Open letter to Vermont Adjutant General Brig. Gen. Gregory C. Knight

Vermont National Guard Stonewalls

The Adjutant General
The Vermont National Guard
The Vermont Air National Guard
The Vermont Department of the Military

Dear Adjutant General Brig. Gen. Gregory C. Knight,

Letters I received from the Vermont National Guard’s State Judge Advocate indicate that the Vermont National Guard refuses to comply with the Vermont Public Records Act by providing documents requested on March 4, 2021 and March 10, 2021. I request reconsideration. Or if that is denied, I appeal the decision to the next higher level.

My March 10 Public Records Act request sought documents showing that the investigation of the F-35 Complaint to the Inspector General that was submitted by 657 Vermonters on October 22, 2020 was being carried out in compliance with the requirements of Air Force Instruction 90-301, which governs investigation of complaints related to Air Force and Air National Guard (ANG) personnel. The provision of Air Force Instruction 90-301 barring “self-investigation” was violated when the investigation was transferred from the Inspector General to the alleged perpetrators. My March 4 Public Records Act request sought documents showing the status of the investigation, as I had received none of the "periodic updates" required by Air Force Instruction 90-301.

Background

The 62-page F-35 Complaint that the 657 Vermonters submitted alleges that the Guard’s F-35 training flights in a populated area violate Department of Defense Directives and Air Force Instructions, Policies, and Doctrine that protect civilians from military operations.

The F-35 training flights began in September 2019, after years of US Air Force and Vermont National Guard deliberation, including production of a thousand-page US Air Force Environmental Impact Statement (“the Air Force EIS”).

Volume I of the Air Force EIS revealed that F-35 training flights conducted from the Burlington International Airport (BTV) would subject 2,963 families to 115 decibel noise many times a day. It showed that the F-35 training flights would take place in densely populated portions of some of Vermont’s largest cities and towns, Winooski, Burlington, South Burlington, Williston, and Colchester. It showed a 5.2-mile by 1.2-mile oval-shaped area centered on the Burlington International Airport (BTV) runway where those families lived. It also disclosed that low income and minority populations would suffer disproportionate impact. And that 7 schools were located in that BTV oval-shaped area.

The results of repeated exposure to such 115 decibel military aircraft noise were disclosed in Volume II of the US Air Force EIS: Permanent hearing loss for adults and children, and impaired learning and degraded cognitive development of children.

Thus, based on its careful deliberation, the US Air Force disclosed that by conducting F-35 training flights at this city location, the Vermont National Guard would be subjecting 2,963 Vermont families to wide-area and uncontrollable 115 decibel military jet noise capable of inflicting severe permanent injuries.

Since the Vermont National Guard initiated its F-35 training flights at BTV, measurements with a calibrated recording sound meter by a sound engineer, in multiple locations, confirmed F-35 noise levels equaling or exceeding 115 decibels in neighborhoods surrounding the runway. In addition, the sound engineer measured significantly higher noise levels than 115 decibels when the low-frequency portion of the noise the F-35 emits was not filtered out of the measurement. Hundreds of respondents to an online F-35 Summer Report and Complaint Form answered check box questions and described in their own words pain, injury, and distress from the F-35 training flights in a populated area. The Vermont National Guard itself told a reporter that it had received 665 negative noise calls or emails, and interviews in her news article, "Panic attacks. Ringing ears. Shaking walls. Happy 1-year anniversary to the F-35s," confirmed severe suffering.

By going ahead with the F-35 training flights at BTV amidst densely populated cities and towns, notwithstanding the injuries anticipated by the US Air Force, and by continuing with the F-35 training flights at BTV after receiving the reports and complaints from actual F-35 training flights, the Vermont National Guard is knowingly targeting civilians.

In addition to the gross violations of Department of Defense and US Air Force Directives, Instructions, Policies, and Doctrine that protect civilians from military operations, the Complaint submitted by 657 Vermonters alleges that the F-35 training flights in a populated area violate the Universal Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the US War Crimes Act, ratified international treaties (including the Hague Convention, the Fourth Geneva Convention, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the laws of war, Vermont laws, and US and Vermont constitutional rights.

State Judge Advocate’s letters are flawed

The State Judge Advocate’s letters do not deny that the Vermont National Guard is a Vermont state agency or that records that are in the possession of a Vermont National Guard member or a Vermont National Guard unit are subject to the Vermont Public Records Act. Instead, the letters from the State Judge Advocate assert that the Guard’s Inspector General (IG) serves under the federal Department of Defense and, therefore, that documents in the Inspector General’s possession are not subject to the Vermont Public Records Act.

The State Judge Advocate’s letters are flawed because they omit mention of facts disclosed in an email from the Inspector General, dated December 19, 2020. The Inspector General wrote, “the investigation [of the F-35 Complaint] has been referred to the Commander and he has assigned it to our OPS group and representatives from public Affairs and the Wing.”

Leave aside for the moment that such a “self-investigation,” performed under the authority of the Commander and the very units responsible for the Complaint, violates Air Force Instruction 90-301 by making “impartial, unbiased, objective, [and] thorough” investigation impossible (4.6.3).

The December 19 email from the Inspector General flatly contradicts the suggestion in the letters from the State Judge Advocate that the state of Vermont is not in possession of documents related to the investigation of the Complaint: As the email from the Inspector General stated that the investigation was transferred and is now being conducted by members of three units of the Vermont National Guard, writings related to their investigation must be in their possession. I request that the refusal to comply with the Vermont Public Records Requests be reconsidered. If reconsideration is denied, I appeal the decision to the next higher level.

Thank you.
Best regards,
James Marc Leas