March 20, 2005
Archive
On March 9, nine days after the
Guam National Guard: Serious Void in Leadership Investigative Report was
published on this WebSite [February 28, 2005] Col
Jerry Rivera, acting Adjutant General of the Guam National Guard, sent a response via email dated March 1, 2005. Rivera addresses
personnel matters related to LtCol Mark Calvo's accusation of fraud, waste and
abuse of authority of he and Col Dennis Santo Tomas, Chief of Joint Staff at the
Guam National Guard; something he refused to do on numerous occasions, declining
to be interviewed on such matters despite the persistence and insistence of this
writer to present his side of the story. In his response, Rivera attacks this writer's
creditability and ability to discern the facts delivered in the Report, all of
which is supported by documents that were obtained through the Freedom of
Information Act, source testimonies, including but not limited to former
Adjutant General, Brigadier General Robert M. Cockey.
|
|
The following is Col Jerry M. Rivera's
unedited response sent via email.
JOINT FORCES
HEADQUARTERS
GUAM NATIONAL GUARD
OFFICE OF THE
ADJUTANT GENERAL
March 01, 2005
RESPONSE TO RLENE STEFFY’S FEB. 28, 2005 WEBSITE
ARTICLE: GUAM NATIONAL GUARD: SERIOUS VOID IN LEADERSHIP
I, COL (P) Jerry M. Rivera, the Acting Adjutant General of
the Guam National Guard, hereby make the following responses to Ms. Rlene
Steffy’s many incorrect and misleading statements which she has asserted on her
web page.
1. Re LTC Mark Calvo’s allegations of fraud, waste, and
abuse of authority by me and COL Dennis Santo Tomas. If LTC Calvo believes
this to be true, he is welcome to pursue the matter with the Army Inspector
General, Army Criminal Investigations Division (CID), and the DOD Inspector
General Hotline. He also may use the command’s own Inspector General, who is an
Army active duty LTC assigned here. I have had my Staff Judge Advocate (a
Colonel) review LTC Calvo’s allegations and he has found them to be without
basis. I believe LTC Calvo has not pursued his claims outside of the press
because he perceives he will receive no gain from using DOD and Army resources.
2. Re a “serious void in leadership” because the Joint
Chief of Staff, COL Dennis Santo Tomas and Acting Adjutant General, COL Jerry
Rivera “have actively engaged in the removal of individuals that will not swear
loyalty to Rivera’s leadership.” Not one individual has been removed for
not swearing loyalty. All new TAG’s are expected to make transfers of
individuals whom he feels will meet his philosophies of leadership and will
provide more efficient and productive results for the overall good of the
organization as a whole. The former J-3 (Joint Director of Plans, Operations,
and Training) was transferred to allow a senior Major to succeed him for two
major reasons: The former J-3 had been in that pressure position for almost
four (4) years. He held that position during two super-typhoon recovery
operations, during post-911 force protection operations, during
four Training Years and four Annual Trainings, and during mobilization of Alpha
Company for the Horn of Africa. I felt it was time to move this officer to a
less-pressurized position, considering the fact that he had earned that right
until his expected retirement in less than a year. I wanted the new J-3 who has
been DA (Department of the Army) Board-selected for promotion to Lieutenant
Colonel to transition with the more experienced former J-3 while he was still in
the organization. The new J-3 could be gaining his own experience while the old
J-3 was still physically present. As for Lieutenant Colonel Mark Calvo,
he was not transferred, fired, or removed for any reason. He voluntarily
resigned because he was evidently unhappy. Apparently, he disliked both me and
COL. Santo Tomas and he felt he could not work with us.
3. Re allegations that “promotions have been delayed or
requests for travel or training or assignments have been denied or delayed…”
There is no evidence whatsoever to support these allegations. Two senior
captains who were DA Board selected for Major were promoted WITHIN TWO MONTHS
AFTER I TOOK OVER AS TAG. If any, the delay was not caused by anyone acting
with intent to delay. The delay was due to the lack of controlled grades.
Controlled grades are handled exclusively by NGB. When controlled grades become
available, promotion packets are submitted by our Headquarters and NGB then
publishes Federal Recognition promotion orders for the officers being promoted.
In this case, both officers were promoted by the Department of the Army and were
only awaiting the availability of controlled grades, which were officially
received by this command around mid November 2004. In fact, under my command, an
historic precedent has been made. For the first time in the history of the Guam
National Guard, we promoted five (5) female Master Sergeants E-8: four in the
Army Guard and one in the Air Guard.
4. Re “the lack of confidence in the TAG, and his
inability to communicate with his officers has resulted in what has been
characterized as an implosion in the troops.”
This underwhelming conclusion has likely been proffered to
Ms. Steffy by a mini-minority of vocal officers who do not, and have not, cared
for me and COL Santo Tomas. They appear to be members of a “clique” which I
have included in my Guam National Guard “TWELVE PHILOSOPHIES OF LEADERSHIP” as
being defined as being inherently dangerous to fairness in our organization. I
have communicated very clearly that I stand for “fairness, equality, and for
doing the right thing”. The Guam National Guard’s morale is HIGH. One
only has to speak to a wide cross section of our Soldiers and Airmen to come to
this conclusion. Ms. Steffy has apparently talked only to those very few
dissidents, and stayed away from talking to anyone else who does not share this
opinion.
