Note that it confirms Pletten's freedom of
speech/expression whistleblowing on
TACOM violations of the Army pure air rights rule AR 1-8,
specifically, the no-smoking rule's prerequisites/conditions precedent.
TACOM was violating Army's 'no-smoking' Regulation AR 1-8 (1977),
federal hazard-ban laws 29 USC § 651, et seq ,
5 USC § 7902.(d)  (“eliminate work hazards and health risks”),
Michigan deleterious cigarette ban law MCL § 750.27 ,
TACOM's drug-ban rule TACOM-R 190-4,
the right to pure air , etc.
USACARA represents higher authority. The USACARA Report
in Pletten's case became mandatory pursuant to case law,
see Army Attorney Spann v Gen. McKenna, Gen. John R. Deane, Jr., et al.,
615 F2d 137 (CA 3, 8 Feb 1980).
Non-compliance with the Army Regulation requiring compliance
with USACARA Reports is insubordination, and en masse, is mutiny.
Such mutiny occurred at TACOM. Opponents of complying
with the USACARA Report included Commanding Gen. Decker,
Chief of Staff Col. Benacquista, CPO Hoover, Atty Bacon,
SD Shirock, FE Lang, the Army Inspector General, etc.
|It is well-established that Toxic Tobacco Smoke (TTS) is hazardous, inherently so, and that TTS emissions blatantly exceed OSHA legal threshold limits [TLV's]. The Surgeon General published a list of examples! the most notorious being carbon monoxide, 42,000 ppm vs unsafe above 100 ppm (the OSHA limit)! In short, smokers pose both an “extraordinary hazard and extraordinary risk.”
“The tobacco industry is the greatest killing organization in the world. The harm done by all the armies in the world combined, will not begin to equal the damage inflicted upon the human race by the combined activity of the cultivators, manufacturers, and distributors of tobacco.”—Dr. Jesse M. Gehman, Smoke Over America (East Aurora, N.Y: The Roycrofters, 1943), p 216.
"Tobacco alone is predicted to kill a billion people this [21st] century, 10 times the toll it took in the 20th century, if current trends hold," says the Associated Press article, "Tobacco could kill 1B this century," The Detroit News, p 4A (11 July 2006). Details are at "American Cancer Society CEO Urges United States to Do More to Win Global War Against Cancer in Address to National Press Club" (26 June 2006).
"Tobacco producers are "terrorists", Seffrin tells Israel Cancer Association," The Jerusalem Post (31 March 2005): "All those involved in the production and marketing of tobacco products are 'terrorists', declared Dr John Seffrin, president of the American Cancer Society and elected president of Geneva-based International Union Against Cancer (UICC)."
The pertinent deleterious effects and correlatives have been known for centuries, pursuant to the dangerous ingredients and resultant emissions. In Michigan, the House of Representatives reviewed the subject matter in 1889, and passed pertinent law in 1909.
The case of Banzhaf v F. C. C., 132 US App DC 14, 29; 405 F2d 1082, 1097, 78 P.U.R.3d 87; 1 Media L. Rep. 2037 (1968) cert den 396 US 842 (1969), had upheld the concept of cigarettes' universal deleteriousness, meaning hazard to all people: "The danger cigarettes . . . pose to health is, among others, a danger to life itself . . . a danger inherent in the normal use of the product, not one merely associated with its abuse or dependent on intervening fortuitous events." "It threatens a substantial body of the population, not merely a peculiarly susceptible fringe group."
Many cases had long (for centuries!!) been, and were still being, filed to stop nuisances and hazards to all people, including nonsmokers, not just protection for a selected few individuals. Soon, under OSHA, the case of Shimp v N J Bell Tele Co, 145 N J Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (1976), directed employer compliance.
In short, the Dept. of Defense (DOD) saw that smoking was blatantly violating people's long-established pure air rights, rights established by centuries of precedents; and that employees could sue and win to enforce their rights against employers allowing coworkers to put toxic substances into the air. The DOD wanted to be pro-active, protect their employees without awaiting ligitation. DOD issued a regulation, DODI 6015.17, 32 CFR § 203 (August 1977), directing such protection.
