GovernmentExecutive.com

The Pentagon inspector general's investigation into the Air Force's deal to lease aerial refueling tankers from Boeing contains scores of redactions that shield from blame Defense Department personnel who worked on the now-defunct contract, several sources familiar with the report said Monday.

The report, to be released Tuesday, implicates more than a half-dozen senior Pentagon officials in wrongdoing surrounding the deal, but strikes the names of many other, more mid-level acquisition personnel. The administration also scrubbed other text to safeguard proprietary and competition-sensitive information.

"There are lots and lots of redactions," said a source who read the closely held report.

Keith Ashdown, vice president for policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said he could understand why the Pentagon would withhold the identities of mid-level employees, who might not have been aware of the full situation. However, he also is wary of what he sees as a trend within the Bush administration to be "overly secretive."

"Somebody from Sharpie [Permanent Markers] is profiting handsomely from [the administration's] policy on redaction," said Ashdown, who has monitored the tanker deal and other defense issues.

But despite the many redactions, the report is "absolutely devastating" to the Air Force, the source said. It "weaves a very cohesive cloth" that "brings together into one place all the various studies and findings."

The release of the IG report culminates more than three years of government reviews and investigations into the $23.5 billion deal, considered the biggest Pentagon procurement scandal in more than two decades.

Already, the lease deal has forced the resignation of Air Force Secretary James Roche and the indictment and conviction of two top Boeing executives, Darleen Druyun and Michael Sears.

A former acquisition official who left the Air Force for the high-paying corporate job, Druyun is serving nine months in jail after she admitted accepting Boeing's inflated prices for the tankers. Meanwhile, Sears, Boeing's former chief financial officer, was sentenced in February to four months for violating federal conflict-of-interest laws.

The 250-plus-page IG report names a handful of other officials, including Air Force Chief of Staff John Jumper, acting Pentagon acquisition chief Michael Wynne and his predecessor, Edward (Pete) Aldridge. The source said the report pins most of the blame for the scandal on two officials, but declined to name them.

However, the source said the language in the report is so strong it will "provide a lot of leverage for people who want to make changes in the acquisition process."

Investigations into the tanker bill -- championed by Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz. -- already have helped galvanize lawmakers to overhaul how the Pentagon buys its weapons.

Both the House and Senate Armed Services committees devoted pages to that issue in their reports on the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill, passed in both chambers last month. While both bodies approach change differently, both zero in on major weapons systems.

The report's release coincides with what is expected to be a heated Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, which will include testimony from acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, Wynne and Jumper, among other senior Pentagon leaders.

COMMENTS

• Charlie, Your notes are based on pure defeatism. And I would argue they approach un-Americanism. Worse, such defeatist perceptions play directly into the hands of and benefit those that preach about change (or status quo) for the org's/public's good but are in fact acting for their own self-interests and/or for those that buy into (and oftentimes do so merely for opportunistic reasons) an organization's group-think based reasoning on org topic/policy a, b or c. And although as a committed federal change agent I could not shine these monumental figures shoes, including Dr. Martin Luther King, President Lech Welesa, President Nelson Mandela, or that fellow who challenged (and STOPPED!) that tank in Tianamen Square, the principle of challenging status quo for substantive reasons that rise above mere self-interest remains the hallmark of what genuine leadership is all about. And change, Charlie, positive change, can and DOES come from all levels of an organization, or should I say at least in organizations that have genuine leaders who can and do strive to make a difference in their lives and careers. Do you, Charlie, believe in or even understand the Boy Scout's motto of leaving a place (i.e., the proverbial campsite) better than it was found upon arrival?? But I have a strong suspicion that these comments, principles and things that are above self may be falling upon long ago blinded eyes. Michael J. Smith, M.P.A., Alumni, Presidential Management Fellowship Program, Class of 1993, and a 12+ year journeyman marine pipefitter in the shipyard industry before that, and a 5-year enlisted Navy veteran before that! Michael J. Smith Posted June 27, 2005 6:31 PM
• Stuck, I can appreciate the position you find yourself in, however, you will never change the system no matter how hard you try. Government employees join unions and think they are being helped. What is going on right now shows you that the power of government will override any union or organization that attempts to defy them. The reason is simple. The powers to be in the adminstrative structure such as OPM, are all in bed with those above them who make the decisions. Further, DOD is so huge that it is unable to clean its own house up. The government is loaded with self-serving crooks in the upper echelon that it is impossible to get around them because one appoints the other. It is much like snakes in a barrel if you get thrown in, you pray they all won't bite but really it only takes one. That is what you have in government. I feel for you, but you are facing a losing battle until you get a congress that is sympathetic to your situation. Charlie Posted June 24, 2005 6:29 PM
• Charlie, I am so old that I am stuck or I would leave in a second! You cannot understand how unhappy many people are who are non-military civilians in DoD operations. Civilian jobs are going to military retirees abd people are being promoted in the civilian ranks based on their military connections not their abilities! I spend most of my working life in the private sector and thought it would be nice to give some abilities to the government - boy was that a mistake! The recruiters lied to me about the job and have shifted the responsibilities at will so that I do nothing I was hired to do but provide more brain power and work than people many grades above me. for the most part, the military managers are really bad but at least we get a new one every two years! One year I had 6 bosses and none of them ever knew what I did or was supposed to do. Their major interest is in getting a well written OPR so they can advance their military careers and that does not come from working with civilian employees! I think if Congress took all the OPRs and added up the savings they mention, we wouold not have to spend a penny on the military because they have saved enough to be self sufficient! What a crock! Also, if you retired from the military and work for the post office you have never seen a string of outstanding managers that have to compete. You probably saw some vary unhappy employees in the military as the enlisted shot the officers that were so bad they risked others' lives (we just had a case of that in Iraq that was made public-it happened all the time in Vietnam and during WWII). So I think you are overstating your case and just venting when you tell the guys to leave! I think it is far better that they stay and keep trying to change the system rather than running away - remember love it or leave it! Love it or leave it is now called pay for performance in DoD. Stuck Posted June 21, 2005 7:13 AM