Appendix — Department of Air Force v. Rose
Supreme Court brief1976
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
APPENDIX
Iu the Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1974
No. 74-489
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ET AL.,
Petitioners
— |
MICHAEL T. ROSE, ET AL.
ON PIERIONSOLA WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED ON
OCTOBER 25, 1974
CERTIORARI GRANTED FEBRUARY 18, 1975
a ex,
In the Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1974
No. 74-489
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ET AL.,
Petitioners
—_—vV Y preemeeed
MiCHAEL T. ROSE, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
INDEX
Page
SS -+((F 1
EE
September 29, 1969 memorandum regarding graduate
resignations (Exhibit A) -..............2.....:ccccccccesceeeeseeeeeees 8
October 15, 1971 letter from Major Charles E. Hart to
Lieutenant Rose (Exhibit B) ........................................ 13
January 6, 1972 letter from Brigadier General Galligan
to Lieutenant Rose (Exhibit C) ..................................... 15
October 29, 1971 letter from Captain Metcalf to Lieu-
i“ SS > 16
November 29, 1971 letter to Secretary of the Air Force
from Messrs. Rose and Pedowitz (Exhibit E) ............. 17
February 14, 1972 letter from Thomas Nelson to Messrs.
Rose and Pedowitz (Exhibit F)...................................... 21
HE _..-ncrcissnsstenntnnnnncsntatttetineiteseesmemgiimmminentines 23
Affidavit of Assistant United States Attorney William R.
Bronner dated September 25, 1972 ...0.0.0..............cccccceceeesseeee 27
Index to Exhibits and Attachments ...............................--0.-- 31
ii INDEX
Excerpts from Air Force Academy Regulations on appoint-
SS GR GIIITTIOII ..ceceeeececcccnccescscesnnsccnsssnsenscssenscsscsecosusnes
Honor Reference Handbook of the Air Force Cadet Wing ......
Air Force Cadet Wing Ethics Manual ...... cceeniiteaiabananeeniiaiiauaD
Honor Operating Instructions ...........................-csssesssesssesseeees
Investigation of alleged violation of the Honor Code ........
Procedures for honor hearing (with attachments) .........
Procedures for cadets found guilty .............0.0.0..0..00.0....
SY TIE ..cccemsinbnssnnemssbielnibuniadenisinnniatitemuaquninseniaienensente
ey Cy ND FI ceececeersrseesniasesmncccosiconinsmnemmnensenssens
Distribution—Honor Code reading file .............................
United States Air Force Academy honor review com-
TTIIIIED cniccscsisestanncsetsnatatetpelibintetedetaisgesmbumiaseennenmnaieisetiessasanennn
February 3, 1972 letter from Colonel Ragen, Director of
Information, to Lieutenant Rose 22000. ..............0.cccccceeceeeseeee-
December 14, 1971 letter from the Judge Advocate General to
I TR AT a CETL NT NT ERO CE
January 27, 1972 letter from Lieutenant Rose to Director of
Information, United States Air Force Academy ................
Affidavit of Frederick L. Metcalf dated May 26, 1972 ............
August 21, 1971 letter from Lieutenant Rose to Captain
STITT « socsicseminnctenaecstacittacamaeainepinalnpsnaisbasennineeeeeusiaeetenesennnte
September 5, 1971 letter from Lieutenant Rose to Cap-
II TI <x nsccnsisitiieeanetneadteeanbenebdemdlainddmnnaecintttaipanenabannintes
September 28, 1971 letter from Captain Metcalf to Lieu-
EE GEEIED consmsepcseseerezensemnsscnnensiegprenineenasenersemanssemneese
BITEIITEE | snnsincnnntesesescnnnvosrorencndadsiitnnensdinisiteindantuticaniaiipiasnnmereneees
IE GD ceerentccneecccncesteveaseenressmavemmnmmsnemmismarseenescenint
EE GENIE erernsececnsnsesssconnssnanecngeqpecienematenemnmastamananenntentnes
SIE THIET secncsecessanessernsuostientpesenapnenibiantbabinjabaitimennentionamiens
Re ee
INDEX
Affidavit of Major Richard R. Lee dated May 26, 1972 ..........
Affidavit of Colonel Marcos E. Kinevan dated September 15,
RE ene
August 21, 1971 letter from Lieutenant Rose to Colonel
a AE ITN
August 30, 1971 letter from Colonel Kinevan to Lieuten-
I os ateemeetetnetimimeminaenes
September 23, 1971 letter from Lieutenant Rose to Colo-
EE TINIE «11s cnnaserereessntesecntenininmnenenememeummeemanseenenntenie
Affidavit of 2nd Lieutenant Ronald E. Wallace dated Septem-
ney 7, TT oc sednhatedthamiabnbieleaddieepiammmmmamumnatans
Affidavit of Cadet First Class Rodney W. Wickers dated June
TEL TTI s:secsnccciacn taeda engeunaemenmniemtaasreseteesnennenstatinaiuatieniantttte
ee en
Th, TEI sxicosannnuorccceusenvnenibenssqneeneseneesnesonsncnseel SRI BROT
Affidavit of Michael T. Rose dated October 18, 1972.................
Order of Honorable Lloyd F. MacMahon United States Dis-
trict Judge, filed January 5, 1973 ....................:cceeeceseeeceeeeeees
January 7, 1974 letter to United States Court of Appeals for
Second Circuit from Barrington D. Parker, Jr., attorney
BP CID cncesccsnssesescensenssnnnssevssnnsnmnssevsenminnsnnnes senseenesnsincenaanete
January 11, 1974 letter to United States Court of Appeals
for Second Circuit from Messrs. Leonard Schaitman and
Donald Etra, attorneys for appellees .......... sia: (aaisiiuedianeninnaide
White House press release dated November 10, 1972 ................
Transcript of press conference on honor violations, January,
are EISELE AD NASER RR ENO Pe RO eT ar OD
Newspaper clippings from January, 1972 relating to investi-
gation of honor code violations —........................c..ccceseee cence
Order Allowing Certiorari .................... . NR eR aM ae Aen yma
_ Cn & ee ee
1
RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES
Date Proceeding
April 19, 1972 Complaint Filed
June 30, 1972 Answer Filed
September 28,1972 Defendants Notice of Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment and Supporting Docu-
ments
October 18, 1972 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment and Supporting Docu-
ments
December 18,1972 | Memorandum Opinion of Judge Mac-
Mahon Granting in Part and Denying
in Part Cross Motions for Summary
Judgment
January 5, 1973 Order of Judge MacMahon Granting in
Part and Denying in Part Cross Mo-
tions for Summary Judgment
January 10, 1973 Notice of Entry Filed
January 18, 1973 Notice of Appeal Filed
March 29, 1974 Opinion and Judgment rendered by
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
May 1, 1974 Appellees’ Petition for Rehearing filed
May 29, 1974 Petition for Rehearing denied
June 5, 1974 Appellees’ Motion for Stay of Mandate
June 18, 1974 Motion for Stay of Mandate granted
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
72 Civ. 1605
MICHAEL T. Rose, CHARLES P. DIAMOND, EDITOR-IN-
CuieF, NEw YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, LAwW-
RENCE B. PEDOWITZ, FORMER EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, NEW
YorK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, PLAINTIFFS
—against—
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ROBERT C. SEAMENS,
JR., SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, LIEUTENANT GEN-
ERAL ALBERT P. CLARK, USAF, SUPERINTENDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY, BRIGADIER
GENERAL WALTER T. GALLIGAN, USAF, COMMANDANT
OF CADETS, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY,
MAsJor CHARLES E. HART, USAF, DEFENDANTS
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Michael T. Rose, Charles P. Diamond and
Lawrence B. Pedowitz, by their attorney Philip L. Gra-
ham, Jr. for their Complaint allege:
1. This is an action under the public information
section of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
§ 522, et seg., (the Freedom of Information Act of 1966)
and the First Amendment to the Constitution. Plaintiffs
seek an order and judgment of this Court enjoining
defendants from withholding and requiring them to pro-
duce three items of information, two pertaining to dis-
ciplinary systems and procedures at the United States
Air Force Academy (the “Academy’”) and a third per-
taining to a study of resignations by Academy graduates
from the United States Air Force.
2. The items of information sought in this action
are (i) case summaries of honor hearings maintained
in the Academy’s Honor Code Reading Files, with per-
sonal references or other identifying information de-
A ier
3
leted, (ii) case summaries of ethics hearings maintained
in the Academy’s Ethics Code Reading Files, with per-
sonal references or other identifying information de-
leted, and (iii) a complete copy of a study of resigna-
tions from the Air Force by Academy graduates per-
formed by the Academy’s Alumni Secretary and com-
pleted, on information and belief, in May, 1969.
The Plaintiffs
3. Michael T. Rose, a Second Year student at New
York University Law School, is an editor of the New
York University Law Review, a graduat * the United
States Air Force Academy and a First +u..nant in the
United States Air Force.
4. Charles P. Diamond, a Second Year student at
New York University Law School, is Editor-in-Chief
of the New York University Law Review, and has oc-
cupied that position since March, 1972. He brings this
action not in his individual capacity but on behalf of
the New York University Law Review.
5. Lawrence B. Pedowitz, a Third Year student at
New York University Law School, was the Editor-in-
Chief of the New York University Law Review from
March, 1971 to March, 1972. He brings this action not
in his individual capacity but on behalf of the New
York University Law Review.
6. Michael T. Rose, other members of the New York
University Law Review, and other students at New
York University Law School are contributing to the
Law Review’s study of disciplinary systems and pro-
cedures at the service academies. The information sought
in this action is germane to that research, the results
of which the Law Review intends to publish.
The Defendants
7. Defendant Robert C. Seamens, Jr., sued herein
in his official capacity, is the Secretary of the Air Force,
having his official office in Washington, D.C. Pursuant
to 10 U.S.C. §8012 (1970), defendant Seamens is
4
vested with the responsibility for, and the authority
necessary to conduct, all affairs of the Department of
the Air Force.
8. Defendant Lieutenant General Albert P. Clark,
USAF, is the Superintendent of the United States Air
Force Academy. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 9334 (1970),
defendant Clark is the commanding officer of the
Academy, and is vested with general supervisory re-
sponsibility for Academy affairs.
9. Defendant Brigadier General Walter T. Galligan,
USAF, is Commandant of Cadets, United States Air
Force Academy.
10. Defendant Major Charles E. Hart, USAF, a mem-
ber of the staff of the Academy, has, on information and
belief, supervisory authority over its Honor and Ethics
Committee. F . ‘
11. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a) (3).
12. The venue of this action is based upon 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(3) and lies within this District by virtue of
plaintiffs’ residence herein.
13. Pursuant to applicable Department of the Air
Force Rules and the Freedom of Information Act of
1966, plaintiff Rose requested copies of Honor Code
ease files in September, 1971, copies of Ethics Code case
files in December, 1971 and a copy of the Academy’s
study of graduate resignations in October, 1971.
14. The study of graduate resignations was requested
after receipt by plaintiff Rose of a letter dated Sep-
tember 29, 1969 from Captain Frederick L. Metcalf,
USAF, the Academy Alumni Secretary, informing plain-
tiff Rose that the study would be made available to him
on request. (A copy of that letter is annexed hereto
as Exhibit “A”.)
15. By letter dated October 15, 1971, defendant Charles
E. Hart denied plaintiff Rose’s request for access to
the Academy’s honor case files. (A copy of that letter
is annexed hereto as Exhibit “B”.)
16. By letter dated January 6, 1972, defendant Gal-
ligan denied plaintiff Rose’s request for access to the
Academy’s ethics case files. (A copy of that letter is
annexed hereto as Exhibit “C”.)
17. By letter dated October 29, 1971, Captain Fred-
erick L. Metcalf, USAF denied plaintiff Rose’s request
for a complete copy of the Academy’s study of graduate
resignations. Captain Metcalf forwarded copies of the
study with statistical and other information deleted.
(A copy of that letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit
“T)’’.)
18. On November 29, 1971 Plaintiffs Pedowitz and
Rose appealed to the Department of the Air Force the
denial of the honor case files and the complete study
of Academy graduate resignations. (A copy of the letter
appealing the decision to deny these two items of in-
formation is annexed hereto as Exhibit “E”.) On or
about January 15, 1972, plaintiff Rose appealed to the
Department of the Air Force the denial of the ethics
case files.
19. By letter dated February 14, 1972 Thomas W.
Nelson, Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of
the Air Force, notified plaintiffs Rose and Pedowitz that
their appeal had been denied. (A copy of that letter is
annexed hereto as Exhibit “F”.) The grounds stated
for the denial were that the summaries of honor and
ethics hearings were exempt from disclosure under Air
Force Regulation 12-30, 4f and 4g(1)(6) and 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(b) (6) and that the study of Academy graduate
resignations was exempt under Air Force Regulation
12-30, 4e and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (5), (6).
20. Plaintiffs have exhausted administrative remedies
by which they could have obtained the information re-
ferred to in paragraph 2 and sought in this action.
21. The public information section of the Administra-
tive Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (3), provides that
in any legal action brought pursuant thereto “the burden
is on the agency to sustain its action” in refusing
disclosure. The statute also provides that such pro-
ceedings “take precedence on the docket over all other
causes and shall be assigned for hearing and trial at the
earliest practicable date and expedited in every way.”
6
22. Plaintiffs have a right, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a) (3), to inspect and copy the information re-
ferred to in paragrah 2, and defendants are improperly
withholding the information sought in this action con- ..
trary to the terms, intent and policy of the Freedom of
Information Act of 1966 and the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution. Defendants’ withholding
the information sought herein has jeopardized the in-
tegrity of plaintiffs’ proposed research article and has
effectively abridged its publication.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment:
(i) enjoining defendants from withholding the infor-
mation referred to in paragraph 2;
(ii) ordering defendants to make promptly available
to plaintiffs for inspection and copying all of said in-
formation;
(iii) directing that this cause receive the expedited
treatment contemplated by statute; and
(iv) for such other and further relief as this Court
deems just and proper.
6
7
Dated: New York, New York
April 18, 1972
/s/ Philip L. Graham, Jr.
PHILIP L. GRAHAM, JR.
BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR.
48 Wall Street
New York, New York 10005
HA 2-8100
JOHN H. F. SHATTUCK
AMERICAL CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION
156 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10010
675-5990
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MELVIN L. WULF
SANFORD J. ROSEN
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES FOUNDATION
156 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10010
Of Counsel
8
EXHIBIT A
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY
USAF Academy, Colorado 80840
[SEAL }
29 Sep 1969
REPLY TO
ATTN OF: CSAG (472-2067)
SUBJECT: Graduate Resignations
TO: All Graduates
1. In this first official Alumni newsletter for 1969, I
want to inform you of the current status of graduate
resignations and of why graduates are departing the Air
Force. You will note in the enclosed letter that the
Superintendent is very much concerned about graduate
resignations. In my official position as Alumni Secre-
tary, I have been deeply involved in the search for an-
swers that would explain why graduates feel that they
can no longer satisfy their career aspirations in the Air
Force, and, therefore, submit their resignation papers.
In December, 1968, I sent a detailed questionnaire to all
graduates who, at that time, had an established date of
separation from the Air Force. The results were pub-
lished in May, 1969. The results of a follow-on study
initiated in July, 1969 will be available in early October,
1969. In the subsequent paragraphs, I will discuss only
the results of the survey completed in May.
2. Generally, graduates feel that the personal frustra-
tions experienced in the Air Force present a stronger mo-
tivation for resignation than do the perceived benefits
of civilian life. In other words, graduates feel that they
are being “forced out” of the Air Force by disagreeable
policies, programs, conditions, etc., rather than being at-
tracted out by improved job opportunities, better family
life, ete., of civilian life. The factors influencing gradu-
ee ce le
ates to resign are listed in their order of significance
in Table 1 below.
No voice in future assignments
No sense of accomplishment
Lack of integrity in the Air Force
Transient life in the military
Extensive TDY
No graduate school opportunity within reasonable
period of time
Lack of quality leadership in the Air Force*
Personality not suited for military life
Promotion system
No challenge to junior officers
Alert duty
Low pay
TABLE 1
8. The most significant factor influencing a graduate’s
decision to resign is no voice in future assignments.
Captain George H. Hines reached the same conclusion in
his 1966-67 survey. Many graduates feel utterly trapped
in their career progression. They can see no way, after
several attempts, in which to extricate themselves from
an undesirable assignment; or, they cannot obtain a more
desirable assignment that is in line with their career
goals; or, they do not understand the rationale behind
inconsistent personnel policies that result in assignments
they neither asked for on volunteer statements or on
career preference statements nor would expect given past
personnel policy. The very disturbing factor of a lack
of integrity in the Air Force is the third most significant,
ranking ahead of such commonly accepted factors as
extensive TDY and the transient life of the military.
Generally, those graduates who indicated lack of in-
tegrity to be the most significant factor could not recon-
* Factor which graduates wrote-in under an “other” category
listed in the questionnaire.
