CSAF and SA Asked to Resign

[CAP Producer]

From the AP: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363495,00.html

Top 2 Air Force Officials to Resign
Thursday, June 05, 2008

WASHINGTON —  Both the top uniformed officer of the Air Force and its civilian leader have been asked to submit their resignations, FOX News confirms.

Air Force Chief of Staff Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne will resign by the end of the day, two sets of sources tell FOX News.

Defense Secretary Gates has publicly identified a number of problems recently with the Air Force, including last year's accidental flight of nuclear weapons on a B-52 bomber, a top ranking official who ran into contract problems.

Gates also recently spoke at the Air Force Academy describing the Air Force's sluggishness to step up its force readiness.

FOX News' Jennifer Griffin contributed to this report.

[Timothy]

I was just going to post this myself! New men in both positions will mean some changes in AF for sure. And I believe that Mosely was the one pushing the new Heritage Service Coat through.

[mikeylikey]

Wow.....There must be some real problems with these men (other than what is publicly known).  Could they both be owners of a certain foreign company that recently got a procurement deal with USAF?  I bet we see a GAO report on the subject.

I am amazed both got fired. 

[afgeo4]

This just in on yahoo news...

05Jun08

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON - In an extraordinary shake-up, the Air Force's top uniformed and civilian officials are leaving their jobs, U.S. officials said Thursday after an internal report on a mistaken shipment to Taiwan of warhead fuses for nuclear missiles pointed substantial blame at the Air Force.
ADVERTISEMENT

Defense Secretary Robert Gates asked Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne to step down, said defense officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Air Force officials had no immediate comment.

Gates was expected to make a public announcement later in the day and to emphasize the importance of the Taiwan fuse debacle in his decision to remove the service's top leaders.

More than the other military branches, the Air Force in recent years has endured trouble at the top. Still, it is extremely rare for a service to lose its most senior uniformed and civilian leaders at the same time. There was no immediate word on who would be nominated to succeed Moseley and Wynne.

In another embarrassing setback, this one last August, a B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and flown across the country. The pilot and crew were unaware they had nuclear arms aboard.

That error was considered so grave that President Bush was quickly informed.

Gates' Air Force decision is the latest example of his impatience with Pentagon leaders he deems to be out of line. In March 2007, three months into his tenure, he forced the Army secretary, Francis Harvey, to quit. Gates was unhappy with Harvey's handling of revelations of inadequate housing conditions and bureaucratic delays for troops recovering from war wounds at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Bush was aware of the new changes, but the White House "has not played any role" in the shake-up, said press secretary Dana Perino.

Moseley, who commanded coalition air forces during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, became Air Force chief in September 2005. Wynne took office in November 2005; before that he was the Pentagon's top acquisition and technology official under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

In response to flaws exposed by the nuclear weapons error last year, Moseley said the Air Force would change the way bomber crews organize for their nuclear training mission. It was disclosed in recent days that the bomber unit, based at Minot Air Force Base, N.D., had failed portions of a nuclear security and safety inspection in May, although it did not lose its certification.

Gates seemed to be especially disturbed by the mistaken fuse sale to Taiwan. He was briefed last week on the conclusions of an internal investigation of the matter but the written results have not been released.

Four cone-shaped electrical fuses used in intercontinental ballistic missile warheads were shipped to the Taiwanese — instead of the helicopter batteries Taiwan had ordered. The fuses originated at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyo., but the mix-up apparently occurred after the parts were shipped to Hill Air Force Base in Utah.

After the March disclosure of that mistake, Gates ordered a full inventory of all nuclear weapons and related materials.

At the time the erroneous sale was disclosed by the Pentagon, Ryan Henry, a senior aide to Gates, said mistakes involving elements of the nation's strategic nuclear arsenal "cannot be tolerated."

In another incident, the Pentagon inspector general found in April that a $50 million contract to promote the Thunderbirds aerial stunt team was tainted by improper influence and preferential treatment. No criminal conduct was found.

Moseley was not singled out for blame, but the investigation laid out a trail of communications from him and other Air Force leaders that eventually influenced the 2005 contract award. Included in that were friendly e-mails between Moseley and an executive in the company that won the bid.

"It is my sense that General Moseley's command authority has been compromised," Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said at the time.

[smitjud]

I think someone beat you to it

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=5245.0;topicseen

Crazy stuff though.

