Conduct Unbecoming: Lt. Colonel Paul Bisio - Open an Official Investigation

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!

As survivors of serial/concurrent fraud and deception at the hands of Lt. Colonel (Dr.) Paul Bisio as detailed here and representing other women who share our same experience, we respectfully request that the Air Force open an official investigation regarding unbecoming conduct and moral turpitude concerning the violation of numerous tenets of The Air Force Core Values and codes of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). We are prepared to present testimony and evidence of the following infractions:

  • #133: Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman;
  • #134 Reckless Endangerment; Reckless Endangerment of a Child, Adultery;
  • Moral Turpitude: False Statements, Fraud, Adultery

We have previously attempted to initiate such an action - in first communicating with appropriate officials at the 193rd Air National Guard Special Operations Wing. A second request was initiated on our behalf by the POW Network's Fake Warrior Project and was submitted to the Pennsylvania National Guard's Inspector General's Office. We have yet to receive a serious response to our concerns.

We are patriots and loyal supporters of our nation's military. As such, we feel very strongly that a thorough investigation should be instituted to ensure that our dedicated service members are commanded by only the finest leaders and outstanding examples of honesty, integrity, and moral character. Our best and brightest - and our fellow citizens - don't deserve anything less.

If you care about upholding these values in our country's armed forces, won't you please consider adding your voice to our request? You can help expose secret bad behaviors from those in positions of power who believe nobody will ever fight back, protect and educate the uninformed community, and deliver justice!

Thank you for your support.

Nina Lucas, Linda Miller & Susan O'Donnell

Excerpts from The Air Force Law Review, Volume 76:

Unlike the American civilian population and its virtually infinite community
permutations, the United States military is an established, discrete and well-defined American community, created under the United States Constitution, controlled by the Legislative and Executive branches, and recognized as a special
community by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Board and courts have
ready access to certain military based proxies as vectors or lenses of insight
into what the American military community’s sense of moral turpitude is in
much the same way that they look to civilian legal proxies (common law
and long-standing precedent) in order to determine what that community’s
moral standards are.

This Court has long recognized that the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society. We have also recognized that the military has, again by necessity, developed laws and traditions of its own during its long history. The differences between the military and civilian communities result from the fact that ‘it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise.’ Its raison d’etre is to protect the United States and
fight its wars. It is a self-disciplined community that contains a hierarchical
social and leadership structure based on a well-established ranking system.
At least when on duty, service members are easily recognizable based on
their clothing, bearing, and unique customs.

The military is selective as to who may join its community. To be
eligible, the applicant must pass certain physical examinations, not possess
a criminal background of immoral behavior, and agree to be bound to the
military community for a number of years. If the applicant passes those
hurdles, a military officer administers the oath of recruitment wherein the
applicant does “solemnly swear” to protect the United States, and to obey the
orders of the President and other military superiors, “so help me God.” After
enlisting, the civilian must be acclimated to the expectations and customs of
his or her newly adopted community, which begins with basic training and
orientation on the ways of the military environment.

The civilian courts are well aware of the existence and special status
of this community. The Supreme Court has unequivocally recognized that the
military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society,
with its own laws and traditions. For example, military law criminalizes
conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline, as well as conduct unbecoming an officer, standards that cannot be measured by a non-military court’s innate sensibilities but that actual knowledge and experience of military life help frame. As the Court recognized, these type of offenses must offend so seriously against law, justice, morality or decorum as to expose to disgrace,socially or as a man, the offender, and at the same time must be of such a nature or committed under such circumstances as to bring dishonor or disrepute upon the military profession which he represents. Under this standard, members of the military community do not enjoy the same application of the protections of constitutional rights that civilians enjoy. Numerous other judicial decisions acknowledge the material distinctions between military and civilian communities, allowing service members’ Constitutional rights
to be somewhat more attenuated than civilians’ rights.