—
10
cile their concept of integrity as embraced and practiced
for their four years at the Academy with the pragmatic
acceptance and toleration of degrees of dishonesty that
they have found in the Air Force. Several graduates
mentioned the “accusations” by their immediate com-
manders that they were too idealistic with regard to
personal integrity.
4. The most significant feature of civilian life that at-
tracts graduates out of the Air Force, or which a gradu-
ate could think of as being most attractive, was that of a
more rewarding and satisfying job. This factor ties in
closely with the top two factors influencing graduates to
leave the Air Force. The features of civilian life which
graduates considered to he most attractive are shown in
Table 2 below in their order of significance.
More rewarding and satisfying work
More stable family life
Freedom from day-to-day restrictions of military life
Higher pay
More rapid advancement on the job
Better chance of entering desired career field*
TABLE 2
The second most attractive feature of civilian life, a
more stable family life, allies closely with two factors of
transient life in the military and extensive TDY, which
rank as the number 4 and 5 factors, respectively, influenc-
ing graduates to leave the Air Force. The majority of
graduates at all ratings—non-rated, pilot, and navigator
—showed the factor of more rewarding and satisfying
work as being the most attractive aspect of civilian life.
5. The above discussion is only a short summary of the
study that was published in May, 1969. If you wish a
* Factor which graduates wrote-in under an “other” category
listed in the questionnaire.
—
eee te
11
copy of the complete survey, merely drop us a line and
we'll send one along. If you have any personal com-
ments on the subject of graduate resignations, I would
be very pleased to receive them. I would be particularly
interested in your thoughts concerning actions Hq USAF
can initiate that would directly address the major irri-
tants of a career in the Air Force.
/s/ Frederick L. Metcalf
FREDERICK L. METCALF, Capt, USAF
Alumni Secretary
1 Atch
Status of USAFA Graduates
USAFA GRADUATE ATTRITION
As of 30 June 1969
(As of 11 Sep 69)
MIA
Captured
Non-
Rated
Navigators
Other Pilots
Losses Resign Sep/Ret Death Reasons FSC-1 FSC-2 FSC-1 FSC-2
Med.
Vol.
Total
Class
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
11
43
41
59
76
82
52
11
11
17
12
15
69
74
18
105
44
10
26
14
17
21
10
39 17
110
515
Total
13
EXHIBIT B
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
THE AIR FORCE CADET WING
USAF Academy, Colorado 80840
[SEAL ]
15 October 1971
Lieutenant Michael T. Rose
Box 4J
33 Washington Square West
New York, NY 10011
Dear Lieutenant Rose
I regret that Academy policy requires denial of public
access to honor case files, including the selected ones in
the Honor Code Reading File. All of these cases are docu-
mented as “For Official Use Only” and are disseminated
for internal use only to the Honor Representatives and
those few staff personnel who have a continuing need to
understand the workings of the Cadet Honor Code. It
would be in poor faith with all cadets who have met
honor hearings to allow their cases to come into the
public eye. To permit the use of honor cases for such
purpose would tend to set a precedent that may operate
to the detriment of innocent persons.
To be accused or found guilty of an honor violation is an
emotionally trying experience that should, in due respect
for the rights of the individual concerned, be as limited
as possible. Society in general does not understand the
difference in the lying, cheating and stealing that consti-
tutes a Cadet Honor violation as opposed to the degree
of criminality required in society at large to cause an
equally serious type of censor. The problems of such mis-
understanding and the unnecessary embarrassment that
could result seems to exceed the value to be gained from
making the case files available to the public.
14
I hope that you will understand the reasons for the
Academy’s policy and that some method will occur to you
to permit continuation of your research without the aid
of specific Air Force Academy Honor Cases.
Sincerely
/s/ Charles E. Hart
CHARLES E. HART, Major, USAF
Executive, Honor and Ethics
15
EXHIBIT C
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
THE AIR FORCE CADET WING
USAF Academy, Colorado 80840
[SEAL]
6 January 1972
lst Lt Michael T. Rose, USAF
Box 4J
33 Washington Square West
New York, NY 10011
Dear Lt Rose
The Air Force Academy will be unable to provide you
sample ethics cases. The sample ethics cases used in the
Honor Code Reading File are designated “For Official
Use Only”. It is intended that these cases will be used
for the edification of the Cadet Wing and Academy staff
only. Indiscriminate release of this information to per-
sons without a need to know could be counter to the best
interests of the individuals concerned and the Air Force
Academy.
Sincerely
/s/ W. T. Galligan
WALTER T. GALLIGAN, Brig General, USAF
Commandant of Cadets
16
EXHIBIT D
ASSOCIATION OF GRADUATES
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY
Colorado 80840 303 472-2067
[SEAL]
29 October 1971
Lt Michael T Rose
Box 4J
33 Washington Square West
New York NY 10011
Dear Mike:
As you requested in your letter of 4 October I am for-
warding to you copies of the two 1969 resignation studies.
Due primarily to guidance from the Superintendent I
have had to delete from the report the statistical part
and the part containing the quoted graduate comments.
I hope that the abbreviated form of the report will still
be of use to you.
With regard to your question about studies on why ca-
dets leave the Academy, I would suggest that you write to
the Director of Cadet Personnel and Administration
(CWP).
Sincerely,
/s/ Frederick L. Metcalf
FREDERICK L. METCALF
Capt, USAF
Executive Secretary
2 Atch
As Stated
ae
17
EXHIBIT E
29 November 1971
Secretary of the Air Force
Hq. USAF (AFJAL)
Washington, D.C. 20330
Dear Sir:
A member of the New York University Law Review
is writing a law Note on “The Disciplinary Systems of
Service Academies.” In researching the Note that in-
dividual has requested, on behalf of the Review, two
items of information from the Air Force Academy,
which have been denied. This letter is a request that
those denials be reconsidered.
1. The Review has asked for a copy of all case sum-
maries of Air Force Academy honor hearings. The at-
tached Honor Operating Instructions #4 and #65 in-
dicate that all “guilty” case summaries and representa-
tive “not guilty” and “discretion” summaries are con-
tained in an “Honor Code Reading File” located in forty
different offices at the Academy. Our letter requesting
a copy of those summaries indicated that the Review
wished to use them solely to research and support cer-
tain ideas in the Note and that we did not wish to use,
or even to know, the identities of any of the parties in-
volved in the honor cases. Our request also pointed out
that the present Executive of the cadet Honor and Ethics
Committees told us that some cadets who have left the
Academy for honor violations have indicated on a form,
filled out while processing out of the Academy, that the
Air Force had their permission to release the details
of their honor cases to educational institutions for edu-
eational purposes; that the Review’s research require-
ments may be satisfied by releasing only those case sum-
maries in which the cadets involved indicated that they
could be released; and that the Air Force would seemingly
be able to avoid any problems of violating the trust of
cadets if only those case summaries were released to it.
18
When denying our request the Air Force Academy
must not have been aware of the following provisions of
5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (2), which provides in relevant part:
(2) Each agency . . . shall make available for public
inspection and copying—(a) final opinions, includ-
ing concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as
orders, made in the adjudication of cases. ...
To the extent required to prevent a clearly un-
warranted invasion of personal privacy, an agency
may delete identifying details when it makes avail-
able or publishes an opinion. .. .
Had the Academy been aware of the above provisions, we
feel certain that it would not have felt that denial was
appropriate.
We wish to emphasize that we are not interested in
knowing the identity of any cadets involved in honor
hearings. We wish to use the cases merely to document
the various meanings the Air Force cadet Honor Com-
mittees have attached to the terms “lying, cheating, steal-
ing and tolerating.” Contrary to the view expressed by
the Air Force Academy’s letter of denial, cadets would
hardly feel that the Academy had shown “poor faith”
by releasing the requested information if they realized
(1) that the only case summaries released were those
for which the cadets involved had given their specific
prior approval for the releases and (2) that appropriate
“identifying denials” had been deleted, as permitted in
the above cited statute. If the releases already in the
possession of the Academy are insufficient to negate the
privileged information problem, we ask for the oppor-
tunity to produce written releases from some of the
former cadets who were involved in the summarized
honor cases.
Also, contrary to the views expressed in the Air
Force Academy’s denial of our request, we believe the
public could understand the workings of the cadet honor
code if they were privy to the requisite information.
The judgment as to whether and how the academies’
~ ot Ee
lag lt LO A
eld te ae on“
19
honor codes will work is implicitly vested in Congress
by Article I, Section 8, cl. 14 of the Constitution, as is
the case with all other military disciplinary systems.
The public must have knowledge about how the codes
function in order to properly advise its elected rep-
resentatives how to structure that aspect of the academies’
disciplinary systems. It seems elementary that the pub-
lic’s view of military justice would be enhanced if it
perceived that the military was willing to examine the
efficacy of its disciplinary system on its merits rather
than attempting to avoid that responsibility by keeping
information about its disciplinary systems from the public.
2. A letter from the Air Force Academy’s Associa-
tion of Graduates, dated 29 September 1969, discussed
a study “published” in May 1969, about “the current
status of graduate resignations and . . . why graduates
are departing the Air Force.” That letter, which was
addressed to “All Graduates,” stated at page three that
“the above discussion is only a short summary of the
study that was published in May, 1969. If you wish
a copy of the complete survey, merely drop us a line and
we'll send one along.” |
First Lieutenant Michael T. Rose, an Air Force
Academy graduate and a member of the NYU Law Re-
view, wrote to the Association of Graduates and asked
for “a copy of the complete survey.” As shown in the
attached copy of the Academy’s reply, Lieutenant Rose
was denied certain portions of the study. This letter
constitutes an appeal to that denial.
It seems that a “published” study, all of which is sent
to “All Graduates” upon request, cannot be included
in any of the exceptions stated in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)
and therefore must be made “promptly available to any
person.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (3). In any case, Lieutenant
Rose, as an Academy graduate, is certainly entitled to
the study along with other Academy graduates. To deny
him the complete study discriminates against him as an
individual and, in view of his stated purpose of using
the information for researching the Review’s Note on the
academies’ disciplinary systems, indicates an unwilling-
20
ness by the Academy to permit citizens to know how
their military operates.
For the above reasons the Law Review and Lieutenant
Rose appeal the Air Force Academy’s denials of their
requests for the above items of information. We re
gret that it is necessary to trouble you with these mat-
ters. We realize that those who denied the requests
probably did so only because they were unaware of the
requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. In
the event that our appeals are denied, however, we will
feel compelled to continue to pursue this further.
Sincerely,
Michael T. Rose Lawrence B. Pedowitz
Ist Lt., USAF Editor-in-Chief
Staff Member NYU Law Review
NYU Law Review
21
EXHIBIT F
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Washington 20330
Office of the Secretary [SEAL]
14 Feb. 1972
Gentlemen:
Your appeals of November 29, 1971 and Januayy 13,
1972 of the denials by the United States Air Force
Academy concerning the case summaries of honor hear-
ings, the complete study of resignations of Academy
graduates, and sample ethics cases have been thoroughly
reviewed and given careful consideration. For the rea-
sons set forth below, your appeals are denied.
The summaries of the honor hearings and the sample
ethics cases are exempt from disclosure as they fall
within the purview of 5 U.S.C. 552, para (b)(6) and
AFR 12-30, paras 4f and 4g(1)(b). The complete study
of the resignations of graduates of the Academy is
exempt under the provisions of AFR 12-30, para 4e and
5 U.S.C. 552, paras (b)(5) and (6). A release of the
honor hearing cases and ethics cases would constitute
an unwarranted invasion into the privacy of forme
cadets of the Academy. Some cases may be recognized
by the reader by the circumstances alone without the
identity of the cadet given. This being the case then the
reader could easily connect the incident with the par-
ticular cadet involved. Additionally, they are internal
documents which are not meant for mass circulation.
They are stamped “For Official Use Only” and are af-
forded subscribed routing and handling procedures.
The study of graduate resignations is also exempt from
disclosure. It has been drafted by the Air Force Academy
in the office of the Alumni Secretary who is assigned to
the Academy under military orders. This study con-
stitutes an internal document containing opinions, recom-
mendations, and suggestions of Academy graduates. A
of cadet training as well as career development. Pub-
lication of material from the study would seriously ham-
per further studies and definitely curtail frank re
sponses to questions which often are quite critical to
the development of better methods of retaining Academy
graduates as career officers in the Air Force.
This decision constitutes final Air Force action on
_ Sincerely,
/s/ Thomas W. Nelson
THOMAS W. NELSON
Administrative Assistant
Lieutenant Michael T. Rose, USAF
and
Mr. Lawrence B. Pedowitz
New York University Law Review
249 Sullivan Street
New York, N.Y. 10012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
72 Civ. 1605
MICHAEL T. Rose, CHARLES P. DIAMOND, EDITOR-IN-
CHIEF, NEw YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, LAW-
RENCE B. PEDOWITZ, FORMER EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, NEW
YorK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, PLAINTIFFS
—against—
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ROBERT C. SEAMENS,
JR., SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE, LIEUTENANT GEN-
ERAL ALBERT P. CLARK, USAF, SUPERINTENDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY, BRIGADIER
GENERAL WALTER T. GALLIGAN, USAF, COMMANDANT
OF CADETS, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY,
Major CHARLES E. Hart, USAF, DEFENDANTS
ANSWER
Defendants, Department of the Air Force, Robert C.
Seamens. Jr., Lieutenant General Aibert P. Clark, USAF,
General Walter T. Galligan, USAF and Major Charles
E. Hart, USAF, by their attorney, Whitney North Sey-
mour, Jr., United States Attorney for tie Southern
District of New York, for their answer to the numbered
paragraphs of the complaint herein, upen information
and belief allege, as follows:
1. Neither admit nor deny in that these allegations
purport to state conclusions of law.
2. Neither admit nor deny and respectfully refer the
Court to the complaint for a statement of plaintiffs’
allegations.
3. Deny for lack of knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief except admit that Michael T. Rose is a
graduate of the United States Air Force Academy and
a First Lieutenant in the United States Air Force.
4-6. Deny for lack of knowledge or information suf-
ficient to form a belief.
7. Deny as conclusions of law except admit that
Robert C. Seamens, Jr. is the Secretary of the Air
Force and has his official office in Washington, D.C.
8. Deny as conclusions of law except admit that Lt.
General Albert P. Clark is the Superintendent of the
United States Air Force Academy.
9. Admit.
10. Deny except admit that Major Charles E. Hart
is a member of the staff of the United States Air Force
Academy.
11. Deny.
12. Deny for lack of knowledge or information suf-
ficient to form a belief.
13. Deny except admit that plaintiff Rose made the
request referred to in 13 of the complaint
and refer the Court to 5 U.S.C. 552, and
the Department of the Air Force Rules referred to in
paragraph 10 of the complaint.
14. Deny except admit that plaintiff Rose has made
a request for the study of graduate resignations and
that Captain Frederick L. Metcalf is the Air Force
Academy Alumni Secretary and transmitted a letter, a
copy of which is attached to the complaint as Exhibit
A. Respectfully refer the Court to Exhibit A of the
complaint for the contents thereof, and aver that this
letter was not a personal letter to nlaintiff Rose.
15. Admit and y refer the Court to Exhibit
B to the complaint for the contents thereof.
16. Admit and respectfully refer the Court to Exhibit
C to the complaint for the contents thereof.
17. Deny except admit that by letter dated October
29, 1971, Captain Frederick L. Metcalf transmitted the
letter attached to the complaint as Exhibit D and for-
warded copies of material requested by plaintiff with
necessary deletions and respectfully refer the Court to
Exhibit D to the complaint for the contents thereof.
18. Deny except admit that the Air Force received
the letter dated November 29, 1971 attached to the com-
plaint as Exhibit E and that on or about January 15,
om
dee Bt ei ee eee.
1972, plaintiff Rose appealed to the Department of the
Air Force the denial of the ethics case files and aver that
plaintiff Pedowitz did not make initial request for the
documents which were the subject matter of the No
vember 29, 1971 letter attached to the complaint as
Exhibit E.
19. Deny except admit that the letter attached to the
complaint as Exhibit F was sent by Thomas W. Nelson,
Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Air
Force to plaintiffs Rose and Pedowitz and is dated
February 14, 1972, and respectfully refer the Court to
the letter attached to the complaint as Exhibit F for
the contents thereof.
20. Deny except admit that plaintiff Rose has ex-
hausted his administrative remedies.
21. Deny as conclusions of law.
22. Deny.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the action.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
None of the plaintiffs except Michael T. Rose has
exhausted his administrative remedies.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
None of the defendants except the Department of the
Air Force is a proper party to the action.
FOURTH APYTRMATIVE DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which re-
lief can be granted.
_WHEREFORE, defendants pray that the action be
dismissed with prejudice and that they be granted their
Dated: New York, New York
June 30, 1972
WHITNEY NORTH SEYMOUR, JR.