[John Bryan]

Even if my comment is a little off topic, I don't mind 

Often times when CAP's leadership fails there is a cry from the field to replace CAP officers with Air Force Officers (or "real" Officers). I think there is an important lesson in this story. Leaders fail.....CAP leaders, AF leaders, and SES federal employees. It does not matter what you wear.

In any organization, the important thing is the organization fix the mistakes or failures and move on.

Anytime this kind of thing happens in any organization it is sad.....today is a sad day for the AF family.

[mikeylikey]

^ Ya but, these AF leaders are not the Officers who loaded nukes onto planes and flew around the US.  This was a pure political move to appease the Senate.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

[PHall]

^ Ya but, these AF leaders are not the Officers who loaded nukes onto planes and flew around the US.  This was a pure political move to appease the Senate.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

The senior leadership of the 5th Bomb Wing got canned for that already.

[Cecil DP]

^ Ya but, these AF leaders are not the Officers who loaded nukes onto planes and flew around the US.  This was a pure political move to appease the Senate.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

The senior leadership of the 5th Bomb Wing got canned for that already.

The CofS and SecAf are responsible for ensuring that the standadrs and training were in place and enforced. In the last year the AF has sent nuclear detonators to Taiwan, Lost those nukes that were sent to Louisinan, and than had the contracting scandel. This is a clear signal to all the military that if you're resonsible for what happens during your watch. Mosely will retire with a several DSM's and his full 4 star pension,.The SecAF will get a job in the Defense Industry

[lordmonar]

There is also a lot of animosity between the SECDEF and the AF Leadership over a whole host of issues.....This is not a case of one big screw up and they got canned....but a lot of little issues that have built up over time.

[FW]

One good reason for the "friction" is for the AF asking for an additional $415 Billion for modernization of the fleet.  Seems that something going on in the Middle East has been using up the "merchandise" at an alarming rate.  

Instead of the AF getting the cash, it went for Farm Subsidies.  

What's a SECAF going to do?  He cries to the CSAF who calls his friends in the Defense business.  Stuff happens.. deals made....  Bombs over heartland..... fuses in Tiawan.....

Where's Tom Clancy when you need him.  

[shorning]

^ Ya but, these AF leaders are not the Officers who loaded nukes onto planes and flew around the US.  This was a pure political move to appease the Senate.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

The senior leadership of the 5th Bomb Wing got canned for that already.

...and they're not done yet...

[Short Field]

The CSAF and SA didn't get canned because the events happened - they got canned because they didn't act to fix the problems and institute procedures to ensure it doesn't happen again. 

From CNN:  The resignations come after a report on a Navy admiral's investigation that criticized the Air Force's reactions to the incidents.

Gates said the report "depicts a pattern of poor performance" in which Air Force brass didn't act to improve security after mishaps and Air Force personnel handling nuclear weapons consistently failed to follow existing rules.

Air Force leaders "not only fell short in terms of specific acts, they failed to recognize systemic problems, to address those problems or, when beyond their authority to act, to call the attention of superiors to those problems," Gates said.

The investigation found that although the Taiwan incident didn't compromise the integrity of the U.S. nuclear force, it represented "a significant failure" by the Air Force to ensure sensitive military components, Gates said.

Gates said the report concluded that erosion in the branch's command and oversight standards helped lead to the incidents, and that they could have been prevented if the oversight programs had functioned correctly.

[afgeo4]

It's also no secret that Secretary Gates is a long time friend of the Navy and his work will reflect that. I think there were other ways to handle it, including asking the people responsible to step down in a less public manner. He wanted to make an example out of them. However, you can't make an example out of a SECAF or a CSAF. That's like making an example out of the President. Who is the example for? I think it's just a stunt for the elections. To show that the DoD, under the current White House administration is able to make changes and to correct wrongdoing (something they've been accused of not doing in the past). I wouldn't be surprised if Sen. McCain had a say in this too.

The problem is the system, not the people in charge. It's not like they can make sweeping, radical and fast changes during war time anyway. Especially when there's no budget. Face it, right now the Air Force is a bastard child in the Pentagon. Most just see it as a necessary evil that drains the funding. That will probably change again once we get out of the middle east (whenever that will happen) or once we enter a more traditional conflict.