Pursuant to that August 1977 rule, during the 1977-1981 term of Secretary of the Army Clifford L. Alexander, Jr. (a former EEOC Chairman concerned with human rights), Army Regulation (AR) 1-8 was issued in November 1977, institutionalizing smoking policy. AR 1-8 was designed to disrupt, end, the TLV falsifying process, and of pretending that TLV's were the sole factor to use in assessing compliance with the full range of applicable law. AR 1-8 would disrupt, end, the ignoring of people's pure air rights. The goal was to solve the situation for the workforce as a whole, not rely on individual case-by-case requests. A system-wide problem required a system-wide solution.
Pursuant thereto, in November 1977, AR 1-8 per 32 CFR § 203 set certain prerequisites, conditions precedent, before smoking behavior could be permitted to begin at any Army installation:
AR 1-8 labels the behavior and conduct meeting these multiple criteria as "an environment reasonably free of contamination." Whatever other contaminants there may or may not be, air meeting the multiple AR 1-8 criteria is tobacco-smoke-free. AR 1-8 was written to preclude issues of a "ban" on the behavior and conduct at issue, being somehow a 'smokers-rights' violation. AR 1-8 precluded this issue by requiring criteria be met before smoking behavior and conduct could be "permitted" in the first place.
Unfortunately, as at TACOM, there was local hostility to, mutiny against, the rule. Local offices were routinely aiding and abetting the prohibited behavior and conduct, by falsifying the OSHA data, the TLV's. For example, where 42,000 ppm of carbon monoxide was what the Surgeon General reported, blatantly above the 100 limit, locals would write 4!!
Words used describing the refusal to meet the AR 1-8 criteria about smoker behavior and conduct include ridiculing nonsmoker whistleblowing by referring to their doing so as an 'aversion' motivated by 'sensitivity.' (These terms are typically used by persons hostile to the AR 1-8 criteria and wanting the prohibited behavior and conduct to continue.)
The regulation had the effect of ceasing permission for smoking behavior to occur where the criteria were not met. As TACOM's Industrial Hygienist Edwin Braun and Physican Dr. Francis J. Holt testified, TACOM did not meet any of the criteria to continue permitting smoking behvaior and conduct. However, TACOM management was insubordinate, mutinous, refused implementation, did no training of supervisors and employees on-point, denied authority, did no workforce survey, ignored nonsmokers' documented complaints, and opposed any effort to secure compliance.
With respect to training, a training program or policy must be adeequate. For example, simply distributing workplace policies, without training, is inadequate. Ogden v Wax Works, 214 F3d 999, 1010 (CA 8, Iowa). And, "employers must affirmatively establish that they have an active mechanism for renewing employees' awareness of their policies through either specific education programs or periodic re-dissemination or revision of written materials. See Romano v U-Haul Int'l, 233 F.23d 655 (CA 1, Maine) (2000)." TACOM refused to do any training on-point! instead denied having authority!
As per the authority issue, AR 600-20.2-1 grants commanders full authority to do their jobs. Verifying this full authority grant, TACOM's own Legal Office's Chief Counsel Richard T. Tarnas (with TACOM attorneys Frank R. Ortisi and Susan Lewandowski) said on 19 June 1979, "Army Regulation 1-8 does give officials the authority to ban smoking in areas under their jurisdiction." USACARA deemed this analysis so significant, it both (a) cited it, and (b) made the Chief Counsel memorandum its USACARA Exhibit 8g.
The duty of TACOM was to exercise that authority granted by the Army. TACOM refused, did not explain why in 1979, never has, and still has not (2013).
TACOM is an Army base in the City of Warren, Macomb County, Michigan. Macomb County is one of Michigan's smallest counties. TACOM should be easily able to comply.
As per Michigan law MCL 750.27, MSA 28.216, deleterious cigarettes are illegal to be manufactured or sold in Michigan.