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Attorney for the Defendants
By: /s/ T. Gorman Reilly
T. GORMAN REILLY
Assistant United States Attorney
Office and Post Office Address:
United States Courthouse
Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Telephone No.: (212) 264-6317
27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
72 Civ. 1605
MICHAEL T. Rose, CHARLES P. DIAMOND, EDITOR-IN-
CHIEF, New YorK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, LAW-
RENCE B. PEDOWITZ, FORMER EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, NEW
YorK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, PLAINTIFFS
Vv.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, etc., et al., DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEW YORK )
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK )
WILLIAM ®&. BRONNER, being duly sworn, deposes
and says:
1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the
office of Whitney North Seymour, Jr., United States At-
torney for the Southern District of New York, and as
such I have been assigned the defense of the present ac-
tion. I am fully familiar with the facts therein involved.
2. I submit this affidavit in support of the Govern-
ment’s motien for summary judgment for all defendants
and dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint on the general
ground thet it faills t state a claim as to which relief
may be grwnted.
3. Thies ction eeelte am order directing the defendant
Air Forc vd its responsible officials, including the in-
dividual de®emiants, t» make available to plaintiffs for
their inspection amd copyimg, case summaries of honor
hearings anv ef etivies hewrimgs, and the statistics con-
tained in and am appendix to a study of United States
Air Force 4 eademy (“Academy”) graduates’ resignations
from the Ai: “orve (“the Resignation Study”).
ats .
wise
28
4. Two of the three documents sought relate directly
to the Cadet Honor Code, a rule of conduct which states
succinctly, “We will not lie, steal or cheat nor tolerate
among us anyone who does.” The Code was adopted
by the first Cadet class at the Academy from the Honor
Codes in use at the other service academies and some
civilian universities. The Cadet Wing (the undergrad-
uate body) administers the Code and instructs its mem-
bership in its ramifications. In case of violations (a
unanimous vote of 8-0 is required to find a man guilty)
the Cadet Honor Committee can ask the violator to re-
sign from the Academy, or it can grant “discretion” (by
a subsequent vote of 6-2 or more) to return to the Wing
in good standing. If a man elects, after advice of coun-
sel, not to resign he may face a Board of Officers or a
Court Martial.
5. The Ethics Program involves enforcement of ethical
strictures generally considered of lesser magnitude than
the questions of honor involved in the Honor Code. The
Program, although less structured, operates generally
along lines analogous to the Honor Code. The Honor and
Ethics case summaries sought in this action are collec-
tions of what are in the nature of “briefs” of significant
cases and are maintained “for official use only” by the
Academy. See the Regulations on Appointment to and
Disenrollment from the Academy, AF Reg. 53-10, 53-3;
the Honor Reference Handbook of the Air Force Cadet
Wing; Air Force Cadet Wing Manual; Cadet and Ethics
Manual; Honor Operating Instructions; and Honor Re-
view Committee Regulations (Exhibits 1-7).) The Honor
System in use at the Academy, since it punishes tolera-
tors of offenses equally with the offenders, has always
been controversial. However, it should be emphasized
that the value of this approach is not the issue in the
present action; the issue is the right to access to these
documents, not the validity of the ideas reflected therein.
6. The third document sought is a study of the rea-
sons given by Academy graduates for leaving the Air
Force. Plaintiff Rose is already in possession of the
analytic portion of the study. He now seeks a statistical
portion and an appendix containing certain personal com-
a ee) ee ee »
29
ments made in confidence to the Academy Alumni Secre-
7. Plaintiff Rose is a First Lieutenant in the Air
Force and a 1969 graduate of the Academy, and conse-
quently possesses the knowledge gained from four years’
experience of daily life under the Honor Code. In addi-
tion, plaintiff Rose possesses or at least is familiar with
the contents of the various regulations referred to above
(See Exhibits 1-7; see also Disclosure of Air Force Rec-
ords, A.F. Reg. 12-30, 32 C.F.R. 886, (Exhibit 8).)
Furthermore, he has obtained large amounts of infor-
mation by corresponding with and visiting Academy pro-
fessors, administrative officers and Cadets (See Metcalf,
Hart, Lee, Kinevan and Wallace affidavits, and corres-
pondence exhibited therewith see also Ragen letter dated
February 3, 1972. (Exhibit 9).) He has also corres-
ponded with other service academies. (See Prugh let-
ter dated December 14, 1971, (Exhibit 10)).
8. Nevertheless, the present action was commenced to
acquire the three documents which the Air Force in ac-
cordance with its policy declined to produce for public
dissemination (See Exhibit 8, supra; see also Wickers
affidavit). Plaintiffs allege that these documents will as-
sist plaintiff Rose in his preparation of a publishable
Note for the New York University Law Review, on the
subject of disciplinary systems and procedures in the
service academies. It is not contended by plaintiffs that
the documents now sought are essential to the proposed
Note; the Note has apparently been drafted in at least
preliminary form since earlier this year (See Rose Let-
ter dated January 24, 1972, (Exhibit 11)). Rather,
plaintiffs argue that this lawsuit is justified by the value
of the documents as potential footnotes to the Note. The
amount of dislocation to be suffered from non-disclosure
of these documents is, therefore, minimal.
9. It is not disputed that plaintiff Rose has unsuc-
cessfully attempted to obtain through administrative
channels what he now seeks judicial assistance in obtain-
ing. Plaintiff’s right to the material is of course strenu-
ously contested, for the reasons stated in the accompany-
ing memorandum of law. It should also be noted, how-
30
ever, that the Air Force officers with whom plaintiff
dealt responded to his numerous and sometimes vexatious
requests for assistance with good-faith and good-natured
cooperation, within their authority to do so. The Lee,
Hart, Kinevan and Metcalf affidavits and correspondence
amply document information relevant to his study which
Lieutenant Rose received from affiants. For instance, Col.
Kinevan, by later dated August 30, 1971, reassured plain-
tiff, who is still an officer in the Air Force, that the Air
Force would not oppose his writing on his proposed sub-
ject and that doing so would in no way jeopardize his
Air Force career. Col. Kinevan also offered Rose his own
editorial experience on the California Law Review in
analysis of potential difficulties of focus and scope of the
Note. (See Kinevan affidavit and correspondence, ex-
hibited therewith). Other qualified instructors gave simi-
lar assistance. Thus defendants’ opposition to the attempt
to obtain public disclosure of the documents sought by
plaintiff does not reflect their reluctance to permit schol-
arly analysis or public consideration of the merits of the
Honor Code or any other aspect of Air Force Life.
Rather, their opposition is based upon their expectation
that disclosure of the contents of these documents would
violate assurances of confidentiality previously given, and
would seriously embarrass present and former Cadets by
disclosure of extremely personal information. These as-
surance of confidentiality should be respected.
WHEREFORE, defendants respectfully submit that in-
asmuch as plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, the complaint should be dis-
missed upon its merits.
/s/ William R. Bonner
WILLIAM R. BONNER
Assistant United States
Attorney
Sworn to before me this
25 day of September, 1972.
/s/ ('llegible}
———<<
pa en os de
31
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
AND ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit:
1. Regulations on appointment to the academy. ....................
2. Regulations on disenrollment. .......................2..20...-..s0ee000
3. Regulations on appointment and disenrollment (Super-
NACHE ACE Sn Sacer nee
. Honor Reference Handbook. .......................2....-..2.-----eeeeeeeees
. Cadet Wing Manual (Ethics Manual). .............................
. Honor operating instructions. .................-..........-.22.......00+
. Regulations on disclosure of records. ............................-. mn
. Ragen letter dated February 3, 1972. _.....................00........
10. Prugh letter dated December 14, 1971 ~........-00.....00000.......
11. Rose letter dated January 24, 1972 ................0.0.0.............
4
5
6
7. Honor review committee regulations. —..............................
8
9
LETTER ATTACHMENTS
Affidavit
Kinevan Rose dated August 21, 1971 (3 pages). ............
Kinevan dated August 30, 1971. —.........000........
Rose dated September 23, 1971. .......................
Metcalf Rose dated August 21, 1971 (1 page). ............
Rose dated September 5, 1971. ..........................
Metcalf dated September 28, 1971. ...................
Rose dated October 4, 1971. .....................-..-.......
Metcalf dated October 29, 1971. .......000000.. 000...
Rose dated November 18, 1971. ..........................
Page
c. The Class Committees. The class committees for the
first, second, third, and fourth classes are subcommittees
of the Academy Board. The appropriate class committee
evaluates cadets whose academic achievement is question-
able and makes recommendations to the Academy Board
pertinent to the disposition of cadets found deficient in
studies.
d. Board of Officers Appointed Under AFR 11-1. These
board will hear cases and make recommendations as
prescribed herein.
SECTION B—RESIGNATION
9. Policy on Accepting Resignations. The right of a
cadet to resign from the Air Force Academy is subject
to certain restrictions. 10 U.S.C. 9348 requires each
entering cadet who is a citizen or national of the United
States to sign an agreement that he will complete the
course of instruction at the Academy. The acceptance of
a resignation is a discretionary executive act. A resigna-
tion from the Academy may entail a period of active
military service.
10. Resignation. Each resignation will contain a com-
plete statement of the reasons for which submitted and,
when appropriate, have attached documentary evidence
to substantiate the reasons given. The Academy Super-
intendent will forward, with his recommendation, the
resignation submitted under this section to the Secretary
of the Air Force.
a. If a cadet has had prior service, the Superintendent
will normally recommend to the Secretary of the Air
Force that a fourth or third classman be discharged or
transferred to the cadet’s prior military component.
b. If a cadet resigns voluntarily after he commences
the second class academic year (third year) and before
the beginning of his first class academic year (fourth
year), the Superintendent will normally recommend that
he be called to active duty for 2 years.
ce. If a cadet resigns voluntarily after the beginning of
his first class academic year, the Superintendent will nor-
‘A wae nw. Pia eat eae seal
ee ee eed
33
mally recommend that he be called to active duty for 3
years.
11. Resignation Tendered by Cadet. A cadet may tender
a resignation for any reason listed below unless he is of-
ficially notified that action to separate him under sections
C, D, or E has been initiated. If his resignation is ac
cepted, he will be discharged honorably or transferred to
the Air Force Reserve in an appropriate grade and or-
dered to active duty under paragraph 10. The Super-
intendent’s Resignation Review Committee will evaluate
each resignation tendered under this section.
. Academics.
. Environmental Adjustment.
Change of Career Goals.
. Personal Reasons.
Marriage.
Breach of Cadet Honor Code—when the cadet has
been notified officially that he may resign voluntarily un-
der this paragraph.
g. Hardship. The current provisions for evaluating
airman hardship cases will be generally followed (docu-
mentation requirements, etc.).
(1) If the substantiated conditions are such that the
cadet’s temporary assistance will eliminate the problem,
he will be considered for administrative turnback to a
subsequent class.
(2) If the conditions are permanent, the cadet will be
considered for separation or discharge as appropriate.
(3) If separation/discharge is considered appropriate,
the Superintendent will forward the case, with documents
substantiating the hardship to the Secretary of the Air
Force with his recommendation.
HP ae op
12. Resignation Instead of Action Under Section E. A
cadet who receives official notification that action has been
initiated under section E may tender his resignation un-
der this paragraph with the understanding that, if ac-
cepted, he will be discharged under honorable conditions
or transferred unless the Secretary of the Air Force di-
rects that the cadet be honorably discharged or trans-
34
the investigation discloses evidence indicating the cadet
is disqualified for continued cadet status, he will for-
ward the case to the Superintendent recommending re-
ferral to a board of officers.
21. Notice to Cadet of Board Action. If the Superinten-
dent determines that referral of the case to a board of of-
ficers convened pursuant to AFR 11-1 is appropriate, the
cadet will be furnished notification prepared as shown in
attachment 1.
a. If the cadet does not waive a board, the case will
be referred to a board of officers composed of not less
than three nor more than five commissioned Air Force
officer members, at least one of whom will be serving
in the grade of colonel. A field grade judge advocate will
be appointed as a legal advisor to the board (without
vote), and a commissioned officer will be appointed as a
recorder (without vote). The board will make findings of
fact which will be sent to the Academy Board for its
review and determination of whether the cadet remains
qualified as a candidate for graduation from the Acad-
emy. If the Academy Board recommends disenrollment
from the Cadet Wing, the case will be returned to the
board of officers to hear evidence bearing on the char-
acter of discharge or separation and make recommenda-
tions thereon. The cadet will be afforded an opportunity
to appear before the board with counsel and present such
statements or evidence as he may desire. Thereafter, the
Superintendent will forward the record, together with his
recommendations on the type of discharge, to the Secre-
tary of the Air Force.
b. If the cadet waives a hearing before a board of of-
ficers on the facts, the case will be presented to the Acad-
emy Board for its determination as provided in a above.
The cadet may submit a written statement to the Acad-
emy Board for its consideration even though he has
waived a hearing by a board of officers. If the Academy
Board recommends disenrollment, the case will be re-
ferred to a board of officers to hear evidence bearing on
the character of discharge as in a above.
ee
35
22. When Board Action Is Considered Appropriate. Ac-
tion under paragraph 21 is appropriate if substantial evi-
dence indicates that any of the circumstances in this para-
graph or similar circumstances exist:
a. Conduct incompatible with exemplary standards of
personal conduct, character, and integrity. This is evi-
denced by the existence of one or more of the following
or similar circumstances:
(1) Advocacy of political or ethical beliefs which would
preclude fulfillment of the commissioning oath.
(2) Breach of the Cadet Honor Code.
(3) Repeated and dishonorable failure to meet finan-
cial obligations.
(4) Use or possession of narcotics or dangerous drugs;
or excessive or illegal use of alcoholic beverages.
(5) Willful failure to meet minimum standards of aca-
demic or military proficiency.
(6) Repeated failure to meet required formations or
other military duties, either willfully or through gross
indifference.
(7) Loss, destruction, or waste of Government prop-
erty under circumstances indicating a gross disregard
for public property.
(8) Repeated commission of minor offenses not war-
ranting trial by court-martial.
(9) Indecent and lewd acts and acts of sexual per-
version including transvestism.
b. Conviction by a civil court of any offense for which
confinement for more than one year is an authorized
punishment in the table of maximum punishments in
the MCM. 1969 (Revised Edition).
c. Information received indicates that the retention of a
cadet may not be consistent with the interests of national
security. The facts and circumstances wil] be reported
to the local office of special investigation (OSI) and an
investigation by that office will be requested. O
ceipt of the report of in- 7 all
24 May 1971
AFR 53-3
(uoeanias |
apy uryia | Aawyunjoaut) Aouaioyep 0
quvuvod wos
@[|Quaoucy Aavytyyu uojyeusisas Aavqunjoa 6
(g per
Z sajou) sunok
Z JO wun 103
“TT ydesdoied AYAP aarjgau oy [E> poycacdus ay ULYYLAID woyjeusysos Auryunjoa | OID 4° OZ) 8
avorz a
Wounds ’ petatyorip
“th yduatteacd Youq puree fy ssn 40 poywiudus [Porpow L
(tT ayou)
‘OT Ydersured (Ayemsow) yous JNpun 9
“LI ydeadesed (1 230u) que poducyosip apngiyde $
quauoduios 4ry) 0}
“SI Ydessesed) youq yuowUmesy poyeatdas SoULope~e
” youndui (uoneurdos
Arey | Aaequnjoaut) Aruasoyap ’
ez ydes3 (uorjeiuds ©
“bE yduadusey AVuce porauqosip ayy wenrars | Aaequ.joauy) Adu0/ayop ct
quauoduivs yey) 0} quouodwos
Pug JIMS su poytardes Aseyijyua c
u — ajquacuoy AVISZ postaeyosip oy) UUyay>? | voRnvudyser Aswjunjoa | OED 49 OD) I
aq te
ts wav OF 1ey Ip
j® 4yz0yjne /MONjCavdos wosj oud 40} #1 om ia
22pu,)} S14 puy oajsons pus 29 14 ay ‘ways oy pus yuowpposuIsp Sy PUL wpe? O41 .
° d qa a e] u v u
LNAINTIOUNSSIC LAGVS ONILOGAAV ADTIOd
| tat
vi
Attachment 6
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
ency
whether
’s defici
1. The Board/Committee evaluating the indi-
AFR 53-3
24 May 197:
y recommend to the
a first class cadet dis-
ons considered willful be
o9
E .
3% y :
see os E223
= »
BE s
a] 5 = 2
e 2s 2” =
2" > £ Pres «
a & 2S E oe eH
ESE Ea g™ ep
3370 . "5 e
355 8 S E429
; 232.2
SPY g ESS.
Bio's Fes
82 58 2y2
“ af Z BOD p> 8
” 5 3 5D «©
Rod o 2 g 2%
a8 g2 08 3
S = a 2 4 E . i=} E
ZPos AG ANGE S
is = ee et
(AVS Peyeatdes 40 Aq yorag yo proses) | tO *OZO
"61 yduaSesed Aq poyeraip sv) podicyowip v/N S21A498 94} JO Por) ‘000 090)
AV9S% 40
quoudiduin. 03 poAtacyosip
“eZ Ydeadeued ajqrsoucy youg wuotuutissu 40 pojeaudos [@oupeu oz!
(A\jeurr0u) ~ 7 ae
“91 Ydeiduaed @iqusoucy (Gt St owes) ynpuoes 6!
