FOR FICIAL Sensi eM erial The Inspector General of the Air Force Report of Investigation (s7077P) Brig Gen David C. Uhrich September 2013 Sensi terial FOROFFI LUSE LY [e or in parzj, reproduced, or given additional al channels without prior approval of The II. VI. TABLE 01+" CONTENTS Page Introduction ..-1 Scope and Authority 2 Background .. 3 Chronology .1. .. 3 Allegations, Findings, Standards, Analysis and Conclusions Allegation 1 .. 4 Allegation 2 .. 18 Surmnaryl .. 35 List of Exhibits ., le or in para), reproduced, or given additional al channels without prior approval of The .b6 b7c 7 REPORT OF INVESTIGATION (Case S7077P) CONCERNING BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID C. UHRICH PREPARED BY MR. September 2013 I. INTRODUCTION This investigation was directed in response to two complaints filed separately, weeks apart, and concerning two completely different allegations, each against Brig Gen Uhrich. received the first complaint via email from the Air Combat Command Staff Judge Advocate, Brig Gen Christopher F. Burne, on 25 Feb 13'. He had received notice from the Air Education and Training Command Staff Judge Advocate, Col that her office had received an allegation through lower--level JA channelsthat Brig Gen David C. Uhrich, Air Combat Command Director of Communications may have engaged in an inappropriate and/ or adulterous relationship with Ms. (Exhibit 1 1 - 4) IGS received the second complaint involving Brig Gen Uhrich from an anonymous complainant on 11 Apr 13. This complaint alleged wrongdoing on the part of Brig Gen Uhrich by his drinking/being drunk at work and at other official events, thus bringing embarrassment to the Air Force. (Ex 1:5) Upon receipt of the second allegation, the decision was made to work the two complaints together in one case. Hence, this report will cover the two disparate allegations involving the general. Twelve witnesses were interviewed from 1 Mar to 3 Jul 13 and one witness provided a written statement in answer to questions. Due to the nature of the allegations involved in this case, Brig Gen Uhrich was deemed to be a suspect, as opposed to a subject. Thus, he was provided a rights advisement under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Subsequent to that rights advisement," Brig Gen Uhrich chose not to be interviewed or to provide a written statementpart), reproduced, or given additional al channels without prior approval of The b6 b7c II. SCOPE AND AUTHORITY The Secretary of the Air Force has sole responsibility for the function of The Inspector General of the Air Force.1 When directed by the Secretary of the Air Force or the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, The Inspector General has the authority to inquire into and report on the discipline, efficiency, and economy of the Air Force and perform any other duties prescribed by A the Secretary or the Chief of Staff.2 The Inspector General must cooperate fully with The Inspector General of the Department of Defense?' Pursuant to Air Force Instruction (AF I) 90- 301, Inspector General Complaints Resolution, 23 Aug 11 (Incorporating Change 1, 6 Jun 12), paragraph 1.13.4, The Inspector General has oversight authority over all IG investigations conducted at the level of the Secretary of the Air Force. Pursuant to AFI 90-301, paragraph 1.13.3.1, the Director, Senior Official Inquiries Directorate is responsible for performing special investigations directed by the Secretary, the Chief of Staff, or The Inspector General and all investigations of senior officials. AF I 90-301 defines senior official as any. active or retired Regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve, or Air National Guard military officer in grades (brigadier general) select and above, and Air National- Guard colonels with a Certificate. of Eligibility (COE). Current or former members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) or equivalent and current and. former Air Force civilian Presidential appointees are also considered senior officials. One of several missions of The Inspector General of the Air Force is to maintain a credible inspector general system by ensuring the existence of responsive complaint investigations characterized by objectivity, integrity, and impartiality. The Inspector General ensures the concerns of all complainants and subjects, along with the best interests of the Air Force, are addressed through objective fact-finding. _On 22 Apr 13, The Inspector Generallapproved a recommendation that conduct an investigation into an allegation of misconduct by Brig Gen David C. Uhrich, Langley AF B, VA. On 8 Jul 13, The Inspector General approved a second' allegation of misconduct by the general. The case was "assigned to Mr. who holds a appointment letter dated 10 May 12. 1 Title 10, United States Code, Section 8014 2 These authorities are outlined in Title 10, United States Code, Section 8020. 3 Title 10, United States Code, Section'8020(d) 2 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval b6 b7c BACKGROUND Before analyzing the allegations at hand, it is helpful to review some background information pertinent to this case. The subject of this case, Brig Gen David C. Uhrich, was commissioned in 1985 by the Auburn University Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program and has held a variety of space, acquisition, and communications positions during his career. (Ex 2:1-2) He is married to and they reside on Langley AF B, VA. (Ex 2:3) The general pinned on his current rank on 1 Apr 11, while assigned to Joint Forces Command, Norfolk, VA as the Director, C4 Systems. He was assigned to his present position at ACC in Jul 11. (Ex 221-2) In Apr-May 12, Brig Gen Uhrich attended the five-week CAPSTONE Course for new general and flag officers at the National Defense University (N DU), Fort L. J. McNair, DC. This course encompasses activities at Ft. McNair, other stateside locations, and an overseas trip. (Ex 1 6 17:3) Brig Gen Uhrich was assigned as the President of the Air Force?s Senior Master Sergeant Central Evaluation Board, Cycle 13E8, that convened at Randolph AF B, TX from 28 an 13 to 15 Feb 13. (Ex 10) During the conduct of this board, the panel members' daily schedule was set at 0745 -- 1700 with a one-hour break for lunch, usually 1130-1230. However, as President of the board, Brig Gen Uhrich's schedule was much more flexible, depending each day on the needs of the Promotion Board Secretariat. He was generally free to go to lunch whenever he wished. (Ex 7) It was also noted by the Chief of AF PC's Promotion Board Secretariat, Col 2, that Brig Gen Uhrich did not necessarily "hang out" with any one, or group, of panel members with any type of regularity. Additionally, this board did not convene on any of the weekend days during the three--week time period and it did not need to extend into the evenings on work days. (Ex 7) Hence, Brig Gen Uhrich would have had those time periods free to himself. IV. CHRONOLOGY Since this report covers two mostly non-related allegations, pertinent chronologies will be embedded separately in each al1egation's section of this report. 3 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given I for general channels without prior approval V. ALLEGATIONS, FINDINGS, STANDARDS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ALLEGATION 1. That Brig Gen David C. Uhrich, from on or about 28 Jan 13 to on or about 15 Feb 13, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Ms. --, an Air Force non-appropriated fund employee, in violation of Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Conduct Unbecoming an Oflicer and Gentleman. FINDINGS OF Based on information derived mostly from witness interviews, the following chronology of events pertinent to this allegation was developed: DATE EVENT - 28 Jan -- 15 Feb Brig Gen Uhrich was TDY from Langley AFB to Randolph AFB to be 13 the President of the Calendar Year 2013 E-8 romotion board; he was billeted on base and on" occasion Went to the for meals. (Ex 6:7; Ex 10:1-4) 6 24 Feb 13 The San Antonio Stock Show and Rodeo was held at the b6 Centersome point, Brig Gen Uhrich and Ms. 13 where she was in in the -, making her a non-appropriated fund (NAF) employee. (EX 6:3; Ex 9:2-3) Ms_. -- initially mentioned to Ms. how "dreamy" the general was. (Ex 6:3) . Around 8 Feb Brig Gen" Uhrich and Ms. - went out for drinks. (Ex 6:3) 13 . On or about 9 -- Brig Gen Uhrich and Ms. - went to the rodeo together. 10 Feb 13 (Ex 6:3) 13 Feb 13 Ms. first mentioned Ms. relationship with Brig Gen Uhrich to Mr. --, of the - 4:7; Ex 5:3; Ex 6:4) 14 Feb 13 Valentine's Day -- Brig Gen Uhrich and Ms. ate dinner together after she brought food to him, possibly in his room. (Ex 6:4) 15 Feb 13 The E-8 promotion board ended and Brig Gen Uhrich presumably departed Randolph for Langleyf (Ex 10:2) 16 Feb 13 The Director, 902d Force Support Squadron (902 FSS), then De uty, (902 were informed by --, Ms. -, that "a waitress had an affair with a general officer." (Ex 4:2) 4 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval . .. 