Criticizing maintenance got airman ousted

[CommunityEditor]

[I]By all accounts, Adam Lucero was a hard-charging airman. When he didn’t make it into a summer camp for the Air Force Academy, he enlisted at age 17 through the Delayed Entry Program and had his staff sergeant rocker by the time he was 21.

But Lucero, now 24, dreamed of going to Officer Training School and earning his pilot wings, so he poured himself into his work and studies, hoping he could one day fly the fighter jets he maintained at Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska.

That same passion, drive and singleness of purpose may have led to his downfall. When he discovered what he considered to be unsafe maintenance practices by his squadron co-workers, and was unable to get the support he sought from his superiors, he started going directly to pilots to tell them the planes they were flying were unsafe. For 18 months, he pushed his complaints despite his leaders’ opposition. Finally, in July 2006, he was forced out of the Air Force.

The 11th Air Force Inspector General’s Office and Defense Department IG have concluded Lucero’s commanders engaged in reprisals against him. What remains unclear is whether another, ongoing investigation will clear his name and let him rejoin the service.

In the meantime, he’s selling trucks in Fairbanks.

Lucero’s troubles began in January 2005 when he transferred to Eielson’s 355th Aircraft Maintenance Unit to become an A-10 crew chief. There he met Staff Sgt. Dusty Surber, a fellow enlisted airman with designs on becoming a pilot. The 354th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, the 355th’s parent unit, would seem to be the perfect place for two ambitious airmen: Winner of the 2004 Air Force Maintenance Effectiveness Award, the unit had earned all “outstanding” and “excellent” ratings in its most recent Pacific Air Forces inspections.

But in interviews with Air Force Times, Surber and Lucero said the drive for high sortie numbers there meant serious safety issues were overlooked to keep planes flying.

“I didn’t like what I saw — a lot of people were taking shortcuts, not following the [technical orders], letting aircraft fly that should [have been] grounded until they got repaired,” Lucero said.

He said he once had an airman first class suggest to him that they replace a lost screw with epoxy.

With such high expectations for producing sortie numbers, Surber said, maintenance holdups were unwelcome.

“If you wrote up something you thought was bad, they thought ... ‘You’re just doing this to try and screw us,’” Surber said. “These are training missions we’re flying here, you know? What’s the point of risking someone’s life over a training mission? “Everybody was gunning for that next stripe or ... that next rank,” Surber said. “Whenever you start affecting ... those numbers and those sorties ... you’re really messing with fire, because that’s somebody’s potential promotion.”

Disillusioned, Surber asked to be transferred to the base maintenance operations control center. At first, he said, his request was denied because the 355th didn’t want to lose a 7-level crew chief; but after he started talking to the squadron’s pilots about how unsafe he thought their aircraft were, “I was gone within a week,” he said.

Surber had a parting message for his friend Lucero, which he recalled for Air Force Times: “If you stick to your guns, and you’re not a ‘yes’ man, I guarantee you’re gonna find a whole world of trouble.” Lucero found it.

According to the report of a Defense Department-directed investigation into Lucero’s removal from the Air Force, Lucero identified a migrated wedding band — a bearing that fits around a steering pin — on an A-10 he was inspecting June 9, 2005. While that bearing was not specifically on his inspection checklist, he recognized the problem because of his previous work in the Aero Repair shop, and wrote it up as a Red X — the most serious indicator of a maintenance issue. A Red X grounds a plane.

The proper procedure, Lucero knew, was to remove the part and fix it — time-consuming, but it was in “black and white” on the technical order, Lucero said. When a specialist arrived, however, he climbed “on top of the jet, without a TO or anything, took a pry bar and popped it back into place,” Lucero said. The specialist then overwrote the Red X, clearing the plane to fly.

Lucero informed several flight-line supervisors of the incident, but each time was rebuffed. The specialist, his superiors told him, knew better than he how to handle the problem, and Lucero should trust the specialist’s judgment.

Dismayed, Lucero took his case up the chain — and for his troubles, he got harsh rater-directed feedback, a reprimand indicating the need for specific performance improvement. “Our section will not tolerate you being irresponsible,” the feedback reads. Any problems outside his specialty must be put “on a dash [indicating a nongrounding maintenance issue] ... let that shop determine what the symbol needs to be.”

According to the investigation report and unbeknownst to Lucero, the specialist who had “fixed” the wedding band was punished with a letter of reprimand July 6 for his actions. Lucero didn’t find that out until Sept. 12 — after months of being told he should know better than to correct a specialist.

Lucero said he quickly became persona non grata within the squadron. His supervisor said it was Lucero’s brashness and lack of respect that rubbed leadership the wrong way.

“It’s not what he had found, it was the way he was going about doing his work,” said Tech. Sgt. Donald Wayne McKee, Lucero’s former direct supervisor and now retired. “When he would up-channel something, he wasn’t doing it like he was supposed to.”

When a crew chief finds a problem, he is supposed to notify an expeditor, who alerts an appropriate specialist for an evaluation, according to AFI 21-101, the authority on aircraft maintenance. McKee said Lucero would often alert the specialist himself, or just Red-X the plane based on his prior training.

Documents in the investigation report show several other base leaders counseled Lucero on his failure to use correct reporting methods.

“It was causing jets not to make their flights,” McKee said. “I kept counseling him on that, telling him, listen, you need to make sure that people know.”

The battle escalated quickly: Lucero kept taking his story of bad maintenance to higher powers, and his leadership countered with increasingly stern discipline.

On July 15, 2005, Lucero met with investigators at the 354th Fighter Wing’s IG office, complaining of bad maintenance and reprisals against him. Within a week, he was ordered to get a mental health evaluation, and was diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

Two further military evaluators gave Lucero the same diagnosis, one suggesting Lucero be kicked out of the service. A civilian psychologist later rejected the diagnosis.

Lucero’s paper trail kept growing. He had begun secretly using a voice recorder in conversations with his superiors, legal under federal and Alaska state law. But when McKee found out, he confiscated the recorder, leading to a heated confrontation with Lucero and squadron officers. Afterward, Lucero got a letter of reprimand for using the recorder and an Article 15 for disobeying direct orders not to use it. He was also taken off the flight line and assigned janitorial duties.

Lucero successfully rebutted the official reprimand and declined his Article 15. His squadron commander, Lt. Col. Rick Petito, brought court-martial charges but later dismissed them, instead issuing another letter of reprimand for the recorder.

Petito, who declined to comment for this report, later learned Lucero was telling pilots in the 354th Fighter Squadron their aircraft were not safe, the investigation report said. Petito slapped Lucero with no-contact orders, saying he could not speak with the pilots or the maintenance group commander.

Petito then gave Lucero a letter of admonishment on Sept. 23, 2005, officially for violating the no-contact order with the 354th Maintenance Group commander.

Then, on Oct. 11, 2005, McKee gave Lucero a referral enlisted performance report with the lowest possible rating. A referral EPR typically means an airman screwed up, is not likely to get promoted in the next cycle and could be forced out of the service. Lucero’s referral EPR included this statement: “You still find it necessary to try to undermined [sic] the moral [sic] of the section and the squadron.”

In August 2006, the 354th Fighter Wing’s Investigator General’s Office ruled against Lucero in his reprisal allegations. But Lucero took his complaint up the chain to the 11th Air Force IG, which told him that without new evidence, there were no grounds to investigate.


To continue reading, see the full article (http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/01/airforce_whistleblower_lucero_080117w/)

[hvactech]

Yep sounds like Eielson at its best. Stuff like that occured on a daily basis it seem liked. Im glad i survived (barely)the good ol boy system they have there. I hope heads roll at that place. I was there from 02 to 05 and it was amazing what went on. We had folks goin AWOL at the time, assualting officers just to get the boot and even had an airman take a pistol and hold hostages. We had 10 guys get out on force shaping when it first came out in my shop alone. Things like that should raise some eyebrows. im sure there is plenty of complaints but it seems that the ones who matter just look the other way. i really hope that base is burning to the ground as we speak.

[Unregistered]

During my years as a flightline Production Supervisor I ran into many of these types. "Obsessive-compulsive"-- you bet. Add to that a little insecurity and you've got the classic AMU problem child. Curiously, I witnessed these folks take one of two eventual paths--unusually successful or out the gate. After 24 years I can look back and honestly say I was NEVER in a unit-developed culture that put sorties in front of safety. Of course 21 years ago looking through my two-striper eyes, I wasn't so sure.

To an extent, I agree with the AMXS commander -- how you go about pursuing a crusade is important. Breeding an environment distrust through audio recording or notes in the classic little green notebooks is ALWAYS conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline -- a crime.

[Unregistered]

There were most likely bad decisions on both sides of this coin. The more the SSgt witnessed bad maintenance practices and tried to get his supervisors attention, the more he was thought of as a problem child. He then did routine end runs around supervision and became more of a 'problem'. These types of stories are nothing new under the sun in the annals of air force fighter maintenance under the sortie generation standards that have been around for decades now. As long as maintenance officers and supervisors push their people and equipment beyond certain breaking points so the numbers look good, these things will continue and accidents will happen.

[Unregistered]

This sort of practice happens all the time. Shut up and color, is the usual answer received when a violation of a TO or AFI occurs. I brought up a violation while assigned at Offutt AFB. The Super (a SMSGT) didn't like what I (a SSGT) had discovered. I informed him that I would go to the Flight CC. He told me that he would have my (male member) in a vise if I did. After that, I constantly got all the "crap" jobs and details, was put on call 1 week a month (out of a shop of 40) for about 7 months. I finally got tired of the "Good ole Boy network" and PCS'ed with a BOP. The SMSGT retired, only to take his spot over as a civlian. The faulty practice I discovered is still happening today . I will never go back to Offutt again!!! If faced with going back to Offutt, I will seperate from the USAF!!

[Measure Man]

There are possibly two sides to this coin...I dunno.

I would have to see exactly what type of stuff was going on.

It is pretty easy to sit back...and criticize everything and be able to find a TO reference somewhere that says you can't do that...heck...its even pretty easy to find 2 TOs that directly contradict one another.

I've known people that could almost always find a reason somewhere why they shouldn't do any work at all...of course, they are usually not the ones charged with accomplishing the mission.

That being said...there are also...some out there that violate TOs and may allow a culture of that...I dunno, I mean, let's look at Minot...so it is possible that the culture at this base was in flagrant violation of safety and sound maintenance practice.

It's also quite possible...and sounds more likely on the surface...that this kid was a young idealist that sat back and rather than do the job, looked for reasons not to do it...and found fault in anything...probably as a displacement type defense mechanism to make up for his inability to accomplish the job.

Basically...if you really want to...you can either find a proper way to do a job...or a proper way to avoid it...my guess is he was in the latter group...but that's just a hunch, I don't know him or the issues he brought up, but I've seen the type before, and I have a fair amount of confidence in base-level AF leadership.

[Unregistered]

This "Kid" had 5's on all EPR's, SrA BTZ, Nominated for the Leadership Award in ALS, and Graduated with Honors From Embry Riddle. People dont become dirt bags overnight or earn consistant ratings from different supervisors/commanders if all they do is look for reasons not to do something. Remember DOD IG sided with this guy. My experience with the IG all reprisal investigations go from the base command to DOD. The entire Air Force has to review reprisal reports; I doubt that an investigation would be validated without supporting evidence. Assuming your military/Air Force you know of anyone who went from 5's to a 1? I don't. He was denied reenlistment for "rigid adherence to rules" "excessived devotion to work" "inflexability on moral or ethical concerns". Sounds like the kinda guy I want working on my aircraft!

[Measure Man]

This "Kid" had 5's on all EPR's, SrA BTZ, Nominated for the Leadership Award in ALS, and Graduated with Honors From Embry Riddle. People dont become dirt bags overnight or earn consistant ratings from different supervisors/commanders if all they do is look for reasons not to do something. Remember DOD IG sided with this guy. My experience with the IG all reprisal investigations go from the base command to DOD. The entire Air Force has to review reprisal reports; I doubt that an investigation would be validated without supporting evidence. Assuming your military/Air Force you know of anyone who went from 5's to a 1? I don't. He was denied reenlistment for "rigid adherence to rules" "excessived devotion to work" "inflexability on moral or ethical concerns". Sounds like the kinda guy I want working on my aircraft!

Which is why I was careful to say "on the surface" "it seems possible"...the article did not provide all of that information...I was merely presenting two possibilities...

I must admit...never heard of a commander giving someone a "no contact" order with a higher level commander (MXG)...that is quite odd.

[Unregistered]

During my years as a flightline Production Supervisor I ran into many of these types. "Obsessive-compulsive"-- you bet. Add to that a little insecurity and you've got the classic AMU problem child. Curiously, I witnessed these folks take one of two eventual paths--unusually successful or out the gate. After 24 years I can look back and honestly say I was NEVER in a unit-developed culture that put sorties in front of safety. Of course 21 years ago looking through my two-striper eyes, I wasn't so sure.

To an extent, I agree with the AMXS commander -- how you go about pursuing a crusade is important. Breeding an environment distrust through audio recording or notes in the classic little green notebooks is ALWAYS conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline -- a crime.

I am the former SSgt Adam Lucero; I would like to thank everyone for thier posts and intrest in my story. To answer this statement it is NEVER a crime to perform an action that is permitted by the Constitution, Federal Law, or State Law. When I was given the LOR for recording conversations I rebuted it with a UCMJ case which allowed it in the military, Federal Law, and Alaska State Law; the LOR was removed by JAG. I trumped thier cards. Understand that this story as indepth as it may seem merely scratches the surface. Another piece of information; I was on the QA honor role for outstanding maintenance and just signed off by my supervisor for my upgrade to 7 lvl when they decertified me for "Phasing Aircraft"; no lack of confidence, experience or knowledge here.

[Unregistered]

Okay Adam, i'll clarify. First of all I applaud your courage to stand for something you believed in. Aircraft safety is always a noble cause. I don't dispute that audio recording was within the law. One of the crimes you committed was conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline (Article 134). Here's an example: If you were the GM of your dealership and you had a male employee that started using the women's rest room and asserted his right to do so because there was no law or policy that prevented it -- you as the boss have a problem. This employee's behavior is conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline. In the civilian world, he's fired. In the military world, he's charged with a crime. By secretly audio taping conversations and talking to Ops, you disrupted your unit's good order. An order of trust, cooperation, and teamwork required to accomplish the mission.

The other crime you committed was breach of custom (Article 134). The time-honored custom of the commander's open-door policy was drilled into your head as early as basic training. To use it, customary steps are taken. The complaint/concern is voiced to your first level of supervision. If not satisfied with the answer, the issue is taken up with the next level only AFTER the first level is notified you intend to do so. The Times article indicates you violated this custom by jumping the chain at some point and ended up bending the MXG/CC's ear. To whom do you think his first phone call was to once you parted company?

The article iindicates you want to become a pilot. What makes you think the ops world is any different when it comes to safety violations? These people get caught up in the moment just like everyone else when the pressure's on.

If you're fully vinicated in this matter and get a second chance to serve, think about what I said in my earlier post -- some were unusually successful and some went out the gate. It's all about your angle of attack.

[Unregistered]

Trust me if a crime were commited these guys would have prosecuted me lol!

[Unregistered]

I have heard it through the grape vine that this guy didn't bother turning people in unless he was introuble himself. Sounds like he was trying to draw attention away from himself to keep from taking the heat for what ever it was he had done. You ask me, its pretty hypicritical for some one to look the other way when bad maintenance is going on then when they get caught doing it they all the sudden start blowing the whistle.

[Retired MSgt Crew Chief]

when I first read this article my first thoughts are of General Billy Mitchell who was court martialed for
his hard nosed approach advocating the best interests of the Air Force. I hope that the story of Billy Mitchell is still in the PFE (Professional Fitness Examination) because though the scale may be a bit smaller the issue is the same. An individual strongly advocating his views and concerns for the Air Force.

I spent 20 years as a F-15 and A-10 Crew Chief and the Production Supervisor and his Expeditor obviously need a refresher course in leadership 101. One of the most important virtues of good leadership is to earn the loyalty and respect of your subordinates. The fact that this issue has escalated to the point it has tells me the units leadership has failed miserably. If technical data has been breached protocol is not important. Ruffling feathers is not important. Safety of flight is all that matters. PERIOD.

Our fleet of F-15s sat on the ground for months, one fell out of the sky I wonder if this attitude lead to any of the problems now being dealt with.

[Unregistered]

when I first read this article my first thoughts are of General Billy Mitchell who was court martialed for
his hard nosed approach advocating the best interests of the Air Force. I hope that the story of Billy Mitchell is still in the PFE (Professional Fitness Examination) because though the scale may be a bit smaller the issue is the same. An individual strongly advocating his views and concerns for the Air Force.