5. Re the Selective Retention Review Board: This
Management tool is in Regulations for a reason: It is a management tool and not
a tool for firing people or for creating a “Hit List”. There is a
Selective Retention Program specified in ANGI 36-2606. The Acting Adjutant
General and COL Dennis Santo Tomas did not draft these regulations. The
National Guard Bureau did. The Army also holds a SRRB for the same reasons. It
is incorrect to state that the Air National Guard has never had a SRRB until
now. An Air National Guard SRRB was held during former TAG Benny Paulino’s
command and all listed Airmen were retained by the Board. The reason an SRRB is
being considered again is because the Guam National Guard is now about 23 years
in existence. There are a small number of Soldiers and Airmen who are
approaching mandatory retirement age and who are holding positions/ ranks/
grades that other deserving Soldiers and Airmen may possibly fill and get
promoted in. The National Guard is not like Active Duty where all one has to do
to get promoted upon selection and qualification is fill a position currently
available at his home station or PCS (Permanent Change of Station) to another
unit where a position calling for that rank is available. That is why AGR
positions are usually limited to 22 years. Anything beyond that is subject to
NGB or Secretary of the Army approval. This is only practiced under unusual
circumstances. For example, if there is no other qualified person available and
that person is critical to the mission of the organization, this is an unusual
circumstance. There is no SRRB “target” list of individuals. Interestingly
enough, Ms. Steffy include’s Lt Col Frank Leon Guerrero as being one of the
individual’s “targeted.” Lt Col Leon Guerrero is the AAG-Air, who would assist
me in convening the board. Why would he “target” himself? This is another
example of the shoddy detail of this website content. If Ms. Steffy had
actually read the Air Force regulation, she would see that the whole process is
actually a very benign one.
6. Re Mandatory Retirement: Rlene states that on
September 30, 2004, then J-l (Director of Personnel), MAJ Jesse R. Pendon
indicated that I was already past my Mandatory Removal Date (MRD). This is
erroneous. In the position of Assistant Adjutant General, my MRD is not until
February 2, 2006. Brig Gen Cockey had no authority to retire me from the
AAG-Army position. This position is founded and grounded in Guam law. I would
have hoped she would read the law before she came to this very incorrect
conclusion.
7. Re revocation of retirement orders: Retirement
orders erroneously done and not yet inputted into SIDPERS (an Army database) can
be revoked. NGB was notified of our revocation action and it was accepted.
Revocation is a perfectly legal action if done in a timely manner. NGB would
not have approved my appointment by the Governor and continued my membership in
the Guam National Guard if I was already retired. Also, COL Santo Tomas did not
order Rescheduled Training (RST) “orders” for my make-up drills. RST does not
require “orders” to be performed. I performed a MUTA 4 drill in October 2004
(Sat and Sun) and even participated in a 5-mile Road March with a 35-lb rucksack
on Saturday morning. There are many witnesses to my participation. On Sunday,
I appeared at the Guam International Airport in uniform to say “good-bye” to
departing deployed troops. I was later ordered by then TAG Brig.Gen. Cockey to
"go home." Therefore, I only missed the November 2004 drill. When I was
appointed Acting TAG by the Governor that month, I performed four (4) days of
RST (two separate weekends) to make up even for the month of October during
which I had already performed drill to preclude any questions about my
performance. It should be pointed out that missed drills can be made up by
any Guardsman BEFORE OR AFTER a drill. This allows a Guardsman who will be
absent at a drill for a good reason to make up for that missed drill so he can
have a good retirement year.
8. Re “BG Robert Cockey believed there was a coordinated
effort within the Guard to remove him as TAG once he was no longer willing to
follow Santo Tomas’ demands”…there was no order available from the Governor
regarding a reversal of Rivera’s retirement..” This matter is something
that BG Cockey should address, and not me. I cannot speak for BG Cockey nor do
I have any information on what his perspective is on his removal. As for COL
Santo Tomas, he is the Chief of Staff of the Army Guard and worked under BG
Cockey. Any disagreements between the two were evidently resolved when BG
Cockey was removed. What more is there to say? Again, neither I nor COL Santo
Tomas can address the position BG Cockey takes on this, because neither of us
know what he is thinking.
9. Re Federal Recognition: Rlene seems to imply that I do not
have a certificate of eligibility for promotion
to Brigadier General. The Secretary of Defense submitted my name for
nomination to Brigadier General to President Bush in late July 2003. The
President submitted my nomination to the U.S. Senate on July 31st,
2003 and the U.S. Senate confirmed my nomination to Brigadier General on July
21, 2004. This action automatically placed me on a certificate of eligibility
and upon confirmation as TAG, my promotion orders to Brigadier General will
follow. Again, this is simply an inaccurate statement which confounds me to no
end.
///SIGNED///
JERRY M. RIVERA
|
.jpg)