(Female) AFA cadet, accused of lying, to graduate

Denver Post ^ | 12/23/03 | Emery

[pabianice]

US AIR FORCE ACADEMY, CO - Secretary of the Air Force James Roche has decided that a cadet recommended for expulsion from the academy because of an alleged honor violation will graduate.

Andrea Prasse, 23, of Elm Grove, Wis., was eight days shy of graduating with the Class of 2002 when a Cadet Honor Board found her guilty of lying about whether she drew a design for a class assignment.

The cadet board recommended that Prasse be disenrolled for violating the code, which says, "We will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate among us anyone who does.'

Now, she will receive her diploma by mail and serve her commitment to the Air Force in the Reserves.

"It's almost like disbelief,' said Carol Prasse, Andrea's mother. "We're all pretty excited.'

Prasse has maintained since the spring of 2002 that she was framed by a male cadet because she spurned his romantic advances. At one point, the spurned cadet had a key to her dorm room, called her names and erased five hours of Prasse's work, said Carol Prasse. When Carol Prasse asked the academy for a no-contact order against the spurned cadet, none was given, she said.

The Air Force Personnel Council at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, which reviews personnel decisions, found procedural and legal concerns with the honor board's decision in Prasse's case.

A major problem, according to Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy, spokeswoman for the Air Force, is that two witnesses who could have provided information about the allegations were not present for the honor board.

One of the witnesses was the same cadet Prasse had spurned; he also took the matter to the honor board in the first place. He graduated with the Class of 2002 and is serving in the Air Force. A second cadet who also did not appear before the board could have provided exonerating evidence, Cassidy said.

"She wasn't able to face her accusers,' Cassidy said.

Johnny Whitaker, spokesman for the academy, said the personnel council did not find problems with the academy's honor code system, but rather found problems specific to the Prasse case.

No decisions have been made about whether Prasse will serve in the active or inactive Reserves or whether she'll be awarded back pay, Whitaker said.

Prasse, who is a graduate engineering student at the University of Wisconsin, has pondered a lawsuit against the Air Force, her mother said.

For years, Carol Prasse said, Andrea Prasse dreamed of graduating from the academy.

"Back when this happened, Andrea was sobbing: 'I'll never walk across that stage. I'll never throw my hat in the air. I'll never get that chance," Carol Prasse said.

"That's gone and lost forever - over nothing,' Carol Prasse said. "Nobody deserved more than her. She stayed out of trouble, and didn't engage in the underage drinking that the other kids were doing. The whole thing has been unbelievable.'

[pabianice]

I'm sure the Reserves are thrilled she'll be serving with them.

[hellinahandcart]

Nowhere in this article are the ONLY relevant questions answered:

Did she draw the design herself?
If not, did she *lie* when asked if the design was her own work?

Every other circumstance listed is nothing but excuse-making, and has nothing to do with whether or not she violated the honor code.

We had an honor code in art school too, but that didn't stop the administration from listening to a bunch of excuses and then giving a pass to a student who stole my friend's graphics portfolio and turned it in as her own.

If you're not going to enforce the rules, just go ahead and declare that the rules are meaningless.

[pgyanke]

Did you even read the article? Perhaps you were there and can enlighten us on the things not written...?

[pgyanke]

Please tell me, Veracruz-the-Omniscient, how you know this from this text?

[pabianice]

When I was in graduate business school, we were teamed up to do a particularly tough case in business finance. I worked on the case for 10 days and then met with my "partner" to discuss what we had. He read my analysis. I then asked him for his, and he said, "I'm not going to give it to you. I think mine is better" and he walked out. He used both his and mine and got an "A;" I got a "B+" with just mine.

I thought about ratting him out to the prof, and then decided to live with it. I'm sure my "partner" has since found a very lucrative career somewhere in business.

