FICIAL EONLY Sensi eM erial The Inspector General i of theAir Force Report of Investigation (s7033P)' Maj Gen Stephen D. Schmidt March 2013 Sensi erial . FOROFFI LUSE LY This is a protected document. It will not dissemination (in whole or in part) outside of TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ..- .. 1 II. Scope and Authority .. 1 IH. Background .. 2 IV. Allegations, Findings, Standards, Analysis and Conclusions Ailegation 1 .. 4 Allegation 2 .. 18 Ailegation 3 .. 21 Allegation 4 ..- 24 Allegation 27 V. Summary .. 33 List of Exhibits .. 36 This is a protected document. It will not eleased (in ole or in part), reproduced, or given additional dissemination (in whole or in part) outside of be b7c REPORT OF INVESTIGATION (Case S7033P) I CONCERNING MAJOR GENERAL STEPHEN D. SCHMIDT PREPARED BY COLONEL March 2013 I. INTRODUCTION On 2 Aug 12, Lt Col filed a complaint with the United States Air Forces Europe Inspector General (U IG) against his boss, Maj Gen Stephen D. Schmidt, former Commander, FC, Casteau, Belgium. (Ex 1; 2) Based on the rank of the subject in this complaint, transferred it to the Secretary of the Air Force, Office of the Inspector General, Senior Official Inquiries Directorate On 29 Nov 12, directed an investigation into five allegations against Maj Gen Schmidt. - The allegations investigated herein include charges that Maj Gen Schmidt maltreated his subordinates, misused official representation fimds, was improperly away from his home duty station while not on leave, failed to provide formal feedback to his subordinates, and took a part from a NATO aircraft without proper authorization. The Investigating Officer (IO) traveled to Ramstein, Germany, 8-10 Jan 13 to interview Maj Gen Schmidt. Eight additional witnesses were interviewed between 6 Sep 12 and 7 Nov 12. The testimony of all the witnesses closely paralleled each other. Because of the nature of the allegations against him, Maj Gen Schmidt was treated as a "suspect" during his interview and was read his rights under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Maj.G_en Schmidt did -obtain the legal services of an Air Force Area Defense Counsel who was present during his 'interview. II. SCOPE AND AUTHORITY I The Secretary of the. Air Force has sole responsibility for the The Inspector General of the Air Force} 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 1 Title 10, United States Code, Section 8014 eral channels without prior approval of The Inspector Gen designee. b6 - b7c discipline, efficiency, and economy of the Air Force and perform any other duties prescribed by the Secretary or the Chief of Staff.2 The Inspector General must cooperate fully with The Inspector General of the Department of Defense.3 Pursuant to Air Force Instruction (AFI) 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. (Ex 38:2) Pursuant to AF I 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 0-7 (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. (Ex 38:2) 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, andimpartiality. The Inspector General ensures the concems of all complainants and subjects, along with the best -interests of the Air - Force, are addressed through objective fact-finding. On 29 Nov 12, The Inspector General approved a recommendation that conduct an investigation into five allegations of misconduct by Maj Gen Schmidt, former Commander, FC, currently assigned to USAFE, Ramstein AB, Germany. The case was assigned to C01 -, who holds a appointment letter dated 18 May 12, and the investigation started on 30 Nov 12. BACKGROUND currently 34:2) 2 These authorities are outlined in Title 10, United States Code, Section 8020. 3 Title 10, United States Code, Section 8020(d) 4 . For continuity, we will refer to him as Maj throughout this report. 2 not be rele (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of he Inspector b6 b7c - Maj Gen Schmidt was during that period. He is currently . (EX 30:2) . He is currently . (Ex 33:2) Maj Gen Schmidt was . Maj Gen Schmidt was during that period. He is currently up Maj Gen Schmidt was He currently works in (Ex 29: 1-currently (Ex 35:2) LtCo1 is . He led the effort to recover missing aircraft parts following the retirement of a NATO aircraft. (Ex 36:2) Maj Gen Schmidt was . He is currently . (Ex 32:1-2) Maj Gen Stephen D. Schmidt was the Commander, FC, from Apr currently serving as the Special Assistant to the Commander, USAFE. (Ex 3) Maj Gen Schmidt was a USAF general officer occupying a NATO billet as the FC Commander. The main emphasis of the FC is to function as the headquarters element with oversight of the NATO Airbome Warning and Control System (AWACS) operation. The NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force E3A Component is located at NATO Air Base (AB) Geilenkirchen, Germany, and the FC is co-located with the SHAPE in Mons, Belgium. Previous to his assignment as the FC Commander, Maj Gen Schmidt was the Commander for the E3A Component at NATO AB Geilenkirchen. (EX 3) 3 (in whole or.in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector eral (SAF FOR OFFICIA USE ON (FOUO) b6 b7c The FC Commander billet rotates between a German general officer and a US general officer. There is-an international executive officer that works for the FC command staff, however when Maj Gen Schmidt _became the FC Commander, he brought two additional US officers to his front office. According to C01 -, these additional two officer billets were taken out of hide and fimctioned as Maj Gen Schmidt's US executive officer and aide--de-camp. (Ex 32:3) Maj Gen Schmidt stated the US executive officer functioned primarily to assist him with the performance reports and other< 2008 Edition,5 Part IV, paragraph 17, Article and maltreatment, applies as a standard for this issue. a. Text of statute. Any person subject to this chapter who is guilty of cruelty toward, or oppression or maltreatment of, any person subject to his orders shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. b. Elements. (1) That a certain person was subject to the orders of the accused; and (2) That the accused was cruel toward, or oppressed, or maltreated that person. 0. Explanation. (1) Nature of victim. "Any person subject to his orders" means not only those persons under the direct or immediate command of the accused but extends to all persons, subject to the code or not, who by reason of some duty are required to obey the lawful orders of the accused, regardless whether the accused is in the direct chain of command over the person. (2) Nature of act. The cruelty, oppression, or maltreatment, although not necessarily physical, must be measured by an objective standard. The imposition of necessary or proper duties and the exaction of their performance does not constitute this offense even though the duties are arduous or hazardous or both. (Ex 21 From DA Pamphlet 27-9, Military Judges Benchbook, 1 Jan 10, the Words cruel, oppressed, and maltreated "refer to treatment, that, when viewed objectively under all the circumstances, is abusive or otherwise unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful purpose and that results in physical or mental harm or suffering, or reasonably could have caused, physical or mental harm or suffering. (Ex 22:2-3) ANALYSIS. All of the witnesses questioned about this alleged maltreatment agreed with Lt Col that Maj Gen Schmidt was more critical of his immediate support staff than others in . the organization. (Ex 30:5--6; 31:3; 32:5 34:8; 35:6) In this case, the front office personnel consisted of those US Air Force members that occupied the positions of his executive officer and his aide-de--camp. For the time period of Jun 11 through Jul 12, there were a total of six individuals that occupied those two positions. 5 A revised edition of the Manual for Courts--Martial (MCM) was published in 2012, incorporating the MCM (2008 Edition) and including amendments made in 2008, 2010, and 2011. Thereare no differences between the 2008 and 2012 versions of Article 93. 5 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval A or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of he Inspector b6 b7c testified of all the people in Maj Gen Schmidt's front office, only Lt Col took Maj Gen Schmidt's behavior personally. (Ex 32:4) From all of the witness testimony, only Maj and Lt Col - believed Maj Gen Schmidt was verbally abusive towards them. Maj testified he received the same treatment from Maj Gen Schmidt as did Lt Col but this treatment affected Lt Col more than it did him. (Ex 30:5) Lt Col mentioned he was a witness to the treatment Maj and Lt Col and Maj Col received from Maj Gen Schmidt but he never felt that behavior was targeted at him. (Ex 31 Lt Col stated he did not let Maj Gen Schmidt's behavior bother him, based on his rated background and being used to direct debriefs. (Ex 33 Lt Col - explained why he thought Maj Gen behavior impacted some more than others_ when he described the working enviromnent: . If you have a weak personality or timid type of personality, the word on the street is those kind of folks didn't do well with [Maj Gen Schmidt] and uh, that's why he cycled through so many different people through that front officeall testified they had not witnessed Maj Gen Schmidt demonstrating demeaning behavior. (Ex 35:4; 33:5; 30:3) Col testified he was not a witness to demeaning behavior on the part of Maj Gen Schmidt, but he had been told about examples of demeaning behavior. (Ex 32:2) -Lt Col. characterized Maj Gen Schmidt's behavior as verbally abusive, cursing, yelling, demeaning and maltreatment and said he saw Maj Gen Schmidt being demeaning, belittling people, blaming things that were outside of their control on them." (Ex 31:3) Lt Col 'testified he was the subject of Maj Gen Schmidt's demeaning behavior and he had been told about examples of Maj Gen Schmidt's demeaning behavior towards others. (Ex 29: 13-14) Lt Col also indicated the verbal abuse occurred almost daily. (Ex 2:17) Maj mmfirmed Maj Gen Schmidt's yelling and cursing to be on a daily basis. (Ex 30:9-10) Maj also said Maj came to him many times in tears. (Ex 30:10) While Maj did not consider Maj Gen Schmidt's conduct abusive because it was "part of the job," he never had any other boss interact with him the way Maj Gen Schmidt did. (Ex 30:11) When asked if he -had known Maj Gen Schmidt to demonstrate demeaning behavior, Maj 2 stated: Not in public with me, but behind closed doors almost on a daily I would consider being yelled at, screamed at, um, calledan idiot on numerous occasions, um, tell me no shit Sherlock, I consider that demeaning. The screaming and the being called an idiot, yes that was an absolute daily event. (Ex 34:7) .The above testimony established that Maj Gen Schmidt yelled nearly daily basis. While Maj considered this conduct to be . 