Dozens asked for leniency in Gurney’s sentence - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

Dozens asked for leniency in Gurney’s sentence

Airman William Gurney operated within powerful circles during his 26-year career. He was a rising star in the military intelligence community and landed one of the highest-profile jobs for an enlisted airman: command chief of Air Force Materiel Command.

Skill, personality and a good work ethic helped Gurney make influential friends, from four-star generals to other command chiefs. And those acquaintances helped Gurney when he faced the prospect of 20 months behind bars and a dishonorable discharge for 15 sex-related crimes, including adultery, indecent conduct and maltreating junior enlisted airmen.

Gurney began his nearly two-year prison sentence Jan. 28, just hours after a jury of officers found him guilty of two specifications. He had pleaded guilty to 13 counts on the opening day of his weeklong court-martial at Scott Air Force Base, Ill.

More than 40 people wrote to Lt. Gen. Robert Allardice, commander of 18th Air Force and convening authority in the case, seeking leniency for their associate. Most pointed out the financial and emotional hardship his family faced. Others argued the punishment was too harsh.

The letters came from men and women, civilians and military members, officers and enlisted airmen, active duty and retired, colleagues and friends. The director of the National Reconnaissance Office considered Gurney and his wife “close personal friends.” The commander of Air Force Materiel Command drew a parallel between the sentence and a debtors’ prison. And the command chiefs of three major commands lobbied for Gurney to keep his retirement benefits.

Allardice was apparently swayed by the arguments. In April, he cut 16 months off Gurney’s sentence and reversed the dishonorable discharge. Less than a month later, on May 5, Gurney left Naval Consolidated Brig Charleston, S.C.; he remains in the service on appellate leave status while the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals considers his case.

Barring a successful appeal, Gurney will leave the Air Force as an airman basic and under a bad-conduct discharge, which makes him ineligible for retirement benefits.

Air Force Times obtained copies of the clemency letters through a Freedom of Information Act request. The release did not include any statement from Allardice explaining his rationale for granting clemency; the recommendation from his staff judge advocate, which was withheld because of the appeal; or any documents from the prosecution.

Allardice, who will soon become vice commander of Air Mobility Command, declined to be interviewed by Air Force Times.

“General Allardice reviewed the case, all related materials (including materials submitted by the accused and his counsel in clemency) and exercised his independent judgment in deciding on the disposition,” an 18th Air Force spokesman said in a statement. “In his judgment, this decision was proper.”

Calls to Gurney’s home near Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, went unanswered. Maj. Kristin McCall, Gurney’s defense counsel who filed the clemency request, did not respond to an email seeking comment. The prosecution also did not respond to an email seeking comment.

In his own words

Gurney wrote a five-page letter on his own behalf, imploring Allardice to reduce his sentence to time served and allow him to retire at a rank that would take “into consideration my entire Air Force career.”

He admitted his actions were wrong and said he pleaded guilty to the 13 charges because the charges were accurate and he wanted to confess.

Gurney and his wife, Tracie, met weekly with the AFMC command chaplain for the 14 months leading up to the court-martial, he wrote. During those sessions, Gurney told Allardice, he “identified the root causes of my behavioral aberration, made necessary corrections, sought forgiveness and reconciliation for all the hurt my actions caused and put our lives back on track.”

Though Gurney expected he would be punished, he did not expect to serve nearly two years in prison or be dishonorably discharged — a sentence he described in his letter as “exceptionally severe” and particularly difficult financially for his loved ones.

“By stripping me of all pay and allowance[s], my family is left to scramble on less than 20 percent of the income we once enjoyed, exacerbated by the fact I’m confined for a lengthy period of time with no opportunity to contribute to the household income or provide emotional support,” he wrote.

“In essence, it’s not just me being held hostage by this decision, but my wife and two daughters as well,” he said.

“It’s as if a Daisy Cutter was used to take out a tactical target for little or no regard for collateral damage when a Smart Bomb would have been far more appropriate and equally effective,” he added later.

The purpose of confinement, Gurney wrote, is to return an offender “to society as a productive member,” something he had already become through the counseling sessions.

“Clearly, in my particular case, the goal of confinement isn’t so much to rehabilitate,” he wrote, “but rather it’s to punish and/or make a political statement.”

Gurney emphasized every affair was consensual. He was acquitted of charges of trying to use his influence to arrange a temporary-duty assignment for a technical sergeant and a transfer for a senior airman, as well as groping a senior airman against her will.

“There was no aggravated offenses, no coercion, no threats, no promises, no misuse of position, no expectations and none of the adjudged offenses indicate anything otherwise,” he wrote of the affairs, which occurred in the last few years of his service.

He also blamed the high-profile nature of the trial for the severity of his sentence, contending the Air Force turned it into “the crime of the century.”

“As a result, the jury was clearly angry, and I won’t argue they didn’t have every right to be,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, anger has no place in a sentencing deliberation room, yet it was clear it weighed heavily in the sentencing decision of this particular jury.”

Four-star compassion

Gurney’s last two bosses at AFMC — both four-star generals — rallied to his defense.

Bruce Carlson was in command of AFMC in 2006 when he met Gurney, then the command chief of the Ogden Air Logistics Center in Utah. He later hired Gurney for AFMC’s top enlisted job, and their two families have become close.

Carlson, now the director of the National Reconnaissance Office, told Allardice he believes Gurney understands the nature of his actions and is working to rectify his mistakes. He said the reduction in rank and loss of benefits “may be deserving” but argued Gurney’s prison sentence was “incredibly extreme and way out of the norm.”