The rights to pure air, and to put out fires, date developmentally from at least 1306. These human rights are part of the "common law."
The "common law" is mandated recognition by the Seventh Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution (1787).
Those are federal-wide laws.
The aforeseaid mandatory legal safety duty, zero hazards, them being 'eliminated,' not merely reduced (as some might argue), is by definition, "reasonable." It is "reasonable" to obey the law.
Not hiring people who foreseeably causes hazards is a recognized way to avoid hazards being caused at a workplace. The Army's USAARL Report 86-13 notes this concept. So does the civil service hiring form, Standard Form 78. The Army knew as long ago as 1898 to not enlist smokers! pursuant to a long line of pertinent medical data.
An "unqualified and absolute" prohibition of hazards is "reasonable," as per the laws from the years 1905, 1970, continuing to present. Army Regulation 385-10.3-5a and 3-5b provided for employees to report, blow the whistle on, any hazards they became aware of. Hazards are to be 'eliminated.'
AR 1-8 (1977) is an additional requirement, based on the presumption that hazards have already been eliminated. AR 1-8 labels an environment meeting these additional, beyond safety, criteria as "reasonably free of contamination." The starting point is, zero hazard is mandated/presumed to be already complied with, from 1905 - 1970. Now follow these additional 1977 criteria.
By definition, an environment that meets these legal requirements, behavioral and conduct aspects, and prerequisites, 'remove smoke,' 'healthful' condition, 'no hazards, 'no discomfort,' 'no annoyance,' 'nonsmokers' personal determinations being abided by,' is "smoke-free."
TACOM management, insubordinately, pretended that TACOM "cannot" do that, cannot comply with the rules. When insubordinate people say "cannot," they mean "will not," i.e., refusal. They are then to receive progressive discipline (reprimand, supsension, etc.) until they cease refusing to comply. (Of course, they shouldn't have been hired in the first place.)
TACOM had an antiquated ventilation system, periodically itself out-of-order, so clearly met neither the safety law "unqualified and absolute" duty, nor any of the additional AR 1-8 prerequisites. Its own Industrial Hygienist Edwin Braun expressly admitted the refusal to "remove smoke" [Deposition, p 26].
Wherefore smoking was to be not even initially "permitted," not even reaching the "ban" point, the prohibition point, as per the safety law "unqualified and absolute" duty, without even reaching the issue of the added AR 1-8 prerequisites.
As TACOM was not complying with the safety laws, the Michigan law, nor the Army or TACOM rules, numbers of employees complained. Newspaper articles cited this issue. Workers' compensation cases were filed for tobacco-caused injuries. Smoking employees retired early due to, or died of, smoking. TACOM's sick leave useage rate regularly exceeded the Army norm (NTE 61.9 hours of sick leave annually per employee); TACOM was regularly in the 80's per year.
TACOM claimed to meet all the rules! while meeting none. Moreover, to obstruct employees' rights to a safe environment, TACOM did nothing to alert workers of the systemic deficiencies, to correct them, or to implement compliance with any of the other prerequisites.
The bottom line was this. In essence, at TACOM, the safety laws, the Michigan law, and the Army and TACOM rules, were nullified by rampant management insubordination.
TACOM Commanding General Oscar C. Decker, Jr., Chief of Staff Colonel John J. Benacaquista, Safety Director Robert Shirock, Facility Engineer John Lang, Personnel Officer Edward Hoover,
They did not inform the workforce of the regulation prerequisites, did not enforce them, concealed the violations, 'low-balled' the hazardous quantities (ex.: writing 4 hazardous units when honest analysts record 42,000, e.g., on carbon monoxide).
OSHA requires testing be done in the 'breathing zone.' To sabotage the rules, skew the results, Shirock, et al., had their staff, e.g., Ernest Peters, Jr., John Dollberg, test at odd times and locations, e.g., when employees were not present, non-representative of normal conditions, do the 'low-balling,' and testing not in the 'breathing zone.'