6 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector has b7cV "part o-f the job," Lt Col and Maj i found the behavior to be abusive. A preponderance of evidence, when viewed objectively under all the circumstances, supports that Maj Gen Schmidt's frequent yelling was abusive and otherwise unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful' purpose and it reasonably could have caused mental suffering. Other specific examples investigated in this report of maltreatment behavior include: 1. Maj Gen Schmidt's use of unprofessional language. (Ex 2:17) Maj Gen Schmidt pressuring his front office personnel to "skirt" the rules. (Ex 2:24) 3. Maj Gen Schmidt forcing his front office personnel to take orders from his wife. (Ex 2: 1 8) 4. Maj Gen Schmidt throwing paperclips at Lt Col and hitting him in the with one. (Ex 29:13) 5. Maj Gen Schmidt "taking paperwork away from Maj - ripping it up, and throwing it back at his chest. (Ex 29: 14) - 6. Maj Gen Schmidt yelling at Maj for potentially causing a crew rest violation. (Ex 34:4) 7. Maj Gen Schmidt yelling at Maj - for having taken leave and then subsequently not allowing him to take more leave which resulted in lost leave for Maj (Ex 34:6) 8. Maj Gen Schmidt yelling at Maj - for failing to properly set up a meeting with an office at'Ramstein AB. (Ex 34:7) 9. Maj Gen Schmidt yelling at Maj 2 related to late transportation requiring them to walk to their hotel and subsequently getting lost in Brussels. (Ex 34:8) E9 In relation to example number 1, everyone who was questioned about this testified Maj Gen Schmidt did occasionally curse. Maj -, Lt Col 2, and Maj agreed with Lt Col that Maj Gen Schmidt used unprofessional language. Maj does believe Maj Gen Schmidt used unprofessional language, but only in closed door settings with Lt Col and Maj -. (Ex 30:6) Lt Col said he heard Maj Gen Schmidt curse and he thought it was unprofessional. (Ex 31 6) Maj testified Maj Gen Schmidt did use unprofessional language through cursing behind closed doors at his executive officerand aide- de-camp. Maj I clarified this cursing consisted of the phrase "no shit, Sherlock" (Ex 34:10) and he would use that term probably twice a week. (Ex 34:15) Specific examples brought forward in this investigation of Maj Gen Schmidt's potential use of unprofessional language include: 1) "He would cuss us out and yell at us and say haven't .you talked to F--ing wife yet." (Ex 29:11) 2) "As a pilot I didn't appreciate that too much6 and I told him that, and he goes well sorry about that, maybe you should have been wearing some f-ing racquetball goggles and he kind of laughed like it was an accident." (Ex 29:13-14) 3) go in 6 This refers to a paperclip throwing incident that will be discussed later in this report. 7 not be rele (in whole or in party, reproduced, or given ecior general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of he Inspector eral (SAF b6 b7c his office and I ask, and he walked over and closed the door and just started going through this tant~, no, I can't even, a better word for it, a temper tantrum, you know, pacing back and forth, you know hands going crazy, screaming how I couldn't possibly know that, I'm an idiot-, um, and after about. 15 or 20 minutes of that yelling at me he kicked me out of the office." (Ex 34:7) 4) you are fucking letting me down." (Ex_2:19) 5) "Dumbass." (Ex 2:20) -6) "Fucking garbage." (Ex 2:23) 7) 'what part of 'get out of my fucking house did you not_ understand?" (Ex 2:25) 8) you are not flicking listening. 3 I told you on speakerphone today that the slides are a fucking mess." (Ex 2:25) 9) "Thanks for letting coliair into my fucking house." (Ex 2:26) 10) don't give a fuck about them! I want to be there on the flight line 5 minutes before takeoff. The can fucking stand there and wait for me." (EX 2:27) and 11) I don't give a fuck where your whether or not you have a flicking dog whether someone's dog fucking I don't give a shit about any of tha (Ex 2:27) Lt Col - does not believe Maj Gen Schmidt used unprofessional language. He admitted on occasion Maj Gen" Schmidt did curse,.but he did not find that to be unprofessional. (Ex 33:7-8) "Col - alsostated he did not think Maj Gen Schmidt used unprofessional language. Maj Gen Schmidt did on occasion use curse words, but only behind closed doors. (Ex 32:6) Lt Col jstated Maj Gen Schmidt has been known to use "colorful" language (Ex 35:6) . but he did not believe it was unprofessional, and when it did occur it was always behind closed doors with the front office staff.. (EX 35:7) Lt Col 2 did notice on one occasion Maj Gen Schmidt used unprofessional language, cursing at Lt Col (Ex 31:6). Maj Gen Schmidt testified: I said in my statement, on occasion have used PG-13 profanity for emphasis, but not in a formal or open setting, and, and it was never used in a demeaning, it was never directed at my staff or used to personally, you know, degrade somebody." (Ex 37:60) Maj Gen Schmidt "mentioned unprofessional language was more common with this assignment because "there's a totally different standard over here in Europe." (Ex 37:61) He also blamed his front office personnel for using similar" unprofessional language. (Ex 37:60) Maj Gen-Schmidt stated: On occasion I did use profanity for emphasis, even" sometimes out of frustration, as did other members of the staff. But if I did use profanity, it was usually just one word, in private, in my office with the door closed, and it was not derogatory or directed at anyone. As an example, I have said things like "what the hell is going on?" (Ex 39:5) Maj Gen Schmidt relied on his front office staff to inform him if they believed he ever crossed the linein his dealings with others. He specifically mentioned he expected Lt Col -to play a "red card" with him. (Ex 37:65) The IO noted while this is not an - uncommon technique applied by senior leaders, the issue in this case is the one individual employed by Maj Gen Schmidt to play this "red card" is one of the two people most impacted by his behavior. I 8 not be rele (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination in whole or in part) of The Inspector eral (SAF b6 b7c In relation to example number 2, Maj - agreed with Lt Col and testified he did believe Maj Gen Schmidt pressured his subordinates into skirting the rules, but he could" not . provide any specific examples of this behavior. (Ex 34:20) LtCol I also felt pressure from Maj Gen Schmidt to drop his efforts at finding missing aircraft parts, further discussed in Allegation 5 below. (Ex 36:8) The rest of the witnesses interviewed stated they did not believe Maj.Gen Schmidt ever pressured his subordinates into skirting the rules. (Ex 30:21; 31:8; 32:8; 33:13; 34:8) Col 2 expanded on this topic when he testified: I don't know that I would saythat he-wanted them to skirt rules; I know that he had some, some ideas about what I think he had some ideas about what uh, he was entitled to, and I don't know, and I think thatlthey tried to protect him from what he may, what he may have misunderstood as, as something he was entitled to; I don't know that I . would say that he tried to skirt the rules. I would offer that in the context of NATO is maybe one reason where you can't take no for answer the first he was trying, often times trying to get the mission done, you know, trying to do it one particular way doesn't work, try another I think that when, when there was an impediment to try to accomplish something, he tried to look atlalternate ways to do the mission. (Ex 32:8) - Lt Col testified he was pressured by Maj Gen Schmidt to skirt the rules through routine demands to get him military airlift even if that airlift was not operationally feasible or costeffective. (Ex 29:4) With regard to his standard operation procedures regarding daily business Maj Gen A Schmidt testified: I asked the exec to absolutely 100% keep me legal. And even if you think it's a gray area, we're not going to do it is what I said. . .. Then I said any time there was a question if it's gray you don't do it. Either get it approved or we don't do" it. (Ex 37:77) With regard to example 3, the role Maj Gen Schmidt's -played in this situation, Lt Col testified he felt pressure to take orders from her; he clarified: My complaint is that he told us that she's in charge of that, uh, when it came to his personal travel, there were times where weiwould come into his office, and go sir would you like this flight, that flight, or this flight. He would cuss us out and yell at us and say haven't you talked to F--ing -yet. And we'd be like, well sir, this is your travel, your jnot even going on this trip, and he would say, he would defer us to her would then [have] been very sarcastic and rude with He basically said, my ows best, you listen to her and in front of all the people I mentioned said, sir we don't work for you! you work for our- jokingly, and the General laughed and he goes yeah that's true, but when my talks about my personal travel, she's the one 9 . (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector eral (SAF b6 _b7c to talk to, not me, and then of course we 'had to deal with her berating us all the time. (Ex 29:11-12) In his written complaint, Lt Col - elaborated on this interaction with Maj Gen Schmidt's-when he said: - The General created an environment which empowered his -to direct us/tell us what to do regarding the general's official travel. She was used make her point, emailed her husband complaining about us even though she knew we read his I confronted the General in mid--January and told him that I don't appreciate his emails and bullying. Maj was in the office when I confronted him. I also said I don't like that she emails him stuff about us that isn't true (that we are that we don't care about her She was very rude, demanding andauthoritarian and the front office staff did not like the power that was delegated to her by Maj Gen Schmidt. (Ex 2:18) In one email from Mrs. to Maj Gen Schmidt's official military email account, she wrote, "Since thinks all my calendar requests unimportant, perhaps it would be best if told him to put this on ur calendar." (Ex 2:11) A 5 Dec 11 email from Mrs. to Lt Col demonstrates the controlling and demeaning nature of her interaction when she stated "So here's what he needs, step by step, in case it's not clear already." . (Ex 2:14) Maj Gen Schmidt also included this 5 Dec 11 email from his in the additional documents he provided after his interview. (Ex 39:44) The IO views these emails as being indicative of the directive, rude, insistent behavior mentioned by Lt Col above. Maj stated that he did interact with Maj Gen Schmidt's- at least weekly concerning his role in arranging the General's schedule. Maj classified Mrs. as "a-who fought hard to keep her husband plugged into the family." (Ex 45) Maj added the interaction with Mrs. - did add to the stress of his job and he stated "There were several occasions when I was frustrated with her inputs/questions about travel and it drove me several times to vent to the