21 Feb 13 Maj . in the Club to confirm or refute the rumor of the affair. (EX 4:4-6) 21 Feb 13 The 902d Mission Support Group (902 MSG) Judge Advocate (JA) b6 received the issue/complaint from 902 (Ex 1) b7c 21 Feb 13 received the complaint from 902 (Ex 1) 22 Feb 13 received the complaint from (Ex 1) 23 Feb 13- Ms. resigned her position at the - after approximately two years of employment, citing personal reasons. (Ex 5:13; Ex 9) 25 Feb 13 received the complaint from (EX 1) STANDARDS. From the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman, states (emphasis added): Article 133--Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman a. ext of statute. I Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. b. Elements. (1) That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and (2) That, under the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. c. Explanation. (1) Gentleman. As used in this article, "gentleman" includes both male and female commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen. (2) Nature of oflense. Conduct violative of this article is action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer's character as a gentleman, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the person's standing as an officer. There are certain moral attributes common to the ideal officer and the perfect gentleman, a lack of which is indicated by acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty. Not everyone is or can be expected to meet unrealistically high moral standards, but there is a limit of tolerance based on customs of the service and military necessity below which the personal standards of an officer, cadet, or midshipman cannot fall without seriously compromising the person's standing as an officer, cadet, or midshipman or the person's character as a gentleman. This article prohibits conduct by a commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman which, taking all the circumstances into consideration is thus compromising. This article includes acts made punishable by any other article, provided these acts amount to conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. Thus, a commissioned officer who 5 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval 'mentioned it to Mr. b6 b7c ~,steals property violates both this article and Article 121. Whenever the offense charged is the same as a specific offense set forth in this Manual, the elements of proof are the same as those set forth in the paragraph which treats that specific" offense, with the additional requirement that the act or omission constitutes conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. (Ex ANALYSIS. The issue of a potential inappropriate relationship between Brig Gen Uhrich and Ms. first came to the attention of - management when Ms. on 13 Feb 13. During that conversation, Ms. told Mr. - that the general and had developed a relationship and had been "hooking up." (Ex 5:2, 4; Ex 6:4) Subsequently, Mr. passed this information up his chain of command to where it eventually reached Maj On 21 Feb 13, Maj went to the to discuss this "rumor" with both Ms. - and Ms." . (Ex 4:4-6) Since there is no written/documentary evidence concerning the alleged inappropriate relationship between Brig Gen Uhrich and Ms. -, the witness interviews conducted for this case are important and will be presented below as taken from the verbatim interview transcripts. - In her own testimony, gave a synopsis of her separate interviews with Ms. and Ms. -, both conducted on 21 Feb 13. Maj at she called Ms. in first. Pertinent portions of the major's interview with Ms. follow (emphasis added): and I asked -, I said, okay do you know why you're here. She said, no I said okay well, um, I'm here to verify a rumor. Apparently you told the assistant manager that, - which was the waitress 'that's having an affair with a General Officer. And she just looked at me and she put her head down and I gave her a few minutes;-I didn't say anything. She said, I knew that this was what it was about. And I said, did you? She said, yes ma'am I had a feeling that that's what you wanted.' I don't know why I opened my mouth, I don't [know] why I said anything, um, and I said, look, I just, I just want to know if it's true and she goes is going to get in trouble. I said, look there's nothing that says, there's nothing written that says that a, you know, waitress can't date a customer; however, comma, it's bigger than that, you know, we're talking about a General Officer, this was much bigger than She said, yes ma'am that's what she told me. (Ex 4:3) 6 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given for general channels without prior approval b6 b7c --: I go, okay, well do you know how long it's been going on, and she said I think he's been here, I think he's here for a board or something, she said, that he's, he's been here for about a week, he's in here every day. And I said, okay, I said, do you know if with him outside of the club and she said, yes ma'am they had a date; as a matter of fact they were out on Valentine's Day and I said, is he married, and she said well, she didn't think so at first because he wasn't wearing a ring, and she said, but she went out with him and text[ed] meat midnight and said he is. married. And she said that's all she knew. So then the next da she came into work and she was really ha y, and, um, 2, apparently the General walked in and was, um, you know, waited on him, you know he hel out in the he was waiting on him or whatever and - went to and said, look at fall, tripping all over himself waiting on David [Brig Gen Uhrich], and, she goes well I think his name is David because that's the way she_ referred to him, that's, that's how she referred to him. . .and I said okay, so I wrote that name down and then, um, she said, uh, she said they've been out every night and, I said, so she does know he's married and she said yes he told her he'd been married for about twenty--one years and he's comfortable, so he's not going to do, he doesn't-want to do anything about it, but that she makes him really happy. (Ex 4:4) 102: And can you tell us specifically what words you used when you asked - about the rumor? . -: I was very direct. I was, and I knew I was, and I did it on purpose, but I said, just. .here, .rurn..o_r._has ..it verify a, rumom. rumor has it that - is having an affair with a General Officer. 102: And how did - confirm that, do you remember the words she used? Well she put her head down, thought about it for a second and, she looked at me and she said Iknew that, that's why, I know that's what you wanted, I knew what you're asking about, yes ma'am that's true. (Ex 4:6) Maj interviewed Ms. related the following concerning her A short amount of time after talking to Ms. -. During her testimony for this case, Maj interview with Ms. (emphasis added): iz So, she comes in and, you know, I say hi to her and she says "hi, I whatever. I said, I said do you know why you're here. She said, no ma'am does it have something to do with the mediation?4 And I said no, and then, she goes, no I don't know why I'm here. At that point you could just see she was really nervous, so I said, well 4 Ms. - was involved in civilian mediation after she had filed an EEO complaint against Ms. -, alleging mistreatment. (Ex 6:14-15) 7 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval b6 b7c you're here because rumor has it that you'_re having an affairlwith a General Officer. And then she just went white instantly, and, I said, I, and she just looks at me and I said is that true. And she said, she nodded her head, she didn't say yes, she just nodded her head, and I said, you are, and then she said, is he going to get in trouble was her first reaction, her first, the first thing she said to me. And I said, well that's not for me to decide, I just want you to know that, I mean, again I'm here to verify the rumor. And, uh, you know, I, she said, well I mean; I said is he married? So asked her first, are you married? I said are you married? And she said, estranged, he, we don't live together, and she said he lives somewhere else and I said okay. I said is he married, and she said, yes ma'am. And I said, okay, and you met with him and you knew he was married? And she said, ma'a.m I didn't think about that. I said, okay, and, she goes, he made me feel good, she said, have you. ever, she goes have you- ever just met someone and they just swept you off your feet and they made you forget about I -everything and I just looked at her; I didn't answer her question, I just looked at her,>>,and she said well that's how he made me 'feel. And she said, and a few days of happiness is better than none at all. I said okay. And I said, so you were with him on Valentine's Day and she nods yes, and I said, you know, she goes is he going to get in trouble, she asked "me that like three or four times, and I said, you know my question to you is, how do you know, I said this is, this is much bigger than you or him getting in trouble. I said how do you know he has not done this before? I said if he's done this to you, how do you know.he has not done this before? I know, I know he hasn't, I know he feels for me like'I feel for him. And I said, but he's married, and she says, I know, but he's comfortable, he's not happy. I said, okay. And, she asked me again if he was going to get in trouble and I said, again I'm here to verify a rumor, that's all I said and, she said, I said, have you all had sex? And she just looked at me, her eyes got really big and she said, do I have to answer that; I said absolutely not, you don't have Ito answer it. And she 'said, well that's my personal business, and I said again, you don't have to answer it. said, look I want you to know that, um, you know, this is really hard for me I, I said, because, you know, obviously I don't want to be here asking you your personal business, but again this is much bigger. I said, look obviously it couldn't have been too private if there's a rumor out there that you're having an affair with a General, I said, so obviously somebody had to have seen you go to his room, and I said that was on my part, and she just looked at me and she said, you know, she nodded her head yes, and, IO: Meaning yes to what? --: Yes somebody must have. seen her. (Ex 4:9~10) Next, in his interview for this case, 1V[r. - related his conversations with Ms. concerning any relationship between Brig Gen Uhrich and Ms. (emphasis added): in whole or in part), reproduced, or given 8 tor general channels without prior approval -: She came to me one day uh, and said hey, you know, I have something to say, it's kind of a secret but you know I don't know who else to tell and I was like and she was kind of just kind of just looked at me andkind of gave me this look and I was like well what is it? I was like, you know, if you need to tell me something, "you can tell me something. I'm her immediate su ervisor. Uh, and that's when she said, "well, you know the General out there and and I was the General and what? And uh, she goes, 'you know.' And I was like 'you know' what? She was kind of giving me this head nod and uh, she goes yeah, they've they're together. They've been hooking up. And I was kind of gave her a look of what? You know? And I was like how do you know this? And she said because I told me. "She said - told me that uh, she was, she was there you know, two days ago and you know, they were making out and it was hot and heavy and then they left. Nothing happened. Well today, she comes in and she gave me this smile and it was kind of b6 like we closed the deal last night. And so this is -, -- who was telling me We this. (Ex 5:2-3) IO: So basically from what I understand is I approaches you on the 13"' during the lunch hour at some time and says uh, starts talking to you about a "secret" that's soon not to be a secret anymore and she uh, tells you that uh, 2 and the General had been at one point "in time making out and then