TACOM counted on bullying to deter employees from raising the issue; on the Legal Office to defend the falsifications and hostility to the rule of law; and on the foreseeable nature of the career military officers in charge at TACOM. "'You say his [an officer's] military career is a result of his [mental] disturbance?' 'Most military careeers are,'" says Herman Wouk, The Caine Mutiny: A Novel of World War II (Garden City: Doubleday & Co, Inc., 1951), chapter 35, p 416.
Only the Industrial Hygienist, Edwin Braun, and Pletten's supervisor, Jeremiah Kator, favored compliance with the aforesaid laws, rules, and AR 1-8 criteria and prerequisites. Braun reported the non-compliance even on the  criterion TACOM claimed; he was ignored, thus rendered ineffective. Kator was overruled.
Pletten blew the whistle in June 1979. The U.S. Army Appellate Review Agency (USACARA) investigated. Its January 1980 Report upheld Pletten, and mandated compliance with all criteria. In essence, bring Pletten's work-area from 0% compliance to 100%. Procedurally, nonsmoker determination controls. Compliance with such Reports became mandatory, Spann v Gen. McKenna, Gen. John R. Deane, Jr., et al., 615 F2d 137 (CA 3, 8 Feb 1980).
You can imagine that this alone enraged TACOM management. [See medical references 1, 2, and 3].
Even worse from their insubordinate viewpoint, Pletten indicated intent via his class action on behalf of co-workers, to alert them to the laws and rules, their "unqualified and absolute" and "personal standard" empowering criteria and prerequisites, and the USACARA Report. He indicated intent to provide the workforce at large, the benefits of all the foregoing, and of the USACARA findings and decision in his behalf for his work area. Tobacco addict Col. Benacquista demanded [extortion] Pletten not do so. Pletten was concerned for the workforce at large, so declined.
TACOM thereupon, February 1980, made (as EEOC's Henry Perez, Jr. observed) the "decision to terminate" Pletten, without the statutory 30 days notice saying what Pletten (having an excellent performance record better than colleagues') had done wrong (nothing but winning, with intent to pass the word!). This type retaliation has a 'chilling effect' on employees reporting violations, thus endangers the public generally.
Let's take one example, the 'right-to-life' issue, abortion. “As early as 1902 Ballantyne had found an increase in the abortion rate in French and Austrian women working in tobacco factories.”—Beulah R. Bewley, “Smoking in Pregnancy,” 288 Brit Med J (#6415) 424-426 (11 Feb 1984).
About "fifty-three per cent. of . . . abortions . . . are due to tobacco. . . . inhalation of tobacco smoke by pregnant mothers when sitting among smokers is sufficient to cause fatal poisoning of the fœtus."—Herbert H. Tidswell, M.D., The Tobacco Habit: Its History and Pathology (London: J. & A. Churchill, 1912), p 238. Thus tobacco has a record of significantly leading to abortion, p 184, terminating about 1/7 of live-births, p 177.
"The smoking mother is . . . 80 percent more likely than the nonsmoker to have a spontaneous abortion."—Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., The Politics of Cancer (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1978), p 162.
Let's take another example, the Pentagon-drugs connection. In the 1898 Spanish-American War era, the Army, pursuant to the legal duty against negligent hiring, would not even enlist smokers. Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 48 SW 305 (1898) aff’d 179 US 343 (1900).
Note the change in attitude, in the period leading up to Pletten's reporting rampant violations, starting with reports to AMC’s Inspector General.
This “prevailing” Pentagon drug culture attitude retaliated against Pletten for his action against the starter drug, tobacco.