Exec." (Ex 45) Maj Gen Schmidt described his jas someone that would never be involved in the affairs of his office. He stated he never required his front office personnel to take orders from his - (Ex 37:30) Maj Gen Schmidt did admit he asked his front office personnel to work with his-on the details of his trips to deconflict specific issues. (Ex 37:82) The 10 noted in this instance Maj Gen Schmidt's testimony seemed contradictory. With regard to example 4, the throwing of paperclips, Lt Col - described the incident: 10 not be rele (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector b6 b7c He threw a paperclip at my face within the first couple of weeks of working for him; he flicked it at my face, it hit me in the eye. As a pilot I didn't appreciate that too much and I told him that, and he goes well sorry about that, maybe you should have been wearing some f-ing racquetball goggles and he kind of laughed like it was an accident. I do believe it was some of an accident, but he flicked at me on purpose. He also flicked twenty more on the floor, so and told me to pick them up. (Ex 29:13-14) Maj Gen Schmidt remembered this incident concerned some NATO classified information that was attached to unclassified documents in his inbox on his desk. When he discovered this he called Lt Col into his office to discuss why they should not use paperclips_ and show him the materials. (Ex 37:88) Maj Gen Schmidt also discussed this incident in the additional information he provided after the interview. (Ex 39: 15-16) Maj Gen, Schmidt described the incident: . I tossed [a paperclip], I did not throw it, I tossed it into now the -empty outbox because I picked up the pile and put it here. I was, um, on the far side of the desk and it bounced out of the box. The paper, one paperclip. One paperclip. And it, I never saw it hit-him. I don't think it was possible that it hit him, and I say that physically because, uh, it, it just wasn't physically possible for a clip to bounce halfway out of the box, halfway across the room, and he, he didn't, didn't flinch, didn't do anything, stood there for a second, and he -said it hit me in the eye, and -I immediately, I didn't see that, I didn't think it was possible. I immediately apologized. 'No, never, obviously this wasn't, it wasn't obviously intended, but I never saw it hit him. (Ex 37:89) - - The only evidence concerning this incident is the testimony of the complainant and the suspect in this case. This testimony portrays two divergent versions of what happened during an interaction between the complainant and the suspect, and there is no other evidence or indicia of truth to support which version is more accurate. In relation to example number 5, taking paperwork away from Maj 2, ripping it up, and throwing it back at his chest, Lt Col relayed the facts as he recalled them: came to me, Iwas a witness after the fact; - was practically crying because the General grabbed stuff out of his hands, ripped it up and threw it at his chest and stuff like that, that was just only one month' before I took over as the Exec and - was, - resigned. (Ex 29:14) - - Maj 2 described this event: brought [Maj Gen Schmidt] a power point presentation 'which he did not like. He crumbled it up and tossed it in my general direction. . .. It was one piece of paper and I picked it up and carried on. I would only classify that as abusive because it came with a verbal beating." (Ex 20) Maj - admitted the description of events he originally relayed to Lt Col 'might have been exaggerated because he was upset at the timerele (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of he Inspector era! (SAF quite far apart. Based on the fact Maj has no apparent reason to lie; Maj b6 b7c Maj Gen Schmidt could not recall this event. He testified he would never act in such a manner because he was exposed to a similar circumstance when he was a squadron commander, he considered it a bad example of leadership, and therefore he would never do something like that. (Ex 37:87) Maj Gen Schmidt also discussed his viewpoint that this incident never could have occurred, as described in the additional information he provided after his interview. (Ex 39:13) - The two sides of this story as resented by Lt Col -- and Maj Gen Schmidt are told Lt Col confirmed to the of this incident shortly after it is alleged to have occurred; Maj IO the incident occurred, but acknowledged the version he relayed to Lt Col may have been exaggerated because Maj was upset at the time he told Lt Col and the I incident described by Maj is consistent with other witness testimony concerning conduct exhibited by Maj Gen Schmidt, the IO determined Maj -- description of this event, as presented in his 15 Jan 13 email, to be a credible account of what occurred. In relation to example number 6, 'Maj Gen Schmidt yelling at Maj - for disturbi_ng his crew rest, Maj i recalled the incident when he testified: It was actually my first business trip with him inTrapani, Sicily, and so I had only been in this job for about a week and a half, and he was flying that night over Libya, so he was going into crew rest, and the one star from the base, he's either a one star or a two star, I think he's a one star Italian officer, wanted to push his_meeting up by one hour with 'the General, so I thought that was important to let him know that so I called him to-let him know about the pushing of his meeting with the Italian General, so he goes okay, thanks, we hung up, and then I go pick him up and the entire ride to the office he's just screaming at me in the car based on how I busted his crew rest for calling him for five minutes, letting him know that the one star meeting was pushed up, and, you know, if there's an IG Complaint he would be destroyed because I busted his crew rest. (Ex 34:4) Maj Gen Schmidt recalled this incident -and mentioned Maj 2 did not understand crew rest issues because he was a "comm person." (Ex 37:86) Maj Gen Schmidt went on to say: No, I absolutely don't remember ever uh, cussing at --, first of all. And yes, he, it may have been a phone call during crew, rest, but this was a case where he wasn't a crew member, didn't know, and, and actually beyond that, he was in a situation that he didn't know what to do, so he called me. (Ex 37:84) I don't remember the specifics of that phone call, though, but even if I did violate crew rest, or someone did call me and violate crew rest, yes, I would have told them so it didn't happen again. (Ex 37:86) While he does not admit to cussing about this issue, Maj Gen Schmidt did express his disappointment about the way things were working concerning crew rest on that trip in an email to his staff. (Ex 39:11) 2 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector eral (SAF b6 b7c Maj Gen Schmidt described his crew qualification as being a first pilot in the AWACS aircraft. He also mentioned he chose to only fly with instructor pilots; therefore if he ever had to I back out of a sortie it would not impact the mission. (Ex 37:85-86) While the testimony of both Maj - and Maj Gen Schmidt establishes Maj I called Maj Gen Schmidt While Maj Gen Schmidt was in crew rest, how Maj Gen Schmidt handled the situation is in dispute. Based on the fact Maj - has no apparent reason to lie; Maj Gen Schmidt was obviously frustrated about the crew rest incident; Maj version of the incident was not obviously overstated; and the incident described by Maj is consistent with other witness testimony concerning conduct exhibited by Maj Gen Schmidt, the IO determined Maj testimony concerning this incident to be a credible account of what occurred. With regard to example 7, Maj Gen Schmidt yelling at Maj for having taken leave, Maj i recalled the incident: There was a leave incident in August that I took. I took leave with um, leave with my -to go to Germany for about five days, and two of them were on the" weekend, and he was on leave at the same time, so Ithought I had everything squared away at the office, and no, I gave our things to a British Major who was in the front office as well at that point. I passed everything off to him and the General was also on leave, so I thought I was free to finally take a day of leave with my family, um, and so like, I get back from Germany and the minute I walk in the office he pulls me in there and starts yelling' at me about how 1, how he doesn't know how I thought I was allowed to take leave, in the position I'm in and things like that, sothat, that proved that I can't take anymore leave on i this job, so Iwound up losing about a week, exactly seven days to be exact. (Ex 34:5-6) . Maj Gen Schmidt did not recall this incident and claimed he never would have acted in such a manner. He denied knowing Maj 2 had lost any leave during that time frame. Maj Gen- Schmidt also testified he always encouraged his subordinates to take their leave as a healthy way to spend time with their families. (Ex 37:87) Maj Gen Schmidt mentioned this issue in the additional information he provided after his interview, and laid the responsibility for managing the aide's leave on the US executive officer. (Ex 39:13) Maj I recalled having this particular leave verbally approved in advance by Maj Gen Schmidt and electronically approved by Lt Col (Ex 34:6) According to Maj -- leave records, he did lose seven. days of leave thatfiscal year. (Ex 12) The testimony of Maj I and Maj G_en Schmidt is once again in dispute. Based on the fact Maj 2 has no apparent reason to lie; Maj assertion he lost seven days of leave was supported by leave records; Maj version of the incident was not obviously overstated; and the incident described by Maj - is consistent with other witness testimony B13 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector eral (SAF b6 b7c concerning conduct exhibited by Maj Gen Schmidt, the IO determined Maj testimony concerning this incident to be a credible account of what occurred. The IO detennined it was reasonable, given the relationship between Maj - and Maj Gen Schmidt, Maj - became reluctant to take leave after this incident. Therefore, he did not take any more leave that fiscal year, which resulted in seven days of lost leave. With regard to example 8, Maj Gen Schmidt yelling at 'Maj 2 for failing to properly set up a meeting with an office at Ramstein AB, Maj I testified: [Maj Gen Schmidt] needed to speak with some person up in Ramstein. He gave me some acronym, and being not an AWACS person I had no clue -what that acronym was. I just had no idea. You know, I Google'd it, I looked it up, I asked everyone in the office, they don't know who this is, I even walked the halls, and no one knew._ So I figured instead of me wasting three hours trying to figure this out I'm just going to ask. He obviously knows who he wants to talk to so let me just ask the guy the name, so I go in his office and I ask, and he walked over and closed the door and just started going through this tant-, no, I can't even, a