| Thomas J. Fiscus, 14th Judge Advocate General United States Air Force |
| Disciplinary Action |
None of the email which formed the basis for these Specifications discuss sex, illicit liaisons, or any salacious matter beyond mutual
expressions of affection, hoped for opportunities to get together or renew friendly ties, family matters, personal and professional
relationships, work/school, books, movies, politics, etc. At no time was I or my counsel provided with any explanation of what evidence
could possibly serve to negate those Specifications. Specifications 6, 7 and 8 under Article 133, involve civilian friends each of whom I
had known for over 20 years. More details related to the other Specifications are included below. For the best understanding of my
relationships to each of the persons mentioned, please consult the presentation made to the Officer Grade Determination board.
Here are the Specifications in my case followed by my comment to each one:
Attachment 1, AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings, Major General Thomas J. Fiscus, 7 Dec 2004
Art. 133, UCMJ
Specification 1: You, a married man, did, at or near Washington, D.C., and at various worldwide locations, on divers occasions, between
on or about 1 January 2003 and on or about 23 August 2004, wrongfully and dishonorably engage in an unprofessional relationship and
exchange inappropriately intimate e-mail with Major AAA while pursuing a romantic or sexual relationship outside your marriage with the
said Major AAA.
My Comment: Of the specifications listed, this is the only one which I consider to be a valid exercise of disciplinary authority. Major AAA
and I became acquainted in the aftermath of the Sep 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon. After I became Judge Advocate General in early
2002, we occasionally had a drink together and sent each other juvenile sounding email. We were not in any supervisory relationship,
but we became too close. I am ashamed that, in this way, I was very disrespectful of my wife and family. I take full responsibility for
allowing an unprofessional relationship to develop with another officer. During the Inspector General Investigation, Major AAA, who
was in her early forties, was initially treated as a subject of the investigation like me. However, in order for the Air Force to pursue the
"bigger fish", she was granted immunity from prosecution and was ordered to cooperate with the investigators against me. She
confirmed our relationship but repeatedly testified under oath that it was not sexual. She later left active duty and began working for
the CIA. The Inspector General investigators were grudgingly forced by the evidence to conclude that I never acted in any way that
professionally advantaged her or disadvantaged any other military member.
Specification 2: You did, at or near the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., between on or about 1 January 2003 and on or about 31 July 2004,
wrongfully and dishonorably kiss on the lips Major BBB, a subordinate subject to your orders.
My Comment: This Specification shocked me. Major BBB worked for me between July 2001 and July 2004 in two different jobs. I felt she
was an extraordinary officer. She was my executive officer at the time of 9/11. Through thousands of hours spent together at work and
during official travel we came to know each other well. We shared a love of Corvette automobiles and were well acquainted with each
other's families. She was often at our home for social events. I considered her my most trusted and valued officer. I greatly admired
her work ethic and organizational ability. I relied on her critiques of my speeches and writings and had great respect and familial
affection for her. We often greeted each other or parted with a hug and sometimes a peck on the cheek. I had no romantic interest in
her and often listened to her latest boyfriend story as an older brother might. The only recollection I have of ever having kissed her on
the lips was a peck in greeting when she arrived at our home for the farewell dinner my wife, Carolyn, and I hosted for her and 10
people of her selection, before she left for a new job in South Carolina in July 2004. I was amazed that she reported being made
uncomfortable by a brief kiss on the lips. If it was another time, I have no recollection of it at all. It obviously did not have a serious
impact on her regard for me as this email from her in September 2004 shows.
Specification 3: You did, at or near the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., between on or about 15 February 2004 and on or about 15 March
2004, wrongfully and dishonorably kiss on the lips Ms. CCC, a subordinate subject to your orders.
My Comment: Ms. CCC was my civilian secretary during the time I was the Deputy Judge Advocate General and on 9/11. She found the
job very challenging and difficult due to the extreme volume of work to be done. I encouraged her to get counseling for that and other
issues and helped her find a less demanding position in one of our other offices. Whenever we saw each other we would greet with a
mutual hug and sometimes a peck on the cheek. She testified that once, in early 2004, our peck briefly touched lips and that made her
uncomfortable. I do not remember it as any sort of event though I don't deny that it could have happened. She never mentioned it to
me and our relationship did not change. In September 04, just before I stepped down, she delayed her enlisted reserve promotion
ceremony until I could return from travel to perform it. I always felt like a mentor towards her. I had no romantic interest in her
whatsoever.
