• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
From the Editor: Cadet Twins Left Air Force Academy in Disgust
 
By Ed Offley
 
When news reports appeared two weeks ago that the Air Force has launched an outsideinvestigation of the U.S. Air Force Academy, it came as a small comfort to Washington stateresidents William and Linda Graney.
 
The issue at hand involves allegations from current and former female cadets that theinstitution has been unable or unwilling to forcefully investigate alleged sexual assaults againstfemale cadets. Spurred by pressure from senior members of the Senate Armed ServicesCommittee, the Air Force has dispatched a special investigative team to Colorado Springs,Colo., to investigate charges by 25 cadets that Academy officials had refused to seriouslyrespond to their reports of alleged attacks, and in some cases had actually retaliated againstthe victims.
 
Responding to the allegations, Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., told
The New York Times
last weekthat he feared the Academy – where about 640 of the 4,000 cadets are female – tolerated “one [behavior] standard for men and another for women.” Allard told reporters that he isready to ask for a full hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee to probe the sexualharassment incidents.
 
The Graneys are not directly involved with the ongoing probe, but they too have struggled toforce the Academy to deal with what they describe as a wider issue – an atmosphere of failedleadership that they say drove their two sons out of the institution.
 
The problem, as depicted by the Graneys in extensive interviews with
DefenseWatch
, is farmore serious than even a dual standard favoring male cadets over females: It involves adisengaged Air Force commissioned officer cadre allowing the (largely-male) cadet chain of command to ignore longstanding regulations against physical and psychological abuse of cadets, and a propensity to sweep accusations of wrongdoing under the rug.
 
The Graneys say they have come a long way from their excitement and pride in the summerof 2001 as their twin sons, Charlie and David, both arrived at Colorado Springs as “Doolie” (first-year) cadets in the Class of 2005.Instead of finding a strict and difficult but professional environment dedicated to teachingacademic and military leadership skills, the Graneys say, their sons encountered a corrupt anddysfunctional institution where harassment and physical abuse was tolerated by the Academybrass.
 
After Cadet Basic Training in the Summer of 2001, David Graney initially got off to a poor startduring the academic year with the upper-class cadets in Cadet Squadron 17, particularly whenhe expressed dissatisfaction with the “four degree” system in which upper-class cadets trainand discipline the newly-arrived “Doolies.” 
 
In early 2002, Graney found himself braced at attention by a cadet 3rd class (sophomore) whohad been drinking. A cadet 1st class (senior) discovered this and turned the 3rd class into theAcademy’s Honor Board for issues related to underage drinking. Graney subsequently testifiedto the Honor Board that he could smell alcohol on the cadet’s breath.
 
After this incident, the Graneys said, other upper-class cadets singled out David Graney forextra “training” and multiple demerits in what his parents say was an obvious attempt to forcehim to resign.
 
During the Academy’s annual “Recognition” training of the 4th class (freshman) cadets onMarch 17, 2002, and despite explicit regulations that prohibit physical hazing or contact, anupper-class cadet who was “training” David Graney, separated him from his peers againstAcademy regulations, and head-butted Graney twice as he performed pushups. The blowstemporarily dazed Graney and as the upper-class cadet stood Graney up, he punched Graneyin the torso. The blows to Graney’s head caused a bloody knot over his temple.
 
David Graney reported the incident to his Academy Officer Commanding (AOC) the next day.The Graneys say that when they heard from their son a day after the assault, they alsoreported the incident by telephone to Graney’s AOC, an Air Force major, who assured themthat this behavior was not tolerated at the Academy and that he would investigate. However,a month later in a follow-up conversation with the AOC initiated by Bill and Linda Graney, theparents realized that no investigation had occurred.After months of inquiries through the Academy chain of command, the Graneys learned fromthe results of three Freedom of Information Act requests they had filed that the AOC in lateApril – one month after the assault occurred – had finally ordered a probe, but assigned theinvestigation to the same upper-class cadets who had been harassing their son.
 