I spent 20 years as a F-15 and A-10 Crew Chief and the Production Supervisor and his Expeditor obviously need a refresher course in leadership 101. One of the most important virtues of good leadership is to earn the loyalty and respect of your subordinates. The fact that this issue has escalated to the point it has tells me the units leadership has failed miserably. If technical data has been breached protocol is not important. Ruffling feathers is not important. Safety of flight is all that matters. PERIOD.

Our fleet of F-15s sat on the ground for months, one fell out of the sky I wonder if this attitude lead to any of the problems now being dealt with.

Right on, I don't want to fly an unsafe aircraft and I thank the young NCO for making the fight.
ummm... whom to trust in maintenance now? Lt Col M

[Unregistered]

THE REST OF THE STORY -- for those who bought this tripe hook, line, and sinker.

1) Lucero's commander denied reenlistment because 3 docs said he had OCD so severe he couldn't function in the military. The one dissenting opinion came later from a doc Lucero hired. When 3 docs tell you somebody shouldn't be in the service, you follow their lead. It wold be irresponsible for a commander to do otherwise.

2) Lucero wasn' t punished for bringing a tape recorder to a meeting. He was punished because when it was discovered and discussion got heated, he was told to leave the room by an officer and a SNCO -- he disobeyed both of them.

3) Lucero was never told he couldn't contact his chain of command. However, he had been harrassing his chain (to include the O-6 level) with constant phone calls and appearances, and it was keeping them from doing their jobs. He was told to submit matters in writing -- that action was legal and maintained his rights. The right to contact your chain of command doesn't include the right to dictate the time, place, and manner.

4) Actions against Lucero were initiated or reviewed by an army of NCOs, SNCOs, and officers, all the way up the chain to include his wing commander. They were further endorsed by numerous legal reviews at every step, and IG reviews as high as 11th AF. These were accomplished, succesful, and well-respected leaders.

5) The IG investigation Lucero hangs his hat on was conducted by a passed-over navigator that has never led maintainers or been in command. For some reason, the AF didn't have enough faith in his leadership to give him command, but now they think he's more of an expert on maintenance and a commander's use of discipline than all the commanders and JAGs listed in #4 above?

That's just part of it, and there's far more to this case than what's in the article. Bottom line is that Lucero didn't lose his career because he yelled "Fire." He lost his career because when the firemen responded to his call, he spent his time shutting off hydrants, disconnecting hoses, grabbing the fire chief's radio, redirecting priorities, and yelling at the people in the building not to jump because the firemen were overdue trampoline training.

Actions against Lucero were taken by good people who've won awards and accolades in their careers. They didn't win those awards by taking shortcuts, risking safety, or violating regulations. Using the term "whistleblower" for this guy is a disservice to whistleblowers.

[Shrike]

THE REST OF THE STORY -- for those who bought this tripe hook, line, and sinker.

1) Lucero's commander denied reenlistment because 3 docs said he had OCD so severe he couldn't function in the military. The one dissenting opinion came later from a doc Lucero hired. When 3 docs tell you somebody shouldn't be in the service, you follow their lead. It wold be irresponsible for a commander to do otherwise.

2) Lucero wasn' t punished for bringing a tape recorder to a meeting. He was punished because when it was discovered and discussion got heated, he was told to leave the room by an officer and a SNCO -- he disobeyed both of them.

3) Lucero was never told he couldn't contact his chain of command. However, he had been harrassing his chain (to include the O-6 level) with constant phone calls and appearances, and it was keeping them from doing their jobs. He was told to submit matters in writing -- that action was legal and maintained his rights. The right to contact your chain of command doesn't include the right to dictate the time, place, and manner.

4) Actions against Lucero were initiated or reviewed by an army of NCOs, SNCOs, and officers, all the way up the chain to include his wing commander. They were further endorsed by numerous legal reviews at every step, and IG reviews as high as 11th AF. These were accomplished, succesful, and well-respected leaders.

5) The IG investigation Lucero hangs his hat on was conducted by a passed-over navigator that has never led maintainers or been in command. For some reason, the AF didn't have enough faith in his leadership to give him command, but now they think he's more of an expert on maintenance and a commander's use of discipline than all the commanders and JAGs listed in #4 above?

Do you have sources for all of this info? Anyone can come on here and post "facts" as an unregistered poster.




Actions against Lucero were taken by good people who've won awards and accolades in their careers. They didn't win those awards by taking shortcuts, risking safety, or violating regulations.

Unless you have an almost omniscient knowledge of those people's careers, you have no idea if any of their awards and accolades were a result of taking shortcuts, risking safety, or violating regulations.

[Unregistered]

Shrike:
Using a call sign doesn't make one more credible than being unregistered. I watched this stuff unfold and know the people involved firsthand. Lucero's case requires you to believe that there's a vast conspiracy out there dedicated to shoddy maintenance, which simply isn't true. The AMXS Lucero was in got high praise from the PACAF Logistics Standardization and Evaluation Team visit and an "Excellent" rating during the PACAF Unit Compliance Inspection, with dozens of strengths noted -- both in 2006. And that LSET inspection was roughly a month after Lucero's AMU returned from an AEF deployment to Afghanistan. They could've got a buy on that inspection, but they asked to be looked at anyway and kicked butt in the process. So if you're gonna believe Lucero, you also have to believe the conspiracy includes PACAF inspectors as well.

Believe what you want. But as for me, I know the Lucero that got caught with personal tools on the flightline...the guy that tried to back door his 7-level by trying to get someone from outside the squadron to sign him off...the guy that had 9 LORs and LOCs from MXS before he went to AMXS...the guy who filled an LOR rebuttal with emotional rants and threats...the guy who's so conscientous about following the law that he got popped going 130 in a 55.

You've got two choices -- you can put your faith in a whole lot of highly reputed leaders, or you can put it in a guy that 3 out of 4 docs say has issues and a Lt Col with an axe to grind. But just bear in mind that AF Times sells more newspapers with stories of Airmen done wrong than they do with commanders coping with troubled individuals.

[Unregistered]

Letter To The Editor:

As an avid reader and 27-year subscriber to the Air Force Times, I was shocked and appalled at the article, “Whistleblower’s woes” [Jan. 14].

Your article seemed to rely on the opinions of those who had an ax to grind and discounted the army of supervisors, section chiefs, flight chiefs, officers in charge, first sergeants, chiefs and commanders (in two squadrons) who were behind disciplinary actions against [Staff Sgt. Adam] Lucero. It also discounts all of the lawyers who scrutinized those legal actions, the wing commander who reviewed all of the history and investigator general reviewers all the way from the wing through the 11th Air Force who agreed that Lucero was handled appropriately.

Here are some actual facts that should have been included in the article:
Lucero wasn’t “thrown” out of the Air Force. He ended his career with an honorable discharge at the end of his enlistment. He had been denied re-enlistment because of his disciplinary issues and recommendations from medical evaluators.

Lucero did not get an Article 15 for disobeying orders not to use the recorder. When the recorder was discovered and disagreement ensued, a senior master sergeant and a captain intervened and tried to defuse the situation by telling Lucero to leave the room. Lucero disobeyed both of them. Thus, the Article 15 was offered because he refused to obey the direct orders of a senior noncommissioned officer and an officer, not for his attempt to record a conversation. He subsequently declined the Article 15 and elected trial by court-martial.

The article suggests the squadron kept Lucero in the dark about disciplinary action taken against the technician that repaired the wedding band. What the article neglects to mention is that the 7-level technician was assigned to another squadron. It’s a stretch to insinuate that a squadron commander needs to answer to a 5-level for disciplinary action taken against a 7-level in another squadron.As far as Lt. Col. [Anthony] Buck is concerned, I find it curious that everyone involved in this case has been advised to withhold comment and respect the IG investigation currently underway. The guy appointed as an IG in this case is not only venting his opinions about the case to the press, but is also stating his opinions on disciplinary actions he thinks should be taken.

This says a lot about Buck’s lack of professionalism and respect for IG investigations (or at least investigations conducted by someone other than himself), and his comments in the article clearly bring his objectivity into question.

The issue was never faulty maintenance. People recommend improvements to maintenance all the time, and believe it or not, those improvements are implemented because our No. 1 priority is safe, reliable aircraft. Maintainers are keenly aware that training lost because of system malfunctions today means more work tomorrow.

The problem in this case was that rather than being part of the solution and helping to fix problems, Lucero disobeyed lawful orders, was disrespectful and threatening to superiors, and attempted to sow seeds of distrust with pilots; a significant negative impact on good order and discipline.
In this case, Air Force Times was so eager to use an “Officers Gone Wild” story to sell papers that it threw its journalistic integrity out the window.

In my opinion, that classifies you as a tabloid no longer worthy of my longstanding subscription. Shame on you.

Col. Ron Crosby (ret.)

[Shrike]

Shrike:
Using a call sign doesn't make one more credible than being unregistered. I watched this stuff unfold and know the people involved firsthand. Lucero's case requires you to believe that there's a vast conspiracy out there dedicated to shoddy maintenance, which simply isn't true. The AMXS Lucero was in got high praise from the PACAF Logistics Standardization and Evaluation Team visit and an "Excellent" rating during the PACAF Unit Compliance Inspection, with dozens of strengths noted -- both in 2006. And that LSET inspection was roughly a month after Lucero's AMU returned from an AEF deployment to Afghanistan. They could've got a buy on that inspection, but they asked to be looked at anyway and kicked butt in the process. So if you're gonna believe Lucero, you also have to believe the conspiracy includes PACAF inspectors as well.

Believe what you want. But as for me, I know the Lucero that got caught with personal tools on the flightline...the guy that tried to back door his 7-level by trying to get someone from outside the squadron to sign him off...the guy that had 9 LORs and LOCs from MXS before he went to AMXS...the guy who filled an LOR rebuttal with emotional rants and threats...the guy who's so conscientous about following the law that he got popped going 130 in a 55.

You've got two choices -- you can put your faith in a whole lot of highly reputed leaders, or you can put it in a guy that 3 out of 4 docs say has issues and a Lt Col with an axe to grind. But just bear in mind that AF Times sells more newspapers with stories of Airmen done wrong than they do with commanders coping with troubled individuals.

All I'm saying is that anyone can post anything here for/against Lucero, substantiated or not, sourced or not. Someone could come here and claim:
1) Lucero's sweat cures cancer, or
2) Lucero is the single largest distributor of black market Candy Corn in the northern hemisphere.

You may very well have close knowledge of this situation - you sound credible enough - but anonymous and unattributed internet posts really convince no one but the ignorant. And FYI - I do believe that the article on Lucero was very slanted towards eliciting sympathy for him, rather than painting a complete picture of the facts.

One counterpoint I will make, though - as someone with almost 20 years in the service who has had several semi-serious maladies completely misdiagnosed by military doctors, I take any evidence they provide with a grain of salt. ;)

[Unregistered]

I worked with this guy, he was not a hard charger, he put his personal ambitions ahead of his job, he had no problem with going around over someone’s head when it got in the way of something he wanted. Some of things I had heard:
1. Got him self appointed as a CTK custodian after typing up a letter and having it signed by the flight chief with out the knowledge of the section chiefs. In fact, he wasn’t even doing the job until the section chiefs found the letter.
2. Caused transient traffic to divert after going against the airfield parking plan for the third time and after being counceled not to do it again.
3. Failed to complete a job correctly and claimed he was “testing” the seven levels to see if they were doing their jobs.
4. Was caught doing school work instead of his duties weeks before a major inspection.
Add in the numerous times he was insubordinate, disrespectful, and his absolute refusal to except he had done anything wrong or do anything about it and you don’t have a picture of a proper NCO.

He has one 5 EPR, and it was to polish him up and make him some one else’s problem. That is his history, causing problems then being shuffled off for some one else to deal with and from what I understand it happened a total of six times before he was discharged. Granted, it happens, but usually you want to hang on to a hot troop if he’s making you money.

The Embry Riddle Honor grade as mentioned in a previous post to the article only passed his Career Development Course with a 70. Easy to explain, he was taking college course when he was supposed to be concentrating solely on his CDC’s and this was also a violation of MXS policy to take any college courses until the CDC’s were done.

Whistle-blower, no, people were blowing the whistle on him, but keeping it at the lower levels to give him a chance to get better and he refused to except he had done anything wrong so he went over their heads and made accusations of supposed misconduct. The wedding band thing, yeah, he caught some one doing something wrong, but when you constantly make one accusation after another the odds are one may actually stick and he got lucky. One accusation out of the numerous ones he made actually had something to it. I think it should be noted he once worked in the same shop as the technician he turned in, and I think it is pretty fishy that Lucero not only wrote up the discrepancy but called the technician out himself (by-passing the expeditor) then “walked in” right when the guy popped the wedding ring back in. Many believe it was a set up.

After he was out of the Air Force, he was arrested for trying to evade the state troopers after being clocked doing 130 in a 55 mile an hour zone. Real fine example of a honest NCO who rigidly adheres to the rules? No, I think of him more as some one who follows the rules when it suits him to do so.

[Unregistered]

The other crime you committed was breach of custom (Article 134). The time-honored custom of the commander's open-door policy was drilled into your head as early as basic training. To use it, customary steps are taken. The complaint/concern is voiced to your first level of supervision. If not satisfied with the answer, the issue is taken up with the next level only AFTER the first level is notified you intend to do so. The Times article indicates you violated this custom by jumping the chain at some point and ended up bending the MXG/CC's ear. To whom do you think his first phone call was to once you parted company?

In defense, when you try to take issues up the chain, and the chain tells you not to go to the next level, orders you not to, and you know that your concerns are just being ignored by those you approached than most people in this situation would feel inclined to "jump" the chain to make sure their issue is being addressed if this issue was very important to them. I would rather error on the side of safety.
I have met people in the Air Force before that seem to try and make hell, and bring down everybody, and cause disruption, but often these aren't the same people who in the past were rewarded and recognized for superior performance.
I have a father-in-law that worked on the flightline, and he told me many stories like this, and I'm just thankful I work in Air Force Communications, and not on the flightline. On the flightline you either sleep with the enemy, or your eaten by the enemy. They play by their own rules, spoken and unspoken. That's why the Air Force created the IG, and if the DOD IG reported findings over the local IG, that's like the Supreme court ruling over a local court, checks and balances. I side on the DOD IG. Their needs to be further investigations. But likely the criminals have already had time to sweep everything under the carpet.

[Unregistered]

All I'm saying is that anyone can post anything here for/against Lucero, substantiated or not, sourced or not. Someone could come here and claim:
1) Lucero's sweat cures cancer, or
2) Lucero is the single largest distributor of black market Candy Corn in the northern hemisphere.

You may very well have close knowledge of this situation - you sound credible enough - but anonymous and unattributed internet posts really convince no one but the ignorant. And FYI - I do believe that the article on Lucero was very slanted towards eliciting sympathy for him, rather than painting a complete picture of the facts.

One counterpoint I will make, though - as someone with almost 20 years in the service who has had several semi-serious maladies completely misdiagnosed by military doctors, I take any evidence they provide with a grain of salt. ;)

Shrike,
I noticed you challenged the person who contradicted Lucero's claim but when someone posted saying they weer Lucero you didn't challenge them at all.
Why?

[Unregistered]

Unregistered, you haven't the faintest clue what it's like on the flightline. Being the son of a maintainer doesn't qualify you to comment on what it's like out there. Try pre-flighting a jet by flashlight in subzero temperatures sometime. You have no idea what kind of people are out there, the pride they take in their work, or the discipline they display on a daily basis. As far as sleeping with the enemy goes, flightline maintainers in the AOR are out in the dust exposed on the line next to high value assets on open ramps surrounded by people trying to mortar or rocket them. Think about that when you're in your bunkered air-conditioned facility.

Flightline maintainers are a tough breed, and you won't find a more self-sacrificing, disciplined bunch of people anywhere. Thanks for your service in Comm.

[Shrike]

Shrike,
I noticed you challenged the person who contradicted Lucero's claim but when someone posted saying they weer Lucero you didn't challenge them at all.
Why?

Several people had already taken the person claiming to be Lucero to task and explained to him what he did wrong.

And I may be coming in late on this, but for all we know, the person claiming to be Lucero is a long-distance trucker from Victorville, California who in his spare time puts on ass-less chaps and cruises military message boards.


Satisfied?
;)

[fmrldylthrnk]

Several people had already taken the person claiming to be Lucero to task and explained to him what he did wrong.