better word for it, a temper tantrum, you know, pacing back and forth, you know hands going crazy, screaming how I couldn't possibly know that, Pm an idiot, um, and after about 15 or 20 minutes of that yelling at me he kicked me out of the office and he never actually gave me the answer of who he Wanted to talk to. (Ex 34:6- 7) . I Maj Gen Schmidt relayed there is no waythis could have occurred because in conjunction with his trips to Ramstein, he always travelled alone. He maintains because of that he arranged all of his own off1'ce,calls and would not have asked his aide to arrange a meeting like that. (Ex 37:91) Based on experience and common Air Force practices the IO determined it is normal for the aide to be responsible for arranging meetings for their boss, even if they were not going to be accompanying the boss on a trip. Further, Maj 2 has no apparent reason to lie; Maj version of the incident was not obviously overstated; and the incident described by Maj consistent with other witness testimony concerning conduct exhibited by Maj Gen Schmidt. Therefore, the IO determined Maj testimony concerning this incident to be a credible account of what occurred. is In relation to example number 9, Maj Gen Schmidt yelling at Maj 2 related to late transportation, -Maj - recalled the situation: We were meeting up in Brussels for the BOD, Board of Directors meeting for NATO AWACS, and we had a bus pick us up at the hotel and drive us to NATO Headquarters, and we me and the General are in service dress, and the meeting got over early, so the bus was going to be another half hour to pick us up, and we didn't have a driver at 14 not be rele (in whole or in para), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) i of The Inspector eral (SAF b6 b7c that point, so I said is the bus going to be about a half an hour, he said no, we're walking then. Um, I advised him against that because when I picked those bus tickets up I did not really, Idid not know the directions of how to get back to the hotel, other than my phonephone, so I preferred to possibly wait for the bus. I advised him against that, plus, with the regulations at that point we were not supposed to be in public . in uniform, especially in a foreign country, so I advised him against that course of action, and he overruled me, so we started walking to the hotel, and we got lost. Uh, and then, the whole trip I was telling him how I didn't know the "directions to the hotel. We finally found it, but it was not a good situation for us to be in, walking in Brussels-in full service dress in a foreign country. (Ex 34:8) Maj indicated Maj Gen Schmidt yelled at him during this incident and stated he considered this behavior to be cruel. (Ex 34:8) . Maj Gen Schmidt recalled a different version of the facts and testified: We were walking at least half an hour and I was almost late to dinner for an event that we had that night. We had no idea where we were, we were walking around downtown Brussels, I'm in service dress onthe side of the street. We?re flagging down a bus and they can't tell us directions. It was unsafe. I really thought it was unsafe. That's what I remember aboutthat. But I, if anything, I was on my best behavior there. Did not yell at, frustrated, yes, especially when we can't figure out where we are when we're on the phone with the hotel, giving them a street address, and they said no idea where we are. So what, what really happened, though was, in that case,.I didn't know where we were going. The aide was the guy, and I would have stayed for the bus, absolutely. I-wouldn't have, I didn't charter a bus. It would have been authorized to take a taxi, even. There were taxis out there. So if I'd known it was far or where we were going I wouldn't have said that, but Itook his recommendation to walk, and we didn't know where we were going. We got lost, significantly. We even backtracked because we had only walked so far, and I thought it was an unsafe situation, but no, there wasn't any yelling, and I know . there wasn't any profanity. Back to the same reason I talked about with Capt it wouldn't have done any good. I wouldn't have done that on the side of the street. I wouldn't have used a flurry of any kind of profanity in that situation. (Ex 37:94-95) Maj Gen Schmidt discussed this issue fisrther in the additional information he provided after his interview. Maj Gen Schmidt?s frustration with this situation is evident in how he described the events that day. (Ex 39:12) Once again, the testimony of Maj - and Maj Gen Schmidt is at odds. Based on the fact Maj - has no apparent reason to lie; Maj Gen S_chmidt was obviously frustrated about this incident; Maj version of the incident was not obviously overstated; and the incident described by Maj is consistent with other witness testimony concerning conduct exhibited' by Maj Gen Schmidt, the IO determined Maj I testimony concerning this incident to be a credible account of what occurred. 1 5 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of he Inspector eral (SAF b6 b7c For the purpose of analyzing if these behaviors represent maltreatment of subordinates-p through abuse, we will apply the UCMJ, Article 93, elements.; (1) That "a certain person was subject to the orders of the accused. (Ex 21 figs, As the FC Commander, and in their chain of command, Maj Gen Schmidt was in such a position that his supervision of his executive officers and aides caused them to be subject to his orders. This relationship meets the "nature of the victim" explanation from Article 93 of the UCMJ. That the accused was cruel toward, or oppressed, or maltreated that person. (Ex 21:2) E. Lt Col 2 described Maj Gen Schmidt's-behavior as being like a hairdryer, "You i may get the initial [hair] dryer, but once you could get past that, he usually settled down." (Ex 35:3) Maj I resigned from his position as the aide after less than four months' time on the job. (Ex 34:2) Maj - described the impact he sustained from this job in a 15 Jan 13 email when he said, "It is because these types of events and verbal beating were a daily occurrence and created for me a hostile work environment, I personally hated coming to work and it was severely affecting my personal life." (Ex 20) Lt Col -- also resigned from his position as after less than six months' time on the job. (Ex 29:2) Lt Col -- testified to the impact of the treatment he received from Maj Gen Schmidt when he said: During my time as -L, I started seeing a counselor due to anxiety and stress caused by the abusive environment Maj Gen Schmidt created. I am still having sleeping problems, marriage problems and I will continue counseling until I'm back to normal. (Ex 2:17) Collectively, the witnesses described Maj Gen Schmidt's leadership style as: 0 "rough, old school" (Ex 33:3) 0 "the worst I've seen," it did not follow the "servant leadership" model, and he created a "repressive environment" (Ex 31 - 0 "very hands-on" and detail oriented (Ex 32:2) 0 "very aggressive" and "very direct" (Ex 30:2) 0 "I've seen a lot of good and bad leadership styles in my career, but he's just down, downright I believe he got to the place he got to because he gets results. Unfortunately, he gets results on the backs of the people that work for him." (Ex 34:3) 0 "He was raised in SAC and he lives in the SAC world a lot of times still." (Ex 35:3) 1 6 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of he Inspector eral (SAF b6 b7c 0 "a verbally abusive leader." (Ex 2:17) Maj Gen Schmidt testified he thoughtw was "mild mannered" and ai"sensitive person." (Ex 37:92) He also testified Lt Col had a lot of "problems" and that he was aware there were "issues" that existed between him and Lt Col (Ex 37:68-69) The IO determined Maj Gen Schmidt should have been aware of this and he should have taken into account with regard to the way he treated his subordinates. One month after his formal interview with the 10 Maj Gen Schmidt submitted an -additional 65 pages of information concerning this allegation. The main effort in his latest submission places the blame for these complaints about his behavior on the US front office' personnel themselves for hearsay, complete fabrication of the truth, and a lack of competence. In describing how he counseled these people for their mistakes Maj Gen Schmidt wrote: Thoughat times the words used were stern and direct-conceivably someone might" consider it a chewing out-but it was not cussing, profanity-laden, inappropriate or unjustified. (Ex 39:1) . - . Based on consistent witness testimony that all conflicted with the above viewpoint, the IO found Maj Gen Schmidt's Written' assertion to not be credible. While reasonable 'minds may differ on whether each individual example listed above rose to the level of constituting maltreatment, the totality of the circumstances concerning the treatment of Lt Col and Ma' as detailed' above, in con'unction'with When viewed objectively under all the circumstances, Maj Gen Schmidt's conduct was abusive and otherwise unwarranted, unjustified, and unnecessary for any lawful purpose and it resulted in mental suffering. Maj Gen Schmidt's targeted behavior, when viewed from an objective -standard, does appear to have been bullying, cruel, and oppressive. The toxic leadership attributed to Maj Gen Schmidt directly impacted both Maj - and Lt Col -- to the point their personal lives were impacted, they resigned from their positions, and one of them sought counseling. Maj Gen Schmidt's behavior toward Lt Col and Maj - was abusive and resulted in mental suffering. Therefore the evidence supports the second element of Article 93 of the UCMJ is met. 17 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) side of the b6 b7? We determined Maj Gen Schmidt's behavior and leadership were inconsistent with the expectations as spelled out in Article 93 of the UCMJ. Maj Gen Schmidt failed to treat his front office subordinates with dignity and respect, and failed to demonstrate the underlying leadership principles that inspire motivation, confidence, enthusiasm, and trust in subordinates, and foster a healthy command climate. The pattern of frequent abusive behavior demonstrated by Maj Gen Schmidt towards his front office personnel is the root source of this complaint. The preponderance of -evidence supports Lt Col -- and Maj - were subject to Maj Gen Schmidt's orders and Maj Gen Schmidt was cruel and oppressive towards them. By a preponderance of evidence, the allegation that Maj Gen Stephen D. Schmidt, from on or about 1 Jun 11 to on or about 26 Jul 12, maltreated his front office US personnel, in violation of the Manual for Courts-Martial, 2008 Edition, Part IV, paragraph 17, "Article 93-- Cruelty and maltreatment, was SUBSTANTIATED. ALLEGATION 2. That Maj Gen Stephen D. Schmidt, from on or about 1 Apr 09 to on or about 26 Jul 12, "failed to keep records documenting the cost and purpose of representation fund expenditures and failed to comply