Sixty days ago, the Air Force said it would give “appropriate consideration” to allegations that the Air Force Academy’s dean of faculty ordered a campaign against a religious freedom watchdog group and then lied about it during a deposition.
And low and behold the organization in question — the Military Religious Freedom Foundation — wants to know what the Air Force has found since it began it’s considering.
The foundation has pressed the Air Force to investigate allegations that Brig. Gen. Dana Born directed a subordinate, in writing, to launch a campaign against the watchdog group and then denied it during a deposition taken in December.
The deposition was taken as part of an ongoing Equal Employment Opportunity case filed by former Air Force Academy economics professor David Mullin, who is a client of the watchdog group. Mullin, who now works at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, alleges that his contract with the academy was not renewed because of disability discrimination by Born and Vice Dean of Faculty Col. Robert Fullerton.
Mullin also is the complainant in an inspector general investigation launched last year that accused Born and Fullerton of “inaccurately portraying” and making a “false statement” about faculty credentials.
In February, the IG found Born and Fullerton negligent for incorrectly telling the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association and a Colorado Springs newspaper that all academy instructors had degrees in the fields in which they were teaching.
Whether Born or Fullerton were punished because of the findings is unknown.
An attorney for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Robert Eye, requested an investigation Feb. 1 into statements made by Born during the December deposition and demanded a response in a follow-up letter Feb. 29. He’s still waiting on that response.
Born is being accused by the MRFF of writing a note about conducting a “COIN” against clients of the religious freedom watchdog group.
MRFF founder Mikey Weinstein participated in Born’s deposition and said he believes that she did not tell the truth when directly asked if she had ever used the term “counterinsurgency” to describe any conduct of students or faculty at the Academy.
In a follow up letter to the Air Force dated May 21, Eye demanded on behalf of MRFF that the service declare whether it was actually investigating the allegations and pony up a progress report on the status of that investigation.
But the service — famous for its tight lips — says it is still considering.
“While it would not be appropriate to comment specifically, the Air Force takes every allegation seriously and these are being given appropriate
consideration,” said Air Force spokesman Todd Spitler.