Former Materiel Command chief faces Article 32 - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

Former Materiel Command chief faces Article 32

The command chief of Air Force Materiel Command, fired last fall without explanation, is facing 18 sex-related criminal counts stemming from allegations involving 10 female airmen.

Chief Master Sgt. William Gurney has been charged with two counts of indecent conduct and wrongful sexual contact, seven counts of adultery and misuse of official position, two counts of maltreatment, and seven counts of failure to obey an order or regulation and dereliction of duty, said Ron Fry, an AFMC spokesman.

An Article 32 has been scheduled for May 26 at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, headquarters location of Materiel Command.

The Air Force Office of Special Investigations began investigating Gurney in November after a female senior airman complained of being sexually harassed. AFMC Commander Gen. Donald Hoffman relieved Gurney of his role as command chief Nov. 13 and assigned him to a desk job at Wright-Patterson.

Gurney did not return a telephone call to his home on the base, nor did he respond to an e-mail sent to his Air Force account. Gurney’s lawyer, Capt. Kristin McCall, did not return two telephone calls by press time. Fry said Hoffman would not comment on the matter.

The specifics

The charge sheet — a document used by law enforcement officials to give details of alleged crimes — states that Gurney had extramarital affairs as well as “unprofessional relationships” with the 10 female airmen, who are not identified. The affairs and relationships date back to June 1, 2007.

The female airmen rank from senior airman to master sergeant. The senior airman who made the first accusation is one of two senior airmen listed as victims. The number of victims in the other grades: three technical sergeants, three master sergeants and two staff sergeants.

According to the charge sheet, Gurney, who is married, had sex with two of the technical sergeants, also married, and two of the master sergeants, also married. He also is accused of having sex in the presence of another master sergeant.

Gurney, the charge sheet states, repeatedly touched the “breasts and buttocks” of one senior airman without her permission and repeatedly made offensive sexual comments and sent “semi-nude images” of himself to her.

From July 1, 2009, to Nov. 13, 2009, Gurney is accused of “attempting to influence Air Force personnel” to move the senior airman to Wright-Patterson.

Gurney also tried to influence Air Force personnel to move the other senior airman to a position at AFMC headquarters, the charge sheet states. The document does not specify where she would have been moving from.

Gurney also repeatedly sent phone messages of semi-nude photos of himself to one of the technical sergeants he had sex with, according to the charge sheet. He asked her to “send pictures of her breasts … participate in a sexual threesome, and … spend time with him while he was on temporary duty at her location,” the document states.

As the AFMC command chief, he tried to use his position to send the technical sergeant on a temporary duty assignment in the fall of 2008, according to the charge sheet.

The final count of failure to obey an order or regulation and dereliction of duty on the charge sheet refers to Gurney’s “wrongful” use of his office computer, government-issued cell phone and Air Force e-mail account from Jan. 1, 2008, to Nov. 13, 2009.

What’s next

Gurney’s case is being adjudicated by Col. Gary P. Goldstone, commander of the 375th Air Mobility Wing. Hoffman requested the case be transferred to another major command because he had directly supervised Gurney as command chief.

Air Mobility announced Friday that the Air Force would proceed with an Article 32 hearing, which is similar to a civilian grand jury in which witnesses are called and evidence is reviewed. Unlike a grand jury proceeding, a service member facing charges has the right to attend the Article 32 and be represented by an attorney.

Following the Article 32, Goldstone can decide whether to dismiss the charges or proceed with a general court-martial, a special court-martial or an administrative punishment such as an Article 15.

Gurney had been AFMC’s command chief since 2008. He was replaced Jan. 12 by Chief Master Sgt. Eric R. Jaren.

Before his AFMC assignment, Gurney had mostly intelligence assignments. He entered the service in 1983 as a printer systems operator and non-Morse signals analyst. His last assignment, from 2006 to 2008, was command chief of the Ogden Air Logistics Center and 75th Air Base Wing at Hill Air Force Base, Utah.

Airmen at the Ogden Air Logistics Center mistakenly shipped four Minuteman III nose cones to Taiwan during Gurney’s tenure. The nose cones remained in Taiwanese control for 17 months.

The incident in part led Defense Secretary Robert Gates to force the resignations of the Air Force’s two top officials, Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley.

THE CHARGES

Chief Master Sgt. William Gurney faces 18 charges alleging inappropriate conduct involving two senior airmen, two staff sergeants, three technical sergeants and three master sergeants. One of the charges involves misusing his government computer, cell phone and e-mail account.

The charges as they relate to each airman, whose identities were not released by the Air Force:

Senior airman 1

— Engaged in sexual contact with a senior airman by touching her breasts and buttocks without her permission.

— Maltreated a senior airman subject to his orders by making deliberate and repeated offensive comments of a sexual nature, by sending her semi-nude images of himself and by pursuing a personal and sexual relationship with her.

— Attempted to influence Air Force personnel to assign a senior airman to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, while he was pursuing a personal and unprofessional relationship with the senior airman.

Senior airman 2

— Maltreated a senior airman subject to his orders by making deliberate and repeated comments of a sexual nature to her and by pursuing a personal and sexual relationship with her.

— Attempted to influence Air Force personnel to move a senior airman to a position at Air Force Material Command headquarters while he was pursuing a personal and unprofessional relationship with the senior airman.

Staff sergeant 1

— Failed to maintain a professional relationship with a staff sergeant.

Staff sergeant 2

— Failed to maintain a professional relationship with a staff sergeant.

Technical sergeant 1

— Failed to maintain a professional relationship with a technical sergeant by repeatedly sending her sexually explicit text messages that included semi-nude images of himself.

— Had sexual intercourse with a married technical sergeant who was not his wife.

— Attempted to influence Air Force personnel to send a technical sergeant on a temporary duty assignment while he was pursuing a personal and unprofessional relationship with the technical sergeant.

Technical sergeant 2

— Had sexual intercourse with a married technical sergeant who was not his wife.

Technical sergeant 3

— Failed to maintain a professional relationship with a technical sergeant.

Master sergeant 1

— Engaged in sexual acts with someone in the presence of a master sergeant.

— Had sexual intercourse with a married master sergeant who was not his wife.

Master sergeant 2

— Failed to maintain a professional relationship with a master sergeant.

— Had sexual intercourse with a married master sergeant who was not his wife.

Master sergeant 3

— Failed to maintain a professional relationship with a master sergeant.

Source: Air Force