And I may be coming in late on this, but for all we know, the person claiming to be Lucero is a long-distance trucker from Victorville, California who in his spare time puts on ass-less chaps and cruises military message boards.


Satisfied?
;)

ass-less chaps, trucker, and then throw in Victorville...
Not an image I want in my head.
Thank you for scarring me, Shrike.

[Shrike]

ass-less chaps, trucker, and then throw in Victorville...
Not an image I want in my head.
Thank you for scarring me, Shrike.

Just think of sandpaper and rubbing alcohol; it'll scrub that image right out of there!

[Unregistered]

I don't know if it's Lucero or not...but from my experience it sure sounds like him. The emotion-filled rant invoking the Constitution, state law, etc seems awfully familiar. He doesn't get it that being right requires more than simply thinking you're right. I could run around invoking God and all of the apostles, but that wouldn't make me Jesus.

[Unregistered]

I don't know if it's Lucero or not...but from my experience it sure sounds like him. The emotion-filled rant invoking the Constitution, state law, etc seems awfully familiar. He doesn't get it that being right requires more than simply thinking you're right. I could run around invoking God and all of the apostles, but that wouldn't make me Jesus.

Touche, I think you've just completely shot Lucero down here. After all, the Constitution, Federal Law, and State Law should have no meaning or significance to a member of the US military, and invoking them clearly indicates that Lucero's an over-emotional fanatic *rolls eyes*

[Unregistered]

I never said the Constitution, State Law, etc, don't apply to military members. But, for example, it doesn't make sense to scream and holler about the Constitution and civil liberties over a tape recorder when it's not about the tape recorder. He's throwing a lot of chaff out to conceal the fact that he got in trouble because he got belligerent and wouldn't leave the room when a SNCO and a Captain told him to. The UCMJ's pretty clear about that.

Like Kelly Flinn, Lucero is trying to throw as much chaff into the air as possible, hoping people won't spot the key issue. He's using a lot of smoke and mirrors to mislead you. For example, his argument is that since he had to leave the service after complaining about maintenance, he left the service BECAUSE he complained about maintenance. You can't say that A caused B simply because B occurred after A. If that were true, then washing your car causes rain, lifeboats kept the Titanic afloat, and the last ice age ended because man discovered fire.

I've seen this type of personality too many times in my career. Rather than take ownership of their own choices, they spin wild webs of conspiracy to exonerate themselves. The fact that his story is full of sound and fury doesn't change the fact that it's full of holes and half truths.

[Unregistered]

Right on, I don't want to fly an unsafe aircraft and I thank the young NCO for making the fight.
ummm... whom to trust in maintenance now? Lt Col M

LTC M - Was Lucero the only one you've ever trusted in maintenance? Sounds like you don't have faith in the system, not to mention faith in the maintenance leadership and wing leadership at Eielson - at that's really sad.

I'm an FAA A&P licensed mechanic and have done a lot of maintenance on civilian aircraft from 172s to 727s. I've spent 22 years in our Air Force - 19 years as a maintainer (A/R, Crew Chief, QA, Expediter, Flightline Pro Super) I can tell you that the maintainers we have in our service are head-and-shoulders above the civilians. Civilian commercial planes don't make money sitting on the ground. Put the ever-powerful, Almighty Dollar in the equation and that means way more pressure than chasing some sort of sortie producing stats that pop up on a Wing/CC slide. I have seen more deliberately unsafe actions/practices in 6 months doing letter checks than I have in my entire Air Force career. Think about that the next time you're on a civilian airplane.

In our Air Force we don't hire mechanics - we train people to be mechanics. I have faith that the maintainer SNCOs involved in this were well trained in their technical specialties - and even more experienced in dealing with the dynamics of those people they did train, supervise, guide, mentor, discipline - read that as "PROVIDED LEADERSHIP". It appears that they were panning for the gold nuggets in Lucero - but there just wasn't any...still they didn't give up on him. They even got him medical assistance and evaluation. They went above and beyond and I applaud them and the MX Officers for doing what they could for young Adam.

Maybe you can go fly with Lucero when he gets his wings... Sad thing is if Lucero ever does get that far, it'll put his unprofessional, unsafe, undisciplined, self-centered butt right on your wing. Think you can trust him?

SMSgt E
IAAAA

[Unregistered]

This guy isn't nearly as bad as MAJOR JILL METZGER and the Brass's illegal conduct covering up THEIR scandal!

Thank God Jill Metzger didn't turn a wrench!

[Unregistered]

This guy isn't nearly as bad as MAJOR JILL METZGER and the Brass's illegal conduct covering up THEIR scandal!

Thank God Jill Metzger didn't turn a wrench!

No...she was just in charge of personel programs on your base....hope she didn't screw up your retirement or something like that.

[Unregistered]

Just a quick note for those posting about his being pulled over for speeding comments.

Yes he was speeding. He was over a hill before the cop could get onto the road, and when the cop went over the hill, he was already pulled over. He knew he had done something wrong. The cop even passed him because he couldn't stop in time. The other story about him trying to run away from cops was a stupid lie spread by local media. He had confused the cop by stopping on his own accord, and the conversations over the police radio were ones of a frustrated cop who had to turn around on the four lane road, go to the pull out on the other side of him and come back. They figured he would try to run when the cop turned, but he didn't. Don't spread lies when you weren't there as it happened.

As far as the rest, I'm sure there's bad on both sides. I don't stand for either. But in my time as a maintainer there in the 354th, I saw shady stuff done by a few folks. I even got my butt yelled at when I would call for sheet metal or A/R to make an evaluation on something I found. I never wrote anything on an X, but just an eval, and usually, it was bad. Thankfully in the closing months before the 354th was shut down, they stopped screaming about flying jets. Maybe it was because we had some rough times that brought our mission capable rate to the teens. I just remember the Chief doing a VIP tour, only a few could fly that day and the VIP asked about our MC rate and the Chief gave the horrific figure only to find that the number was going down as he said it thanks to another jet that had returned from flight broken.

As someone who has worked in A/R, it's tough when you are put back to the line. You see something you know is bad, so you call out the tech to fix it, and he tries to say it's good. Some of the TO's are very poorly written and open to lots of interpretation, others aren't. I know for a fact, the "wedding band" is definately not. When I see something done in a way that I don't agree with, I ask to see the TO. If it's been done wrong, (always check as TO's do change) call the expeditor and pro super. If they are only concerned with flying jets, (I've run into many of these in my career) keep going. Get QA involved, supervisors, and commanders. In this case, I think the real problem was that many thought of SSgt Lucero as a nutcase, and so he was to be ignored. A migrated wedding band is no quick fix, it takes many hours of work to repair properly. QA should've caught onto that as well.

Don't doubt the maintenance we do, it's the best out there by a long shot. We will make mistakes because we are human, however we learn more because of those mistakes. I've never met a maintainer who was perfect in everything, but there isn't one that I've worked with that I wouldn't trust to do the job. Everyone needs a kick in the rear from time to time, but that doesn't mean that you give up on them.

[Unregistered]

I guess things have changed a lot since I was a crew chief some ten years ago. As a young airman I knew well enough to always notify the expeditor of anything wrong with my plane. If a specialist signed something off, I had faith that they were the expert and trusted their signature in my forms. You may not always agree with leadership, but as an airman, you have to believe the higher ups know what they are doing. This guy had a serious case of lack of faith in the system. That's an AF Core value under Service before Self that we ALL must abide by. According to the AF Core Values book, to lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command. Once you do this you have put yourself before your service. He put self before service from the beginning of this story to the end. There should be no argument there.

SMSgt and old C141 Crew Chief

[Unregistered]

Somebody obviously knows Lucero well. He didn't evade police -- he pulled over in a manner the cop didn't appreciate. Ha! 130 in a 55 is still screwing up on a cosmic scale.

[Unregistered]

No doubt he was performing his civic duty by inspecting police radars to make sure they were working properly. Thankfully, his actions revealed a horrifying lack of officer proficiency in pull-over techniques. Hopefully the officer was counselled on it, and I sure hope the Troopers send Lucero a report of what was done to correct the officer's shortfalls.

As for the media, they lie all the time about what's written in police reports in order to protect Lucero's secret identity as the Crusader for Freedom.

Thank goodness we have people like Lucero out there on the road keeping our wives and kids safe.

[Unregistered]

I happen to have known Lucero well when he was in the Air Force. He was a good/honest God fearing guy who wouldn't even say a swear word- even when everyone around him swore all the time. He believed in doing the right thing- no matter the consequences. I know enough about his situation to realize who a lot of the people that have posted on here are; by what they have said.

A lot of the people posting negatively on his forum were a part of the Good Old Boy's club that had it out for him from the beginning. Colonel Crosby (Retired) was the only one to put his name on here. Lucero's prior commander Petito seems to be posting on here. Boy doe he seem mad. Guess you can't sign your name to something if you still active duty. To afraid of getting in trouble. Savoy, I see you on here too. You seem like an angry little man. I listened to Lucero talk to me about this situation for almost two years before he got out of the Air Force with an Honorable Discharge. I wasn't his friend- just someone who saw everything and listened. He showed me all of his documents supporting this case. I have to say as a neutral bystander observing everything I definitely see how Lucero was wronged. This all started because Lucero grounded planes because they needed repairs. He was doing his job. He was ordered not to put red x's on anything by his supervision and told he could only use dashes. When he grounded a plane someone fixed it with a crowbar and signed it off to fly.

The IG said there was no such thing as a TO and that he was blowing smoke up his arse. His supervisors would say things to him and then when questioned they would lie about what they had said. That is when he started using that recorder. He was given an article 15 because they took his tape recorder. He went into the room where they were holding it and someone told him to get out. He asked for his recorder back and was immediately removed physically before a verbal response could be given. He showed me the bruises he had on his arm from being physically slammed out of the room. A couple months (Yes, months) later he was court marshaled from disobeying an order. Why did it take months for them to decide to give him an article 15????? Someone had an epiphany and though "Wow, that is how we can get rid of him." Then Lucero hired a civilian lawyer because the military appointed one pretty much told him he didn't have a chance in fighting the article 15 and made him sign a paper saying that he understood he was going against their council by fighting it. I would find myself another lawyer if mine said that too. So 5000 dollars later he had a lawyer that would fight for him. The DAY before the court marshal he was commanded by Petito to go get a mental health evaluation. The Doctor told him she could word the report one of two ways. She could say he was not compatible with the military anymore so he could get out and not have to deal with this stuff anymore or she could recommend him for another job.

They then dropped the court marshal and tried to get him out based on being obsessive compulsive. The doctor told him he was obsessive compulsive because he would not drop the issue of bad maintenance. There are a lot of other things that make a person have OCD. This man was not a clean freak by any means! I saw his truck. Lucero flew to Anchorage and had another (1 plus one is two, not three Petito) medical evaluation by a military Doc. This doc said he was great in the Air Force but not in his current job. She said he would be better suited for a detail oriented job. (I guess we don't have to be detail oriented when working on multimillion dollar jets. After all, the pilots have an ejection button they can push, and tax payers can suck up the rest.) Lucero went to a well respected civilian doctor to get another evaluation. This doctor said he was not OCD. I read the report. The doctor said that if he had OCD it would be evident in every facet of Lucero's life. The military doctors based it off of his refusal to drop bad maintenance. Lucero asked for a medical board after gathering all of this information. After a few months they never gave him a medical board, but they dropped the discharge. His supervisors told him they would find a way to get him out of the Air Force- no matter what.

He was given a no contact order with the chain of command. He had to jump the chain of command because he had a no contact order wither everyone between the commander and the General. So he had to go from the commander to the General. The General would not meet with him. That left him with congressional inquiries. The IG was part of the good old boy club- they didn't even report that reprisal allegations had been made to the DOD- which is something the IG is supposed to do. So Petito- don't get your panties in a wad because they brought in a Colonel with some integrity to make an unbiased report. If the Colonel who has done this report had found Lucero to be in the wrong you would not be insulting the innocent unbiased person that had to spend months working on some case because he was ordered to. I also heard that when he was done with the report he had to submit it to the local IG. The IG on Eielson made him edit his report and take findings out, etc.... Now I understand there is a very high level person that works for the DOD investigating. This investigator found the same thing the Colonel on Eielson did- plus more. Do you have something bad to say about that person as well?

Lucero, if you are reading these posts I suggest you make a website and post your recordings, EPRs, etc.... so these people can see the truth. They finally got this guy out by denying him reenlistment- after almost two years of threatening. The General denied him reenlistment because his new commander wouldn’t. He went from a five EPR to a one. People getting kicked out for drugs and stuff get twos and threes. This was obvious reprisal. Just as you people are getting mean and personal on here- that is what happened to this guy when he was in the Air Force. You got personal. He disrupted the Good Old Boys Club and you had to get him out or make him pay. I was once told not to base my opinion of the military on Eielson AFB. If Eielson had been my first base I would not have thought as highly as I do of the Air Force. You people are giving the Air Force a bad name.

[Unregistered]

No doubt he was performing his civic duty by inspecting police radars to make sure they were working properly. Thankfully, his actions revealed a horrifying lack of officer proficiency in pull-over techniques. Hopefully the officer was counselled on it, and I sure hope the Troopers send Lucero a report of what was done to correct the officer's shortfalls.

As for the media, they lie all the time about what's written in police reports in order to protect Lucero's secret identity as the Crusader for Freedom.

Thank goodness we have people like Lucero out there on the road keeping our wives and kids safe.

Sounds like somebody has a sore a** did someone named Adam touch you in naughty places as a kid?

[Unregistered]

During my years as a flightline Production Supervisor I ran into many of these types. "Obsessive-compulsive"-- you bet. Add to that a little insecurity and you've got the classic AMU problem child. Curiously, I witnessed these folks take one of two eventual paths--unusually successful or out the gate. After 24 years I can look back and honestly say I was NEVER in a unit-developed culture that put sorties in front of safety. Of course 21 years ago looking through my two-striper eyes, I wasn't so sure.

To an extent, I agree with the AMXS commander -- how you go about pursuing a crusade is important. Breeding an environment distrust through audio recording or notes in the classic little green notebooks is ALWAYS conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline -- a crime.


Last I checked recording conversations in Alaska or in the military are not a CRIME. He started recording converations because his supervisors would say that he was right to his face- then when he would say they said he was right they would lie and say they never said that. I would say supervision fostered the distrust here.

[Unregistered]

I guess things have changed a lot since I was a crew chief some ten years ago. As a young airman I knew well enough to always notify the expeditor of anything wrong with my plane. If a specialist signed something off, I had faith that they were the expert and trusted their signature in my forms. You may not always agree with leadership, but as an airman, you have to believe the higher ups know what they are doing. This guy had a serious case of lack of faith in the system. That's an AF Core value under Service before Self that we ALL must abide by. According to the AF Core Values book, to lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command. Once you do this you have put yourself before your service. He put self before service from the beginning of this story to the end. There should be no argument there.

SMSgt and old C141 Crew Chief

Believing in a perfect system and that the higher ups will always do what is right is idiotic. Everything is checks and balances; I encourage my airman to correct me when I'm wrong, I would rather be corrected then walk around with an upside down ribbon, or speak about something which I was misinformed about. In fact I would imagine some of you were even given coins for doing such things. As for faith in the system being a core value I think that is more than a stretch. We are all required as airman to report actions that we feel are illegal, unsafe and may damage Air Force resources, equipment, or lives. By ruining what sounds like a good career from the article he did exactly what was expected Service before self; I don't think he was promoted for his actions (selfless). If the DOD has validated this investigation I'm sure it wasn't made overnight. Regardless of what the outcome way to stick to your guns Mr. Lucero.

[Unregistered]

when I first read this article my first thoughts are of General Billy Mitchell who was court martialed for
his hard nosed approach advocating the best interests of the Air Force. I hope that the story of Billy Mitchell is still in the PFE (Professional Fitness Examination) because though the scale may be a bit smaller the issue is the same. An individual strongly advocating his views and concerns for the Air Force.

I spent 20 years as a F-15 and A-10 Crew Chief and the Production Supervisor and his Expeditor obviously need a refresher course in leadership 101. One of the most important virtues of good leadership is to earn the loyalty and respect of your subordinates. The fact that this issue has escalated to the point it has tells me the units leadership has failed miserably. If technical data has been breached protocol is not important. Ruffling feathers is not important. Safety of flight is all that matters. PERIOD.

Our fleet of F-15s sat on the ground for months, one fell out of the sky I wonder if this attitude lead to any of the problems now being dealt with.