Let's note another example. The Army knows, that to "restrict enlistments to nonsmokers [would lead to] far fewer discipline, alcoholism, and drug abuse problems in the Army and other services."—USAARL Report No. 86-13 (1986), p 149, supra. Example: "Women: rape rampant in military: One-third of female veterans say they've been assaulted," Detroit News (12 May 1995), p 5A, citing Maureen Murdoch, M.D., M.P.H., and Kristin L. Nicholl, M.D., M.P.H., "Women Veterans' Experiences With Domestic Violence and With Sexual Harassment While in the Military," 4 Archives of Family Medicine (#5) 411-418 (May 1995). Example: among "respondents under age 50 . . . 90% reported sexual harassment while in the military." "Histories of domestic violence . . . and of sexual harassment while in the military are common among women veterans." "Some respondents said they had been denied promotions, had transfers blocked or wre given poor assignments after refusing sexual favors to superior officers." "Rates of reports of completed and attempted sexual assaults . . . were 20 times higher than previous reports by other government employees." And, "domestic violence is the single most common cause of injury to women."
Pletten's actions were in the direction of reducing such incidents, by reducing the post-gateway-drug customer base! their lucrative profits! Pro-drug TACOM officials naturally opposed this. They are part of the problem in the ‘war on drugs.’ Hence, they retaliated against Pletten.
TACOM'S anti-work force attitude of contempt for safety led to a worker death resulting in criminal charges! This was at its Tank Plant. A worker was overcome by air-borne fumes. The cases are
“The failure to comply with promulgated regulations, which must go through a considerable vetting process before they take effect, may be viewed as intentional discrimination.” Association for Disabled Americans, Inc v Concorde Gaming Corp, 158 F Supp 2d 1353, 1362 n. 5 (SD Florida, 2001).
When federal employees are fired for their freedom of expression, their JOB DUTY freedom of expression, their peers foreseeably thereafter fear to blow the whistle on non-enforcement of pertinent laws.
Thus truthfulness is not an Army priority, see, e.g., exposé by Philip Barron, “The Next Pat Tillman-Style Cover-Up?” (22 February 2007).
Next, here is data from the 25 Jan 1980 USACARA Report, compared with a similar arbitration case. That was based on the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) regulation, a regulation paralell to the Army Regulation.
|As per HEW Regulation||As Per Army Regulation
22 January 1982
25 January 1980
AFGE Local 1923,
82-1 Lab Arb Awards (CCH) § 8206;
click here for .pdf Full Text.]
|"Smoking shall be prohibited on the work area of the entire fifth floor of the . . . Building, and shall be posted accordingly."
||"The Commander has the authority . . . to ban all smoking." (P. 14)
||"It is clear that the Grievant has not, in fact, been sufficiently accommodated." (P. 18)
||"The rights of smokers exist only insofar as discomfort or unreasonable annoyance is not caused . . . he is caused discomfort by smoke." (P. 12)
||"A single employee could eliminate smoking within an entire open work area." (P. 17)
||"Smoking does constitute a safety hazard to him . . . The regulation provides that smoking will be permitted in common work areas only if ventilation is adequate to remove smoke. . . ." (P. 7)
||"Indeed no employee need be relocated on account of his or her smoking/non-smoking . . . , which could well represent a cost savings over the current patch-work system." (P. 22)
||"An equitable balance . . . cannot be accomplished by relocating one nonsmoker. . . . The other nonsmokers also have rights . . . No evidence was offered to indicate that the Command had considered the rights of all nonsmokers." (P. 11) [Considering others' rights applied the concept of Donahue v Stockton Gas & Elec, 6 Cal App 276; 92 P 196 (26 Aug 1907). This is a case of air pollution causing varying effects on individual victims, and though one person complained, it was banned as a public nuisance due to impacting a number of people.]