(pr pue powiedes ao
“LT ydeaSeued Cl se owes) pyestacy sip epnyde 8!
(zt poe -
"SI ydcsseaud ajqrsoucy It 88 ews) poyeacdos So! Woptou
7 quouodwos (wor jeard.os ‘meee
Kavya | Asequnjoaut) £2us1oyp ui
Cavoue 2° Av29g | pastaeyasyy
“be Ydeasesed ajqusouoy Aq pojoouip se) 40 poyesedox] [votpour 91
(Sjjeuuou) (zi pur |
“91 ydessesud a]qQcsoucy I] SU owes) qanpuos $1
(g ayou) pnyaien
Prsopisuos sf
Aousioyep sara’ s
yO wun © dey
Aynp sarjor 04 [No "
| Cr 2y0u) jnpyrmwou
81 Adu nouop peyeindos a
“LI ydusSared jf OBaey orp posseyoxs): apngiyde ct
~ dg pur”
T Soyo) yrjyiim
PIaswNUHD SI
Amem ry JH
Ayp aarjou o UND zu
AE ou)
[Nj|[}"uoUu sy
Aouasoyop J! SAV |
“BI ydessoied OF WUT eSB S2}uLpure| ty
Attachment 6
40
charge.
(2) DD Form 257 AF: General Discharge (Under
Honorable Conditions).
(3) DD Form 791 AF: Under Other Than Honor-
able Conditions Discharge.
ce. A cadet disenrolled for any of the following vea-
sons normally is honorably separated or discharged. He
may tender his resignation for one of the reasons listed
in (1) through (12):
(1) Career goals.
(2) Personal reasons.
(3) Hardship.
(4) Marriage.
(5) Fear of Flying.
(6) Environmental adjustment.
(7) Academics.
(8) Admitted or court-adjudicated paternity claims.
(9) Physical disability, service incurred with no will-
ful misconduct involved or existing prior to entering
service.
(10) Deficiency in academics.
(11) Deficiency in conduct.
(12) Deficiency in aptitude for commissioned service.
d. A cadet disenrolled under one of the following sets
of conditions normally is awarded a general discharge
certificate “under honorable conditions” or a discharge
certificate “under other than honorable conditions.”
(1) A cadet discharged for physical disability incurred
through his intentional misconduct or willful neglect, or
incurred during a period of unauthorized absence, is
discharged “under honorable conditions.” A cadet who
tenders his resignation for this reason does so with the
understanding that, if accepted, he will be discharged
“under honorable conditions.”
(2) A cadet discharged for possessing undesirable
habits or traits of character of such a nature as to pre-
clude an honorable discharge is discharged “under honor-
able conditions” (general discharge certificate DD Form
257 AF) or “under other than honorable conditions”
a
Weeden wh 5
41
(DD Form 794 AF), depending on the seriousness of the
offense. Chronic alcoholism, drug addiction, sexual p7r-
version, habitual shirking, repeated commission of minor
offenses not warranting trial by court-martial, and fi-
nancial irresponsibility, are examples of acts or conduct
exhibiting undesirable habits or traits of character. A
cadet who tenders his resignation for any of these rea-
sons tenders his resignation for the good of the service
with the understanding that, if accepted, he may be dis-
charged “under other than honorable conditions.”
(3) A cadet who commits a major offense triable by
court-martial—such as murder or man-slaughter—nor-
mally is brought to trial unless special circumstances
exist which would warrant consideration by a board of
officers convened under AFR 11-1 to consider the cadet
for administrative discharge. A cadet who is administra-
tively discharged under these conditions is discharged
“under other than honorable conditions.” A cadet who
commits an offense as outlined above may tender a resig-
nation for the good of the service, regardless of whether
or not formal court-martial charges have been preferred.
A cadet who tenders such a resignation does so with the
understanding that, if accepted, he may be discharged
“under other than honorable conditions.”
(4) A cadet who has been tried by court-martial for
an offense or offenses for which maximum punishment
authorized by MCM, 1951, includes a punitive-type sepa-
ration, but, upon conviction, is sentenced to less than
dismissal may be administratively discharged “under
other than honorable conditions,” notwithstanding trial by
court-martial.
(5) A cadet who has been convicted by a civil court
of any offense involving moral turpitude may be ad-
ministratively discharged “under other than honorable
conditions.”
(6) If information is received which indicates that
the retention of a cadet may not be consistent with the
interests of national security, report the facts and cir-
cumstances to the local office of special investigation
(OSI) and request an investigation by that office. On
42
receipt of the report of investigation, take action as out-
lined in AFR 35-€2.
21. Special Provisions for Breaches of Cadet Honor Code:
a. A cadet who breaches the cadet honor code may
be tried by court-martial when in the opinion of the
Superintendent such action is necessary in the interest
of good order and discipline. Court-martial proceedings
are instituted only when there is reasonable assurance
that the evidence at hand will result in conviction. A
cadet in this category may tender a resignation for the
good of the service, regardless of the fact that formal
court-martial charges have or have not been preferred.
A cadet who tenders such a resignation does so with the
understanding that if accepted he may be discharged
“under other than honorable conditions.”
b. A cadet who commits a breach of the cadet honor
code which would warrant trial by court-martial, but,
because of the facts cf the case, court-martial action is
not deemed appropriate, normally is administratively
discharged “under other than honorable conditions.” A
cadet in this category may tender a resignation with
the understanding that if accepted he may be discharged
“under other than honorable conditions.”
ce. A cadet who commits a breach of the cadet honor
code which would not warrant trial by court-martial,
but which is not considered to be a minor violation,
normally is administratively discharged under honorable
conditions. He may tender a resignation with the un-
derstanding that if accepted he may be discharged “under
honorable conditions.”
d. A cadet who commits an offense which is considered
to be a less serious breach of the cadet honor code than
those referred to in a, b, or ¢ above, is honorably sepa-
rated/discharged. He may tender a resignation with the
understanding that if accepted he will be “honorably
separated /discharged.”’
e. When a cadet is being processed for separation
under a, b, or ¢ above, attach to the forwarding cor-
respondence a statement indicating the type of offense
committed and other pertinent facts. These statements
———— a
43
are used at secretarial level in determining the character
of separation to be awarded, and are not made a part of
the cadet’s official records.
SECTION C—REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
22. Service Academy Disenrollments. RCS: DD-M(A)
851. Submit an annual report indicating the following
information for each class in attendance during the
preceding academic year to HQ USAF (AFPTRA) not
later than 15 August of each year.
a. Number discharged for unsuitability, unfitness, or
physical disqualification.
b. Number discharged for all other reasons, —...........
— ee ee ee ete ee ee ee eee
Bf EELS ee cee
d. Number transferred to the Reserve component and
not ordered to active duty —.---_-_---_ =
e. Number separated and reverted to former Reserve
or Regular status, except those included in ¢ above —......
~ £. Total number separated during the year
23. Monthly Report. USAFA submits a monthly report
on USAF Academy Cadet Attrition to HQ USAF
(AFPDPRR) not later than the 7th day of each month.
Annotate report to reflect cadets dropped from class
strength but not assigned strength who are later re-
turned to a class. Identify cadets returned to class rolls
as to the class year in which they will graduate.
24. Individual Report of Separation. Report separation
of a cadet before graduation to the congressional sponsor
on AF Form 631, “Report of Separation from USAF
Academy.” USAF (CRR) completes the form (used only
by HQ USAF and the Air Force Academy) and forwards
it to HQ USAF (AFPTRAB) for notification to the ap-
propriate congressman.
dd
SECTION D—AIR FORCE ACADEMY
PREPARATORY SCHOOL
25. How To Apply for Preparatory School:
a. AFR 53-14/BUPERS INST 1530.49/MCO 1530.5A
tells in detail how to apply for the Air Force Academy
Preparatory School course, when the course is to be
conducted, and how students are selected.
b. Any eligible member of the Air Force on extended
active duty or assigned to a Reserve component may
apply for preparatory school in conjunction with an ap-
plication for the Air Force Academy.
45
[SEAL]
HONOR REFERENCE HANDBOOK OF THE
AIR FORCE CADET WING
20 June 1970
46
CONTENTS
Page
TEETTIIEED canennnsenetiniapesuneneststastanenininbenibsntineseceenndeesnesimcennebtanmmniatiinisneninn 1
I oe dceeieiinindeiibibiaitmiabeinan 1
SE Ct Ge SEED ccnsteesiinscnsisinincnienidenatinnion i 2
I eal 2
SUUTDD - <cipshsashahdinsinpeibbiebabetntpimiebianinesiibbieettiiaibiiansamnieiaidaninntdmiininiditiats 3
RN TITTIES" iscicesictiscssiiiaeiinciiieisldascihaascibaesibincniippdetialianinbiniiabemieins 4
SSUITEITTIIE eisetebisncriesdenaieinnennccieesioeiddeiadapidalealideetnteihniaisacdaniamiaiigiivenniibianitsiin 5
I a 5
I sicecceiaciaeeh teehee alt 5
TED TS BETTIE TIT eeecescceccenccccccccccecscccccersesescncnseses 6
I a arliehilinaalsliendhimeiteabi 6
SEEIIEE. suisnsesiaciecensnietsnssbnedeesbiciiianeahisinstidbtaniinbtenieteieaieiitiiaabsneednmenmeainatiuiiaainiees 7
SERENA SRE Hee ee es Se eS 7
ITIL T SOO ae a en a ee &
SSSI: sdsiicdccceihpeesiiedidieieitlaaiitabiacencibnipntieaneeiiatingn 9
ee Me MT iienctihceieiitelicichieeiincciaiiteeetarnsinnattaata 9
Improper or Unnecessary Questions ......00000000000000000.... 10
UEEEETITUTUTIETT: - sionicilspstichsiieclenbtashibdeiihleeiehienaiiniediapieniapasianbianneatae: 12
EERE ESAT RE a Sve ee Ty en OnE eae Tenn eR eT Te 12
TEETER a ET oe 12
TTT OT a 12
ET EETIITTID seriehseisbnttshdaininicenintsiiprintinientntastgenenenmnaamnininnideatnsanincntinatedats 13
Ty WII * sbi heli desl hidihdaelian eatin tncmineentantanntiainiaateenies 13
Quizzes and Graded Reviews ...20................0ccccccccceccseeeeseeeeee 13
SUPE cuit ieinariantlaatieuaiaadiiaistneniiasbinatasliniidnatiatidinaenasties 14
a IIIT sstcitadeariaieebih btntade eben iia eniacgnenintemanaanaa lacie 15
STRESS a a a 16
ciara pete derail aaa 37
IID. siete naa 38
fre ee Ey OR 45
THIS MANUAL SUPERSEDES ALL PREVIOUS
EDITIONS OF THE HONOR MANUAL
47
THE CADET HONOR CODE
“We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us
anyone who does.”
This is your Honor Code—a code that means many things
to you as a cadet and future officer. It means the pride
of knowing your word is trusted implicitly. It means
the respect you have for the property of others and the
consideration you expect others to have for your property.
It means the responsibility to accept credit only for your
personal achievement. It means the moral courage to
protect the Wing from any cadet who places his stand-
ards below those of the Wing’s Honor Code. The Code
embodies the attitude of every cadet who has jealously
guarded its existence since it was first established by
the Class of 1959.
You will find that living by the Honor Code is not so
difficult as living without it. It is not a unique set of
standards. It is based on the ideals every American
encounters from childhood. They are not limited to the
Cadet Wing. They are certainly the foundation of char-
acter for every officer who desires to be considered honest
and trustworthy. The Cadet Wing expects each cadet to
make the Cadet Honor Code a part of his personal code
throughout his life.
The Code’s Philosophy
Former Secretary of War, Newton Baker, said, “. . . the
inexact or untruthful soldier trifles with the lives of his
fellow men and with the honor of his government. . .”
The young officer needs to be able to trust his men as
does any commander. In these times of expensive and
increasingly complex weapons systems, the officer must
rely on fellow officers and airmen for his own safety
and the safety of his men. By living honorably while a
cadet, it is heved that such conduct will become second
nature and follow the individual throughout his career.
The Honor Code then is another important aspect of the
training that a cadet gets at the Academy; however, in
this case the Cadet Wing has set its own standard.
48
Origin of the Code
The Honor Code was originated by the first class to
enter the Academy. They studied the honor codes and
systems in use by institutions throughout the country,
including the United States Military and Naval Acade-
mies, Virginia Military Institute, and others. These were
screened, formulated, and organized into a system and
basic code which was presented to the Cadet Wing in
1955 by the first Commandant of Cadets. It was accepted
by the Class of ’59 and subsequently administered, in-
terpreted, and cultivated by them and their successors.
The Honor Code has always belonged to the Cadet Wing
which administers and instructs the Code through its
Honor Committee with the advice and counsel of the
Commandant of Cadets. It is the duty of the Cadet
Wing to insure that the Code never becomes stagnant
or unrealistic. Honor is not only the responsibility of
the squadron Honor Representative and the Honor Com-
mittee. Every cadet must feel responsible for the vitality
and effectiveness of the Code. Suggestions, problems, or
questions should be communicated to the squadron Honor
Representative.
Legal Basis for the Honor Code
The legal basis, particularly for the punitive aspects of
the Cadet Honor Code, is the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. In general, all four aspects of the Cadet Honor
Code (lying, cheating, stealing, or tolerating any of those
acts), are punishable under military law. Specific ar-
ticles of the UCMJ which could apply vary with the
circumstances, but include Articles 80, 92, 107, 121, 122,
123, 133, and 134. Executive orders, service regulations
and orders issued at lower levels of command as well
as established customs and usages of military service
are recognized and violations are made punishable by
the UCMJ. Article 134, for example, includes all dis-
orders and neglects to the prejudice of good order or
discipline and of a nature to bring discredit upon the
armed forces, even though such misconduct is not spe-
cifically enumerated in the Uniform Code. The entire
49
body of accepted military custom and tradition has
established high standards of responsibility and conduct
for officers and cadets. Both the written laws (UCMJ),
and the unwritten customs and usages of the military
service, provide strong support for punitive action against
such acts as are prohibited by the Cadet Honor Code.
Mission
The final mission of the Code is to influence cadets to
live honorably so that they will graduate as officers with
the highest standards of individual honor and integrity.
The Cadet Honor Code is regarded as the minimum
standard of conduct. The Code is realistic and reason-
able. Each cadet should realize that the standards that
are expected of him are a minimum and that he should
maintain a set of personal values higher and broader
than those established by the Honor Code. The Honor
Code should be analogous to a foundation upon which
the cadet seeks to build his own integrity—always seek-
ing to improve what has been done before. These stand-
ards of conduct apply anytime, anyplace, and in any
situation. By making the Code all-encompassing, cadets
have established a true standard that is more than a
mere formality to be observed occasionally. Honorable
conduct must be a continuous pattern of behavior.
Honor Violations
The purpose of the Cadet Honor Code is to build within
the man a keen sense of honor and an intense dedication
to live by the dictates of this sense of honor. Tho
man who fails in this is deemed unworthy of cadet status
and is asked to resign from the Academy. There are two
elements in an honor violation, the act and the intent.
In the following pages the prohibited acts of lying, steal-
ing, cheating and toleration are defined. These acts, or
an attempt to accomplish these acts, must be performed
if a man is to be found guilty of an honor violation.
The question of intent poses greater difficulty to define
and prove. To some extent the intent required depends
upon the act involved. There are some acts which are
inherently wrong. In these cases the intent to commit
the act is sufficient to justify a guilty vote. For example,
a man who takes a crib sheet into a class and uses it to
cheat does not have to think specifically “this is wrong
and it is against the Honor Code.” His intent to commit
the act would be enough. There are other acts which are
defined as wrong. For a man to be found guilty of these
violations he must know they are wrong and think
about the wrongful nature of the act at the time. For
example, a man who goes on an unauthorized absence
with his card marked must know that his card is marked
and be aware of the meaning of a card marked “au-
thorized,” in order to have violated the Code.
What is expected by the Cadet Wing is that the cadet
will act as a reasonable and honorable man and make
judgments which a reasonable and honorable man would
make.
LYING
Lying is making an assertion which is intended to de-
ceive or mislead. A lie may be an oral or written state-
ment, or even an action, which is misleading or de-
ceiving and meant to be so. That’s all there is to it. It
is a simple concept. The following pages merely expand
on the first two sentences of this paragraph, covering
situations which may be peculiar to the Cadet Wing due
to the atmosphere of trust we live in; they clarify situa-
tions which may not be unique to the Academy, yet are
new to you; and they will answer some of your questions
before you ask them.
Keep in mind that the points mentioned in the follow-
ing pages are inseparable. They all cover lying; only the
form is different. Each one can be thought of in terms
of the basic definition of lying. You should try to relate
everything back to the basic concept as you read. In this
way, you will get a feeling for the “spirit” of the Honor
Code. It is this spirit of the Code which you will some-
day carry away from the Academy as a part of you.
ZT aes
Te
51
Quibbling
A person can easily create a false impression in the mind
of his listener by cleverly wording what he says, omitting
relevant facts, or telling a partial truth. When he
knowingly does so with the intent to deceive or mislead,
he is quibbling. Quibbling and lying are not separable;
they are one and the same thing.