uh, came back and gave I a look the next day like uh, you know, we sealed the deal? -: Exactly. IO: Okay. -: That was her exact.l. 2 exact thing was that 'she gave me a nod' that inferred I that they sealed the deal. That's, that's what she" said. IO: Okay.' When she said that, was it your impression that when she used the term "sealed the deal" uh, she was referring to the two of them having sexual intercourse? -: Uh, that was my impression, yes. (Ex 5:4) I Mr. - testified that he never discussed the situation with Ms. -- herself, but rather reported the situation up his chain of command. (Ex 5 Next, during her testimony for this case, related the following (emphasis added): -2 And uh, a tall gentleman in uniform camein and she [Ms. just said how dreamy he was and he was just so dreamy and she was just in awe. Yeah, as she waited on him when they came in and then later some days go by and she tells me that he had asked her out for drinks and then to go to the rodeo the next day. And she 9 in-whole or in part), reproduced, or given for general channels without prior approval b6 b7c .was elated, ecstatic, she is like oh my God, I think my dreams have come so she was like oh my. God, my dreams have come true and he wasn't' wearing a wedding ring and we were like oh, that's awesome. He is not married and you're you know, you are estranged from your husband and she's like I don't know, I think this is going to be it. I'm like in the back of my head, What high-ranking officer is not married. But so she goes out for cocktails with him.' I don't know where or what. I get a text just about midnight from her saying he is married and I'm like what a bummer. And uh, then she shows up at work the next day and she's like I don't know what to do. I donit know ifI should be bad or if I should be what should I do but he's so dreamy. She she really fought with herself because she is very. .. she is a very strict German woman, let me tell you. (Ex 6:3) And then she just came back and she was just so happy and was like oh, he's so dreamy. And I just feel bad about this but then uh, she. .. I said well at least you have a plutonic [platonic] me being the digger wanted to dig and uh, she goes well I don't know if it was that time or the next day because I was digging to see what [where] it was going and I was saying a plutonic [platonic] relationship because you are both married and blah, blah, blah and then she tells me that they did kiss and they were kissing and that she had to pull herself away because she didn't know how much further it would go and she tore herself away and went home. And of course, she said she suffered all night long because she wanted to be with him and uh, apparently they saw each other again and I I mean he came in Valentine's Day and that's when we are just all busy and we are playing around and we are working. 10: Right. Um, he sits in the bar because she said he's bringing they are telling her to go get dinner and they were going to meet later and uh, that's when she made fun, so to speak, of - tripping over the General, waiting on him, that's what we do when a high ranking officer comes in, we give them our undivided attention. IO: Sure, understand that. -: _And uh, she was like oh, look at him tripping over David and that was the first time I heard his name and that kind I don't know if that got me or what made I don't my part, because I always have to look at_my part. What was my part in this situation where I went to him that I had a secret and I just couldn't hold it in any longer. I said that's boyfriend and I was just playing around in a way I guess but probably in a way I just now realized that.- Probably in a way to poke at her because she was saying look at .. oh, I never um, and so was like oh my gosh. He said he never expected that to come out of my mouth and uh, so I told him more and then that's when it went further to where we are today. And uh, at one point, I don't know, you know," the when two in whole or in part), reproduced, or given 10 tor general channels without prior approval b6 b7c women get together and like how are you doing and she gives me this smile like it might have gone a little' further and we hug and we're happy and you know, like of [if] like guys do high women do hugs and giggles. (Ex 6:4) IO: Okay and then you mentioned uh, that they were together on Valentine's Day? Um, I'm thinking so. .. he came in for lunch and that's when I told - and uh, I do believe they she met him later and brought dinner to them. I don't know where that was. I assumed it was lodging but I'm I don't know about those things. IO: Okay. IO2: How do you know that she took dinner to him? -: She told me. IO2: Did she tell you that before or after? -: She told me that before that he came I .don't want to say but give her money so that she could go buy dinner and bring it to them where they were meeting that evening. - IO2: Okay. And that was on Valentine's Day? Yes. I02: Do you did they see each other in between the rodeo and Valentine's Day? -1 Yes. (Ex 6:6) IO: did 2 ever come out_ and tell you that in fact, uh, they had they went beyond kissing? They had sexual intercourse? I i: No; IO: Okay. Based on the looks she gave you and everything else, what. .. -: I assumed. 11 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given for general channels without prior approval i worked in Ms. . Ms. b6 b7c IO: you assumed that from her actions? -: Yes. 10: 'Okay. But she never said that tolyou directly? 2: No. (Ex 6:8) The fourth witness for this case, Ms. was aware of the situation. Ms. with Ms. and is in her early twenties, while Ms. and Ms. are in their forties. Pertinent portions of Ms. i testimony follow (emphasis added): think - told me that they were gonna go to the rodeo at one point, but we never talked about it after that. I don't know if she did or didn't. I think she did though, I think she did. And um, she didn't really tell me much, I guess cuz I'm a lot younger, but Iknow a little bit. I know they liked each other, but I know he was married and like that. (Ex 8:4) IO: Any indications to you that the friendship between the general and I might have gone further than just going to the rodeo or out for drinks? 1; mom know. IO: So, nobody said anything to you about anything further. Nobody intimated to you that they may have had a deeper relationship? -: No. (Ex 3:3) IO: Why do you think she left [her job at the club]? Well, she told me to protect somebody's identity, so that's what she did. I was like, "All right. Do what you gotta do." IO: She told you what now? That she was trying to protect somebody's identity, so I was like, "Okay, do what you gotta do." 12 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given for general channels without prior approval IO: Anything further than just that she's trying to protect somebody's identity? Was that the "personal" reason she gave you? -: No. That was the reason she gave me. I don't know what she told everybody else. IO: Okay. To protect somebody's identity. All right. Did you ask her for any clarification on that, or just did you take it as is? -: No I just took it as it because I really didn't care. No offense. IO: No, I totally understand. I mean that's obviously her business, and she's not your sister or I36 Yeah, so I just took it like, okay, do what you gotta do. b7c - I0: I understand that. Do you think she felt sad that she had to leave, or that she a Oh yeah, she definitely was sad. IO: -- to leave? Okay. .: Because I mean the whole reason she told me is because she was crying and go, "What's wrong withya, lady? What's wrong?" And she's like, just quit." And I was like, "Why did you quit? Why a decision like that?" And she's like, gotta protect somebody's identity." And I was like, "For real?" I was like, guess, if you've got to, do what you gotta do." And I was like, "It's gonna be okay. Whatever it is it's gonna be okay." And she just gave me a hug, nodded, and she took off. She gave everybody in the kitchen a hug and took off. _(Ex 8:9-10) Finally, the investigation team called 1 11 Apr 13 in an attempt to interview her as a witness. Ms..had called Mr. on Saturday, 23 Feb 13 to resign her position as at the 'documentation on this resignation is found at Exhibit 9 and shows an effective date of 24 Feb 13. (Ex 9:1-3) Thus, Ms. -, not being employed by the Air Force anymore, did not have to submit to being questioned for this case. Ms. politely declined our interview, stating that she chose, "not to talk about her personal life." (Ex 9:4) Toward the conclusion of each interview in this case, the witness was asked their opinion of the general's conduct as they understood the facts. Ma" replied (emphasis added): 13 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval b6 b7c -: Well sir my opinion it's very unbecoming, I mean, especially, um,' ever for anybody, ever, but especially in this enviromnent, you know, in today's environment. I just think, um, with, with everything coming down and, you know, um, the stories that are coming out about General Officers and the things that they're doing, I think it's, because it's not only bad timing but it's very, uh, poor judgment. (Ex 4: 17) I02: I do have a couple of follow-ons, you indicated that if it were true that the General was having an affair with -, you characterize that as very unbecoming, can you explain to me in your own words why that would be? -2 Well because I think, I was enlisted for twelve and a half years, and, uh, I was Security Forces enlisted, um, -came in when I was seventeen years old, so I've been in twenty-three years now, I, you know, this is what I know. My daughter is now looking at going, um, to the Academy based on the fact that it's all she knows. Um, so when you look at the rank, I know when I was younger, um, before I knew better, and I would look at that and I would sometimes look at me and they get everything, whatever they want, they got it, you know, everybody always said you .live in a glass bowl, you know, but in these particular situations you do and it's very, it's very unbecoming of an officer and it's veryunbecoming of a General Officer, um, because they're being looked at and they're being looked at as a role model and as, you know, somebody who has accomplished so much, not because you stand where you're at that you can just do whatever it is you want to right or wrong, my opinion. IO2: Okay and would you characterize such behavior, a married General Officer having an affair with a NAFI employee, would you characterize