with the guidelines that representation funds only be used to represent the organization to extemal audiences, as required by Allied Command Operations Directive 60-52, Oflicial Representation and Hospitality, 17 Feb 06. STANDARDS. Allied Command Operations Directive (AD) 60-52, Ofiicial Representation and Hospitality, 17 Feb 06, is the governing directive for the use of NATO representation and hospitality funds. Applicable guidance from paragraph 2.1 states in pertinent part: 2-1 Policies. The primary purpose of hospitality and representation funds is to facilitate the projection of a positive image of the specific organization and NATO as a 1 whole to external audiences. While this funding is not intended to subsidize subsistence costs of NATO personnel, NATO personnel are not expected to privately fund legitimate public relations costs relatedto the international mission. a. Representation and Hospitality funds are provided to the Commanders, who may make sub-allocations to their most senior staff and subordinate commanders. as considered reasonable and required. . b. Both representation and hospitality funds" are accountable; however each type of funding has different records keeping and reporting procedures. Hospitality funding is administered through the HQ Financial Controller in the official accounts of the Headquarters in accordance with nonnal NATO financial obligation and expenditure procedures. At the option of the HQ Commander, representation funds may be administered in this same way. _Altemative1y, representation funds may be expended (registered in the official accounts as a fonna1_ payment) upon distribution to the 18 This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. recipient. In this case, the recipient is required to maintain a memorandum record and associated documentation of expenditures made with these funds. c. Representation Funds are provided for the purpose of minor official expenses associated with representing the organization to external audiences. They will be used at the discretion of the recipient, and a record will be kept locally to document the cost and purpose of expenditures. Representation funds are not intended for purposes such as gifts for departing staff, presents for vendors, office decorations and daily office coffee. Representation funds are to be managed in such a marmer as not to produce personal gain for the recipient or create potential embarrassment to the organization. d. The use of Hospitality funds are governed by the following principles: (I) Official hospitality may consist of light refreshments coffee, tea) at conferences and other large-scale gatherings. A Vin d'honneur and a lunch or dinner may be offered on exceptional occasions. (2) The cost of the following participants may be eligible for reimbursement from hospitality funding: . Visiting dignitaries, participants in - conferences and meetings and public information target groups. i I The accompanying spouses of these guests. The ACO staff essential as official host(s) in the ratio of one host to one guest. In the case of one guest, two hosts are eligible. For conferences and meetings with the majority of participants from ACO the normal procedure is to collect conference fees and to pay for social events from funds collected from participants. In exceptional cases, Commanders may authorize hospitality funds to be used to support a single Vin d'honneur or similar low cost hospitality. (3) Hospitality funds are not to be used for: Social entertainment or hospitality on a non-official basis. Functions heldin a private home, unless considered the most cost effective and appropriate venue and approved in advance by the Commander or Chief of Staff. (Ex 23:4-5) ANALYSIS. Maj Gen Schmidt maintained a supply of wine that was purchased with representation funds, to be. used as gifts. (Ex 37:3) AD 60-52, paragraph 2-1 sets out that representation funds are provided for minor official expenses associated with representing the organization to external audiences, and they are not intended for purposes such as gifts for departing personnel. (Ex 23 Maj 2 did recall one incident where he believed Maj Gen Schmidt gave a bottle of this wine to a departing German non-commissioned officer as a farewell gift. (Ex 30:18testimony was reinforced when Maj - also stated Maj Gen Schmidt gave this wine b7c to members Within Force Command as a going away gift. (Ex 34:12) Maj Gen Schmidt testified about a wooden box used to hold this wine and how the Wine bottles did not fit smoothly into this box. (Ex 37.: 1) This tight fit caused the labels on some of 19 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector eral (SAF b6 b7c the IO by fitting an empty bottle of wine into a samplebox and showing the resultant scratched FC label on it. Maj Gen Schmidt stated it would have been embarrassing to use these damaged wine bottles for representation "purposes. (Ex.37:11) In light of that Maj Gen Schmidt elected to give these damaged bottles as farewell gifts to the departing staff members . 1 from FC. (Ex 37 :12) . the wine bottles to become scratched. (Ex 8:8) Maj Gen Schmidt demonstrated this tight fit to Maj Gen Schmidt did not attempt to get a waiver to AD 60-52, paragraph 2-1 concerning the section that prohibits giving gifts purchased with representation funds to individuals not considered an external audience. He stated: I could have requested a standing exception to give 2 to 3 FC wine bottles per year to departing senior personnel, damaged or not, but since these exceptions were not required, wouldn't be forwarded to the COS, and the common NATO practice was to give" this type of Representational item to departing senior personnel (not external audiences) anyway, I did not request another 4-star exception for these few FC wine I bottles per year. (Ex 40:3) By his own admission, Maj Gen Schmidt violated AD 60-52 when he presented wine purchased with representation money to individuals that were not external audiences. AD 60-52, paragraph 2-1.c, states arecord will be kept locally to document the cost and purpose of the representation fund expenditures. (Ex 23:4) Maj Gen Schmidt described a system he put in place to track the purchase of and use of this wine. He mentioned the FC front office personnel maintained a logbook used to track the representation when that money was used. Maj Gen Schmidt also mentioned. he directed the use of a spreadsheet to better capture who was given gifts from this representation pot of money and when. (Ex 37:6) He specified the extent of his directions: I directed additional in-depth record keeping locally by the FC Executive _Officer/Aides. To additionally ensure funds were prioritized and to stay within the amounts allocated yearly, I also directed that expenditures be documented in detail to identify for whom, what, when and by whom expenditures were made and for what purpose. (Ex 40:4) Maj testified there was no tracking system in place to ensure accountability of this wine or the method used to obtain it, "when I got there, you know, I couldn't even find an invoice of how many we started with, how many was left, you know." (Ex 30:19) Maj I described the record keeping process that was in place concerning these funds when he testified "when I took over the job, uh, the first thing I did was start going through the office and trying to recoup, uh recoup, uh, receipts because there was just a random folder that said hospitality fund, and there was all kinds of just loose receipts, hand receipts, uh, things like that." (Ex 30:19) 20 (in whole or in part9, reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector b6 b7c Maj . (Ex 13:2) At Maj Gen Schmidt's recommendation, we contacted Maj to get a_ better understanding' of how Force Command tracked these representation funds. Maj provided an intemal audit, completed on 15 Oct 12, done at the request of Maj Gen Schmidt's replacement which shows under the command of Maj Gen Schmidt the intemal tracking of representation funds was not conducted in accordance with AD 60-5 2. '(Ex 13) The audit revealed that records were kept in disparate locations, expenditures were not properly tracked, and there was an imbalance of 227.08 Euros. (Ex 13) The IO determined that Maj Gen'Schmidt failed to -ensure that the record keeping system he had in place was adequate enough to ensure compliance with AD 60-52. The evidence supports Maj Gen Schmidt violated AD 60-52 by failing to adequately track the expense of representation funds. CONCLUSION. By a preponderance of evidence, the allegation that Maj Gen Stephen D. Schmidt, from on or about Apr 09 to on or about Jul 12,- failed to keep records documenting the cost and purpose of representation funds and failed to comply with the guidelines that representation funds only be used to represent the organization to external audiences, as required by Allied Command Operations Directive 60-52, Oflicial Representation and Hospitality, 17 Feb 06, was SUBSTANTIATED3 ALLEGATION 3. That Maj Gen Stephen D. Schmidt, fi'om on or about 21 Jan 12 to on or about23 Jan 12, was improperly away from home duty station while not in an authorized leave status, in violation of AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, 26 Oct 09,- and AFI 65-114, Travel-Policy and Procedures for Financial Services Oflices and Finance Oflices-Reserve Component, 26 Aug 05. - 8 Maj Gen Schmidt alleged a mistake of fact defense (more fully addressed in thediscussion of Allegation 5) may apply to this allegation. (Ex 44) Rule for Courts--Martial (RCM) 9160) provides for a mistake of fact defense concerning offenses under the UCMJ. See MCM, Part II, RCM 916(j). This allegation does not assert a violation of the CMJ . Instead, it alleges" a violation of a directive, and the mistake of fact defense is not a relevant consideration in analyzing the allegation as written. The violation of the cited directive could be asserted as a dereliction of duty under Article 92 of the UCMJ. See MCM, Part IV, paragraphs 16.b(3) and The elements of negligent dereliction of duty are (1) that the accused had certain duties; (2) that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and (3) that the accused was, through neglect, derelict in the performance of those duties. MCM, Part IV, paragraph Even if the wrongdoing addressed in this allegation were analyzed as a negligent dereliction of duty, the evidence does not support a mistake of fact defense concerning any of the elements of that offense. . I 21 not be rele (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part)_ of The Inspector STANDARDS Pertinent to this allegation are sections from two AF Instructions. AF I 36-3003, Military Leave Program, 26 Oct 09, AF GM3, 11 Oct 11, states: Paragraph 6. Authorized Leave: 6.1.7. Leave Begins and Ends in the Local Area. The local area is the place where the member lives and from which he or she commutes to the duty station. Charge leave for duty days and non-duty days (for example, Friday through Monday) when members take leave on the day before and the day after non-duty days. .. 