Reports
Every cadet at one time or another must render a report
of some sort, and it is important for each cadet to realize
the meaning of the report. Oral or written reports
must be complete and accurate because the report is a
statement made by the cadet. When reports are given
in ranks, the person rendering the report must give the
name or number of cadets who are absent and whose
status (authorized or not) is not known for certain. The
Dormitory Inspector’s report ascertains that he has made
the inspections which he lists on the CCQ report; and
that he has inspected all cadet rooms and reported all
cadets who were absent from their rooms with their
ecards unmarked.
Other reports such as the CCQ report and the Cadet
Accountability System reports must be accurate before
they are signed. In general, cadets should know what
they are saying when an oral or written report is made
or before they apply their signature or initials to a
report or document.
The Lost Articles Inspection
The lost articles inspection is made for the purpose of
recovering articles lost by cadets. It is mentioned here
only because it is unique to the Academy; it is a con-
venience which is possible because of the Honor Code.
A list of lost articles, along with the date of the lost
articles inspection, will appear in the Daily Bulletin.
Cadets should check before the inspection to see if they
have any of the lost articles. For example, if one of the
lost articles is a class shirt, cadets should check the
52
nametags of all their class shirts. When a cadet gives an
“all right,” he is saying that he has already checked his
possessions for the lost articles and found that the miss-
ing items were not among them. He cannot give the
“all right” until he has performed the check or knows
beyond any doubt that he does not have the item in
question.
Pop-offs and Mistakes
It is easy to inadvertently make a false statement. Once
a cadet realizes his mistake, however, he should attempt
to correct it with the person to whom the statement was
made at the first reasonable opportunity. If the person
is unknown or unavailable, he should tell his Honor Rep-
resentative the circumstances of the incident. If he lets
the mistake ride, he is allowing the false statement to
stand as the truth, which is then no different from
making a false statement initially with the intent to
deceive or mislead.
The kind of mistake described above is termed a “pop-
off.” It is usually a yes or no answer, or a short state-
ment, made in haste and without thinking. It is not an
honor violation if it is corrected.
Tact
Social situations may arise in which a cadet should not
embarrass another person by being completely truthful.
Here is an obvious example: The hostess asks her cadet
guest if he enjoyed the meal she spent two hours pre-
paring. It would go against all the rules of etiquette
for the cadet to reply, quite truthfully, “As a matter of
fact, I was just going to ask for a glass of water—the
chicken was so dry it was all I could do to get it down.”
The cadet may apply tact to save someone else’s feelings
and that is not considered a lie. Of course, the best
solution would be to comment on some part of the meal
that the cadet actually did like.
A cadet should apply tact only in a social situation
when common sense dictates it to avoid embarrassing
nf
= ee ED
53
someone else and never with personal gain in mind. If
there is ever any doubt as to whether tact applies, go
ahead and be completely truthful.
Signatures
A cadet’s signature is his word. As a cadet, there will be
many times when your signature—whether it is your full
written name, typed name, initials, check mark, or
whatever—will be required to affirm that you have per-
formed some task, to certify that a document is com-
plete and accurate to the best of your knowledge, or
to indicate some other response. If you are required
to do something before you place your signature, keep
in mind that when you sign, you are in effect saying,
“Yes, I have done what is required.” A violation of your
signature is a lie.
Privileges
The Commandant grants privileges to cadets on the basis
of rank, performance, and other criteria. Cadets can
take privileges they earn without wading through cumber-
some administrative controls only because a cadet’s word
or signature can be trusted. While this atmosphere of
trust is something to be proud of, it is also something
to be guarded, and not abused. A cadet must fulfill
certain requirements before taking a privilege:
First, a cadet must be authorized the privilege; a cadet is
authorized te take only a certain number of privileges
during a specified period. Additionally, a privilege can-
not be taken in conflict with military duties or punish-
ments. Second, a cadet must receive proper permission
to take the privilege.
Some privileges, such as the ones that a cadet does not
sign out for, e.g., the recreation privilege in Arnold Hall,
may not require specific permission. On the other hand,
some privileges, like the Weekend Pass and the Visiting
Permit, have additional requirements. The Weekend Pass
requires that the cadet fill out the proper form and have
it signed by his AOC. The Visiting Permit requires that
54
the cadet be with his host at all times except while going
straight to or from the host’s residence.
Only a few examples of specific requirements have been
given. A cadet should be completely familiar with the
privilege regulation, because when he signs out on a
particular privilege or permit or when he marks his
status card to take a privilege, he is saying that (1) he is
authorized to take the privilege, (2) he has received
permission to take it, and (3) he will take the privilege
he is signing out for, as defined in cadet regulations.
I.D. Cards
Besides being a severe offense under the Uniform Code
of Military Justice, the intentional misuse or falsifi-
cation of an identification card is a form of lying. The
cadet who presents an I.D. Card for any purpose is
implying that the card is his and that it is correct. If it
is not, he is lying, because he knows that the person to
whom he has presented the card has accepted it as being
his and being correct.
For example, if a cadet is 20, yet his I.D. Card says he is
21, and he uses his I.D. to purchase liquor, he is lying.
Once again, the simple test is to ask yourself, “Will my
statement or action mislead or deceive the person to
whom it is directed?” If so, it is a lie.
The Status Card
When a cadet marks his card by putting it in the
“authorized” position, the card is speaking for the cadet
during Evening Call-to-Quarters. When the card is
marked, it says that the cadet is in cadet limits, as
defined in AFCR 35-9. If a cadet unintentionally violates
his card, he should see his Honor Representative im-
mediately so that appropriate action can be taken to
correct this situation. Of course, an intentional violation
of the card is lying.
Cadet regulations spell out when, in addition to Evening
Call-to-Quarters, the card should be marked. The im-
errr rae ere eae i ne ee
55
portant thing to remember with regard to honor is that
your marked card speaks for you just as if you were
standing in front of your room saying you were in an
authorized place.
Improper or Unnecessary Questions
The goal of the Honor Code is to establish within each
cadet a keen appreciation for the importance of integrity
in the character of the professional military officer and
to insure each cadet’s dedication is being a man of honor
and integrity. Within this framework the Honor Code
is a tool for self-discipline and is not a regulatory device
imposed by the Academy Administration. A cadet’s sense
of duty should dictate that he properly discharge his
responsibilities, even though he is not honor-bound to do
so. However, the Honor Code does dictate that the cadet
will not lie or quibble to avoid responsibility for his
mistakes or shortcomings. Cadets are expected to be
straighforward in answering the questions of superiors
and to stand up to whatever punishment they bring upon
themselves. This expectation is patterned after that which
will be expected of the graduate once he is commissioned
an officer in the United States Air Force.
Caution is necessary when questioning cadets to insure
that the Honor Code is not used unfairly. Good judg-
ment and a sense of fair play is a continuous obligation
on the part of the questioning officer or cadet. Ob-
viously, a cadet should not be asked an embarrassing
personal question about his private life. Generally, the
prudent degree of questioning is related to whether the
questioning individual has reasonable suspicion that the
questioned cadet has knowledge of, or was implicated in,
some act or incident. Questions should be avoided when
there is only vague suspicion that some punishable act
did occur.
For example, the Air Officer Commanding who finds an
empty liquor bottle in the latrine would not line his
squadron up and ask each cadet if the bottle were his.
On the other hand, if the bottle were found in a cadet
56
room both occupants could properly be questioned about
the incident.
While the purpose of the Honor Code is not to enforce
regulations each cadet must realize that throughout life
he will be asked to certify by his signature that he has or
has not done certain acts. For example, 2 man may be
required to state his marital status, the state of his
health, or whether he has ever been a member of a
subversive organization. To falsely answer such ques-
tions is a violation of public law, the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, Air Force regulations, and a man’s
personal honor as well as of the Cadet Honor Code. The
Honor Code should not be used unfairly against a cadet
but neither should it be a shield behind which the cadet
hides to avoid accepting the responsibility for his actions.
If a cadet feels that the Honor Code has been used
unfairly against him he should answer the question and
then discuss the situation with his honor representative.
If it is deemed appropriate the case will be discussed
with the Executive for Honor and Ethics who will take
the necessary corrective action.
STEALING
Stealing is defined by the Cadet Wing as intentionally
depriving someone else of his property without his per-
mission. This act may be either a permanent or tem-
porary deprivation. If something is not yours, you can-
not take it without permission from the owner.
Borrowing
Borrowing must be considered in conjunction with steal-
ing. A cadet must have either specific or implied per-
mission to borrow another person’s belongings. One should
not take advantage of close friendships by being careless
in borrowing. The borrower should leave a note giving
his name and the item borrowed. He should also return
borrowed items promptly.
57
Destruction of Property
Obviously, to destroy another’s property is the same as
depriving the owner of its use. Wilful destruction of
another’s property is a violation of the Honor Code by
stealing. If a cadet accidentally damages, destroys or
loses someone’s property, it is his responsibility to repair
or replace the item involved.
Government Property
Cadets should not feel that their presence in the military
entitles them to assume ownership of government-owned
materials. Government property should always be treated
in the same manner as personal property.
CHEATING
Over your four years at the Academy, you will be in
constant competition with other cadets. In fact, com-
petition is one of the most important aspects of a cadet’s
life. The results of this competition will greatly affect
your future career here at the Academy and in the
Air Force. It is expected, therefore, that each cadet
will compete fairly with his fellow cadets. Cheating is
fradulently acting out of self-interest to take unfair
advantage of others. Cheating is not confined to any
single area—it applies to your whole life as a cadet. The
cadet who falsifies his score on the physical fitness test
or who copies on a squadron training test has been as
dishonest as a cadet who copies another’s work in an
academic course. Since the academic environment at the
Academy is probably different from your previous ex-
perience, the next few sections will discuss the various
academic peculiarities of the Academy.
Graded Work
In general, any work done for a grade must be done
without another cadet’s help unless such help is specifically
authorized by the instructor. The work is accepted by
the instructor with the idea that you have done it by
58
yourself. Of course, different academic departments will
have certain policies which allow outside help or team-
work on certain assignments. Such policies will be ex-
plained by your instructors at the appropriate time. It
is essential that you understand these policies; if you
have any questions, be sure to ask your instructor to
clear them up.
Quizzes and Graded Reviews
A cadet must never copy another cadet’s work or com-
pare answers with the intent of confirming or checking
an answer during a graded recitation. At the Academy,
the same test may be given to all sections of a course
on the same day. It is clear that a cadet would be
placed at a definite advantage if he had early knowledge
of the contents of an exam. The only thing you may tell
another cadet is the fact that an exam has been given.
Avoid phrases of the type, “Boy, I had a tough quiz
today.” This type of small talk can lead to more specific
things about an exam and may put one of your class-
mates in a difficult position. Do not discuss an exam
with any cadet who may later take the same test. If a
cadet does find out any of the contents of an exam, he
should tell his instructor. Usually, the instructor will
give him another question or another exam.
Because of their faith in the honesty of cadets, instruc-
tors will often leave the room at the beginning of an
exam and return after the exam is over. It is therefore
the cadet’s responsibility to know and observe starting
and stopping times of the quiz. Usually the section
marcher will give “Cease Work” or a similar command.
At that command stop working immediately. If you no-
tice that time is up, it is your responsibility to give
“Cease Work.” Only the instructor can give you per-
mission tu finish an answer or sentence.
Some courses will give take-home examinations. It is
your obligation to know the restrictions on such exams
(i.e., working time, materials which can be used, etc.).
59
The restrictions will usually be printed on the cover
sheet of the quiz, or the instructor will discuss them.
Plagiarism
In writing essays or themes, it will often be necessary to
use the ideas and words of others. Plagiarism is the use
of such ideas in an attempt to pass them off as your
own. Plagiarism can be avoided by properly document-
ing outside sources. The English Department makes
available to each cadet an English handbook explaining
the writing and documenting of themes. If any doubt
exists about documenting, a cadet should check with his
instructor.
No attempt should be made to cover up sloppy or in-
complete research work by stuffing bibliographies or giv-
ing fictitious sources and page numbers. Such an act im-
plies intent to receive credit for work the cadet has
not done.
Use of Library
Our library policies are designed for maximum conven-
ience for cadets; such freedom is possible because of the
Honor Code and the trust vested in us. Therefore it is
important that everyone conscientiously abide by library
policies and directives. The concept of taking unfair
advantage of your classmates may arise in this area.
For example, many courses require certain reading to be
completed from books on reserve in the library. To deny
another person the use of one of these books, or any
book, by hiding it in another part of the library or by
taking the book without checking it out would have
honor implications and could be considered cheating or
stealing.
TOLERATION
The backbone of the Honor Code is the toleration clause
which requires that every cadet report any suspected
violation of the Code. If a cadet suspects another cadet
of violating the Honor Code, he should first approach the
individual and inauire about the circumstances surround-
60
ing the situation. A misunderstanding or mistake may be
easily and quickly cleared up in this manner; however, if
the suspecting cadet is not absolutely certain in his own
mind that the incident was not an honor violation, he
should tell the individual involved to see an Honor Rep-
resentative and later check to insure that this was done.
If the incident is of a serious nature, it is sometimes
better to contact an Honor Representative first and allow
him to make an investigation. In cases where a possible
breach of the Honor Code is not completely resolved, an
Honor Representative should be contacted. Toleration
cannot be present until the intent to ignore the honor
violation is formulated. In some cases, several hours or
even days of serious thinking may be necessary before
the decision is finally made to turn in or not turn in the
suspected honor violator. During this period the cadet is
encouraged to talk with someone whom he respects, for
example, an honor representative, a chaplain, or some
other officer. Toleration can only occur when the con-
clusion is made not to turn in the suspected cadet.
It is important that each cadet fully understands the
spirit behind the toleration clause, as well as the obliga-
tions it creates and the method of reporting a suspected
honor violation. Once confronted with the pressures of
a toleration situation, it may be too late to formulate
a clear decision on it because emotion will be involved.
If one has doubts or questions about this clause, the
matter should be discussed with the squadron Honor Rep-
resentative.
The Honor Code belongs to the Cadet Wing, and it is
our standard. We have set the pace, and because of this
we must remove violators from the Wing if the Code is
to mean anything at all. An editorial in the “Denver
Post” stated the idea by saying:
“The success of the Honor Code is realized through
its tacit acceptance by all those entering the Acad-
emy. It implies that the cadet who cheats has denied
himself the membership of this group of highly
favored young men. Thus, it is an intrinsic yard-
61
stick of moral behavior, clearly recognized as such
by everyone who puts on the uniform of an Air
Force Cadet.”
The following are several different comments on the
“no toleration” concept. These should reinforce the logic
of the clause.
1. Excerpts from a letter by a member of the Class of
1968.
Written to the Class of 1968 after resigning from the
Academy because of violating the Honor Code. Dated:
8 March 1967.
“Do you remember when you accepted the Honor Code?
Or like myself do you remember accepting a double
standard? Yours and the Academy’s.
“What I really would like to say is that we've...
reached a turning point in our infant careers. I didn’t
realize this however ’till it was too late to keep from
smashing my career.
“To an officer, Duty and Loyalty should be the two guid-
ing principles of his life—not just inflated words in his
vocabulary.
“When I cheated, I broke all bonds of loyalty between
ourselves and could no longer claim a loyalty higher
than a false one to myself. But you almost erred too—by
tolerating my selfishness. Could you have been loyal to
yourselves if you had maintained a loyaliy to someone
who wrongfully discredited you? No. So you could not
have tolerated my cheating in your midst. What kind of
friend would ask another to cover for his dishonesty?
“In other words, was it not your duty to report me?
You would have failed yourself and your true friends.
“Why didn’t I understand some of this ’till now? And
I’m no different than many of you—except that possibly
I’m weaker.
“This letter only poorly conveys what I think and feel.
But think about what I wanted to say and what I have
62
said for above all it is sincere. It has taken a lot of
growing up lately to come to these conclusions and I’!l
always be sorry I missed the boat somewhere. . .”
9
2. Excerpt from a paper written by Harry P. Wetzler,
Class of 1967.
“Behind any Honor Code there must be one goal of
paramount importance—that is the development within
each individual who lives under the Code of an unwaver-
ing sense of integrity, an unwavering sense for that
which is ‘right’ under the circumstances. These quali-
ties are desirable in any member of society, but they
are essential in the soldier and officer. For the military
man has a high degree of calling: he is responsible to
his country, to his many fellow citizens. He is subject
to pressures which are greater than those faced by his
civilian counterpart, and the consequences of his acts
are generally farther reaching. Thus, the officer must
have ingrained within him a sense of honor and in-
tegrity which will serve him at all times no matter what
the difficulties or personal risk. The citizenry has placed
their confidence, and oft-times their lives and futures,
in the hands of the miltary defense establishment: any
laxity on their part cannot be tolerated.”
3. Excerpt from a letter sent to all applying students
by the Office of the Dean of Students, Davidson College,
North Carolina.