that as disgraceful? Absolutely. (Ex 4:18-19) Next, in his testimony Mr. - stated (emphasis added): -: If all of this is true, it's. .. I don't think it's acceptable. IO2: Why not? -: I mean, morally it's wrong. I think legally it's wrongthings that have been happening with the military. I mean, I watch the news. Everybody watches the news. We see what happens to generals and to people who had this happen. My last base, I saw a. Colonel you know, get tanked for it. I mean he got an Article 15. I think he actually did jail time for uh, being accused for sexual assault. a I know he was married and it was I think they were drunk or something. Whatever. But I know it's morally I think it's legally wrong for a general in whole or in part), reproduced, or given 14 for general channels without prior approval I officer to do that as if you are I think if you are not married and both of them aren't married, I mean, again, that I don't know. IO2: Well let me ask you uh, if because you've talked about that uh, that I indicated - said that she and Gen Uhrich made out. . -: Uh huh. I02: And that was one thing. -: Right. I02: And then that there was kind of an implication that 2 had sex with Gen Uhrich. -: Yes. b6 . bk IO2: Let's go with this scenario that there was not sexual intercourse but there was making does that change your answer about the acceptability of the situation or the conduct of the General? -: The conduct is still wrong. The severity of the conduct might not be as bad but I think the conduct is still wrong. (Ex 5:16-17) - During her testimony, testified (emphasis added): Well, I View his conduct as that's messed up that he is upstanding, high ranking officer that represents the United States Air Force and that is uncalled for. I02: What about if there wasn't sexual intercourse but there was dating and kissing. . -: No, that's the same thing. I02: Same thing? That's I that's the same thing. That's leading somebody on. (Ex 6:11) - During her testimony, offered the following regarding this question (emphasis added): -- 10: If, in fact, the two of them had a relationship that went beyond just going out to the rodeo for drinks or something like that and, in fact, sl1e's married and estranged from her husband, he's married, he's a general officer, and if their relationship did go further than in whole or in part), reproduced, or given 15 tor general channels without prior approval ll I that, to include a sexual relationship, what would your thought be of that circumstance? What would be your take on that? Is that okay? Is that not okay? What would be your feeling about the general? -: He is another man in this world is all I can think, and poor woman that's his wife I0: Let me ask you. . .I'm sorry, go ahead, I interrupted youfeel sorry for her. The guy didn't wear his ring. He didn't ever mention his wife, until they went out or whatever. - IO: Do you feel in - situation because let's b6 b7c -: I feel she got played. That's what I feel. 10: Okay. I was just gonna ask you that. Do you think because of her situation, her age, the fact that she's separated from her husband, as you mentioned, do you feel that she would have been vulnerable to something like this, if in fact it was true? -: Yeah. You know what? Yeah. (Ex 8:11-12) While Ms. 2 refused to provide testimony for this investigation, Ms. - verbal _and non-verbal statements to Maj establish that Ms. and Brig Gen Uhrich engaged in a romantic relationship while Brig Gen Uhrich was TDY to Randolph AFB in late Jan 13 through mid Feb 13. The testimony of Ms. 2, Ms. the fact that Ms. - quit her job two days after she was questioned by Maj further support this conclusion. While Ms. assumed Brig Gen Uhrich and Ms. engaged in sexual intercourse, Ms. never clearly indicated that through her words or actions and there was not a preponderance of the evidence that occurred. . Comparing the evidence gathered through witness testimony to the standards (elements of Article 133) for this issue: 0 Did the accuseddo certain acts? The preponderance of the evidence does indicate the acts/events listed immediately below more likely than not did occur: . Brig Gen Uhrich frequented the -- for lunch during his TDY to Randolph and at somepoint developed a relationship with Ms. 0 This relationship went beyond what would be considered normal waitress/ customer interaction. Brig Gen Uhrich asked Ms. -- out rot drinks- Brig Gen Uhrich went to the San Antonio Rodeo with Ms. 0 Ms. brought dinner to the general on Valentine's Day. 0 16 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval b6 b7c 0 At some point, Brig Gen Uhrich and Ms. - kissed. This relationship went beyond a strictly platonic relationship; it was, in fact, a romantic relationship. 0 'Ms. resigned her position with the -- two days after being first questioned about her relationship with the general, citing "personal reasons" for her decision. 0 Ms. told another waitress that she quit "to protect someone's identity." 0 Under the circumstances, did the acts constitute conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman? The preponderance of the evidence indicates that they did: 0 Most of the witnesses interviewed for this analysis believed Brig Gen Uhrich's actions, as described above, to be wrong. 0 One of the witnesses brought up the term "unbecoming" and one witness thought the general's actions were morally wrong; another witness thought Ms. I "was played." 0 Coupled with the fact that Brig Gen Uhrich is married, his actions bring question to his honor and hence the honor of the Air Force officer corps and more specifically, the Air Force general officer corps. 0 His actions in this matter do not indicate suitable behavior or conduct -- they are acts of indecorum and taking all the circumstances into" consideration, are compromising to him as a general officer. His actions resulted in an Air Force NAP employee quitting her job. CONCLUSION. Inspector General investigations use a preponderance of evidence standard when determining whether or not an allegation is substantiated. In this case, Brig Gen Uhrich chose not to testify under oath or submit a written statement after he was advised that he was a suspect in this investigation. Accordingly, the IO did not have the benefit of questioning Brig Gen Uhrich about his relationship with Ms. - or hearing his description of his time with her. The preponderance of the evidence available to the ID indicates that between late Jan 13 and the middle of Feb 13, Brig Gen Uhrich engaged in a romantic relationship with Ms. --, a NAF employee, while Brig Gen Uhrich was TDY to Randolph AF B. A preponderance of evidence further supports that Brig Gen, Uhrich was married during the timeframe of the relationship, Ms. did not know Brig Gen Uhrich was married when he first asked her out for drinks, Ms. was a waitress at the during the timeframe of the relationship, and Ms. quit her job at the after being questioned about the relationship. These factors establish that Brig Gen Uhrich engaged in acts 'of unfair dealing and_ indecorum. Consequently, Brig Gen Uhrich's romantic relationship with Ms. - was behavior in an unofficial capacity that dishonored him personally and seriously compromised his standing as an officer. -17 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given for general channels without prior approval Thus, by a preponderance of evidence, based upon the findings of fact and sworn testimony, the allegation that Brig Gen David C. Uhrich, from on or about 28 Jan 13 toon or about 15 Feb 13, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Ms. 3 an Air Force non--appropriated fund employee, in violation of Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Conduct Unbecoming an Ofiicer and Gentleman, was SUBSTANTIATED. A ALLEGATION 2. That between July 201 land May 2012, Brig Gen David C. Uhrich consumed alcohol in a manner that was of a" nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, in violation of Article 134, General Article, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. FINDINGS or A Based on information derived mostly from witness interviews, the following chronology5 was developed: '06 DATE EVENT b7'? 1 Apr 11 Brig Gen Uhrich was promoted to his current rank while assigned to Joint Forces Command. (EX 2) Jul 11 . Brig Gen Uhrich was assigned Col first noticed what she believed to be a drinking problem on the part of Brig Gen Uhrich; she mentioned it to Col ., . (Ex 11:6) Fall 2011 . staff personnel.participated in a series of .off-site meetingsbelieved they smelled alcohol on Brig Gen Uhrich during the meetings. (Ex 11:7) Fall 2011 Armed Forces Communications Electronics Association (AF CEA) luncheon with Gen Hostage as the guest speaker" took place -- incident where Brig Gen Uhrich allegedly' interrupted Gen Hostage. (Ex 11:9; Ex 12:10) 11 Jan 12 Brig Gen Uhrich attended Lt Gen Ronnie D. Hawkins, Jr.'s promotion ceremony; Brig Gen Spano asked M.r. I if Brig Gen Uhrich "was alright." (EX 15:7) 26 Jan 12 Brig Gen Uhrich had physical problems at an A6 Director's Call and had to be taken to the hospital; he was seen and eventually released to his wife. (Ex 1225-6; Ex 22)" 5 The anonymous complaint asserted that there was "hearsay that [Brig Gen Uhrich] scheduled TDYs that have nothing to do with his job' in order to drink away from home: a rocket launch at Tyndall, for example." (Ex 1:5) There was no evidence to support this assertion. In fact, Brig Gen Uhrich's who testified very candidly about his observations related to Brig Gen Uhrich's drinking on duty, adamantly denied "drinking trip . (Ex 14:26) 18 This is a protected document. It wt in whole or in part), reproduced or given additional dissemination (in whole or in part) on tor general channels without prior approval Jan 12 was assigned to front office, and then Brig Gen Uhrich's he began to notice behavior indicating to him that Brig Gen Uhrich had a drinking problem. (EX 14:2-3) first as Feb-Mar 12 Maj 2 found a bottle of vodka underneath Brig Gen Uhrich's desk; he saw a bottle there several times, saw the vodka level in the bottle change, and saw the "kind" of vodka change. (Ex 14:8-9) b6 b7c 27Mar 121 Maj I confronted Brig Gen Uhrich about the vodka bottle and the perceived drinking problem; he followed up his conversation with an email to the general that same day. (Ex 14:11-12; Ex 21) 28 Mar 12 Brig Gen Uhrich replied to Maj email and stated, "It [their discussion the previous day] was perfect and needed! I thank youBrig Gen Uhrich attended CAPSTONE at during