[Short Field]

It's not like they can make sweeping, radical and fast changes during war time anyway. Especially when there's no budget.

As a former SAC member, I can promise you that maintaining positive control of nuclear weapons does not require sweeping, radical changes.  It might require fast changes - depending on how far the procedures have been allowed to slide.   It only requires the leadership to set the standards and continually follow up to see they are being met.  SAC was an easy command to get fired in because there was no excuse for failing to pay attention to the details.   It doesn't take a budget increase to change procedures.     The next CSAF will probably have no problem setting his priorites.

[afgeo4]

It's not like they can make sweeping, radical and fast changes during war time anyway. Especially when there's no budget.

As a former SAC member, I can promise you that maintaining positive control of nuclear weapons does not require sweeping, radical changes.  It might require fast changes - depending on how far the procedures have been allowed to slide.   It only requires the leadership to set the standards and continually follow up to see they are being met.  SAC was an easy command to get fired in because there was no excuse for failing to pay attention to the details.   It doesn't take a budget increase to change procedures.     The next CSAF will probably have no problem setting his priorites.

Agreed, but how much control can a CSAF have on daily procedures of a particular wing? Every MAJCOM has  its own things to worry about and their own procedures for their own jobs. There's no way someone in the Pentagon can have such wide span of control. The problem laid with the Wing CCs when it came to the actual events. The problem in lack of training and oversight lays with the MAJCOM commanders. In this case ACC and PACAF. They have to set the rules and maintain oversight.

Asking the CSAF to control missile loading and inventory is like asking him to control armories, motor pools and kitchen stockrooms. Simply impossible. By the way, did he appoint people to the positions I just mentioned or were they there before his command?

[Short Field]

The SAF and CSAF set the standards and priority.  The CSAF hired the intermediate commanders.  He supervises them.   He also has an Air Staff to let him know how the field is doing.    It wasn't that important to the CSAF, so it wasn't that important to his staff and his intermediate commanders.   One rule of thumb for commanders has always been "expect what you inspect".    The actual work would be done by the Wing Commanders, but the priorities should come from above - with oversight.

When we got inspected by the IG in SAC, the person that bought a write-up was the first person in the chain with the authority to fix the problem.  If the problem was poor oversight by ACC and PACAF, then the next one up the chain is the CSAF. 

[mikeylikey]

So Really the Secretary of Defense should resign.  He knew what was going on.......

[Short Field]

It was his inspection team that identified the problem.  He was doing his job providing oversight.  Too bad he found his next level down was not doing it either.

Besides, isn't it a tried and true practice that if you can see where your subordinate is failling in his job and fire him before your boss finds out and fires you, you are home free?   

[PHall]

So Really the Secretary of Defense should resign.  He knew what was going on.......

Using that reasoning, then you should resign too. You seem to know what's going on and you did nothing to fix it.

[mikeylikey]

^ ha.....If I could, I would have before I spent the better part of this decade in Iraq and Afghanistan!

Plus this is purely an internal Air Force matter......not being in the AF relieves me of any worry.  They jacked up, and have shown they can not be trusted with weapons.  I say remove the weapons to a service that does not make mistakes like this.   

[Duke Dillio]

^ What's the Coast Guard gonna do with B-52's and nuclear weapons?   

[Flying Pig]

Its a load of crap that fuses accidentally got sent to a foreign country.  I spent 2 years guarding and providing convoys for Special Weapons and their components.  No way in H@## you get that confused.

[Short Field]

I would love to be forced to resign as a 4-Star.   But I have to be hired first.  Which means I have to want to go back to work.

[afgeo4]

Its a load of crap that fuses accidentally got sent to a foreign country.  I spent 2 years guarding and providing convoys for Special Weapons and their components.  No way in H@## you get that confused.

I agree. I think this was an under the table deal that got discovered by someone and the Depts of State and Defense had to quickly find an alternate story and scapegoats.

[flyerthom]

^ What's the Coast Guard gonna do with B-52's and nuclear weapons?   

So Mr. Smuggler, you thought that cigarette boat could out run our cutters...

[Eagle400]

Wynne I can understand.

But General Moseley? 


Gen Moseley is the most recent CSAF who has succeded in having the vigor and tenacity of Gen Curtis LeMay, but also the courageous patience and tact of Gen Michael E. Ryan.

I am sad to see him go.