The cadet investigators did secure an admission by the upper-class cadet that he had struckGraney, but they concluded that the matter could be resolved by “a handshake,” Bill Graneysaid. A few weeks later, the major commanding his cadet squadron referred David Graney formental health counseling because of the cadet’s bitterness as to how the incident had beenhandled. The officer took no action against the cadet who has assaulted him, the Graneyssaid.
 
At the end of the 2002 spring term, David Graney was assigned to a different cadet unit forsummer training, and completed the military training with excellent marks, completed his onesummer academic class with a passing grade, and with no disciplinary problems, Bill Graneysaid.
 
However, after starting classes at the Academy for the 2002 fall term, in late August DavidGraney was notified that an administrative Military Review Committee would be consideringhim for disenrollment for excess demerits he had accumulated during the previous year. Hecontinued with academic and military instruction until early November, when he was informedthat he was being disenrolled – and being 14 weeks into the 17-week semester, he would loseall of the academic credits he was earning for the semester.To add insult to injury, Bill Graney said, the Academy formally gave David Graney a “5” (thelowest rating) as to his future commissionability in any other U.S. military service. This ratingwill prevent David from ever being accepted in any other officer commissioning program.
 
Following months of correspondence, Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. John Dallager sent theGraneys a detailed response to their allegations of how their son’s case had been mishandled.The superintendent, in part:
 
 
 * Confirmed that the cadet 3rd class had violated training regulations in the after-hoursincident where the upperclassman was accused of having consumed alcohol. (The cadet wasexonerated of the charge of drinking but received administrative punishment for the trainingrule violation).
 
* Confirmed that the March 17 incident where David Graney was head-butted and struck byan upper-class cadet was not an accident as the upper-class cadet initially said, but was “intentional.” Dallager claimed that the original investigative report by the Academy securityforces unit concluding that the incident was intentional was misfiled and not found untilrecently, leading officials to proceed as if the incident had been an accident:
 
 “The Security Forces investigation was completed 25 Oct 02 and found the incident wasintentional. However, the 34 TRW [cadet training wing] was briefed as the caseprogressed that the incident appeared to be accidental. This [Air Force Academy] IG[inspector general] inquiry discovered that the Security Forces mistakenly filed the finalreport without forwarding a copy of it to reach the 34 TRW command and legalchannels until this inquiry. The TRW/CC has since received the official final report andtook cadet disciplinary action against the accused.” 
 
An unspecified “command action” was subsequently taken against the cadet who struckGraney (but details were withheld from Dallager’s letter).
 
* Admitted that a history instructor had publicly “humiliated” Graney in class despite Academyregulations prohibiting such conduct.
 
* Admitted that the Academy proceeded to disenroll Graney despite previous assurances byDallagar to Graney that no action would be taken until the then-ongoing investigations werecompleted.
 
 “Command action was taken to correct the actions involving the 13 [of 22] allegations [byCadet Graney’s parents] that were substantiated or partially substantiated,” Dallager wrote. “Due to Privacy Act rules, I cannot go into specific details of the directed punishments. I can,however, assure you that those individuals now know their actions were wrong, and do notmeet the standards of this institution or the United States Air Force.” 
 
However, Dallager went on to indicate that Cadet Graney’s disenrollment was justified by thenumber of demerits and other mis-steps that had resulted in his being put on probation. Thegeneral declined to re-open the disenrollment procedure and told the Graneys that it was hisdecision to recommend a “commissionability” grade of 5 which permanently blocks DavidGraney from ever being eligible for an officer’s commission in other programs.
 
Bill and Linda Graney are convinced that Air Force Academy officials and some upper-classcadets colluded in the ouster of their son because of David’s and their attempts to force theAcademy to fully investigate the March 2002 assault and other alleged problems at theAcademy, including the now-publicized allegations of dozens of sexual assaults.In their attempts to get the issues properly investigated, the Graneys contacted the staff of Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and the U.S. Air Force Academy’s Inspector General’s (IG) Office.Senator Murray’s staff coordinated for a Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General’sOffice investigation, which started in October 2002, Bill Graney said.
 
Both sons have since left the Academy. After David Graney’s involuntary disenrollment, hisbrother Charlie voluntarily resigned from the Academy in disgust several months later because
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...