I appreciate your support Sir, as well as everyone else who is willing to be unbiased and open If I were as bad as some of these posts say the Courts Martial would not have been dropped, the 1 EPR would not have been removed, the Medical Discharge would not have been dropped, the no contact order with Ron Crosby would not have been removed, the letter of Admonishment for being disruptive to Ron Crosby's office would not have been removed, the letter of Reprimand for financial irresponsibility would not have been removed, the letter of Reprimand for recording conversations would not have been removed and DOD would not have found reprisal.

I have decided that over the next few days I will be posting links to a website where copies of the secret recordings may be herd, as well as copies of paperwork given to me. My reputation has been bashed enough and my integrity questioned one to many times. I would like everyone to know that I understand that the decisions made against me do not speak for the Air Force as a whole and were a result of an irritated command. I slept well every night and with a clear conscious knowing that I was doing everthing in my power to ensure that the aircraft my pilots flew were maintained to the highest standards expected and when I gave the "Final Salute", I was confident he was comming back.

[Unregistered]

Shrike:
Believe what you want. But as for me, I know the Lucero that got caught with personal tools on the flightline...the guy that tried to back door his 7-level by trying to get someone from outside the squadron to sign him off...the guy that had 9 LORs and LOCs from MXS before he went to AMXS...the guy who filled an LOR rebuttal with emotional rants and threats...the guy who's so conscientous about following the law that he got popped going 130 in a 55.



You need to get your facts straight; it was 137.

Adam

[Unregistered]

Let me set the record straight. This is Lt Col Petito, previous Commander of the 354th AMXS.

Although I have been following these posts with great joy, as many people accurately remember the “real” Mr. Lucero and his history, and have many times, actually written responses, I have not posted a single item until now. Instead, I have labored under my vows to protect and defend our country’s Constitution and thus protect Mr. Lucero’s rights and therefore, I did not (and will not now) publicly reveal the real story. The story that opened grave concerns about the welfare and safety of those who worked with Mr. Lucero. I still believe the results of Mr. Lucero’s four Mental Health evaluations should be protected, as well as the facts surrounding both his criminal behavior (which had nothing to do with him revealing shoddy maintenance practices), and the subsequent IG investigations and congressional inquiries (of which I’ve lost count of the number). Suffice to say, that the 6-paragraph rant by the unregistered guest, who accused me of being cowardly, is terribly uniformed.

Mr. Lucero and the AF Times tell a very compelling story, but, as usual, they both leave out key facts that determined the outcome of Mr. Lucero’s situation. I am bound by my office, to keep those facts confidential. However, as many have gleaned by reading the transparent BS in the very one-sided AF Times article, there is much, much more to his 2+ year story. Mr. Lucero has made the mistake of believing that I am the only one who is privy to the details of his behavior while on active duty, but it appears that there are many people who remember him quite well. I confess that many of the MXS postings came as a surprise to me, as Mr. Lucero is so adept at concealing his tracks. It appears, sadly, as though Mr. Lucero had the same effect on his AMXS record.

Although Mr. Lucero’s actions are consistent with his Mental Health diagnoses (the results of which he, himself revealed), and don’t surprise me, Lt Col Buck’s interview with the AF Times did. As the Wing’s IO, he was bound by those same parameters that I have stayed true to and unlike me w/Mr. Lucero, has chosen to violate “my” rights. My civilian and military legal teams are still considering how to deal with Lt Col Buck’s transgressions.

[Unregistered]

It's sad how so many people seem so predisposed to condemn commanders with great records and exonerate those with PIFs an inch thick. Being a commander's a tough job. For those who think commanders sit in luxury and abuse Airmen for entertainment, I have a few questions:

1. Have you ever done everything you could to correct someone's negative behaviors, only to have them paint you in the corner to where you have to take action or abandon your credibility?

2. Have you ever had to look someone in the eyes and take a stripe, knowing that he had a great wife and kids at home who did nothing wrong and will suffer for it?

3. Have you ever sat in the hospital with one of your Airmen while the doctor told him and his wife that he couldn't save their 8 year old son?

4. Have you ever hugged one of your Airmen's mothers at his funeral after months of trying everything possible to pull him out of his downward spiral?

5. Have you ever sat with one of your Airmen as he sat handcuffed in a police station in the middle of the night?

6. Have you ever had to console Airmen who were trying to cope with the horror of picking up body parts at an aircraft crash?

7. Have you ever had to deal with a family that had their kids sleeping on the floor because their beds were full of dog feces?

8. Have gone to a home and faced two bewildered toddlers trying to cope with their mother's suicide, their father's overwhelming grief, and a parking lot full of ambulances, police, and investigators?

9. Have you ever had to discharge someone, knowing they came from desperate circumstances and would likely wind up back there after separating?

I have, and believe me I don't treasure any of those memories. Those who bash commanders and think they're a bunch of heartless jerks have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. They have no idea how much agonizing goes into making decisions that will forever affect someone's life. And they have no idea how much sleep is lost, how much family time is missed, or how many dinners are eaten cold or at a desk as commanders try to help their Airmen succeed. And oh, by the way, as a maintenance commander those aren't just pilots flying those jets -- they're your close friends you share meetings, cul-de-sacs, and barbecues with. Don't think for a second that an AMXS commander is going to take chances with maintenance.

Lucero wasn't mine, but I was the MXS commander while Lt Col Petito was in AMXS, and worked with him for two years in that capacity. I saw him struggle with this day after day for months, trying to find a way to salvage Adam and change behaviors without destroying him. I literally spent hours listening to his frustrations as he tried everything he could to save the guy. He devoted more time and energy to Lucero than anyone else in the squadron, and nobody worked harder than he did to try to turn Adam around. But over time Adam's behaviors took more and more options off the table for him. Don't think for a second that Lt Col Petito took any of this lightly.

Lt Col Mark Murphy
Eielson AFB

[Unregistered]

You need to get your facts straight; it was 137.

Adam

You just don't get it, do you? You're running around claiming to be this paragon of virtue who was the lone champion of safety in his squadron, and you flat out don't realize how ridiculous that claim looks when you come out here and crow about driving 137, not 130. I particularly like the post where someone said you pulled over so responsibly because you "knew you'd done something wrong." Yeah, right -- you knew you'd done something wrong after the red lights came on, but not when you were trying to push your right foot to the pavement?

You don't seem to understand that the speeding issue is a shining endorsement of the negative things posted about you on this forum -- that you're self-centered, follow rules selectively, reckless, unstable, and don't care about safety until you're caught violating it. And when you're caught misbehaving, you try to deflect attention and criticism onto others -- it was the cop that had the problem.

It's downright pathological so see you come on here and brag about it in the midst of debate about your devotion to doing the right thing. Congratulations, you've illustrated your critics' points perfectly.

[Shrike]

You just don't get it, do you? You're running around claiming to be this paragon of virtue who was the lone champion of safety in his squadron, and you flat out don't realize how ridiculous that claim looks when you come out here and crow about driving 137, not 130. I particularly like the post where someone said you pulled over so responsibly because you "knew you'd done something wrong." Yeah, right -- you knew you'd done something wrong after the red lights came on, but not when you were trying to push your right foot to the pavement?

You don't seem to understand that the speeding issue is a shining endorsement of the negative things posted about you on this forum -- that you're self-centered, follow rules selectively, reckless, unstable, and don't care about safety until you're caught violating it. And when you're caught misbehaving, you try to deflect attention and criticism onto others -- it was the cop that had the problem.

It's downright pathological so see you come on here and brag about it in the midst of debate about your devotion to doing the right thing. Congratulations, you've illustrated your critics' points perfectly.

I was thinking of something to say along those lines, but you said it perfectly.

[Unregistered]

You just don't get it, do you? You're running around claiming to be this paragon of virtue who was the lone champion of safety in his squadron, and you flat out don't realize how ridiculous that claim looks when you come out here and crow about driving 137, not 130. I particularly like the post where someone said you pulled over so responsibly because you "knew you'd done something wrong." Yeah, right -- you knew you'd done something wrong after the red lights came on, but not when you were trying to push your right foot to the pavement?

You don't seem to understand that the speeding issue is a shining endorsement of the negative things posted about you on this forum -- that you're self-centered, follow rules selectively, reckless, unstable, and don't care about safety until you're caught violating it. And when you're caught misbehaving, you try to deflect attention and criticism onto others -- it was the cop that had the problem.

It's downright pathological so see you come on here and brag about it in the midst of debate about your devotion to doing the right thing. Congratulations, you've illustrated your critics' points perfectly.

The fact that this guy was pulled over for going WAY too fast should only reinforce there is no existance of OCPD, the very thing that got him kicked out. I can't imagine Monk doing something like this.

[Unregistered]

I was thinking of something to say along those lines, but you said it perfectly.

I doubt anyone on here has never recieved a speeding ticket. When you got that ticket it was for violating a law. I'm getting the impression that the individuals who are so bent on this KID (I mean 24!) speeding feel thier own actions were of no consequence; breaking the law a little or a lot is still BREAKING the law. Search your own history; you ever have a hotrod or muscle car in highschool; you break 100mph? The answer is yes. I know I did

[Shrike]

I doubt anyone on here has never recieved a speeding ticket. When you got that ticket it was for violating a law. I'm getting the impression that the individuals who are so bent on this KID (I mean 24!) speeding feel thier own actions were of no consequence; breaking the law a little or a lot is still BREAKING the law. Search your own history; you ever have a hotrod or muscle car in highschool; you break 100mph? The answer is yes. I know I did

I sure did. About 12 years ago I went 135mph in my Mustang GT on a straight stretch of downhill road with visibility of over a mile with no traffic in sight. I did that once and never did it again.
I've gone over 100mph on the autobahn also.

But as the other poster said, I wasn't "running around claiming to be this paragon of virtue who was the lone champion of safety in his squadron, and you flat out don't realize how ridiculous that claim looks when you come out here and crow about driving 137, not 130."

[Unregistered]

But as the other poster said, I wasn't "running around claiming to be this paragon of virtue who was the lone champion of safety in his squadron, and you flat out don't realize how ridiculous that claim looks when you come out here and crow about driving 137, not 130."

Ridiculous or not everyone is wrapped around an axle about a speeding ticket. You would think this guy killed someone or even got a dui. I dont believe that the Article ever stated Lucero ran around claiming to be the paragon of virtue, somone in his previous chain said that. His chain of command was found guilty of reprisal by the DOD IG. Everyone is bashing this guy and talking about throughing chaff in the air to cover up actions what are they doing lol! Think about the seriousness of his commands actions to be found guilty of reprisal by the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE!

You see how quickly they attacked you when you said a statement that was somewhat Lucero defensive? They called you out for having a call sign, petty stuff; they all got thier pee pee's smacked, and their on a rant looking for anything they can find. If this guy was so terrible he would have been court martialed.

[Unregistered]

[QUOTE=Unregistered;74308]I never said the Constitution, State Law, etc, don't apply to military members. But, for example, it doesn't make sense to scream and holler about the Constitution and civil liberties over a tape recorder when it's not about the tape recorder. He's throwing a lot of chaff out to conceal the fact that he got in trouble because he got belligerent and wouldn't leave the room when a SNCO and a Captain told him to. The UCMJ's pretty clear about that.

Like Kelly Flinn, Lucero is trying to throw as much chaff into the air as possible, hoping people won't spot the key issue. He's using a lot of smoke and mirrors to mislead you. For example, his argument is that since he had to leave the service after complaining about maintenance, he left the service BECAUSE he complained about maintenance. QUOTE]

Was SSgt Lucero punished?

[Unregistered]

Ridiculous or not everyone is wrapped around an axle about a speeding ticket. You would think this guy killed someone or even got a dui. I dont believe that the Article ever stated Lucero ran around claiming to be the paragon of virtue, somone in his previous chain said that. His chain of command was found guilty of reprisal by the DOD IG. Everyone is bashing this guy and talking about throughing chaff in the air to cover up actions what are they doing lol! Think about the seriousness of his commands actions to be found guilty of reprisal by the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE!

You see how quickly they attacked you when you said a statement that was somewhat Lucero defensive? They called you out for having a call sign, petty stuff; they all got thier pee pee's smacked, and their on a rant looking for anything they can find. If this guy was so terrible he would have been court martialed.

Uh...between you and the people who have identified themselves on this thread as being in leadership positions at Eielson, the only one I see ranting is you.

You might want to read the article and Lucero's posts again. The words "paragon of virtue" may not have been used, but it's there in so many words. The guy thinks he's flawless.

As far as "looking for anything they can find", these people aren't that desperate because they don't have to look far. Of all the negative claims about Lucero on this thread, the only one he disagreed with was the one that said he was driving 130. By correcting it to 137, he just confirmed what people had been saying about his character, and added arrogance to the list.

As far as the speeding ticket goes, maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal to you. But the Richardson Highway is notorious for moose on the road and crossing traffic -- there've been a lot of fatalities out there when people got T-boned crossing that highway. Maybe you don't care, but I do because my wife and kids are out there. If something goes into the road in front of you when you're going 137 mph (200 feet per second), it doesn't matter if you're drunk. People die before you even get your foot off the gas.

And by the way, 24 isn't a "kid."

[Unregistered]

I think you need to check your core values book, becasue this is a direct quote

[Unregistered]

I guess things have changed a lot since I was a crew chief some ten years ago. As a young airman I knew well enough to always notify the expeditor of anything wrong with my plane. If a specialist signed something off, I had faith that they were the expert and trusted their signature in my forms. You may not always agree with leadership, but as an airman, you have to believe the higher ups know what they are doing. This guy had a serious case of lack of faith in the system. That's an AF Core value under Service before Self that we ALL must abide by. According to the AF Core Values book, to lose faith in the system is to adopt the view that you know better than those above you in the chain of command. Once you do this you have put yourself before your service. He put self before service from the beginning of this story to the end. There should be no argument there.

SMSgt and old C141 Crew Chief

Sorry, but I believe that you have mistaken the general term "Service" and confused it with the idea of the Air Force as a "Service". The true meaning of Service before self is to put a higher mission above your own needs. That higher mission may, or may not be, the US Air Force, though the goal is for it to be. But even then, an airman's immediate chain of command may not be the true embodiment of the US Air Force. Our airmen can limit themselves to be nothing more than mindless pawns or they can spread their wings to be much more, which will ultimately better serve the US Air Force.

[Unregistered]

Sorry, but I believe that you have mistaken the general term "Service" and confused it with the idea of the Air Force as a "Service". The true meaning of Service before self is to put a higher mission above your own needs. That higher mission may, or may not be, the US Air Force, though the goal is for it to be. But even then, an airman's immediate chain of command may not be the true embodiment of the US Air Force. Our airmen can limit themselves to be nothing more than mindless pawns or they can spread their wings to be much more, which will ultimately better serve the US Air Force.

Trusting your leadership and subordinating your own ambitions for the good of the team does not make you a mindless pawn. That line is a cop-out commonly used by self-serving egotists who lack the strength of character to accept accountability for their own actions.

By the same token, trying to hijack an organization, undermining leadership, and destroying cohesion in a unit doesn't constitute "spreading one's wings" or ultimately better serve the Air Force. You must have a different blue book from what I have.

The world is full of young people who think they have a better way of doing business. But there's a big difference between those who work to get their ideas implemented legitimately and those who attempt to get their way by destroying the team they claim to be a part of. It's a matter of construction vs destruction. Any child that doesn't get his way can throw rocks and destroy things. It requires a lot more maturity to trust in the strength of your ideas, build support, and work with leaders to get those ideas implemented.

[Unregistered]

Trusting your leadership and subordinating your own ambitions for the good of the team does not make you a mindless pawn. That line is a cop-out commonly used by self-serving egotists who lack the strength of character to accept accountability for their own actions.

By the same token, trying to hijack an organization, undermining leadership, and destroying cohesion in a unit doesn't constitute "spreading one's wings" or ultimately better serve the Air Force. You must have a different blue book from what I have.

The world is full of young people who think they have a better way of doing business. But there's a big difference between those who work to get their ideas implemented legitimately and those who attempt to get their way by destroying the team they claim to be a part of. It's a matter of construction vs destruction. Any child that doesn't get his way can throw rocks and destroy things. It requires a lot more maturity to trust in the strength of your ideas, build support, and work with leaders to get those ideas implemented.

A whistleblower is an employee, former employee, or member of an organization, especially a business or government agency, who reports misconduct to people or entities that have the power and presumed willingness to take corrective action. Generally the misconduct is a violation of law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption.