I sincerely hope this is not a sign that the JCS is starting to become like CAP South East Region Headquarters.     

[lordmonar]

Oh....just a few things off hand....

Trading people for planes in the middle of a war.

Performing end arounds on the SECDEF over budget issuses.

Slow Boating ISR assets to support combat operations

CSAR-X fiasco

The new tanker deal

and IIRC the Rent-a-taker deal were all part of the current CSAF and SECAF's tenure.

Not saying I am glad to see them go...or that it not a bum deal....but there are a lot of little reasons why the SECDEF may want them to go.

[mikeylikey]

^ OR the SECDEF just doesn't like them and can fire them at will.  However, I thought Secretaries of the different services having been confirmed by the Senate could only be fired by the President, after a senate review.  That is how it has worked in the past. 

[Cecil DP]

The SECDEF doesn't ask for resignations without informing the President. Both serve at the pleasure of the President and the alternative was to tell General Mosely he was being reassigned to a Major General's slot effective immediately, with the resultant drop in grade.

[Short Field]

IIRC all Four-Star assignments have to be confirmed by the Senate as well.  

[Short Field]

I was told by one General that the day he pinned on his first star, he lost all job security since he now served "at the pleasure of" whomever his boss was.  The conversation had to do with how hard it was to get rid of poor performing Colonels.  You could reassign O6s, but you couldn't force them to resign.  All it took was a phone call to force a General (any type) to resign.

[mikeylikey]

I was told by one General that the day he pinned on his first star, he lost all job security since he now served "at the pleasure of" whomever his boss was. 

"This Commission is to continue in force during the pleasure of the President of the United States of America under the provisions of those public laws relating realting to Officers of the Armed Forces of the United States of America"

Word for word off DD 1 (Officers Commission Certificate). 

So all Military Officers serve at the pleasure of the Civilian Leadership, and can be fired for no cause.  It is like working in a state with an Employment at will statue or law.  Meaning they can resign at anytime, be fired at anytime or reassigned to something else. 

[Short Field]

Actually, a commissioned officer in the grade of Col or below does have legal protections beyond just "serving at the pleasure".   Sorry but I can not find the sources.  But basically, a regular officer can serve until they hit the up or out point (Colonels - 30 years, Lt Cols - 28 years, etc), barring judicial action.  There are "force shaping" acts that can take place - but that is not what we are discussing here. 

A NAF/CC can not just decide one day that he doesn't like a O4 with 18 years in and tell him to resign tomorrow.  If legal actions are pending, the commander can give him the option of resigning.  But there needs to be "cause" to force a regular officer out before he reaches his mandatory separation point.  Granted there is nothing to prevent the NAF/CC from working an assignment for the officer to someplace so unpleasant that the officer resigns in lieu of taking the assignment.  (Shades of the "Year of the Chicken Colonel" back in the '60s.)

Back in the day in SAC, it was not unheard of for a Wing/CC Colonel to be fired for failing an inspection and ordered OFF the base by the end of the day.  However, the Colonel was NOT dismissed from the service but simply reassigned - normally someplace where the General would never see or hear from him again.

A one-star can simply be told, "Your replacement arrives next week and I don't have another job for you, please put in your papers for retirement now".  That is it.  Period, end of story.  No appeal unless the one-star had another sponsor looking out for him that was willing to give him a job.

[Short Field]

By the way, DD 1 is not a legal document, it is a certificate - you know better than that    .

[Cecil DP]

IIRC all Four-Star assignments have to be confirmed by the Senate as well.  

The 3 and 4 star grades are as long as they're in a slot rated as 3 or 4 star. When reassigned they automatically  revert to their permenant grade.

[mikeylikey]

By the way, DD 1 is not a legal document, it is a certificate - you know better than that   ;) .

Never said it was (but 100 years ago it was the legal document, for you history buffs).  I suggest you take a quick look over Army Regulation 600–8–24

Here it is laid out for you:

Chapter 4
Eliminations
Section I
Scope
4–1. Overview
a. An officer is permitted to serve in the Army because of the special trust and confidence the President and the
nation have placed in the officer's patriotism, valor, fidelity, and competence. An officer is expected to display
responsibility commensurate to this special trust and confidence and to act with the highest integrity at all times.
However, an officer who will not or can not maintain those standards will be separated.
b. Every officer deserves a fair chance to demonstrate their capabilities. When an officer shows ineffective
tendencies (especially if the officer is inexperienced) when practicable, they will be given another chance under another
commander. The officer's ineffectiveness will be systematically recorded in documents that specify each period
covered, duties observed, and defects noted. Recommendations for elimination action will not be based on generalities
and vague impressions. It is necessary to document, in writing, the precise reasons an officer is considered ineffective.