“As you know, Davidson believes in the value of many
things which are part of the century-old tradition of the
College. You will be a part of a student government
centered in a longstanding honor system; this honor
system requires not only that you yourself refrain from
cheating, stealing, and lying in formal statements, but
that you report violations of the honor system which
come under your observation.”
4. Comments made by Brigadier General Seith, Com-
mandant of Cadets, Spring 1967.
QUESTION: SHOULD THE TOLERATION CLAUSE—
AND THE HONOR CODE—BE MADE TO APPLY
TO ONLY THE MORE “SERIOUS OFFENSES”?
SOME CADETS HAVE SAID: “YES, I WOULD RE-
PORT A ‘SERIOUS’ OFFENSE, BUT NOT SOME
MINOR OFFENSE.”
Any moral value, habitually transgressed, tends to lose
its significance—both for the violator and the tolerator.
“Minor” transgressions, having become tolerable, then
become the departing point for new levels of “minor”
transgressions, levels that once seemed “major.” This is
the anatomy of moral degeneration.
This was apparent in the cheating scandal of 1965,
wherein cadets first tolerated, then cheated only when
helping others (but never received help themselves) ;
from here, even bright students found they might as
well accept help, and were soon cheating for their own
benefit. First they did it only on rare occasions when
they were too busy to study. Next they found it con-
venient to cheat more often. After a while it was
nicer to cheat frequently because it permitted them to
live in a more relaxed fashion (no studying). From here
it went to actively recruiting others; from here cynicism
set in, and the violations became increasingly criminal,
e.g., passing exam papers, colluding as a ring, stealing,
etc., etc.
Moral degeneration does not compartmentalize itself.
Some cadets were conditioned for cheating—or tolerat-
ing cheaters—by the guilt of dishonorable acts in other
areas. In some cases this involved violations of the card
or the “All Right.” In others, the process was initiated
by cheating and expanded into violating the card, or even
to stealing.
QUESTION: MANY OF THE CHEATERS STARTED
OFF AS TOLERATORS. IT SEEMED TO THEM
THAT THE VERY ACT OF TOLERATION BECAME
A TRAP. CADETS FOUND THAT THEY HAD VIO-
LATED THE HONOR CODE, THEN DECIDED THEY
MIGHT AS WELL GO ON AND BE CHEATERS.
IF WE COULD REMOVE TOLERATION FROM THE
CODE—OR AT LEAST REDUCE THE PENALTY,
WOULD NOT THIS TRAP BE REMOVED?
Yes, the very act of toleration is a trap. But if we
assume no prohibition against “tolerating” a cheater,
then toleration: would become an even greater trap.
Even without a “no toleration” clause in the Code,
many persons who tolerate cheating by others will even-
tually become cheaters themselves. Anyone who lives
closely with cheaters will find it hard not to become dis-
couraged and disillusioned—more so if they are his re
spected friends. His friends all do it; they don’t work
hard, while he studies; they get better grades than he;
perhaps he loses privileges or is threatened with academic
failure. The probability is that if the honest man can-
not bring himself to stop the cheater, sooner or later he
will throw up his hands and start cheating himself.
Widespread toleration will spawn widespread cheating.
The closer the student society, the more insidious this
reaction will be.
As a matter of fact, if enough people tolerate cheating
by cthers, does not cheating then become an accepted
standard—by definition?
If the very act of tolerating cheating weakens one’s own
resolve not to cheat, would not that resolve be further
weakened by the reduction of any threat of discovery
by authorities? Would not cheating become easier, in
the absence of a real deterrent as represented by the “no
toleration” clause?
Concerning a reduced penalty for toleration, it has
been suggested that people would not be “trapped” by
tolerating if they knew that the penalty was not so
extreme. It may be true, that some tolerators, having
thought it all out, might be less fearful of coming
forward with a confession, were the penalty less severe.
But other cadets who might be deterred from tolerating
-_— ~
by the severity of the penalty might now take a chance
thinking primarily of the severity of the penalty to the
cheater himself. After all, if the tolerator did get caught
(or become conscience-stricken), the penalty would be
an endurable one for him, especially when compared to
the penalty for his friend, the cheater. So, it is ques-
tionable that a reduced penalty for tolerating would
decrease toleration—it would very likely increase it.
QUESTION: HOW DOES THE HONOR CODE—AND
THE TOLERATION CLAUSE—RELATE TO THE
LAW? TO DUTY?
One of the intellectual traps waylaying college students
is perversion of “freedom of choice,” of “intellectual
freedom,” of the “responsibility to question and to probe
intellectually.” In some circles those great principles
have become a rationalization for civil disobedience move-
ments, the Vietnicks, and protest movements.
Some cadets have fallen into this trap by saying in ef-
fect: “I will obey those rules (regulations) which make
sense to me. The others I will not.” This transfers to the
cadet leader who says: “I will enforce only those rules
and regulations in which I believe.” This cadet denies his
sworn duty and responsibility as a soldier, and reflects a
concentration on self to the exclusion of another all
important principle: The very foundation of U.S. civili-
zation depends upon acceptance of laws imposed by a
majority, even though they may not be understood or
liked by large segments of the population.
In the military, each man takes an oath to uphold the
laws of his country—and the rightful orders and regu-
lations that stem from those laws. Cadet regulations fit
this category. No cadet has any right—morally or le-
gally or otherwise—to decide which regulations are not
worthy of being obeyed or enforced. True, he may vio-
late a regulation for many personal reasons, however
unworthy, and the punishment will follow if he is caught.
But he may never sef any requlation aside on the grounds
that it is an unworthy regulation. This is subversive
insubordination.
Cheating, stealing, and lying are unlawful acts under the
UCMJ and contrary to the rules of cadet behavior.
Toleration of these acts is also unlawful. All citizens are
bound by law to stop or report unlawful acts; otherwise
they become accessories to these acts. Witnesses to
felonies (not misdemeanors) are required by law to re-
port these crimes and to identify the persons who com-
mit them.
The obligation of a cadet to the Cadet Honor Code is
bound by the law, yet it goes beyond the law and mili-
tary regulations. Each cadet knows he is committed to
uphold the Code, to live by it in its entirety, as it
stands now. He is committed to his classmates, and to
each member of the Cadet Wing—ard he is committed
to this above his loyalty to friends and individuals. He
cannot mentally set aside any part of it—including the
toleration clause—without violating his commitment to
each member of the Wing. He may question a part of it,
or he may advocate change, but to remain in the Wing
with any reservation about his personal commitment to
comply with the Code is in itself dishonorably and
frauduient.
Concerning toleration, each cadet has committed himself
to be the guardian of the Honor Code. Just as a priest
has committed himself never to reveal a confidence taken
in confession, a cadet has committed himself to confront
and reveal a violator of the Code. This has become both
a duty under the law and a personal commitment.
QUESTION: HOW CAN A CADET RESOLVE THE
APPARENT CONFLICT BETWEEN HIS LOYALTIES
TO HIS GOD, TO FRIENDS, TO THE SQUADRON,
TO A TEAM, AND TO THE HONOR CODE?
No man can be relieved of the conflict of loyalties—to
self, to family, to country, and to a host of other
commitments. But he can learn to live with these con-
et ae
BE BS een ee
67.
flicts. Resolution of these conflicting demands is a part
of growing up.
A professional military man resolves his conflict by his
oath of allegiance. Each cadet swears that he will sup-
port the constitution; that he will bear true allegiance
to the national government; that he will defend the
sovereignty of the United States, paramount to any and
all allegiance, sovereignty or loyalty he may owe to any
state, county, or country whatsoever; and that he will at
all times obey the legal orders of his superior officers, and
the rules and articles governing the U.S. Air Force.
We all love our country, and we support the constitu-
tion—but we need something more concrete on which
to hang our loyalties. Thus we love our Air Force,
our Wing, our squadron, and our fellows that make up
these units. Our allegiance to country is realized through
these subordinate loyalties. We also love our families,
friends, teammates outside the Air Force. There need be
no real conflict here either—provided that our families,
friends, and teammates, or our fellow military men do
not ask us to violate our pledged loyalties as professional
military men. No true friend will ask this. Successful
military men nationwide can attest to this fact.
Concerning religious loyalties, most religions recognize
that a man may serve his God and still be loyal to his
military oath.
QUESTION: IS THE TOLERATION CLAUSE MERE-
LY AN EXPEDIENT? OR IS IT A MORAL VALUE?
“Expediency” is defined as something opportune, some-
thing having self-interest in the narrow sense, something
having a short range goal. Some cadets have won-
dered if the toleration clause has only an expedient
value, because it is an opportune means of enforcing
Cadet Wing sanction against lying, cheating, and steal-
ing. Some have said that “non-toleration” has no moral
value in itself, but is merely a tool to enforce a rule.
68
A moral value is concerned with a standard of right
behavior, something that is sanctioned by or operative
on one’s conscience or ethical judgment. In another
sense it also has to do with freedom from anything
petty, mean, or dubious in conduct or character.
One of the most common foundations of moral value
lies in the preservation of a civilization or a society.
That which preserves our society is moral; that which
would undermine or destroy the basic foundations of
our society is highly immoral. Thus, many of our laws
support basic moral values, or are themselves moral—
because they aim to prevent destruction of our society
or to protect important concepts upon which our nation
was founded. For example:
a. Anything which would undermine or destroy the
family unit in our civilization is considered immoral,
e.g., adultery, cruelty, desertion, etc., etc.
b. Preservation of military authority and effective
ness, in a sense becomes a moral value to those who
have taken the Oath of Allegiance. A military organi-
zation requires total loyalty in the sense of preserving
its integrity. This type of loyalty is demanded because
the military organization is essential to preservation of
the nation. One of the very fundamental rules of the
military organization is that of total integrity in the mili-
tary member. Lack of integrity destroys the organi-
zation’s effectiveness and thus endangers the country.
This is why, in a military organization, integrity is a
strong moral value. Likewise, any condonement of a
lack of integrity is recognized as being destructive of
the value of integrity, and, in turn, of the organization.
There is another facet to this problem. Is not a man of
honor, who accepts a solemn commitment, morally bound
to that commitment? An Air Force cadet commits him-
self by his Oath of Allegiance to his country—and thus
to the Air Force Cadet Wing. And, by the very fact
of remaining a cadet, he commits himself to obey the
Cadet Honor Code. To remain as a cadet, while failing
- = ~ —— + ee ee ree See. on
Pa eee Fa
~ eee
69
to accept this commitment, is, in itself, an act of dis-
loyalty—and perhaps also of immorality.
5. Excerpts from a letter to Congressman Charles E.
Bennet from C. Warren Dixon III, Class of ’66.
7 February 1965
Hon. Charles E. Bennett
US House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Bennett,
My purpose in writing this letter is twofold; first, as one
of your appointees to the U.S. Air Force Academy, to let
you know that I was in no way involved in the recent
honor investigation, either in taking or using examina-
tion papers, or in toleration of that act. As such, I am
in the vast majority of cadets who were shocked and
very dismayed to find such a thing happening here.
Secondly, I feel that I should say something in defense
of our Honor Code, which has come under much criticism
and abuse from many quarters of late, Congress included.
Our code is a cadet code in every sense of the word. It
was designed by cadets, approved and accepted by the
Wing, is administered by cadets (under supervision of an
officer), and can be changed by voting of the Wing when-
ever we feel it necessary.
Our code states, “We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor
tolerate among us anyone who does.” Our Honor Manual
continues, “There can be no shading, no equivocation, nc
quibbling among honorable men. Therefore a cadet who
violates the Cadet Honor Code indicates his unworthiness
to be a member of the Air Force Cadet Wing.”
It is the toleration point of our Honor Code which
comes under the most criticism. Here people’s sense
(often quite twisted) of fairness and sympathy clouds
their judgment of right and wrong. The American public
regards “Squealing” to be wrong, Communistic, and nu-
merous other derogatory things. The American public’s
WW
moral standards, to speak quite bluntly, have in some
areas degenerated to such a point as to allow rapings
and killings to occur in full public eye with no one
lifting a finger to stop such heinous acts, and refusing
to testify against those who committed these acts. Miss
Genovese’s case is one of severa! recently. To be quite
honest, the American public’s warped sense of what con-
stitutes “squealing” has led us to enforcement of the
code of criminals; and it is enforced against the public
itself.
Our Honor Code, with this point of toleration, is based
upon the precept that, in an organization dedicated to
and trusted with the responsibility of defense of the
nation, an honorable man does not perform or tolerate
dishonorable acts within that organization without being
dishonorable himself. Regardless of his intent, a person
who tolerates dishonorable acts is, in point of fact, not
an honorable person. We at the Air Force Academy want
honorable cadets—and it matters not whether the person
committed the act or tolerated it, toleration is tanta-
mount to condonation, and the person is not honorable.
We do not want him among us.
The nation trusts its officers with defense secrets, and
with huge weapons of destruction. Officers are in charge
of administering large amounts of money daily. In these
circumstances, dishonorable acts cannot be tolerated.
Would the American public like to find that because
someone had misappropriated funds, our aircraft did
not have fuel or replacement parts; and because we did
not have the parts our interceptors could not fly; but
the base commander lied that he had his commitment
responsibilities met (to avoid punishment, and to cover
up for his best friend, the procurement officer who mis-
appropriated the funds); however, the operations officer,
knowing the situation, being friends with two officers
and short on cash, reports the situation to an enemy
rather than the proper authority, and is paid off hand-
somely for his efforts—and one fine day, our defense
system is penetrated through the hole left by ‘this base
and several U.S. cities are destroyed as a result. The
‘
a
ae al
71
American public may regard this example as a bit far-
fetched, as it is. But it points up the seriousness of
toleration. This is exactly what the toleration point of
our Honor Code is about. We are training men here to
be able to meet their future responsibilities—not to pro-
tect their errant friends. Duty to your country is much
higher calling than duty to your friends. . . particularly
when the friends are involved in dishonor. Cadets here
have a duty to their country—to their Academy—and
to themselves. Representative Bennett, we do not want
to see our Honor Code destroyed by anyone. It is truly
one of the most cherished of our institutions, and we
regard it as the foundation of our Academy. Without it
we would become a government-sponsored civilian school
with military trappings, incapable of fulfilling its mission.
To those who would detract from our Honor Code, who
would condemn it as being too exacting, too harsh, or
unrealistic, may I refer you to an editorial of the Denver
Post which recently had this to say: “We believe the
honor code is proper for the Air Force Academy, that it
is, as one spokesman put it, the very heart of the
institution and the reason it succeeds. If it is too harsh a
doctrine for the average young man to live under, then
the average young man has no reason to apply for
appointment.”
That is the crux of the matter. We do not strive for
average performance here. For the sake of the nation,
we cannot afford to.
The men who founded our nation were not “average”
men. The men who provide its continuing leadership—
military as well as civilian—cannot afford to be “aver-
age.” Particularly if “average” permits rape and mur-
der on public streets, with good, “average” citizens all
around.
I feel that I have said enough for now, and taken up
enough of your valuable time. I hope that I have been
able to explain a little of what our Honor Code is, as
sketchily as I have covered it. If I have left any points
unclear or poorly covered, I would be happy to answer
72
any queries about them that you may have. There are
other sources better qualified than I, but I would cer-
tainly try my best. Thank you very much for your time
and consideration.
C. Warren Dixon III
Class of 1966
6. Excerpt from the White Comm:ttee Report to the
Secretary and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
The Toleration Clause
The prohibition against “toleration” which rounds out
the Cadet Honor Code is its most exacting and difficult
standard. Since “honor” is not an exclusive value, a very
real conflict may develop between personal friendship
and a higher loyalty to the Cadet Wing which the
toleration clause embodies. Here too, however, the stand-
ard which cadets exact of themselves, though far more
rigorous, is not without roots in society at large.
The moral courage of the crew member of a military or
commercial aircraft who reports that a pilot has been
drinking furnishes an example. The assistant who de-
nounces a prosecutor for withholding evidence of a de-
fendant’s innocence is another illustration. In each of
these instances, and many others, the public would con-
demn the individual for remaining silent. This is so be-
cause our commitments to society as such impose a higher
loyalty than is demanded by those who would imperil it.
Instances of this kind are reinforced and the ethical
requirements are heightened when the individual is placed
in a position of public trust. Examples include the
officer in an Air Force research and development program
charged with millions in public funds, who sees a fellow
officer stealing; or an officer in a missile complex who
condones a false report on the missiles’ state of readi-
ness; or a judge who knows that another judge has ac-
cepted a bribe; or a doctor who sees a colleague prescribe
an illegal and dangerous drug.
73
While these examples are extreme, they serve to high-
light the fact that a public servant is always confronted
by the obligation to put the welfare of the community
foremost in his scale of loyalties. The toleration clause,
in emphasizing that the Honor Code is a community
possession of the Cadet Wing, is calculated tw develop
more fully this awareness in each cadet.
In ordinary circumstances, each of us as an individual
decides when he feels bound to report the misdeed of
another. In their special circumstances, the cadets have
chosen as a group, through the toleration clause, to set
a high standard, but one not out of line for a profession
committed to public trust and mutual confidence. A
military organization depends for its success upon a deep
sense of personal responsibility by each member to the
group at large. Each subordinate community in our
society—university, profession, social club, or religious
order—has this privilege, subject only to the legal re-
straints common to all. The high calling of the Air Force
officer and the demands made by the profession of arms
lend support to the choice which the cadets have made.