[hellinahandcart]

Maybe for the same reason I know it--

If she turned in someone else's work as her own, it doesn't matter WHY she did it. Spurned boyfriend messing with her computer is a reason to turn HIM in to the honor board, not to lie about her assignment.

I see a lot of attempts to rationalize, but nowhere do I see the words "It was my own work. I drew it myself. The accusations are false.". That's rather central to her guilt or innocence, don't you think? Instead I hear about how her dreams of graduation were shattered and how she didn't drink before she was 21. What does that have to do with whether she completed her assignment herself?

[pgyanke]

As a graduate of that fine institution I have a great respect for the honor code and board which enforces it. If the USAF saw fit to overturn the recommendations of the board, I have to assume they saw reason to do so.

Perhaps in this case, it is because we are innocent until proven guilty and she wasn't proven guilty. The board's process was severely flawed in not producing her accuser and an exhonerating witness.

Your calls of "liar" and "I know she did it" without any further knowledge of this case than this article are insulting. Even cadets on an honor board can railroad someone. Since very few are ever overturned by the USAF, and this one was, I have to assume the USAF saw a railroading and righted it.

I am confused, though, as to why she was put in the reserves rather than active duty. My guess is this was done to preclude her hasty withdrawal from her current course of study.

Note: see how I proferred my guess with a hedge? You guys should try it rather than spouting guesses as fact.

[RightWhale]

I think mine is better

Happens all the time. Usually not so obvious like exchanging hostages. The sooner one learns this the better, and one can still be trusting while keeping things under one's hat until it is time.

[hellinahandcart]

No, this is more like being found guilty but having the conviction overturned on a procedural error. They found her guilty of lying.

Was it her work or not? If it was not her work, her ex-boyfriend's motive for turning her in doesn't matter a bit. In fact it is completely irrelevant. It doesn't make the work her own if it wasn't. That is all that matters.

[hellinahandcart]

Plus, everything listed as a problem with her trial could be termed "mitigating circumstances". To her *guilt*.

[pgyanke]

You guys are a real piece of work. Did you happen to note the tidbit in the article about a cadet with exhonerating information? Is this an excuse or is this vindicating?

You want to crucify this lady because the words you're looking for aren't in an article written by someone else. Why don't you ask her... I'm sure the honor board did. It sure reads in the article (albeit implied rather than stated) that she maintained her innocence throughout the process.

If she didn't maintain her innocence, the case would be closed. There would be no cadet with exhonorating information because such information wouldn't exist or it wouldn't be material in the event of her admitting guilt.

The board has rules of evidence like any court. Those rules aren't procedural grounds for acquittal like a legal minefield. They are there to protect the rights of the accused. In this case, you have a cadet accused of a "crime". Although she claims innocence, there is evidence of her guilt. Evidence of her innocence is disallowed. She can't face her accuser. What would you do?

Oh wait... you already answered... like the Queen of Hearts, "OFF WITH HER HEAD!"

[hellinahandcart]

Sure I saw it. It didn't say he HAD exhonerating information. Just that he "could have" provided it. In other words that's a big "maybe".

Why don't you ask her... I'm sure the honor board did

And they found her guilty.

[pgyanke]

Sheesh. There's no talking sense to someone like you. Why don't you go read anything by the mainstream media regarding President Bush. If you're consistent, you will believe he is the devil incarnate too.

I'm done and going home. Merry Christmas!

[Maximum Leader]

This is an amusing thread. I agree with everything you've written on here. Due process doesn't just mean you give her a chance to deny it before you hang her. She does have a right to put on a defense and the AF should have allowed (and if necessary, compelled) her exonerating witness to appear.

Just hope the rest of the folks on this thread never get called for jury duty.

[razorback-bert]

I would have liked her to make the statement...It was my work!

The only exonerating evidence that, I can think of, was that it was her work and she could have called a witness to that fact.

Her defense is she was framed, so why didn't she complain that the design submitted wasn't hers?

Oh well, we do need some more facts.