the ADC, and told that the
ADC was TDY and wouldn’t be back for a few days.  I explained my situation to the paralegal, and he
ultimately referred me to a different ADC.

8.  I was referred to Capt H, an ADC at the USAF Academy by the Grand Forks ADC office, since that
ADC was unavailable.  I attempted to explain the situation to her on around 24 Jul 95, but it was difficult to
do without the paperwork in front of me and without being sure of exactly what calls were being questioned.
After she contacted the Grand Forks Legal Office, she called me back to tell me that an Article 15 was going
to be served on me the next afternoon.  She told me that the Legal Office had been unable to provide her with
the “evidence” against me, but she told me that I would be served all that paperwork during the same
appointment.  I agreed to call her after I was served and fax her all the evidence so that she could see exactly
what I was trying to explain.  Several times during that conversation, she said that she couldn’t give me
complete legal advice until she saw the paperwork.  She also told me not to discuss the whole situation with
anyone (including friends) and that asking for a lawyer like I did on 17 Jul 95, would stop anyone in my
chain of command from asking me questions without her being involved.  We agreed that this situation was
too factually complicated and unusual (she had never dealt with a recruiting issue like this before) for me to
try to explain it without all the paperwork.  By this time, I was very upset and concerned about my career
and the state of my integrity within the chain of command.  I figured that once I got all the paperwork, I
could explain what had happened.

9.  When I went to what I thought was the Article 15 appointment, I was reminded that I was still under
rights advisement, and was then questioned again about the details of the telephone calls.  I was very hesitant
to discuss details since Capt H had told me not to, but I attempted to do so since it was made clear to me that
my integrity would be forever tarnished if I didn’t come up with the proper explanation at that time.  I
wanted to call Capt H for her advice, but was told specifically not to call her.  Since I didn’t have all the
paperwork in front of me, I was again unable to prove my innocence at this meeting.

10.  This brings us to where we are today.  I was served with a Letter of Reprimand, a notification of
nonrecommendation for promotion and relieved of recruiter duty.  Since that time, I have finally been able to
make copies of the evidence against me, and have completed the following in an attempt to demonstrate what
happened with these phone calls.

11.  Since the Letter of Reprimand doesn’t list out which calls are in question here, I did my own review of
the paperwork that I was provided, and spent considerable time on the phone with Ameritech personnel.
During the time period with the school folders in question, I made 373 calls, which resulted in 124 contacts
and 5 appointments, according to my recruiter log.  Since most of these calls and contacts were to people
within Ameritech’s calling areas, it would appear that these calls will show up on Ameritech’s bills.  Indeed,
everyone has been assuming all along that since calls are not itemized on the bills, that I did not make them.

12.  However, I distinctly remembered making certain calls that were not reflected on the phone bills.  In
fact, some of the appointments which I had made are not reflected on the bills.  This is impossible.
Therefore, I looked very carefully at the Ameritech billing and noticed “Call-Pak Usage” charges on each
Ameritech bill.  I called Ameritech, and was told that this was a bulk billing for certain “trunks” (the three
digit prefix of the phone number) that are covered by Ameritech service.  This information is also listed in
the front of the phone book (see attachment B).  The phone book describes Call-Pak as a way to save money
on billing for calls made to areas within a certain mile radius from your exchange.  “Call-Pak 26” means that
the bulk billing covers calls made within a 26-mile radius of my exchange.  Ameritech provided me with a
statement by an employee that lists all the trunks that are covered by the Call-Pak 26 billing from my phone
(see attachment A).

13.  The phone company told me that the calls that fall under Call-Pak 26 are not itemized.  Instead, the Air
Force is billed $.78 for each 6-minute increment after the first 60-minutes.  Thus, for each phone bill, one
needs to multiply the number of units billed times 6 (if the first “free” included 60-minutes have been used)
to get the number of minutes for phone calls to those trunks during that month.  (Of course, if the first “free”
60-minutes have been used, also add 60).  I have calculated the minutes for the months in question for your
convenience, and I have attached the phone bills (see attachment C).
                1.  22 Jan 95:  69 units x 6 minutes = 414 minutes + 60 “included” = 474 minutes
                2.  22 Feb 95:  227 units x 6 minutes = 1362 minutes + 60 “included” = 1422 minutes
                3.  22 Mar 95:  24 units x 6 minutes = 144 minutes + 60 “included” = 204 minutes
                4.  22 Mar 95: >55 units x 6 minutes = 330 minutes + 60 “included” = 390 minutes
                5.  22 Apr 95:  55 units x 6 minutes = 330 minutes + 60 “included” = 390 minutes
                6.  22 May 95:  117 units x 6 minutes = 702 minutes + 60 “included” = 762 minutes
                7.  22 Jun 95:  47 units x 6 minutes = 282 minutes + 60 “included” = 342 minutes