||"Ours is a society in which few rights indeed are absolute, and smokers are often subject to restrictions in airplanes, hospitals and schoolrooms, to name but a few instances." (Pp. 22-23)
||"Smoking will be permitted . . . only if . . . healthful. . . the rights of smokers exist only insofar as discomfort or unreasonable annoyance is not caused . . . ." (Pp. 7, 12)
||"Medical documentation of an employee's adverse reaction to smoke is clearly not required." (P. 20)
||Grievant "has established that smoking does constitute a safety hazard to him." (P. 7)
||"A single . . . could eliminate smoking within an entire . . . area, regardless of the size . . . or the nunber of people working in it." (P. 17)
||"Smoking is banned in the area where the computers are located." (P. 10)
||"It is clear that the Grievant has not in fact, been sufficiently accommodated." (P. 17)
||"An equitable balance . . . cannot be accomplished by relocating one nonsnoker." (P. 11)
||"Medical documentation . . . is clearly not required." (P. 20)
||"Smoking is banned in the area where the computers are located." (P. 10)
|As per Army Regulation||As Per HEW Regulation
||"Whether or not an individual is discomforted by smoke is a personal determination to be made by that individual." (P. 12)
||"It is clear that the guidelines envision a personal standard." (P. 20)
||"The Commander is not as devoid of authority as COL Thomas' letter indicates." (P. 13) "The Commander has the authority . . . to ban all smoking . . . ." (P. 14)
||"Consider two prior arbitration decisions on the smoking issue . . . the first case . . . Interestingly enough, it was the position of the Agency that it had to prohibit smoking pursuant to the regulations . . . apparently considered alternatives to the prohibition but found none." (P. l6)
||"It is clear that the rights of smokers exist only insofar as discomfort or unreasonable annoyance is not caused to nonsmokers." (P. 12)
||"A single employee could eliminate smoking within an entire open work area, regardless of the size of the area or the number of people working in it." (P. 17)
||"The position of the Command appears to be based on the premise that the recommendation of ten cubic feet of fresh air per minute per person is met." (P. 13)
||"The Agency's contention that the air quality tests demonstrated that the standard was met . . . is not valid . . . if met it will not rebut an employee's statement that smoke in the air in his or her workplace is damaging his or her health." (P. 1)
||"Whether or not an individual is discomforted by smoke is a personal determination to be made by that individual." (P. 12)
||"Medical documentation of an employee's adverse reaction to smoke is clearly not required. That the Grievant gathered these documents should not be held against him. (P. 20)
||"The regulations, as written, do not require an absolute ban on smoking . . . The Commander has the authority, however, to ban all smoking." (P. 14)
||"It must be noted that the guidelines do not envision an environmen totally free of smoke and its contamination . . . yet . . . does provide for the prohibition of smoking." (P. 5)
||"Smoking is banned in the area where the computers are located." (P. 10)
||"The Agency has no difficulty or reluctance in prohibiting smoking where it interferes with sensitive data processing equipment and here the interference caused by smoking is with human life, something far more precious." (Pp. 14-15)
||"Smoking does constitute a safety hazard to" Grievant. (P. 7)
||"It is clear that the Grievant has not, in fact, been sufficiently accommodated." (P. 16)
|Ed. Note: The "personal determination" concept is one people regularly use, to exercise their rights to, e.g., vote, travel, assemble, worship, obtain a jury trial, etc. This personal right also applies in medical context, see this court analysis: “The duty to disclose . . . arises from phenomena apart from medical custom and practice. The latter, we think, should no more establish the scope or duty than its existence. Any definition of scope in terms purely of a professional standard is at odds with the patient's prerogative to decide . . . himself. . . . The scope of the physician communication to the patient, then, must be measured by the patient's needs, and that need is the information material to the decision. Thus the test for determining whether a particular point must be divulged is its materiality to the patient's decision; all risks potentially affecting the decision must be unmasked.” Source: Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263; 464 F.2d 772 (1972).|
|"It is Army policy that each individual in the chain of command is delegated sufficient authority to accomplish assigned tasks and responsibilities."|
|Job discrimination violates the "right to work" and is "one of the most deplorable forms of discrimination known to our society, for it deals not with just an individual's sharing in the 'outer benefits' of being an American citizen, but rather the ability to provide decently for one's family in a job or profession for which he qualifies or chooses.' Culpepper v. Reynolds Metals Co., 5 Cir., 1970, 421 F.2d 888, 891," says Rowe v General Motors Corp, 457 F2d 348, 354 (CA 5, 1972).|
|"in view of the objective of keeping the employee in an active duty status in his regular position whenever practicable, it is good practice for an agency to use the alternative which most nearly approximates active status or otherwise causes the employee the least possible loss."|
|I. ALTHOUGH NOT UNLAWFUL PER SE OR IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SMOKING OF A CIGAR, WHEN DONE IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A PERSON KNOWN BY THE SMOKER TO BE SICKENED THEREBY, AND AFTER A REASONABLE REQUEST TO DESIST, CONSTITUTES ASSAULT AND BATTERY UNDER THE CIVIL LAW OF TORTS, AND ASSAULT UNDER THE CRIMINAL LAW.|
USACARA in essence overruled the Army Inspector General's do-nothing approach.