the five-week course, several incidents alerted NDU personnel that something might be physically wrong with him; these personnel deduced that it was alcohol relatedBrig Gen Uhrich was confronted by Mr. Pietropaoli, RADM (Ret), USN, and senior fellow at NDU, concerning a perceived 1 medical/drinking problem; Brig Gen Uhrich admitted to having a drinking problem; Mr. Pietropaoli told Brig Gen Uhrich to report his problem to his chain of command or will;" Mr. Pietropaoli also spoke to both Brig Gen and thanked Mr. Pietropaoli for his intervening actions. (Ex 16:3-4) May 12 Brig Gen Uhrich returned to Langley AF from CAP STONE and contacted ACC leadership, Gen Hostage and Lt Gen Rew, concerning his drinking problem. Lt Gen Rew spoke to Mr. Pietropaoli that Monday. (EX 16:4) 20 May 12 Ve earl in the mornin Bri Gen Uhrich went to the jasxz 23) May -- Jul 12 Bri Gen Uhrich was 1 (Ex 23) Jul 12 Brig Gen Uhrich conducted a Director's Call with the A6 staff where he explained where he had been for the past two months, admitting his alcoholismwhole" or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval STANDARDS. From the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, General Article, states (emphasis added): 60. Article 134--General article a. Text of statute. . Though not specifically" mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to A bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and - shall be punished at the discretion of that court. b. Elements. The proof required for conviction of an offense under Article 134 depends upon the nature of the misconduct charged. If the conduct is punished as a crime or offense not capital, the proof must establish every element of the crime or offense as required by the applicable law. If the conduct is punished as a disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, then the following proof is required: (1) That the accused did or failed to do certain acts; and (2) That, under the circumstances, the accused's conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. c. Explanation. - . (1) In general. Article 134 makes punishable acts in three categories of offenses not specifically covered in any other article of the code. These are referred to as "clauses 1, 2, and 3" of Article 134." Clause 1 offenses involve disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good -order and discipline in the armed forces. Clause 2 offenses involve conduct of a nature to bring discredit up on the armed forces. Clause 3 offenses involve noncapital crimes or offenseswhich violate 'Federal law including law made - applicable through the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act, see subsection_ (4) below. If any conduct of this nature is specifically made punishable by another article of the code, it must be charged as a violation of that article. See subparagraph below- However, see paragraph 59c for offenses committed by commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen. (2) Disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces (clause 1). . To the prejudice of good order and discipline. "To the prejudice of good order and discipline" refers only to acts directly prejudicial to good order and discipline and not to acts which are prejudicial only in a remote or indirect sense. Almost any irregular or improper act on the part of a member of the military service could be regarded as prejudicial in some indirect or remote sense; however, this article does not include these distant effects. It is confined to cases in which the prejudice is reasonably" direct and palpable. An act in violation of a local civil law or of a foreign law may be punished if it constitutes a disorder or neglect to the 20 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval b6 b7c prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. However, see R. C. M. 203 concerning subject - matter jurisdiction. Breach of custom of the service. A breach of a custom of the service may result in a violation of clause 1 of Article 134. In its legal sense, "custom" means more than a method of procedure or a mode of conduct or behavior which is merely of frequent or usual occurrence. Custom arises out of long established practices which by common usage have attained the force of law in the military or other community affected by them. No custom may be contrary to existing law or regulation. A custom which has not been adopted by existing statute or regulation ceases to exist when its observance has been generally abandoned. Many customs of the service are now set_forth in regulations of the various armed forces. Violations of these customs should be charged under Article 92 as violations of the regulations in which they appear if the regulation is punitive. See paragraph 16C. 1 . (3) Conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (clause 2). "Discredit" means to injure the reputation of. This clause of Article 134 makes punishable conduct which has a tendency to bring the service into disrepute or which tends to lower it in public esteem. Acts in violation of a local civil law or a foreign law may be punished if they are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. However, see R.C.M. 203 concerning subject--matter jurisdiction. (Ex 3 ANALYSIS. The investigation team interviewed five members of the staff to determine the credibility of the anonymous complaint 'alleging Brig Gen Uhrich's use of alcohol during duty hours at Langley AFB. Two of the witnesses, Col and Maj had relatives who had been alcoholics and hence felt they were more likely to notice of alcoholism. Three of the witnesses, Col 2, Mr. -, and Mr. did not indicate they had much experience with alcoholism and its In her interview, W, and a direct report to Brig Gen Uhrich, thought she smelled alcohol on Brig Gen Uhrich early on in her tour. (Ex 1l:4--6) She mentioned this to a couple of others on the staff and she testifiedone of them', her -, Mr. --, noticed it also. (Ex 11:7) Col - stated that she had not smelled alcohol on Brig Gen Uhrich since he returned from his rehabilitation program. (Ex 11:8) Col was questioned about her knowledge of three events mentioned in the I anonymous complaint -- an Armed Forces Communications 'Electronics Association (AFCEA) . luncheon where Brig Gen Uhrich allegedly interrupted Gen Hostage, a Director's Call where he had to be escorted to the hospital, and a senior cyber general officer (GO) retirement function (which proved to be alpromotion ceremony). The complaint document sent to IGS stated that the three events were "an embarrassment to the Air Force because he [Uhrich] was drunk." (Ex 1:5) Col - was present at the AFCEA luncheon and testified: 21 in whole or in parij, reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval IO: On a day--to-day staff interaction, activities, meetings, etc., havethere been any other instances of improper behavior that you have witnessed firsthand?, . 2: Yes, we were at an AFCEA luncheon once and General Hostage was speaking and at some point during General Hostage's speech, Uhrich just blurted out something, I-don't know what it was. But I was I was one table away from. him and he just blurted out this sentence. And General Hostage tumed and gave him, you know, 'If looks could kill,' it was one of those kind of looks. And then there was sort of this awkward pause and then General Hostage continued to speak. (Ex 11:9) Col 2 was not present at the Director's Call or the senior cyber GO retirement, but stated she had heard about inappropriate behavior by the general at the retirement (Ex _1 1 :1 1-12) and had been told about the general being taken to the hospital after his Director's CallBrig Gen Uhrich's and was also stationed with him in a prior -assignment. Col testified that Brig Gen Uhrich was very good to work with, and is a "hands-on" type of leader who tends to "red team" a lot of the decision making. With regard to b5 Brig Gen Uhrich having a drinking problem,-Col - stated, "never at any point did I see him b7C . to where I thought he was drunk." (Ex 12:4) Later in his testimony, Col - was asked if it would be more accurate to say that he never saw Brig Gen Uhrich in a state that C01 perceived to be drunk -- Co1._- agreed with that characterization. (Ex 12:14) Col - was asked about his knowledge of the three events mentioned in the complaint document. Regarding the Director's Call where Brig Gen 'Uhrich was ill: I'm not sure if that was called out as an example or not, but it was kind of a traumatic issue. We had set up. . .he had been sick the entire week before with some type of a stomach flu. I'm not really sure. That.was the best way to characterize it. He'd been sick, in and out. He tried to come back. You could tell he looked sick. I mean he was still a little under the weather, but was trying to come back because he had been out for a couple days. And then as we started the Director's Call he started to shake, and he started to shake 'uncontrollably. And so I kinda went up, put him in a chair to kind of steady him because we thought maybe he hadn't been eating or drinking or he was dehydrated. He was still not able to keep down fluids because he had been sick. So, in our minds we're thinking it was associated with that. I took him to the hospital as soon as I wrapped up the Director's Call pretty quick after that and took him directly to. the hospital. IO: Okay. I And he was admitted. They kept him overnight. I think most of that was getting fluids in him and doing some tests, but everything was kind of attributed to he 22 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval b6 b7c tried to come back and do too much when he was still under the weather with some type of stomach flu. IO2: And what are you basing that on, the fact that it was attributed to his illness? 