6.1.10. Leave or Duty Status Charge leave for non-duty days, including holidays, if the non-duty days fall between leave days. This applies to members who take leave in, or away from, the local area.) (Ex 24:4) AFI 65-114, Travel-Policy and Procedures for Financial Services Ofiices and Finance Oflices-Reserve Component, 26 Aug 05, states: 1 Paragraph 4.4 TDY Travel and Leave (Military Members Only): 4.4.1 General. A member on TDY may be authorized leave en route. 4.4.2. Leave En route to and from TDY. .. Charge leave for all excess travel time (any, days not included in the constructed schedule or days not categorized as travel 1 (Ex 25:2) ANALYSIS. 1 This allegation deals with Maj Gen Schmidt's temporary duty assignment (TDD to Seattle from 21 to 27 Jan 12 to attend an Airborne 'Warning and Control System/AjEW&C Program 'Mana ement Review conference; (Ex 15) In an email dated 5 Dec 11, Maj Gen Schmidt's directed that in conjunction with this Seattle TDY, his executive officer plan a I one or two day layover in Chicago for Maj Gen Schmidt. (Ex 14-15) Maj Gen Schmidt_stated that the reason he wanted to spend extra time in Chicago was "to visit my mother, who lives in a nursing home in Northern Indiana-, only a two hour drive from Chicago." (Ex 9:1) Maj Gen Schmidt's office calendar shows he left Europe on 21 Jan 12, and plarmed to get to Seattle on 23 Jan 12. (Ex 1:22-23) Maj Gen Schmidt's travel voucher agrees with those 1 dates. He approved and signed this travel voucher on 14 Feb 12. (Ex 15) The travel office at made an annotation on the manual travel voucher stating the itinerary was reconstructed because there was no approved authorized delay in Chicago. (Ex 15:3) In essence, because of this reconstruction the per diem was calculated for this trip as if it began on 23 Jan instead of 21- an because of the missing authorization for the en route delay. This note led to Maj Gen 22 not be rele (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. - This is' a protected docament. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector eral (SAF Schmidt not being reimbursed for two days' worth of per diem for that TDY. (Ex 15 Maj Gen Schmidt's leave records indicate he was not on leave for these days in Jan 12. (Ex 14:1) Maj Gen Schmidt stated his Aide advised him he_was allowed to use an en route rest stop - in Chicago in conjunction with this TDY. Therefore, he was not required to take any leave. (Ex 9:1) Maj Gen Schmidt stated his total travel time exceeded 14 hours and this fact entitled him to an en route rest stop. (Ex 9: 1) According to the Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JF TR), chapter 4, part D, Allowable Travel Time or TDY Travel, paragraph U4326: NOTE: When scheduling flights of 14 or more hours (see par. the member's first consideration is to always fly in economy class and arrive the day before the TDY begins to allow for appropriate rest. Second consideration is to fly in economy class and arrange an en route rest stop (preferablyat a no-cost point allowed by the airline) with 'arrival on the day TDY (Ex 26:2) 1 According to the JF TR, chapter 4, part D, Allowable Travel Time For DY Travel, paragraph U4326-C.2: OCONUS travel is Involved. The A0 may authorize/approve a rest stop en route when: a. The origin or destination is and . b. Travel is by a usually traveled route; and c. Travel is by less than accommodations; and d. The scheduled flight time, including stopovers and plane changes exceeds 14 hours by a usually. "traveled route. Scheduled flight time is the time between the scheduled. aircraft departure from the airport serving the point and the scheduled aircraft arrival at the airport serving the TDY point/PDS (the flight(s) between two duty points), including scheduled non-overnight time spent at airports during plane changes. (Ex 26:3) Maj Gen Schmidt chose to forego the first consideration of arriving at the TDY location the day before the TDY began to allow for appropriate rest, because the real reason hewanted to spend time in Chicago was so he could visit his mother in northem Indiana. (Ex 9:1) At paragraph U4326-C.2, the TR does allow an en route rest stop when travel outside the continental United States is involved; however, certain criteria must be met and" such a stop must be authorized/ approved by the appropriate approving official. (Ex 26:3) There is no documentation to support Maj Gen Schmidt asked in advance for an approved en route rest stop or he subsequently received approval for such an en route rest stop in accordance with the TR, paragraph U4326-C.2. To the contrary, Maj Gen Schmidt's travel voucher indicates the itinerary was reconstructed because there was no authorization for the delay. (Ex 15:3) Finally, Maj Gen Schmidt acknowledges the stopover was never authorized when he makes the argument it "should have been authorized." (Ex 41:2) 23 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) side of the Maj Gen Schmidt testified he had asked his front office personnel to be placed on leave for this time in Chicago, but he took no action to make sure it happened. (Ex 37:20) This leave is not documented in his leave records. (Ex 14:1) Maj Gen Schmidt also said he was told after the trip that the stop in Chicago was an authorized rest stop. (Ex 9:2; Ex 37:22) Maj Gen Schmidt's travel voucher indicates such an en route rest stop was never authorized or approved. (Ex 15 Maj Gen Schmidt additionally stated he was not aware there was any issue with the results of this particular travel voucher. Maj Gen Schmidt stated, "If my US Exec or Aide knew a voucher was incorrect, they were obligated to infonn me in order to correct any discrepancies." (Ex 41 The 10 noted ultimately the responsibility lies with the member to ensure compliance with leave and TDY regulations. For the stated purpose of visiting his mother in Indiana, the correct process would have placed Maj Gen Schmidt on leave for those two days in an 12. Without an approved, authorized en route rest stop and no approved leave, Maj Gen Schmidt was improperly away from home duty station while not in an authorized leave status. CONCLUSION. By a preponderance of evidence, the allegation that Maj Gen Stephen D. Schmidt, from on or about 21 Jan 12 to on 'or about 23 Jan 12, was improperly away fiom home duty station while not in an authorized leave status, in violation of AF I 36-3 003, Military Leave Program, 26 Oct 09, and AFI 65-114, ravel-Policy and Procedures for Financial Services Oflices and Finance Ofiices-Reserve Component, 26 Aug 05, was SUBSTANTIATED. 9 ALLEGATION 4. That Maj Gen Stephen D. Schmidt, from on or about 1 Jun 11 to on or about 26 Jul 12, failed to provide formal feedback to military personnel he rated, as required by AP I 36-2406, Officer 'and Enlisted Evaluation Systems36-2406, Oflicer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 15 Apr 05, incorporating through Change 3, 11 Oct 11. 9 Maj Gen Schmidt alleged a mistake of fact defense (more fully addressed in the discussion of Allegation 5) may apply to this allegation. RCM 9160) provides for a mistake of fact defense concerning offenses under the UCMJ. See MCM, Part II, RCM 9160). This allegation does not assert a violation of the UCMJ. Instead, it ialleges a violation of an AFI, and the mistake of fact defense is not a relevant consideration in analyzing the allegation as written. The violation of the cited AF 1 could be asserted as a dereliction of duty under Article 92 of the UCMJ. See MCM, Part IV, paragraphs 16.b(3) and The elements of negligent dereliction of duty are (1) that the accused had certain duties; (2) that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and (3) that the accused was, through neglect, derelict in the performance of those duties. MCM, Part IV, paragraph Even if the wrongdoing addressed in this allegation were analyzed as a negligent dereliction of duty, the evidence does not support a mistake of fact defense concerning any of the elements of that offense. 24 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination in whole or in part) I of The Inspector eral (SAF STANDARDS. AF I 36-2406, Oflicer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 15 Apr 05, incorporating through Change 3, 11 Oct 11,10 Chapter 2, govems the performancefeedback process. Applicable portions of Chapter 2 are included below: 2.1. Purpose. Performance feedback is a private, formal communication a rater uses to tell a ratee what is expected regarding duty performance and how well the ratee is meeting those expectations. Raters document performance feedback on the PFW and use the PFW format as a guide for conducting feedback sessions where they discuss objectives, standards, "behavior, and performance with the ratee. Providing this information helps an_ individual contribute to positive communication, improve performance, and grow professionally. The following information pertains to all military personnel except ANG enlisted personnel. . - 2.2. Responsibilities. 2.2.2. The rater will: 1 2.2.2.1. Prepare for, schedule, and conduct feedback" sessions -according to Table 2.1 (avoid conflicts with TDY, leave, etc., when possible), regardless of whether the rater received a feedback notice. 2.2.2.2. Stay aware of standards and expectations and consider them when providing feedback to personnel. 1 1 2.2.2.3. Provide realistic feedback to help the ratee improve performance. Realistic feedback includes discussionwith the ratee, and written comments on the PFW, "not just marks on the form. 1 2.2.2.4. Provide the original completed and signed PFW to the ratee. 2.2.2.5. Provide a copy of the signed. and dated feedback notice to the Commander Support Staff for filing. 2.3. Who Requires a Performance Feedback. Feedback is mandatory for all officers, -second lieutenant through colonel, and all AD and USAFR enlisted personnel. If an individual requests a feedback session, the rater will provide one within 30 days of receipt of the request, provided 60 days have passed since the last feedback session. Guidance for Conducting Feedback Sessions. Feedback sessions will be conducted . face-to-face. Table 2.1. Performance Feedback Requirements. A If the ratee is - Then the ratee requires the following feedback 2 or (AD and all EAD initial (see note 1; note4for non- As the timeframe of this allegation occurs before and after the date for Change 3, the IO reviewed both versions of this AFI. There are no changes of significance that impact this allegation. 25 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It not be rele additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of he Inspector b6 b7c USAFR), major or lieutenant Colonel EAD USAFR officers only) (includes officers on the ADL, EAD ANG, midterm (see note 2; note 4 for non- EAD and non-EAD USAFR officers) EAD USAFR officers only) NOTE: . I 1. The-rater must conduct the initial feedback session within the first 60 days he or she initially begins supervision. This will be the ratee's only initial feedback until they have a change of reporting official. 