See DAIG's 19 Nov 1979 letter having TACOM investigate itself!
When overruled, TACOM reacted by crimes including by
in violation of Michigan law MCL § 750.213;
in the EEOC 29 CFR § 1613 system,
as it allows 'hearings' (cross-examination)
which TACOM attorneys feared.
1. Non-compliance with DOD Instruction 6015.18, 10/12/78
2. Non-compliance When Ventilation is Off, 5/22/79
3. Non-compliance with FPM Supp. 752-1, 6/4/79
4. Error in Daily Bulletin on Stationary, 7/31/79
5. Non-compliance with Courtesy Rule, 9/26/79
Try the Safety Reporting System, of AR 385-10.
Disclosure of Safety Violations on DARCOM Form 2242-R
AR 385-10 Report of Tobacco Smoke Hazard, 6/14/79
AR 385-10 Report to TACOM Safety Office of Violations re Cafeteria No Smoking Areas, 9/12/79
AR 385-10 Report to TACOM Safety Office, Request for Ban on Smoking When Ventilation is Off, 9/24/79
AR 385-10 Report to TACOM Safety Office, Request that Tobacco Products be denied Entry onto the Installation per TARCOM-R 190-4 (bans bringing habit forming substances on-post), 11/12/79
AR 385-10 Report to TACOM Safety Office, Request for Discontinuance of Unhealthful Use of Tobacco Products in Guard Buildings, 12/17/79
AR 385-10 Report to TACOM Safety Office, Request that an Order be issued Banning Smoking Whenever the Ventilation is Off, 12/18/79
Request for Enforcement of Smoking-Related Regulations and Criminal laws on Assault, Battery, and Poisoing, Etc. 12/25/79
AR 385-10 Report to TACOM Safety Office, Request for Enforcement of Cafeteria "No Smoking" Signs, 12/31/79
AR 385-10 Report to TACOM Safety Office, Third Request for an Order Banning Smoking Whenever the Ventilation is Off, 1/10/80
AR 385-10 Report to TACOM Safety Office, Request that Dangerous Smokers be treated 1ike Dangerous Alcoholics, 1/11/80
Request for Compliance With Posted "No Smoking" Sign in Communications Center, 1/14/80
Fourth Request for an Order Banning Smoking Whenever the Ventilation is Off, 2/5/80
Urgent, Critical, Life and Death, Priority, Emergency Request that Tobacco Products be Denied Entry onto the Installation per TACOM-R 190-4, 2/8/80
Request for Elimination of Smoking Violations in Training Rooms, 3/12/80
Request for Ban on Smoking Per FPM Supplement 532-1, S8-7a, 3/17/80
Fifth Request for an Order Banning Smoking Whenever the Ventilation is Off, 3/20/80
Emergency Preventive Measures to Forestall Smoking in My Office, 3/21/80
Request for Ban on Smoking in PT&FD Xerox Room, 3/21/80
Emergency Request to End and Investigate PT&FD Failure to Eliminate "Safety Hazard" and Comply with Dr. Holt's Advice for A "Smoke-Free" Environment, 3 /24 /80
Request for Ban of "Safety Hazard" Now Claimed by Other Offices to be "An Immediate Threat" to Me, 5/21/80 78/6