Common reactions to whistleblowing
Ideas about whistleblowing vary widely. Some see whistleblowers as selfless martyrs for public interest and organizational accountability; OTHERS VIEW THEM AS 'DOBBERS' OR "SNITCHES" (SLANG), SOLEY PURSUING PERSONAL GLORY AND FAME. Because the majority of cases are very low-profile and receive little or no media attention and because whistleblowers who do report significant misconduct are usually put in some form of danger or persecution, the latter view is generally less held.[citation needed]

Persecution of whistleblowers has become a serious issue in many parts of the world. Although whistleblowers are often protected under law from employer retaliation, there have been many cases where punishment for whistleblowing has occurred, such as termination, suspension, demotion, wage garnishment, and/or harsh mistreatment by other employees. For example, in the United States, most whistleblower protection laws provide for limited "make whole" remedies or damages for employment losses if whistleblower retaliation is proven. However, many whistleblowers report there exists a wide-spread "shoot the messenger" mentality by corporations or government agencies accused of misconduct and in some cases whistleblowers have been subjected to criminal prosecution in reprisal for reporting wrongdoing.

As a reaction to this many private organizations have formed whistleblower legal defense funds or support groups to assist whistleblowers; one such example in the UK is Public Concern at Work [1]. Depending on the circumstances, it is not uncommon for whistleblowers to be ostracized by their co-workers, discriminated against by future potential employers, or even fired from their organization. This campaign directed at whistleblowers with the goal of eliminating them from the organization is referred to as mobbing. It is an extreme form of workplace bullying wherein the group is set against the targeted individual.

2) A communication described in this paragraph is a communication
in which a member of the armed forces complains of, or discloses
information that the member reasonably believes constitutes evidence of,
any of the following:
(A) A violation of law or regulation, including a law or
regulation prohibiting sexual harassment or unlawful discrimination.
(B) Gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of
authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or
safety.

What is a personnel action?

A personnel action is any action taken on a member of the Armed Forces that affects or has the potential to affect that service member’s current position or career.

Examples of personnel actions include:

- Performance evaluations;

- Transfer or reassignment;

- Changes to duties or responsibilities;

- Disciplinary or other corrective actions;

- Denial of reenlistment or separation;

- Decisions concerning awards, promotions or training;

- Decisions concerning pay or benefits; or,

- Referrals for mental health evaluation.

Additional examples of personnel actions are revocation of:

- Access to classified material;

- Authorization to carry weapons;

- Flying status;


Eielson leadership was obviously in the wrong if the Department of Defense found reprisal. For reprisal to be found a protected communication must be made. A protected communication is one that reports unsafe or illegal actions to a member of congress, IG, or Chain of Command. If there is no protected communication there is no reprisal. I dont think DOD would support something if the facts didn't allready support the investigation. It would have been easier for them to simply stamp NO on the report; instead they did the correct thing.

Article from Wikipedia and USC 1034

[Unregistered]

Wow, very clever. I guess this statute allows anyone that whistleblows to behave anyway they want; anytime they want and leadership must allow them to be criminals and take no action or the leadership will held accountable. Sounds like a great system for people like Lucero.

[Unregistered]

Col (Ret) Crosby was the best MXG CC I have ever worked for in my 22 year career. His decisions are based on fact and logic. He takes emotion out of the equation and does not have a vindictive bone in his body. I was very sad to see him retire and was one of the many people to pack his retirement ceremony. If anyone thinks this was some sort of witch hunt to get rid of Lucerno they are wrong.

[Unregistered]

Col (Ret) Crosby was the best MXG CC I have ever worked for in my 22 year career. His decisions are based on fact and logic. He takes emotion out of the equation and does not have a vindictive bone in his body. I was very sad to see him retire and was one of the many people to pack his retirement ceremony. If anyone thinks this was some sort of witch hunt to get rid of Lucerno they are wrong.

That may be true but Crosby never spoke to Lucero a no contact order was issued.

[Unregistered]

Wow, very clever. I guess this statute allows anyone that whistleblows to behave anyway they want; anytime they want and leadership must allow them to be criminals and take no action or the leadership will held accountable. Sounds like a great system for people like Lucero.

Was Lucero punished for his actions? If so how?

[Unregistered]

Wow, very clever. I guess this statute allows anyone that whistleblows to behave anyway they want; anytime they want and leadership must allow them to be criminals and take no action or the leadership will held accountable. Sounds like a great system for people like Lucero.

Thats an excessive statement. Ranting won't prove anything. The fact remains DOD agreed; do you have evidence that Lucero was a criminal (court martial, paperwork)? If yes then that would give better evidence then ranting.

[Unregistered]

Col (Ret) Crosby was the best MXG CC I have ever worked for in my 22 year career. His decisions are based on fact and logic. He takes emotion out of the equation and does not have a vindictive bone in his body. I was very sad to see him retire and was one of the many people to pack his retirement ceremony. If anyone thinks this was some sort of witch hunt to get rid of Lucerno they are wrong.

The way it sounds his retirement wasn't by choice. Maybe he left knowing the big axe was on it's way.

[Unregistered]

OMG, people! Time to take off the tinfoil hats. Adam, how many of these posts are yours? Wikepedia as a legal reference? Crosby retiring because "the big axe" was going to fall? The longer this goes on, and the more holes are poked in the story, the wilder the conspiracy theories and arguments get.

Fact: Crosby retired because he'd been a group commander for three years (normal is two) and the rules don't let you do that forever. He only had one more tour left before he hit 30. He loved maintenance and didn't want those last three years to be sitting behind a desk as a staff puke. How do I know that? He told me. Stop commenting on the motivations of someone you obviously don't know.

The "fact" about the DoD investigation is that nobody from DoD went to Eielson to investigate, and no one from DoD conducted any interviews. The investigator was assigned to Eielson and was appointed by the Eielson wing commander -- same as if it was a local investigation. DoD simply read a report he wrote. For some reason, the investigator in this case was a passed-over operator who had never been given command, who was sitting there watching guys junior to him get command and be promoted to O-6. Think he might've been bitter and resentful at his leadership and those who were getting moved ahead while he sat on the bench for the rest of his career? Couple that with complete lack of knowledge about maintenance, the A-10 (he was an F-15E back seater), or military discipline, and the fact that Lucero was assigned to his organization during the investigation, and you have to wonder what he was doing investigating this case.

So don't try to muddy the water by throwing "DoD" around like someone from Washington went to Eielson like the FBI in "Mississippi Burning." This was one guy's opinion.

As far as evidence against Lucero, just look at the numbers of issues that have been raised in this thread alone. Or do your rules of evidence prohibit witness statements?

By the way, since you apparently believe Wikipedia to be an ironclad source of information, Wiktionary defines "reprisal" as "an act of retaliation." If you look up "retaliation", it defines it as "the act of responding violently to an act of harm or perceived injustice." So according to Wikipedia/Wiktionary, Petito didn't commit reprisal because he didn't use violence. I'm being facetious, but my point is that I've seen your type before -- you attempt to overwhelm your audience with a lot of flashing lights and shiny objects, hoping they'll be distracted and not catch what your other hand is up to.

Won't work with me -- I've played your game before with people who were a lot better at it than you.

[Unregistered]

OMG, people! Time to take off the tinfoil hats. Adam, how many of these posts are yours? Wikepedia as a legal reference? Crosby retiring because "the big axe" was going to fall? The longer this goes on, and the more holes are poked in the story, the wilder the conspiracy theories and arguments get.

Fact: Crosby retired because he'd been a group commander for three years (normal is two) and the rules don't let you do that forever. He only had one more tour left before he hit 30. He loved maintenance and didn't want those last three years to be sitting behind a desk as a staff puke. How do I know that? He told me. Stop commenting on the motivations of someone you obviously don't know.

The "fact" about the DoD investigation is that nobody from DoD went to Eielson to investigate, and no one from DoD conducted any interviews. The investigator was assigned to Eielson and was appointed by the Eielson wing commander -- same as if it was a local investigation. DoD simply read a report he wrote. For some reason, the investigator in this case was a passed-over operator who had never been given command, who was sitting there watching guys junior to him get command and be promoted to O-6. Think he might've been bitter and resentful at his leadership and those who were getting moved ahead while he sat on the bench for the rest of his career? Couple that with complete lack of knowledge about maintenance, the A-10 (he was an F-15E back seater), or military discipline, and the fact that Lucero was assigned to his organization during the investigation, and you have to wonder what he was doing investigating this case.

So don't try to muddy the water by throwing "DoD" around like someone from Washington went to Eielson like the FBI in "Mississippi Burning." This was one guy's opinion.

As far as evidence against Lucero, just look at the numbers of issues that have been raised in this thread alone. Or do your rules of evidence prohibit witness statements?

By the way, since you apparently believe Wikipedia to be an ironclad source of information, Wiktionary defines "reprisal" as "an act of retaliation." If you look up "retaliation", it defines it as "the act of responding violently to an act of harm or perceived injustice." So according to Wikipedia/Wiktionary, Petito didn't commit reprisal because he didn't use violence. I'm being facetious, but my point is that I've seen your type before -- you attempt to overwhelm your audience with a lot of flashing lights and shiny objects, hoping they'll be distracted and not catch what your other hand is up to.

Won't work with me -- I've played your game before with people who were a lot better at it than you.

lol can we say angry?

[Unregistered]

lol can we say angry?

Nope. No anger here. Just facts and logic instead of smoke & mirrors. Your case doesn't hold up to the basics of critical analysis. You're skewing facts, misrepresenting data, constructing flawed syllogisms, and eroding your own credibility. Argument boils down to logos, ethos, and pathos -- and you're failing all three. You've got to better than that if you have any hope for vindication.

[Unregistered]

Nope. No anger here. Just facts and logic instead of smoke & mirrors. Your case doesn't hold up to the basics of critical analysis. You're skewing facts, misrepresenting data, constructing flawed syllogisms, and eroding your own credibility. Argument boils down to logos, ethos, and pathos -- and you're failing all three. You've got to better than that if you have any hope for vindication.

So quick to judge and so slow to reflect; a mirror might do you some good. After everything Petito gave Adam how much stuck? He was not found guilty of anything. If the facts supported your opinion Adam would have been court martialed and severly punished niether happened; you've got to do better than that if you want to save your own skin. Adam is not on the chopping block.

[Farmer Ted]

So quick to judge and so slow to reflect; a mirror might do you some good. After everything Petito gave Adam how much stuck? He was not found guilty of anything. If the facts supported your opinion Adam would have been court martialed and severly punished niether happened; you've got to do better than that if you want to save your own skin. Adam is not on the chopping block.

You're right; Adam isn't on the chopping block. He's already been chopped.

Why do you think I need to save my own skin? Does Wikipedia have a law against dissenting opinion?

I know why the court martial charges were dropped, and you can't change that.

[Shrike]

lol can we say angry?

You realize that you add creedence to his comments by saying this, right?

[Farmer Ted]

I just hate to see our shrunken Air Force go through such of an expenditure of resources on behalf of someone that has such a difficult time pulling together logical arguments that stand up to scrutiny. When it comes to correcting injustices, the Air Force doesn't rely on emotion and decoys. You've got to prove your case with logic and facts that directly support your points in a concrete manner. You can't spout off about Wikipedia, the Constitution, State Law, how they do things in the UK, etc. You have to prove empirically that Air Force reg X was violated when person Y performed act Z as evidenced by 1, 2, and 3. If a guy can't handle scrutiny from someone on a blog, how will he ever handle scrutiny from professional lawyers?

If nothing else, this thread has given insight into the state of Lucero's thought processes. It's a very different picture from that presented in the article. In addition, other people with firsthand information on this case have raised some history about Lucero that has been complained about, but not refuted. Personally, it gave me a lot more insight than the article.

[Just Me]

The way it sounds his retirement wasn't by choice. Maybe he left knowing the big axe was on it's way.


You are spitting on this fine man's distingushed career with that completly unfounded and false accusation.
You should be ashamed of insinuating such a thing.

[ALASKAPILOT]

http://alaska.pilot.tripod.com/id2.html

[Farmer Ted]

Adam:

THANK YOU for posting that audio. You've just validated every negative item that's been said about you on this forum.

In that audio, you admit to the 9 disciplinary actions taken against you while you were in MXS before going to AMXS. It's also quite apparent that both Petito and the shirt were reasonable, friendly, kind, and bore you no ill will. But most importantly, Petito practically kisses you in appreciation for raising the issues about bad maintenance. He even said that if Chief Green had been there sooner or you'd taken a different approach, you could've been a hero. But then he talks about the personality disorder, which you acknowledge.

By posting that audio, you completely blew your own argument out of the water. There's no way any reasonable person could listen to that audio and come away with the belief that Petito was out to get you because you complained about maintenance. The audio also validates claims made on this forum that it was the personality disorder that was driving things, not the maintenance claims.

Here's a hint: if you're going to play Mike Wallace and post a "gotcha" audio file, it needs to "get" the other guy, not yourself.

You have just proven what has been said so many times on this forum. Your case has never been about maintenance. It's been about your actions.

Here's your case in a nutshell. You come into my house and spot a mouse running along the baseboard. You tell me I have a mouse, and I say I know -- I've put traps out to catch it. You respond by telling me that's not good enough because there's a State law against vermin-infested residences. So you grab a 12 gauge and start blasting away, chasing the mouse all over the house and blowing holes the size of soccer balls in my walls, floor, and furniture. I try to stop you, but you just keep reloading and firing away. While you're at it, you get on the phone and call my landlord and the city health department to report that my house is infested and that I'm doing nothing about it. Finally, the mouse runs into one of my traps and dies. But by that time my house looks like Swiss cheese, and when you stop to reload I take your gun away and call the the cops on you for what you did to my house. In the aftermath, you sue me for infringing on your 2nd Amendment rights and run to the press to complain that I threw you in jail for trying to rid my house of mice.

It ain't about the mouse. It's about the guy with the 12 gauge.

[Living the Dream]

The way it sounds his retirement wasn't by choice. Maybe he left knowing the big axe was on it's way.
Well this is just like Adam... With his superiority complex he feels someone should be getting the axe! Oh yea, that's right, it was him.

again, look in the mirror.

[Living the Dream]

Sorry, but I believe that you have mistaken the general term "Service" and confused it with the idea of the Air Force as a "Service". The true meaning of Service before self is to put a higher mission above your own needs. That higher mission may, or may not be, the US Air Force, though the goal is for it to be. But even then, an airman's immediate chain of command may not be the true embodiment of the US Air Force. Our airmen can limit themselves to be nothing more than mindless pawns or they can spread their wings to be much more, which will ultimately better serve the US Air Force.
Adam, this is great. You can try and quote, but it would be great if you could comprehend. You have Service of Self as your creed and our's is Service before Self...
All of your actions were to serve yourself, not our Air Force. You specifically told me when I was going to give you an LOC, "I can't get any paperwork because I want to become an officer, that's why Sergeant xxxxx just put all the LOCs he wrote me in his desk drawer." Your motivation has always been about you, it's just unfortunate it took so long before you met supervision that identified your problem.

[Happy]

Wow! Well ths is my first time to this forum and is is pretty obvious that the people posting on this forum were all pretty much involved in his case. I really don't believe anything anyone on here says because they all seem biased one way or another. I listened to the recording. It was long and kind of hard to hear. I see what this Lucero guy was trying to say. I think there is a big difference between bad maintenance being done on our aircraft and a mouse. Not a very good analogy. The mouse couldn't kill anyone, the bad maintenace could have. Lucero seems kind of arrogant so he probably brought the issue up in a way that automatically pissed everyone off and got their defenses up. But, someone (I think Farmer Ted identified him as Lucero's Commander) admitted that Lucero had been right all along. It seems that everyone focused all of their energy on trying to 'fix' this Lucero guy rather then fix bad maintenance practices. I also think that this commander would have been perfectly 'nice' to Lucero while discussing his denied reenlistment because what did he have to be angry about anymore? I mean, he was finally getting what he wanted- Lucero out of the military.

[Farmer Ted]

You do understand that the mouse represents something undesirable in the home that must be eradicated because the homeowner can't tolerate it, right? It represents bad maintenance that can't be tolerated in the organization and which the squadron commander feels compelled to eradicate. In the analogy, the mouse was employed as a symbol, not as an effort to equate maintenance to common household pests.

I apologize that I overestimated your ability to understand analogies, and that this one was too complex and confusing for you. If you'd like to learn more about how this type of logical analysis works, I suggest you look up "analogy" in Wikipedia.

[Happy]

Well, I never said anythng mean in my post. I guess this has convinced me that what people are saying on here is true. You people attack anyone that says anything in his favor. You were very mean and rude in the way you responded to my post. I feel sorry for the airmen that to work with you. You seem like a real you-know-what. (Can't say it on the forum). So thank YOU for showing me what YOU truly are like. I hope this Lucero guy in found right in all of these investigations. With people like you in our Air Force it must be hard for those who try to do the right thing. You probably talk to them like you just talked to me. You seem like a very bitter angry person that makes himself feel better by talking down to others. I feel sorry for you.