To suggest that such terms as “squealer” or “informer”
are applicable is to indulge a misconception. It suggests
that future Air Force officers have no higher duty than
loyalty toward their personal friends even at the expense
of loyalty to the Air Force or the nation it is dedicated
to serve. Such epithets are rightly applied only to those
narrow relations between man and man in which larger
interests and commitments are not involved.
7. Article by Dean Alfred C. Ingersoll, School of En-
gineering, University of Southern California.*
Integrity—The Keystone of Professional Conduct
While the dean of a professional school must concern
himself with all aspects of the educational program
* Reproduced by special permission from The USC Engineer,
Vol 16, No. 3, March 1965, published by the School of Engineering,
University of Southern California.
74
undergraduate and graduate, most of this concern is fairly
remote and delegated through appropriate faculty com-
mittees. One area where he dare not sidestep direct
responsibility, however, is in the building of a keen sense
of personal integrity in every single student of his school.
Why should a dean be so much concerned with the
integrity of the students? That is, why should he be any
more concerned than the rest of the faculty? Every
faculty member is of course concerned with the integrity
of his students, but he does not stand to succeed or fail
on the measure of professional conduct of his students
as directly as does the dean.
Why should this be so? It is simply because each faculty
member has his own reputation, based upon his integrity
and professional conduct, his engineering work, his teach-
ing and his research and publications. In this case of
the dean, however, his reputation, while resting to some
extent on all of the foregoing, is still largely the reputa-
tion of the school, and the reputation of the school de-
pends on nothing so much as it depends on the profes-
sional conduct of its graduates.
In the forward to the Canons of Ethics for Engineers, ad
developed by the Engineers’ Council for Professional
Development, the matter is put succinctly:
“As the keystone of professional conduct is integrity,
the engineer will discharge his duties with fidelity
to the public, his employers and clients, and with
fairness and impartiality to all.”
The rest of the Canons of Ethics, as the reader well
knows, goes on to delineate the relations of the profes-
sional engineer with the public, clients and employers,
and with other engineers.
But let us linger on the concept of integrity. The word
comes from the same root as the word, integer, and it
means primarily a state of wholeness, unmarred from an
original pure state. From this is derived the concept of
moral soundness or honesty, which is the context in
which it is used in the Canons of Ethics.
75
An irreproachable standard of professional conduct, which
I hold to be the unasilable foundation essential for every
professional engineer, is hard to imagine in a graduate
engineer who has not lived by these same standards
while a student in engineering school.
And that is why the dean of an engineering school feels
a deep personal interest in building and strengthening
integrity in his students. It is no more complicated than
that.
Let me hasten to note here that this article is not oc-
casioned by any cheating scandal at USC—thank heaven
—or by any special feeling of need on my part for such
a sermon to be unleashed on USC engineering students.
We are seeing all about us, however, articles and letters
on this subject appearing in the public press, following
the recent serious scandal at the Air Force Academy.
Twice in a single generation have we seen a major
cheating scandal brought to light in one of our military
academies. Each instance has called forth the most rig-
orous investigations of which the military is capable. Why
should the professional military establishment be so con-
cerned with a little cheating from time to time?
This concern and the exhaustive investigations are based
precisely on the fact that there is no such thing as a
“little cheating.” We spend a good deal of time in
teaching engineering to point out that there are many
solutions to a given problem, each one correct in certain
lights. Both sides of a controversy involving engineering
decisions, for example, reveal that such a case is seldom
black or white, and the student is accustomed to think-
ing in terms of grey areas, depending on whose point of
view one has.
In the matter of personal integrity, however, there is
simply no middle ground. You either have it and live it
every day, or you have nothing. Like a coin, it is good
and commands ful! value, or it is counterfeit and worth-
less.
76
In the military profession, each person is part of a team.
The lives of all of the other members, as well as the
success of the mission as a whole, rest practically in-
dependently on the shoulders of each member. This is
of course especially applicable to military officers, com-
missioned with making independent decisions and direct-
ing the activities of others, and while it is so evidently
true during wartime, it is equally important during
peacetime. The 317 generals of the U.S. Air Force, for
example, are responsible for the proper and efficient
spending of some $49 billion of our national budget,
practically one-tenth of our Gross National Product! This
amounts to more than $150 million per general, on the
average, roughly four times the total annual budget of
the University of Southern California . . . and it is our
tax money, yours and mine.
How unthinkable it is that any link in that chain, or any
part of the chains of command leading up to those
generals, have any weak spots on the point of personal
integrity! The Air Force and all of the other profes-
sional military establishments must therefore exercise
every imaginable care to see that this sense of integrity
and honor is instilled in all personnel from the moment
they first think about a military career, and hopefully
from the moment they first learn to think for themselves.
We have only to look at other parts of the world, in the
present day as well as throughout history, to see what
havoc has been wrought through the decay of personal
integrity. The fall of the Roman Empire is but a flaming
example from antiquity. The most serious problem fac-
ing many of the poorer nations today is the lack of a
public integrity and acceptance of an income tax struc-
ture.
Much of the argument appearing in the press about the
Air Force Academy, and in recent years about West
Point, relates to the Honor Code which requires a cadet
who observes a breach of the regulations to report the
offender, though it may be another cadet he thought to
be his best friend. Parents of some of the cadets who
77
have resigned have been particularly bitter because their
sons, while not personally involved, have been caught up
in the cheating scandal through this indirect involve-
ment in the Honor Code. As representatives and gradu-
ates of the Academies have so often explained, the very
existence of an Honor Code must imply tota! involve-
ment, on the part of everyone, cadets, instructors, and
administration. The workman who is forging a chain
on which his life is going to depend is naturally going
to see that his own work is as good as it possibly can
be, and he is simply out of his mind if he does not
report a weak link that he sees in some other part of
the chain.
Now, if all can agree that personal integrity is so
essential in the military, is it any less essential in the
practice of a profession, such as engineering, where we
pledge “to place service before profit, the honor and
standing of the profession before personal advantages,
and the public welfare above all other considerations.”
Of course not!
Sometimes we say to a student who is reluctant to
report a breach of regulations involving another student,
“Think of yourself first, and how much others are in-
terested in you and in your reaching success in your life
goals. Your ‘friend,’ whom you feel bound to protect...
how much does he care about you, whether you succeed
or fail in your life’s ambition? Now consider your
School . . . how much do we care about whether you
succeed or not? We care everything, that’s how much.
Why? Because your success, your reputation, multiplied
over and over by how many there are of you, become
our success and owr reputation.” And one blemish on a
reputation can, in the nature of one bad apple in a
barrel, outweigh a thousand faultless contributions to
that reputation.
I hope I may be forgiven for putting so much emphasis
on student integrity as a means of promoting the reputa-
tion of the USC School of Engineering. It should go
without saying that we all feel a personal commitment
78
to integrity as the very foundation of any honorable
human endeavor quite aside from what it may do to
enhance our station in life. And I assume we can all
agree that engineering is among the most honorable of
human endeavors.
DISCRETION
The ultimate goal of the Honor Code is to build officers
with a personal concept of honor and integrity. In light
of this goal an honor violator who has reassessed the
importance of integrity within himself and has resolved
to live by the ideals of the Honor Code may well be an
asset to the Cadet Wing and the Air Force. For example,
a cadet may never have personally accepted the Code,
but rather considered it as sort of regulation over him;
then because of a breach of the Code, this cadet may
suddenly realize the personal importance of honor and
resolve to live honorably. For cases such as this, the
Cadet Wing has given the Honor Committee the preroga-
tive to grant discretion to a cadet who has been voted
guilty and to allow him to return to the Wing.
There are no rigid criteria for the granting of discretion,
but there are four general guidelines which the Honor
Representatives generally consider: (1) Is the man a
fourth classman? (2) Was the case self-reported? (3)
Was there some type of unusual pressure involved in the
incident? and (4) most importantly, has the cadet truly
learned the personal value of honor and resolved to live
honorably in the future. The man who has learned this
lifelong lesson of honor can be a great asset to the Wing
and the Air Force. His retention is therefore not only
justified, it is desired.
The use of discretion is reserved for very special cases. It
requires a vote of 6-2 by the Honor Board hearing the
ease in favor of granting discretion. It is through the
highly selective use of this clause that the Wing is able to
retain a truly honorable man.
79
ADMINISTRATION OF THE
CADET HONOR CODE
1. Responsibilities
a. Responsibilities of All Cadets
(1) Each cadet is responsible for establishing and
maintaining a sense of personal integrity which will
serve as a cornerstore for his life of dedication to his
country. This sense of personal integrity must be a way
of life, a standard of conduct and moral strength which
will stand firmly as an inspiration to fellow cadets at the
Academy, and to associates in the United States Air
Force after graduation.
(2) As a member of the Air Force Cadet Wing,
responsible to his comrades and to the organization and
service to which he belongs, each cadet is a guardian of
the Cadet Honor Code. If the Honor Code were not
enforced by the cadets themselves it would degenerate
into a standard enforced only by the Academy admin-
istration and the true value of the Code would be lost.
Therefore, each cadet is expected to take appropriate
action whenever he encounters an apparent breach of
the Honor Code. The procedures for this action are out-
lined in paragraph 3.
b. Responsibilities of the Honor Committee. The ef-
fective discharge of the duties and responsibilities of the
Honor Committee is necessary if the Honor Code is to
maintain the respect and support of the Cadet Wing.
These duties and responsibilities are:
(1) Conduct an honor orientation and training
course for the basic cadets during Basic Cadet Training.
(2) Conduct meetings within their squadrons dur-
ing the academic year to instruct all cadets in the
Honor Code, acquainting them with the activity of the
Honor Representatives, and advising cadets on points of
honorable conduct.
(3) Assure an appreciation and understanding of
the purpose and objective of the Honor Code among
80
cadets along with the importance of accepting the true
“spirit” of the Code in their daily activities.
(4) Guard against practices that are inconsistent
with the Honor Code.
(5) Inquire into irregularities of conduct, personal
or official, on the part of cadets which may be in violation
of the Code. When such irregularities warrant, investi-
gate the facts, and conduct honor hearings when neces-
sary.
(6) Each spring conduct an Honor Code orientation
for the cadet candidates enrolled in the Academy Prepar-
atory School.
(7) Conduct Honor Code orientations for officers
assigned to the Academy and for Academy Liaison Of-
ficers. During the fall of the year each academic de-
partment should be briefed by an Honor Representative
assigned to the individual departments.
c. Responsibilities of All Officers. By direction of
the Superintendent, all officers assigned to the Air Force
Academy are charged with the responsibility of assisting
in maintenance of the precepts of the Honor Code and
will report every breach or apparent breach of the Code
using the procedures outlined in paragraph 3.
d. Responsibilities of the Commandant’s Executive
for Honor and Ethics. The Executive for Honor and
Ethics is directly responsible to the Commandant of
Cadets for the supervision of the instructional activities,
investigations and hearings of the Honor Representa-
tives. His role is advisory in nature and his efforts
must be directed toward assisting the Honor Represen-
tatives in insuring the vitality of the Cadet Honor Code.
2. Election and Tenure of Honor Representatives. Dur-
ing the month of March the third class in each cadet
squadron will elect, by majority vote, an Honor Rep-
resentative from the third class. The elected repre-
sentatives will serve until graduation unless he is re-
lieved for cause by the Commandant. Vacancies will
be filled by election to insure that each squadron has a
first and a second class Honor Representative at all
times. Each March the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and
- Se ee, eS te A
it « oo i>
= a eee iano eee
atte wa
81
the Secretary of the Honor Committee will be elected
from the second class Honor Representatives.
3. Reports of Breaches of the Cadet Honor Code.
a. Cadets
(1) When observing a possible honor violation nor-
mally the cadet should confront the suspected cadet and
ask for an explanation. This procedure often clarifies
whether a violation has in fact been committed, en-
courages the violator to manfully accept his obligation
to report himself, and gives him the opportunity to do
so. Sometimes it is more appropriate to report directly
to an Honor Representative. The course to be taken
is left a matter of judgment for the cadet concerned.
(2) After personally confronting the suspected cadet,
a cadet should report the matter to an Honor Repre-
sentative if the suspected cadet has in fact breached
the Honor Code and has not, or apparently will not,
report nimself.
(3) When an incident requires further investiga-
tion it will be referred to the Chairman of the Honor
Committee by the Honor Representative. The Chairman
will appoint an investigation team as outlined in para-
graph 4.
b. Officers
(1) When an AOC discovers an apparent breach
of the Cadet Heaor Code he will report it to his squad-
ron Honor Representative or to the Executive for Honor
and Ethics.
(2) Faculty and Department of Athletics—When an
officer assigned to an academic department or to the
Department of Athletics discovers an apparent breach of
the Cadet Honor Code, he should:
(a) Report the facts of the case to the depart-
menta! Honor Liaison Officer.
(b) The departmental Honor Liaison Officer will
inform the department head and the assigned Cadet
Honor Representative of the suspected breach. The fac-
82
ulty Honor Liaison Officers will also inform the faculty
Honor Liaison Coordinator of the case.
(c) The departmental Cadet Honor Representa-
tive will inform the Executive for Honor and Ethics and
proceed with the investigation. He will also insure that
all concerned parties are informed of the outcome of the
investigation as soon as practical.
(3) All other officers who discover apparent breach-
es of the Cadet Honor Code will report the fact directly
to the Executive for Honor and Ethics (COCHE).
4. Conduct of an Honor Investigation.
a. Purpose of an Investigation. The purpose of the
investigation is to evaluate the circumstances of a case
to determine whether the incident should be considered
by an Honor Board. The team, in conjunction with the
Chairman of the Honor Representatives, has the au-
thority and responsibility to drop from further consid-
eration any incident wherein it is determined that an
honor violation did not occur. If the team believes a
hearing by an Honor Board is necessary, they will
provide the available evidence and information for the
Board’s consideration.
b. Investigation Procedures. In the conduct of an in-
vestigation, thoroughness is more important than speed
but the matter should be completed without unneces-
sary delay. The Legal Advisor to the Honor Committee
should be consulted in each case to assist in investigations.
(1) Before taking any testimony from a witness
or accused cadet the investigation team will satisfy the
requirements of Article 31, UCMJ. Written statements
should be taken from all witnesses as well as from the
accused during the investigation.
(2) All persons who may have relevant informa-
tion will be interviewed by the investigating team. The
importance of a thorough and impartial investigation
cannot be overemphasized.
(3) If the investigation reveals that there has been
no breach of the Cadet Honor Code, the case will be
dropped. If such an investigation was originated by a
report from an officer, the Executive for Honor will
an at hell ie
on ee. be ot hee EE AD NE EO A
aimee erie nena anal ne ee nee nin, |
83
inform that officer through the same channel by which
the incident was first reported. The appropriate investi-
gating cadet will immediately return any evidence or
documents which may have been received from an Honor
Liaison Officer. Prompt action in possible cheating
incidents is especially necessary to prevent unnecessary
withholding of a cadet’s grade and/or constraint of an
instructor.
(4) If the investigation reveals the probability that
a breach has been committed, one of the investigators
and the Executive for Honor will brief the Commandant,
and the case will be referred to the Honor Representa-
tives for a hearing.
5. Conduct of an Honor Hearing. When an honor hear-
ing is determined to be appropriate an Honor Board
will be constituted by the Honor Committee Chairman.
The Board will consist of eight First Class Honor Rep-
resentatives selected from squadrons other than that of
the accused cadet.
a. At the hearing the accused cadet will again be ad-
vised of his rights under Article 31, UCMJ.
b. The accused cadet will be given full opportunity
to call witnesses of his choosing and to present testi-
mony in his own behalf.
ce. If a witness’ account of the incident or situation
conflicts with that of the accused, the witness shall pre-
sent his testimony to the Honor Board in the presence
of the accused.
d. After hearing all relevant testimony the accused
will be dismissed from the room and the Board will
discuss the case. When the discussion is complete the
Honor Board will vote by secret ballot. An unanimous
vote of 8-0 is required to find a man guilty.
e. Following a guilty vote the Honor Board may, in
rare cases, grant “discretion.” A “discretion” vote by
the Board indicates their conviction that the man has
learned a lifelong lesson and that he will thereafter
uphold the ethical standards of the Wing. When voting
for discretion the Board should consider foremost the
best interest of the Cadet Wing and of the United States
84
Air Force. A positive vote of six of the eight Board
members is required to grant “discretion.”
f. A cadet found “not guilty” or one granted “discre-
tion” will be returned to the Wing in good standing.
g. A cadet found “guilty” is expected to resign from
the Academy. However, prior to submitting his resigna-
tion, he will be given legal counsel by a Staff Judge Advo-
cate. That officer explains the rights and privileges
available to the cadet. He makes it clear that resignation
is not mandatory and that the cadet should not resign
unless he is in fact guilty and ready to admit it. If
the cadet elects not to resign he may meet a Board of Of-
ficers or a Court Martial.
h. If a man elects to resign he will be processed out
as soon as possible.