2. The rater must conduct the midterm feedback session midway between the date supervision begins and the projected close--out date of the next (Ex 27) ANALYSIS. Lt Col asserts Maj Gen Schmidt never provided him with formal feedback during his rating cycle as required by AFI 36-2406'. Lt Col clarified the feedback issue when he stated, "He gave me no initial feedback, he gave me no midterm feedback, he gave me no final feedback." (Ex 29:37) A -- 1 A The Air Force Element at SHAPE Headquarters is the office that functioned as the Commander Support Staff for the FC. Maj -, who --, stated his office did not provide notice for FC raters and ratees o_f impending feedback dates. There are no records maintained at the Air Force Element to document any performance feedbacks accomplished by Maj Gen Schmidt. (Ex 16) Lt Col 2 remembered scheduling a formal feedback session for Lt Col - to meet with Maj Gen Schmidt. He even remembered printing out the AF Form 724A for the explicit urpose of Maj Gen Schmidt using it to provide feedback for that meeting. (Ex 35:25) Lt Col recalled. that meeting: I did not receive any formal feedback. I received very little feedback on jobs. Like I said, the onetime he brought me in which his Exec called feedback, which was the incident that I relayed about uh, um, the time I went on leave. Uh, my understanding was that, as.the 'Exec set it up, was supposed to be a feedback session. I no form was used, no formal feedback was given. (Ex 31: 16) - The main issue with this allegation is not Maj Gen Schmidt failed to ever give feedback, but he failed to provide formal feedback, including the use of the PFW as required by AF I 36- 2406. In total, five witnesses were interviewed _that all served with Maj Gen Schmidt as their primary rater. None of them ever received any formal feedback, as defined in the AFI, from Maj Gen Schmidt. (Ex 29:37; 30:35; 31:16; 32:21; 33:23) Maj Gen Schmidt maintained the operating conditions in existence made it challenging to accomplish formal feedback as required by the AF 1. He did not have access to the appropriate Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW) forms. He was not provided these blank forms by his 26 not be rele (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. - his is a protected document. It additional dissemination in whole or -in part) of The Inspector eral (SAF SE ON (FOUO) .1 1 subordinates to facilitate him filling them out. (Ex 10:2) Maj Gen Schmidt testified he did provide formal feedback to all of the subordinates that he was the direct rater for; however he admitted he did not use the required PF form. (Ex 37:33) -Without the actual PF forms to consult and without the existence. of any records to show formal feedback sessions, there is little evidence to support Maj Gen Schmidt's assertion that he did comply with the AFI. Maj Gen Schmidt provided additional information concerning this allegation on 31 Jan 13. This additional information described email exchanges and calendar appointments used to show the feedback he provided to his subordinates. .(Ex 42; 43) As stated earlier, the issue here does not concem informal feedback between a rater and his ratee. Maj Gen Schmidt provided a substantial amount of evidence that he did conduct informal feedback with his subordinates. However,'he provided no evidence of having accomplished formal feedback as required by AF I 36-2406. CONCLUSION. By a preponderance of evidence, the allegation that Maj Gen Stephen D. Schmidt, from on or about 1 Jun 11 to on or about 26 Jul 12, failed to provide formal feedback to military personnel he rated, as required by AF1 36-2406, Oflicer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 15 Apr 05, and AFI 36-2406, Oflicer and Enlisted Evaluation'Systems, 15 Apr 05, incorporating through Change 3, 11 Oct 11, w-as SUBSTANTIATED. . . ALLEGATION 5. That Maj Gen 'Stephen D. Schmidt, on or about 22 Dec 11, wrongfully took a part from NATO Trainer Cargo Aircraft LX-N 20199, in violation of the Manual for Courts-Martial, 2008 Edition," Part IV, paragraph 46, Article and wrongful appropriation. STANDARDS. Manual for Courts-Martial, 2008 Edition, Part IV, paragraph 46, Article 121, pertains to this issue and addresses larceny and wrongful appropriation. a. Text of statute. Any person subject to this chapter who wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds, by any means, from the possession of the owner or of any other person any money, personal property, or article of value of any kind-- 3 (1) with intent permanently to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of property or to appropriate any person other than the owner, steals that property and is guilty of larceny A revised edition of the MCM was published in 2012, incorporating the MCM (2008 Edition) and including i amendments made in 2008, 2010, and 2011. There are no differences between the 2008 and 2012 versions of Article 121. 27 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination in whole or in parzj of The Inspector eral (SAF b. Elements (1) Larceny. That the accused wrongfully took, obtained, or withheld certain property from the possession of the owner or of any other person; - That the property belonged to a certain person; A That the property was of a certain value, or of some value; and That the taking, obtaining, or withholding by the accused was with the intent permanently to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of the property or permanently to appropriate the property for the use of the accused or for any person other than the owner. . .. (Ex 28) ANALYSIS. The incident involved with this allegation concerned the retirement input of 21 Trainer Cargo Aircraft (TCA) from the AWACS component at Geilenkirchen AB to Maastricht International Airport at the end of its service life on 22 Dec 11. (Ex 37:46) Lt Col stated he was not a direct witness to this event, but he heard secondhand about it. (Ex 17) At Lt Col request, Maj was consulted about this event. Maj - recalled this flight and stated: . After the delivery of the aircraft to a Dutch maintenance school the flight crew took some parts that couldn't be used in the future with intentions of giving [them] to' '05 squadrons to display. The following Monday [LtCol sent a Command-wide email b7c stating that the' parts must be returned-which I believe they were [Bottom Line] Sir I think the aircrew believed since the jet was being chopped up that the parts would not be needed. After the LtCol stated otherwise the parts were returned and he confirmed with me that he had all of the parts. (Ex 18) LtCol I described this aircraft retirement action when he stated: We retired the last of the three TCA's owned" by- uh, the NAEW and support to Maastricht Airport to be handed overto two civilian On that evening, I think about the 22"' or 23"' of December, um, we already discovered that,-um, a couple of instruments in the cockpit were missing there were a total of six pieces missing. Those six pieces were four flight instruments and two of the clocks located at the steering column. (Ex 36:2-3) LtCol I identified the aircraft in question as being TCA LX-N 20199. (Ex 19) LtCol - sent an email to the leadership within FC asking for their help in recovering the missing aircraft parts Jan 12, LtCol - met with Maj Gen Schmidt to discuss his efforts to get the missing aircraft parts back. According to LtCol -, Maj Gen Schmidt tried to convince LtCol - he did not need to start an informal 28 not be rele (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector b6 b7c investigation to get the parts back. (Ex 3623) In an email to LtCol I dated 5 Jan 12, Maj Gen Schmidt said, I see no need for threats or an investigation." (Ex 19:2) After a thorough discussion concerr1ing the guiding regulations pertinent to operational aircraft parts, LtCol - stated he continued to' pursue gathering these missing aircraft partsdespite the efforts from Maj Gen Schmidt to convince him otherwise. (Ex 36:8) 1 Maj Gen Schmidt testifie_d he was not the only one who took parts from this aircraft. He also stated he never received specific directions ahead of time that parts were not to be removed upon landing. (Ex 37:47-48) Maj Gen Schmidt fails to see any wrongdoing in this case because all of the parts were returned in the end. He stated, "There was a lack of communication between A NATO, the disposal company and the aircrew, but property was notwrongfully taken by anyone." (Ex 11:2) For the purpose of analyzing if this represents larceny, we will apply the UCMJ, Article 121, elements. - (1) That the accused wrongfully took, obtained, or withheld certain property from the possession of the owner or of any other person; (Ex 28:2) Maj Gen Schmidt was part of the flight crew that delivered this TCA for its retirement. (Ex 37:47) Maj Gen Schmidt testified that he did remove an angle of attack indicator from this aircraft after landing on 22 Dec 11 and before the retirement ceremony. (Ex 37:49) In response to LtCol -- efforts to retrieve the missing aircraft parts, on 10 Jan 12, Maj Gen Schmidt returned the missing angle of attack indicator to LtCol (Ex 36:3) Maj Gen Schmidt alleged his action of taking the angle of attack indicator for his own use was not wrongful. He stated: In the Explanation of the UCMJ Article, Para states ,"The taking of the property must be and "such an act is not wrongful if it is authorized by law or apparently lawful superior orders." No oneiin the cockpit knew that takingany of these items from the aircraft was wrong or that the aircraft parts were accountable in any way. (Ex 44:1) 4 Maj Gen Schmidt makes an argument concerning the interpretation of the word "wrongfu However, the flaw in his logic is the absence of any directive not to remove parts from this aircraft does not equal authorization by "law or apparently lawful superior orders" to remove said parts. Maj Gen Schmidt further argued a mistake of fact defense should be addressed. He cited provisions from DA Pamphlet 27-9, Military Judges' Benchbook, concerning wrongful 29 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of he Inspector appropriation" and quoted a portion of DA Pamphlet 27'-9 about when the mistake of fact defense" concerns an element of an offense involving specific intent, but he did not allege specifically what mistake of fact occurred in this case. (Ex 44:1) A review of Maj Gen Schmidt's testimony and all of Maj Gen ,Schmidt's submitted matters indicates that Maj Gen Schmidt is asserting the mistake of fact defense concerning whether or not his taking of the angle of attack indicator was wrongful. Maj Gen Schmidt repeatedly maintained he did not believe it was wrong to take this