Specification 4: You did, at or near Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C., between on or about 1 July 2004 to on or about 1
September 2004, wrongfully and dishonorably massage the neck of and place your hand on or near the knee of Major DDD, a
subordinate subject to your orders.
My Comment: The Specification creates the appearance that these two things happened together when they did not. When coming
upon someone I felt I knew well, whether male or female, I often put a hand on their shoulder or gave them a little squeeze on the
trapezium. This was not a massage. No doubt I did this at some point with Major DDD because I had known her for a number of years,
had encouraged her to stay on active duty when a health problem made leaving active duty seem appropriate, and had tried to help her
active duty husband get a job he wanted at an installation commanded by a friend of mine. I felt quite comfortable with her. After a
ceremony at Bolling AFB, she asked me for a ride back to the Pentagon. During the drive we were discussing family matters and I likely
touched her knee while making a point in the conversation. She never mentioned it to me or indicated any discomfort over it. She
invited me to have lunch with her and another Judge Advocate early in September 2004. She testified that she had no idea I was
romantically interested in her until the investigators "pulled it all together" for her. I had no romantic interest in her and felt paternal
towards both her and her husband.
Specification 5: You did, at or near Washington, D.C., and at various worldwide locations, on divers occasions, between on or about 1
January 2003 and on or about 31 August 2004, wrongfully and dishonorably engage in an unprofessional relationship of inappropriate
familiarity with Major EEE.
My Comment: I inherited Major EEE as my executive officer in February 1999, when I became Staff Judge Advocate at Air Combat
Command, Langley AFB, VA. When I arrived, I had just had knee surgery. Major EEE, a fine officer and an athlete, made rehabilitation of
my knee a project. She became my running partner/rehab director. The Air Force does encourage physical fitness after all. Later when
she and her husband moved to DC, we continued running. We made no effort at all to hide the fact that we occasionally ran together.
We used email to arrange running about once a month, depending on my travel schedule. My wife, Carolyn, sometimes accompanied us
and walked while we ran. We saw each other at official social occasions, but, aside from our running, not otherwise. The use of goofy
"call sign" names in our emails when arranging running times appears to form the basis for this Specification. Those names were not
used publicly. I never felt that there was any disrespect in the use of those names just as pilots routinely use call sign names among
ranks. This Specification is ridiculously insulting to me and Major EEE, as there was no romantic involvement or unprofessional
relationship at all. She is an outstanding officer whose career was threatened by the investigators and my former deputy.
Specification 6: You, a married man, did, at or near Washington, D.C., and at various worldwide locations, on divers occasions, between
on or about 1 April 2003 and on or about 31 July 2004, wrongfully and dishonorably exchange inappropriately intimate e-mail with Ms.
FFF, a person not your wife.
My Comment: Ms. FFF worked for me in the mid 80s in California when we were both majors. In the early 90s we dated briefly when we
were both single. We stopped dating but remained friends. Our email consisted entirely of discussions of family, work, recreation and
occasionally to set up lunch meetings. The emails contained no references to sex or any sexual relationship. At one point in the IG
investigation, the investigators discussed ambushing Ms. FFF's teenage daughter outside Ms. FFF's home in an effort to intimidate her
into disclosing whether her mother and I were having a sexual relationship.
Specification 7: You, a married man, did, at or near Washington, D.C., and at various worldwide locations, on divers occasions, between
on or about 1 January 2003 and on or about 30 December 2003, wrongfully and dishonorably exchange inappropriately intimate e-mail
with Ms.GGG, a person not your wife.
My Comment: Ms. GGG had worked for me at the same time as Ms. FFF in California, in her only assignment as a judge advocate. We
had a difficult professional relationship. I did not have any contact with her until she tracked down my email address and began a
correspondence more than 10 years later in 1998. Having both matured, we enjoyed each other's correspondence and kept it up. It
contained no references to sex or any intimacy beyond family matters and her relationships with her boyfriends.
Specification 8: You, a married man, did, at or near Washington, D.C., and at various worldwide locations, on divers occasions, between
on or about 1 January 2003 and on or about 31 July 2004, wrongfully and dishonorably exchange inappropriately intimate e-mail with Ms
HHH, a person not your wife.