[Just Me]

Well, I never said anythng mean in my post. I guess this has convinced me that what people are saying on here is true. You people attack anyone that says anything in his favor. You were very mean and rude in the way you responded to my post. I feel sorry for the airmen that to work with you. You seem like a real you-know-what. (Can't say it on thef orum). So thank YOU for showing me what YOU truly are like. I hope this Lucero guy in found right in all of these investigations. WIth people like you in our Air Force it must be hard for those who try to do the right thing. You probably talk to them like you just talked to me. You seem like a very bitter angry person that makes himself feel better by talking down to others. I feel sorry for you.


Farmer Ted is not Lt Col Petito. You might want to retract a few things you are saying/implying about him. If you reread his posts, you will see he is not the previous AMXS CC. Just in case you are wondering, no I ma not him either.

[Just Me]

Do you have sources for all of this info? Anyone can come on here and post "facts" as an unregistered poster.





Unless you have an almost omniscient knowledge of those people's careers, you have no idea if any of their awards and accolades were a result of taking shortcuts, risking safety, or violating regulations.

So Lucerno was accused of these same things and he is innocnet until proven guitly but the people who commanded over him don't get the same respect? How does that work? Lucerno claims he won his awards the honorable way and so do these people.
lots of people are on this post who are saying give Lucerno his due for standing up to what is wrong, but the ones who stood up to what he is alleged to have done wrong don't get teh same respect? I call foul.

[Just Me]

The fact that this guy was pulled over for going WAY too fast should only reinforce there is no existance of OCPD, the very thing that got him kicked out. I can't imagine Monk doing something like this.

How do you say driving at an extremely dangerous and reckless speed isn't a sign of OCPD?

[Just Me]

The fact that this guy was pulled over for going WAY too fast should only reinforce there is no existance of OCPD, the very thing that got him kicked out. I can't imagine Monk doing something like this.


So the troopers were out to get him and they manufactured evidence?..just like his commanders?
It sounds liek you don't know him as well as you say you do.

[Living the Dream]

Wow! Well ths is my first time to this forum and is is pretty obvious that the people posting on this forum were all pretty much involved in his case. I really don't believe anything anyone on here says because they all seem biased one way or another. I listened to the recording. It was long and kind of hard to hear. I see what this Lucero guy was trying to say. I think there is a big difference between bad maintenance being done on our aircraft and a mouse. Not a very good analogy. The mouse couldn't kill anyone, the bad maintenace could have. Lucero seems kind of arrogant so he probably brought the issue up in a way that automatically pissed everyone off and got their defenses up. But, someone (I think Farmer Ted identified him as Lucero's Commander) admitted that Lucero had been right all along. It seems that everyone focused all of their energy on trying to 'fix' this Lucero guy rather then fix bad maintenance practices. I also think that this commander would have been perfectly 'nice' to Lucero while discussing his denied reenlistment because what did he have to be angry about anymore? I mean, he was finally getting what he wanted- Lucero out of the military.
Happy,

I don't think Farmer Ted meant to be mean (maybe he did) but I believe he is frustrated because people don't know the whole story (nor do they need to) and lean towards Lucero's side because he identified something wrong. People seem to focus on poor maintenance like it doesn't happen and everyone should be shocked. We do have humans in our Air Force and they make mistakes, poor decisions, etc. and we have quality assurance, supervisors, and coworkers that identify problems and resolve them. I would hope that you agree we need good order and discipline in our AF? Some of the things Adam pointed out we absolutely wrong and got taken care of (like an NCO got an LOR for not following the technical data). However, there is a proper way to identify problems to get the right people in the right places to act on fixing the problem. When we have people that don't follow that procedure it is actually more dangerous to maintenance. Adam was only interested in trying to make himself look good and others look bad instead of making things better. Possibly in the private sector someone who is cut throat can get by, but in a war fighting unit we rely on each other as a team. I'm sure you know we are the best in the world at it and we got that way by removing people who can not put service before self.

I can't imagine you would even find a civilian airline company to tell you they have perfect maintenance; they will instead tell you of the programs they have in place to ensure MX is done correctly, just like us.

Also, you said it seems like a lot of time was spent on trying to "fix" Lucero. You are right, he's a smart guy and I whish I could have helped him understand how to follow lawful orders from superiors and through Air Force Instructions .... but I failed.

Even though I don't like to fail, it happens. But now I too am frustrated because Adam is trying to make many war proven leaders look like they don't care about MX and it is not true. He needs to realize that he is a smart guy and is just not meant for the military, then he will do fine at whatever he sets his mind to.

Hope this helps clarify...

[B-one]

Ok I have read all the posts and there are two sides to the story.Both sides here have credit did the 355 FS/354 AMXS have problems? Yes! There were and alway will be people that take short cuts. Now I have worked Phase and the Flt line, there is a difference. Phase is a major inspetion and the Flt line is not. If you work Phase and get moved to the Flt line and continue to try to phase the jets this is wrong. The A.F. has set these inspections after years of research by doing risk analysis. After working Phase I know were to look to break a jet but the area I would look at is not in any BPO/ PRE FLT or THRU FLT work cards. Just because I know this is a problem area found in Phase, doesn't mean I would go out to every jet and look for this. So here's a question for everyone on this post. Is a migrated wedding band a Phase work card item or a Pre/Post or Thru Flt item? If it's a Phase insp item Bad on Adam for not being able to transition into his job on the flt line, and to keep pursuing the issue. BTW I worked in both SQDN's.

[Farmer Ted]

Well, I never said anythng mean in my post. I guess this has convinced me that what people are saying on here is true. You people attack anyone that says anything in his favor. You were very mean and rude in the way you responded to my post. I feel sorry for the airmen that to work with you. You seem like a real you-know-what. (Can't say it on the forum). So thank YOU for showing me what YOU truly are like. I hope this Lucero guy in found right in all of these investigations. With people like you in our Air Force it must be hard for those who try to do the right thing. You probably talk to them like you just talked to me. You seem like a very bitter angry person that makes himself feel better by talking down to others. I feel sorry for you.

Wow -- I think you need a new user name. I'm not mean, not rude -- just don't like playing games with people. Your attempt to skew my analogy in your favor was awfully weak, but I recognized it for what it was. My comment was hardly "mean" enough to merit a response like this, so stop trying to play the victim and grow a skin. I've been around long enough to recognize people who play up victimhood and overreact wildly in order to try to gain the upper hand. Doesn't work with me.

Facts work with me. Logic works with me. Intelligence works with me. Construct an argument that holds up to standard tests of critical thinking, and you'll have my respect. But if you try to play games or use faulty logic, I'll call you on it. If you don't like people identifying holes in your arguments, that's your problem.

[Living the Dream]

Ok I have read all the posts and there are two sides to the story.Both sides here have credit did the 355 FS/354 AMXS have problems? Yes! There were and alway will be people that take short cuts. Now I have worked Phase and the Flt line, there is a difference. Phase is a major inspetion and the Flt line is not. If you work Phase and get moved to the Flt line and continue to try to phase the jets this is wrong. The A.F. has set these inspections after years of research by doing risk analysis. After working Phase I know were to look to break a jet but the area I would look at is not in any BPO/ PRE FLT or THRU FLT work cards. Just because I know this is a problem area found in Phase, doesn't mean I would go out to every jet and look for this. So here's a question for everyone on this post. Is a migrated wedding band a Phase work card item or a Pre/Post or Thru Flt item? If it's a Phase insp item Bad on Adam for not being able to transition into his job on the flt line, and to keep pursuing the issue. BTW I worked in both SQDN's.
B-one,

Good post. It is not a thru flight carded item, but that is really not the issue. The issue was he put it on a red X instead of puting it on a dash for evaluation by the section (A/R) that is responsible for the job. He had been in A/R and knew how that section did business and even knew how they would handle it. So he waited, watched the A/R guy do improper mx and then quickly ran in to let everyone know.

As you know when a job is not in your job guide you write up a potential problem on a dash for evaluation. It is perfectly safe because no pilot is going to take off with an acft that needs an evaluation on a part. This way the specialist who has the T.O. and up to date experience can do his/her job. That is what good order and discipline is all about, we have a process that works well.

Now, once Adam identified the poor mx (which he already knew they had been doing and didn't say anything) the NCO received an LOR and the section was trained on the correct procedure. At this point Adam was upset because he wanted to see this individual fry and no one told Adam what happened to the individual.

But that is just one example, keep in mind that was not what keep him from reenlisting, he had many more issues.
Take care

[ALASKAPILOT]

B-one,

Good post. It is not a thru flight carded item, but that is really not the issue. The issue was he put it on a red X instead of puting it on a dash for evaluation by the section (A/R) that is responsible for the job. He had been in A/R and knew how that section did business and even knew how they would handle it. So he waited, watched the A/R guy do improper mx and then quickly ran in to let everyone know.

As you know when a job is not in your job guide you write up a potential problem on a dash for evaluation. It is perfectly safe because no pilot is going to take off with an acft that needs an evaluation on a part. This way the specialist who has the T.O. and up to date experience can do his/her job. That is what good order and discipline is all about, we have a process that works well.

Now, once Adam identified the poor mx (which he already knew they had been doing and didn't say anything) the NCO received an LOR and the section was trained on the correct procedure. At this point Adam was upset because he wanted to see this individual fry and no one told Adam what happened to the individual.

But that is just one example, keep in mind that was not what keep him from reenlisting, he had many more issues.
Take care

Your information is incorrect, the wedding band was red dashed as requested by supervision.
http://alaska.pilot.tripod.com/id1.html

[ALASKAPILOT]

He has one 5 EPR, and it was to polish him up and make him some one else’s problem. That is his history, causing problems then being shuffled off for some one else to deal with and from what I understand it happened a total of six times before he was discharged. Granted, it happens, but usually you want to hang on to a hot troop if he’s making you money.


Here is a link that proves otherwise; statements are empty unless facts can support them.

http://alaska.pilot.tripod.com/id1.html

[Farmer Ted]

Ho hum. Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. How about posting the other three diagnoses that say OCPD? Elvis hired doctors to write him all kinds of prescriptions, but that didn't mean he was sick. It's also apparent from reading the report that the only background your doctor had about your work environment and history was what you gave him. He felt that should override the clinical data and psychological testing. In other words, you once again found somebody that you could bamboozle with a first impression. I think it's amazing that you could convince a doctor to overlook the objective scientific data in front of him and go with what he heard in the interview insead. How do you do that? This is like a judge brushing aside all of the witnesses and physical evidence and acquitting someone because he interviewed him and thought he was a nice guy.

The issue is those three diagnoses, Adam, because they're what counted toward your denial of reenlistment. If you don't have the guts to post them, you ain't got squat.

Along the same lines, you post the "1" EPR, which is commendable. But we're supposed to take your word for it that the IG said that EPR was reprisal. How about posting the IG report? Or are you afraid that the IG report will only refute something small and lend validity to so many of the other issues against you? We'd really like to know exactly what the IG claimed was reprisal. Or are you afraid to show it because it'll only address a couple items and show that the rest of the issues against you were valid? By the way, how about posting the report that replaced this one?

And while you're at it, how about posting your rebuttal to the referral EPR? We'd really like to see what you had to say to your leaders and how you were responding to the situation at the time. Bear in mind I know what's in it -- I think others ought to see the tone you used.

Overall, the EPRs show someone that was a solid performer before his performance went south. Previous fives? Big deal. I've known people who were sent to prison that had solid records up until they started going down the wrong path.

Where's the rest of the 623A? All I see here is that your trainer said you were GTG in May, then decertified you on everything in June before recommending you later. Why were you decertified? What happened after July? Looks to me like you're trying to show only the parts that you think are appealing.

How about posting the 418 that denied you reenlistment? Instead of prattling on about how you were thrown out for complaining, how about showing us the source document? We'd really like to see the official reason you got out of the service. Quit blustering about what it said and show us. Or are you afraid to because of all the spin you've already put on it?

How about a copy of the no-contact order? We'd really like to see what it said. You're saying you were told you couldn't have any contact, and others have said it allowed you contact via specified means. Which was it? Let's see the facts. If the facts back your case, you should have nothing to worry about.

Come on, Adam, let's put those cards on the table. If you have a valid case, it shouldn't worry you. There are a lot of people who know what's in the documentation, so stop fooling yourelf by thinking you can manipulate through selective presentation of data. As I said earlier, you rely on manipulating people who don't know you. Your magical slight of hand may work with a lot of people on the web, but you're forgetting that there are a whole lot of people who won't be fooled because WE KNOW YOU. Time to try showing us the whole picture, and not just the parts you want us to see.

[ALASKAPILOT]

The DOD IG report is a privleged document and can not be released without the IG permission. I have with held from posting it in the intrest of privacy for the people the investigation included.

The civilian MHE is a real diagnosis that was made after he reviewed ALL military MHE's; he has the highest levels of training and experience in the state of Alaska; not to mention he is a REAL Dr.

I have no intention of trying to convince you of anything; it didn't work on active duty, and as a civilian I could care less what you think of me. The ball is in motion and the people who are going to make the final call are well above your pay grade.

[Farmer Ted]

So now you're full of respect for the IG process? After going to the press and putting all kinds of statements about the case in the public forum, as well as posting evidence involved in the case on the web, suddenly you have a conscience about the investigation? You've been out spouting off and making all kinds of negative comments and accusations about people involved in that investigation, and suddenly you want me to believe you're trying to respect their privacy?

The qualifications and certifications of the other doctors aren't in question. If they were, the AF wouldn't have been able to press the issue. They were well qualified people, and those were real diagnoses. If they're so weak and your doctor proves them wrong, why are you afraid to publish them? Wouldn't that bolster your position? Oh yeah...unless the other three diagnoses are valid.

What are you hiding, Adam? You're making all kinds of accusations out there, but as soon as someone tells you to put up or shut up, you suddenly grow a conscience. Looks to me like you're out of ammo. The IG report is just one of the things I challenged you to publish. Why won't you post the others? What don't you want us to see?

You're exposed, Adam. If you don't publish the documents, people see that you're all talk and won't back your case. If you do publish, people will see the rest of you that you're trying to conceal. After the AF times article, the Channel 11 interview, and 10 pages of this post, it's way too late to try to convince people you're trying to take the high road and not interfere with the process.

I agree that the ball's in motion. What are you going to do if it comes out against you? Are you going to walk away, or are you been so consumed by this that you've allowed it to define you and can't walk away?

[Living the Dream]

Your information is incorrect, the wedding band was red dashed as requested by supervision.
http://alaska.pilot.tripod.com/id1.html
Nice try, but you know the story was not that simple.

Also, I did read your "about me page" and you are mistaken on a couple of things. You were not moved from MXS because you identified a problem with another NCO stealing tools. You thought he was but after an investigation, he was not. Like I have said before, you didn't identify the tools because you were concerned about doing the right thing; you identified it because you hated your supervisor and wanted to find a way to burry him. You thought you were superior and he was an idiot. You were moved because of you. You were told by your new chief about a fresh start for YOU, nothing to do with the tools. People tried to help you, but unfortunately you chose not to (or medically could not) help yourself.

Like I said it was unfortunate that you supervisor in A/R didn't properly file the stack of paperwork he had given you; your problem could have been identified much earlier in your career.

I sincerely hope you can put this behind you and learn from it/get the help you need to move forward with your life. This prolonging can only cause your family distress, cost you and the government time and money. You can have a bright future in society but you are just not cut out for military life. And, no that is not because you are a "by-the-book" (as you say) type of guy. It is because you can not adapt to perform with the teamwork that is required. Your real issue is about good order and discipline, not whistle blowing.

[Farmer Ted]

By the way, your claim that you were denied your 7 level due to the wedding band incident seems awfully fishy. Your 623A recommended upgrade on 5 May. The upgrade letter was done on 16 May. But your supervisor never signed it. That was over 3 weeks prior to the wedding band incident. If everything was fine and you were a hard charger on the way to a 7-level, why didn't he sign it?

Your "evidence" only shows that your supervisor didn't have enough faith in you to recommend you for 7 level -- well before the wedding band incident occurred. If the letter was signed and you were denied after 9 June, I might buy the idea that the wedding band changed someone's mind. But the fact that it was never signed shows that there was never a change of mind -- your supervisor was never pursuing a 7-level for you. In fact, you were supposedly qualified for a 7-level for over a month prior to the wedding band, and he never submitted you. For all we know, you could've written the letter, taken it in to your supervisor, and had him tell you weren't ready yet beause of issues with your performance. Without signatures, this document is worthless as evidence of anything.

