Army Regulation 15-6 probes of civilian

Department of Defense institutions

By Martin Edwin Andersen
February 27, 2015
Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law
flouted, when we tolerate what we know to be wrong, when we close
our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy or too
frightened, when we fail to speak up and speak out, we strike a blow
against freedom and decency and justice.
Robert F. Kennedy

*****

Question: When a self-described "informal" Army Regulation 15-6

investigation is convened by retired military leadership and many
employees then say that they want to remain anonymous for fear of
retribution because they believe that the leadership has shown a
propensity to retaliate against those that speak out or against the
leadership, what should be the next step?
Does a very real feeling among a protected group--a "federallyrecognized class"-- that leadership practices borderline (if not enters
into open) discrimination, with organization members feeling very
apprehensive about raising specific allegations for fear of retribution,
mean that those even higher in the command leadership (i.e.: flag
officers) should become actively involved?
If so, how?
Also, what does it mean if the senior-most officials are made aware of
the problems but choose not to become involved, despite recurring
complaints which in fact may only be a proverbial tip of an iceberg of
even greater alleged lawbreaking (i.e.: gross violations of human
rights abroad or of the civil rights of federal employees)?
And if they don't, what does that mean about their leadership skills?

Then add to that a situation where several current or past employees

are allowed to operate with impunity, causing significant angst after
several senior leaders were not held accountable for their actions, and
also were unchallenged for using derogatory and offensive language
with colleagues, as well as highly-inappropriate sexual gestures when
others spoke in meetings.
Or when contracts are awarded--for significant amounts of money
with very little in the way of deliverables--to outsiders based on their
personal relationships with senior-most staff of the organization in
question.
Or when the person charged with conducting the AR 15-6 tells a
witness that he is under no illusions that there will be any changes
resulting from his work, as the probe was commissioned by the
institution's retired army leadership; that the results will be handled
at that leadership's discretion and that they are not binding.
And what possible conclusions can one come to given the fact that the
investigator himself agrees with the potential witness that the
institution's leadership was well versed in DoD bureaucratic
intricacies, and thus is able to make themselves appear to be highly
effective and efficient, despite serious problems of mismanagement
and abuse of authority?
In a "theoretical" scenario such as the one outlined above, surely the
use of an AR 15-6 investigation would be not unlike Vito Corleone
being able to appoint the district attorney charged with investigating
The Family, no?
Especially if fellow serving and retired military officers, rather than
saluting military strategist Col. John Boyd's roll call, "To Be or To
Do," engage in the ancient Old World tradition of omert.
(The questions raised, based on information obtained in a Freedom
of Information Act request, are those emanating from a case
already before the DoD Inspector General, thanks to the outgoing
Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin. Threats,
intimidation, obstruction or other attempts to retaliate against

witnesses in law enforcement or U.S. congressional investigations

are criminal offenses under 18 USC 1513(e), felony violations of
which can result in 10-year imprisonment.)
_______________________________________
Post script: When senior leadership itself is guilty of rabid
homophobia
One key insight, although purposefully underplayed, can be found on
the 12th page of the report, where it says: "The Center has not
appropriately responded when certain employees have used
derogatory comments towards one another. For example, employees
have used offensive language including 'faggot,' 'butt boy,' and
'homo.'"
What the supposed 'investigation' does not say is that it would be
difficult for "The Center" to "appropriately respond" as the comments
came from senior leadership itself. In fact, a retired general on staff
complained several times that the Pentagon was run by a "gay mafia."
_______________________________________
P.P.S: Insight from evidence submitted by SASC Chair
Levin
Six years before the ersatz AR 15-6 probe was conducted, an outside
consultant submitted his institutional evaluation to Center
leadership. Although he made clear his availability to provide
additional services his contract was not renewed.
The consultant's report, reflecting a prudent caution required for
consideration for future work, nevertheless included the following
observations:

Feedback and pushback are risky, esp. up the hierarchy

What happens to a group of people when they are stretched
emotionally, mentally and physically over a period of time?
And these recommendations:

 Clear and objective criteria for [foreign] travel

Women treated equally and with respect
Take the person and their issues seriously
Turn to your [stated] values ...
Integrity
Quality
Fairness
Understanding
Creativity