A veteran Defense Department scientist who said he was being punished for his complaints about waste and mismanagement in the Strategic Defense Initiative was fired Friday.
Aldric Saucier, 55, said he was served with a two-page notice of dismissal late Friday afternoon by Col. James F. Roberts, chief of staff at the Army's Strategic Defense Command headquarters office here."They waited until everybody else had gone home," he said. "I don't think that's the kind of thing to do on Valentine's Day."
A $75,500-a-year physical scientist, Saucier was told he was being dismissed for "unacceptable performance." Assigned last year to write a paper on how best to track incoming enemy tactical and cruise missiles and direct a response, he recommended a new system using an upgraded Patriot missile.
Pentagon reviewers criticized the paper harshly, but scientists contacted by the Federation of American Scientists said it had merit and was at least as acceptable as many other SDI studies they had seen.
Saucier said he came under fire in recent years for speaking up within the Pentagon about wasteful spending of billions of dollars on the Strategic Defense Initiative.
Lawyers for the Government Accountability Project, a non-profit public interest group representing Saucier, said they would file a complaint under the Whistle-blowers' Protection Act contending that the firing is illegal.
"He was fired because he has been telling the truth," asserted Jeff Ruch, one of the attorneys. "If he had gone along with all the things he was complaining about, he not only would not have been fired but would have been given merit-pay increases and probably promoted."
Saucier has charged that SDI has spent about $800 million on "worthless strategic and missile defense studies now gathering dust." He also has been highly critical of a proposed constellation of space-based interceptors called "Brilliant Pebbles," saying it will not work as designed.
In the dismissal notice, Roberts informed Saucier that he considered giving him a reduction in grade or reassigning him but decided against it because Saucier had failed to show he could "acceptably perform the duties of a government scientist, regardless of grade or assignment."
Saucier said he received high job ratings until the late 1980s, when his outspoken habits apparently upset the military officers who had taken over what once was a predominantly civilian shop.