part. i DA Pamphlet 27-9 states in pertinent part: This is a general introduction to the defenses of ignorance or mistake and not an instruction. An issue of ignorance or mistake of fact may arise in cases where any type of knowledge of a particular fact is necessary to establish an offense. The standard for ignorance or mistake of fact varies with the nature of the elements of the offense involved. If the ignorance or mistake concerns an element of an offense involving specific intent desertion, larceny), willfulness willful" disobedience of an order), knowledge assault upon commissioned officer, failure to obey lawful order), or premeditation, the ignorance ormistake need only exist in the mind of the accused. Generally, for crimes not involving specific intent,-willfulness, knowledge, or premeditation, AWOL) ignorance or mistake must be both honest (actual) and reasonable. Extreme care must be exercised in using this test, however, as ignorance or mistake in some "general inten crimes need only be honest to be a defense. (See, e. Instruction 5-1 1-4, Ignorance or Mistake - Drug Offenses.) Moreover, in some "specific inten crimes, the alleged ignorance or mistake may not go to the element requiring specific intent or knowledge, and thus may have to be both reasonable and honest. (Ex 44:18, underline emphasis in original) 9 - As addressed above, Maj Gen Schmidt's' testimony and the matters he presented indicate he is asserting a mistake of fact defense concerning whether or not his taking of the aircraft part was wrongful. This element of Article 121 of the UCMJ does not require specific intent. It 9 merely requires the accused wrongfully took, obtained, orwithheld certain the possession of the owner or of any other person. (Ex 28:2) It is the element that requires the taking, obtaining, or withholding be done with the intent to permanently deprive, defraud, or appropriate (element 4, discussed below) that requires specific intent. (Ex 28:2) As' the element 12 Maj Gen Schmidt calls attention to DA Pamphlet 27-9, paragraph 3-46-2, Note 6. (Ex 44:1) This provision of DA Pamphlet 27-9 deals with wrongful appropriation, while the allegation concerns larceny. DA Pamphlet 27-9, paragraph 3-46-1, Note 5, contains a similar provision for the offense of larceny. The note deals with lost, mislaid, -or abandoned property. There is no evidence that the aircraft or its parts were lost, mislaid, or abandoned property. 9 13 RCM 9 l6(j)states in pertinent part, is a defense to an offense that the accused held, as a result of ignorance or mistake, an incorrect belief of the true circumstances such that, if the circumstances were as the accused believed them, the accusedkwould not be guilty of the offense." 30 (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector era! (SAF b6 b7c in question does not require specific intent, the mistake of factmust be both reasonable and honest to support a defense to the offense of larceny. Maj Gen Schmidt stated he did not think it was wrong to take the parts because the airplane was being "disposed of." (EX 44:1) Maj Gen Schmidt also indicated one in the cockpit knew that taking any of these items from the aircraft was wrong or that the aircraft parts were to be accountable in any way." (Ex 44:1) Maj Gen Schmidt further stated the E3A Component had responsibilities concerning the aircraft that included exercising logistics, engineering and configuration management authority and this authority to issue lawful orders to remove or take the aircraft parts was demonstrated when also symbolically handed the aircraft Form 250, Material Inspection and Receiving Report,] to the Netherlands. . (Ex 44:2) Finally, Maj Gen Schmidt alleged LtCol I was present when local Dutch government and com any officials presented to Maj Gen Schmidt the aircraft's front landing gear door, and LtCol did not say anything about accountable or missing parts. (Ex 44:2) The IO determined Maj Gen Schmidt's assertion that his taking this aircraft part was not wrongful centers on his statements that he understood the aircraft and its parts would be disposed of, and therefore it was not wrongful for him to take the angle of attack indicator. The other points raised by Maj Gen Schmidt serve to bolster that position. Even if Maj Gen Schmidt's alleged mistake of fact concerning the wrongfulness of the taking were honestly held by him at the time he took the aircraft part, the mistake of fact defense for this element also requires the mistake be reasonable. The 10 determined under the facts of this case, it was not reasonable for Maj Gen Schmidt to think his taking of the angle of attack indicator was not wrongful. First, it was notreasonable to assume just because the aircraft was being retired, operational parts on the aircraft could not be used by the owner of the aircraft. Second, the assertion no one in the cockpit knew taking items from the aircraft was wrong or the aircraft' parts were accountable does not make it reasonable for a major general in the United States Air Force to believe he could take any parts he wanted from the aircraft, to include operational parts. Third, even if the E3A Component, which fell under the command of Maj Gen Schmidt, exercised logistics, engineering and configuration management authorityover the aircraft in question when it was assigned to the E3A Component, does not necessarily translate into disposition authority upon retirement of the - aircraft. Lastly, the fact LtCol 2 was present when Dutch officials presented the aircraft's front landing gear door to Maj Gen Schmidt and LtCol - did not say anything about accountable or missing parts does not make the alleged mistake of fact reasonable. This presentation, which was part of a public ceremony, does not reasonably support the belief anyone could take whatever parts they wanted from the aircraft. Consequently, Maj Gen Schmidt's alleged mistake was not reasonable; therefore, Maj Gen Schmidt's taking of the angle of attack indicator was wrongful. The IO determined Maj Gen Schmidt wrongfully took the angle of attack indicator from NATO Trainer Cargo Aircraft LX--N 20199 from the possession of NATO, the owner of the 31 not be rele (in whole or in part), reproduced, or given ector general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination in whole or in part) of The Inspe.ctor property (ownership of the property is more fully addressed in the discussion of element 2 below). (2) That the property belonged to a certain person. (Ex 28:2) LtCol - 3 Jan 12 email spelled out the parts in question were removed from aircraft TCA LX-N 20199, also referenced as TCA 997, which is a NATO aircraft. (Ex 19:2) Maj Gen Schmidt acknowledged the aircraft in question was owned by NATO, technically, the 17 nations that participated in the program, managed by the board of directors. (Ex 37:46) Therefore, the aircraft and the instruments removed from that aircraft were the property of NATO. (3) 8 That the property was of a certain value, or of some value. (Ex 28:2) E. LtCol 2 testified the missing operational aircraft parts in question were valued at up to several thousand Euros. (Ex 36:3) Maj Gen Schmidt testified the part he removed from this aircraft was operational on the delivery flight. (Ex 37:54) Therefore, the angle of attack indicator had some_value. (4) That the taking, obtaining, or withholding by the accused was with the. intent permanently to deprive or defraud another person of the use and benefit of the property or permanently to appropriate the property for the use of the accused or for any person other than the owner. (Ex 28:2) - E. Maj 8 Gen Schmidt testified when he took the angle of attack indicator, he intended to keep it. (Ex 37:57) Maj Gen Schmidt further stated he took this part to be used as his personal memento of this flight and his time in command. (Ex 37:50-51) Maj Gen Schmidt's testimony establishes he intended to keep the part for his own use when he took the part. Consequently, Maj Gen Schmidt's taking of the angle of attack indicator was done with the intent to permanently deprive of the use of the indicator, and his subsequent return of the property is irrelevant." Maj Gen Schmidt asserts there was no "ill will" by anyone in the taking of the parts. (Ex 44:1) The IO notes the UCMJ does not require "ill will." It requires the taking 1 _was with the intent to permanently deprive another of use of the property," permanently defraud another of use of the property, or permanently appropriate the property for the use of the taker. Maj Gen Schmidt took the aircraft part as a personal memento and he intended to keep it. Therefore, Maj Gen Schmidt's taking of the angle of attack indicator was with the intent to permanently deprive NATO of its use. . 14 See MCM, Part IV, paragraph (once a larceny is committed, a return of the property or payment for it is no defense). 32 (in whole or in party, reproduced, or given ecior general channels without prior approval or designee. This is a protected document. It additional dissemination (in whole or in part) of The Inspector eral (SAF b6 b7c The analysis above supports that all of the elements of Article 121 have been met in this case, thereby indicating Maj Gen Schmidt committed larceny when he took a part from this retirement aircraft. CONCLUSION. By a preponderance of evidence, the allegation that Maj Gen Stephen D. Schmidt, on or about 22 Dec 11', wrongfully took a part from NATO Trainer Cargo Aircraft LX--N 20199, in violation of the Manual for Courts-Martial, 2008 Edition, Part IV, paragraph 46, Article Larceny and wrongful appropriation, was SUBSTANTIATED. VI. SUMMARY During his response to these allegations, Maj Gen Schmidt fiequently raised other similar incidents and used them as precedent to justify his actions. In one example he accused Lt Col of using unprofessional language and yelling at him over the phone, to the point that Maj Gen Schmidt had to terminate the phone call. (Ex 37:65) In another example, he provided pictures of wine bottles he had received from other senior leaders in his tour as the FC Commander. (Ex 8:6-7) His lo gicwas if they gave bottles of wine as farewell gifts then he should also be able to do the same. Inrelation to this particular example he did not know whether the wine he received from these other senior leaders had actually been purchased with NATO representation andtherefore subj ect to the requirement they only be used for extemal audiences. (Ex 37:10) As another example, he mentioned other travelers shared-the same itinerary he did in conjunction with the Jan 12 TDY to Seattle. (Ex 9:1) Since they travelled over the same dates he believed his travel without leave was justified. The IO determined Maj Gen Schmidt failed to recognize that no other travelers took an unauthorized en route rest stop in Chicago; they all continued to the TDY destination in fiill compliance of the regulations. As another example he went into detail <