4–2. Reasons for elimination
While not all inclusive, when one of the following or similar conditions exist, elimination action may be or will be
initiated as indicated below for—
a. Substandard performance of duty.
(1) A downward trend in overall performance resulting in an unacceptable record of efficiency, or a consistent
record of mediocre service.
(2) Failure to keep pace or to progress with contemporaries, as demonstrated by a low record of efficiency when
compared with other officers of the same grade and competitive category.
(3) Failure to exercise necessary leadership or command expected of an officer of their grade.
(4) Failure of an officer to absorb technical proficiency required for grade and competitive category.
(5) Failure to properly perform assignments commensurate with an officer's grade and experience.
(6) Apathy, defective attitudes, or other characteristic disorders to include inability or unwillingness to expend
effort.
(7) Failure to respond to alcohol or drug problem rehabilitation efforts in a reasonable length of time. (See AR 600–
85 for further explanation.) Elimination action will be initiated. Care should be taken to avoid the inclusion of limiteduse
evidence, as defined in AR 600–85, chapter 6.
(8) Failure to conform to prescribed standards of dress, personal appearance, or military deportment.
(9) Failure to achieve satisfactory progress after enrollment in the Army weight control program or failure to
maintain the weight/body fat standards established under the provisions of AR 600–9 after removal from an established
weight control program. Elimination action will be initiated. This provision does not include those judge advocates and
AMEDD officers who have incurred a statutory ADSO for participating in Army sponsored education and training
programs such as the Funded Legal Education Program (10 USC 2004), Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship
Program, or the Uniform Services University of the Health Sciences (10 USC, chapters 104, 105).
(10) When no medical problems exist, and an officer has two consecutive failures of the APFT, elimination action
will be initiated. This provision does not include those judge advocates and AMEDD officers who have incurred a
statutory ADSO for participating in Army sponsored education and training programs such as the Funded Legal
Education Program (10 USC 2004), Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship, or the Uniform Services University
of the Health Sciences (10 USC, chapters 104, 105).
(11) Failure of a course at a service school for academic reasons by a probationary or nonprobationary RA officer.
For failure by an RC officer, see paragraph 2–33.
(12) Failure of a probationary officer to resign under paragraph 3–9 when their commander determines the best
interest of the Government and the individual can be served by the officer's discharge.
(13) The discovery of other conditions concerning a probationary officer that, had they been known at the time of
appointment, would have precluded appointment.
(14) The discovery of any other condition concerning a probationary officer that indicates the officer's retention in
the Army would not be in the best interest of the United States.
( 1 5 ) P r o b a t i o n a r y R A c o m m i s s i o n e d a n d w a r r a n t o f f i c e r s e n t e r i n g A D w h o a r e c o n f i r m e d H u m a n I m -
munodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive within 180 calendar days of their original appointment or probationary USAR,
ARNG commission and warrant officers who report for initial entry training in an AD (other than ADT) status and are
confirmed HIV positive within 180 calendar days of reporting to AD will be processed for elimination.
(16) Failure to establish an adequate Family Care Plan in accordance with AR 600-20, paragraph 5-5.
b. Misconduct, moral or professional dereliction, or in the interests of national security.
(1) Discreditable or intentional failure to meet personal financial obligations.
(2) Mismanagement of personal affairs that are unfavorably affecting an officer's performance of duty.
(3) Mismanagement of personal affairs to the discredit of the Army.
( 4 ) I n t e n t i o n a l o m i s s i o n o r m i s s t a t e m e n t o f f a c t i n o f f i c i a l s t a t e m e n t s o r r e c o r d s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f
misrepresentation.
(5) Acts of personal misconduct (including but not limited to acts committed while in a drunken or drug intoxicated
state).
(6) Homosexual conduct (see para 4–22).
(7) Intentional neglect of or failure to perform duties.
(8) Conduct unbecoming an officer.
(9) Conduct or actions that result in the loss of a professional status, such as withdrawal, suspension or abandonment
of professional license, endorsement, or certification that is directly or indirectly connected with or is necessary
for the performance of one's military duties. (For AMEDD officers, this includes the partial or complete suspension,
limitations, withdrawal, or denial of clinical practice privileges.)
(10) The final denial or revocation of an officer's Secret security clearance by appropriate authorities acting
pursuant to DODD 5200.2-R and AR 380-67.
(11) Unless precluded by paragraph 4–18d(4), elimination action will be initiated against an officer who is medically
diagnosed as drug dependent or identified as having committed an act of personal misconduct involving drugs.
(12) Conduct or actions by a warrant officer resulting in a loss of special qualifications (such as withdrawal/
revocation of CID accreditation, revocation of marine qualification license, removal from the PRP, withdrawal of
clinical privileges or loss of flying status) that directly or indirectly precludes a warrant officer from performing in
MOS and is necessary for the performance of those duties. Eliminations based on these reasons may not be utilized if
reclassification action is feasible and in the best interest of the Service or if the loss of special qualifications was due to
medical reasons beyond the control of the warrant officer.
(13) Failure to respond in a reasonable length of time to rehabilitation efforts regarding repeated acts of child/spouse
maltreatment or abuse and/or other acts of family violence.
(14) Failure of a course at a service school by an RA officer because of misconduct, moral or professional
dereliction. For failure by an RC officer, see paragraph 2–33.
(15) Conviction by court martial that did not impose a punitive discharge for a sexually violent offense listed in AR
27-10, chapter 24.
c. Derogatory information. The following reasons (or ones similar) require an officer's record to be reviewed for
consideration of terminating appointment. Standing alone, one of these conditions may not support elimination,
however, this derogatory information combined with other known deficiencies form a pattern that, when reviewed in
conjunction with the officer's overall record, requires elimination.
(1) Punishment under UCMJ, article 15.
(2) Conviction by court-martial.
(3) The final denial or revocation of an officer's Secret security clearance by appropriate authorities acting pursuant
to DODD 5200.2-R and AR 380-67.
(4) A relief for cause officer evaluation report (OER) (DA Form 67–9, (Officer Evaluation Report)) under AR
623–105, paragraph 3–32.
(5) Adverse information filed in the OMPF in accordance with AR 600–37.
(6) Failure of a course at a service school.