14.  I believe that these figures explain the majority of the “missing” phone calls that I made during this time
period in question.  Although I do not have an itemized billing from Ameritech for those bulk billings, you
can see that the number of minutes used are substantial and easily cover the calls for the times in question.
To verify this information, I went through each school folder and looked at the calls that I was alleged to
have not made.  A majority of these disputed calls were to these Call-Pak trunks.  I have addressed only the
disputed calls that were not made to these trunks below.

15.  In order to account for the missing phone calls to the non Call-Pak trunks, I created a chart which lists
each disputed call that was made to a non Call-Pak trunk.  There are approximately 57 such calls (12 are
reflected on the phone bills and approximately 45 are not).  I then reviewed the school folders.  When I am
talking with a person during a contact phone call, I annotate certain information about that person in the
school folder.  This enables me to do a preliminary screening of possible recruits.  When I went through the
school folders, I found numerous annotations in the school folders to possible recruits that I am accused of
not calling.  There is no way I could know this information about these potential recruits if I didn’t talk to
them during a contact call.  I have attached the chart for your information (see attachment E).  Not only is
this information recorded in the school folders, I also attempted to contact each of these people this week,
asking them to respond with a personal comment that only these people would know.  For example, I called
Amy Jo A (first entry on page 1 of attachment E).  Amy was not home, so I talked with her mother.  I asked,
“Was Amy called on or about 30 Jan 95 by an Air Force recruiter?”  Her mother was unsure.  I then asked,
“Was Amy ever contacted again by an Air Force recruiter?”  She stated she didn’t think so.  I asked, “Do
you recall Amy ever saying anything about a telephone conversation with an Air Force recruiter?”  She said
she recalled nothing being mentioned by Amy.  I then mentioned that Amy had told me she had a son.  Amy’s
mother corrected me by explaining that Amy has a daughter.  This information about a daughter confirmed
what I had previously written in the school folder about Amy.  I went through this convoluted process with
each of the 57 phone calls that were disputed, and was able to confirm many of the calls through this
process.  My chart details my documentation of these efforts.  This recreation of my prior calls took me a
significant amount of time this week.  I can explain each of the chart entries in this manner to you in person
if you require.  I know that I called each of these people, and believe that my chart and work this week has
confirmed that.

16.  Sir, I hope that this information has shown you that my integrity is no longer an issue.  I wish I had been
able to demonstrate this to you and my chain of command earlier, but it was impossible without looking at
the bills and the school folders in great detail.  Also, by the time you personally became involved, I was
working with an attorney and was expecting paperwork that I could review to prove my case.  When I met
with you for the first time, I was not expecting to go over the facts again and to be asked to prove myself
again on the spot.  I knew that I could be exonerated once I had a chance to sit down with all the paperwork,
and that turned out to be true.  I know that you will consider all this information in arriving at your decision
about my LOR and promotion recommendation, and hope you don’t hold this “delay” in proving my integrity
against me.  This has been a highly stressful experience for me, and I have done my best to cooperate
throughout the process.

17.  After considering all this information, it is my request that you retract the nonrecommendation for
promotion paperwork and destroy the LOR.  I feel that my effectiveness as a recruiter and my reputation in
the unit has been irreparably damaged by this entire incident, and would request that you initiate 1374
paperwork to relieve me from recruiter duty, instead of the 1321 paperwork that has already been started.  I
wish that I had the chance to rebut this LOR before such drastic actions (the promotion and 1321
paperwork) were started, since I believe they could have been avoided.

                                                                ALLEN A. LAMB, TSgt, USAF

List of Attachments are on the next page.

A.  Statement of Ameritech  re: Call-Pak billing
B.  Page from phone book  re: Call-Pak billing
C.  Ameritech phone bills, Jan 95 - Jun 95
D.  Statement of SSgt C  re: his call on the data line
E.  Chart  re: disputed phone calls
F.  Character Letters
G.  EPRs
Return to Airminder's All About Air Force Recruiting Page.
You are visitor   since 5 Apr 97.