2: Obviously the doctor didn't talk to me; I'm getting everything what he relayed to me. IO2: Okay, so that's all coming through Gen Uhrich? -: Absolutely. (Ex 12:5) IO: So I then assume is that you would disagree with the statement that, with relationship to being drunk, "Director's Call where he had to be escorted to the hospital by the Deputy because he was either hung over or had the DTs at the podium." I have a feeling, and again, this is my conjecture, Ihave a feeling it was some type of DTs. IO: Okay. -: If he was a functioning alcoholic, which I think he would be the first to tell you he was, he had been sick for a whole week, could not keep fluids 'down, I think he was going through withdrawal.' IO: Okay. Okay. W: That would be my guess. IO: Right. No, that makes sense. IO2: But it sounds like you've put this together in hindsight based on. .. Oh, absolutely. All- this is hindsight. I thought he was sick at the time, and again, I literally had to force him to go to the hospital. He fought me pretty vigorously. He wanted to go home and just get some more sleep and try to sleep and get. better, and I didn't give him the option, I took him right 'to the hospital. I was that concerned about it because I'd never seen anybody. . .he could not stand up he was shaking so violently. (Ex 12:5-6) Co1- was present at the AF CEA luncheon mentioned in the complaint and remembered the event somewhat differently than the anonymous complainant: in whole or in part), reproduced, or given 23 for general channels without prior approval b7c' IO: only other specific instance that's mentioned in the document that we got was an AF CEA luncheon about some loud comment he" made while COMACC was speaking. Any knowledge about something like' that? 2: I was at that luncheon; I'm -- for the local AFCEA chapter here. I remember he was bantering with Gen Hostage a little bit and I don't remember that being like anything that would be construed as he was drunk. IO2: You say he was bantering with Gen Hostage. Is that while Gen Hostage was making a speech? It was while there was like a session after he kinda Hostage kinda referred a question to Gen Uhrich, or looked for validation of a comment he was making and so they were kind of discussing during a session of, yes, during a speech. I02: But you don't remember anything inappropriate or anything - It was not inappropriate, no ma'a.m. IO: Okay. At least not by my recollection and I was sitting right next to Gen Uhrich. (Ex 12: 1-0) . Col - _did not have f1rst--hand knowledge of the alleged incident at the GO retirement luncheon (promotion ceremony). . currently --, has observed Brig Gen Uhrich since the general's arrival on station in Jul 11. He did not agree with the complainant's assertion that manyhad witnessed Brig Gen Uhrich drunk at work, and when approached by Col - and asked whether he had noticed anything regardingthe general and alcohol, replied to her that he had not. (Ex 13:3, 4) Mr. was present at the Director's Call and saw the general develop the shakes on stage this was the only could attribute something involving the general to alcohol. (Ex 13:3) Mr. had no knowledge of any incident at an AFCEA luncheon or a G0 retirement affair. was when Brig Gen Uhrich arrived in Jul 11 and stayed in that position until Jul 12 when he moved to a similar position Mr. - worked directly for Brig Gen Uhrich for that one-year timefrarne. He thought the A6 staff was on a pretty good battle with Brig Gen Uhrich and perceived that most folks liked his leadership style. (Ex 15 Mr. stated that 24 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval b6 b7c he had quite a few interactions with Brig Gen Uhrich, never saw the -general drunk atwork, but had no "alcohol background" and was not a good character read of alcohol problems. (Ex 15:6) Of the three events mentioned in the complaint document, Mr. 2 did have first-hand knowledge of the GO "retirement even "which Mr. described as Lt Gen Hawkins' promotion ceremony. Lt Gen Hawkins' effective_ date of promotion was 11 an 12. (Ex 24:2) Mr. testified: - -: It was before that but not much before". I mean, I would probably say two months maybe. Um, so the other occasion uh, was in this case, Gen Spano who I know very I worked for him for several years and I still keep in touch with him, uh, we had a discussion that he was like 'is Gen Uhrich all right'? And this was during Gen Hawkins' promotion ceremony. And he said he just didn't seem right. He seemed like his speech was slurred. And you know, and I was like well I don't know. One thing I kind of make 'known, I'm sure you are aware of this, but you know,.he is very hard of hearing and so he has got two uh, hearing aids that he wears and if he" is not wearing those, honestly he can't hear you. It's. .. 4 IO: Okay. -: so I told him at the time, I said, I don't have any reason to believe that but if he didn't have his hearing aids in, you you know if you can't hear, you can't hear your pronunciation or enunciation and all that kind of stuff. IO: Right. So I said well, you know, did he have his hearing aids in? The other thing this . was a very early he took a red eye, red from Langley up there to attend this promotion ceremony so I said between the two, he left at 0 dark 30 and if he didn't have his hearing aids in then he probably wasn't on the top of his game but I wasn't putting two and two together. Gen Spano didn't think anything of it except to make that comment to me to say" you know, is he doing all right? I mean physically? (Ex 15:7) Along with Col a daily basis. Maj. served as and as Brig Gen Uhrich's beginning in Jan 12. Maj described Brig Gen Uhrich as very difficult to pin down -- one day he would be a micro-manager and the nextday he would be hands off. (Ex 14:4) When asked if he considered the statement "many witnessed him drunk at work," to be a true statement, Maj 2 answered, "Yes." (Ex 14:5) Maj - indicated that after a month of working in the A6 front office, he had suspicions that something was not right with the general. (Ex 14:6) He related that at times, the 25 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval had close interactions with Brig Gen Uhrich on general would close his door for a while, and when he finally came out, there was a change in his _behavior. (Ex 14:6-7) Maj -- further related in his testimony that during Jan -- Apr 12 timeframe, he smelled alcohol onthe general's breath, on multiple occasions found a bottle of vodka underneath the general's desk (various levels in the bottle, various kinds of vodka), and even tasted alcohol in the plastic cup on the general's desk during the duty day. (Ex While working with Brig Gen Uhrich, Maj noticed signs of intoxication, to include slurred speech, blood shot eyes, and lack of overall coordination. (Ex 14: 14) Concerning Brig Gen Uhrich's behavior, Maj - further testified: 102: Well, can you you've described some behavior to us like a change in his demeanor after he goes into his office. You've described that you smelled alcohol on this person while at a staff meeting. Are there any other instances of behavior you saw that said, "hmm Ithink he's been drinking at work?" -: Ah, just, just in general his behavior. I mean one of the frustrations we had again was a, it would be very difficult as and for all the front office um. You know often times he would come in and you know kinda give us our to do list, his task go do this um, and then shut the door, come out later; he wouldn't remember what he had told us to door he would kind of ask "hey why did you do it like this," well because you told us to, Sir. So it was very frustrating for the front office to kinda have to deal with that. You know again as he was drinking or not drinking um canceling meetings, that was a common one. Um you know, you know he would come in we'd have meeting[s] scheduled for the afternoon by the time we got to lunch it was "hey cancel all my meetings." IO: Who were these meeting generally scheduled with? Ah, it, it varied (clearing of the throat), we would have um some of them were internal, some of them were visitors from (Ex 14:10) IO: It's our, as our understanding that there I think you're talk talking about this Director's Call he had? :2 I'm sorry, yeah Director's Call. IO: And, -: he, he got up there and you could just see he started to shake, I mean he kinda started with his hands, and then kinda his whole body kinda started shaking, He had to sit down um and then for me again this was still kinda early on for me that was another one 26 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given for general channels without prior approval b6 b7c of those things that kinda lead me to think alcohol was alproblem. Um mostly cause you we wanted to take him to the hospital and he just did not want to go to the hospital. He would not go to the hospital, he fought us um we took him there but we literally had to drag him there, and for me that just didn't make sense. It didn't make sense you know if someone had almost passed out wouldn't want to go to the hospital but um. IO: Um hmm. -: But yeah you would see it general, that's the most dramatic example I can think of. But you can see it. IO: Did Col Shaking. IO: lack of coordination. IO: Did Col - escort him to the hospital? He did. We had Gen Uhrich's wifecome and then he and her took him to the hospital. (Ex 14:14) On Tuesday, 27 Mar 12, Maj - confronted Brig Gen Uhrich about the drinking. His testimony on this meeting follows: IO: Once you kinda determined this, so I'm assuming and this is before he goes off to CAPSTONE, which he did in mid-April. So this would of been, you know you've been in there in the front office in chair, then you've moved over 2 chair um. Who else did you discuss this with? -: So that was pretty much it. Um so once I kinda convinced myself and knew what was going on, um like I said I kinda brought it up to C01 2 kinda talked to ah the previous Exec, neither one of them, again my personal opinion, I've although it's hard for me to believe that, you know, they can see the things I saw and didn't kinda come to the same conclusion. I think they were in some pretty heavy denial. Um so at that point I actually brought it up with Gen Uhrich. Um as far as I know, I think I am the only person I know of in the staff that approached him directly about it. And that was just a few weeks before probably three or four weeks IO: And what was his reaction? I02: Well first of all what did you say to him? in whole or in part), reproduced, or given 27 tor general channels without prior approval b6 b7c -: Well so obviously again put yourself in my shoes, it was a pretty (laugh) um nervous conversation but I was pretty careful how I timed it. I made sure "for one that um it was one of those days where it was kinda obvious he had been drinking. Um I'd made sure to check that he had the bottle under the desk and so when I approached him, you know, initially he kinda denied it. You know, um said "hey you know I have a problem, you I don't normally do this." That's where I kinda said "well hey I know there's a problem under your desk," and, and at that point he was a little more open about it. IO2: And what did he say? -2 Um you know, to be honest we didn't, we didn'treally go into, it wasn't a very long conversation um and, and I really do have honestly a hard time recalling just cause I was so nervous (laugh). IO: That's understandable. 