My Comment: At the time of the investigation, I had known Ms. HHH for 28 years. Her husband, Mike, and I were judge advocates
together at Ramstein Air Base, in Germany, in the late 70s. We were best couple friends there as well as later when we were both
assigned to DC. We stayed friends over the years. When Mike died suddenly of a heart attack in 2001, I delivered his eulogy and
officiated at his military funeral. Ms. HHH and I remained in contact through email. On a few occasions we had lunch or dinner. Our
email reflected the longstanding affection we felt for each other but was devoid of any sexual references. Our email did contain frank
discussions of the difficulties experienced by her and her children following the death of her husband and I routinely offered her
advice on those matters.
Page 2 of 2
Art 134, UCMJ
Specification 1: You did, at or near the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., between on or about 17 August 2004 and on or about 23 August
2004, wrongfully endeavor to impede an investigation of you, by deleting incriminating e-mail files from your official Department of
Defense computer system, with the intent to obstruct the due administration of justice.
My Comment: Of all the Specifications contained in the Article 15, none has made me more angry or been more unjust than this one.
This is a flat lie. The Specification is supported by no evidence. See Exhibit 9 to the Whistleblower Complaint for a full discussion of
this Specification and of the later action of General Rives who surreptitiously changed the allegation during the later Air Force ethics
action.
Specification 2: You did, at or near Washington, D.C., and at various worldwide locations, on divers occasions between on or about 1
January 2003 and on or about 23 August 2004, knowingly fraternize with Technical Sergeant JJJ (formerly Technical Sergeant III), an
enlisted person, on terms of military equality, to wit: exchanging inappropriately personal e-mails and using and permitting unduly
familiar names in violation of the custom of the United States Air Force that officers shall not fraternize with enlisted persons on terms
of military equality.
My Comment: At the time of the IG investigation, I had known TSgt JJJ for over 10 years. I had first met her on a supervisory visit to the
base where she was assigned. She was having difficulty and wanted to get out of the Air Force. I encouraged her to stick it out and
offered to help if I could. She did stay in the Air Force. Though she never sought any help, she kept me informed of her progress, via
email. She always addressed me with appropriate respect. She occasionally signed her email with her first name. I did not consider any
aspect of her email disrespectful. While assigned in DC, I saw her and her son at various JAG Corps events. We always spoke. Later,
she asked me to perform her reenlistment ceremony. When she left DC for an assignment to South Carolina, I briefly stopped by her
house on Bolling Air Force Base, D.C., to give her young son a small gift. Apparently, at her new assignment she spoke of me as her
hero and joked how she wanted to marry me. On the basis of this minor hero worship, General Cook decided that I had fraternized with
her.
Art. 92, UCMJ
Specification: You did, at or near Washington, D.C., and at various worldwide locations, on divers occasions, between on or about 1
January 2003 and on or about 30 September 2004, violate a lawful general regulation, to wit: paragraph 3.3, Air Force Instruction 33-119,
Electronic Mail (E-Mail) Management and Use, dated 1 March 1999, by wrongfully using your official Department of Defense computer
e-mail account for other than official use.
My Comment: I don't deny that I used my government email account to send brief emails to various friends to stay in touch. My work
and travel schedules left me little free time at home so occasionally I did resort to using my government account. I was hardly the only
one who did so. The IG investigators were apoplectic that they found 278 "personal" email in my government computer files. Given that
the period covered by the illegal search and seizure of my email was five and a half years, that works out to about one personal email
per week. Obviously, this was not a major criminal enterprise.
These brief comments are not intended to give a complete summary of my interactions with all the persons mentioned in the IG Report
of Investigation. For a more detailed review, I suggest the reader consider the submission of my counsel, Colonel Carlos McDade, to
the Officer Grade Determination Board.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Please recall that the media reports in my case, which were not contradicted by the DOD, stated that
I engaged in "more than a dozen affairs over 10 years." That sound bite was purposely leaked to
the Washington Post by unnamed officials from the DOD. As you read the Specifications below, you
will see the significant disparity between what was said and what was alleged. Also, note that
neither the UCMJ nor any written regulation contains a definition of "inappropriately intimate" or
"inappropriately personal" email which was cited as the offense in six of the below Specifications.
Such email, if it is in fact anywhere defined, is not prohibited except as it may be for other than
"official" purposes.