Disabled smileys - MIKE

[Short Field]

All my time is USMC and USAF, not USA - despite serviing under many outstanding and some otherwise Army Officers.  I am not familiar with USA Regs - however, your list is all about "for cause", as in not meeting standards.  It also seems aimed at junior officers (references to probationary officers).    It looks like it would take a series of documented screw-ups on the job to get eliminated.   A General Officer just needs to lose the faith of his boss to be gone.   

[Short Field]

Looks like all the eliminations in Army Reg 600-8-24 require a Board of Inquiry to meet and review the charges.  Again - a General Officer just needs to be told to resign by his boss.  No review by peers or superiors required.

[SAR-EMT1]

I really thought that a G-O could appeal to someone (Congress?)

I know I've heard of one or two being reinstated.

[Short Field]

They are few and far between.  The only one I really recall is BG Terryl Schwalier.  He was the  commander who was asked to resign by the SECDEF following the Kobal Towers bombing.  He also lost his promotion to Maj Gen - he was on the select list.   He never came back on active duty but his record was corrected to give him the rank and backpay of a Maj Gen.  It took over ten years for this to happen.   Also, it was mainly his friends in the USAF that were pushing for it and made it happen using the Air Board for the Correction of Military Records - not a bunch of congressmen.  The only issue was his rank.

[Short Field]

CNN is reporting that SECDEF Gates has named Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, as the next CSAF.  Gen Schwartz is a C-130 transport pilot with special operations experience.   The fighter community must be reeling in shock!!

[Cecil DP]

They are few and far between.  The only one I really recall is BG Terryl Schwalier.  He was the  commander who was asked to resign by the SECDEF following the Kobal Towers bombing.  He also lost his promotion to Maj Gen - he was on the select list.   He never came back on active duty but his record was corrected to give him the rank and backpay of a Maj Gen.  It took over ten years for this to happen.   Also, it was mainly his friends in the USAF that were pushing for it and made it happen using the Air Board for the Correction of Military Records - not a bunch of congressmen.  The only issue was his rank.