2: Conversation but ah I know on my half I basically told him "hey look, I've noticed it, I'm sure everyone else has noticed it." We've kinda mentioned the staff meeting, Imean kinda laid it out to him said "hey [you're] getting a little sloppy," I know those weren't some exact words I've used, um kinda a warning as much as a warning, you know, you can give, and then just, you know, there was an offer for help you know if he needed it, you know, to let me know to let anyone of us know. And that's where I kinda left it um, and then after that ah I didn't see any problems. IO: Did he admit it? I mean once you confronted him and you talked to him "hey you've got a bottle of vodka under there." i: Yeah. . . IO: Everything else? -: he didn't admit it, but again, I mean, I wasn't really necessarily making an accusation ah. You-know it wasn't a, hey confess, admit, "it was more of a hey; it was very much kinda.a one sided conversation, just hey here's what I'm seeing, I think you need to straighten up and if you need any help let me know." Um so there, there wasn't a lot of two way dialog there. Um and, and that was fine for me, I mean, I didn't want to press it. (Ex l4:ll-l2and the day after this meeting, Maj 2 and Brig Gen Uhrich exchanged emails concerning their discussion. Brig Gen Uhrich's email stated, "It was perfect and needed! I thank you." (Ex 21) Maj - was also present at the Director's Call and AF CEA luncheon previously mentioned and gave accounts similar to others present at those events. Maj was not 28 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given for general channels without prior approval b6 b7c present at Lt Gen Hawkins? promotion ceremony. (Ex 14:14, 16, 17) When asked whether he would describe Brig Gen Uhrich as a functioning alcoholic, Maj replied, wouldn't put too much emphasis on functioning, but in general, yes." (Ex 14:17) Finally, Maj 'testified that after Brig Gen Uhrich's return from his two--month treatment in Williamsburg, Brig Gen Uhrich showed a marked change in behavior -- he was more clear-headed, stayed on time, and showed up for/stayed at work. (Ex 14:22) Brig Gen Uhrich attended the CAPSTONE Course at the National Defense University (NDU) from 16 Apr -- 18 May 12. Evidence directly relating to his time at CAPSTONE was gathered from two additional witness interviews and one witness statement. Mr. Stephen R. Pietropaoli is a retired Navy Flag Officer and currently works as the Senior Director of the CAPSTONE Program and the interim Senior Vice President of NDU. (Ex 16:1) He remembered Brig Gen Uhrich's attendance at CAPSTONE well. When asked about his first impressions of Brig Gen Uhrich at the course, Mr. Pietropaoli remembered that the 45 or so students had a morning presentation from a relatively senior Flag officer the first day and Brig Gen Uhrich "was pretty much laid back in his chair, head down, if not sleeping, certainly appearing to be sleeping and this went on for about 70 percent of the hour or so presentation." After the presentation, Mr. Pietropaoli mentioned the availability of coffee to Brig Gen Uhrich. (Ex 16:2) Mr. Pietropaoli mentioned other occurrences that gave him cause to watch Brig Gen Uhrich. Once, while the students had traveled to U. S. Central Command, the general stumbled getting out of his seat -- this was attributed to dehydration by the general. Mr. Pietropaoli also added that Brig Gen Uhrich often seemed to be "not really part of the group, hanging back, last guy off the bus, that sort of thing which is not unusual in and of itself, there's all kinds of personality types, but when it is consistently the same person, that was cause." (Ex 16:2) At the sametime, Mr. Pietropaoli testified that Brig Gen Uhrich did not smell of alcohol and was not slurring his words. (Ex 16:3) 1 The last portion of the five-week course involves an overseas trip to visit multiple 1 countries. The class was divided into thirds -- one group traveling to Europe, one to South America, and one to the Pacific region. Lt Col a registered Air Force nurse, was assigned - for two years, Jul 11- Jul 13. For her first year she Worked in and her 'second year she was . (Ex 17:2-3) Toward the end of her first year, she was who accompanied the CAPSTONE students' overseas trip to the Pacific region. Brig Gen Uhrich also went on this Pacific trip, specifically to the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, and Hawaii. Retired Marine General Thomas R. Morgan was the senior fellow/mentor for the class, which traveled on a dedicated C-17 aircraft. (Ex 17:3--4) 29 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given for general channels without, prior approval b6 b7c Lt Col 2 described her role on this trip as medical liaison and attendant. She said that she took care of acute, minimal problems, kept the students in the game and attending every event, and, ifnecessary, got them to more emergent care if needed. (Ex 17:3) The Saturday before the trip, she was pre-briefed on a concern over a particular general officer student, Brig Gen Uhrich, related to possible alcohol issues. (Ex 17:5) Lt Col - was asked if she ever witnessed Brig Gen Uhrich drunk during the CAPSTONE overseas trip, and she answered: 2: I can't say that I actually saw him stammering drunk but I did question at times and I watched closely on some of our other fun kind of tour business/fun tours. I saw him come to the bus with what looked like a water bottle with orange juice in it a few times and I questioned that a lot'. I didn't pull the drink away from him and smell it of course and I didn't bring attention sit down and talk to him while he would be drinking that beverage. I couldn't openly smell it. Only but one time did I potentially think I smelled some alcohol, but this was not a man who was tripping over, falling down, sick, nothing. (Ex 17:7) Lt Col 2 next testified about an interesting incident in Singapore: IO: Um, we were told at one point that on this trip that uh, if he did not have his alcohol, the wheels would come off. Um, anything like that ever occur? -: So the only thing that I can think of on that and I didn't hear I was brought - into an incident [that] involved interestingly enough you said at an Embassy and I want to say it might have been Singapore but I could be um, we were there getting a briefing and the Class Six wasn't open and he went and asked one of the. .. one of our POC's to open the Class Six in the -Embassy and when my Exec heard that he basically I think said I can't remember what but he brought me into it and then Gen Morgan was involved with this incident and they kind of came to me, I think, to ask because of what we thought he was doing and if things were going to escalate, he a needed to have the alcohol, basically asking me if I thought that they should open that Class Six My thought process, I didn't see anything unusual about him and I think my I don't know about verbatim sir but something along the lines of I do not think that that Class Six needs to be open. If he needs alcohol that bad, because it was an expense issue is what I was understanding. It was not given to me that he absolutely needed the drink or he was going to go over the edge. It was more of he had to buy it there because it wasway too expensive on the outside in Singapore and my' answer was no, I don't think we should open that Class Six I think if he wants it, he. can buy it on the economy. And that was kind of my end of that but we did not authorize opening that Class That was just totally inappropriate. (Ex 17:7-8) is assigned to where Brig Gen Uhrich's CAPSTONE class visited in May 12. Col was present when the Singapore country team heads rovided a Limited Country Team briefing to the CAPSTONE students on 9 May 12. C01 related he met Brig Gen Uhrich at breaks in the briefing and that Brig Gen 30 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given for general channels without prior approval b6 b7c Uhrich asked him more than once where he could get vodka. The general also asked Col 2 whether or not the Ambassador would be serving alcohol at that evening's dinner. (Ex 19) C01 statement (Ex 19) corroborates Lt Col testimony regarding the incident concerning the Class VI store. Later in her testimony, Lt Col 2 related that at some point in the trip, the' students' 1 rooms were checked, for a reason she could not remember, and empty alcohol bottles (possibly vodka) were found in Brig Gen Uhrich's room. (Ex 17:8) Finally, Lt Col 2 recalled that Brig Gen Uhrich did not want to release his bags to a concierge at one stop -- he was adamant that his bags stay with him. (Ex 17:8) After completion of the trip, Lt Col 2, along with other NDU travelers, to include Gen Morgan, provided a debrief to Mr. Pietropa0_li. With regard to Brig Gen Uhrich's behavior on the trip, Gen Morgan was "not happy" -according to Lt Col (Ex 17:10) It was then Lt Col understanding that Gen Morgan worked with Mr. Pietropaoli to get Brig Gen Uhrich to seek help. (Ex 17:10) Mr. Pietropaoli corroborated in witness testimony that he confronted Brig Gen Uhrich when he described his actions taken at the end of that CAPSTONE course: Pietropaoli: I had to wrestle with do Italk about this with the individual, do Imake a report of this to his command, how exactly do I handle this, and or just let it go since I didn't have anything definite? My assessment was he was my direct report at that time, it was my responsibility to talk to the officer about my concems. .1 did. I_called him in my office on a Thursday before the end of the course, which ended on the following day on Frida . I specifically was aware that these confrontations could be challenging. His wife, h, was in for Spouse Course that week which runs concurrently the last week. I thought that would be a good thing to have her here And so I called him in my office at, I want to say it was that moming, the Thursday morning. Spoke with him about my impression. Basically in effect said to him, don't know exactly what it is, General, but itis clear to me from the outset, that first day in class when you were falling asleep in the early morning through our travel through CONUS, that there's something going on here. I don't know if it's medical, I don't know what it is, but I believe it's important enough and significant enough that you need to take action on it and I need to make