I agree with Living the Dream -- you have talents, but teamwork isn't one of them. Military life isn't for everyone. Stick with sales 'cause it's what you do best.

[The Great One]

Wow!! I read those EPR's and you really did not do much on the aircraft!! You had some of the weakest bullets I have ever seen... you were given BTZ? I do not know you therefor will not judge you or any one else for that matter but do have one question for you and I have been in the Air Force for a long time... Can there really be that many people telling you to just change your approach with this issue and you not be maybe a little at fault? Please let me know if I am even close. I have seen a lot of things like this but have always seen someone stick up for the person if they go about it the right way.
Please clarify for me a few questions if you will. 1) Did the commander know you before all this? Just want to see if he just hated you from the start. and 2) Why did you tell the pilots stuff that should have never gotten to them? In my opinion this stuff should be handle from the lowest level possible. You were an NCO!! You can call foul at anytime during the maintenance process and correct the situation. Even if it was a higher ranking NCO, call foul and talk about it with the expediter and super not the pilots. Ops should never be involved in the maintenance side of the house once again in my opinion. We don't fly planes, they don't fix them. There are a few who are good at breaking them though. That is not how you want to meet you commander by backdooring him. Please help me and probably many others with these questions.
I am not attacking you and am sorry if it sounds like that but am just trying to see where you mind was at...

[Farmer Ted]

Just so there's no doubt about who wrote the letters of recommendation Lucero posted, here's what I know:

1) Capt Nigolian was not a maintenance officer, nor had he ever led maintainers. He had been in five years at the time the letter was written, and had previously worked aerial port and plans & programs. I'm not trying to comment on his character or dispute his recommendation, because for all I know Lucero did a good job for him. But I just want to clarify his experience level and background so no one would get the impression this was a maintenance job or the Capt was evaluating Lucero as a maintainer. Lucero was placed there to get him out of AMXS as the first IG investigation unfolded. There was a maintenance officer assigned to CTS, but it seems Lucero didn't seek his recommendation.

2) Kery Knorr was a MSgt weapons liaison in CTS who has since retired. Why he wouldn't identify himself as a SNCO when using official letterhead is beyond me.

By the way, Adam -- I still haven't seen you post the EPR that replaced the "1" referral that was thrown out. And while you're at it, where's the EPR you got from CTS before separating? You haven't posted anything of record documenting your performance since Oct 2004. You got letters of recommendation from CTS, so surely the EPR must be a good one, right? Why not post it?

Also, I noticed on your bio that you say you took an oath to protect A-10 pilots. Which oath was that? I've never known any other A-10 crew chief that took such an oath. The only oaths I know of are the ones said at enlistment or commissioning. They talk about defending the Constitution, but don't say anything about pilots. I suppose you could consider the charge you got as an NCO to be an oath, but that doesn't mention pilots, either -- although it does talk about detecting adverse morale trends, initiating corrective actions within your control, and providing appropriate feedback to supervisors. Oops -- guess you missed that one. So did you really take some sort of pilot protection oath, or is that statement pure theatrics on your part?

[Wallygator]

Well, I wanted to stay out of this, but after seeing your web site Adam I am going to have to defend myself.
I did not steal any tools. In order to steal something one would have to take it with out the knowledge of anyone else. Our flight chief, my fellow TSgt’s and YOU knew I had taken the tools and equipment and put them in my truck. I made no secret of it.
For the rest of you I will explain what happened. We were in the last week before the UCI and the previous support section chief who was retiring showed up with a truck load of tools and equipment he had sitting in his garage. At this point, we (and I can’t include Adam) had just finished moving out thousands of pounds of furniture, tools, equipment, and other items that we processed through the DRMO or thrown away. We had also accomplished fixing hundreds of T.O. discrepancies, reorganizing the support section floor plan, retching, detching, etc… it was a lot of work that required upwards of around six people at times getting the work done. I hope people will understand that I felt it was pointless to take a write up that would negate all the hard work we had done. I went up to my Flight chief and explained what was going on and he suggested making the stuff “disappear” until after the UCI when we could do something with it. It was suggested, I could put the items in the back of my truck and keep them their until after the UCI. I said I would do it. I also went down to support and explained to Adam who at the time was my “second in command” because I didn’t want to be the only one who know what happened to the stuff in case an occasion arose and we needed some of the stuff. I also let the Phase dock and Aerorepair section chiefs know so they knew who to go to if they needed some of the items in my truck. Yes, I also did this to cover my tail because I didn’t want to be accused of stealing when some one saw me take the stuff to my truck. I would like to point out that “whistle-blower” Adam made no statements to me saying he disagreed with what I was doing. After the UCI, I was delivering a written counseling letter informing Adam that he had failed to complete a simple task he was assigned to accomplish in a timely manner and he also fielded to communicate that he was having problems with finishing the task. In front of a witness, he severely insulted me then stormed out of the building exclaiming “I’m going to the First Shirt and he is going to put you in your place!” I was questioned by the maintenance superintendent, my story was confirmed by the flight chief and my peers, and I was exonerated by the Chief who said I hadn’t done anything he wouldn’t have done himself.
So Mr. Lucero, I request that you remove the baseless accusations against me on your web site.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am not a mental health professional, but after reading up on obsessive compulsive personality disorder it explains the attitude of Adam and the things he did while under my supervision and when he was at the 355th. I would recommend everyone read up on this because it is quite different from obsessive compulsive disorder which the character Monk displays. The easiest difference to see is that those with OCD know something is wrong with them, those with OCPD don’t realize something is wrong. I recommend people not waste time trying to convince Adam of his faults, because as far as he is concerned he is faultless and anyone who says otherwise is “out to get him” or as he said to me once “an idiot who can’t see his natural leadership ability”. I would also like to point out that Adam has a habit of drawing people into his problems who have nothing to do with it. I constantly was dealing with questions from people outside of my section from Airman right on up to the flight chief who were concerned about the things Adam was saying. After several months of constantly defending myself people figured out what Adam was doing, and Adam tried to get everyone else in trouble along with me the day he went to the first shirt. Folks, Adam was moved out of the MXS because he burned the bridges he had built with gasoline and a handgernade. It would be wise just to leave the man alone, its not worth it. There have been many people who have had to suffer a lot of embarrassment and humiliation, please don’t become the next one.

[Farmer Ted]

Great post, Wallygator. I think you hit the nail on the head IRT Adam's personality. I've engaged him repeatedly on this thread, knowing full well that he's not going to see the light. Throughout history, con artists like him have survived by fleecing the unsuspecting and inexperienced. They've polished their act over and over again, whereas their victims are at a disadvantage because they're new to the game. The con artist's worst nightmare is the guy that shows up and exposes the sleight of hand. Once his victims are on to him, he has to pack up and move elsewhere. This is why Adam has apparently left this forum, and why his website is all transmit and doesn't allow feedback or comments. But I guarantee you that he's just taken his act to a different venue -- and is probably taking great care to stay away from places that might attract those of us who know his game.

I've gotta disagree with you about the tools & equipment, though. Gov't tools and equipment have no business going home with someone or being in their POV. No UCI writeup is worth my integrity.

[LyinGator]

"It was suggested, I could put the items in the back of my truck and keep them their until after the UCI. I said I would do it." Did you steal enough stuff to build your Long EZ? Why do you think they suggested you put the equipment in the back of your truck? Because they knew you were dumb enough to do it.

[Wallygator]

"It was suggested, I could put the items in the back of my truck and keep them their until after the UCI. I said I would do it." Did you steal enough stuff to build your Long EZ? Why do you think they suggested you put the equipment in the back of your truck? Because they knew you were dumb enough to do it.

Hi this has got to be Adam, I see you’re still hanging in there with the insults. (if not, sorry) Yeah, this poor dumb NCO, I got four years left till I can retire, I have people who respect me, I am getting to see another country again, my wife loves and adores me, my kids love and adore me (they are all A, B students), I have three cars and a motorcycle, seven computers, friends to hang out with, man, it sure is tough being dumb, but I think I can manage. Did I mention I am still in the Air Force? Oh, I got fire wall fives too! Dumb is where its at man! I guess being a team player and looking out for the best interests of the flight actually worked to my advantage. Sorry to see your plan to serve your own interest and didn't work out so well, shame really.

Thanks for your interest in my long EZ, if I was the type to steal I still wouldn’t have made any head-way as those tools just seemed to jump up and walk away when I wasn’t at work. I guess it was all those nights where some one who was supposed to be manning support instead was sitting around shooting the breeze with the phase dock chiefs or running around begging to go home early because your mean ol’ supervisor was making you work to hard that some one just whipped in there and cleaned the place out.

I love your knickname, it fits you perfectly!

[Farmer Ted]

Adam's back? Great! Say Adam, do you have those answers yet? If you have nothing to hide and you're the hero, why not post the info I asked for? What's the matter? Afraid to tell the whole story? What will we see in those documents that you don't want us to see?

[Shrike]

Adam's back? Great! Say Adam, do you have those answers yet? If you have nothing to hide and you're the hero, why not post the info I asked for? What's the matter? Afraid to tell the whole story? What will we see in those documents that you don't want us to see?

I noticed that the posts defending Adam dried right up after you started asking pointed questions.

Pure coincidence, I imagine. :rolleyes:

[Guard_Bum]

I know Lucero, and was in the 355 AMU while all this went down. Lucero is crazy. Seriously, this article makes him out to be the victim, that is wrong. This guy is crazy

[BigBaze]

Unregistered, you haven't the faintest clue what it's like on the flightline. Being the son of a maintainer doesn't qualify you to comment on what it's like out there. Try pre-flighting a jet by flashlight in subzero temperatures sometime. You have no idea what kind of people are out there, the pride they take in their work, or the discipline they display on a daily basis. As far as sleeping with the enemy goes, flightline maintainers in the AOR are out in the dust exposed on the line next to high value assets on open ramps surrounded by people trying to mortar or rocket them. Think about that when you're in your bunkered air-conditioned facility.

Flightline maintainers are a tough breed, and you won't find a more self-sacrificing, disciplined bunch of people anywhere. Thanks for your service in Comm.


I don't think you could have said it better!

[ggoodson]

Just a quick note for those posting about his being pulled over for speeding comments.

Yes he was speeding. He was over a hill before the cop could get onto the road, and when the cop went over the hill, he was already pulled over. He knew he had done something wrong. The cop even passed him because he couldn't stop in time. The other story about him trying to run away from cops was a stupid lie spread by local media. He had confused the cop by stopping on his own accord, and the conversations over the police radio were ones of a frustrated cop who had to turn around on the four lane road, go to the pull out on the other side of him and come back. They figured he would try to run when the cop turned, but he didn't. Don't spread lies when you weren't there as it happened..


hbjhbhjbljknjknk;jk;jjkn

[ramprat]

its the crew chiefs duty to put any unsafe condition on a red cross.
specialists?? ive told many to go to base ops for coffee (didnt trust their work)
i never let a specialist work alone on my aircraft.
(like a two man policy) if i thought a specialist didnt know what he was doing
i used the expediters radio and told job control to get nhim off my aircraft or send a shop supervisor.
(sac 16 yrs)

[ChaplainC]

While I did not read everyone of the one hundred plus posts I have read several. It seems to me that some think this guy is nuts and does not deserve blah blah blah.

I just consider it this way, I was not there, and I did not see any of it, but I did see the news a few weeks ago that the 3star who was there is now dead, Suicide will do that to you. Do you think that is just coincidence, or what?

He should have used the whistle blower's program, this would have protected him and kept him from being adversely affected by his bosses.

Just my thoughts.

[BigBaze]

its the crew chiefs duty to put any unsafe condition on a red cross.
specialists?? ive told many to go to base ops for coffee (didnt trust their work)
i never let a specialist work alone on my aircraft.
(like a two man policy) if i thought a specialist didnt know what he was doing
i used the expediters radio and told job control to get nhim off my aircraft or send a shop supervisor.
(sac 16 yrs)

Oh so you are an expert on engines, E & E, avionics and weapons all in one? I need to have gone to the school you went to! Any true maintainer knows that it is a TEAM effort that puts those aircraft in the air. I am aircrew now and still remember that even though I am on the ops side of things now. I was a 7 level engine troop on F15's and if I or any other 5 or 7 level from any shop found any unsafe condition anywhere it was our duty to put it on a red X. (Not a red cross btw..the flightline isn't a humanitarian organization) Just because you are a "crew chief" and have your name on the plane does not give you the right to disrespect the others who work day and night just like you to put those aircraft in the air. Anyone asks me to get them coffee while I am on the line is in for a rude awakening, and if you outrank me I'll find someone from my shop that outranks you.I have worked for some outstanding Chiefs, OIC's and Prod Supers and not one has ever asked me to get them coffee, so I damn sure wouldn't expect that from anyone ranked below them. I have met stupid specs, and I damn sure have met some stupid crew chiefs. (like the one that marshalled an F15 into his face...true story) Your reputation is built on what you do every day not by your job title. Yes, crew chiefs are given the responsibility to ensure their specific jet is ready for the misson, but I have never seen one work radar, ECS, engines and load weapons all at once. Any real maintainer can agree that aircraft maintenance squadrons and AMU's are made up of TEAMS of crew chiefs, specs and weapons loaders. I have all the respect for crew chiefs because when something goes wrong on the jet the focus normally is on them. But not all of them know everything, and neither do I. Reputation and respect is earned, not given...sorry folks for going off topic..I have never met you Ramp, and I am sure you are awesome at what you do, and maybe that's how things were at your base, but blanket statements like that are just plain ignorant

[MACHINE666]

Heh.

Reading alot of these posts, I love it when a thread gets all personal and people throw all sortsa stuff for the uninformed to read. Names are being thrown out there that would normally be protected otherwise. It's definitely hanging your dirty laundry out for all to see!

This would make another great story for Springer - couple this with the Metzger fiasco and it would make for great ratings!!

:D :D :D :D :D

[Measure Man]

Do you think that is just coincidence, or what?
.

Yes, I think that is a coincidence...actually not even that much of a coincidence...just two things that happened. Throw in the fact that they weren't even on the same base, merely the same state...and the coincidental connection is almost impossible to see...(assuming your are talking about BGen (not 3-star) Tinsley...or did I miss a news story somewhere?

[BRUWIN]

Maybe it's just me...but I saw alot of Crew Chiefs who's only interest was keeping the A/C forms tidy and windscreen clean. As an engine guy very few Crew Chiefs cared about my system or wanted to learn it. They might come help me depanel to get at the suspect engine but even that could be a fight at times. And it was always kind of funny to me how the crew chief's could go home when THEIR work was done but specialists always had to stay until the crew chief's were done. The flightline was ruled by crew chiefs and specialists were always crapped on. After 16 long years my feet last left the flightline nine years ago. I loved my job but got tired of crew chief's getting all the credit with little effort.

[ART]

its the crew chiefs duty to put any unsafe condition on a red cross.
specialists?? ive told many to go to base ops for coffee (didnt trust their work)
i never let a specialist work alone on my aircraft.
(like a two man policy) if i thought a specialist didnt know what he was doing
i used the expediters radio and told job control to get nhim off my aircraft or send a shop supervisor.
(sac 16 yrs)

In 25 years of aircraft maintenance, I have never met a crew chief like you.





I suppose I can only thank God for that.

[BigBaze]

Maybe it's just me...but I saw alot of Crew Chiefs who's only interest was keeping the A/C forms tidy and windscreen clean. As an engine guy very few Crew Chiefs cared about my system or wanted to learn it. They might come help me depanel to get at the suspect engine but even that could be a fight at times. And it was always kind of funny to me how the crew chief's could go home when THEIR work was done but specialists always had to stay until the crew chief's were done. The flightline was ruled by crew chiefs and specialists were always crapped on. After 16 long years my feet last left the flightline nine years ago. I loved my job but got tired of crew chief's getting all the credit with little effort.


I knew I wasn't the only one that felt that way:>..oh hi Chaplain, good to see you again..

[abused]

I do believe SSgt Lucero. I had my run-ins with an abusive commander/s.. Total sellout. Military justice?..In my section where I worked they could kill other coworkers and the commander would say that he doesn't see anything. If you are interested to see some jaw dropping stuff, shoot me an e-mail The commander and the culprits escaped laughing.

Thus, Please shoot me an e-mail, I will show you our officers' fight against terrorists. my e-mail is abusse2008@yahoo.com

If you think this stuff is offensive, please contact the IG.