6. Announcement of Proceedings.
a. Appropriate information about not guilty cases or
cases resulting in the granting of “discretion” will be
given to the Wing. Such information will be general in
nature to avoid revealing identities of those involved.
b. Information about cases resulting in a finding of
“guilty” will be fully briefed in all squadrons after the
cadet involved has departed the Academy. Such cases
will be analyzed and discussed in the interest of pre-
venting similar cases, and to keep the Wing informed
on the operation and vitality of the Honor Code.
SPIRIT OF HONOR
“We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us
anyone who does.”
This is our Honor Code. It is not meant to provide a
complete set of ethical standards for life; it is a mini-
mum standard, a cornerstone or foundation upon which
each cadet can build toward a much higher ethical and
moral plane. The Code itself is realistic if every cadet
accepts and upholds the true spirit of our code of honor.
It is livable, as is easily seen in the bonds of trust
which exist among all cadets. The truly honorable cadet
a ee ee
85
will not hide behind his Code, nor will he try to live
by only these bare minimums. Every cadet must under-
stand and respect the Honor Code and should expect
every other cadet to regard the Code highly if it is to
remain something to be proud of.
The proper prospective for our Code comes by viewing
it as the basis of a solid structure of ethical and moral
rules and guidelines. Conduct should not be determined
simply by whether an act is specifically an honor viola-
tion; if you are in doubt about an act being honorable,
ask yourself what the most honorable action would be
and then set your own path. The spirit of honor should
always be your guide.
- THE AIR FORCE CADET WING
86
AIR FORCE CADET WING MANUAL
Personnel
THE ETHICS MANUAL
1 MARCH 1965
THE AIR FORCE CADET WING—USAF ACADEMY
87
AIR FORCE CADET WING MANUAL
NR. 30-2
THE AIR FORCE CADET WING,
USAF ACADEMY COLORADO
1 March 1965
Personnel
THE ETHICS MANUAL
PURPOSE: This manual prescribes policy and proce-
dures for the Cadet Professional Ethics Committee, and
defines its functions.
CONTENTS
Page Paragraph
CHAPTER I—POLICY AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
Policy 1 1
Procedures 1 2
Responsibilities 1 3
CHAPTER II—THE PROFESSIONAL
ETHICS PROGRAM
Purpose of this Manual 3 4
Purpose of Committee 3 5
CHAPTER III—CONSTITUTION OF THE
CADET PROFESSIONAL
ETHICS COMMITTEE
Appointment of Members 5 6
Recommendations for Membership in the
Committee 5 7
CHAPTER IV—FUNCTIONS OF THE CADET
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
COMMITTEE
Primary Responsibilities 7 8
Committee Functions 7 9
88
CHAPTER V—ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES
Official Status 9
Officer in Charge 9
Assistant Officer in Charge 9
Command Procedures 9
This manual supersedes AFCWM 30-2, 2 April 1962.
OPR: CWH
10
11
12
13
89
CHAPTER I
POLICY AND RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Policy. A Cadet Professional Ethics Committee is
authorized and constituted by the Commandant of Cadets
to provide guidance in the improvement of ethical stand-
ards and practices within The Air Force Cadet Wing.
2. Procedure. As directed in Special Orders, the Cadet
Professional Ethics Committee is recognized as an official
cadet agency under the direction of the Commandant of
Cadets and will function as described herein in the execu-
tion of their assigned responsibilities.
3. Responsibility. Each cadet is responsible for estab-
lishing and maintaining a sense of personal integrity
which will serve as a cornerstone for his life of dedicated
service to his country. Each cadet should adhere to the
basic principles of the Cadet Honor Code and develop
above those standards a sense of personal ethics com-
mensurate with the high standards of personal conduct
required by the Air Force Cadet Wing. This sense of
Honor, Ethics, and overall personal integrity should be a
way of life, a standard of conduct and moral strength
which will stand firmly as an inspiration to all United
States Air Force officers.
CHAPTER II
THE PROFESSIONAL ETHICS PROGRAM
4. Purpose of this Manual. This manual provides for
the establishment of a permanent Cadet Professional
Ethics Committee under the Commandant of Cadets
which, at the cadet level, will be responsible for the
improvement of cadet ethical and moral standards.
5. Purpose of the Cadet Professional Ethics Committee
(CPEC). The purpose of the Cadet Professional Ethics
Committee (CPEC) is to further the cadet’s awareness
of a need for the application of professional ethics, and,
90
by developing ethical courage, improve personal and group
ethical standards, foster a strong sense of duty and
extend the high ideals of the Honor Code. In doing this,
the Committee seeks the development of the individual
toward the goal of a Professional Military Man, a man
whose personal, moral and social conduct reflects the
highest qualities of character and manhood. As a pro
fessional military servant of his nation, his life is dedi-
cated to the service of his country and the preservation
of its principles. This duty is his honor.
CHAPTER III
CONSTITUTION OF THE CADET PROFESSIONAL
ETHICS COMMITTEE
6. Appointment of Members. The CPEC shall be com-
posed of one First Classman and one Second Classman per
Cadet Squadron. Second Class members shall be elected
annually on 15 September by the Second Classmen of
each squadron. The election of these members shall
be subject to the approval of the Commandant of Cadets,
through the Squadron and Group Air Officers Command-
ing. Upon such approval, the recommended cadets will
attain full status as CPEC members. The remainder of
their Second Class year will be used for training and
indoctrination into the responsibilities and functions of
the Committee. The Chairman and Secretary of the
CPEC will be elected annually by the Second Class mem-
bers of the Committee on or before 1 February. They
will assume the duties of the Chairman and Secretary
upon the graduation of the preceding class and retain
these positions until the graduation of their class.
7. Recommendations for Membership in the Committee.
Nominees to the Cadet Professional Ethics Committee
must be in good military standing. Members may be re-
moved from the Committee at any time, if in the opinion
of the Commandant of Cadets or the majority of the
Committee, their performance warrants. Replacement
members will be elected in the manner described in
paragraph 6.
91
CHAPTER IV
FUNCTIONS OF THE CADET PROFESSIONAL
ETH'CS COMMITTEE
8. Primary Responsibilities. The two primary responsi-
bilities of the Cadet Professional Ethics Committee are:
a. To recommend, prepare, and conduct formal and
informal instruction in Cadet Professional Ethics under
the supervision and guidance of the Commandant of
Cadets.
b. To keep the Commandant of Cadets, the AOC Chain
of Command and the Cadet Chain of Command informed
of the ethical problems in the AFCW and to keep the
Commandant of Cadets informed of the progress of
ethical training in the Cadet Wing through his designated
chain of command.
9. Committee Functions. Routine functions of the Cadet
Professional Ethics Committee shali include, but are not
limited to, the following responsibilities:
a. Recommend, prepare, and conduct formal Cadet
Professional Ethics Instruction for the Cadet Wing.
b. Bring problem areas of an ethical nature to the
attention of the Cadet Wing and recommend to the chain
of command possible solutions commensurate with the
ideals of a Professional Military Man.
* c. Conduct Ethics Committee Disciplinary Boards in
accordance with AFCR 35-6, paragraph 33f.
d. Be responsible for monitoring and assisting in the
improvement of the ethical and moral standards of the
individual cadets within the squadron. The Squadron
Ethics Representative, each committee member, must
strive to establish himself as meriting the confidence of
those cadets having a personal problem which they do
not wish to discuss outside the Cadet Wing and which
does not involve the Cadet Honor Code. The Squadron
Ethics Representative and the Squadron Honor Rep-
resentative will coordinate their efforts to insure that
92
each cadet in their squadron receives the proper type of
guidance in matters of Honor and Ethics.
e. Coordinate committee responsibilities by working
closely with allied agencies, such as the Honor Committee,
Chaplains, and Hostess in areas of overlapping cogni-
zance.
f. The Squadron Professional Ethics Representative
may appear as a witness before a disciplinary board at
the request of the offender or at his own request.
g. The Chairman of the CEPC or his designated rep-
resentative will attend Honor Committee hearings and
Honor Committee meetings at the request of the Chair-
man, Cadet Honor Committee.
h. The Chairman of the CPEC or his designated rep-
resentative may witness the proceedings of the Com-
mandant’s Disciplinary Boards for the purpose of col-
lecting information concerning the offender’s ethical con-
duct in committing his offense. This information may be
used, when appropriate, in the ethical training of the
Cadet Wing.
CHAPTER V
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
10. Official Status. The Cadet Professional Ethics Com-
mittee shall be recognized as an official cadet agency,
under the Commandant of Cadets, for the guidance and
improvement of ethical and moral standards within the
Air Force Cadet Wing.
*% 11. Officer in Charge. The Executive for Honor and
Ethics shall be the Officer in Charge, Cadet Professional
Ethics Committee.
*% 12. Officer Advisor. The Officer Advisor, Cadet Pro-
fessional Ethics Committee, shall be a Squadron Air
Officer Commanding so appointed by the Commandant of
Cadets. He will have authority to supervise CPEC func-
tions, and will be responsible to the Executive for Honor
and Ethics.
ee
% 13. Command Procedures. The Cadet Professional
Ethics Committee shall be responsible to the Commandant
of Cadets through CWH, for the formal portion of Ethics
Training and for routine functions relating to the ethical
status of the Air Force Cadet Wing. The scheduling
of formal training will be coordinated with the Wing
Training Officer and CWO.
ROBERT W. STRONG, JR.
Brigadier General, USAF
Commandant of Cadets
OFFICIAL:
/s/ James M. Adams
JAMES M. ADAMS
CWO, W4, USAF
Administrative Officer
94
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
The Air Force Cadet Wing (USAFA)
USAF Academy Colorado 80840
CHANGE 1
AFCWM 30-2
30 April 1971
Personnel
THE ETHICS MANUAL
AFCWM 30-2, 1 March 1965, is changed as follows:
1. Page Changes. New or revised material is indicated
by.
Remove Date Insert
7&9 1 Mar 65 7&9
2. Pen-and-Ink Changes:
Page Paragraph Action
1 Lower Left-hand Corner Change OPR: “CDOT” to
“CWH”
5 6, Line 5 Change “September” to
“October”
5 6, Line 17 Change “February” to “April”
8. Filing. After posting the changes, file this change
sheet in back of the manual.
OFFICIAL WALTER T. GALLIGAN
Brig General, USAF
Commandant of Cadets
JOHN W. TRIBBLE, SMSgt, USAF
Chief, Cadet Administration Division
- OE oe
- a ee
95
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
THE AIR FORCE CADET WING
USAF ACADEMY, COLORADO 80840
1 July 1970
SUBJECT: Honor Operating Instructions
TO: Honor Representatives
The attached instructions are established for the proper
handling of Honor Investigations and Hearings and the
handling of cadets involved in honor cases. The instruc-
tions include provisions from the Cadet Honor Reference
Manual and AFR 53-30 and are directive upon the
Cadet Honor Committee. The instructions are listed un-
der the following headings:
OPERATING
INSTRUCTION # SUBJECT
1 Conduct of Investigations
Conduct of Honor Hearings
3 Procedures for Guilty Cases
4 Honor Records
5 Honor Reading File
/s/ Randall G. Craig
RANDALL G. CRAIG, CIC, TAFCW
Chairman, Cadet Honor Committee
96
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
EXECUTIVE FOR HONOR AND ETHICS, COC
USAF Academy Colorado 80840
HONOR OPERATION INSTRUCTION 1
1 July 1970
INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED VIOLATION
OF THE HONOR CODE
This operating instruction outlines the procedures to be
used by the Honor Committee in the investigation of sus-
pected violations of the Cadet Honor Code.
1. Suspected violations of the Cadet Honor Code will be
referred to the Chairman of the Honor Committee who
will appoint a three-man team to investigate the incident.
a. This team will seek to find and evaluate the facts
and determine whether the situation warrants an honor
hearing. The team will normally be composed of two
First Class and one Second Class Honor Representatives.
b. When appropriate a member of the Professional
Ethics Committee may be included on the team.
c. Where possible the First Class Honor Representa-
tive from the suspected cadet’s squadron will be included
on the team.
d. In cases involving an academic department the De-
partment Liaison Honor Representative will be assigned
as a member of the investigation team.
e. The investigating team will contact the Honor Com-
mittee legal advisor for advice on the conduct of the
investigation.
2. Before taking any testimony from the accused cadet,
the investigators will advise him of his rights to remain
silent as outlined in Article 31 of the UCMJ. He will be
further advised that anything he does say may be used
against him in further proceedings.
3. The investigation team will interview and take testi-
mony from all persons who may have information re-
garding the alleged offense.
PS ee ee
97
4. If the facts and testimony of the case so dictate, the
investigation team may decide to drop the case. Follow-
ing such a decision all parties, officers and cadets, in-
volved in the case should be so notified.
5. If the investigation team and the Chairman of the
Honor Committee feel that an honor hearing is re-
quired, the accused cadet will be so advised and the
Commandant will be briefed on the case by a member
of the investigating team. Following this briefing, the
hearing will be scheduled as soon as possible.
a. All hearings will be open unless there are extenu-
ating circumstances which dictate a closed hearing. The
investigating team will decide whether the hearing will
be open or closed.
b. The investigating team will advise the accused cadet
that he may call any witnesses he desires to testify in his
behalf at the honor hearing.
ce. The investigating team will arrange to have all
witnesses available to testify at the hearing whenever
possible.
/s/ Randall G. Craig
RANDALL G. CRAIG, CIC, TAFCW
Chairman, The Cadet Honor Committee
98
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
EXECUTIVE FOR HONOR AND ETHICS, COC
USAF Academy Colorado 80840
HONOR OPERATION INSTRUCTION 2
1 July 1970
PROCEDURES FOR HONOR HEARING
This operating instruction outlines the procedures to be
used by the Honor Committee in the conduct of an honor
hearing.
1. When a hearing is scheduled the Honor Committee
Recorder will schedule eight honor representatives from
other than the accused’s squadron to hear the case as
voting members of an Honor Board. Until Recognition
Day each spring only first class honor representatives
will vote on honor cases. After Recognition Day the
second class honor committee will assume responsibility
for the administration of the Honor Code and will hear
and vote on all cases except those where the accused is a
first classman. In first class cases, first class honor rep-
resentatives will always be used to constitute an Honor
Board.
2. Two second class honor representatives will be sched-
uled for Sergeant-at-Arms duty. The Sergeants-at-Arms
will take roll and maintain order.
8. A First or Second Class Honor or Ethics Representa-
tive from each squadron will attend each hearing. If the
hearing is to closed only Honor or Ethics Representatives
will be admitted. If the hearing is to be open each squad-
ron may send two cadets to the hearing.
4. The honor hearing will be presided over by the Chair-
man, Vice Chairman, or the Secretary of the Honor Com-
mittee. The Chairman of a particular Honor Board will
not vote unless his vote is needed for the required eight
voting board members. Prior to the appearance of the
accused cadet, the Chairman will read the prehearing in-
structions to all present. (See Attachment HOI 2-1).
99
5. At the hearing the Chairman will advise the accused
cadet of his rights under Article 31, UCMJ, and give him
an opportunity to object to any of the cadets selected to
vote on his case. His objection will be heard and voted
upon by a majority vote of the Board. He will be read
the instructions contained in Attachment HOI 2-2.
6. A member of the investigation team will brief the
board on the facts of the case in the presence of the
accused cadet. The accused cadet will then be asked to
give the board his explanation of the situation. If he
elects to testify, he may be questioned by the board con-
cerning any aspects of the case. Following his own testi-
mony, the accused cadet may call any person to testify
in his behalf. All testimony concerning the case will
be given in the presence of the accused cadet. The wit-
nesses will remain outside the hearing rocm until they
are called in for their testimony. All witnesses will be
subject to the board’s questioning and will be seated at
the table with the board. Any cadet present at the hear-
ing who desires to testify will be allowed to do so in
the above-stated manner.
7. During the hearing of testimony, any cadet present
may submit to his Honor or Ethics Representative any
question he may have regarding the case. These ques-
tions should be submitted in writing. If the Honor Rep-
resentative feels that the question is appropriate to the
case he passes the written question to the Chairman
through the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Chairman will then
ask the accused or any witness the question.
8. Following the open question period, the board. will be
closed for deliberations. All persons other than Honor or
Ethics Representatives will be asked to leave the room
and the results of the deliberations will be briefed by the
squadron represertative present.
9. Throughout the investigation and hearing of the case
an accused cadet will be presumed innocent until proven
guilty.
100
10. During deliberations the board will discuss and vote
by secret ballot on the guilty or innocence of all viola-
tions considered. Any questions or comments from the
Honor or Ethics Representatives present will be made
at any time.
11. A verdict of guilty must be unanimous on the part
of all eight voting members of the board.
12. If the verdict is guilty, the board may consider
granting “discretion.” The general guidelines for dis-
cretion are:
a. The incident is self-reported.
b. The accused cadet is a Fourth Classman.
ec. S
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.