your Command aware of it. I told him I would prefer if he made his Command aware of this concern and this issue but that if I, if he didn't choose to and I didn't hear back from his Commander by the following Monday afternoon, class got out on Friday, I gave him the weekend to go down there, but I needed' to hear back from his Commander by Monday afternoon or I would be calling his Commander to report my concerns. Uh, his reaction was very positive. He thanked me for my concern. He, 1 think, openly admitted that he did in fact have a drinking problem and that his wife had been on him for some time to get some help and that he was glad that someone had confronted him about it, and that he would in fact tum himself in for rehab back down 3 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval b6 b7c when he got back down at Langley Uh, this was, I told him that I thought that was the right thing to do, that there were lots of people who had come back from either addiction to medication, that Air Force and the military in general had a very, I thought, progressive and positive attitude towards particularly people who self-report and don't wait to be in a DWI or something like that And that I thought that this would turn out well for him and a lot better than ignoring the roblem. He then saw me together with her later that aftemoon and sort of confirmed that that they were both very thankful. The dinner was that evening. I spoke to them both at the dinner. Friday was the last day of class; they were there. They left on Friday and I think the next thing I heard was early Monday morning from He apparently had stopped drinking right after my confrontation with him and then not sur risingly had detoxed too abruptly and was And told me that her Commander had been, that his Commander had been informed and on Monday I spoke with Gen Rew and confirmed it. He also thanked me for having taken the time to intervene and demand that the officer seek some help. (Ex 1623-4) Toward the end of each interview, the investigation team asked the witness whether or not, based on their knowledge of the' situation, Brig Gen Uhrich's actions were of a nature to bring discredit to the Armed Forces. The following is a synopsis of some of those answers: Col 2 testified that Brig Gen Uhrich's actions were discrediting to the military, because of his position as government employee and officer. (Ex 11:23) Mr. stated, "no, no, not at all. Not in my presence, no." (Ex 13:13) Maj testified, "yes this isn't what we expect our General Officers to do." (Ex 14:28) Mr. - thought that Brig Gen Uhrich's conduct did not bring discredit to the Air Force. (Ex 15:19) lVIr. Pietropaoli testified that what he saw from Brig Gen Uhrich caused him concern that it would eventually bring harm to him and discredit to the service potentially. (Ex 16:6- 7) Lt Col -- related, "That's a really hard question. Personally, yes He is doing really important things. He is guarding information and making decisions on behalf of big Air Force, big and I'm not sure if he was in the game." (Ex 17:10) In his written statement, Col - said that he was stunned with what he witnessed in Singapore, felt the USAF promotion system for generals works most of the time, but not this time, and was disappointed the retired four--star did not send Brig Gen Uhrich home. (Ex 19:2) 32 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval _ll b6 b7c To corroborate some of the key events associated with this allegation, Brig GenUhrich's medical records from an -- Jun 12 were briefly reviewed by the investigation team. Excerpts from these records are found" at Exhibits 22 and 23. The records also indicate Comparing the evidence gathered through witnesstestimony to the standards (elements of Article 134) for this issue: 3 0 Did the accused do certain acts? "The preponderance of the evidence indicates: Brig Gen Uhrich did repeatedly drink alcohol while on duty, during duty hours, as the Brig Gen Uhrich consistently kept a bottle of vodka under his desk during the Jan -- Apr 12 timeframe. Brig Gen Uhrich was confronted about his drinking on duty by in late Mar 12. Alcohol did affect Brig Gen Uhrich's duty performance as the although the evidence varied conceming the extentof the impact on duty performance. It is more likely than not Brig Gen Uhrich's alcohol use resulted in his inability to complete a speech at a Dir,ector's Call and The preponderance.of evidence also supports Brig Gen Uhrich's alcohol use resulted in absences during normal duty 3 hours, the cancelling of meetings, and having someone else cover meetings. Brig Gen Uhrich continued to drink excessively after his discussion with I Brig Gen Uhrich's actions during the 5-week CAPSTONE course drew less--than- desirable attention to him from NDU personnel conducting the course. Brig Gen Uhrich discussed his alcohol problem with his command chain and sought medical help only after being confronted by Mr. Pietropaoli at NDU and told that either Brig Gen Uhrich would talk to his comrnand's senior leadership or Mr. Pietropaoli would. 33 in whole or in part), reproduced, or given tor general channels without prior approval jjlj. b6 b7c 0 Was the accused's conduct of a nature to bring discredit to the armed forces? The preponderance of the evidence indicates that is was: 0 The conduct described above, to include Brig Gen Uhrich's drinking on duty during normal duty hours in a significant leadership position, consistently having a bottle of alcohol under his desk, allowing his alcohol use to affect his duty performance, continuing to drink alcohol to excess after his executive officer confronted him about his drinking, excessive drinking and efforts to get alcohol during the CAPSTONE course, and.only seeking treatment after receiving an ultimatum from the Senior Director of the CAPSTONE Program, is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces; it is of a nature to bring the service into disrepute and lower it in public esteem. . 0 To those members of his staff that thought Brig Gen Uhrich had a drinking problem, Brig Gen Uhrich's conduct brought discredit upon the armed forces, in that it affected their perception of him and their ability to effectively work for him; at the same time, other members of his staff that did not recognize a problem, or were possibly in denial (as Maj I believed), and were not affected by the general's actions. A 0 An Air Force general officer's actions of consuming alcohol during the duty day, missing meetings, and canceling entire blocks of meetings at the last minute due to alcohol, are certainly of a nature to bring discredit to the armed forces. Brig Gen Uhrich's actions did_ not cast the Air Force in a good light during his attendance at CAPSTONE and his actions brought discredit to the general officer corps of the Air Force and the armed forces. As with the first allegation, the fact that Brig Gen Uhrich chose not to testify in this investigation or provide a written statement left the IO without the benefit of Brig Gen Uhrich's explanation of events relative to this allegation. The preponderance of the evidence available to the IO supports Brig Gen Uhrich repeatedly drank alcohol while on duty as during normal duty hours, regularly kept a bottle of vodka-under his desk, was confronted about his drinking on duty by his executive officer, and continued to drink excessively after that . confrontation. The preponderance of the evidence also indicates Brig Gen Uhrich's alcohol use affected his duty performance as caused concern among some of the staff, drew less--than--desirable attention during the CAPSTONE course, and led the Senior Director of the CAPSTONE Program to give Brig Gen Uhrich the ultimatum of seeking treatment or the Senior Director would contact Brig Gen Uhrich's command. Brig Gen Uhrich engagedin alcohol use that was clearly of a nature to bring, and did actually bring, discredit upon the armed forces. A 34' in whole or in part), reproduced, or given for general channels without prior approval Hence, by a preponderance of evidence, based upon the findings of fact and sworn testimony, the allegation that between July 2011 and May 2012, Brig Gen David C. Uhrich- consumed alcohol in a manner that was of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces, in violation of Article 134, General of the Uniform Code of Military Justice was SUBSTANTIATED. On a final note -- in the complaint for this second allegation (Ex the anonymous 5 complainant brought up the issue of Brig Gen Uhrich potentially making judgments and I decisions while impaired in years past. 'This type of accusation, by its very nature, would be next to impossible to investigate/analyze at this time. VI. SUMMARY ALLEGATION 1, that Brig Gen David C. Uhrich, from on or about 28 Jan 13 to on or about 15 Feb 13, engaged' in an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Air Force non--appropriated_ fund employee, in violation of Article 133 oft orm Co of Military Justice, Conduct Unbecoming an Ofiicer and Gentleman, was SUBSTANTIATED. in a romantic relationship with Ms. hile he was married, which in his unofficial capacity dishonored him personally, and hence was unbecoming as an officer and gentlemen. . 1 - The preponderance of evidence supiorted the conclusion that.Brig Gen Uhrich engaged b6 . - . b7c ALLEGATION that between July 2011 and May 2012, Brig Gen David C. Uhrich consumed alcohol in a manner that was of a nature to bring discredit upon the Armed Forces, in violation of Article 134, General Article, of the Uniform Code of Justice, was SUBSTANTIATED. . 'o The preponderance of evidence supported the conclusion that Brig Gen Uhrich's actions relating to alcohol use, to include repeatedly drinking while on duty, was of a nature to, and actually did, bring discredit to himself, the Air Force general officer corps, and the armed forces. S-1 5, USAF Investigating Officer Directorate of Senior Official Inquiries 35 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ctor general channels without prior approval or designee. 1 I FOR OFFICIAL SE ON (FOUO) I Hi] b6 b7c Ihave reviewed this Report of Investigation and the accompanying legal review and I concur with their findings. - EPHEN P. MUELLER Lieutenant General, USAF The Inspector General 36 This is a protected document. It will tbe release (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given additional dissemination (in whole or in part) out of the ins ctor general channels without prior approval of The Inspector Ge ral or designee.