[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 109 (Tuesday, August 9, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  THE NOMINATION OF LTG BUSTER GLOSSON, U.S. AIR FORCE, TO RETIRE IN 
                                 GRADE

  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson, U.S. Air Force, 
one of the Nation's most distinguished military officers, has been 
nominated by the President for retirement in grade. Lieutenant General 
Glosson's 29-year career includes:
  His service as an F-4 pilot in Vietnam for which he was awarded the 
Distinguished Flying Cross for 139 combat missions.
  Primary responsibility for planning and implementing the air campaign 
in Operation Desert Storm.
  Service as the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and 
Operations.
  The committee's review of this nomination has included the military 
record of Lieutenant General Glosson; the joint DOD/Air Force IG report 
on the allegations that Lieutenant General Glosson improperly 
communicated with selection board members with an intent to influence 
their deliberations; materials provided to the committee by the Air 
Force and the Office of the Secretary of Defense; materials submitted 
to the Department and the committee by Lieutenant General Glosson; and 
testimony before the committee by DOD witnesses on June 27 and July 27, 
1994.
  There is strong support for Lieutenant General Glosson's nomination 
in the committee. The committee regretfully has determined, however, 
that the inconsistent information provided by the Department of Defense 
to date and the manner in which the Department has handled the 
nomination have created a situation in which there is not an adequate 
basis for making a recommendation to the Senate on this nomination. The 
committee has four primary concerns.
  First, during the pendency of the investigation, the Air Force was 
presented with credible information indicating the possibility of bias 
on the part of the inspector general of the Air Force, but no action 
was taken to address the impact of that information on the 
investigation. The committee finds the failure to evaluate information 
about bias in the investigation to be a significant defect in the 
process.
  Second, the Department failed to address the specific findings in the 
joint DOD-Air Force IG report in the course of acting on the 
allegations against Lieutenant General Glosson. While the Department's 
leadership is not bound by the findings of inspectors general, the 
failure to address findings involving serious allegations before 
sending a nomination to the Senate is inexplicable.
  Third, prior to sending the nomination to the Senate, the Department 
did not take the steps necessary to resolve the direct conflicts 
presented by the statements of Lieutenant General Nowak, Lieutenant 
General Ryan, Major General Myers, and Lieutenant General Glosson on 
the key issue of whether Lieutenant General Glosson communicated with 
the intent to influence the deliberations of selection board members. 
When four of the most senior officers in the Air Force give opposed 
sworn statements on a matter of significant official interest, the 
Department cannot reasonably avoid the responsibility to address the 
conflicts in the testimony before sending a nomination to the Senate.
  Fourth, even though the Air Force did not accept or reject the 
conclusions in the joint-IG report as to whether Lieutenant General 
Glosson had an intent to influence the deliberations, he nonetheless 
received a letter of admonition for creating the appearance that he was 
attempting to influence a selection board. Unauthorized communications 
with board members are strictly prohibited. There is no prohibition, 
however, in law, regulation, or custom of the service on discussions 
which merely create an appearance in the absence of a finding that the 
person was aware that he was speaking to a member of the selection 
board. The committee has serious questions about the letter, 
particularly since it applies a standard that was not in effect when 
the letter was issued, and which has not subsequently been disseminated 
to the officer crops by the Air force.
  The committee has determined that it would not be appropriate to 
proceed in this matter until the Department has addressed these 
concerns. Accordingly, the committee has requested the Department of 
Defense to cause an objective review of the evidence in this case to be 
conducted. Such a review could be conducted through use of a formal or 
informal fact-finding procedure that involves interviews of the 
individuals concerned, but the committee leaves it to the Department's 
discretion to decide on the appropriate means of addressing the 
committee's concerns. Because of intense personal involvement by Air 
Force and Department of Defense officials in this matter to date, the 
committee has directed the Department to ensure that the review should 
be conducted by persons outside the Department of Defense who have not 
been involved in the conduct or review of the investigation to date.
  The committee has directed the Department to ensure that the review, 
at a minimum, should set forth findings of fact relevant to the 
following questions:

  Did the Air Force Inspector General have personal conflicts with 
Lieutenant General Glosson prior to the investigation? If so, should he 
have been permitted to participate in the conduct of the investigation?
  Does the evidence support the conclusion of the joint IG 
investigation that Lieutenant General Glosson lied about his 
communications with the three officers?
  Can the statements of Lieutenant General Glosson, Lieutenant General 
Nowak, Lieutenant General Ryan, and Major General Myers be reconciled 
on the basis of available evidence?
  If not, does the evidence support the conclusion that Lieutenant 
General Glosson provided truthful statements about his statements with 
the other three officers, or that each of the other three officers 
provided truthful statements about their communications with Lieutenant 
General Glosson?
  The committee directed the Department to provide the results of this 
review to the committee by September 15, 1994.
  In a related matter, the committee approved the nomination of 
Lieutenant General Michael Ryan for reassignment from his current 
position as Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to 
the Commander of Allied Air Forces in Southern Europe and Commander of 
the Sixteenth Air Force. This is a transfer, not a promotion, but since 
it involves transfer to a three-star position of importance and 
responsibility, Senate confirmation is required. Deputy Secretary 
Deutch and JCS Chairman Shalikashvili testified before the committee 
that this transfer is critical to the conduct of operations in 
connection with the tense situation in the former Yugoslavia. The 
committee, in recommending this nomination, specifically noted that the 
committee's action was without prejudice to Lieutenant General Glosson 
or Lieutenant General Ryan on the issues raised by the committee's 
request for further review by the Department of Defense. The committee 
specifically reserved judgment on those matters until receiving the 
report from the Department of Defense.

                          ____________________