His appointment to MG is on hold. The Defense Department is claiming the Appeal Board that recommended the promotion acted outside of their authority.

[afgeo4]

As per Yahoo news:

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended Monday that Gen. Norton Schwartz, a 35-year veteran with a background in Air Force special operations, be the next Air Force chief.


In a sweeping shake up of the Air Force, Gates also formally sent former Air Force official Michael Donley's name to the White House to be the next secretary of the beleaguered service.

Gates announced last Thursday that he was removing Air Force Gen. Michael Moseley from the chief's job and Michael Wynne as its top civilian. Gates held them accountable for failing to fully correct an erosion of nuclear-related performance standards.

In an effort to get at least part of the new team in place right away, Gates also asked Bush to designate Donley as the acting secretary effective June 21 — a move that would allow him to begin work without waiting for Senate confirmation. Wynne's resignation is effective that day.

Schwartz had been thought to be in line for retirement, and his replacement as head of Transportation Command, Lt. Gen. William Fraser III, had been announced in April. But on Monday Gates recommended that Fraser be nominated as the next vice chief of the Air Force.

And he said that Gen. Duncan McNabb, the current vice chief, should move to the Transportation Command job.

Later Monday Gates is planning to visit Langley Air Force Base, Va., to address airmen and underscore the depth of his concern about weaknesses in service's leadership.

He is expected to stress the importance of leadership accountability and emphasize that despite his well-publicized tensions with the Air Force, he strongly supports the service and appreciates its many wartime contributions.

On Tuesday, Gates plans to make similar speeches at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., home of Air Force Space Command, which has responsibility for the service's nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile force, and at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., home of Air Mobility Command, whose tanker refueling aircraft are part of the nuclear bomber mission.

When he announced last Thursday that he was firing Wynne and Moseley, Gates expressed disappointment that shortcomings in the Air Force's handling of its nuclear mission had been allowed to persist.

"I believed that we needed a change of leadership to bring a new perspective and to especially underscore the importance of accountability in dealing with these kinds of problems," Gates told reporters Thursday.

He said at the time that his decision was based mainly on the [darn]ing conclusions of an internal report on the mistaken shipment to Taiwan of four Air Force fusing devices for ballistic missile nuclear warheads. And he linked the underlying causes of that slip-up to another startling incident: the North Dakota-to-Louisiana flight last August of a B-52 bomber that was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

The report asserted that slippage in the Air Force's nuclear standards was a "problem that has been identified but not effectively addressed for over a decade."

Gates said the Taiwan mistake did not compromise U.S. nuclear weapons technology and did not pose a physical danger, but it "raised questions in the minds of the public as well as internationally."

Tony McPeak, the retired general who was Air Force chief of staff during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s, said in a telephone interview Monday that he welcomed the selections of Schwartz and Donley.

"It's not a mainstream kind of thing" to choose an officer with Schwartz's extensive background in special operations, McPeak said. But Schwartz also has a variety of other experience, including holding senior positions on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It's good to have that" broader perspective on the Air Force, said McPeak.

McPeak worked with Donley when Donley was the acting Air Force secretary in the early months of the first Clinton administration in 1993.

"Donley is a solid, solid guy and very experienced," McPeak said.

Donley served as acting secretary of the Air Force for seven months in 1993 and was the service's top financial officer from 1989 to 1993. He is currently the Pentagon's director of administration and management, and has held a variety of strategy and policy positions in government, including a stint on the National Security Council from 1984 to 1989.

Before that he was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee staff. He served in the Army from 1972 to 1975. He earned bachelors and masters degrees from the University of Southern California.

Schwartz has held several high-level assignments on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and has been commander of the U.S. Transportation Command since September 2005.

Schwartz, a pilot with more than 4,200 flying hours, served as Commander of the Special Operations Command-Pacific, as well as Alaskan Command, Alaskan North American Aerospace Defense Command Region, and the 11th Air Force. Prior to assuming his current position, Schwartz was Director, the Joint Staff, Washington, D.C.

He attended the Air Force Academy and the National War College, and he participated as a crew member in the 1975 airlift evacuation of Saigon. In 1991, he served as chief of staff of the Joint Special Operations Task Force for Northern Iraq in operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.