Thanks

Abused

[sweatyAZ]

Nice Bruwin and Baze, you beat me to the punch. I'm a 7lvl spec and if I had some CC tell me I needed to have the buddy system while I worked on his jet I would tell him to fix the problem and just leave. I doubt I finish my smoke before I get the order to not listen to the CC and do what I'm supposed to.

Lots of facts screaming in this forum. So I have to ask what was the IG's final decision? If his records were wiped free of all negative paperwork isnt that the final fact that counts? BTW listening to military docs is never a good idea, I used to have one at my former base who would google everything to get a diagnosis. Yeah, he was wrong most of the time. Alot of people saying to be a team player, but what if the team is wrong? From an outsiders perspective it looks like the good ole boy fraternity is alive and well in AK. I thought it was funny that everyone pointed out how decorated supervision is there, but when it's your buddy handing you the award it's a bit hallow. Dont try to point out the UCI findings because any base can clean up for a week and get the inspectors out before the polish wears off. You just happen to be good at it where others are not. BTW putting gov. property in the back of your truck is a violation. You should of known as a NCO to not follow an inappropriate order, would of saved you alot of hassle. I do so love it when someone gives the middle finger to supervision when they deserve it. Not to mention everyone called out by name on here is awsome! You guys have serious issues and I would sudjest you all go see the mental health doc for evaluations. I would die laughing if you all came back OCD! Guess I'll just stop at that and wait for the your stupid insults to come from the farmer who seems to be keen on that.

*removing Eilson from dreamsheet* You people are screwed up!

[Shrike]

First off, I wouldn't expect any response from the people you're addressing - none of them have posted here since February of 2008, which is about the time this thread started to die.

Second, you say "Guess I'll just stop at that and wait for the your stupid insults to come from the farmer who seems to be keen on that." Farmer Ted asked a lot of very pointed and direct questions in response to some claims by people either defending Lucero or flat-out claiming to be Lucero. No satisfactory responses were ever given. Not exactly "stupid insults" in my book.

[sweatyAZ]

Thats funny because I find Farmer Ted to have the exact same mindset as Lucero

[smarg]

Typical maintenance whiners. Meh. :D

[4Runner]

Another thread back from the dead. Believe half of this story, the other half was worse than reported. This was one scary place to work. I will say that the Air Force got the wrong people, (Big Surprise) In the end this unit was not much different than many other Non-Nuke CAF Flightlines....Let this thread die....

[sweatyAZ]

go get some more coffee smarg, before your chair gets cold ;p

[ramprat]

From 48 to 59 specialists for aircraft systems were VERY rare.
Only specialists on flt line daily were Radar/bomb nav ,radio, ecm, nav aids ,,ect
Eng shop delivered a BARE basic engine with no exh sys,not "kitted" with any acerrories
just the mag and injection pumps ,,,thats all and the eng shop didnt know what eng conditioning was.
Each sqdn had its own conditioning team . We had three ,three stripers and i was one in charge
in addition being the only three striper crew chief in sqdn. (B 29s R3350 engines)
When we got B47s i was selected by the GE tech rep to be trained as sqdn eng cond team leader
as i had been to jet school in 48 and worked on F80s first hitch. Until SAC got specialized maint in
full mode we did our own fuel cell,hydraulics eng changes/maint/conditionimg, and jack jobs with
asst from aero repair for ldg gear problems
Didnt work shift work either ,it was work till complete.
Hey chief can i borrow a screwdriver !
hey chief i forgot a piece of test equip ,i got to go back to the shop,,can you call for a truck?
Hey chief ,i need to get some assistance from the shop ..ill be back..(yeah)
Hey chief i got shift change ill make sure somebody comes out..(yeah)
Hey chief ,,ive never run into anything like this,,,i got to go back to the shop.

[BigBaze]

From 48 to 59 specialists for aircraft systems were VERY rare.
Only specialists on flt line daily were Radar/bomb nav ,radio, ecm, nav aids ,,ect
Eng shop delivered a BARE basic engine with no exh sys,not "kitted" with any acerrories
just the mag and injection pumps ,,,thats all and the eng shop didnt know what eng conditioning was.
Each sqdn had its own conditioning team . We had three ,three stripers and i was one in charge
in addition being the only three striper crew chief in sqdn. (B 29s R3350 engines)
When we got B47s i was selected by the GE tech rep to be trained as sqdn eng cond team leader
as i had been to jet school in 48 and worked on F80s first hitch. Until SAC got specialized maint in
full mode we did our own fuel cell,hydraulics eng changes/maint/conditionimg, and jack jobs with
asst from aero repair for ldg gear problems
Didnt work shift work either ,it was work till complete.
Hey chief can i borrow a screwdriver !
hey chief i forgot a piece of test equip ,i got to go back to the shop,,can you call for a truck?
Hey chief ,i need to get some assistance from the shop ..ill be back..(yeah)
Hey chief i got shift change ill make sure somebody comes out..(yeah)
Hey chief ,,ive never run into anything like this,,,i got to go back to the shop.


That was a very long time ago when you were in, I mean you are talking about B47's....! It is a completely different Air Force now. When I was an engine mechanic on the flightline I never asked the crew chiefs for a damn thing except: stop asking me when the jet was going to be fixed, and to help drop panels which they rarely did. Specialists worked 85% of the aircraft, at least the one I used to work on; engines, avionics, sheet metal, and electric and environmental (E & E) Even though I am not in maintenance anymore I am standing up for my specs because they work their asses off and get no credit whatsoever. It is a ....wait for it ... TEAM effort, the ones that say that crew chiefs are the only ones that put jets in the air are full of shit.

[ramprat]

That was a very long time ago when you were in, I mean you are talking about B47's....! It is a completely different Air Force now. When I was an engine mechanic on the flightline I never asked the crew chiefs for a damn thing except: stop asking me when the jet was going to be fixed, and to help drop panels which they rarely did. Specialists worked 85% of the aircraft, at least the one I used to work on; engines, avionics, sheet metal, and electric and environmental (E & E) Even though I am not in maintenance anymore I am standing up for my specs because they work their asses off and get no credit whatsoever. It is a ....wait for it ... TEAM effort, the ones that say that crew chiefs are the only ones that put jets in the air are full of shit.
Agree every generation of aircraft takes more specialized talents . Went thru many Sqdn,Oms ,
Cams, variations between the start of specialized maint ,sometimes changing org structures twice
a year.. Often we found out at Monday morning roll call and half the time some new faces .needless
to say morale went in the dumpster (mostly on temporary basis). . I always thought i was lucky as
i got the chance to work recip as well as jet aircraft and had the best job in the world and really
enjoyed all of it ,even spending almost half on nights .I was single for sixteen yrs so it didnt bother
me as as a night shift supv they gave the "dirty two dozen " (as usual for the night shifts0
Had something to laugh at every day although some might not have appreciated the humor.

[BigBaze]

Agree every generation of aircraft takes more specialized talents . Went thru many Sqdn,Oms ,
Cams, variations between the start of specialized maint ,sometimes changing org structures twice
a year.. Often we found out at Monday morning roll call and half the time some new faces .needless
to say morale went in the dumpster (mostly on temporary basis). . I always thought i was lucky as
i got the chance to work recip as well as jet aircraft and had the best job in the world and really
enjoyed all of it ,even spending almost half on nights .I was single for sixteen yrs so it didnt bother
me as as a night shift supv they gave the "dirty two dozen " (as usual for the night shifts0
Had something to laugh at every day although some might not have appreciated the humor.


I had to keep my sense of humor otherwise i would have gone crazy, thankfully I made the decision to crosstrain and change to the flying side of things...I still respect my MX people though

[ramprat]

I had to keep my sense of humor otherwise i would have gone crazy, thankfully I made the decision to crosstrain and change to the flying side of things...I still respect my MX people though

On one assignment i had 143 people and by the time i went home ,,my nerve endings were
sticking out about three feet .. One morning the Dep commander maint stopped me about
0600 and said "how many people you have working for you? I told him and he said "i just drove
the whole flt line and only counted twenty eight " i said did all system missions get off on time,did all quick-turns get off on time,did all recovery aircraft get in commision ? after each question he answered yes .
I said " i dont understand the problem Colonel " He just drove away ,,never heard anything about it.
If i only had a couple of inbounds and a couple of launches and a recovery ,i wasnt going to keep the guys up all night sitting on a hangar floor for nothing..i let the crew chiefs flip coins to see whose crew could go home early ( I learned not to apply bad habits from bad NCOs i worked for yrs ago) I helped morale as
about ninety percent were first termers that enlisted to avoid the draft and good morale is always a force
multiplier..

[ramprat]

I had to keep my sense of humor otherwise i would have gone crazy, thankfully I made the decision to crosstrain and change to the flying side of things...I still respect my MX people though
" the flying side of things" comment reminded me of an Army recruiter who spent some time every
lunch time at the NCO club stag bar (60-61 time frame) trying to get staff sgt or over to xfer to
army helicopter pilot school with a warrant upon graduation ..Only knew one who bit ,,and i
cant remember his name .

[Skyhawk]

After wading through this thread, the only conclusion I can reach is that the situation at Eielson is very tense. To the NCO who put government tools in your POV, I shook my head in utter amazement that such an act would be condoned much less directed by a senior supervisor! But to carry this out simply to hide something from a command inspection team is beyond the pale.

This airman may or may not have had issues. The speeding ticket is indicative of a serious maturity problem.

My conclusion is to claim a pox on all your houses, except this is my Air Force we are talking about here. There appear to be breakdowns in standards at this base. Perhaps in the end a DoD investigation is a good thing. If this airman's actions resulted in this, then perhaps his actions performed a valuable role even if he's got adverse issues himself.

[AV8TR]

I know Lt. Lucero we're going to flight school together.

[sweatyAZ]

suuuuuuuuure you are

[BRUWIN]

I know Lt. Lucero we're going to flight school together.

If that were true I could just imagine him trying to get through a preflight. He'd have the entire wing grounded in one morning and niether of you would leave the ground....EVER.

[ramprat]

If that were true I could just imagine him trying to get through a preflight. He'd have the entire wing grounded in one morning and niether of you would leave the ground....EVER.
Training bomber combat crews (sac) ::
Thunder storms over/near target area on radar bomb scoring training missions
some pilots would stick a pencil erased into fuel cell cavity drains and boost
pump drains and say "hey chief do you smell anything on this " ,, (wishing for
a trace of a leak ) .I would just stare at him saying nothing ..Or they would
pull the wiggins quick disconnect loose on the ejection seat (comm connection)
hoping for a delay. Too stupid to see that i had copper saftied the connector so
it was obvious what he had done .

[EJL72281]

This guy is a clasic example of a crappy mechanic who cant cut it in the MX world. He tried to hide his shortfalls with blaming everyone else. Your damn right we play by our own rules in MX, there are certain people who know what there doing and the others are just along for the ride. He needed to be retrained into something a little more sensitive to his childish needs. Its the truth your liked by your own or ate by your own and not everyone can handle it!!!

[TheShaggy]

This guy is a clasic example of a crappy mechanic who cant cut it in the MX world. He tried to hide his shortfalls with blaming everyone else. Your damn right we play by our own rules in MX, there are certain people who know what there doing and the others are just along for the ride. He needed to be retrained into something a little more sensitive to his childish needs. Its the truth your liked by your own or ate by your own and not everyone can handle it!!!

So by play by your own rules you mean to use epoxy in place of a screw or take short cuts that shouldn't be taken? If you ask me I want this guy working on the planes that I fly on. The guy called out people for doing things wrong and he got punished for it. If that's the way the rules are in MX else where, I would be scared to get on a USAF aircraft outside of my own wing.

[AF-1Sgt]

This guy was not worth 14 pages of comments. The AF did right in showing him the brighter side of civilian life.

[KAsdrgl43ver]

I happen to have known Lucero well when he was in the Air Force. He was a good/honest God fearing guy who wouldn't even say a swear word- even when everyone around him swore all the time. He believed in doing the right thing- no matter the consequences. I know enough about his situation to realize who a lot of the people that have posted on here are; by what they have said.

A lot of the people posting negatively on his forum were a part of the Good Old Boy's club that had it out for him from the beginning. Colonel Crosby (Retired) was the only one to put his name on here. Lucero's prior commander Petito seems to be posting on here. Boy doe he seem mad. Guess you can't sign your name to something if you still active duty. To afraid of getting in trouble. Savoy, I see you on here too. You seem like an angry little man. I listened to Lucero talk to me about this situation for almost two years before he got out of the Air Force with an Honorable Discharge. I wasn't his friend- just someone who saw everything and listened. He showed me all of his documents supporting this case. I have to say as a neutral bystander observing everything I definitely see how Lucero was wronged. This all started because Lucero grounded planes because they needed repairs. He was doing his job. He was ordered not to put red x's on anything by his supervision and told he could only use dashes. When he grounded a plane someone fixed it with a crowbar and signed it off to fly.

The IG said there was no such thing as a TO and that he was blowing smoke up his arse. His supervisors would say things to him and then when questioned they would lie about what they had said. That is when he started using that recorder. He was given an article 15 because they took his tape recorder. He went into the room where they were holding it and someone told him to get out. He asked for his recorder back and was immediately removed physically before a verbal response could be given. He showed me the bruises he had on his arm from being physically slammed out of the room. A couple months (Yes, months) later he was court marshaled from disobeying an order. Why did it take months for them to decide to give him an article 15????? Someone had an epiphany and though "Wow, that is how we can get rid of him." Then Lucero hired a civilian lawyer because the military appointed one pretty much told him he didn't have a chance in fighting the article 15 and made him sign a paper saying that he understood he was going against their council by fighting it. I would find myself another lawyer if mine said that too. So 5000 dollars later he had a lawyer that would fight for him. The DAY before the court marshal he was commanded by Petito to go get a mental health evaluation. The Doctor told him she could word the report one of two ways. She could say he was not compatible with the military anymore so he could get out and not have to deal with this stuff anymore or she could recommend him for another job.

They then dropped the court marshal and tried to get him out based on being obsessive compulsive. The doctor told him he was obsessive compulsive because he would not drop the issue of bad maintenance. There are a lot of other things that make a person have OCD. This man was not a clean freak by any means! I saw his truck. Lucero flew to Anchorage and had another (1 plus one is two, not three Petito) medical evaluation by a military Doc. This doc said he was great in the Air Force but not in his current job. She said he would be better suited for a detail oriented job. (I guess we don't have to be detail oriented when working on multimillion dollar jets. After all, the pilots have an ejection button they can push, and tax payers can suck up the rest.) Lucero went to a well respected civilian doctor to get another evaluation. This doctor said he was not OCD. I read the report. The doctor said that if he had OCD it would be evident in every facet of Lucero's life. The military doctors based it off of his refusal to drop bad maintenance. Lucero asked for a medical board after gathering all of this information. After a few months they never gave him a medical board, but they dropped the discharge. His supervisors told him they would find a way to get him out of the Air Force- no matter what.

He was given a no contact order with the chain of command. He had to jump the chain of command because he had a no contact order wither everyone between the commander and the General. So he had to go from the commander to the General. The General would not meet with him. That left him with congressional inquiries. The IG was part of the good old boy club- they didn't even report that reprisal allegations had been made to the DOD- which is something the IG is supposed to do. So Petito- don't get your panties in a wad because they brought in a Colonel with some integrity to make an unbiased report. If the Colonel who has done this report had found Lucero to be in the wrong you would not be insulting the innocent unbiased person that had to spend months working on some case because he was ordered to. I also heard that when he was done with the report he had to submit it to the local IG. The IG on Eielson made him edit his report and take findings out, etc.... Now I understand there is a very high level person that works for the DOD investigating. This investigator found the same thing the Colonel on Eielson did- plus more. Do you have something bad to say about that person as well?

Lucero, if you are reading these posts I suggest you make a website and post your recordings, EPRs, etc.... so these people can see the truth. They finally got this guy out by denying him reenlistment- after almost two years of threatening. The General denied him reenlistment because his new commander wouldn’t. He went from a five EPR to a one. People getting kicked out for drugs and stuff get twos and threes. This was obvious reprisal. Just as you people are getting mean and personal on here- that is what happened to this guy when he was in the Air Force. You got personal. He disrupted the Good Old Boys Club and you had to get him out or make him pay. I was once told not to base my opinion of the military on Eielson AFB. If Eielson had been my first base I would not have thought as highly as I do of the Air Force. You people are giving the Air Force a bad name.

Eileson is not the only base where the "Good Ole Boy Club" is alive and well. I've been experiencing it for 4 years at Barksdale AFB, LA. I'm glad you wrote this and you're willing to stand up for a fellow airman wronged by the present powers that be. I salute you.