The sentence also “seems to violate the Air Force’s concept of confinement: it serves to rehabilitate confinees,” Carlson wrote.

“Bill has fully acknowledged his guilt, has publicly apologized and has made dramatic steps toward rehabilitation,” he said. “In order for him to continue and complete that process, he needs to return to his family.”

Gen. Donald Hoffman, the current AFMC commander, asked Allardice to consider the impact of the sentence on Gurney’s wife and children.

“In short, [Gurney] should be held accountable for his actions,” he wrote. “However, as you decide on what sentence to approve, I would ask you consider the impact the approved sentence will have on CMSgt Gurney’s family. Unlike debtor prisons of the past where family members were called to atone for debts of their loved ones, CMSgt Gurney’s family should not be held accountable for his actions.”

Lt. Gen. Janet Wolfenbarger, AFMC’s vice commander, expressed concern that “our judicial system, in levying a dishonorable discharge, does not allow for any mitigation of the complete loss of pay, allowances and future benefits.”

“One such mitigation would be a recognition of the honorable service by CMSgt Gurney over the majority of his career prior to this timeframe,” she wrote.

Hoffman did not respond to an email seeking comment about his letter. An AFMC spokesman, however, told Air Force Times the command sought to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest throughout the case, including transferring the case to Scott Air Force Base.

“As his clemency statement [letter] states, he did not recommend modifying the sentence handed down by the convening authority,” spokesman Ron Fry wrote in an email. “Gen. Hoffman emphasized that AB Gurney should be held accountable for his actions. He only asked that the case be handled consistent with other similar cases and that potential impact on the Gurney family be considered.”

‘Shot in the back’

Several of Gurney’s supporters told Allardice they believed Gurney was unfairly targeted because he is an enlisted airman. Officers caught in similar circumstances, they argued, get a pass.

Brian Wygle retired in 2001 as a chief master sergeant and never met Gurney but decided to write because he believed the sentence was “way out of balance when compared to how other high-profile Air Force cases involving sexual misconduct were processed.”

“I personally worked on two child molesting courts-martial cases, helping prosecute one and defend one, where the accused were found guilty, and neither was punished as severely as Gurney,” wrote Wygle, who was the command paralegal manager for the Air Force Legal Services Agency when he retired.

Chief Master Sgt. Michael Gilbert, who until last year served as the command chief of Air Force Special Operations Command, named general officers who were allowed to retire after allegations of infidelity surfaced. He called the sentence a “stunningly clear injustice.”

“Compared to any other senior leader in our Air Force going back six decades,” Gilbert wrote, “Bill Gurney was shot in the back.”

Brig. Gen. Scott Chambers, Gurney’s commander at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, remembered more than 10 chief master sergeants who were allowed to retire when it became evident they committed a crime. Officers in a similar circumstance probably would receive a reduction of one paygrade, a fine, a letter of reprimand and a forced retirement, he told Allardice.

Gurney’s sentence would send the message to the enlisted ranks that the service will “chop off the head of one of our enlisted leaders and, in effect, thrust his dedicated AF family members into a dark financial and emotional hole where they literally have to beg for support just to survive!” wrote Chambers, who was relieved of his command at the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support in Philadelphia in December over repeated personal misconduct.

“Have we ever done so for even one of our senior officers that had a dozen affairs?” wrote Chambers, who retired July 1.

Peer support

Twelve active or retired chief master sergeants stood up for Gurney, including a retired chief master sergeant of the Air Force and the command chiefs for Air Combat Command, Air Force Materiel Command and Pacific Air Forces.

Chief Master Sgt. Brooke McLean, the top enlisted airman in PACAF, supported the Air Force’s decision to court-martial Gurney because the case required transparency and accountability. He questioned, though, the fairness of the sentence.

“I didn’t know Bill well but I was surprised to hear about the depth of his deception and depravity,” McLean wrote. “He decided to do what we expect the lowest-ranking person in uniform to do: admit when you have done something wrong and get on the right path. Bill Gurney did the right thing, but did we sentence him correctly?”

McLean suggested reinstating Gurney’s retirement benefits and restoring his rank to senior master sergeant, actions that would avert “an extremely harsh precedent ... being set.”

Chief Master Sgt. Martin Klukas of ACC has known Gurney for more than six years and was a neighbor of his at Hill. He suggested Gurney should be released from prison and allowed to retire with some benefits, though he ruled out allowing the former chief to retire at a grade of master sergeant or higher.

“I do not think the jury took into consideration the 24+ years of faithful and honorable service or the 14 months AB Gurney and his family spent being ostracized prior to the trial. … This is ‘punishment’ by any measure!” Klukas wrote.

Chief Master Sgt. Eric Jaren, Gurney’s successor as AFMC command chief, also asked for Gurney to be released early and given retirement benefits.

“AB Gurney’s first 25 years of service should not go unnoticed,” Jaren wrote. “An offer of mercy will also help him support his family, who have also given the better part of their life in service [to] the Air Force.”

Robert Gaylor, the fifth chief master sergeant of the Air Force, appealed on behalf of the family and staunchly defended his friend of more than a decade.

“Knowing Bill as I do, he lost control of his honor and integrity. I am convinced that all along, he knew that he was wrong in what he was doing but didn’t know how to turn it off,” wrote Gaylor, who retired in 1979. “Over time, his misconduct snowballed until it became too big to be kept secret.”